Mass shooting at LGBT nightclub in Orlando.

[Mr. Reactionary]

No. The GOP has blood on its hands in many, many ways. They are fully responsible for allowing events like this.

Lol. Do we even know if this guy bought his guns after that law would have taken effect? The only person with blood on their hands is the shooter.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The terror watch list weapon ban would have been unconstitutional, as good of an idea as it is.

Would it, though? Felons can't buy guns, more or less, so what would be wrong with banning people on that list from purchasing firearms? Would the Heller decision have anything to do with this?

If we have people on watch lists, it really doesn't make sense to allow them to purchase guns. The only issue I have with it is that innocent people on the list would have a hassle, so maybe they should have tiers and only ban certain people on that list from owning firearms. Having a quick way to appeal your standing on the list would be good, too.

There are three big issues with the proposed ban. The first is that it denies a constitutionally protected right to citizens without any form of due process. Felons had their day in court. While not as formal as a trial, commitment proceedings still fall within constitutional due process, as there is notice and an opportunity by the person to be heard by a court prior to deprivation of their rights. Same for persons dishonorably discharged from the military. The 5th Amendment requires due process prior to deprivation of liberty, which includes 2nd Amendment rights. Having an unidentified government official place a name onto one of the lists based on who knows what reason is not adequate process. As this is not a final action, it is nominally unreviewable under the APA and agencies will usually not tell persons that they are on one of the lists, even when asked by that person. The lack of notice, opportunity to challenge, or even sue in court through normal means would clearly violate due process, as there is a deprivation of a fundamental right flowing from the governmental act.

The second issue is that there are multiple watch lists, many of them are inaccurate, and usually they only contain a list of names, not a list of identities. Boston Legal had a good critique of this latter argument, in an episode where the name "Denny Crane" was on the no-fly list. Alan Shore filled the gallery with other people named "Denny Crane" who were also facing difficulties despite not being the particular Denny Crane who the government had in mind when they placed the name on one of the lists. Multiple federal agencies have separate lists of terror suspects or their names/aliases; many of these come from leads or unverified tips. These lists then gets compiled into the actual no-fly list, which again is just a list of names and aliases to refuse boarding passes to. There is nothing to ensure that some poor schmuck with the name Muhammad Hezekiah Sharif won't be unfairly punished for having an unlucky name if the list says Muhammad Shariff is a possible alias for a terrorist. If the list was actually limited to verified identities with enough probable cause to warrant them being placed on the list, then it might be a different story. But we're awash in anneccdotes from the ACLU about infants, or Cat Stevens, or Ted Kennedy being mistakenly targeted because of a similar name on the list.

The third issue is that the proposed law possibly undermines active terrorism investigations. Under this law, if I was a terrorist, and I wanted to check to see if the Feds knew about me, I'd try to buy a gun. If I get flagged, then I know someone is watching me. And it wouldn't require me to have to buy  a plane ticket and risk showing up at the airport.

[Mr. Reactionary]

There are some sick people. 50 people are dead and all some people are worried about is protecting restricting guns.

We should instead be focusing on the criminal and the victims.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Sleeper cells.  Honestly, i feel like these attacks occur every few months on certain events.   I think they are testing our reactions and seeing our weaknesses.      Imagine if they got a small nuclear weapon      

It'd much more likely be a radiological dispersal weapon instead of a some sort of fission bomb. Not AS horrendous, but theoretically possible.

[Mr. Reactionary]

There are some sick people. 50 people are dead and all some people are worried about is protecting restricting guns.

We should instead be focusing on the criminal and the victims.

There are a lot people who are not concerned about the victims. The parents of Sandy Hook children are considered to be some sort of villains because they call for gun control.

I support gun control because there are some people who should NEVER have a gun.

I doubt that those parents were politicizing the shooting before the victims had even been buried.  There's legitimate political debate and there's parasitically feeding on the emotions of victims to achieve your own personal political ends.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Which you and your kind have absolutely been doing as well. If you want to be an arsehole, fine. I guess that's your right. Try not to be a hypocrite as well.

Me? I don't gloat about muh good guys with guns when this stuff happens to try and manipulate people into supporting more gun carry rights.

[Mr. Reactionary]

His former wife, who left him in 2011 fearing for her life, said he was a violently abusive man who wanted to be a police officer.

"He was not a stable person," she said.

"He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn't finished or something like that."

In a separate interview with The Washington Post Ms Yusufiy, who left the suspect in 2011, said he was violently abusive.

It's a shame he was never prosecuted. A misdemeanor domestic assault conviction would have kept him from buying guns regardless of whether or not he was on the no-fly list, which may not have been the case.

[Mr. Reactionary]