Poster Aquilla was right.....

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

When it is easier for a terrorist to purchase assault weapons than it is to board a plane, there's a problem.

Only in your liberal bubble. You know what else can kill? A car, a bus, a truck, a knife, a frying pan, a pressure cooker, a fork, a spoon (yes, a spoon).....and the list goes on and on.

Restrictions don't matter to people with evil or criminal intent, they only affect law abiding citizens. Guess what, the right to keep and to bear arms is not granted by government, it's a guarantee that the government is not permitted to infringe upon (despite them doing so anyway).

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

When it is easier for a terrorist to purchase assault weapons than it is to board a plane, there's a problem.

1) 9/11.
2) Shoe bomber
3) Every terrorist who has successfully hijacked or blown up a plane.

Your argument is blown.

Also ... good thing terrorists don't blend in. They're born with a mark on their forehead and well known as a terrorist. Their license actually has "Terrorist" typed on it, so when they give it to the gun shop owner, he looks and says "Wow! You're a terrorist! Buuuuut, I can't refuse to sell you this gun, so here you go Mr. Terrorist."

This isn't Minority Report. It's not as though we're able to know the thoughts or intentions of people.

And look at the places with the strictest gun laws - Chicago especially - how's that working out for them?

Look at what happened in England. The terrorists stab people over there. Should they start banning KNIVES?

I mean, I'm sorry, but your statement is just so ridiculous, and yet not surprising because that's the standard liberal logic. Even though it's easily blown apart. (no pun intended.)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Then by your definition, BHO was a crook...

Yep.

However, he's no where near the crook Trump is.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Only in your liberal bubble. You know what else can kill? A car, a bus, a truck, a knife, a frying pan, a pressure cooker, a fork, a spoon (yes, a spoon).....and the list goes on and on.

Restrictions don't matter to people with evil or criminal intent, they only affect law abiding citizens. Guess what, the right to keep and to bear arms is not granted by government, it's a guarantee that the government is not permitted to infringe upon (despite them doing so anyway).

Ah, but if someone with criminal intent chooses to do something stupid, restrictions help narrow down all liable and/or negligent parties. It also helps to compound charges against the criminal in question.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

1) 9/11.
2) Shoe bomber
3) Every terrorist who has successfully hijacked or blown up a plane.

Your argument is blown.

Also ... good thing terrorists don't blend in. They're born with a mark on their forehead and well known as a terrorist. Their license actually has "Terrorist" typed on it, so when they give it to the gun shop owner, he looks and says "Wow! You're a terrorist! Buuuuut, I can't refuse to sell you this gun, so here you go Mr. Terrorist."

This isn't Minority Report. It's not as though we're able to know the thoughts or intentions of people.

And look at the places with the strictest gun laws - Chicago especially - how's that working out for them?

Look at what happened in England. The terrorists stab people over there. Should they start banning KNIVES?

I mean, I'm sorry, but your statement is just so ridiculous, and yet not surprising because that's the standard liberal logic. Even though it's easily blown apart. (no pun intended.)

Of course this isn't Minority Report. However, if you're on a No Fly List, a Selectee List, or a Watch List (which would prevent you from being allowed to board a plane in the United States) why should you be permitted to simply stroll down the street and purchase an assault weapon?

Use your head here.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course this isn't Minority Report. However, if you're on a No Fly List, a Selectee List, or a Watch List (which would prevent you from being allowed to board a plane in the United States) why should you be permitted to simply stroll down the street and purchase an assault weapon?

Use your head here.

I'm surprised you agree with the No Fly List or Watch List. Remember, this is a list on which you or I could be listed without any kind of proof of criminal wrongdoing. No charges, no grand jury or indictment, not a shred of evidence needs to be given.

Use your head, Aquila. Look, I'm for requiring background checks. I am totally against using an unconstitutional No Fly/Watch list as a means of restricting people from purchasing guns.

Also, San Bernadino terrorists were able to fly, so again, the argument fails.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ah, but if someone with criminal intent chooses to do something stupid, restrictions help narrow down all liable and/or negligent parties. It also helps to compound charges against the criminal in question.

How's that working in Chicago?

So let's say you libs get your utopia: guns are confiscated and no one is allowed to own a gun of any type.

