^ they aren't really clamoring to do that though. They know the stakes. They've just been playing political games about it until now. Any law that moves forward would necessarily have to add due process to the lists, it's not impossible to do so.

Like when the gov gets busted with wiretapping, this would probably just create a new super-secret list, but at least the "actionable" list wouldn't be the rampant 4th amendment violations they currently are.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/not-just-the-no-fly-list/

Quote :

"The Senate amendment in question, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, would have applied to a much larger group than the no-fly list. As we reported in December, Feinstein’s office told us the measure, which would have allowed the attorney general to block gun sales to individuals on these lists, would have included a few terrorist databases, and the no-fly list is a subset of one of them. ... Republicans defeated the amendment in early December. Republicans also put forth an alternative aimed at protecting those who wrongly find themselves on these terrorist watch lists — it would have delayed a gun sale and required a court ruling to actually block the sale — and it also included measures to defund cities that don’t help enforce federal immigration law. That measure also failed. Both were amendments to a Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act."

A background check that delays a sale, but not outright bans it, pending a court order to stop the sale if needed isn't unconstitutional.

6/15/2016 6:22:04 PM

Stop. They're still playing political games on both sides and in the presidential race. This is all gamesmanship and attempts at point scoring. Right now the dems have the hammer on this issue and even though they probably aren't super pumped about using these lists to deprive people of more constitutional rights (Feinstein might, she's practically in favor of having a US Stasi) they know they can trot this out with nary a whimper from the Repubs because they've had such huge boners for police state tactics in the past. Any protestation, even based on logical civil rights concerns, can be dismissed as gun worship or being an NRA mouthpiece.

6/15/2016 8:05:01 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/15/something-might-be-changing-after-orlando-americans-suddenly-want-to-ban-assault-weapons/

6/15/2016 9:23:52 PM

Anyone else watching the epic filibuster in the senate? I'm glad to see the senate dems finally grow some balls and (literally) stand up.

6/16/2016 12:24:22 AM

^^That's hardly a surprise. Of course there's a bump in that response after an event like this. I'm sure people were much more supportive of the TSA after the underwear bomber too.

Just once I would love to hear some actual specifics. Could someone tell me what exactly you would like to change and how it would solve these issues?

The last assault rifle ban was an abject failure because it focused on non-functional, cosmetic nonsense. I suspect an updated one would be very, very similar. Ban on high capacity magazines, I don't like it but fine, say we get that. It isn't going to fix anything. There are probably 30-50 million 30 round plus mags out there now, and you're trying to ban something that is a box and a spring. You can 3d print those all day long and there's no way to stop it.

Background checks are already near universal. There are some person to person sales that do not require them. I suppose you could argue that needs to be changed. I suspect you'd get very little pushback on that, and also no impact on stopping what you would like to stop.

I mean, honestly anything short of total confiscation is basically theater.

6/16/2016 2:51:06 AM

You seriously don't think there would be pushback against an improved/universal background check system?

Manchin - Toomey basically only extended background checks to Internet and gun show sales. It still couldn't pass a single house of congress and it was debated under the cloud of a shooting where a classroom of god damned 1st graders were mowed down by a deranged teenager.

Would improved background checks solve our gun problems? Unequivocally no, but if we can't even grab the low hanging fruit off the tree then there is literally no hope of there being any movement on this issue. Well, until maybe the GOP implodes, but even then it seems like a long shot.

[Edited on June 16, 2016 at 7:58 AM. Reason : Or a mass shooting of billionaires, that would congress moving]

6/16/2016 7:36:22 AM

bullshit about something changing, nothing changed when children got killed at sandy hook so there damn sure isn't anything changing after a shooting at a gay club

(and lol at no pushback to universal background checks)

[Edited on June 16, 2016 at 8:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/16/2016 8:49:07 AM

I see to recall even after sandy hook support for an AWB didn't spike. I've seen a lot more chatter on Facebook this time around too in support of changes. I'm going to be bold and rely on my memory instead of googling and speculate that this recent poll might be a change.

The difference with sandy hook is the Orlando shooter theoretically could have been found and stopped so maybe people are more receptive to a legislative solution. Vs sandy hook where the guy took his moms guns.

