Would You Trust Donald Trump to Decide Who Can Buy A Gun?

[General Zod]

It's more that I wouldn't care; I don't support the Second Amendment in the first place, or consider gun ownership to be of value. So, such a list wouldn't matter to me, and I don't think he could do any actual damage with it. But that's due to considering it irrelevant, it has nothing to do with any nonexistent trust for Trump.

What if employers started using a gun registry to determine whether or not someone was considered employable? If you couldn't buy a gun then maybe you don't deserve to have a job. It could have significant unforeseen consequences.

Hypothetically speaking if such a list was compiled properly and based off actual facts like mental conditions, convictions for violent crime, reasonable suspicion etc. as opposed to being the idiocy it is now. Would you still consider such consequences problematic?

Yes. I won't support any measure that can remove someone's rights based on mere suspicions, and convictions already become apart of your permanent record.

[Highlord Laan]

I wouldn't trust Donald Trump with a street corner lemonade stand, let alone any kind of actual authority.

[Simon_Jester]

...I suggest you consider revisiting some of your other opinions in light of this fact you have now discovered.

In most people's defense, the watch list has been used solely for the purpose of watching. It is no different in principle than a local law enforcement having a list of people they suspect of having ties to known felons. Police agencies would take a closer look if the people on such lists did things like withdraw large amounts of cash, travel overseas, and yes, purchase firearms. Unobtrusive investigations do not implicate due process.

This is not true, because people on this list have repeatedly been harassed, have been barred from carrying out normal activities such as flying on a plane, and have lost valuable things like job opportunities. That is not an unobtrusive search.

[amigocabal]

...I suggest you consider revisiting some of your other opinions in light of this fact you have now discovered.

In most people's defense, the watch list has been used solely for the purpose of watching. It is no different in principle than a local law enforcement having a list of people they suspect of having ties to known felons. Police agencies would take a closer look if the people on such lists did things like withdraw large amounts of cash, travel overseas, and yes, purchase firearms. Unobtrusive investigations do not implicate due process.

This is not true, because people on this list have repeatedly been harassed, have been barred from carrying out normal activities such as flying on a plane, and have lost valuable things like job opportunities. That is not an unobtrusive search.

The no-fly list was a different list.

[Ziggy Stardust]

What if employers started using a gun registry to determine whether or not someone was considered employable? If you couldn't buy a gun then maybe you don't deserve to have a job. It could have significant unforeseen consequences.

Why would employers have access to a gun registry in the first place?

[General Zod]

Why do employers have access to your credit history?

[amigocabal]

Why do employers have access to your credit history?

Because Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian offer credit report services.

[amigocabal]

Even if you don't agree with a law, would you want to see it enforced in an unfair/inconsistent manner, as opposed to either being enforced fairly or abolished altogether?

Edit: Also, who the hell voted yes?

Maybe Donald Trump created four accounts on this site to vote yes four times.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Why do employers have access to your credit history?

Because Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian offer credit report services.

Why do Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian give employers this access? Why is it legal for them to make an offer for employment contingent upon a credit check? I'm pretty sure that was Zod's point.

[Lonestar]

For that matter, I very much doubt that such a law, if it really is just up to the executive branch to decide, would survive a visit to the Supreme Court.

It isn't. The only way to get on the prohibited-from-guns list is from the GCA of 68. It's been essentially unchanged since then.

So much so that, even though the Executive has opt to not prosecute Marijuana usage for medicinal or recreational purchases where legal, the ATF has continued to go "lol no get fucked" on that score.

[Lonestar]

The no-fly list was a different list.

The no-fly list is drawn from the Terror Watchlist. PDF WARNING.

WHAT IS THE NO FLY LIST?

The No Fly List is a subset of the Terrorist Screening Database. Inclusion on the No Fly List
prohibits an individual who may present a threat to civil aviation or national security from
boarding a commercial aircraft that will fly into, out of, over, or within United States airspace;
this also includes point-to-point international flights operated by U.S. carriers. Before an
individual may be placed on the No Fly List, there must be credible information that
demonstrates the individual poses a threat of committing a violent act of terrorism with respect
to civil aviation, the homeland, United States interests located abroad, or is operationally
capable of doing so.

[General Zod]

Why do employers have access to your credit history?

Because Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian offer credit report services.

Why do Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian give employers this access? Why is it legal for them to make an offer for employment contingent upon a credit check? I'm pretty sure that was Zod's point.

In a nutshell.

[General Zod]

I'm of the mind that if you want to restrict access to guns, fine. Have at it. But do it in a way that limits collateral damage as much as possible.

[amigocabal]

An update:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opini ... .html?_r=0

Astonishingly, it’s perfectly legal even for people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns in the United States. More than 2,000 terrorism suspects did indeed purchase guns in the United States between 2004 and 2014, according to the Government Accountability Office and The Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Democrats have repeatedly proposed closing that loophole, but the National Rifle Association and its Republican allies have blocked those efforts, so it’s still legal.

