That’s why I thought they would know better about what would work than I would.
The cost might be higher than you think because straw buyer trials can be expensive and these cases are hard to win because intent needs to be proven. However it would be worth it because they target the type of people we don’t want to have guns. I don’t care if my cousin the gun nut buys his 15th gun but I would like to see them kept out of the hands of violent felons.
I find that the left wing is more guilty of trying to win arguments through semantics because they have swallowed the George Lakoff BS because it lets them off the hook for having unpopular policies. Right wing groups occasionally do similar things such as “constitutional carry” but their PR guru Luntz is an actual genius and so his advice is more nuanced and interesting.
I certainly can’t argue with that. What about the mentally ill and those on the no-fly list? I’d rather keep guns out of their hands, too, for the same reason. They can’t be trusted with them.
I don’t know nothin’ bout Lakoff and Luntz and all that, but what do you mean by unpopular policies? A total gun ban, or something less drastic like universal background checks?
I might agree in principle, but the problem is that, while there are legal remedies you can pursue to get yourself declared mentally competent, there is nothing you can do to get yourself off the no-fly list. You can’t go to a judge and have him order the DHS to remove your name from the list.
For an administrative agency to limit your rights, there must be a procedural remedy. The no-fly list by itself is a serious problem in my opinion: it takes away people’s right to travel, without any recourse.
(If I’m wrong on this, and there are ways to get yourself removed from the list, then never mind!) :smack:
Therefore, suspected terrorists should have guns if they want them?
Legal or not, that’s quite a contradiction.
My argument would be that there should be a straightforward and easy way to challenge your inclusion on the list to have your name removed and that doesn’t cost thousands in legal fees.
That opinion is totally separate from anything related to firearm restrictions.
It’s not just getting off the list, but they put you on it but won’t tell you, and they don’t have to offer an explanation why. Several congressmen were on it. It’s an example of the worst excesses of the post-9/11, Patriot Act era. The ACLU came out strongly against it.
Whatever the legalities are, the result is that terror suspects are legally getting guns. Amid all the fear of domestic terrorism and despite the billions spent every year to prevent it, suspects are allowed to buy guns on U.S. soil and hardly anyone bats an eye. That indifference is what I don’t get, never mind what the law says.
Maybe it should be. Is there anything constitutional that’s stopping it from being related?
Which ones have done so?
If you’re asking which ones have bought guns, 2,477 people on the terror watch list (not the no-fly list) applied to buy guns from 2004 to 2015. Of those, 2,265, or ninety-one percent, were approved, including the Orlando shooter.
Well, you’ve got to start somewhere. You can’t even think about reducing the number of firearms with a given property until you stop piling more of them in.
Also, there are other angles to work besides the allowable guns, like the carry laws. Have a gun for self-defense at your home or business? Fine. Have a gun for hunting deer or wild turkey or whatever? I’m totally good with that as well. Carry a concealed weapon because you’re being stalked by your ex-lover who won’t let go? That too.
But other than hunting or for a very specific self-defense need, IMHO people shouldn’t be carrying guns around out in public. No open carry, no concealed carry without a permit, and you need a pretty good reason for the permit. If I see someone out on the street with a gun, I should be able to call the cops, and the cops should take that person’s gun away. We’re not the freakin’ Wild West.
How many crimes are committed by those who who legally carry a firearm? What kind of numbers are you aiming to reduce with that particular proposal?