6/16/2016 10:13:55 AM

gun control couldn't have stopped this guy though

there was some support gathering around universal background checks and some mental health funding after sandy hook but that collapsed when it included an awb. what i understand now is that there is support for no-fly/no-buy (which is almost guaranteed to be struck down in the courts unless it includes major changes to no-fly list) and AWB which is a non-starter.

6/16/2016 12:38:47 PM

Have you seen the latest about he FBI being contacted by the first gun store he tried to buy at? Apparently they changed their line from, "we never received such a call" to "no comment."

This looks more and more like an intelligence failure than anything else. There's just no evidence of any kind to suggest that the legislation that is likely to be proposed would do a damn thing other than make some people feel warm and fuzzy.

6/16/2016 10:51:35 PM

^ link?

I wonder what information the gun store was able to give the FBI, or was it just "some sketchy guy came in trying to buy a bunch of weird stuff"?

Quote :

"Abell added that they thought the man was "very suspicious," so they called the local FBI office in West Palm Beach and reported the incident. But they didn't have the man's name, since no sale was made, and the only surveillance footage they had was grainy. "We gave them information and everything that took place, and that was the end of the conversation," he said."

https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-shooter-turned-away-different-gun-store-being-141628142--abc-news-topstories.html#

I vaguely recall another guy in a recent shooting (the college in oregon or something) was also turned away by a gun shop.

I dont think we can blame the FBI for not acting on this, they literally had no idea who the guy was. If the gun store knew the background checks had some teeth, they could have ran him and used this as a basis for the delay. Maybe make part of the process an open-ended text entry for the seller to say "this guy is sketch deny sale" or something.

[Edited on June 17, 2016 at 12:01 AM. Reason : ]

6/16/2016 11:44:53 PM

I'm sure they have surveillance video. You would think the FBI would have at least directed it to local law enforcement or given it a cursory look.

This is what they have been asking people to do, "if you see something say something." Well, he tried to purchase bulk ammo, body armor that iasn't legal for civilians to own, and was speaking Arabic to some guy on the phone. None of this is in and of itself illegal or necessarily "suspicious" but taken together it was enough to have the gun shop not want to do business with him and enough for them to want to reach out to the FBI.

6/17/2016 12:29:23 AM

That was definitely suspicious behavior but it was a matter of days between his purchase attempt and his shooting. And it's not like theres not a dozen different places for him to buy a gun within driving distance. Not to mention, as a security guard, there's possible explanations for him wanting that stuff, and with guns being a hobby, the FBI would need more than vague insinuations before sounding all the alarms. You also have to think they likely get reports all the time of random suspicious behavior.

There's no way he would have been stopped without the background check/waiting period process stopping him, or if the gun store owner was able to get his name somehow.

6/17/2016 12:45:47 AM

According to all the reports I've seen it was 5-6 weeks before the shooting. Plenty of time to look into it but it seems they did not for whatever reason.

I guess you could make the argument that you need to fill out a form to purchase ammo, but again, they refused to sell to him because of his suspicious behavior.

6/17/2016 1:47:52 AM

Given no name and a grainy video I think you're asking a lot of the FBI, at least as far the gun shop tip goes.

6/17/2016 1:59:03 AM

Well, since the response was no response it's pretty easy to criticize.

I mean, they could have contacted the gun shop, or asked for the video if they have one. They literally did nothing. I don't know if they could have identified him or not (do they have photos of people on their various watchlists? Maybe they send a guy down from their local office to show some photos and they identify him that way), but it looks like they did nothing at all.

Instead of immediately jumping to write more gun control legislation how about we look at our law enforcement agencies, how they communicate, how they share data, etc. I've been talking about this potential failure since the night this happened, it was one of the things people were very critical of the Belgians about with the airport bombing.

That will be more helpful than any law banning collapsible shoulder stocks or bayonet mounts or outright denying people their constitutionally protected rights because they're on a no-fly list.

6/17/2016 2:07:07 AM

There are somewhere between 15 million and 20 million background checks run for gun buying every year (you can also loosely assume that's the number of purchases occurring in any given year). If just 2% of those are flagged for anything suspicious you are talking about 300,000 to 400,000 cases per year or like 800-1000 cases per day.

Now you could probably put together a huge team of people to handle that kind of volume, but if you really want review of suspicious gun buyers I think it's plainly obvious why the system would need some kind of automation.