Okay, I suspect Nicholas Kristof of being a terrorist who rapes young girls.

Therefore, not only should he be prohibited from buying firearms, he should be prohibited from practicing journalism and he should be required to wear a distinctive badge that identifies him as a terrorist and a rapist.

I wonder if Nicholas Kristof would still support laws that restrict liberty based on mere suspicion.

[Tanasinn]

Suspending Constitutional rights based on mere suspicion is unconscionable.

[Purple]

Suspending Constitutional rights based on mere suspicion is unconscionable.

This is all hypocritical of course. But what if it's not so much suspicion as knowledge that you've not acted upon. Like say for example you know someone is in a terror group or nazi organization or what ever. And you can prove it in court. But you don't want to arrest him yet because you're hoping that by letting him act freely for a while more you can follow him and reveal more about the organization or something like that.

[The Romulan Republic]

For that matter, I very much doubt that such a law, if it really is just up to the executive branch to decide, would survive a visit to the Supreme Court.

It isn't. The only way to get on the prohibited-from-guns list is from the GCA of 68. It's been essentially unchanged since then.

So much so that, even though the Executive has opt to not prosecute Marijuana usage for medicinal or recreational purchases where legal, the ATF has continued to go "lol no get fucked" on that score.

I'm not talking about an existing law. I'm talking about a hypothetical of not letting people get guns based on the no-fly list.

[bilateralrope]

Suspending Constitutional rights based on mere suspicion is unconscionable.

This is all hypocritical of course. But what if it's not so much suspicion as knowledge that you've not acted upon. Like say for example you know someone is in a terror group or nazi organization or what ever. And you can prove it in court. But you don't want to arrest him yet because you're hoping that by letting him act freely for a while more you can follow him and reveal more about the organization or something like that.

Lets run with your hypothetical for a bit.

If you don't want to arrest him yet because you're watching him, you don't want to do anything that could let him know he's being watched. If he goes to buy some guns and finds out that he's not allowed to buy guns, then you've just let him know that he's on the watch list. If he's part of a terror group, he will just get another member of the group to buy the guns. They will keep trying until they find one of their members who is able to buy guns. If you're wanting to know more about the organization, you are in a position where you know that there are members of the group that you aren't watching. Members you probably haven't identified.

If you let him buy the guns while you're watching him, you can then watch what he does with those guns.

So do you want the person who buys guns for the terror group to be someone you're watching or someone you're not ?

[Purple]

So do you want the person who buys guns for the terror group to be someone you're watching or someone you're not ?

I figured you could watch him as he gets other people to buy guns for him, ban each of the people as they try and eventually get a lot of suspects you can arrest in bulk.

[Beowulf]

So do you want the person who buys guns for the terror group to be someone you're watching or someone you're not ?

I figured you could watch him as he gets other people to buy guns for him, ban each of the people as they try and eventually get a lot of suspects you can arrest in bulk.

NICS is an acronym of "National Instant Criminal Background Check System ". Generally speaking, it's less than a couple minutes to come back saying pass or fail. You're not going to have a bunch of time to try to ban them in the system, if you don't know who they are already. Also, how are you knowing that he's getting other people to buy guns for him?

[Purple]

It's the principal though. Basically I am probing how far he'd be willing to go. And maybe it's because I am from a country with gun control but I find that he is far less accommodating than I.

[General Zod]

Suspending Constitutional rights based on mere suspicion is unconscionable.

This is all hypocritical of course. But what if it's not so much suspicion as knowledge that you've not acted upon. Like say for example you know someone is in a terror group or nazi organization or what ever. And you can prove it in court. But you don't want to arrest him yet because you're hoping that by letting him act freely for a while more you can follow him and reveal more about the organization or something like that.

The last time we arrested people just for belonging to an organization we don't like was back during the Red Scare. How is this different?

[Wild Zontargs]

So, President Obama has called for banning anyone on the No-Fly List from buying guns:

Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

[Tanasinn]

Congress has already blocked that proposal because it's unconstitutional. This is just the executive trying to look productive.

This is all hypocritical of course. But what if it's not so much suspicion as knowledge that you've not acted upon. Like say for example you know someone is in a terror group or nazi organization or what ever. And you can prove it in court. But you don't want to arrest him yet because you're hoping that by letting him act freely for a while more you can follow him and reveal more about the organization or something like that.

My position doesn't change. If you want to suspend someone's rights, you had better actually prove guilt, not merely be able to. Such a hypothetical person is probably already under surveillance anyway if they're a known member of a domestic terrorist group, if they move to take action you can just arrest them.

[General Zod]

In the meantime we have people being tortured in Guantanamo because they're suspected terrorists.