Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History

[deepstate2016]

How is following someone in public suspending their rights? Again, please cite something.

There is a limit to government resources you know. Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to keep surveillance over one person 24/7?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

Dude... you're floundering. You almost always have the right to mount a defense. That's usually part of due process. But you mentioned, specifically, this ridiculous notion of "an open trial" being part and parcel of due process. That's very rarely the case.

I frankly don't care what you're "in favour of." I'm only in favour of two things: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Built on top of those two documents is a rich legal tradition with beautifully articulated arguments and ideas.

But no, what you're doing is grasping at bits of phrases you've heard or Googled but never really studied.

I wish you all the best, but I'm truly tapping out. Support the rights of Jihadist till the virgins come home.



That is indeed what I said... repeatedly.

To make sure I didn't misunderstand you...didn't you want this list to be able to stop purchases?

 

[lymphocyte]

There is a limit to government resources you know. Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to keep surveillance over one person 24/7?

How many publically pledged ISIS supporters are there in the US? I'm guessing not that many. Do you really think the TSA can check everyone's shoes before we fly but the FBI can't surville some of these supporters in public? Especially the ones that just bought a semi-automatic rifle. Hoookay.

Remember, the FBI visited this guy twice. It was a matter of when, not if. Our laws prevented us from acting. I don't know what else to say.

To make sure I didn't misunderstand you...didn't you want this list to be able to stop purchases?

Nope. You read absolutely zero of what I originally posted. Everybody has the right to purchase. But "a well regulated militia -- " Bludgeon away.

 

[deleted480308]

Nope. You read absolutely zero of what I originally posted. Everybody has the right to purchase. But "a well regulated militia -- " Bludgeon away.

Having been trained to use both, I understand the distinction well thank you.

Most firearms should be legal. That is the law under Heller. I support that.

But most firearms should not be readily available. Under Florida law, for example, it's a felony to keep a list of known ISIS-supporters who purchase a dozen guns each. How does that make sense? Why do I have to spend months learning how to drive a car but can purchase a semi-automatic over the Internet? Again, 8 out of the 10 worst gun-massacres in US history occurred after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban lapsed. All of those massacres involved assault weapons. Bring back the Ban that Reagan supported. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Of course we can be more lax in regulating single-shot guns. Why? Because they simply have less destructive capacity. Sliding scale.

Remember how the Second Amendment begins? "A well regulated militia --"

Sorry I don't have any cartoons or memes to support my point.

1. Sooooooo utterly false. This guy was on a FBI watch list. Visited twice. Yet we couldn't by law surveille him or stop him from buying an AR-15. The laws prevented us from taking action.

2. Thankfully, we now strictly regulate the sale of nitrate fertilizer. Destructive capacity deserves a sliding scale of regulation. "A well regulated militia --"

So you don't actually propose a ban of citizens with no convictions from buying semi-automatic firearms?

 

[chfo]

[image removed by moderator]

 

[PainDrain]

This attack highlights a glaring issue in the gun control debate when someone who was twice investigated by the FBI and actually had ties to an individual who then went on to become a suicide bomber can purchase weapons. There is no reason someone twice investigated should be allowed to purchase weapons. Call me crazy but unless you want to keep inviting terrorists and radicals to commit these crimes the gun lobby has to give in a little. I own guns and in the state I purchased them it took two weeks for my long guns and six months for my pistol permit.

 

[deleted480308]

This attack highlights a glaring issue in the gun control debate when someone who was twice investigated by the FBI and actually had ties to an individual who then went on to become a suicide bomber can purchase weapons. There is no reason someone twice investigated should be allowed to purchase weapons. Call me crazy but unless you want to keep inviting terrorists and radicals to commit these crimes the gun lobby has to give in a little. I own guns and in the state I purchased them it took two weeks for my long guns and six months for my pistol permit.

and if you had been investigate twice but found to be without fault...you would support you losing your rights?

 

[lymphocyte]

So you don't actually propose a ban of citizens with no convictions from buying semi-automatic firearms?

