Hypothetical, if ISIS targeted an American High School

My guns are secured, snookums.

good for you. How about your neighbors'? (I feel like a voyeur asking this...)

The ones who have guns do.

Ahhh so you're the voyeur...

I know my neighbors, champ.

This is why you feel the need for guns?

I own them because they're fun to shoot and because I can.

As strong an argument for the 2nd amendment as I have ever heard.

By "I can" I mean that I have a right to own them.

That's all the justification I need.

Precisely.

The Tide is Turning

This is what it looks like when the tide is turning.

You have the New York Times putting its foot down. They stuck an op-ed telling us (contrary to the hitherto party line) that they do, in fact, want to take our guns. You see, some Muslim radicals shouting about Allah murdered a bunch of citizens who, as California’s genius lawmakers intended, were utterly defenseless. Naturally, we have to take steps to further ensure that our citizens are even more defenseless in the future.

Nah, that’s not going to happen. Media stompy foot is not a sign of strength; it’s a pathetic confession of weakness. We reached a tipping point last week as the facts poured in about the latest gun-free zone massacre. Yes, our thoughts and prayers are with the devastated liberals who must once again face the terrible truth that the killers were not Judeo-Christian, conservative, card-carrying members of the Tea Party and the NRA. Instead, at least one of them was exactly the kind of person that Obama was virtue signaling about post-Paris, a Muslim woman immigrant who was closely vetted by the super-competent pros in his administration. Just don’t pay any attention to that Facebook pledge of allegiance to ISIS behind the curtain; it complicated the workplace violence narrative.​

He goes on for a while in that vein, as do many others since Obama's Oval Office speech. Even Slate calls his gun ideas wrong-headed. Reason notes that Obama doesn't know what assault weapons are, while the LA Times, while opposing assault rifles, says Obama is wrong on banning people on the No-Fly List, noting that only about one percent could buy guns anyway because almost none are US citizens.

In response to a serious terror attack, Obama's only response was to trot out two ideas that won't help and don't make sense.

The no-gun no-fly list is indeed a ludicrously bad idea. It only makes sense as some kind of double gambit: gimme gun control or admit that the lists are unfair in the first place.

Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list because some foreign terrorist once used the alias "T. Kennedy". Not exactly the scalpel of judicial procedure there.

I was merely curious if your neighbors owning guns was your justification. Thanks for your answer.

Please note, rights and justifications do not preclude regulations and restrictions.

The no-fly list is a no-brainer first-filter for people that want to buy guns. That they can't purchase a plane tkt without some work should apply to guns. Oh the insanity...

Aside from being unconstitutional, the No Fly List would just ban gun sales to people who already can't buy guns because ninety-nine percent of them are not US citizens. It's the completely wrong tool for the job.

Background checks are unconstitutional? It should be the first tool for the job, but only as a flag for more in-depth checking. Also 3 days is not long enough to perform an adequate check.

The Terrorist Screening Database seems like a better filter.

The No Fly List isn't a background check, it's a name check for known aliases. All it does is say "These names might be with Al Qaeda. Don't let them board a flight." Most of it is based on intercepts. Ninety-nine percent of the names are not for US citizens, because it's a system to try and prevent Saudi Arabian terrorists and others from taking down commercial aircraft. Note that we don't allow them to buy guns anyway because they're not US citizens, and they already have guns, often provided by Obama and Hillary so they can fight Assad.

Second, the San Bernardino terrorists weren't on the No Fly List. They were flying all over the place. So it wouldn't have worked anyway.

Third, they bought their pistols legally and bought their rifles off a childhood friend, so it wouldn't have worked anyway.

Fourth, a US citizen cannot be denied their Constitutional rights without due process, so they would sue in court. The judge would rule with the US Constitution and the result would either strike down the No Fly List gun requirement, or create a new requirement that nobody can be put on the No Fly List without an actual court hearing where they are present to defend themselves. That would mean we can't add Saudi Arabian members of Al Qaeda until we catch and arrest them, and the No Fly List would become absolutely useless because it wouldn't include the people we know of who are trying to blow up or hijack commercial airliners.

We needed a coherent response from the President and all we got was a room temperature bucket of piss.