6/17/2016 7:09:01 AM

^^ The no-fly list is a few tens-of thousands and the larger terrorist watch list is around two million. 'Show some photos' isn't very practical.

6/17/2016 10:05:30 AM

Instead of banning any type of guns, which have maybe a 0.01% change of happening, or attempting to restrict purchases to anyone on a judgmental no-fly list, how about enacting insurance and licensure restrictions and updating background check processes?

1. A gun owner must, on an annual basis, pass gun safety and marksmanship exams to renew the license to own a gun. To initially purchase a gun the safety exam must be passed along with the normal background checks. Exams would be focused on the specific type of gun desired.

2. A gun owner must obtain gun insurance (tiered insurance based on gun types owned)

3. Pistols and semi-automatics require a 15 day waiting period to give enough time for a thorough background check.

Australia has gun laws built around the above (albeit much more restrictive), which allows legal gun ownership while ensuring guns are not in the possession of those who cant handle them responsibly or could use them for criminal purposes.

http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/

Im not anti-gun (I have a shotgun and a .22 bolt-action) and I dont agree that the no-fly list is a reasonable method of preventing purchases, but certainly something has to be done to restrict at least semi-autos.


[Edited on June 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM. Reason : a]

6/17/2016 1:41:32 PM

^demonizing semi-autos is kind of short sighted, considering that pump action shotguns did most of the damage at the Navy Yard and Columbine.

6/17/2016 2:28:42 PM

The Australia comparison that keeps getting brought up seems to be flawed. Australia's closest neighbor is 1,500 miles away, and their 2nd closest neighbor is over 2,000 miles away. They don't have bordering countries that could (relatively easily) bring guns in over the borders, without having to ship them over 2,000 miles of ocean.

6/17/2016 4:19:24 PM

Quote :

" ^^ The no-fly list is a few tens-of thousands and the larger terrorist watch list is around two million. 'Show some photos' isn't very practical"

You don't need the whole list. Maybe narrowest down to say, just the people within a 100 mile radius who are under investigation or have been under investigation within the last 12 months. A sortable database is the way that those lists should be compiled if they're going to have any value whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting they could have stopped this necessarily, but I am saying that it doesn't appear that the authorities did their due diligence. I'm betting they don't get a lot of calls from gun shops about suspicious customers. Maybe prioritize those a bit higher than the oldady who thinks her neighbor is a terrorist because he spends a lot of time in his backyard shed.

6/17/2016 4:33:36 PM

Quote :

"demonizing semi-autos is kind of short sighted, considering that pump action shotguns did most of the damage at the Navy Yard and Columbine."

That's debatable for Columbine, and those two shootings don't crack the top 10 in deadliest us mass shootings.

I think we can all agree that pump action shotguns aren't as deadly as most semi-auto rifles/handguns in mass shootings. I'd imagine the regular gun homicide numbers are skewed really heavily too.

6/17/2016 4:58:37 PM

^^^ Australia also only has a population of 23MM while being close to the size of the continental US

6/17/2016 5:03:21 PM

So people have more room to not be treaded on

6/17/2016 5:05:43 PM

Well I have a feeling if we got rid of about 92% of the US population things would be quite a bit different here. Also a lot easier to enact that type of legislation. It's just a comparison that is difficult to make given the vast differences.

6/17/2016 5:25:27 PM

You're really overstating the point about population density. Most of Australia is totally unpopulated and some 80-90% of the population lives in urban areas.

Quote :

"it doesn't appear that the authorities did their due diligence."

You're trying to hang something on the handling of the tip that's just not there. Due diligence doesn't require the FBI to respond to every vague tip.

6/17/2016 8:02:17 PM

Agreed. But again, how many tips do you think they get from gun stores vs. the standard issue nosy neighbor? Think maybe one ought to get a little bit more attention and be handled more seriously?

Granted, I don't know what details the gun store gave them or how everything was handled, but from the outside it certainly looks like they fucked up by not looking into this when they were alerted about someone potentially dangerous several weeks before this happened.

6/17/2016 8:20:44 PM

Quote :

" You're really overstating the point about population density. Most of Australia is totally unpopulated and some 80-90% of the population lives in urban areas."

Agreed, and the argument was completely devoid of the "why it matters" explanation too. But obviously it's easier to point out differences without explaining why those differences matter.