What does this have to with lists? Being banned because you were assigned to a list is not the same thing. Your reading comprehension is commensurate with your understanding of the law.

To make sure I didn't misunderstand you...didn't you want this list to be able to stop purchases?

 

[deleted480308]

What does this have to with lists? Being banned because you were assigned to a list is not the same thing. Your reading comprehension is commensurate with your understanding of the law.

you are talking in circles....do you want the list for surveillance or to ban purchases?

 

[lymphocyte]

you are talking in circles....do you want the list for surveillance or to ban purchases?

Must... step away... from the keyboard.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Must... step away... from the keyboard.

That's probably a good idea. Its always wise to stop when you're not making any sense.

 

[jl lin]

Yeah, that's why you change the laws. That's the point Obama was making.

Again, even Reagan was an enthusiastic supporter of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. I was a member of the NRA for 6 years and support a broad interpretation of the second amendment. But it doesn't make sense that's harder to get a driver's license than to buy a semi-automatic rifle. We can't prevent gun violence but we can easily limit its scope. Ain't nobody killing 50+ with a pistol.

What is amazing is that people actually believe the lie, which is this: Making it tougher to obtain a gun would PREVENT these people, who are HELL BENT on committing violence, from doing so by any means. You are just opening the door to more of the black market and restricting decent Americans' 2nd Amendment rights, which WILL NEVER stop thesis attacks. NEVER, EVER. sigh

 

[lymphocyte]

What is amazing is that people actually believe the lie that making it tougher to obtain a gun would PREVENT these people, who are HELL BENT or committing violence, to not do so by any means. You are just opening to more of the black market and restricting decent Americans' 2nd Amendment rights, which WILL NEVER stop thesis attacks. NEVER, EVER. sigh

What can I say? Interviewed twice by the FBI. Publically supported ISIS. All the risk factors. Couldn't be surveilled. Couldn't be restricted from owning a semi-automatic rifle. Couldn't be listed on a registry. How was this not preventable with different laws?

That's probably a good idea. Its always wise to stop when you're not making any sense.

Brave side-swoop.

 

[jl lin]

A question with regard to this shooting... Who padlocked the back doors so that the people had no other way out? Was it the murderer or was the club owner in violation? Wouldn't this be against fire ordinances? Do they really think this murderer acted alone? If he did, I want to know if he padlocked the backdoors or was this something that someone else did, and for God's sake why?

 

[deepstate2016]

How many publically pledged ISIS supporters are there in the US? I'm guessing not that many. Do you really think the TSA can check everyone's shoes before we fly but the FBI can't surville some of these supporters in public? Especially the ones that just bought a semi-automatic rifle. Hoookay.

Remember, the FBI visited this guy twice. It was a matter of when, not if. Our laws prevented us from acting. I don't know what else to say.



Nope. You read absolutely zero of what I originally posted. Everybody has the right to purchase. But "a well regulated militia -- " Bludgeon away.

 

[deepstate2016]

How many supporters of Isis are there? We do not know as pointed out there is not a list. The comparison to security checks at the airport are foolish. One you go to and submit to in a controlled environment one you do not see a difference? So the fib visited twice clearly they did not see him as a real threat. If the fib followed everyone they looked at we would need about a million agents it would be oh what is that word a survellience state. I support I rtf you suspending your rights you may request constant surveillance for yourself.

 

[jl lin]

What can I say? Interviewed twice by the FBI. Publically supported ISIS. All the risk factors. Couldn't be surveilled. Couldn't be restricted from owning a semi-automatic rifle. Couldn't be listed on a registry. How was this not preventable with different laws?



Brave side-swoop.

IDK, I understand you concerns, and I care. Honestly, however, I am inclined to support sb247 on this, b/c the overarching protection of American citizens to maintain 2nd Amendment rights is at serious risk. I believe the 1st and 2nd Amendments were 1st and 2nd FOR some VERY SERIOUS REAONS. Our founders understood history and the potential problems with governments and human freedom. They were much wiser than we are today, in spite of changing technologies. The essentials to freedom and the potential to be crushed by a government, any government, is still something over which we must be vigilant.

