Air Force failed to report Devin Kelley's convictions to the FBI

[Been Jammin]

4th Amendment...

Let me be clear about this particular point. I think the 4th Amendment is a great thing about this country. But, if it didn't exist, I'm not sure it would be added in this day and age. Airport security has changed and become more onerous, and we are all OK with it, because we understand that the changes make all of us safer. Personally, I am willing to sacrifice some of my 4th amendment rights if it means a reduction in terrorism/mass shootings. I have little/nothing to hide. Now, the LV shooter and church shooter, both had things to hide from the authorities.

And, before you tell me, I fully understand that it is a slippery slope, and the potential is there for it to lead to very bad things. As I have said, I don't have all the answers.

But the 4th amendment was written over 200 years ago. The world was a lot different then.

 

[Been Jammin]

More than 10,000 people die every year in car crashes that involve an impaired driver, many more than die in mass shootings. You support legalizing another intoxicating substance that will only increase those numbers? Are you really on board with decreasing the senseless deaths of innocent people, or is it more a matter of a political position?

Well, I'm not convinced that national legalization would result in more impaired drivers on the roads.

-Maybe more people get stoned and stay home and eat ice cream/pizza, rather than going out to a bar.
-Maybe more people, who regularly drink and drive, are stoned instead. As a result, they are driving real slow, or are so paranoid that they are more afraid of the cops and opt to call Uber or have someone drive them.
-Maybe people who used to get drunk, in social situations (bars/restaurants), are smoking in the parking lot before they go inside, and the THC is wearing off when they are ready to leave 3 hours later.

 

[Medic007]

Let me be clear about this particular point. I think the 4th Amendment is a great thing about this country. But, if it didn't exist, I'm not sure it would be added in this day and age. Airport security has changed and become more onerous, and we are all OK with it, because we understand that the changes make all of us safer. Personally, I am willing to sacrifice some of my 4th amendment rights if it means a reduction in terrorism/mass shootings. I have little/nothing to hide. Now, the LV shooter and church shooter, both had things to hide from the authorities.

And, before you tell me, I fully understand that it is a slippery slope, and the potential is there for it to lead to very bad things. As I have said, I don't have all the answers.

But the 4th amendment was written over 200 years ago. The world was a lot different then.

The LV and church shooters legally owned their firearms. What exactly did they have to hide? The 4th Amendment isn't just about search, it's also about seizure. I'm fairly certain you wouldn't want cops entering your home and taking whatever they wanted. Is giving up some of your rights really going to reduce terrorism or mass shootings?

The 1st Amendment was written more than 200 years ago too. Muslims weren't flying planes into buildings back then. ISIS wasn't using Twitter to recruit more terrorists. Alex Jones wasn't spewing his stupid shit all over the internet for NZ to parrot. Should we rethink the 1st Amendment as well?

 

[aix_xpert]

Let me be clear about this particular point. I think the 4th Amendment is a great thing about this country. But, if it didn't exist, I'm not sure it would be added in this day and age. Airport security has changed and become more onerous, and we are all OK with it, because we understand that the changes make all of us safer. Personally, I am willing to sacrifice some of my 4th amendment rights if it means a reduction in terrorism/mass shootings. I have little/nothing to hide. Now, the LV shooter and church shooter, both had things to hide from the authorities.

And, before you tell me, I fully understand that it is a slippery slope, and the potential is there for it to lead to very bad things. As I have said, I don't have all the answers.

But the 4th amendment was written over 200 years ago. The world was a lot different then.

If you don't have the 4th amendment, you would end up with a single ruling party, as nobody is completely clean, and those in power would abuse their investigative rights to ensure those who tried to take that power were thwarted.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Just addressing this one particular point. The guy went from owning no guns to stocking up on about 30 of them over a 1 year period. Maybe that would have set off a red flag, that would have caused him to be questioned or put under surveillance. Now, maybe that doesn't lead to prevention of the LV massacre, because he is a convincing liar and a smart dude, but it certainly reduces the chances of him being successful. Maybe knowing the feds are on to him results in him acting more quickly and not waiting for such a prime target, or making a big mistake and getting stopped before he is able to kill himself.