In reality the real distinction here is some parts of Australia's gun reform involved compulsory gun buybacks, which wouldn't work here because of the 2nd, the NRA and the COLD DEAD HANDS folks.

6/17/2016 8:24:05 PM

Quote :

"That's debatable for Columbine, and those two shootings don't crack the top 10 in deadliest us mass shootings. "

I didn't realize we were only interested in preventing new high scores.

If the propane bombs had worked during the Columbine massacre, that attack would have been much worse than anything we've seen, including Oklahoma City.

6/17/2016 8:26:35 PM

Quote :

"I didn't realize we were only interested in preventing new high scores. "

Cool strawman. I can only assumed you skipped the second paragraph of my post, and somehow missed the context of the entire thing, even though you were involved.

Quote :

"If the propane bombs had worked during the Columbine massacre, that attack would have been much worse than anything we've seen, including Oklahoma City."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_against_Americans

6/17/2016 8:34:20 PM

Quote :

"You're really overstating the point about population density. Most of Australia is totally unpopulated and some 80-90% of the population lives in urban areas."

Wouldn't that make it easier to implement?

6/17/2016 8:49:22 PM

Quote :

" I can only assumed you skipped the second paragraph of my post, and somehow missed the context of the entire thing, even though you were involved."

I skipped the second paragraph because it's an extremely flawed statement to make. Shotguns are incredibly lethal, and I'd argue moreso that most rifles or handguns. There's a reason Germany wanted shotguns added to the Hague convention but said nothing of the rifles and handguns we were using. Shotguns don't account for a large number of murders compared to handguns, but that's not because of a lack of lethality. They're just not nearly as easy to carry or conceal.

6/17/2016 11:03:54 PM

Quote :

"I skipped the second paragraph because it's an extremely flawed statement to make. Shotguns are incredibly lethal"

Yeah, sure, they are incredibly lethal, except that's not what the conversation is about. It's about about mass shootings, and weapons used during mass shootings. Remember? You started the comparison with your two outliers, one of which doesn't even appear to be accurate.

[Edited on June 17, 2016 at 11:34 PM. Reason : and my second paragraph was 100% categorically true. you realize there's data here right?]

[Edited on June 17, 2016 at 11:42 PM. Reason : I'm also waiting to hear how those propane bombs could have been "much worse than anything we've seen"]

6/17/2016 11:32:34 PM

^^^ I don't know if population density would make "it" easier or harder to implement. I was just pointing out that differences in population density between the US and Australia aren't as vast as you imply.

Quote :

"Agreed. But again, how many tips do you think they get from gun stores vs. the standard issue nosy neighbor? Think maybe one ought to get a little bit more attention and be handled more seriously? Granted, I don't know what details the gun store gave them or how everything was handled, but from the outside it certainly looks like they fucked up by not looking into this when they were alerted about someone potentially dangerous several weeks before this happened."

Coming from a gun store doesn't make it a good tip. According to the article linked above, the tip had no identifying information and the FBI did attempt to follow up.

Whatever you're looking for it isn't this tip.

6/18/2016 12:38:13 AM

Quote :

" I'm also waiting to hear how those propane bombs could have been "much worse than anything we've seen"

The FBI documented that if the propane bombs had gone off in the cafeteria, there most likely would have been almost 500 people dead due to the roof collapsing. The kids planned on shooting any survivors from the bomb as they stormed the parking lot, not to go inside the buildings themselves. That would have been more than OKC bombing and only would have been surpassed by 9/11. I'm assuming that you aren't including 9/11 into this discussion about gun control.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col0516i.htm

Quote :

"Had two jumbo propane bombs stuffed into duffel bags gone off at Columbine High School at 11:17 a.m. April 20, 1999, nearly 500 students in the cafeteria would have died or been maimed, investigators determined. Besides possibly causing huge numbers of casualties in the cafeteria, computer models of the bombs "demonstrated a strong likelihood of structural damage and partial collapse of the cafeteria and (possibly) the library above," the official report released Monday says. Instead, gunfire killed all of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's 13 victims. Harris had taken careful notes on how many students were in the cafeteria at specific times to inflict maximum harm from the bombs, according to his scrawled notes reproduced in the report. "

Quote :

"and my second paragraph was 100% categorically true. you realize there's data here right?]"

