Homeland Security and United Nations Advocating More Gun Control in US

[Hagar]

If you wonder why the Left doesn't seem outraged over the attack in Orlando, they're to busy licking their chops using this tragedy to further their gun control agenda.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

Now, REBgp...you are just being paranoid as others on this board have pointed out.

No one is trying to take our guns...COME ON, MAN!

[bullets13]

From the article:

Zeid deplored what he called the ease with which individuals can buy firearms in America – “in spite of prior criminal backgrounds, drug use, histories of domestic violence and mental illness, or direct contact with extremists – both domestic and foreign.”

 

i don't have a problem keeping these people from buying guns.  The problem is that there is more of a concern for their rights than those of the law-abiding gun owner, making it difficult to track these people, or publicly obtain information on their activities.  On top of that, due to previous efforts of the left to attach sweeping gun legislation to bills that might prevent these people from accessing guns, the right has shown (understandably) little or no inclination to give a little on certain issues, based on the very real fear that if they give a little the left will try and take a lot.

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[bullets13]

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I'd be more than fine with this.  The possible danger would be the government using the list to blacklist people who are merely vocal against them, but in today's age of social media I don't believe that this would be possible without scrutiny that they do not want.  

[Englebert]

19 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I'd be more than fine with this.  The possible danger would be the government using the list to include people who are merely vocal against them in the list, but in today's age of social media I don't believe that this would be possible without scrutiny that they do not want.

Would you be okay with the government creating a list of people that they deem unfit to vote?

Giving the government power to create a list of people that cannot own a firearm, without due process, is just asking for trouble. Hillary Clinton doesn't even acknowledge the 2nd Amendment. There are plenty of anti-gun nutcases in places of authority now, especially Feinstein and Schumer. If one of those fruitbags gets the chance to add people to a no-gun list, they will add them regardless of any perceived backlash. We've already seen how government agencies can get political.

[Hagar]

12 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Way to go LFR.   You no sooner remind me no one is taking them, then POW.  

[LumRaiderFan]

14 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I'd be more than fine with this.  The possible danger would be the government using the list to blacklist people who are merely vocal against them, but in today's age of social media I don't believe that this would be possible without scrutiny that they do not want.  

We have enough gun laws, we don't need any more...this type of activity is to restrict gun access to everyone...Dems have been very clear on that in the past.

I don't want the gov making more lists to be put on "watch"...we saw how that turned out when the lists that needed to be watched included the names Tea, Patriot...etc.

You are willing to give the fed gov more power to abuse, I am not.

Gun control is not the answer here...radical muslim control is.

 

[bullets13]

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Would you be okay with the government creating a list of people that they deem unfit to vote?

Giving the government power to create a list of people that cannot own a firearm, without due process, is just asking for trouble. Hillary Clinton doesn't even acknowledge the 2nd Amendment. There are plenty of anti-gun nutcases in places of authority now, especially Feinstein and Schumer. If one of those fruitbags get the chance to add people to a no-gun list, they will add them regardless of any perceived backlash. We've already seen how government agencies can get political.

The last two mass shootings were perpetrated by people with known radical leanings, and both could've been stopped.  I'd much rather the government take action against people with radical ties than continue to allow them act on their beliefs.  The key is that the legislation needs specifically worded parameters to prevent it from being abused.

[bullets13]

11 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We have enough gun laws, we don't need any more...this type of activity is to restrict gun access to everyone...Dems have been very clear on that in the past.

I don't want the gov making more lists to be put on "watch"...we saw how that turned out when the lists that needed to be watched included the names Tea, Patriot...etc.

You are willing to give the fed gov more power to abuse, I am not.

Gun control is not the answer here...radical muslim control is.

 

Isn't part of radical Muslim control limiting their access to guns?  

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Isn't part of radical Muslim control limiting their access to guns?  

So if they are involved in activity that would restrict their access to guns, you simply do that and allow them to stay in the country.

I don't understand, how would that work?

[Englebert]

23 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

The last two mass shootings were perpetrated by people with known radical leanings, and both could've been stopped.  I'd much rather the government take action against people with radical ties than continue to allow them act on their beliefs.  The key is that the legislation needs specifically worded parameters to prevent it from being abused.

I have zero faith in the government's ability to self regulate. The abuse will come and to an extent we can't even imagine. Lois Lerner will look like a model citizen compared to the people lining up to abuse any no-gun list.

If a no-gun list is created for terrorists, it won't be long before other behavior will be added. This administration already deems many organizations "right-wing terrorists". These groups will be added to the list. Black Panthers will be added. All of Montana will be added. If you know someone from Montana and give them a call one day, you will be added. Then any type of deemed "aggressive" behavior will become cause to add you to the list. Anything from a threat against someone to slowly leading to any behavior deemed counter-productive to the United States, including critical remarks against the sitting President.

The list of types of behaviors that qualify one to be included on the list will grow and grow. I have absolutely no doubt about that. No lawmaker will dare rescind a behavior type once it is used as a criteria. If lawmakers decide to remove a behavior type once it has been added, the lawmakers will be criticized and blamed for any incident that might have been prevented due to a behavior they removed as criteria. Therefore the list will just grow and grow until it will be impractical or impossible for anyone to own a firearm. This is a step anti-gun nutcases are drooling over.

[bullets13]

18 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So if they are involved in activity that would restrict their access to guns, you simply do that and allow them to stay in the country.

I don't understand, how would that work?

Absolutely deport them. But this last shooter was homegrown.  You going to deport him back to New York?

