My 2nd Amendment thoughts in the wake of the Orlando tragedy

In the wake of this tragic event, there has been a renewed push to strip our constitutionally guaranteed rights out of fear and emotion. A great man (FDR) once said, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". Many folks do not understand that quote, and I point to this period in history to show you what he was referring to then. The fear over these terrible events can cloud people's judgement, and result in some stripping of citizen rights (think Japanese internment camps as one example). So, if we face the fear, and think about innovative approaches that PRESERVE these protections in the constitution, we might find a solution that does NOT strip these rights from the average citizen, yet provides law enforcement a tool to apply in a surgical manner in cases of terrorist suspects.

As an ardent 2nd amendment proponent, however, I do have an idea that I do not believe will infringe upon these rights. This approach might address your fears.


What if, instead of infringing upon that right to keep and bear arms fr everyone in the country, if a person is under an FBI investigation for suspected terrorism, a notification is added to the firearm purchase process that will signal the FBI if/when that person legally purchases a firearm (an illegal purchase would still be possible, and still be illegal). That notification could trigger a more intensive need to increase the surveillance activity, in an attempt to thwart any potential illegal actions with that weapon(s).

IMPORTANT: It would not prevent the sale, but will result in a notification that a suspect has legally purchased a weapon(s). This could indicate the potential escalation of their activity in a direction that could result in mass death. That attachment of a notification should also require a judicial review, similar to getting a search warrant is today. With that "Notification Warrant(TM)" the FBI in conjunction with local law enforcement will then be aware of the situation, and can act more quickly in the event the suspect does "go rogue".

Thoughts ATS?

a reply to: Krakatoa

It could work as long that the watch list itself is more procedural and not as arbitrary as it is now.

a reply to: joemoe

Agreed, which is why I added the caveat that it still requires a judicial review and issue of a warrant.

Is it a good idea? Sure. Will it save lives? Probably not.

Let's say this head chopper was under FBI surveillance at the time of the shooting. The FBI would not have stopped him from doing the actual shooting. 2 fat guys sitting in a tinted out SUV would not have been able to stop this guy. Not to mention the fact that your solution would give the government one more way to waste my money. For all we know, it would take 100,000 more agents to do what you want. We can't afford that anyway you look at it.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. These mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones. These people target people who cannot defend themselves. From what I have heard, there was one armed person in the club and he wasn't able to stop the bad guy. It happens. Its not like in the movies where every shot the good guy fires is a kill shot. Now let's imagine that every bouncer, doorman and half of the club patrons were armed. Do you think this guy would have been able to cause over 100 casualties? Probably not. He may have gotten a few before he was killed. Instead, people inside the club had to cower in fear, waiting to die. They could not defend themselves and had to wait to either die or be rescued.

Then we also have to look at the reality of our situation: It is extremely unlikely that we will end up in a mass shooting. The odds are less than I can calculate but way under 1%. Reality is that gang bangers, crack heads and robbers are our biggest threat. The minute that we give up on stopping the real threat and start worrying about the threats the media tells us to worry about, all hope is lost.

Personally, I want to have the option of defending myself if a bad guy decides he wants to kill me or someone in the same place as me. So...I carry a gun. I carry extra magazines. I practice self defense shooting regularly. If I'm at the same place as a head chopper when he tries to carry out his misguided jihad, I at least have a fighting chance. The more people who do as I do, the better odds we all have.

Buy a gun, learn how to use it, carry it every place you go, train as often as you can. Once there are more armed good guys than there are armed bad guys, the whole situation changes.

Allow me to address your points individually, for clarity.

originally posted by: rudeguy
Is it a good idea? Sure. Will it save lives? Probably not.

In your word, "probably". So, it could save lives. OK.

originally posted by: rudeguy
Let's say this head chopper was under FBI surveillance at the time of the shooting. The FBI would not have stopped him from doing the actual shooting. 2 fat guys sitting in a tinted out SUV would not have been able to stop this guy. Not to mention the fact that your solution would give the government one more way to waste my money. For all we know, it would take 100,000 more agents to do what you want. We can't afford that anyway you look at it.

