June 17, 201610 yr Sure, being a convicted felon should disqualify someone. Having been arrested and found guilty of a crime and determined to be mentally ill to the point that one is a danger to oneself or others ought to disqualify one ffrom purchasing a firearm. If I knew of other things that are currently flagged in the background check I may also agree that those are legitimate reasons as well. Suspicion of nefarious things does not rise to the level of sufficient reason to take away a CITIZEN'S rights. So far, we only get a witch hunt from the side that wants to add no fly list to the criteria. You ask a very good question, "What criteria must be present before the government can take away the constitutionally protected right to purchase a firearm?" Those who want to change the current practice are the ones that must answer this question and defend their reasons for changing the current system. We haven't got that from anyone. We only get ambiguous statements that we must improve the system. PurplePride did take a shot, but his suggestion has things backward about who should prove what. The government should prove their case, providing opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, before putting the name on the list. It is wrong-headed to put a name on the list and then require the person to prove they are innocent to get their name removed. Thank you for your answer. What about a person who either through speech or social media makes supporting comments regarding something such as radical Islam? Or someone who makes violent threatening comments in those mediums?
June 17, 201610 yr Trials are for those accused of crimes. Are you suggesting we have trials for those placed on no fly lists, or terror watch lists? I think that would be the fair thing to do for people like your friend who are placed on the list for frivolous reasons. You give folks a time period to challenge it. If they don't file a motion to challenge it within a certain time then they are placed on the list permenantly.
June 17, 201610 yr Sure, being a convicted felon should disqualify someone. Having been arrested and found guilty of a crime and determined to be mentally ill to the point that one is a danger to oneself or others ought to disqualify one ffrom purchasing a firearm. If I knew of other things that are currently flagged in the background check I may also agree that those are legitimate reasons as well. Suspicion of nefarious things does not rise to the level of sufficient reason to take away a CITIZEN'S rights. So far, we only get a witch hunt from the side that wants to add no fly list to the criteria. You ask a very good question, "What criteria must be present before the government can take away the constitutionally protected right to purchase a firearm?" Those who want to change the current practice are the ones that must answer this question and defend their reasons for changing the current system. We haven't got that from anyone. We only get ambiguous statements that we must improve the system. PurplePride did take a shot, but his suggestion has things backward about who should prove what. The government should prove their case, providing opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, before putting the name on the list. It is wrong-headed to put a name on the list and then require the person to prove they are innocent to get their name removed. What about HB20's friend who was put on the list because of his name? He should stay on the list permanently without an opportunity to get his name cleared?
June 17, 201610 yr Can't we at least agree that if you are one of the 800,000 or so people on the terror "watch list, " and if are not even allowed to board a plane , you shouldn't be able to buy these weapons of mass destruction? The NRA and its supporters apparently can't agree to this seemingly common sense idea. How many agree that if you are deemed to dangerous to fly, then you probably shouldn't be able to purchase guns? As a staunch 2nd AD guy, I can say absolutely I can get on board with this, especially when concerning immigrants, especially imigrants form countries on the "terror list". And quite frankly I am very surprised this isn't the law as it stands now. However, I think we have you be careful how this is handled and what the parameters it takes to get on the watch list (could be a lot, could be very little, I don't know and most people probably don't). Because you know as well as I do, get a very left wing lib in power and have this be the law, and that watch list goes from 800,000 to 50 million over night, restricting people from getting guns because of political belief and not reasons of security. I say this with the caveat that if someone was on there mistakenly or they are proven not to be a threat, they can have their right to own a firearm returned. Again, this whole thing is a slippery slope though. Edited June 17, 201610 yr by BigVMan23
June 17, 201610 yr @UKMustangFan, Those things should be investigated as a crime. It may rise to the level of Felony Menacing or worse. What is currently done in the case of a person who is accused of menacing? Are they flagged and denied the right to buy a gun? If so, is it before conviction or only after conviction? I am good with the system as it currently is. If you are going to ask me specific legal questions you will quickly get beyond my ability to respond. I know someone who was accused of menacing. Charges were later dropped because the court finally realized, after several months, that he had not violated the statute. This cost him thousands of dollars, lost time from work, damage to reputation, and other costs far higher than I have listed. This is why it is not just to put a person's name on a list and then deny him his constitutional rights based on a suspicion.