Do you really believe murders and mass killings will stop? If so, I have an incredible beachfront property to sell you here in the phoenix valley.

How did a complete gun ban (even for Bobbies!!) work over in England a couple weeks ago? Worked out really well. The unarmed Bobby was killed by a terrorist with a knife.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course this isn't Minority Report. However, if you're on a No Fly List, a Selectee List, or a Watch List (which would prevent you from being allowed to board a plane in the United States) why should you be permitted to simply stroll down the street and purchase an assault weapon?

Use your head here.

I am using my head. As ND already stated, who decides when someone ends up on those lists? There's no official methodology for the process, there's very little (if any) recourse if you end up on there on accident. Someone just decides you shouldn't fly, and you're on the list.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm surprised you agree with the No Fly List or Watch List. Remember, this is a list on which you or I could be listed without any kind of proof of criminal wrongdoing. No charges, no grand jury or indictment, not a shred of evidence needs to be given.

The odds of being on the list by mistake are rather slim. However, there is a process in place by which one can have their name removed from the list. It isn't permanent.

Use your head, Aquila. Look, I'm for requiring background checks. I am totally against using an unconstitutional No Fly/Watch list as a means of restricting people from purchasing guns.

Where in the Constitution is the government prohibited from keeping a list of potential threats to the United States?

Also, San Bernadino terrorists were able to fly, so again, the argument fails.

However, for those on the lists (known terrorists, suspects, associates, and financiers of terrorism), do you advocate that they be allowed to purchase "assault weapons" freely? I think the inconvenience over being on the list and having to be cleared isn't too much to ask.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

How's that working in Chicago?

Every city has to be examined independently. Poverty, crime, lack of education, drugs, illegal weapon sales, etc. are all factors that must be considered.

Remember, I said "restrictions help narrow down all liable and/or negligent parties." If someone sells someone a weapon knowing they failed a background check, that seller is negligent and shares in the liabilities. We don't need people like that selling weapons.

So let's say you libs get your utopia: guns are confiscated and no one is allowed to own a gun of any type.

I'm not for confiscating guns. I'm not even sold on an assault weapons ban. However, I would like to see background checks extended to cover No Fly, Selectee, and Watch Lists.

Do you really believe murders and mass killings will stop? If so, I have an incredible beachfront property to sell you here in the phoenix valley.

No, I don't think they would stop. However, responsibility would be broadened (to motivate greater due diligence to act within broader parameters) for those who sell weapons.

Imagine a radicalized individual purchases a high powered assault weapon from a local gun dealer. This man is on the No Fly, Selectee List, and/or Watch List on account of downloading and spreading radical propaganda, and traveling to a restricted nation (in which it is suspected that he attended a terrorist training camp). In addition, he has two cousins in Afghanistan that are known terrorists. This man can't even board an airline. Let's say this radical takes this high powered assault weapon that he just purchased into an elementary school and guns down 53 children (ages ranging from 6-11) and 12 staff members before being gunned down by law enforcement.

Why was such a man so freely permitted to buy a high powered assault weapon without ensuring that the dealer had knowledge of the fact that his customer was on the terrorism lists? Had the dealer been required to check the selectee lists before the sale (or if the information is compared to the lists prior to sale), the dealer wouldn't have sold the weapon. This could have prevented or delayed the attack. It would also have produced a red flag in the system regarding the individual that would have given local investigators a reason to investigate the guy, perhaps leading them to any broader network he might be associated with.

Now, let's say Billy Jim Bob goes to the same dealer wearing his, "Make America Great Again", ball-cap and tries to purchase a high powered assault weapon to add to his collection. And let's say that Billy Jim Bob's name shows up on a selectee list. The dealer denies the sale. Oh no! Billy Jim Bob is sad. He's given instructions on how to file with DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program to have his name taken off the list. Billy Jim Bob files for redress and his name is taken off the list 33 days later. Billy Jim Bob then goes back to the dealer and purchases his beloved high powered assault weapon. And, his name is free and clear.

How did a complete gun ban (even for Bobbies!!) work over in England a couple weeks ago? Worked out really well. The unarmed Bobby was killed by a terrorist with a knife.

I'm NOT in support of gun bans.