Let's assume your are right. The database recognizes a potential threat out of millions of gun transactions and spits out a warning. How large do you think the bureaucracy would need to be to act on every warning the computer issues? And what would be the role of the bureaucrat? Is it the bureaucrat that would surveil the suspect? Would the surveillance be around the clock? For every suspect the computer exposes? How many surveillers would that require on a national level? What would that cost? Would the bureaucrat have some sort of authority to arrest someone because the computer was suspicious? Would it be his/her responsibility to notify the local police? The FBI? What exactly is the government supposed to do with the suspect who up to this point has exhibited no criminal activity or intent? The database says he has bought 30 guns in less than one year. That alone is reason enough to stir law enforcement into action? But what action does law enforcement take? And why? The suspect is innocent until proven guilty, right? But until he goes on his rampage he is not guilty of anything. Do we fill prisons with people that own an inordinate number of guns? What is the ordinate number? Would the computer still be suspicious if the perp had bought 29 guns? How has a national database solved anything? These are a small sampling of questions that ought to be answered before we citizens give the government any more ability to invade our privacy, don't you agree?

 

[Medic007]

Well, I'm not convinced that national legalization would result in more impaired drivers on the roads.

-Maybe more people get stoned and stay home and eat ice cream/pizza, rather than going out to a bar.
-Maybe more people, who regularly drink and drive, are stoned instead. As a result, they are driving real slow, or are so paranoid that they are more afraid of the cops and opt to call Uber or have someone drive them.
-Maybe people who used to get drunk, in social situations (bars/restaurants), are smoking in the parking lot before they go inside, and the THC is wearing off when they are ready to leave 3 hours later.

You can't be serious.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

 

[Been Jammin]

The 1st Amendment was written more than 200 years ago too. Muslims weren't flying planes into buildings back then. ISIS wasn't using Twitter to recruit more terrorists. Alex Jones wasn't spewing his stupid shit all over the internet for NZ to parrot. Should we rethink the 1st Amendment as well?

Just because 1 Amendment (possibly) needs to be reconsidered based on changes over the last 200+ years does not mean that the same is true of all other parts of the Constitution.

 

[CowboyJD]

Personally, I am willing to sacrifice some of my 4th amendment rights if it means a reduction in terrorism/mass shootings. I have little/nothing to hide. Now, the LV shooter and church shooter, both had things to hide from the authorities.

And, before you tell me, I fully understand that it is a slippery slope, and the potential is there for it to lead to very bad things. As I have said, I don't have all the answers.

But the 4th amendment was written over 200 years ago. The world was a lot different then.

1. I'm not personally willing to sacrifice my rights to the government in the hopes that it will mean something else good and that the state won't continue to attempt to continue such takings. That is a road I'm not interested in going down to see what happens.

2. If the 4th Amendment isn't working for enough of America, change it. Don't ignore it in the legislature or accede to it being taken from you unlawfully.

At the same time.....

3. No regulation or set of regulations regarding guns is going to ELIMINATE all gun violence or mass shootings. That's an impossibly high bar to establish for any regulation being acceptable or not.

4. As I pointed out earlier, even Justice Scalia agreed that the 2nd Amendment isn't an unfettered right to carry any arm anywhere for any purpose (for instance, concealed carry...not a 2nd Amendment right according to Scalia). I have to think there are some things that could be done to lessen the carnage while recognizing that nothing is going to eliminate it fully. In the Heller decision Scalia talked about regulations on the commercial sale short of an all out ban, mental health and criminal history prohibitions being fair game constitutionally for the most part.