[Hagar]

6 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Absolutely deport them. But this last shooter was homegrown.  You going to deport him back to New York?

I bet you one thing, had it happened in New York, it would have been "worse".  Like a Category 4 hits Post Arthur, the national media gives it token coverage.  But let a Cat 2 hit the east coast, Lord, we all gonna die.

[stevenash]

17 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Absolutely deport them. But this last shooter was homegrown.  You going to deport him back to New York?

 

17 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Absolutely deport them. But this last shooter was homegrown.  You going to deport him back to New York?

Yea, sure sounds good.  Just like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.

[LumRaiderFan]

20 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Absolutely deport them. But this last shooter was homegrown.  You going to deport him back to New York?

My point is why the talk about more gun control...how would that have helped in this case?

 

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

My point is why the talk about more gun control...how would that have helped in this case?

 

I would like to believe that since he'd been investigated multiple times for possible radical beliefs, that he wouldn't be able to purchase guns, or at least if he did that it might have put him back on FBI radar.  Had they had him under surveillance it would've been pretty clear he was on his way to do this sort of thing somewhere.

[Englebert]

9 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I would like to believe that since he'd been investigated multiple times for possible radical beliefs, that he wouldn't be able to purchase guns, or at least if he did that it might have put him back on FBI radar.  Had they had him under surveillance it would've been pretty clear he was on his way to do this sort of thing somewhere.

Do you think that if you are investigated multiple times by the FBI that you should be put on a "Cannot Vote" list?

I think that there are 65,899,660 people who should be on the "Cannot Vote" list because of their actions in 2012. (Of course, many of them were actually dead in 2012).

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

Do you think that if you are investigated multiple times by the FBI that you should be put on a "Cannot Vote" list?

I think that there are 65,899,660 people who should be on the "Cannot Vote" list because of their actions in 2012. (Of course, many of them were actually dead in 2012).

I'm having a hard time with your comparison of people voting versus radical terrorists being able to purchase guns which they then use to kill large amounts of people, so forgive me for not answering your question.

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

I would like to believe that since he'd been investigated multiple times for possible radical beliefs, that he wouldn't be able to purchase guns, or at least if he did that it might have put him back on FBI radar.  Had they had him under surveillance it would've been pretty clear he was on his way to do this sort of thing somewhere.

Slippery slope on gun control. I do think once you get on an FBI watch list, you stay on. If he purchases a gun, FBI should be notified same day......OR, have a 24 hour wait list if you are on a watch list to purchase a gun.

[Englebert]

16 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I'm having a hard time with your comparison of people voting versus radical terrorists being able to purchase guns which they then use to kill large amounts of people, so forgive me for not answering your question.

I was just making the point that the right to vote is no more sacred than the right to bear arms. Many people are quick to suggest limiting the Second Amendment, but even suggesting having to show identification to vote disenfranchises way too many people. Having to submit to a background check would be unfathomable, as well as having to pass a voting test. 

Now, let's say we create a "Cannot Vote" list. I contend that we should take away the right to vote for everyone that voted for Obama in 2012. After all, his policies are driving this country into oblivion. How would you feel if we created this "Cannot Vote" list and I was put in charge of writing the criteria for who gets on the list.

This is the same way I feel about creating any kind of "Cannot Purchase" terrorist watchlist. It sounds good on the surface, but anti-gun advocates will abuse it in short order...without doubt. The "Do Not Fly" list is a prime example of how screwed up the "Cannot Purchase" list would be at the beginning. Then it would just get worse and worse with varying criteria.

We currently do not have any way of distinguishing who will eventually become a mass murderer, or even a murderer. Taking away someone's right based on suspicion is not the way to go.

[LumRaiderFan]

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I was just making the point that the right to vote is no more sacred that the right to bear arms. Many people are quick to suggest limiting the Second Amendment, but even suggesting having to show identification to vote disenfranchises way too many people. Having to submit to a background check would be unfathomable, as well as having to pass a voting test. 

Now, let's say we create a "Cannot Vote" list. I contend that we should take away the right to vote for everyone that voted for Obama in 2012. After all, his policies are driving this country into oblivion. How would you feel if we created this "Cannot Vote" list and I was put in charge of writing the criteria for who gets on the list.

This is the same way I feel about creating any kind of "Cannot Purchase" terrorist watchlist. It sounds good on the surface, but anti-gun advocates will abuse it in short order...without doubt. The "Do Not Fly" list is a prime example of how screwed up the "Cannot Purchase" list would be at the beginning. Then it would just get worse and worse with varying criteria.

Bingo!

You can'y simply decide someone can't buy a weapon because you think he's a bad guy...I think your best bet to stop/slow down much of this is follow the money in these mosques/groups that preach hatred to the US and prosecute when tied to groups that are on these terrorist watch lists, ALREADY.

A new administration will be required to successfully implement this...and not one run by hillary.

[stevenash]

4 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I would like to believe that since he'd been investigated multiple times for possible radical beliefs, that he wouldn't be able to purchase guns, or at least if he did that it might have put him back on FBI radar.  Had they had him under surveillance it would've been pretty clear he was on his way to do this sort of thing somewhere.

Apparently this is not a big issue because Big Girl and Da Dove say that Muslims kill more Muslims than they do Americans ( whatever the heck that is supposed to mean)

[Englebert]

Big Girl has a hard time with her facts. She throws out global statistics when it suits her, then throws out U.S. statistics when it suits her, then tries to give unrelated comparisons. It's actually comical.