Had they known based upon this notification, a reopening of the case with renewed surveillance would ensue. So, in that renewed surveillance they would have had the ability to follow him to the club. Once there, they at least would have the opportunity to approach him as he was walking to the door (confronting him before he entered fully armed and ready to kill). Without any notification, that entire scenario is moot. In this case, the notification idea would only target him, not every U.S. citizen. So, your hyperbole statement of costing 100,000 more agents is laughable, at best.

originally posted by: rudeguy
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. These mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones. These people target people who cannot defend themselves. From what I have heard, there was one armed person in the club and he wasn't able to stop the bad guy. It happens. Its not like in the movies where every shot the good guy fires is a kill shot. Now let's imagine that every bouncer, doorman and half of the club patrons were armed. Do you think this guy would have been able to cause over 100 casualties? Probably not. He may have gotten a few before he was killed. Instead, people inside the club had to cower in fear, waiting to die. They could not defend themselves and had to wait to either die or be rescued.

I seriously question allowing people to wield firearms while drinking alcohol. That is an even more deadly mixture IMO. I know too many people that, sober, are reliable and responsible, only to turn a full 180 into a belligerent and violent individual when drinking. Typically, that is fine, until a firearm gets added to that volatile concoction. I think we would risk introducing an entirely new class of problem, everywhere, and affecting everyone. If there was a guarantee that the patron of the club would NOT drink alcohol while there, then fine, let them carry. But, there is no guarantee that is possible.

originally posted by: rudeguy
Then we also have to look at the reality of our situation: It is extremely unlikely that we will end up in a mass shooting. The odds are less than I can calculate but way under 1%. Reality is that gang bangers, crack heads and robbers are our biggest threat. The minute that we give up on stopping the real threat and start worrying about the threats the media tells us to worry about, all hope is lost.

But this discussion is not about "gang bangers, crack heads and robbers" is it? That is a drifting of the topic, IMO. Folks of that ilk will probably not have legal firearms anyways. So, this would be irrelevant in that situation (as I stated in my OP it would still be illegal). Nice try at deflection, but I am not biting.

originally posted by: rudeguy
Personally, I want to have the option of defending myself if a bad guy decides he wants to kill me or someone in the same place as me. So...I carry a gun. I carry extra magazines. I practice self defense shooting regularly. If I'm at the same place as a head chopper when he tries to carry out his misguided jihad, I at least have a fighting chance. The more people who do as I do, the better odds we all have.

Buy a gun, learn how to use it, carry it every place you go, train as often as you can. Once there are more armed good guys than there are armed bad guys, the whole situation changes.

And I support your right to do so, however, if it is in a private establishment, then you need to follow the rules of that private establishment. If they do not allow weapons on their property, so be it. I suggest you go elsewhere that will allow you to carry there. Context of the carry is everything IMO.

Should we be allowed to carry in a cinema? Yes, if that cinema does not serve alcohol.
Should we be allowed to carry in a Federal building? Yes, unless it is a court, which could have a very emotional and life changing event that could result in a defendant or witness being killed to prevent due process. But, a post office, a town hall, why not. But, you must be sober to carry IMO....and that includes any illegal mind altering substances.

It is not a simple issue, I agree. But at least I am offering a possible solution that would ONLY address the people already suspected of terrorist thoughts or actions. Not the entirety of the U.S. population. That, I believe is a key differentiation.

a reply to: Krakatoa

If you're on a watch list, your name is supposed to trigger a flag to the bureau if you try to purchase a firearm. Why it didn't in the case of Orlando remains to be seen.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Do you understand how many people it takes to conduct a proper surveillance? It takes multiple vehicles at all times, in multiple shifts. You would need at least 5 teams with at least 3 vehicles in each team. That is minimum 15 people for every one person being watched. Multiply that out over the number of people you want to watch.

And don't forget, the shooter was confronted before he entered the club. The off duty cop confronted him at the entrance where the cop was stationed. You whole theory on why your idea would work was proved wrong by this one fact.

I also never said people should carry while drinking. I also never said anything about what a private business can or can't allow. I addressed the laws that say I cannot legally carry in an establishment that's primary income is alcohol. Most states have similar laws. Imagine a world where we got to decide what was safe for us rather than the government telling us when we can defend ourselves.

You seem to be in favor of more government, more laws, more policies that can erode our freedom. That is your right. However, reality is that such policies have never worked. You also can't just ignore all of the other dangers just to focus on mass shootings. In real life, you can't ignore the real dangers. I don't care about politics, policies or anything else. I care about me, my family and my country being safe. If it makes you feel good inside to think of pie in the sky ideas that aren't practical and would never work, then go ahead.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I proposed something along the same lines yesterday and got shot down.

