Gun Control Debate

[Frelga]

"The Senate has blocked a measure that would have denied a gun sale to a known or suspected terrorist — but only if prosecutors could convince a judge within three days that the would-be buyer was involved in terrorism."

That seems like plenty of process to me.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I would more sympathetic to this argument if we were talking about a more meaningful "punishment". I'm quite sure most people will be able to cope just fine with their lives without the ability to buy extremely powerful weapons for a while. I will not shed too many tears if that infant can't get its hands on an AR-15.

If someone is not accused of anything, anything at all (much less tried, convicted, etc) then there shouldn't be any punishment at all. The so-called Watch List isn't an accusation of wrongdoing in any way.

[Primula Baggins]

I guess I just have trouble seeing being unable to buy an AR-15 as a "punishment" any more significant than being prohibited from buying watermelon-flavored chewing gum. Neither one is something any average human being actually needs.

[Inanna]

If no one could buy those bloody AR-15s then that would solve the problem.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, no—but it would make mass killings more difficult. Reducing the death toll is a good thing.

[axordil]

Regulation isn't punishment. One might as well say people in Connecticut are punished for living there by being unable to purchase AR-15s or similar semiautomatic weapons with large capacity magazines.


ETA: I should add, though, that I find the use of the no-fly list in its current form extremely problematic.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

One can choose whether or not to live in Connecticut.

One cannot choose to be off the watch list, and one does not necessarily get on to it by virtue of anything said or done.

As I pointed out, some of the people on the list are there because they have names similar to other people on the list, even though they are infants and their terrorist acts consist of trying to over-fill their diaper.

That list is a bad guide for action. If you want a list that you would use to restrict peoples actions, choose a different list. That list is not a good list.

[axordil]

I kinda said I didn't like that particular list...

[Frelga]

Applying it to air travel causes real problems for peaceful people, yes. However, when applied to weapon purchases, it seems only sensible. If a person already flagged for possible connection to terrorism is buying a powerful weapon, I kinda want to know why.

I mean, I kinda want to know why ANYONE thinks buying that type of weapon is a good idea, but in a different way. 0

[Impenitent]

The Economist on mass shootings in the States:
Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard mass shooting the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing. This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution.

[Alatar]

Out of interest, is there anything stopping Obama from signing an executive order banning assault weapons?

I feel like some of those words should be capitalised, but I can't figure out which ones or why...

[Cerin]

Even if a ban on assault weapons fell within the scope of executive orders, such action would be so incendiary that it would be more dangerous than the problem it was attempting to solve. There are large numbers of Americans who have been inculcated with decades of right wing misinformation regarding the Constitution, the Federal Government, the Second Amendment. They took up arms against the Federal Government over grazing rights. What do you suppose they'd do if a hated black President did what they've been saying all along that he was conspiring to do -- take away their guns (or their right to have them). We'd have open warfare.

edit to remove unhelpful comment

[yovargas]

Agreed. Even if it fell within the scope of his powers, which I'm pretty sure they don't, doing so would be so extremely incendiary that it would ultimately be counter-productive if not outright dangerous. Whatever is done (if anything) needs to come from Congress.

[axordil]

Out of interest, is there anything stopping Obama from signing an executive order banning assault weapons?

I feel like some of those words should be capitalised, but I can't figure out which ones or why...

It's that whole separation of powers thing the U.S. is burdened/blessed with; as the Supreme Court reminded everyone today, there are limits to what a President can do without a new law, no matter how desirable the outcome may be.

[Alatar]

Still not really understanding where the line is. Didn't he force through Obamacare using Exectuive Order?

[Primula Baggins]

No, it was passed by Congress, and just barely.

[Dave_LF]

And a major legislative victory/coup it was. He has issued a few executive orders in connection with it, but the program itself came from Congress.

[Cerin]

Here's some of what wikipedia says about executive orders. I think the gist of it is, executive orders apply to federal agencies, not to the citizenry at large.

United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. <snip> Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the workings of the government. The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval. They are, however, subject to judicial review and interpretation.

[anthriel]

Well, no—but it would make mass killings more difficult. Reducing the death toll is a good thing.

This is just... so true.

[Primula Baggins]

Thanks. Always love to see you here.