That's because you're talking about taking away people's constitutional rights. It's not something everyone takes lightly because we know the government isn't always trustworthy.

 

But that isn't what we are saying. We are saying that people on the No Fly list should not be allowed to purchase guns. Because of this the No Fly list needs to be revamped and overhauled and done properly instead of knee jerking it the way they have been. It needs to be much more extensive if it is going to possibly take away someone's rights. When put on the No Fly list people should be allowed to challenge and dispute them being on the list even if it means going to court. Will it be perfect? Nope. Our legal system isn't perfect. It seems clear it doesn't take much to land on the No Fly list but that should change in order for something like that to be implemented. Otherwise I wouldn't be for it either.

That goes for everything. A minority does wrong and ruins it for everybody.

 

The problem with us lefties is the AR15 type weapons are efficient killers. It's a fact that can't be denied. If they were banned the next weapon would not be as dangerous.

 

How do we address those who do these things?

How do you change the hearts of men?

In all seriousness we aren't just talking about ISIS inspired attacks, we have our own problems here with hatred.

 

A problem with some on the left is actually understanding what an "AR15 Type" weapon actually is. An AR15 is semiautomatic. It's not an assault weapon. According to the ATF that would be a fully automatic weapon.

 

It helps to know the terms Hellcats. I say this because I want things to get done just like you. There are those that shut these conversations down, especially in congress because they use the "you don't even know what classifies as an assault weapon" defense.

Should we not be striving to be better?

 

No argument there.

 

No. Everything is perfect.

A problem with some on the left is actually understanding what an "AR15 Type" weapon actually is. An AR15 is semiautomatic. It's not an assault weapon. According to the ATF that would be a fully automatic weapon.

 

It helps to know the terms Hellcats. I say this because I want things to get done just like you. There are those that shut these conversations down, especially in congress because they use the "you don't even know what classifies as an assault weapon" defense.

 

The lamest "nothing needs to change" defense out there.

One of the star witnesses said the shooting was done with a shotgun. Over and over again.

 

Why are we back on the AR?

'Assault weapon' was term invented by Josh Sugermann. Who, ironically, was from Newtown Ct.

 

The AR is not any special gun. Medium power (its not really the 'powerful' weapon as termed by the media), low kick (its only real unique characteristic. Otherwise - its just a gun.

 

To use the term assault gun when its a purely political terms diminishes this issue.

But that isn't what we are saying. We are saying that people on the No Fly list should not be allowed to purchase guns. Because of this the No Fly list needs to be revamped and overhauled and done properly instead of knee jerking it the way they have been. It needs to be much more extensive if it is going to possibly take away someone's rights. When put on the No Fly list people should be allowed to challenge and dispute them being on the list even if it means going to court. Will it be perfect? Nope. Our legal system isn't perfect. It seems clear it doesn't take much to land on the No Fly list but that should change in order for something like that to be implemented. Otherwise I wouldn't be for it either.

 

The only revamping that would make this legal is to convict them of a crime.

 

Like I said if we want to stop the terrorist who are citizens declare war on known terrorist group in Congress. Treason becomes an easier case.

AR actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle as that was the company that made them.

A problem with some on the left is actually understanding what an "AR15 Type" weapon actually is. An AR15 is semiautomatic. It's not an assault weapon. According to the ATF that would be a fully automatic weapon.

 

It helps to know the terms Hellcats. I say this because I want things to get done just like you. There are those that shut these conversations down, especially in congress because they use the "you don't even know what classifies as an assault weapon" defense.

 

:lol: I didn't even say assault weapon in my post. Assault weapon or Assault-type weapon would be correct. Assault rifle is reserved the fully automatic version by definition.

 

Nevertheless it's ridiculous irrelevant use of semantics attempting to diminish any argument for change.

One of the star witnesses said the shooting was done with a shotgun. Over and over again.

 

Why are we back on the AR?

 

The initial bursts as the shooter entered the club were using the assault weapon it's recorded from some of the victims as they were dancing before the attack occurred.

 

He also fired at LE with the assault weapon.

 

So he didn't just carry this baby for good luck.

:lol: I didn't even say assault weapon in my post. Assault weapon or Assault-type weapon would be correct. Assault rifle is reserved the fully automatic version by definition.

 

Nevertheless it's ridiculous irrelevant use of semantics attempting to diminish any argument for change.

 

I agree, but the whole focus on one weapon when handguns are have been used in more homicides isn't a good tactic either. Especially, when the AR15 wasn't used.

That goes for everything. A minority does wrong and ruins it for everybody.