IDK, maybe the bouncers need to have guns. And again, I want to know if the crazy, indoctrinated terrorist locked those back doors. I also think that private and public places need to put the money out and get serious about outside surveillance and protection. You have to protect your perimeter first. Use cameras and security people. They would have seen if this man was in the back padlocking the doors. But if you don't want to spend the money on protection of your business and it's patrons, well...

 

[pgg]

If this turns into a religious mudslinging fest full of blanket condemnations of a billion of these people or a billion of those people, the thread will be closed. Off topic is obviously OK in this forum, but the TOS still apply.

This thread is on strike two.

Overly broad, inflammatory attacks on entire classes of people are prohibited. Please keep it civil.

 

[deleted480308]

A question with regard to this shooting... Who padlocked the back doors so that the people had no other way out? Was it the murderer or was the club owner in violation? Wouldn't this be against fire ordinances? Do they really think this murderer acted alone? If he did, I want to know if he padlocked the backdoors or was this something that someone else did, and for God's sake why?

http://www.inquisitr.com/3195984/or...oor-that-would-have-allowed-people-to-escape/

 

[PainDrain]

and if you had been investigate twice but found to be without fault...you would support you losing your rights?

I would support a method by which my right to purchase a weapon was suspended temporarily and then after appearing before a court and advocating for why I need such a weapon would be reinstated. I could easily support that.

Hell it is insane that it's harder to get your F-ing drivers license back after a DUI than it is to purchase a firearm after criminal activity, suspicion of being a terrorist or mental illness.

Also, Ever heard of national security letters? They have been used for years for people like Mr Mateen.

 

[chfo]

What can I say? Interviewed twice by the FBI. Publically supported ISIS. All the risk factors. Couldn't be surveilled. Couldn't be restricted from owning a semi-automatic rifle. Couldn't be listed on a registry. How was this not preventable with different laws?



Brave side-swoop.

Because people who want to commit mass murders will find a way within or outside of the law.

The only thing gun control does is restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[chfo]

 

[deleted480308]

I would support a method by which my right to purchase a weapon was suspended temporarily and then after appearing before a court and advocating for why I need such a weapon would be reinstated. I could easily support that.

Hell it is insane that it's harder to get your F-ing drivers license back after a DUI than it is to purchase a firearm after criminal activity, suspicion of being a terrorist or mental illness.

Also, Ever heard of national security letters? They have been used for years for people like Mr Mateen.

I can't go there with you...no citizen should be denied the presumption of innocence. If the govt, after investigating you twice can't come up with enough evidence to take you to court and charge you, then you should be left alone. I should never have to go and prove myself to the govt, it's their job to prove their case

 

[chfo]

It's ironic that leftists want to ban guns, yet Islamists in France, despite the strictest gun controls, had access to fully automatic weapons.

 

[jl lin]

This thread is on strike two.

Overly broad, inflammatory attacks on entire classes of people are prohibited. Please keep it civil.

Thanks. It was reported that the backdoors had been padlocked.

I guess they are still sorting through all the confusion. But if the shooter was working alone, it would make sense that he would padlock the backdoors from the outside to be able to do the most damage. I mean it was a lot of damage...to the point that I was at first confused as to how the shooter could do get so many casualties working alone.

 

[deleted480308]

http://www.inquisitr.com/3195984/or...oor-that-would-have-allowed-people-to-escape/

Thanks. It was reported that the backdoors had been padlocked.

I guess they are still sorting through all the confusion. But if the shooter was working alone, it would make sense that he would padlock the backdoors from the outside to be able to do the most damage. I mean it was a lot of damage...to the point that I was at first confused as to how the shooter could do get so many casualties working alone.

club patron admitted to blocking exits to help himself escape

it's not beyond possibility to think the shooter might have because the guy at virginia tech did, but this (at least one of the exits) time it was the victims themselves

 

[CopaceticOne]

What can I say? Interviewed twice by the FBI. Publically supported ISIS. All the risk factors. Couldn't be surveilled. Couldn't be restricted from owning a semi-automatic rifle. Couldn't be listed on a registry. How was this not preventable with different laws?