5. My focus on what that might be is on the NICS background checks. There are states that submit NO criminal history information to NICS. Until a recent law passage in Oklahoma, the courts here had submitted NO mental health commitment orders to NICS when people were found after a hearing in court to be mentally incompetent or a danger to themselves or others. Beefing up the background check system, including requiring a NICS check for all sales of guns, private or public, should be looked at and considered. I'm not sure about what others might be reasonable under the present Heller standard.

Before GL jumps in and wants to argue history and that Heller is bad law....I'm more interested in what can be done to mitigate damage under the present state of the law rather than theoretical jurisprudential discussions about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Been Jammin]

You can't be serious.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

Good info. Thanks.

 

[Been Jammin]

1. I'm not personally willing to sacrifice my rights to the government in the hopes that it will mean something else good and that the state won't continue to attempt to continue such takings. That is a road I'm not interested in going down to see what happens.

2. If the 4th Amendment isn't working for enough of America, change it. Don't ignore it in the legislature or accede to it being taken from you unlawfully.

At the same time.....

3. No regulation or set of regulations regarding guns is going to ELIMINATE all gun violence or mass shootings. That's an impossibly high bar to establish for any regulation being acceptable or not.

4. As I pointed out earlier, even Justice Scalia agreed that the 2nd Amendment isn't an unfettered right to carry any arm anywhere for any purpose (for instance, concealed carry...not a 2nd Amendment right according to Scalia). I have to think there are some things that could be done to lessen the carnage while recognizing that nothing is going to eliminate it fully. In the Heller decision Scalia talked about regulations on the commercial sale short of an all out ban, mental health and criminal history prohibitions being fair game constitutionally for the most part.

5. My focus on what that might be is on the NICS background checks. There are states that submit NO criminal history information to NICS. Until a recent law passage in Oklahoma, the courts here had submitted NO mental health commitment orders to NICS when people were found after a hearing in court to be mentally incompetent or a danger to themselves or others. Beefing up the background check system, including requiring a NICS check for all sales of guns, private or public, should be looked at and considered. I'm not sure about what others might be reasonable under the present Heller standard.

Before GL jumps in and wants to argue history and that Heller is bad law....I'm more interested in what can be done to mitigate damage under the present state of the law rather than theoretical jurisprudential discussions about the 2nd Amendment.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Been Jammin]

The database says he has bought 30 guns in less than one year. That alone is reason enough to stir law enforcement into action? But what action does law enforcement take?

As I said. Maybe the feds simply knock on his door and ask some questions. Maybe that results in him making a mistake, and he is arrested prior to killing anyone. Maybe he attempts to shoot the officer that is there to ask him questions. Or, maybe it results in him speeding up his timetable, and not finding the perfect venue or formulating the perfect plan. Instead of killing 60, he only kills 10.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yeah, I knew it was a stretch. I guess my only point is that it sounds like a terrible change to you now, but maybe it would turn out to not be that big a deal in reality.



Well, I would think that registration would be accompanied by increased vetting of who the gun is being sold to. Clearly, the seller would want to verify that they are not selling to someone who should not be buying. Maybe it increases the chances that his red flags get picked up before the transaction is made.



Maybe, maybe not. In reality, we will never know the answer. I don't think it will ever happen. If it does, the stats will be the stats and we won't know what crimes would have been committed had things not changed. I do think that fewer guns in the U.S., and making guns a bit more difficult to acquire, is a lot more likely to decrease gun crime than to increase it.



Don't be so sure.


Sorry, Been, I don't mean to be piling on with more questions, but I can't help myself. You think there should be more vetting of gun buyers. What would the increased vetting consist of? How deep into someone's private life would the vetting go? If the suspect had been to a therapist for depression would that become government knowledge? How would the government obtain that knowledge; would it claim the right to interfere with doctor/client privilege? Would the vetting information also be stored in the national database? Who would have access to the information? People like Samantha Power? What would be the punishment of someone who breached the database and turned over private information of a suspect to a news organization? How does an innocent person get his good name back? What exactly does the government need to know before it allows a person to arm himself? Why do free people need government permission to arm themselves?