Quote :

"I think we can all agree that pump action shotguns aren't as deadly as most semi-auto rifles/handguns in mass shootings. I'd imagine the regular gun homicide numbers are skewed really heavily too."

https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

The FBI data shows shotguns account for more murders than rifles, and handguns accounting for 10 times more than either of them. The statistics don't say anything about the type of handgun used, so some of them could have been revolvers too. I would think it's safe to assume that handguns are prevalent in most murders due to being easy to conceal and transport, not due to their increased lethality or semi-auto nature.

Quote :

"You started the comparison with your two outliers, one of which doesn't even appear to be accurate. "

At Columbine, most of the deaths were due to point blank shotgun blasts. The 9MMs resulted in a lot of injuries, but the shotguns killed at least 7 of the 13 according to what I've read on Wikipedia and a couple other online accounts.

Quote :

"those two shootings don't crack the top 10 in deadliest us mass shootings. "

Since 1982, Columbine ranks 6th and the Navy Yard massacre is tied with Aurora for 11th. Aurora injured a ton of people, but this discussion has been specifically about lethality. It should be noted that the first people murdered during the Aurora massacre were killed with a pump shotgun as well. 4th on the list was the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, with the fatalities being about evenly split between a shotgun and an uzi. 7th on the list was the 1986 USPS shooting, carried out with 2 handguns with only 7-round magazine capacities. The capacities on the Virginia Tech shooting handguns weren't much higher, at 10 and 15. That is the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in recent US history.

[Edited on June 18, 2016 at 2:45 PM. Reason : 4th, not 5th.]

6/18/2016 2:34:21 PM

Quote :

"I'm assuming that you aren't including 9/11 into this discussion about gun control."

You brought up propane bombs, Oklahoma City and "anything we've seen" into this discussion about gun control first, so I think 9/11 is fair game (as are the 83 Beirut barracks and 98 US embassy bombings).

Quote :

"The FBI data shows shotguns account for more murders than rifles, and handguns accounting for 10 times more than either of them."

Right, which is why someone brought up semi-automatic weapons.

Quote :

"Since 1982, Columbine ranks 6th and the Navy Yard massacre is tied with Aurora for 11th."

The perpetrators aren't victims

6/18/2016 3:18:13 PM

Quote :

"Just once I would love to hear some actual specifics. Could someone tell me what exactly you would like to change and how it would solve these issues? The last assault rifle ban was an abject failure because it focused on non-functional, cosmetic nonsense. I suspect an updated one would be very, very similar. Ban on high capacity magazines, I don't like it but fine, say we get that. It isn't going to fix anything. There are probably 30-50 million 30 round plus mags out there now, and you're trying to ban something that is a box and a spring. You can 3d print those all day long and there's no way to stop it. Background checks are already near universal. There are some person to person sales that do not require them. I suppose you could argue that needs to be changed. I suspect you'd get very little pushback on that, and also no impact on stopping what you would like to stop. I mean, honestly anything short of total confiscation is basically theater"

Pretty much the same questions I have. What would AWB look like today?

6/18/2016 5:14:07 PM

do you at least understand that yes there is pushback to universal background checks?

6/18/2016 8:51:21 PM

Yeah that's pretty basic.

And I get why the last AWB was dumb and any future iterations of it based on the historical markers would also be dumb, but that doesn't mean I think I should be able to go into a store and buy an AR-15.

But really anyone complaining that the last AWB was ineffective doesn't give a shit the effectiveness. In fact they probably disagree with any gun control, including any current provisions, and "effectiveness" is their red herring.

6/19/2016 1:30:26 AM

How in the hell can effectiveness be a red herring? Laws should be based on whether they will be effective, if their consequences will drive the desired outcome. These are the basic factors you have to weigh against things like compromising liberties in exchange for safety. If there is no actual increase in safety then what was the point of compromising your liberty? Look at me over here, pretending to care about whether or not a law actually works when in reality I'm just a slobbering nut who wants anarchy and heavily armed toddlers!

If you aren't focused on effectiveness what are you focused on? Creating show laws? Things like the security theater of the TSA are wasteful, ineffective, and a major infringement on our liberties, and all to what end?

I mean for fucks sake you guys are still talking about a gun that wasn't even used in this last shooting like it was. Fine, ban the AR-15. All you will have done is create a massive black market which will inevitably be controlled by horrible, violent gangs and organized crime groups.