Just providing information regarding prior efforts to change a law regarding people on lists and gun purchase: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/

 

[chfo]

 

[lymphocyte]

you are talking in circles....do you want the list for surveillance or to ban purchases?

You're just not getting it. To very carefully answer your question:

Everyone has the right to bear arms. Just like everyone has the right to liberty. But rights can be restricted through due process. This due process can be administrative and does not necessarily have to follow under criminal prosecution; in fact, due process rarely obtains through criminal proceedings. For example, you can be involuntarily detained administratively under California's 5150. Something similar happens when a police officer detains you for an investigatory stop. There's no criminal prosecution, and yet your rights have been restricted.

If I say that I support an Assault Weapons Ban, I'm in favour of restricting a right. That is in direct concordance with the 2nd Amendment as per McDonald, which incorporates the 2nd amendment under the 14th, placing it under strict (or intermediate--though that's still up for debate) scrutiny, i.e. the right is broadly protected, but a narrowly tailored law that furthers a compelling governmental interest can restrict that right. (Not getting killed by publically pledged ISIS supporters might satisfy this test...)

@sb247, this is all well established legal doctrine. It's why yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre is against the law. The 1st Amendment does not apply in that case. No rights are absolute.

What you've been spouting is jangled opinion. I don't care about opinions. I only care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rich legal tradition founded on those documents. Nothing you've written has referred to any of those things in a coherent way. If you have any lawyer friends, please show them what I've written. Please. It will pass mustard.

What you're writing is like a how a first year medical student might work up jaundice. It just doesn't. make. sense. It's like how those "AM I BEING DETAINED"?? folks sound to cops.

If you're on a list, you're on a list. If you arrived on the list under due process--like you were 5250'ed in California--then yes, your right to own a gun may be administratively restricted under strict scrutiny. That seems very reasonable when it comes to unwell schizophrenics, and yet you defend publicly-pledged ISIS supporters? If we were to establish a similar administrative due process for publically-pledged ISIS supporters, then I would fully support that, because perhaps it would survive strict scrutiny (and the courts could adjudicate that).

There's already no restriction on surveilling in public. So if you're on a list, then you should be surveilled in public.

@sb247 , @VA Hopeful Dr : I've used my words very carefully. These are legal concepts that have over a hundred years of precedent. What am I missing?

 

[chfo]

 

[ProfMD]

I don't own a gun. I don't ever plan on owning a gun. I would support "common sense regulation" but have not given a lot of thought to what that might be. I do have a number of friends who own guns that they use primarily for hunting.

A few questions, though, for people who insist that "the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun":
1) How many people, realistically, have actually defended themselves, their loved ones, and/or their property with a gun? I know it has happened, but as a percentage of gun owners, how many have actually stopped a crime?
2) How many people with concealed carry weapons would have the wherewithall to defend themselves and others in the event of a mass shooting? What if everyone on the nightclub had a gun and started shooting? Would that have really reduced the death toll?
3) Do you really think the US government is going to impose martial law? Even if the US government does impose martial law, do you really think you and your buddies with your home arsenal could stop them?

 

[deleted480308]

You're just not getting it. To very carefully answer your question:

Everyone has the right to purchase. Just like everyone has the right to liberty. But rights can be restricted through due process. This due process can be administrative and does not necessarily have to follow under criminal prosecution; in fact, due process rarely obtains through criminal proceedings. For example, you can be involuntarily detained administratively under California's 5150. Something similar happens when a police officer detains you for an investigatory stop. There's no criminal prosecution, and yet your rights have been restricted.

If I say that I support an Assault Weapons Ban, I'm in favour of restricting a right. That is in direct concordance with the 2nd Amendment as per McDonald, which incorporates the 2nd amendment under the 14th, placing it under strict scrutiny, i.e. the right is broadly protected, but a narrowly tailored law that furthers a compelling governmental interest can restrict that right. (Not getting killed by publically pledged ISIS supporters might satisfy this test...)