 

[Medic007]

Just because 1 Amendment (possibly) needs to be reconsidered based on changes over the last 200+ years does not mean that the same is true of all other parts of the Constitution.

Why not? If we're going to modernize one thing, shouldn't we modernize the rest? Maybe we could end religious based terrorism by outlawing religion or at least severely restricting it. Maybe we should require religious people to register so we know who is what. We won't know until we try.

 

[Been Jammin]

Why not? If we're going to modernize one thing, shouldn't we modernize the rest?

Come on. There are things that are going to change significantly over a 200 year period. There are also things that won't change at all.

 

[Medic007]

Come on. There are things that are going to change significantly over a 200 year period. There are also things that won't change at all.

Agreed. Again, what about the 1st Amendment? Muslims couldn't kill people with airplanes and box trucks in 1781. We should look at restricting or banning religion. That might take care of the extremist problem. We won't know unless we try it.

 

[aix_xpert]

Just because 1 Amendment (possibly) needs to be reconsidered based on changes over the last 200+ years does not mean that the same is true of all other parts of the Constitution.

I'm sorry Been, but this isn't an acceptable answer. This is basically you saying, well, I don't need guns, so I don't care if they take away gun rights. All i can think of is the old poem: "They came for me" that I read many years ago in school:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Replace these with various amendments that you do or don't care about. If we allow the dismantling of one amendment, we will eventually allow the dismantling of all of them.

 

[Been Jammin]

Agreed. Again, what about the 1st Amendment? Muslims couldn't kill people with airplanes and box trucks in 1781. We should look at restricting or banning religion. That might take care of the extremist problem. We won't know unless we try it.

Stop being obtuse.

 

[Been Jammin]

Replace these with various amendments that you do or don't care about. If we allow the dismantling of one amendment, we will eventually allow the dismantling of all of them.

Extremist view. But, we can just agree to disagree.

I can promise you that there are things happening, with regularity today, that Thomas Jefferson would say are clear violations of the 4th amendment.

Executions used to be carried out in this country by hanging/firing squads, but that is no longer considered humane and acceptable. Things change as time goes by.

 

[Medic007]

Stop being obtuse.

I'm not religious and have no use for religion so I don't care how much it is restricted or if it's outlawed. That's the same as your view of the 2nd Amendment. If that makes me obtuse, are you being obtuse as well?

 

[Been Jammin]

I'm not religious and have no use for religion so I don't care how much it is restricted or if it's outlawed. That's the same as your view of the 2nd Amendment. If that makes me obtuse, are you being obtuse as well?

Definitely.

As I said, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other and am mostly just playing devils advocate.

 

[aix_xpert]

1. I'm not personally willing to sacrifice my rights to the government in the hopes that it will mean something else good and that the state won't continue to attempt to continue such takings. That is a road I'm not interested in going down to see what happens.

2. If the 4th Amendment isn't working for enough of America, change it. Don't ignore it in the legislature or accede to it being taken from you unlawfully.

At the same time.....

3. No regulation or set of regulations regarding guns is going to ELIMINATE all gun violence or mass shootings. That's an impossibly high bar to establish for any regulation being acceptable or not.

4. As I pointed out earlier, even Justice Scalia agreed that the 2nd Amendment isn't an unfettered right to carry any arm anywhere for any purpose (for instance, concealed carry...not a 2nd Amendment right according to Scalia). I have to think there are some things that could be done to lessen the carnage while recognizing that nothing is going to eliminate it fully. In the Heller decision Scalia talked about regulations on the commercial sale short of an all out ban, mental health and criminal history prohibitions being fair game constitutionally for the most part.

5. My focus on what that might be is on the NICS background checks. There are states that submit NO criminal history information to NICS. Until a recent law passage in Oklahoma, the courts here had submitted NO mental health commitment orders to NICS when people were found after a hearing in court to be mentally incompetent or a danger to themselves or others. Beefing up the background check system, including requiring a NICS check for all sales of guns, private or public, should be looked at and considered. I'm not sure about what others might be reasonable under the present Heller standard.

