Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

[columbus]

It would be hard for me to do that, since I don't think that the No Fly List improves security.


What I'm seeing is someone who doesn't bother to read the posts he's replying to. I never defended the No Fly List.

Sorry I misunderstood you. It seemed like you were saying that it was a good thing, just badly done.

Perhaps someone who supports it will eventually answer my question.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

Republicans blocked a bill 6 months ago that would have prevented this terror attack. Do you still feel people on the terror watch list should be able to get guns? It doesn't help that the recent "Under the Gun" documentary by Katie Couric has an anti-gun law supporter saying he has no problems with terrorists buying guns.

This is the problem with the NRA and their lobbying. Profit over people.

 

[metis]

There's simply no logical reason why assault-style guns that were designed to kill large numbers of people are made available to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. One simply does not need them for self-defense or for hunting. I was just reading yesterday that there's one perfectly legal gun under current U.S. law that can shoot through cider blocks.

 

[McBell]

Republicans blocked a bill 6 months ago that would have prevented this terror attack.

Bold empty claim

Do you still feel people on the terror watch list should be able to get guns? It doesn't help that the recent "Under the Gun" documentary by Katie Couric has an anti-gun law supporter saying he has no problems with terrorists buying guns.

This is the problem with the NRA and their lobbying. Profit over people.

Interesting.
So that one person paints all pro-gun people for you?

Rather difficult to take you seriously

 

[Underhill]

I vote No for a very simple reason. It is not legal. To be denied the right to purchase a firearm one of the below conditions must be met.

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is a fugitive from justice
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

It is easy to get onto the No-fly list and difficulty to get off, it can take up to years. One nationally known reporter was placed on it after he purchased a one-way ticket to Turkey. Additional individuals with problems with the list.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/

One reporters personal story

I agree it's not legal. But that needs to change.

The notion that someone under suspicion, justified or not, should be allowed to walk in anywhere and buy guns on the spot is nuts.

Does this mean an inconvenience for the few who are wrongly flagged. Sure, just as it does the no-fly list. But it's absurd that people we know have had contact with ISIS can buy or even own guns.

Wasn't Obama just talking about almost this exact scenario just a week ago?

 

[4consideration]

Republicans blocked a bill 6 months ago that would have prevented this terror attack. Do you still feel people on the terror watch list should be able to get guns? It doesn't help that the recent "Under the Gun" documentary by Katie Couric has an anti-gun law supporter saying he has no problems with terrorists buying guns.

This is the problem with the NRA and their lobbying. Profit over people.

What bill are you referring to that would have prevented this terror attack? How do you know? The FBI investigated this person twice and didn't stop it. What specific reason do you have for thinking this attack would have been stopped over and above the previous two reports to the FBI about this person?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jun/12/omar-mateen-fbi-investigation-orlando-shooting

Also, I think you are completely misrepresenting what the person in the Katie Couric documentary said, and meant. Saying someone that has not done anything wrong should not be labeled and treated as a terrorist is not the same things as saying one is ok with a person that has demonstrated themselves to be terrorist with having a gun.

 

[tytlyf]

What bill are you referring to that would have prevented this terror attack? How do you know? The FBI investigated this person twice and didn't stop it. What specific reason do you have for thinking this attack would have been stopped over and above the previous two reports to the FBI about this person?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jun/12/omar-mateen-fbi-investigation-orlando-shooting

Also, I think you are completely misrepresenting what the person in the Katie Couric documentary said, and meant. Saying someone that has not done anything wrong should not be labeled and treated as a terrorist is not the same things as saying one is ok with a person that has demonstrated themselves to be terrorist with having a gun.

Referring the bill introduced after the San Bernardino attack. Read this thread again.
I'm not misrepresenting what the person said in the documentary, those are his words. Unfortunately in America, we have a lot of 2A bunker/black helicopter types who want no laws on guns.

 

[4consideration]

Referring the bill introduced after the San Bernardino attack. Read this thread again.
I'm not misrepresenting what the person said in the documentary, those are his words. Unfortunately in America, we have a lot of 2A bunker/black helicopter types who want no laws on guns.

No. I'm not reading the thread again.

I did read it a while back, but I'm just going to assume you don't have a particular reason from a particular bill, since you could have simply answered my question by saying what bill, and on what point you thought the bill would have prevented the attack -- as you specifically stated in the recent post of yours that I quoted that the Republicans blocked a bill that would have prevented this attack.

I heard the audio of the documentary, and I have a different take on what he meant, although someone else did chime in and make a more reasonable response. I don't think he stated it was ok for terrorists to have a gun

 

[tytlyf]

No. I'm not reading the thread again.