@sb247, this is all well established legal doctrine. It's why yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre is against the law. The 1st Amendment does not apply in that case. No rights are absolute.

What you've been spouting is jangled opinion. I don't care about your opinions. I only care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rich legal tradition founded on those documents. Nothing you've written has referred to any of those things in a coherent way. If you have any lawyer friends, please show them what I've written. Please. It will pass mustard.

What you're writing is like a how a first year medical student might work up jaundice. It just doesn't. make. sense. It's like how those "AM I BEING DETAINED"?? folks sound to cops.

If you're on a list, you're on a list. If you arrived at the list with due process--like you were 5150'ed in California--then yes, your right to own a gun may be restricted under strict scrutiny. That seems very reasonable when it comes to unwell schizophrenics, and yet you defend publicly-pledged ISIS supporters? If we were to establish a similar administrative due process for publically-pledged ISIS supporters, then I would fully support that.

There's already no restriction on surveilling in public. So if you're on a list, then you should be surveilled in public.

@sb247 , @VA Hopeful Dr : I've used my words very carefully. These are legal concepts that have over a hundred years of precedent. What am I missing?

I actually don't support removing rights from people accused of being mentally ill unless the process to do so has included a right to cross examine accusers in front of a jury and present your defense...I'm being consistent here

This is very "red scare"ish mccarthyism you are promoting

 

[deleted480308]

I don't own a gun. I don't ever plan on owning a gun. I would support "common sense regulation" but have not given a lot of thought to what that might be. I do have a number of friends who own guns that they use primarily for hunting.

A few questions, though, for people who insist that "the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun":
1) How many people, realistically, have actually defended themselves, their loved ones, and/or their property with a gun? I know it has happened, but as a percentage of gun owners, how many have actually stopped a crime?
2) How many people with concealed carry weapons would have the wherewithall to defend themselves and others in the event of a mass shooting? What if everyone on the nightclub had a gun and started shooting? Would that have really reduced the death toll?
3) Do you really think the US government is going to impose martial law? Even if the US government does impose martial law, do you really think you and your buddies with your home arsenal could stop them?

1. the NRA has a constant feed of recent defensive uses, I don't know the link offhand
2. see #1
3. I don't see it as likely, but that's not the point. The right to a firearm isn't dependent on proving a likelihood of govt oppression.

 

[lymphocyte]

I actually don't support removing rights from people accused of being mentally ill unless the process to do so has included a right to cross examine accusers in front of a jury and present your defense...I'm being consistent here

This is very "red scare"ish mccarthyism you are promoting

I'm actually advocating one of the most liberal possible interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, citing Heller and McDonald. And by that I mean in the British sense of liberal.

McCarthy gave no one due process. He literally just held up a blank piece of paper and said "Names are on this list." And then he used Congress's power to compel testimony. The FBI took care of the rest. It's a great example of a failure of due process and we've since evolved some more checks and balances.

You don't know the Constitution ("innocent until proven guilty" wtf? -- still waiting on that citation), you don't know the Bill of Rights (citing the 5th when the 14th was the most relevant as per the Incorporation Doctrine), and you don't know the case law (not a single citation).

A very heavy sigh.

I think what you're doing is beginning with your ideology and then piecing together bits and pieces of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or Google to fit that ideology. Real life doesn't work that way. The law doesn't work that way.

 

[ProfMD]

1. the NRA has a constant feed of recent defensive uses, I don't know the link offhand
2. see #1
3. I don't see it as likely, but that's not the point. The right to a firearm isn't dependent on proving a likelihood of govt oppression.

1) That doesn't answer the question. I asked about statistics, not anecdotes. Also, others have called into question the NRAs stats, for example:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

2) See #1.

3) Fair point, but this is still an argument some people make.

Also, I forgot another, very important, question:
4) It has been widely reported, and I believe, that households with guns are more likely to have injuries to family members (especially children) than to intruders. How do people respond? I know that the usual argument is for gun safety in the home, but clearly this is not enough.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm actually advocating one of the most liberal possible interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, citing Heller and McDonald. And by that I mean in the British sense of liberal.

