This is completely and totally false.

Two totally different entities. No Fly List <> FBI's Terrorist Screening Database (aka the watch list). I think you are of course correct that the No Fly List is a component of the federal government screening database(s) and cross-referenced with the TSDB and you can probably safely assume the No Fly List is ~1:1 with whoever the FBI is watching closely but I suspect super high value targets or potential information sources might be allowed to travel freely; but it's also probably true the No Fly List contains some false positives who the FBI isn't actively watching (e.g., journalists, Ted Kennedy). From the link:


Again the FBI, DHS, DoJ, etc. aren't going to lay bare whatever qualifies for inclusion and who is on it although I certainly acknowledge a target of surveillance may not be able to fly.

I'm not lamenting anything other than your nonsense. The FBI can decide whether they want to blow their cover and deny the purchase or let the guy buy the gun during a standard waiting period. Denying this shooter, who the FBI has already contacted prob doesn't cost them very much. There are ok reasons why we shouldn't do this, but not at all related to your posts.

So, not trying to be snarky here. Which guns fit those characteristics that didn't fall under the Assault Weapons Ban?

I do understand that older AR-15's were grandfathered in. Of course no ban is 100% effective and the point is to make weapons harder to obtain, not eradicate them entirely (this is impossible).

Uh, yeah, OK, whatever. Sounds like a really effectively law: FBI will clandestinely put people on a list and then similarly clandestinely decide if whoever they secretly put on the list can get a gun or not, but if you're really valuable and know alot of terrorist stuff you'll probably get your fire arms unencumbered so the FBI doesn't blow the lid on their surveillance. Which is essence basically saying they'll let the sort of probably safer people who are of questionable value not get the gun then struggle mightily with how to treat the probably really dangerous people vis a vis their intelligence value.

Awesome policy, they should put you in charge of things. Like I said, you clearly though about this deeply. You're basically just throwing out a nonsensical rebuttal that I anticipated we'd see anyway:

That was me preemptively marveling at a fantastically dumb idea and the predictable thoughts of clueless people.

Being reported that the wife knew he was about to carry out an attack:

"NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: Wife of Orlando shooter has told FBI that she tried to talk her husband out of the attack and is cooperating sources say"

It's complicated and ripe for semantiking, but basically there were loads of loopholes around the ban.

That's probably the current wife, not the ex who hasn't talked to him in five years.

So let's use the problems with the old ban to make a better one. Learn from our mistakes and all that.

I'll bow down to your super deep thinking. If you can't think of a way to make it work without mighty struggle I'm sure its impossible and the FBI would lol at the concept even though this is just a no fly list for guns.

lol that's not it either. The definition did not ban rifles with large mag capacities. Here's the definition:

It's not a loophole, it just was completely uncovered by any law. The AWB was entirely based off of cosmetic characteristics of a gun, not how they functioned.

No, you could buy a new AR-15 that didn't have like a bayonet lug or pistol grip. Basically the same rifle with some cosmetic differences. You couldn't buy new 30 round magazines but used ones were readily available.

Which isn't to say I think assault weapons should be legal, and it isn't impossible to get rid of them. The US should just implement Australia's gun control measures.

Well, the wikipedia page I'm reading on the Assault Weapons Ban says that in addition to the cosmetic features bans, certain guns were banned by model. This included the Colt AR-15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...assault_weapon

That's not true.

yeah quickly edited, typo on my part

Maybe Dvaut will correct me but I think his point was more that government shouldn't really be taking away rights from "innocent" (at least unconvicted) people. They should just sack up and say owning a murder machine ain't no longer a right.

You need a constitutional amendment though. Feel free to go for it. Subverting the constitution is not an appropriate response.

Simply not true. You just need 2 more RBGs on the Supreme Court.

Well, yes, that. That was certainly one of my points: forgetting whether you should be able to own a murder machine, it remains a constitutionally protected right. So to say you can be denied it based on the whim of the FBI seems preposterous. There's no clear indication what puts someone on them, no public acknowledgement you're even on them anyway; once on their list(s), there's no formal way to get off ot them, no way to have a lawyer defend you in front of an impartial jury, etc., -- that is, all of the things known and cherished as part of the American legal system before the government starts taking your rights away are non-existent here. That's terrible. And I'm not a gun nut.

You're correct that the appropriate response to deny guns from bad people is to change the law, not empower the FBI's secret list ****show authority over the exercising of peoples' Constitutional rights.

Also pretty sure Marteen was removed from the list so it wouldn't have stopped him in this case anyway. Also as I said, in regards to the efficacy of a 'No Gun List' -- the FBI making the decision to interview someone they are investigating <> someone discovering they are under surveillance via a purchase. I suppose I'll even agree that if you ignore the constitutional issues, I suppose the complete mystery of the No Fly List can be replicated to the No Gun List like dessin d'enfant wants, but the federal government maintains the No Fly List is <> Terrorist Watch List. So presumably although I can't be sure, the FBI is going to push back that their secret list be used like that, and I assume we'd have to make some other secret list that is different from our other secret lists.

But I can WALK IT BACK as ikes says, and I appreciate that the utter confusion between the federal government's completely non-transparent terrorist surveillance operations ("the No Fly List is not the TSCB list!") is to an extent entirely understandable and I almost feel churlish carrying the surveillance state's water lecturing people about how A <> B when I mean, honestly, who the **** knows what the FBI/DHS is doing. It's not a transparent process. Which brings us back to the start: there's no ****ing way people should consent to letting FBI discretion determine which Constitutional rights are respected and which aren't.

Your right to own a gun is Constitutionally protected. Last time I checked, machine guns are still banned. It doesn't extend to any gun, any time, can be owned by any person.

The original AWB was challenged in court several times and it always held up. The machine gun ban has not fallen to constitutional challenges, and it's been on the books for a long time.

That would fall under subverting the constitution.

Nominating two liberal judges falls under subverting the constitution?

AWB held because it was so limited. If you were to ban handguns or semiautomatic weapons, that would be obviously unconstitutional because the scopes of those bans functionally take the 2nd amendment away.

(Not that I agree with your premise.) But if this is true, why is the machine gun ban constitutional?