I did read it a while back, but I'm just going to assume you don't have a particular reason from a particular bill, since you could have simply answered my question by saying what bill, and on what point you thought the bill would have prevented the attack -- as you specifically stated in the recent post of yours that I quoted that the Republicans blocked a bill that would have prevented this attack.

I heard the audio of the documentary, and I have a different take on what he meant, although someone else did chime in and make a more reasonable response. I don't think he stated it was ok for terrorists to have a gun

The gentleman in the video said exactly what I said.
These are his exact words in response to the question "If you don't have background checks when someone wants to walk into a store to buy a gun, how do you prevent terrorists and felons from buying one?"

Look, one, if you're not in jail you should still have your basic rights to buy a gun. If you're a felon and done your time, you should have your rights.

Concerning the Bill, 2 links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ublicans-line-up-to-crush-gun-control-efforts

http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-senate-block-gun-measures-401097

 

[4consideration]

The gentleman in the video said exactly what I said.
These are his exact words in response to the question "If you don't have background checks when someone wants to walk into a store to buy a gun, how do you prevent terrorists and felons from buying one?"


Concerning the Bill, 2 links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ublicans-line-up-to-crush-gun-control-efforts

http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-senate-block-gun-measures-401097

Thanks.

Have you been able to locate a place where it definitively says that Mateen was on a terrorist watch list?

I'm seeing various things, mostly using terms like "on FBI's radar." I see a bunch of sources saying he was not on a watch-list. Here's 3 of them, at the bottom of this post.

Apparently the FBI investigated him and did not find anything of substance on him. Do you think they should put people on a terror watchlist when their own investigation comes up with no justification for maintaining an open file on him?

If he was not on an FBI watch-list, terrorist watchlist, or any other watchlist, how would the bill you were talking about have prevented this tragedy?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/break...nd-calm-at-the-end/ar-AAgZ1QL?ocid=spartanntp"He was not on a current terror watchlist, a U.S. intelligence source tells CBS News' Len Tepper. He was entered into a terrorist screening database during the time the FBI was questioning him, but he was removed when the FBI closed the investigation, Tepper reports."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/?ftag=MSF0951a18
"Mateen was not on a current terror watchlist, a U.S. intelligence source tells Tepper. He was entered into a terrorist screening database during the time the FBI was questioning him, but he was removed when the FBI closed the investigation, Tepper reports."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-bought-guns-previous-flags-fbi/story?id=39799861
"Law enforcement sources confirmed that Mateen was on the FBI's radar but not necessarily on a watch list. But even appearing on the list wouldn't have necessarily prevented him from obtaining weapons."

 

[tytlyf]

Thanks.

Have you been able to locate a place where it definitively says that Mateen was on a terrorist watch list?

I'm seeing various things, mostly using terms like "on FBI's radar." I see a bunch of sources saying he was not on a watch-list. Here's 3 of them, at the bottom of this post.

Apparently the FBI investigated him and did not find anything of substance on him. Do you think they should put people on a terror watchlist when their own investigation comes up with no justification for maintaining an open file on him?

If he was not on an FBI watch-list, terrorist watchlist, or any other watchlist, how would the bill you were talking about have prevented this tragedy?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/break...nd-calm-at-the-end/ar-AAgZ1QL?ocid=spartanntp"He was not on a current terror watchlist, a U.S. intelligence source tells CBS News' Len Tepper. He was entered into a terrorist screening database during the time the FBI was questioning him, but he was removed when the FBI closed the investigation, Tepper reports."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/?ftag=MSF0951a18
"Mateen was not on a current terror watchlist, a U.S. intelligence source tells Tepper. He was entered into a terrorist screening database during the time the FBI was questioning him, but he was removed when the FBI closed the investigation, Tepper reports."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-bought-guns-previous-flags-fbi/story?id=39799861
"Law enforcement sources confirmed that Mateen was on the FBI's radar but not necessarily on a watch list. But even appearing on the list wouldn't have necessarily prevented him from obtaining weapons."

He was being interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 if I'm not mistaken for his ties to other people. If he was not on the FBI watch list, that means he didn't have enough evidence to keep him there.
The bill isn't necessarily for this person, but all the others who are on the watch list. I'm sure there is more evidence with other people and not these lone wolfs. To do nothing at this point only prolongs the problem. We need to take measures to ensure things like this don't happen. Have to start somewhere. People on the watch list should not be able to buy a gun for any reason. Doing nothing will only play into the terrorist hands. Gotta start the ball rolling sometime.