McCarthy gave no one due process. He literally just held up a blank piece of paper and said "Names are on this list." And then he used Congress's power to compel testimony. The FBI took care of the rest. It's a great example of a failure of due process and we've since evolved some more checks and balances.

You don't know the Constitution ("innocent until proven guilty" wtf? -- still waiting on that citation), you don't know the Bill of Rights (citing the 5th when the 14th was the most relevant as per the Incorporation Doctrine), and you don't know the case law (not a single citation).

A very heavy sigh.

I think what you're doing is beginning with your ideology and then piecing together bits and pieces of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or Google to fit that ideology. Real life doesn't work that way. The law doesn't work that way.

ideology should always be the start of these discussions.....what is right matters far more than what the govt has decided it wants to do.

I'm simply not interested in the same govt that runs the no fly list so incompetently deciding that they can use the same shadowy process to deny rights of Americans in other areas of life

 

[deleted480308]

1) That doesn't answer the question. I asked about statistics, not anecdotes. Also, others have called into question the NRAs stats, for example:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

2) See #1.

3) Fair point, but this is still an argument some people make.

Also, I forgot another, very important, question:
4) It has been widely reported, and I believe, that households with guns are more likely to have injuries to family members (especially children) than to intruders. How do people respond? I know that the usual argument is for gun safety in the home, but clearly this is not enough.

1/2. I don't have a statistic. I'm also not sure why it would matter. I'm just saying it happens.

3. People do indeed make the argument...I don't think that use is likely but again I don't think it matters.

4. I haven't seen any of those reports that parse out the difference between law abiding people and criminals (I'll be glad to read some if you have one) but again, it's still the personal choice of that family.

 

[lymphocyte]

1) That doesn't answer the question. I asked about statistics, not anecdotes. Also, others have called into question the NRAs stats, for example:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

2) See #1.

3) Fair point, but this is still an argument some people make.

Also, I forgot another, very important, question:
4) It has been widely reported, and I believe, that households with guns are more likely to have injuries to family members (especially children) than to intruders. How do people respond? I know that the usual argument is for gun safety in the home, but clearly this is not enough.

@ProfMD , this chart takes some time to interpret but directly answers your fourth question. Firearm homicide victimisation rate directly correlates with firearm ownership, even standardised for robberies.

From the abstract, "Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."

It's the kind of research that is currently illegal for the CDC or NIH to undertake.

Miller M, Hemenway D, Azrael D. State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(3):656-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975

 

[lymphocyte]

1/2. I don't have a statistic. I'm also not sure why it would matter. I'm just saying it happens.

@sb247 This seems to be your entire life philosophy summarised in three short sentences.

 

[chfo]

Why weren't pressure cookers banned after Boston Marathon bombings?

Why weren't handguns banned after Ft Hood massacre?

Why weren't knives banned after a Muslim employee beheaded a co-worker in Oklahoma in 2014?

It doesn't matter what you ban when terrorists use whatever they need to inflict mass harm.

The only thing you ban is the US constitutional guaranteed rights.

If you want to fix the problem, you need to destroy ISIS unequivocally. You need to vet Muslims entering the United States from Syria.

Why is it so difficult for leftists to understand that Sharia law is incompatible with the values and laws of the United States?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You're just not getting it. To very carefully answer your question:

Everyone has the right to bear arms. Just like everyone has the right to liberty. But rights can be restricted through due process. This due process can be administrative and does not necessarily have to follow under criminal prosecution; in fact, due process rarely obtains through criminal proceedings. For example, you can be involuntarily detained administratively under California's 5150. Something similar happens when a police officer detains you for an investigatory stop. There's no criminal prosecution, and yet your rights have been restricted.

If I say that I support an Assault Weapons Ban, I'm in favour of restricting a right. That is in direct concordance with the 2nd Amendment as per McDonald, which incorporates the 2nd amendment under the 14th, placing it under strict scrutiny, i.e. the right is broadly protected, but a narrowly tailored law that furthers a compelling governmental interest can restrict that right. (Not getting killed by publically pledged ISIS supporters might satisfy this test...)