Before GL jumps in and wants to argue history and that Heller is bad law....I'm more interested in what can be done to mitigate damage under the present state of the law rather than theoretical jurisprudential discussions about the 2nd Amendment.

I agree with the gist of this post. I'd argue that number 5 is what most of us gun-nuts here actually want to see done, but that's never acceptable to the left. To me the statement: "Enforce the laws we already have" implies that support for background checks and want to see them be effective, rather than passing new and even more restrictive laws. Instead, we are met with statements that we won't compromise, or are obtuse, or that we don't care about the victims of these shootings and if it were our son or daughter our beliefs would be completely different. (I can show you all 3 in this thread alone).

 

[Medic007]

I agree with the gist of this post. I'd argue that number 5 is what most of us gun-nuts here actually want to see done, but that's never acceptable to the left. To me the statement: "Enforce the laws we already have" implies that support for background checks and want to see them be effective, rather than passing new and even more restrictive laws. Instead, we are met with statements that we won't compromise, or are obtuse, or that we don't care about the victims of these shootings and if it were our son or daughter our beliefs would be completely different. (I can show you all 3 in this thread alone).

Like to the 10th power

 

[CowboyJD]

I agree with the gist of this post. I'd argue that number 5 is what most of us gun-nuts here actually want to see done, but that's never acceptable to the left. To me the statement: "Enforce the laws we already have" implies that support for background checks and want to see them be effective, rather than passing new and even more restrictive laws. Instead, we are met with statements that we won't compromise, or are obtuse, or that we don't care about the victims of these shootings and if it were our son or daughter our beliefs would be completely different. (I can show you all 3 in this thread alone).

Maybe for you, but keep in mind that Trump just signed a bill (fully supported and advocated for by the NRA) rescinding an administrative regulation, which was finalized in December, adding people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database. Keep in mind that these are social security disability checks (not retirement checks). If someone cannot take care of themselves financially as a result of a mental disability to the point that they receive a disability check to not work (and not be trusted with their own social security check in some cases), those are the types of cases based upon mental health of the individual that probably shouldn't be carrying/purchasing and can be kept from doing so within the bounds of Heller IMO.

Additionally, funding for NICS is presently insufficient as is grants to help the states comply with the federally mandated reporting. Finally, no action has ever been taken against a non-reporting state. Many politicians and the NRA (IMO) are speaking with a forked tongue when they say "enforce the laws we already have" while at the same time not fully funding those efforts and in some cases seeking to have "laws we already have" rescinded or scaled back.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Maybe for you, but keep in mind that Trump just signed a bill (fully supported and advocated for by the NRA) rescinding an administrative regulation, which was finalized in December, adding people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database. Keep in mind that these are social security disability checks (not retirement checks). If someone cannot take care of themselves financially as a result of a mental disability to the point that they receive a disability check to not work (and not be trusted with their own social security check in some cases), those are the types of cases based upon mental health of the individual that probably shouldn't be carrying/purchasing and can be kept from doing so within the bounds of Heller IMO.

Additionally, funding for NICS is presently insufficient as is grants to help the states comply with the federally mandated reporting. Finally, no action has ever been taken against a non-reporting state. Many politicians and the NRA (IMO) are speaking with a forked tongue when they say "enforce the laws we already have" while at the same time not fully funding those efforts and in some cases seeking to have "laws we already have" rescinded or scaled back.

Was that admin regulation legal in the first place? I guess it’s legal until somebody challenges and wins in a sense, but wouldn’t that have been a lot more solid had it been an actual law?

