>Ban all foreign Muslims
He was born in NY
>Have law enforcement monitor Muslim communities
He was investigated twice and interviewed 3 times
>The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
The club had armed security
It is clear at this time that criminal background checks alone are not enough to prevent gun crime. We have no fly lists. We need no gun lists, so suspected criminals and terrorists that want firearms can be denied them until they can prove to a judge they mean no harm to society.
He is second generation which like france shows us they are more radical than the first. So it behooves you to ban it just to reduce the number of future muslims.
What we really should be doing is have a special task force within the CIA and FBI dedicated to taking out mosques. Treat them the same way we treat white nationalist groups and the KKK and have moles everywhere, leave only feds at the top of the food chain, try and shutdown IRL mosques and force them online. It wouldn't be difficult at all honestly. We could esspecially target young males , plant evidence on them and just have them deported, convince them to go to syria or just charge them with some conspiracy to commit a hate crime
>>77121762
Not to mention we could alao stoke the flames bewteen other muslims if we subvert them.
What do you have to do if you want a gun in burgerland? Just buy it with nobody checking who you are?
>>77121762
>What we really should be doing is have a special task force within the CIA and FBI dedicated to taking out mosques.
they tried this and were sued by CAIR and the ACLU back in the bush admin
>>77122184
>What do you have to do if you want a gun in burgerland?
Depends. You can either go to a FFL (gunstore) and go through a criminal and mental health background check or you can go to Jamal on the corner and buy the same gun out of his trunk.
Both are equally legal assuming Jamal doesn't have a FFL. Private sellers don't have to run background checks.
>>77122339
Subvert CAIR as well. No one can hold up the CIA in court anyway. Besides if nothing else just catch them in the act. Feed info into local PD and then pretend they asked you for help.
Time to round up the muslims and put them into camps while they await deportation. White Europeans are the race that can handle freedom, the rest not so much.
>>77123209
>White Europeans are the race that can handle freedom, the rest not so much.
at some point in the future we will probably have to take this position. Freedom, like the US understands it, emerged as a european school of thought afterall.
>>77122436
That's retarded. Goverment should check every time a gun is sold.
>>77121167
>He was born in NY
And his parents were from some -istan.
>>77123940
No.
>>77124414
why not?
>>77121167
Yeah let's create a list with zero oversight that infringes upon the Constitutional rights of US citizens, what could possibly go wrong?
Really made me think that you're a stupid faggot.
>>77124543
Because you wouldn't be able to force anyone to do one. I'll sell my pistol to my friend for cash and no one will ever know and no one would be able to enforce shit.
>>77121167
surely criminals will follow the law
also a muslim ban would have kept his parents out
>>77124543
"Shall not be infringed"
The popular argument is that it would bother law abiding citizens to have to run a background check on friends and family just to sell/give them guns and if that means some asshole on Craigslist can sell a gun to anyone that asks for one, so be it.
>>77124702
>zero oversight
>judge
I didn't say structure it like the no fly list which has all sorts of stupid issues stemming from the secrecy and lack of oversight.
>>77124867
Which is why we also need a gun registry.
>>77123940
Fuck no
>>77121167
His parents were from Afghanistan, and the FBI already suspected him of being a terrorist and did nothing to stop any of this. Your argument is that the exact same government that was so incompetent that it couldn't stop this when it knew full well what this guy was going to do should be given authority to disarm whomever it deems "too dangerous." You're an idiot.
>>77124982
>also a muslim ban would have kept his parents out
Surely immigrants will report their religion.
More to the point, how would a temporary ban going forward stop immigrants decades ago?
>>77123940
Lol
I could go to the hood tomorrow and buy an illegal gun. Probably stolen.
>>77125500
>Your argument is that the exact same government that was so incompetent that it couldn't stop this when it knew full well what this guy was going to do should be given authority to disarm whomever it deems "too dangerous."
1. I said nothing about disarming people. That would be a 2nd amendment violation.
2. We don't have future crime. The FBI could do jack shit until he did something or conspired to do something.
>>77125049
At what level is this judge? How does this even work? Who overlooks this list? Who keeps these faggots in check?
>>77125100
Unconstitutional.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
>>77125100
They tried that in NY and it was largely ignored by the gunowners AND the police
>>77121167
>club had armed security
[citation needed]
>>77121167
>the club had armed security.
And they ran away without firing a single shot.