I didn't suggest the no fly list was a background check, but it should be a flag to institute a higher level check on an individual.

While you were posting I edited to add the TSDB as a better filter.

That the San Bernardino killers acquired their guns "legally" and through another person (the majority it seems) suggest that laws need changing.

The various databases should be used as flags/filters to engage due process: an actual in depth background check lasting more than 3 days.

There is no actual background check. None is possible. If you're joining the CIA or going to be handling nuclear weapons, you get a background check. They are expensive and involve government agents talking to all your family and friends, which takes weeks. Given that we just had 185,000 guns sold in one day, and that each sale would take a government agent a week or two to run down, you'd need to hire perhaps a million or two new agents whose only job is to run background checks. But those would all have to have their own background checks run.

And what would that accomplish? All Muslims would still pass the background check because we're not racists.

And finally, "due process" means due process, not government procedure. You get to have a defense attorney and a judge or jury. The background check system is checking as to whether this has already happened, because that's the only thing that can keep a US citizen from enjoying their rights under the Constitution. If it didn't happen in court, it didn't happen.

There are a wide variety of background checks from what I've heard. I've had at least four myself and I doubt they talked to any of my family and friends.

there is a background check. It is being done and it is effective. More than 3 days is needed.

Mr. Roof attempted to purchase the handgun on April 11, a Saturday, the FBI director said. The Brady act requires sellers and law-enforcement agencies—either the FBI or state agencies—to check potential buyers’ backgrounds through a system called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. That also gave the FBI three business days to determine whether he should be denied permission to buy the gun.

On Monday, April 13, his background screening was assigned to an FBI official in West Virginia. The official attempted to scrutinize Mr. Roof’s record, and contacted the Lexington County sheriff’s office and then the West Columbia, S.C., police to obtain details about a recent drug arrest. West Columbia is located in Lexington County, as is a small sliver of the city of Columbia—though records referenced by the examiner didn’t list Columbia as being part of Lexington County.

The county sheriff’s office referred the FBI official to contact the Columbia police, which had arrested Mr. Roof six weeks earlier for suspected drug possession. But because the FBI official didn’t understand that a small part of Columbia was located in Lexington County, she instead contacted the police in West Columbia, who had no record of Mr. Roof’s arrest.

The Columbia police department’s report of the arrest stated that Mr. Roof admitted he was in possession of drugs. Under federal law, a drug arrest doesn’t bar a gun purchase, but Mr. Comey said that admitting to having drugs—even without a conviction—would have been grounds for denying the sale.

Mr. Roof’s admission, Mr. Comey said, should have stopped him from purchasing the weapon. However, because the examiner had made no contact with the Columbia department—before the three-day review period ended—the sale to Mr. Roof was completed, on April 16.

Mr. Roof’s case was in a “delayed-pending” status while the background check was under way. Under federal law, customers are allowed to purchase the weapons if their cases are in the delayed-pending status, although some retailers still won’t make the sale. source.
​

More:

More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials. source​

You don't say?

All rights are subject to some restrictions.

My biggest problem with that idea is that there are people on that list who shouldn't be on it. Even some DHS employees.

Oh, there are many different kinds of check. Are you going to be working with children, joining the military, or working in thermonuclear warhead design? At the highest levels it's beyond background check and into paranoia land where your own family doesn't even know what you do. There are some people who face lifetime travel restrictions because of what they know.

Amusing side note: Nobody who has a medical marijuana card can legally buy a gun from a licensed dealer.

Not sure what I would do short-term, but long-term in the event of terrorist attacks on schools I'd probably volunteer as a teacher/tutor for all the new homeschooled kids.

Yes there are. But the general run of the mill "criminal background check" like you get at your local police department (for a small fee) as a requirement for employment is what the stores run. If you pass one, you will pass the other most of the time. That said if you fail the store check for unknown reasons, it might be for things that happened many years ago that you thought were wrapped up. So don't go down to the police station to get a second opinion - unless you like handcuffs and jail food!

The background check for owning a gun is if you have any disqualifiers from owning a gun. Given that whole Second Amendment "...shall not be infringed" part, yes, it is a fairly relaxed background check, as it should be.

Now this is on point. Its part of the plot on 24:Legacy.