 

[aix_xpert]

Maybe for you, but keep in mind that Trump just signed a bill (fully supported and advocated for by the NRA) rescinding an administrative regulation, which was finalized in December, adding people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database. Keep in mind that these are social security disability checks (not retirement checks). If someone cannot take care of themselves financially as a result of a mental disability to the point that they receive a disability check to not work (and not be trusted with their own social security check in some cases), those are the types of cases based upon mental health of the individual that probably shouldn't be carrying/purchasing and can be kept from doing so within the bounds of Heller IMO.

Additionally, funding for NICS is presently insufficient as is grants to help the states comply with the federally mandated reporting. Finally, no action has ever been taken against a non-reporting state. Many politicians and the NRA (IMO) are speaking with a forked tongue when they say "enforce the laws we already have" while at the same time not fully funding those efforts and in some cases seeking to have "laws we already have" rescinded or scaled back.

I'll agree that those you list should be in the no-gun registry, assuming that there is an appeals process if you are added to the list. I don't know the details of that rule, so can't speak to it specifically. As for your funding issue, the government takes in $4T a year in taxes, and each state takes in its own chunks too. If this is so important, than fund it instead of some "Cross in a toilet" diversity art project, or spending money tearing down racially insensitive statues of people from 100+ years ago. The funding argument falls on deaf ears here.

 

[CowboyJD]

Was that admin regulation legal in the first place? I guess it’s legal until somebody challenges and wins in a sense, but wouldn’t that have been a lot more solid had it been an actual law?

Yes, it was legal IMO.

It went through the whole comment and review process required by the Adminstrative procedures act.

No, it would not have been a lot more solid had it been an "actual law". It was passed and subject to review under the law for administrative rules. It wasn't an executive action or proclamation.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Yes, it was legal IMO.

It went through the whole comment and review process required by the Adminstrative procedures act.

No, it would not have been a lot more solid had it been an "actual law". It was passed and subject to review under the law for administrative rules. It wasn't an executive action or proclamation.

Thank you.

 

[CowboyJD]

I'll agree that those you list should be in the no-gun registry, assuming that there is an appeals process if you are added to the list. I don't know the details of that rule, so can't speak to it specifically. As for your funding issue, the government takes in $4T a year in taxes, and each state takes in its own chunks too. If this is so important, than fund it instead of some "Cross in a toilet" diversity art project, or spending money tearing down racially insensitive statues of people from 100+ years ago. The funding argument falls on deaf ears here.

You realize it's Congress.....presently controlled by Republicans in both House and the White House that is making the decision that it's not important enough to fund over other items....that made the decision to rescind the administrative rule I just mentioned (which Trump signed)......right?

If you are saying that we should enforce the laws we have, but the funding argument (that this should be a priority) falls on deaf ears, then you are kind of talking with a forked tongue too.

 

[CowboyJD]

Thank you.

You are welcome, sir.

 

[davidallen]

OK, so assume those lobbying groups somehow lose their clout, money pours into the database organizations, they are fully staffed and have all the latest technology. They have become so efficient, and the public has become completely committed to complying with all the dictates demanded of them by the government. The database community has its version of utopia. The government database knows where all 300 million guns are at all times, who owns every gun, and every single gun owner has been thoroughly checked out by government psychiatrists, and have been approved by same. It all is in the database. How does that prevent a mass shooting like the Las Vegas murders? That guy would have passed the “crazy guy” test, the database would have known about all his guns. How would the database have stopped him? I’m not trying to be argumentative here. I truly don’t understand what is the purpose of a national database in stopping mass shootings. The tin foil hat side of me sees massive mega data in the hands of politicians and their muscle men. As a liberal does it not concern you that D. Trump would know where every gun is and he might send his well armed minions out to confiscate the weapons, making the citizenry powerless to stop him from declaring himself dictator for life? I mean for the past year all we’ve been told is he’s the next Hitler. Confiscating all the guns is a very Hitler-like thing. Does that give you no pause? Scares the hell out of me.

Ummmm no...the database referenced lists those legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. Hope that helps.