 

The problem with us lefties is the AR15 type weapons are efficient killers. It's a fact that can't be denied. If they were banned the next weapon would not be as dangerous.

 

How do we address those who do these things?

How do you change the hearts of men?

In all seriousness we aren't just talking about ISIS inspired attacks, we have our own problems here with hatred.

 

This guy was an Islamic Radical, a Wife Beater and an unstable narcissistic twerp...but lets blame the instrument he used.

 

In all seriousness, this guy was in there for 3 hours. He could have killed 50 people with a revolver, shotgun, pressure cooker or just about any weapon. The next weapon could be deadlier in many scenarios.

 

You can't change every mans heart, that's why prisons around the world are full of murderers...there will always be people doing bad.

 

As far as addressing those that do things like this, we would have to suspend some rights to privacy and due process to stop more people like this guy and even then some would slip through the cracks.

I agree, but the whole focus on one weapon when handguns are have been used in more homicides isn't a good tactic either. Especially, when the AR15 wasn't used.

 

Handguns have justification of self-defense. They cause more deaths because there are millions more in this nation.

 

I will be more correct and use the correct terms assault-type weapons.

 

This guy was an Islamic Radical, a Wife Beater and an unstable narcissistic twerp...but lets blame the instrument he used.

 

In all seriousness, this guy was in there for 3 hours. He could have killed 50 people with a revolver, shotgun, pressure cooker or just about any weapon. The next weapon could be deadlier in many scenarios.

 

You can't change every mans heart, that's why prisons around the world are full of murderers...there will always be people doing bad.

 

As far as addressing those that do things like this, we would have to suspend some rights to privacy and due process to stop more people like this guy and even then some would slip through the cracks.

 

We agree this guy was a real loser.

 

If we are talking firearm, no. He used the overwhelming firepower of the assault-type weapon to blast his way in to the club just as Lanza did in Newtown. Once in he could have used anything, but the rifle got him there.

 

So we can suspend some rights, but not others? Interesting.

 

I keep seeing don't blame the gun, but no solutions just roadblocks and arguments centered around semantics.

 

Just think about this. Our president has had to give 16 mass shooting speeches. He may have even missed some. We have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear as lunatics have killed innocent first graders, worshippers, and now people who were having fun. I hate to see what has to happen before real change happens.

This thread has become comical.

I've really, really wanted to stay out of this, but after wading through 7 pages worth, there were a couple of points that were made that seemed to be really glossed over.

 

I don't mean to make light of the 50 or so who were killed in Orlando in this attack, but after doing some brief research on Google, it appears that nearly 10,000 people die each year in alcohol-related auto accidents in the US. Let that sink in. You could have an attack like the one in Florida 3 times a week, every week, for an entire year, and still not reach the number of people who die due to drinking and driving. Yet no one on here, and I mean no one, is on their soap box preaching that we should bring back prohibition, because alcohol in the wrong hands is a dangerous weapon.

 

Same thing with excessive speeding. The figures I saw, said (again) about 10,000 people die in accidents attributed to speeding. (Now, I'm sure some of the deaths here may also be attributed in the number of DUI-related deaths, but I'm too tired to delve that deeply into it.) The point being, is that I don't hear anybody calling out Dodge for putting 500 horsepower in its Charger. Who's the one that's going to Detroit and get the big 3 together to say, "Guys, we really don't need that much horsepower in any of these vehicles. I mean, who needs to go 90 mph? 70 is the speed limit in most places. Why don't you cut down on the HP, and maybe put a governor in there to make sure nobody goes too fast." Yeah, that ain't happening, either.

 

My point in this, is that we have anywhere from 10-20 thousand people who die in what many would term "senseless deaths" each and every year...and dang near not a whisper is heard about trying to rectify the problem. Why? Is it because it's so easy to nickel and dime these types of deaths and spread them out over the entire country? But, let one episode happen in relative isolation to the rest of the country...and suddenly we're looking at repealing one of our constitutional rights? I can't believe I'm even typing this.

 

Listen folks, we've got problems. Lots of problems. But, to assume that this is going to be a solution, I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Unfortunately, if people want to do damage, and are willing to lay down their life to do it...it's probably going to happen. If they can't get the weapons legally, they'll get them illegally. And maybe it's not even guns. Are we tracking who buys diesel fuel and fertilizer? Because the last I heard, that can make a pretty big boom, too.

 

Okay, I'm off my soap box now. The final thing that I'll leave you with is this...if the FBI looked into this guy as much as they did, and still didn't find what they needed...how in the heck is the vetting process for all these refugees that some people say we should let in, supposed to be any better? That scares me. It really does. It seems like we're really just sticking our chin out there and daring somebody to hit it.