http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36540388
>Republican Donald Trump has said he would like people on terror watch lists to be prevented from buying guns, in the wake of the Orlando shootings.
>The presumptive presidential nominee tweeted that he would meet the National Rifle Association to discuss the issue.
>The NRA responded by saying it would meet him but it already opposes terrorists from buying guns.
>Forty-nine people were killed in a gay nightclub by Omar Mateen, who had been put on a terror watch list by the FBI.
>His wife is also being questioned in connection with the atrocity, the worst mass shooting in modern US history.
>Up to now, Mr Trump has been a strong supporter of protecting gun rights and his candidacy was endorsed by the NRA, a powerful gun lobby, last month.
>But on Wednesday, he tweeted: "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."
>Mr Trump made a similar point in a television interview last November but had not mentioned it since the recent attacks.
>The FBI has two terror "watch lists". The smaller one bans flying to and from the US and there is also a larger one, which Mateen was on.
Follow the link for the rest of the article. And the tweet for those too lazy: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/743078235408195584
So the NRA is definitely against this provision, right? I'm pretty sure they've been behind blocking previous legislation concerning this, and people can pretty easily be added to those lists.
>>50764
Obviously theres not going to be a single candidate supporting pro-gun legislation after orlando, it would be political suicide. The NRA was just hoping that something bad enough as orlando wouldn't happen (and its the worst shooting yet so you can't really blaim them), and that they would always be able to lobby a candidate in their favor. Now even if they offered a candidate a billion dollars in campaign finance they wouldn't take it.
>>50764
I think the NRA's point is that we have an overpopulation problem in this country. Arming every man, woman, and child would help to cull the herd and thus to maintain a more sustainable ecological footprint.
>>50763
>would like people on terror watch lists to be prevented from buying guns, in the wake of the Orlando shootings.
what is due process?
So to stop the government from putting anyone that disagrees with them on the list... where does the control end?
>>50763
You forgot the part about due process for citizens and proper investigation.
Basically making the watch list mean something instead of becoming an authoritarian tool.
If the gun nuts are going to take a total no surrender position as people get killed then as the 2nd Amendment sates, they will be "well regulated."
you brought it upon yourselves, boys
>>51005
lol at getting 2/3rds of states to change the constitution on this issue.
Are there any stats on how many guns SAVE lives? After shootings, people always say "if one of them had had a gun, this wouldn't have been so bad, don't take our rights away!" but no one ever actually had a fucking gun except the shooter.
>>50954
This, there HAS some means of due process implemented with this, as you're denying a citizen a right. This is exactly the same as saying someone on the terror watchlists cannot vote, speak freely, have the right to a trial, or be secure in their persons. I want the US to be safer, but not at the cost of an Orwellian nightmare where citizens can be deprived rights without due process or even a trial.
This is a BiG FUCKING DEAL THAT GOES WAYYYYYYYYYYY BEYOND GUNS.
>>51040
To be honest, though, I could see a way that they can do this in a way that wouldn't necessarily infringe on constitutional rights. I don't know how ethical it would be, but require background checks and punish merchants whose guns are then found to be used for crime. These people can still technically own a gun, but people won't want to sell because they don't want the penalty for being associated with a crime.
>>51005
>then as the 2nd Amendment sates, they will be "well regulated."
are you joking, or genuinely this ignorant?
>>51011
I am also interested in this. The problem is that no matter hwo big the study/research was, people could claim it wasn't thorough because of un-reported incidents. so the study would end up being refuted as incomplete
>>51146
How's it going, Hilary?
>>51160
Hillary wants to punish gun manufacturers, which I don't agree with. But I think it's reasonable to expect merchants to ensure they're selling to trustworthy customers.
>>51040
This, coupled with the fact that no-fly lists have recently come under huge scrutiny for violating the rights of people for no good reason, is reason enough not to even consider this knee-jerk legislation.
And gun regulation is ALWAYS knee-jerk and virtue signalling, because the vast majority of gun deaths are never addressed and places where gun bans have recently been implemented have actually seen an INCREASE in gun violence after (see: UK, Australia). Even so, China proves that even without guns, people can kill in excess of 50 with triple that injured by using knives.
It's never a gun problem.
>>50947
That's actually not wrong
>>51011
>>51154
The difficulty with this is in claiming that something was prevented because of a specific reason i.e. x number of people didn't die because of this contingent, is very hard to demonstrate. Similar to how "if we banned guns, there would be no spree killers" is very hard to demonstrate.