Here's the reality of the situation, and its a sad one. The truth is that the character, the culture and the demographic makeup of the US has changed so drastically since even the 1990's that slow stripping of the 2nd Amendment rights is inevitable. The events like Orlando and San Bernadino only help to advance this agenda. And its extremely important to the Leftist "Progressives" that victimization at the hands of extremists who identify with foreign ideologies be equalized. What they hate the most is the idea that some can and will and in some cases do protect themselves from violence while others are laid waste at the hands of the nutters. Put simply, they want us all in the same boat in an equal opportunity free fire kill zone.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you're on a watch list, your name is supposed to trigger a flag to the bureau if you try to purchase a firearm. Why it didn't in the case of Orlando remains to be seen.

I was not aware of that aspect. And if you are correct, then yes, I too would like to know why that did not happen. And if it did happen, why it was not followed up with at all. After all the little bits coming out now, it does sound more and more like the bureau did indeed drop the ball on this one. If that is the case, then I can imagine it might be politically motivated by the current administration. That is becoming more of a possibility each passing day now.

Well, at least I tried to not just complain, but to provide a reasonable solution. Even though some here refuse to accept it, or are (worse) apathetic to it and calling for a full court press of draconian rule of law.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krakatoa

I proposed something along the same lines yesterday and got shot down.

Here's the reality of the situation, and its a sad one. The truth is that the character, the culture and the demographic makeup of the US has changed so drastically since even the 1990's that slow stripping of the 2nd Amendment rights is inevitable. The events like Orlando and San Bernadino only help to advance this agenda. And its extremely important to the Leftist "Progressives" that victimization at the hands of extremists who identify with foreign ideologies be equalized. What they hate the most is the idea that some can and will and in some cases do protect themselves from violence while others are laid waste at the hands of the nutters. Put simply, they want us all in the same boat in an equal opportunity free fire kill zone.

With all due respect, I do NOT believe it is inevitable. I will fight it until my death if that is what needs to be done. And I know a lot of folks that will do the same.

I will not go silently into THAT goodnight!
I will RAGE against the dying of THAT light!

a reply to: Krakatoa

If we were serious about gun control in the US (while still allowing people to own guns) we would adopt some sort of system so that you can only fire a gun with a valid fingerprint, and then require all guns be permanently modified to use those readers. Offer buybacks for those who don't comply, and require any gun legally imported into the US or sold here to have such a system on it. Over time the unmodified guns would become more scarce, driving up their prices, and keeping them out of the hands of most would be criminals.

The problem is, something like that still only goes part way, it would still require a list that would prohibit a sale to a person so they couldn't get a gun and the pro gun people are never going to stand for such a list.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you're on a watch list, your name is supposed to trigger a flag to the bureau if you try to purchase a firearm. Why it didn't in the case of Orlando remains to be seen.

What are they supposed to do with a flag? You can't arrest and charge someone for a crime they haven't committed. All a flag does is tell the FBI that someone might commit a crime in the future, but even so are they actually guilty of anything until they pull the trigger?

The way the police usually get around this, is they came up with the concept of conspiracy laws, where they can charge you with conspiracy to commit a crime before you've actually gone through with it. This requires multiple people working together though, and this man either worked alone or worked with his wife (spousal privilege exempts you from conspiracy).

a reply to: Aazadan

You are aware that a lot of people wear these things called "gloves", right?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you're on a watch list, your name is supposed to trigger a flag to the bureau if you try to purchase a firearm. Why it didn't in the case of Orlando remains to be seen.

If you are taken off the watch list does the flag still trigger? I thought he was taken off it?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Chances are that once your name has been on the list, whether still active or not, your purchase will be flagged for review. The current law says the FBI has 72 hours to process the review or the purchase goes through by default. I know a ton of guys who get "delayed" every time they purchase a gun and the 72 hour window always expires and they get their gun. The NICS system is so overworked that I don't know if you could add anything more to it without breaking it or completely rebuilding it.

Seriously...look at what happened here. The guy was investigated twice by the FBI. Reports are that Disney reported him to the FBI a short time before the shooting. We can keep pushing for more laws and regulations but the truth is that every law and regulation will not work 100% of the time. The current NICS checks work over 99% of the time. We can't knee jerk because one head chopper snuck through. Does anyone honestly think that anything being proposed will be more than 99% effective?

originally posted by: rudeguy
a reply to: Aazadan

You are aware that a lot of people wear these things called "gloves", right?

A lot of people wear mittens and are then unable to use a gun too. Sounds like a positive to me, if a criminal wants to wear gloves to not leave fingerprints it means they're not using a gun at the same time.

a reply to: rudeguy

Thanks for that background information