asssault rifle ban for those on terror watch list - at least

[jimmy the one]

What congressional Dems might suggest is to create an 'assault weapons ban' for those on a terrorist watch list.
That is to say, if not a total gun ban for them as is politically improbable, at least ban those on a terrorist watch list from being able to buy assault rifles such as the sig mcx or the AR15. These both use a low weight 0.223 bullet or the similar nato round which are so light at ~60 grains they do not create much rifle recoil, which makes shooting more accurate as the rifle needs not be re-aimed as much after firing shots, as do bullets with heavier weight & larger calibers. Also known as 'rifle rise' due greater recoil.
These assault rifles using these low weight bullets are 'en vogue' for mass shootings due the same reasons soldiers like them - can carry more light weight bullets, light recoil, & higher accuracy & lethality. The lady shooter at san bernardino was reported as having an AR15, or a 0.223 rifle, & she weighed little over 100 lbs, making the AR15 ideal for her - tho whether she actually shot, dunno.
Obtaining a handgun or conventional rifle by a suspect terrorist would generally not be as effective in mass shootings as these assault rifles.
At least suspect terrorists wouldn't be able to get assault rifles, while still being able to exercise their (barf) 2nd Amendment rkba.

...........AR15/M16 ..... AK-47 (122 grain bullet) >>>> Free Recoil
momentum 40.4 ft-lbs .. 54.3 ft-lbs
(some rifles have 240+ grain bullets with much greater recoil than ar15)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

Also, the nra is fos when saying a ban on all those formerly on a terrorist watch list (as recent orlando shooter) might not be deterred by a ban on those currently on a terrorist watch list.
Some 'formerly's' indeed would be deterred by such a ban, as there would be a 'threat' of being identified as having once been on a terrorist watch list, and this in itself would inhibit many of those people from even desiring to try to purchase a gun, for either an irrational fear of being reported to cops & quickly arrested, or being exposed by the gun dealer to the community he lives in, iow paranoia.

As far as 'law abiding americans' being prohibited from buying a gun if they are accidentally on a terrorist watch list ban, the gun lobby makes the absurd conclusion that all of these people would even want to buy a gun. Most would likely not even want to buy a gun, unless they were truly terroristic of course.
Some unfairly on the list would already be gun owners, thus not being left gun-less.
Most all of the rest should not complain severely about being accidentally put on one since they could simply go to sheriff or authority & provide proof that they are legal beagles, and weighing the positive benefits from a terrorist watch list a true citizen should understand. True terrorists generally could not do this.

[safeinOhio]

1. I don't hear those against

the ban of those on the terrorist list coming up with a fix for the list.

[sarisataka]

7. My fix is

trash it. If a person is too dangerous to buy a gun or get on a plane, they are too dangerous to walk in public.

I opposed the no fly list when Bush created it; I oppose it today.

[Duckhunter935]

16. Yep they must be very dangerous to be on the list

If they should not be able to fly or have a weapon, they are to dangerous to be loose to do other things.

[petronius]

17. I think the 'fix' for the lists is to restrict them to being used as lists

and nothing more. I.e., tools for law enforcement and investigative agencies to share info about who is being investigated and what is known about those persons, but not as arbitrary and non-transparent tools for restricting rights, liberties, or privileges...

[99th_Monkey]

2. Makes more sense than a ban for the No-Fly List. n/t

[mwrguy]

3. That would be a good start

[Crepuscular]

4. ...

So it's ok to deny due process just a little bit?

Secondly, Assault Weapon Bans are unlikely to save a single life, all they do is spur companies to create work-arounds and spur an increase in weapon sales. There are something like 10 - 15 million semi-automatic rifles in this country, as well as a number of other action designs using extended magazines. Unless you are somehow going to confiscate tens of millions of weapons and maybe a billion or so high capacity magazines, any AWB style attempts are highly unlikely to save a single one of the several hundred people a year killed with these types of weapons.

Someone crazed enough to kill dozens of people could do so equally effectively with readily available weapons such as this, which is fully compliant with every AWB that has been implemented or suggested.

[jimmy the one]

12. reread the OP, you argue a different topic

crepuscular: So it's ok to deny due process just a little bit?

Yes, it's the price to pay for somehow getting on a terrorist watch list, whether valid or accidental.
Banning suspect terrorists from being able to purchase assault rifles which comprise ~4% of national gunstock is hardly infringing on any alleged right, since they could go to a firearm dealer & purchase any other conventional firearm - I gather this is what you & the nra argue for, inadvertently, those on terrorist watch lists being able to arm themselves.
The benefits in prevention would be worth the inconveniencing of some legal beagles.

Secondly, Assault Weapon Bans are unlikely to save a single life, all they do is spur companies to create work-arounds and spur an increase in weapon sales.

