>Be Congress
>Be universally hated by the population
>Only now consider banning terror watch list from buying guns
>Look like complete idiots to the whole country
>Actually all part of maniacal NWO plan
>laughmaniacally.jpg
Seriously Sup Forums, I know this is America but there's no way we have complete noodleheads making such a muck of this country. They have to have a plan, right?
Other urls found in this thread:
>1 post by this ID
You must live in Portland or something because there are tons of NRA fans in the USA
>1 post by this ID
no they're just pawns in a bigger game
As much as I hate the idea of allahu snackbars buying guns, I hate the idea of a constitutional right being restricted without due process in court even more.
Imagine if this was for the first amendment instead
>Ohoho, sorry champ, we censored your blog because you're on a watchlist.
>They have to have a plan, right?
they're just as stupid as you and me OP
>1 post by this ID
This forced meme needs to die
>Fucking the machine spirit
Absolutely heretical. Rifle is for hug, not fug.
Nobody on Sup Forums will be allowed to buy a gun.
I say a lot of stupid shit on the internet for lulz
SHALL
>1 post by this ID
I'm actually a Southerner, but even the majority of people that love guns want some common sense laws. 90% of America wants universal background checks ffs and Congress is just now considering legislation on that
There's already a small amount of censorship against threats made directly against a person or yelling a false claim with the known intention it'll put people at harm in a panic (ex. yelling fire in a theater or yelling bomb on a plane) but I digress.
However, I wouldn't mind allowing the terror watch list to be reviewed by the judicial branch from time to time to see if there are legitimate grounds for placing these people on the watchlist.
*2 posts by this ID
Fucking bandwagon summerfags
Universal Background check? NICS check, so done.
Now here's candy for thought, using a magic terror list that you can be put on for any 'suspicious' activities, directly bypassing Due Process, but that's some common sense right there. Right? Guilty until proven innocent and all with the permission of the people, yet Trump is labeled the fascist right now.
It's an absolute nightmare for people on a no-fly list for no reason to re-instate their airplane privileges. This seems like it would be even worse.
Additional thought on this, Consider the Pandora's Box the Patriot Act wrought enabling gross abuse of power.
Not to mention nothing is stopping the Gov. from having a field day with designating "terrorists" and "terrorist organizations"
>You posted on Sup Forums that you wanted to "Gas the kikes" And start a race war. Please tell me and Mr. Smith why we should let you buy any firearms for the rest of your life?
>90% of America wants universal background checks
We already have that.
>We have universal background checks
>Gun shows and Internet sales don't have background checks
kek
Great now there are two shitheads from mexico spamming this.
>Nobody on Sup Forums will be allowed to buy a gun.
this you fucking morons
False on both accounts lad.
>If you're on terror watch lists, you can be banned from buying guns
>Government just puts everyone on terror watch lists
fuck that bullshit
If you want to ban someone from having a gun, you need to go through due process in the courts.
If you can't prove they've committed a crime, then you can't ban them from owning a gun. Simple as that.
It is against the constitution to deny people their 2nd amendment rights based on suspicions, and especially so when it doesn't involve due process.
undetectable shitposting made by a:
>mexican intellectual
nothing to see here
Internet sales do, private sales don't
The terror watch list is as Orwellian as it gets. There is no judicial review and you can't get off of it once your are on it.
Wake up, people!
What's your favorite way to pleasure your gun?
>thinking the jew has plans
It's a parasite user. It thinks only of the next drink of blood.
That is true, thus why it'd be a good idea to include the Judicial branch in deciding who gets put on it and include language that limits who is put on it be requiring legitimate and hard evidence, not just speech.
Bravo Leaf, you understand that concept better than about 49% of our voting populace right now and it's not even your civic duty to know it.
>Only now consider banning terror watch list from buying guns
>only now
Faggot
What terror list was Omar Mateen on?
Tsarnaevs?
Nadal Hassan?
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez?