 

[davidallen]

You can't be serious.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

Thanks for the link...something to ponder.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

You can't be serious.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

Be careful. A "positive" marijuana test doesn't mean that person was high -- there will be positive mj tests from ingesting days or weeks before. I'd expect higher blood levels based on that alone.

 

[aix_xpert]

You realize it's Congress.....presently controlled by Republicans in both House and the White House that is making the decision that it's not important enough to fund over other items....that made the decision to rescind the administrative rule I just mentioned (which Trump signed)......right?

If you are saying that we should enforce the laws we have, but the funding argument (that this should be a priority) falls on deaf ears, then you are kind of talking with a forked tongue too.

I disagree. Congress is nothing more than a board of directors. It may fund agencies, but its up to the agencies to then allocate that funding. If Congress is detailing the funding of every project of every agency, then its no wonder nothing gets done (can you say micro-management).

 

[CowboyJD]

I disagree. Congress is nothing more than a board of directors. It may fund agencies, but its up to the agencies to then allocate that funding. If Congress is detailing the funding of every project of every agency, then its no wonder nothing gets done (can you say micro-management).

I guarantee you NICS and DOJ aren't spending any money on the types of projects you mentioned. Ever hear of earmarks? You ever hear of targeted, restricted appropriations? I hope so, because it happens all the time.

And it's run by a Trump republican appointee...Jeff Sessions (DOJ) so the point stands. If you are saying DOJ and Congress enforce the laws, but you're okay with them not funding the enforcement of those laws....you are being completely disingenuous with your first statement.

 

[aix_xpert]

I guarantee you NICS and DOJ aren't spending any money on the types of projects you mentioned. Ever hear of earmarks? You ever hear of targeted, restricted appropriations? I hope so, because it happens all the time.

And it's run by a Trump republican appointee...Jeff Sessions (DOJ) so the point stands. If you are saying DOJ and Congress enforce the laws, but you're okay with them not funding the enforcement of those laws....you are being completely disingenuous with your first statement.

I would completely support the funding of these departments in order to properly maintain the NICS database. That better?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Ummmm no...the database referenced lists those legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. Hope that helps.

Thanks for your response, but, no, it doesn't really clarify anything for me. A database lists all those people prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. A nutcase that heretofore has given no one any cause for alarm will not be on the prohibited list. He takes his legally purchased guns and kills a slew of people. What did the database do to prevent such a crime? I have a lot of trouble seeing how a national database eliminates the problem. If it is if no use in eliminating the problem about which we seek answers, why should there be a national database at all?

 

[CowboyJD]

I would completely support the funding of these departments in order to properly maintain the NICS database. That better?

Yep. If you mean it.

At a minimum you're now being consistent.

 

[CowboyJD]

Thanks for your response, but, no, it doesn't really clarify anything for me. A database lists all those people prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. A nutcase that heretofore has given no one any cause for alarm will not be on the prohibited list. He takes his legally purchased guns and kills a slew of people. What did the database do to prevent such a crime? I have a lot of trouble seeing how a national database eliminates the problem. If it is if no use in eliminating the problem about which we seek answers, why should there be a national database at all?

So any regulation that fails to completely eliminate all potential for harm is instantly of no use or value? What about about decreasing the problem by keeping a subgroup of the crazy folks seeking to do harm from purchasing the means to do so?

How do you feel about felons carrying firearms?

I'm not going to be surprised when you have no problem with it.

 

[Been Jammin]

So any regulation that fails to completely eliminate all potential for harm is instantly of no use or value? What about about decreasing the problem by keeping a subgroup of the crazy folks seeking to do harm from purchasing the means to do so?

Was about to say the same thing. I guess @Ponca Dan thinks we should not have speed limits, since they do not prevent every driver from speeding.

 

[CowboyJD]

Was about to say the same thing. I guess @Ponca Dan thinks we should not have speed limits, since they do not prevent every driver from speeding.

He's commented on not needing DUI laws before, so I am certain.