@sb247, this is all well established legal doctrine. It's why yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre is against the law. The 1st Amendment does not apply in that case. No rights are absolute.

What you've been spouting is jangled opinion. I don't care about opinions. I only care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rich legal tradition founded on those documents. Nothing you've written has referred to any of those things in a coherent way. If you have any lawyer friends, please show them what I've written. Please. It will pass mustard.

What you're writing is like a how a first year medical student might work up jaundice. It just doesn't. make. sense. It's like how those "AM I BEING DETAINED"?? folks sound to cops.

If you're on a list, you're on a list. If you arrived on the list under due process--like you were 5250'ed in California--then yes, your right to own a gun may be administratively restricted under strict scrutiny. That seems very reasonable when it comes to unwell schizophrenics, and yet you defend publicly-pledged ISIS supporters? If we were to establish a similar administrative due process for publically-pledged ISIS supporters, then I would fully support that, because perhaps it would survive strict scrutiny (and the courts could adjudicate that).

There's already no restriction on surveilling in public. So if you're on a list, then you should be surveilled in public.

@sb247 , @VA Hopeful Dr : I've used my words very carefully. These are legal concepts that have over a hundred years of precedent. What am I missing?

I guess I'm just still confused as to what you want to happen. I don't care about the debate y'all have about due process and the Bill of Rights, I just can't figure out what you're proposing we change to try and prevent this in the future.

 

[lymphocyte]

I guess I'm just still confused as to what you want to happen. I don't care about the debate y'all have about due process and the Bill of Rights, I just can't figure out what you're proposing we change to try and prevent this in the future.

Yeah, that's what happens when you karate chop yourself into a conversation 30-posts down without reading or contributing to anything before it.

Lots of options suggested:
People publically pledged to ISIS should be restricted from buying firearms.
People publically pledged to ISIS should be listed on a notice registry in case they buy firearms.
People publically pledged to ISIS who buy firearms should receive enhanced public surveillance.
People publically pledged to ISIS should receive enhanced public surveillance period.
People publically pledged to ISIS should receive consideration for private surveillance under FISA.
Guns with higher destructive capacity should fall under greater scrutiny for purchase.
Etc.

None of that is prima facie unconstitutional. At least one of those options would have worked even if he had acquired his guns illegally and not-impulsively (contrary to what happened).

Interviewed twice by the FBI. Publicly supported ISIS. All the risk factors. Couldn't be privately surveilled. Couldn't be restricted from owning a semi-automatic rifle. Couldn't be listed on a registry. @VA Hopeful Dr, how was this not preventable with different laws?

 

[ProfMD]

Why weren't pressure cookers banned after Boston Marathon bombings?

Why weren't handguns banned after Ft Hood massacre?

Why weren't knives banned after a Muslim employee beheaded a co-worker in Oklahoma in 2014?

It doesn't matter what you ban when terrorists use whatever they need to inflict mass harm.

The only thing you ban is the US constitutional guaranteed rights.

If you want to fix the problem, you need to destroy ISIS unequivocally. You need to vet Muslims entering the United States from Syria.

Why is it so difficult for leftists to understand that Sharia law is incompatible with the values and laws of the United States?

Banning pressure cookers and cars is a silly analogy - they both have primary uses that are not killing things. Many knives are not intended for killing things either.

And, I don't think anyone here is arguing for banning firearms. Yes, some people are, but not on this thread.

I agree that ISIS needs to be dealt with. Not as easy as "destroying" them, though. You need to do something about the conditions that lead to radicalization.

One other thing - has anyone considered banning memes on this thread?

 

[Spikebd]

@ProfMD , this chart takes some time to interpret but directly answers your fourth question. Firearm homicide victimisation rate directly correlates with firearm ownership, even standardised for robberies.

From the abstract, "Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."

It's the kind of research that is currently illegal for the CDC or NIH to undertake.

Miller M, Hemenway D, Azrael D. State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(3):656-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975

Look up the statistics on race and gun homicides. It's an African American affliction.