>>77126008
Well it was a female so....
only logical thread made on pol today
>>77126155
Source? I need a good laugh.
>>77125747
>At what level is this judge?
Local would be simplest
>How does this even work?
Suspected criminals must appeal to a judge to purchase a firearm and any firearms licenses are upgraded to may issue for them from shall issue.
>Who overlooks this list?
National would be simplest so FBI
>Who keeps these faggots in check?
Congressional oversight.
>>77125747
>Unconstitutional.
That case only found that it was unconstitutional to require people who can't legally own guns to register their weapons (which is a doubly moot point because 1. they wouldn't and 2. they'd be violating the law anyway)
>>77123940
You don't realize how easy it is to have a gun in my hands within the day, illegally obtained and probably with its serials scrubbed off. This is where the gun control argument falters.
>>77126393
>Local would be simplest
They don't have the kind of authority to take away natural born rights.
>Suspected criminals must appeal to a judge to purchase a firearm and any firearms licenses are upgraded to may issue for them from shall issue.
>Suspected criminals
Literal thought crime. Innocent until proven guilty.
>National would be simplest so FBI
>Congressional oversight.
I can't even imagine the red tape needed to get this shit started.
>That case only found that it was unconstitutional to require people who can't legally own guns to register their weapons (which is a doubly moot point because 1. they wouldn't and 2. they'd be violating the law anyway)
Right, so if you want to try some national gun registry, I'll just not do it and if I ever get caught and charged, I still won't do it because that would be Unconstitutional. Your logic falls apart when you actually think about real life scenarios. How would you even force me to register my guns in the first place? No one knows if I currently have any right now.
>>77126753
Mandatory background checks for all sales and transfers, mandatory registration on sale or transfer for all guns going forward, and laws requiring reporting lost or stolen firearms and you might be able to get a gun, but when you get caught for using it it's going to be fairly easy to put away the person you got it from for giving it to you at time goes forward.
Eventually everyone would be too damn old to have an unregistered weapon so anybody that has a weapon they shouldn't or can't produce a weapon they should have is going to be in the shit.
>>77121167
BetterBurnTheConstitution.jpeg
>>77121167
How about no Muslims? No mealy-mouthed nonsense about "muh foreign born muh radical leanings." No Muslims period, and let the rednecks keep their guns.
>>77127255
>natural born rights.
Gun ownership isn't a natural born right. It's illegal nationally to own a gun until age 18, a handgun until 21.
Natural born rights are rights you're born with.
>Literal thought crime.
You aren't losing your rights for what you think. You're losing your rights for what others suspect you might do. That's not thought crime; although you are right about being innocent until proven guilty, hence appeals being vital.
>I can't even imagine the red tape needed to get this shit started.
Fairly little past the initial law necessary to get it off the ground. Government's fairly experienced at setting up databases.
>How would you even force me to register my guns in the first place?
All guns can be traced to a point of manufacture. You don't have to force people to register their guns except on transfer (effectively all initial owners are grandfathered in to a registration immunity). Obviously people may ignore this registration regulation but simple passage of time will kill anyone that could be an initial owner, completely eliminating all potentially legal unregistered weapons from existence. At that point you're gun is either registered and legal or illegal.
>>77128146
>Gun ownership isn't a natural born right.
Yes it is.
>It's illegal nationally to own a gun until age 18, a handgun until 21.
Which is a disgusting breach of the Second Amendment.
>You're losing your rights for what others suspect you might do. That's not thought crime;
Losing your rights over what others think is literal thought crime.
>although you are right about being innocent until proven guilty, hence appeals being vital.
That's the opposite of innocent until proven guilty. That's guilty until proven innocent.
>Fairly little past the initial law necessary to get it off the ground. Government's fairly experienced at setting up databases.
Good luck with that first part.
>All guns can be traced to a point of manufacture. You don't have to force people to register their guns except on transfer
Literally how would anyone enforce this? I'll sell my pistol to my buddy and no one would ever know.
Obviously people may ignore this registration regulation but simple passage of time will kill anyone that could be an initial owner, completely eliminating all potentially legal unregistered weapons from existence. At that point you're gun is either registered and legal or illegal.
So basically put a law in the books that says all firearms must be registered by 2080 or something? I mean, I guess that's the first actual coherent argument you've had. I mean, it's still an insane breach of my natural rights, but if we threw all that aside, the logistics of this option are actually conceivable.
