TexasCHLforum.com

Enforcing existing laws is all I can get on board with. That no fly list amounts to guilty until proven innocent, just no.

'Assault Weapons Ban' is idiotic at best.

cb1000rider wrote:

cbunt1 wrote: The "No Fly List" has no, zero, nada, nothing in the way of due process associated with it. Once you're on it, it's up to you to figure out how to get off of it, there's no way to force your removal, and there's no need for a conviction or proof of activity or wrongdoing to be placed on the list.

I think that's a legit "legal" concern. You can be granted rights by the constitution to only have then taken away by a secret un-adjudicated process. Still, it strikes many people as funny (including myself) that we're willing to ban them from commercial airlines, but they can still buy weapons.

There has to be a better way...

Because you shouldn't circumvent due process doesn't mean it couldn't run up a red flag that could/should be follow up on, especially when you've been vocally sympathetic to terrorist causes.

Enforce existing gun laws: How about prosecuting a certain attorney general and others involved in the "Fast & Furious" scandal.

As for the no-fly/Terror/other list: No prohibition but if they want to set up a process to investigate/monitor someone on one or more of those lists when they purchase a firearm that may be acceptable depending on how it is implemented.

As for the Assault Weapons Ban: No, No, and No. At one time lever actions were considered too dangerous for sale to the public, now it's firearms that are more ergonomically correct than others.

I agree with the majority. I'm ok with #1, seems like common sense to enforce current laws.

G.A. Heath wrote:As for the no-fly/Terror/other list: No prohibition but if they want to set up a process to investigate/monitor someone on one or more of those lists when they purchase a firearm that may be acceptable depending on how it is implemented.

I'm ok with investigating someone who is on the no fly list before they purchase a firearm, but where does that stop? I feel like the left would find ANY excuse to put you on a no fly list and take your rights away completely.

I may be the only one on the forum but I've never shot an AR-15, but it's on my things to do and eventually buy one. I do not want my right taken away to get one. When are they going to get it, it's not the gun that needs to be feared it's the person behind it.

vjallen75 wrote:When are they going to get it, it's not the gun that needs to be feared it's the person behind it.

I have had to explain to several anti-gunners that I know....Murder is not a recent invention. It goes back to almost the beginning of mankind. Firearms though are a recent invention, relatively speaking. People who wish to cause harm to others will find a way.
Timothy McVeigh found a way.
The Boston bomber found a way.
The 9/11 hijackers found a way.

A gun puts a physically weaker person on equal footing with a physically stronger person. Absent of guns, in most cases...a strong criminal will easily over power their prey.

vjallen75 wrote:I agree with the majority. I'm ok with #1, seems like common sense to enforce current laws.

G.A. Heath wrote:As for the no-fly/Terror/other list: No prohibition but if they want to set up a process to investigate/monitor someone on one or more of those lists when they purchase a firearm that may be acceptable depending on how it is implemented.

I'm ok with investigating someone who is on the no fly list before they purchase a firearm, but where does that stop? I feel like the left would find ANY excuse to put you on a no fly list and take your rights away completely.

I may be the only one on the forum but I've never shot an AR-15, but it's on my things to do and eventually buy one. I do not want my right taken away to get one. When are they going to get it, it's not the gun that needs to be feared it's the person behind it.

Comment on last sentence:
I think they do "get it". They do not fear guns, they surround themselves with body guards with guns, they have large beuracracies that are armed, they fear people, free people, you and me. It's not about safety or saving lives, it's about control and tyranny.

I would love to see a reasoned public explaination how an AR-15 is no more effective at mass slaughter, than a brace of semi-auto handguns, with pocket fulls of mags. At close quarters I believe something like a Glock is more capable in close quarters in a building than an AR-15. Only difference is the AR-15 is scarier. Lots of the scary pictures show scopes mounted. Sheesh !! The whole anti assault weapon campaign is fed purely by FUD, with facts having no bearing.
FUD is Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Fear being the primary ingredient

Assume, no semi-automatic rifles, how do ban DIY bombs? How terrorists were able to get full-auto rifles in Europe?
All gun control issue is not the solution.

flowrie wrote:Comment on last sentence:
I think they do "get it". They do not fear guns, they surround themselves with body guards with guns, they have large beuracracies that are armed, they fear people, free people, you and me. It's not about safety or saving lives, it's about control and tyranny.

The democratic leaders do get it and your right it is about control and tyranny. The people who elect such officials do not understand that, I know that for a fact.

Didn't it say somewhere that the gun used actually wasn't an AR-15? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

vjallen75 wrote:

flowrie wrote:Comment on last sentence:
I think they do "get it". They do not fear guns, they surround themselves with body guards with guns, they have large beuracracies that are armed, they fear people, free people, you and me. It's not about safety or saving lives, it's about control and tyranny.

The democratic leaders do get it and your right it is about control and tyranny. The people who elect such officials do not understand that, I know that for a fact.

Look at the state of California. The legislature just passed all sorts of gun control laws, but they by law are exempt from then and may all carry concealed firearms.

A secret list compiled by a federal bureaucracy should never exist.

cb1000rider wrote:So I listened to the video. He suggested 3 things:
1) Provide resources to law enforcement to actually enforce existing gun laws.
2) Don't allow people on the "no fly" list to buy firearms
3) Reinstate the assault weapons ban.

So, there's no debate that the Orlanda shooter had been investigated by the FBI twice. But was he actually ever put on any watch list? No fly list? of any sort? I saw that he'd gone to Saudi Arabia, if that's true then #2 wouldn't have worked. So if he wasn't on a list, of these three suggestions #3 is the only one that "might" have worked and if the guy were really determined, he would have just gone behind his local McD's and bought one illegally.

MeMelYup wrote:

vjallen75 wrote:

flowrie wrote:Comment on last sentence:
I think they do "get it". They do not fear guns, they surround themselves with body guards with guns, they have large beuracracies that are armed, they fear people, free people, you and me. It's not about safety or saving lives, it's about control and tyranny.

The democratic leaders do get it and your right it is about control and tyranny. The people who elect such officials do not understand that, I know that for a fact.

Look at the state of California. The legislature just passed all sorts of gun control laws, but they by law are exempt from then and may all carry concealed firearms.

Do you have a citation to that exemption?

My facebook antigun friends are exploding with the assault weapons ban, end the 2nd amendment, etc. They are going crazy.

However, I'm reading, that as I expected, the reason the FBI stopped their investigation of this guy was that he was Muslim and that would be racist. I've read that the State Department under Hillary ordered the investigation of this guy stopped. I have even read that DHS was required to purge their database of data on Muslims for the same reason.

I have even read that recently Disney World contacted the FBI about this same shooter, casing their park and reported him.

Is this just another fast and furious program to increase gun control, only with US citizens as the victims instead of Mexican citizens this time.

Trump has come out supporting no fly list gun bans.