So again, what exactly is it you would like to see changed and what do you hope to accomplish by doing so?

[Edited on June 19, 2016 at 2:12 AM. Reason : sfsdf]

6/19/2016 2:05:14 AM

^quit trying to use facts and logic on the proggies hah, thats not how their brains work

when somethin bad happens the govt is supposed to "do something!", if makes the problem worse then that will be their justification to do more.




[Edited on June 19, 2016 at 9:28 AM. Reason : g ]

6/19/2016 9:15:21 AM

Quote :

"The perpetrators aren't victims "

your graphic is still bullshit - columbine resulted in 13 dead victims and 2 dead perpetrators but got left off the list. The list also includes the perpetrator in the body count for the Orlando shooting, unless someone passed away at the hospital that I haven't seen reported.

Quote :

"You brought up propane bombs, Oklahoma City and "anything we've seen" into this discussion about gun control first, so I think 9/11 is fair game (as are the 83 Beirut barracks and 98 US embassy bombings)."

I brought up propane bombs because they were relevant to the style of attack carried out at Columbine, and it's similar to other lone wolf acts we've experienced recently with Aurora (explosives at his apartment), San Bernandino (pipe bombs thrown at police), or as seen abroad during the Norway attacks. Homemade explosives have also been used by other lone wolf attacks, such as the Boston Marathon attack and the Oklahoma City bombing. Trying to make the leap of tying this discussion into organized international attacks like those on 9/11 or on foreign embassy bombings in other countries takes some serious mental gymnastics.

6/19/2016 1:22:14 PM

Quote :

"But really anyone complaining that the last AWB was ineffective doesn't give a shit the effectiveness. In fact they probably disagree with any gun control, including any current provisions, and "effectiveness" is their red herring."

Bullshit. I not only don't disagree with "any gun control" in principle, but I would say I have an active appetite for doing something that would actually work (without undue negative side effects), provided it could actually be implemented, and wouldn't be unreasonably oppressive of civil liberties.

It's just that there isn't much (if anything?) that would fit that bill.

Hell, I would give up guns of my own (for a buyback at market value) if we actually have some magic solution that would do serious good...but we don't, and none are being proposed--and I really don't know that any are possible...and nobody trying to even fucking understands the nuances of the issues.

Quote :

"do you at least understand that yes there is pushback to universal background checks?"

Yes, but the overwhelming majority of that isn't pushback to the background checks themselves, but to the firearms registry that would be required to effectively implement such a program.






I still say that the best thing would be some sort of firearms license, on a shall-issue basis, without any further restrictions on firearms themselves, and without any sort of connection to any individual firearm (i.e., not dependent on a registry or de facto registry). We could have a tier or two, requiring more extensive background investigation and display of proficiency to own something like an AR or AK, but the firearms themselves would be totally green lighted (federally) just like they are now (federally).

6/19/2016 9:35:39 PM

It would still help to properly fund the ATF so they can prosecute people breaking current gun laws

6/19/2016 9:41:14 PM

There is an option that isn't unconstitutionally. As background checks are already usually required, apparently except for terrorists working as security guards that is, the background check could include information about whether the person is on the various watch lists. This, of course, would merely be informational. No penalties for selling to someone on the watch list. Of course, it bears saying, unless they personally knew the individual, or at least they were white, I doubt most gun stores would be willing to sell to anyone that came back as on a list.

But, as this is not a ban, it is not a violation of anyone's rights. Just as the no-fly-list is not a violation of anyone's rights: it is a voluntary check and refusal by the airlines, there are no penalties if the airline ignores the list.

6/19/2016 10:04:20 PM

Quote :

" Just as the no-fly-list is not a violation of anyone's rights:"

false

6/19/2016 11:17:22 PM

The Dickey Amendment needs to go away.

6/19/2016 11:47:41 PM

http://nypost.com/2016/06/19/nra-says-trumps-orlando-comments-defy-common-sense/

NRA turns on Trump... despite the fact the NRA has made similar statements in the past.

Kind of interesting.

Or Trump is so nutty, he's pushing the NRA back towards the center?

[Edited on June 20, 2016 at 12:01 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2016 11:52:33 PM

Maybe he's just throwing it in the face of the NRA to show them how ridiculous they've sounded over the years.

6/20/2016 8:50:14 AM