This has nowt to do with the ban I suggested, for suspect terrorists. I suggest you reread the OP. You suggest an absurdity that smith & wesson would try to work around an assault rifle ban to suspect terrorists. A couple terrorists could do that number of gun murders in a few nights, with an AR15.

Unless you are somehow going to confiscate tens of millions of weapons and maybe a billion or so high capacity magazines, any AWB style attempts are highly unlikely to save a single one of the several hundred people a year killed with these types of weapons.

Do reread the OP, you are arguing something which is not being discussed.

Someone crazed enough to kill dozens of people could do so equally effectively with readily available weapons such as this, which is fully compliant with every AWB that has been implemented or suggested.

How much does your pictured firearm weigh? what is the recoil? what weight bullet?

[Crepuscular]

19. ...

I'm sorry, the ideal of congress expending political capital to pass an AWB that would only apply to individuals on the no-fly list is such an absurd idea as to be laughable.

How many individuals on the no-fly list have purchased "assault weapons" (whatever the particular definition of that imaginary item is) in the past several years?

Next, how many individuals on the no-fly list have purchased "assault weapons" in the last several years and have used them to kill multiple individuals?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that number is ZERO.

Taking this absurd suggestion to it's conclusion, suppose, just suppose that such an absurdly narrow law was passed, that it was not overturned by the courts for denying due process and that it prevented a would be terrorist from purchasing an "assault weapon", as defined under this law, what pray tell would prevent them from either using a straw purchaser to obtain the needed weapon, as was done in the recent California shooting, or as an alternative legally legally purchasing the rifle that I pictured earlier, which is AWB compliant in all 50 states?

That rifle weighs 6 lbs, is chambered in .223 (same as an AR15, you can use bullet weights from 50 to 90 grn), uses standard AR15 magazines, (10, 20, 30 rnd), has mild recoil and can easily cycle through a 30 round mag in less then 60 seconds. It also has a folding stock which would aid concealment.

Such a law, as proposed by the OP, would be a "feel good" gesture, that like the previous AWB, would give the illusion of actually doing something about guns but in reality would do absolutely nothing to thwart gun violence.

[Press Virginia]

5. sooo you want to ban their purchase of a gun used in 11% of mass shootings

and then cite a woman who was using a gun that was obtained illegally

makes toooootal sense

[jimmy the one]

13. thank you for your support

press virginia: sooo you want to ban their purchase of a gun used in 11% of mass shootings and then cite a woman who was using a gun that was obtained illegally

Yes I do to suspect terrorists, & yes I did. That she obtained the gun illicitly & was not on a terror watch list is beside the point, since any gun control measure will likely not block all violations, only temper them. A 10% improvement is better than the current status quo - even a faint pulse is better than a flat line.

makes toooootal sense

thank you for your support.

[Press Virginia]

14. a 10% improvement would save roughly 2 lives

that's a lot of people having their rights violated for 2 lives

I've heard this argument before....

[MohRokTah]

6. Assault rifles are already banned for all intents and purposes.

Sure, you can own one manufactured prior to 1986 if you obtain the proper licensing and pay tens of thousands of dollars, then pay thousands to tens of thousands and for some examples over one hundred thousand dollars, but that's still basically a ban.

You should learn about The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). That's is the law that made it illegal for nearly anybody to own an assault rifle.

[Heeeeers Johnny]

8. And then that denied, disallowed person would just employ a 'straw purchaser'

to buy one.

[Press Virginia]

10. just like the woman in the San Bernadino shooting did

[ManiacJoe]

18. Fortunately that is already illegal.

Unfortunately, it is not enforced all that much.

[csziggy]

9. Why not flag the FBI if a person on any suspect list applies to buy a gun?

Not a ban, just a flag that comes up and can trigger additional checks.

It is not impossible to do something like that - credit companies can flag individuals' records if there are problems with their credit. The FBI and other agencies (maybe including state and local police) could flag people who are possible concerns. This could apply to people who have restraining orders or a history of domestic or workplace violence as well as possible terrorist threats.

Something like that should not need new laws, just new procedures to set up the flag system.

[sarisataka]

11. Will all true citizens

Have the burden of proving their innocence in all cases or only select cases?

I suppose one way to relieve the burden on the courts is to delegate some of the responsibility of determining guilt to law enforcement. I would also bet you would see a lot of support for that proposal from law enforcement.

[Igel]

15. Nah.

If you're on the watch list, it's because you're not part of we the people and therefore not a True Citizen (tm).

Problem solved.

We can apply that all over the place, too. Don't like what somebody says? Hey, you're on the "hate speech list," making you not a True Citizen, so it's not a violation of the 1A to ban your speech.

I may patent this idea under the name "Orwellification."