 

[lymphocyte]

Banning pressure cookers and cars is a silly analogy - they both have primary uses that are not killing things. Many knives are not intended for killing things either.

And, I don't think anyone here is arguing for banning firearms. Yes, some people are, but not on this thread.

I agree that ISIS needs to be dealt with. Not as easy as "destroying" them, though. You need to do something about the conditions that lead to radicalization.

One other thing - has anyone considered banning memes on this thread?

I unliked this comment just so I could like it again.

 

[pgg]

McDonald, which incorporates the 2nd amendment under the 14th, placing it under strict scrutiny, i.e. the right is broadly protected, but a narrowly tailored law that furthers a compelling governmental interest can restrict that right. (Not getting killed by publically pledged ISIS supporters might satisfy this test...)

I know I said I was going to sit this one out, but I'll make one comment here because I can't help myself. Most of this thread is opinion, but there's a factual error in your post.

Neither the Heller nor McDonald rulings actually gave us any precedent on the level of scrutiny to be applied to regulation of the 2nd Amendment. I think it should be strict scrutiny, and I think most sane people who respect and cherish any of the enumerated rights in the Constitution would agree strict scrutiny should apply to their Constitutional rights, but this remains unsettled law.

Also, your definition of strict scrutiny is only 2/3 complete. There are three elements to it: the law must be narrowly tailored, it must serve a compelling government interest, and the third element is that it must employ the least restrictive means to enforce the limitation. (This last bit matters when we're talking about how regulation and due process is actually implemented, because the devil is always in the details.)


Back to opinion:

The fact that the level of scrutiny to be applied to the 2nd Amendment remains unsettled law is all the more reason why SCOTUS appointees are so important. The last two appointees to the Court have demonstrated that they do not believe that strict scrutiny should apply to the 2nd Amendment - they favor the doctrine of "rational basis" which places far weaker constraints on government power.

 

[pgg]

One other thing - has anyone considered banning memes on this thread?

No.

Words in pictures are not afforded any special privilege or liability. They're either a TOS violation or they aren't.

If you think someone's words, pictures, or pictures of words are over the line, use the report link and I or another moderator will get an email alert. Be advised that due to SDN's privacy policy, you won't get a response or any kind of feedback regarding anything we say or don't say, do or don't do, to the individual you're reporting. Sometimes it's obvious (posts deleted or people banned), sometimes it's not.

 

[chfo]

Banning pressure cookers and cars is a silly analogy - they both have primary uses that are not killing things. Many knives are not intended for killing things either.

It's not a silly analogy at all.

Guns do not necessarily have to kill to have their intended effect.

Competition shooting.

Defensive protection.

Hobby collecting.

Hunting for sport or survival.

And, I don't think anyone here is arguing for banning firearms. Yes, some people are, but not on this thread.

I agree that ISIS needs to be dealt with. Not as easy as "destroying" them, though. You need to do something about the conditions that lead to radicalization.

One other thing - has anyone considered banning memes on this thread?

When people argue for banning "assault" rifles, they are de facto arguing for banning all guns.

What's the difference between a M1a and AR-15?

One isn't a scary black "assault rifle", but both are basically the same.

And once you ban "assault" rifles, what about handguns? The Ft Hood terrorist used handguns to kill over a dozen of our finest soldiers.

The fact is that once you ban one type, you can ban every type because they all shoot projectiles.




And it is easy to destroy ISIS. You annihilate them. Hard to recruit terrorists when there's nobody left.

 

[chfo]

 

[deleted171991]

"Extreme right Conservative Group"? Violence is the opposite of the teaching of Jesus and his Disciples. The Word is quite clear on how we are supposed to treat others in this world.

I take issue with you statement about those who I support because we are all sinners and must atone for that sin. The very essence of the New Testament is to love your neighbor as yourself and worship the Lord God above with all your heart and soul.

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.

Matthew 10:13
If the home is worthy, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.

Mark 6:11
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that place, as a testimony against them.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44).

Yeah, that's exactly what all those white supremacists think.