>>51277
What about something more simple like "gun deaths by self-defence" where it's been judged that the shooter was in reasonable fear for their life and likely would have died had they not fired?
Or just, has there literally ever once been a shooting that was ended by a civilian using their own gun against the attacker?
This is a really creepy half measure.
'Guns are important for personal protection' is the main line acting as an obstacle to effective gun control - that a nation unarmed is a nation vulnerable, that people trying lobbying for gun control are directly placing American citizens in danger.
If we take that line as truth, then all this system is doing is denying random citizens the fundamental right to protect themselves. The 'protection' line is still in effect; without the right to own gun, you are vulnerable, you are in danger. So if you get put on the no-fly list and are denied a gun as a result, you are vulnerable, you are in danger, you no longer have a right to protect yourself. Keeping in mind that being on the list doesn't mean you've done anything wrong or have any ill intentions, keeping in mind that simply sharing a name with someone on the list can be as good as being on there yourself.
If owning a firearm continues to be defined as protection, and you take that firearm away, you are taking away that person's right to protect themselves.
They would rather take away people's right to self-protection than effectively regulate people's right to purchase firearms.
I am in favour of gun control, and am fortunate enough to live in a country with very effective gun control where gun violence is almost unheard of and no one casually presumes they have a fundamental right to own a gun.
But this is proposal a violation, and a really creepy attempt to have their cake and eat it too, at the cost of the public.
>>51431
SHALL NOT
>>51506
wut?
>>50763
what is /news/ to do? deciding between guns and racism?
My money is on racism.
>>50947
Their point is you have a right to bare arms and no government should take that.from you.
That's it. Its that fucking simple.
>>50947
Wow, liberal extremism right here.
NRA is an organization who used to be shady about protecting the rights of gun owners and gun makers up until it was public knowledge that major organizations lobbied politicians, now they're nothing more then a very rich lobbying group.
>>51011
The lawful gun owners who follow the law do not bring weapons into a club that does not allow weapons. You did this, liberal.
>>51541
>very rich lobbying group
What the NRA spends is pocket change compared to other lobby groups, despite them lobbying to protect a right guaranteed by the constitution. Pharmaceuticals, defense industry, agriculture, and tech industry all spend far more than the NRA. Microsoft alone spends about 4 times what the NRA does in lobbying in a given year.
>>51521
Guns protect our right to racism.
>>51644
"The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions." - Donald Trump
>>50764
> So the NRA is definitely against this provision, right?
The NRA is fine with people on “watch lists” being prevented from buying guns…. as long as those people are charged with a crime and are tried in a court of law.
What Hillary and the Dems want, is faceless unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats having the power to arbitrarily deny any American citizen their right to own or buy guns, with the click of a mouse.
No charges, no arrest, no trial, no explanation, no way to find out why you’re on a “watch list”, who put you on a “watch list” and no way to get off the “watch list”.
In short; Hillary and the Dems want to do away with the 6th Amendment...
>>51011
>Are there any stats on how many guns SAVE lives?
Even the anti-gun fundies at Handgun Control Inc. grudgingly admit to 100,000 incidents of defensive firearm use per year (the NRA claims it's 2,000,000).
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
>>50947
No the people who do population control do it by planting viruses like the Zika, push abortions on black people, and encourage wars.
You do not have to be convicted of a crime to be on a terrorist watch list.
I support gun control, but this sets the precedent of denying you the right to do something that everyone else can do because an FBI agent has a bad feeling about you. How dumb do you have to be to not understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and its importance?
>>51824
I'm not sure where people get the idea that any old FBI agent can drop you on a damning list on a whim.
The decision has to go before a large group of agents, with multiple suspects on the list, and you have to have done something which warrants their attention already. One of those agents can't go "oh I added this guy cuz I don't like him lolz". If that were the case, then every current agent should have failed their last eval and almost every citizen would be on the watchlist.
>>51792
>
Hey Malaria isn't killing as many as it used to..
LETS BAN DDT!
>>51827
Wrong, agents don't just drop you on a watchlist on a whim. You will be put on the list for something you have done or for being connected to someone who has done something. There are policies set out, no person just deciders that you should be on the list.
>>51768
That was in a book from 16 years ago. I still don't trust him, though.
>>51858
That's exactly what I said, you massive mongoloid.