June 17, 201610 yr What about HB20's friend who was put on the list because of his name? He should stay on the list permanently without an opportunity to get his name cleared? How can you possibly derive that from anything I have stated. If you do it my way, his name would not have been on the list in the first place.
June 17, 201610 yr How can you possibly derive that from anything I have stated. If you do it my way, his name would not have been on the list in the first place. Seems to me that we are saying the exact same thing then.
June 17, 201610 yr Thank you for your answer. What about a person who either through speech or social media makes supporting comments regarding something such as radical Islam? Or someone who makes violent threatening comments in those mediums? 1st ammendment rights of free speech government can't punish someone for speech they don't agree with. That is why I suggested declaring war officially in Congress so you could use a treason charge.
June 17, 201610 yr 1st ammendment rights of free speech government can't punish someone for speech they don't agree with. That is why I suggested declaring war officially in Congress so you could use a treason charge. Is there anything that you feel should disqualify someone from being able to purchase a weapon?
June 17, 201610 yr Seems to me that we are saying the exact same thing then. You think so? I think there is a fundamental difference between the government placing your name on a list and having to prove you're innocent to get it removed (your idea) and the government having to prove you are guilty before placing your name on a list or flagging it for background check purposes (my idea).
June 17, 201610 yr You think so? I think there is a fundamental difference between the government placing your name on a list and having to prove you're innocent to get it removed (your idea) and the government having to prove you are guilty before placing your name on a list or flagging it for background check purposes (my idea). Right now they place whoever they want to on there for any reason. I've been suggesting that should change from the jump. Why wouldn't they have to prove that you belong on the list? That's my point. We are saying the same thing in different ways.
June 17, 201610 yr Is there anything that you feel should disqualify someone from being able to purchase a weapon? Sure and they are on the books. I'm willing to listen to suggestions and I offered one with the declaration of war. But I will not be for anything that sets a precedent for the government to easily erode basic rights. What you suggested was to violate the 1st ammendment to be able to violate the 2nd ammendment. I do not let fear and I'm not suggesting you do , but I personally do not let fear influence my thoughts. I know it's human nature to allow it to , but I try to look at the bigger picture.
June 17, 201610 yr Right now they place whoever they want to on there for any reason. I've been suggesting that should change from the jump. Why wouldn't they have to prove that you belong on the list? That's my point. We are saying the same thing in different ways. Flying isn't guaranteed by the 1st , 2nd or 4th ammendment . Many of the outcomes stemming from no fly , no buy would violate all three.
June 17, 201610 yr Sure and they are on the books. I'm willing to listen to suggestions and I offered one with the declaration of war. But I will not be for anything that sets a precedent for the government to easily erode basic rights. What you suggested was to violate the 1st ammendment to be able to violate the 2nd ammendment. I do not let fear and I'm not suggesting you do , but I personally do not let fear influence my thoughts. I know it's human nature to allow it to , but I try to look at the bigger picture. Fair enough. As to the bolded, does that mean you're also against arresting/detaining someone who screams "bomb" on an airplane? Doesn't that violate their first amendment rights?
June 17, 201610 yr Fair enough. As to the bolded, does that mean you're also against arresting/detaining someone who screams "bomb" on an airplane? Doesn't that violate their first amendment rights? That type of situation has been ruled ok by the judicial system and is similar to fire in a movie theater . I don't necessarily agree but I respect the rule of the Land. The precedent you are setting by your idea is much more far reaching and not as specific.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.