>According to a law enforcement official, Abdulazeez's father had been placed on a terrorist watchlist and investigated many years ago before the shootings for giving money to an organization with possible terrorist connections. The father was questioned while on a trip abroad but was eventually removed from the watchlist.
Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik?
Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi?
>1 post by this ID
Omar Mateen was under FBI investigation literally a year or two ago and on top of that had a history of being mentally unstable.
Not any list that matters. Wasn't that Asian kid who shot up Virginia Tech supposed to be on a list too? Someone is dropping the ball on these lists, we almost don't have any reason to bother with them if nobody is reading them.
Newfag /r/trump kiddies trying to fit in
Except lists that are tainted by political motivation never end well for anyone that has an interest in self preservation. Guess what's been tainting the judicial branch to stop interpreting law and start playing political favorites? They are just as susceptible to the shortcomings of party bias as the other branches therefore trading away more rights for imagined safety is about as useful as TSA jiggling your balls at the airport.
Here I'll put your mind at ease, in US history, the only killings with an actual select fire (Full Automatic) were committed by a cop and a physician. Both occurred after heavy restriction of the 1986 ban on Full Autos. I'm pretty sure neither of those would be on any 'list'.
My biggest fear is that nobody is behind the scenes pulling the strings. That Governments around the world really are that stupid and chaotic.
>(ex. yelling fire in a theater or yelling bomb on a plane)
You have a pretty horrible understanding of rights if you think the privately owned theater is violating the first amendment by calling the cops on you.
As in, "I'm not sure how someone can be this stupid" horrible. If you broke into my house demanding to use my laptop, am I censoring you when I pull a gun?
Hmm, well then here are some possible solutions to that problem:
write a program that assigns people to the list based on recorded activities and then use those activities to assign a percentage of risk to them. Those with say, 50% or more risk are not allowed to purchase weapons.
Make the list available to gun sellers and leave it their discretion whether they should sell the weapon or not.
I'm certain there are other possible solutions though.
Shall not be infringed. Trumptards can fuck off back to Stormfront with their big-government Nazism.
>Problem: Allowing the government to choose who goes on the list is bad.
>Solution: Allow the government to choose who goes on this list by assigning them "risk" (bonus stupidity: trying to assign a number to "the risk of person X committing a crime")
Truly, you are the political messiah.
I never said those were violations of the First Amendment, so don't put words in my mouth. I was acknowledging that was how the Supreme Court has ruled when it comes to the limits of free speech.
If the theater called the cops on me for yelling fire, then I can't sue them for breaking my First Amendment right because I was putting others at risk.
Second, that is a piss poor analogy. If I've already broken into your house, first off why would I ask for your laptop? I've already broken a law by breaking in, so I would just cut out the middle man and grab it.
Correction, allow a computer program to decide who's put on it. Skynet FTW
Wait youre actually in favor of arbitrary lists managed by bureaucrats who can strip you of God given and Constitutionally defended rights?
If the above answer is yes kill yourself cuck.
Damn, your dubs have shown me the light
Oh, the computer program that just pops out of the ether will assign risk values (whatever that means) to people using a formula that it itself created! Absolutely no politicians will be involved in the creation of this program or the weight assigned to the variables that determine risk. Skynet FTW!
Grow up; maybe read something other than sci-fi.
h8r
The left hated the no-fly list when Bush was President.
youtube.com
You compared the government creating a banlist on gun purchases with the supreme court recognizing that shouting fire in a theater has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
In the first scenario, the government is eroding your rights, in the second scenario they are simply reaffirming the rights as the exist -- after all it clearly says in the first amendment that it only protects you from congress, not from theater owners. No rights are being eroded in the second case, which is why I'm calling you retarded.
3c deposited by the Clinton Foundation
If we're going off of literal readings of the amendments, then the first scenario does not necessarily erode rights as the first part of the 2nd Amendment stats "A well regulated militia..." With the language as is, it could be argued that gun bans on those with reasonable suspicion for being terrorists falls under "well regulated." Of course with the vague language the opposite could easily be argued that bans go beyond "well regulated."