 

[McBell]

He was being interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 if I'm not mistaken for his ties to other people. If he was not on the FBI watch list, that means he didn't have enough evidence to keep him there.
The bill isn't necessarily for this person, but all the others who are on the watch list. I'm sure there is more evidence with other people and not these lone wolfs. To do nothing at this point only prolongs the problem. We need to take measures to ensure things like this don't happen. Have to start somewhere. People on the watch list should not be able to buy a gun for any reason. Doing nothing will only play into the terrorist hands. Gotta start the ball rolling sometime.

So how exactly would this bill have prevented the shooting?

 

[tytlyf]

So how exactly would this bill have prevented the shooting?

Possibly to allow the FBI more flexibility when sharing information with police and gun dealers. The bill is more about known people on the watch list. Gotta start somewhere.

 

[McBell]

Possibly to allow the FBI more flexibility when sharing information with police and gun dealers. The bill is more about known people on the watch list. Gotta start somewhere.

but you made the claim that if that bill would have passed that the Orlando shooting would not have happened...

Thus the reason I asked.

 

[Nous]

I vote No for a very simple reason. It is not legal. To be denied the right to purchase a firearm one of the below conditions must be met.

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is a fugitive from justice
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

It is easy to get onto the No-fly list and difficulty to get off, it can take up to years. One nationally known reporter was placed on it after he purchased a one-way ticket to Turkey. Additional individuals with problems with the list.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/

One reporters personal story

Heller does not provide an exhaustive list of "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" such as restrictions on passing a background check. Just the contrary. See footnote 26. There is nothing unreasonable about concluding that inclusion on the no-fly list indicates that the person is too dangerous to be allowed to purchase guns. The no-fly list may be imperfect, but so is determining who is a "mental defective".

 

[esmith]

So let me try and understand this. There are those of you who want to deny a persons Constitutional rights without "due process". Is this what you are saying? If so then where do you stand on the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Seems there are those that go ballistic when you think a persons rights are being violated in certain areas.. Yet advocate for violating those rights when the "rights" deal with with a subject that the sheeple of the Democratic Party.are against.
You wonder why I have absolutely no respect for certain politicians, groups, or individuals who get on the sheeple bandwagon.

 

[tytlyf]

So let me try and understand this. There are those of you who want to deny a persons Constitutional rights without "due process". Is this what you are saying? If so then where do you stand on the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Seems there are those that go ballistic when you think a persons rights are being violated in certain areas.. Yet advocate for violating those rights when the "rights" deal with with a subject that the sheeple of the Democratic Party.are against.
You wonder why I have absolutely no respect for certain politicians, groups, or individuals who get on the sheeple bandwagon.

Correct, felons and terrorists should not be able to obtain guns. Screw the 2A because that doesn't say anything about that either. If you've made it onto the terror watch list, there's good reason and evidence behind it. America is trying to combat terrorists, not make it easier.

You sound like you're for felons and terrorists getting guns like the gentleman in the documentary. Since criminals don't follow any laws, we must remove all laws right?

 

[Nous]

So let me try and understand this. There are those of you who want to deny a persons Constitutional rights without "due process".

No. There is no Constitutional right for a person who does not meet the background check requirements to purchase guns. There is no Constitutional right for a person who is on the no-fly list to purchase guns, exactly like there is no Constitutional right for a person who has been adjudicated as a “mental defective” to purchase guns.

 

[tytlyf]

No. There is no Constitutional right for a person who does not meet the background check requirements to purchase guns. There is no Constitutional right for a person who is on the no-fly list to purchase guns, exactly like there is no Constitutional right for a person who has been adjudicated as a “mental defective” to purchase guns.

And if they have a problem with 'due process,' ban them from getting a gun until that due process is complete. Then and only then should they be able to get one.

 

[esmith]

Correct, felons and terrorists should not be able to obtain guns. Screw the 2A because that doesn't say anything about that either. If you've made it onto the terror watch list, there's good reason and evidence behind it. America is trying to combat terrorists, not make it easier.

You sound like you're for felons and terrorists getting guns like the gentleman in the documentary. Since criminals don't follow any laws, we must remove all laws right?

Well I see you still up to your old tricks...... Reading or hearing things that are not there. Then making a statement that is unsupported by facts.
Now I know that you are well aware that a convicted felon can not legally purchase a firearm. You do realize that don't you?
Now you want to somehow change the law by saying that terrorist can not purchase firearms. I'm all for that as long as you explain the following:
1. How is someone adjudicated a terrorist?
2. What laws have they broken to be adjudicated a terrorist?
Now I said I'm all for not allowing terrorist to obtain firearms but they have to have broken a law and been found guilty. Or is it you want the government to have special powers to deny a persons their rights without due process?

Of course I know you will not address those questions since that is not what you do.