Britain Is Bleeding

Dianne Feinstein, who has proposed and sponsored numerous firearm-related restrictions in the united states congress over the years, admitted openly to everyone that not a single restriction, either currently in place, or being discussed, could have prevented the Las Vegas incident from taking place.

 

you keep wanting to change the laws -based not on the law doing ANY GOOD-but because you claim the inconvenience it visits on honest people is not all that bad. Why am I, a 30 year veteran prosecutor clueless about the law? you are unable to tell me what would happen if the guy said-bugger off!. are you now pretending to know about law enforcement?

so tell us=-under what law does exercising one's rights merit investigation? if this guy was suspicious, why would he buy guns from dealers and go through background checks?

so DIFI claims nothing could have stopped this. you pretend otherwise

 

I have the right to deposit cash in my back account. So you interview this guy who deposits large amounts of cash and he says it's none of your business. Do you walk away? Can you be so clueless? Now we can not walk away anymore from peop,e that buy dozens of firearms in a year. But you want to protect them. Because an interview.....harrassment!!!

 

Yeah I didn't vote for her. So what

 

You can't possibly know so little about law enforcement. You could learn more watching tv. Lol

 

you just don't get it. if someone engages in behavior that many criminals have engaged in, that is grounds to investigate. You seem unable to understand what Paddock did before the shooting has no history of leading to criminal wrongdoing. You keep saying I want to PROTECT THEM-what a joke. I am merely noting you frantic attempts to pretend you have some way of stopping another Paddock is incorrect. and stop pretending you know more about law enforcement than I do. You have claimed to be some sort of psychologist, not a LEO or aa DA or ADA

 

I forget more about law enforcement daily than your posts indicate you have ever known. and I think the other people on this board who have LE credentials know that is true. you are just spewing nonsense. how would an interview have stopped the vegas shooting, especially if the shooter said "bugger off" to the agents who had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to interview him anyway

since you claim to know more about law enforcement and the law than I do, tell me what grounds and what statute gives the ATF any grounds to interview someone like Paddock

 

It's an interview. How dare people have to explain to the ATF why they bought dozens of guns in a year? My god you defend these people from an interview. You have no clue

 

stop pretending what I am saying. I defend freedom. what good is an interview going to do and once again-I realize that some people are huge fans of a police state but what in the statutes and the law give the ATF such power to interview people for legally buying guns. you have dodged that question several times.

 

My god. You really have no clue about law enforcement. About the effects of a suspect under investigation. A person buys enough guns and ammo with bump stocks in a year to injure 500 people and that is not something to investigate. Because an interview is too much to ask for in that extreme case. Holy cow. I hope everyone reads this

 

You must be kidding. Are you completely clueless about the law? The police have the authority to question anyone they want in an investigation. How can you not know this. This is just sad

 

what INVESTIGATION? you just cannot figure out that merely buying guns legally doesn't give the cops any grounds to start an investigation. You apparently believe buying guns legally is probable cause to think a crime is committed. Your posts all demonstrate a hostility against legal gun ownership. Its not surprising that you are now arguing that a buying guns with BACKGROUND CHECKS ( you know-your beloved "ITS JUST A FORM") is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

WHAT LAW JUSTIFIES this investigation? its like cops pulling someone over for no traffic offense and demanding the driver tell them where they are driving to. or standing in front of a library and demanding patrons tell them what books they want to read

sorry, I am not a fan of a police state.

 

a brick of 22s (25 dollars) and a 22 rifle is enough to injure 500 people. Sorry, Most of us don't support a police state

 

But that's not what he had was it. He had a arsenal acquired mostly in the last year. And how dare he be investigated for it. Holy cow

 

My god now I have to explain what an investigation is. I hope people read this

 

I guess you refuse to answer the obvious question because you have avoided the following

1) find me another case where this sort of factual pattern resulted in a massacre

2) what law allows the police or ATF to investigate someone who legally buys guns when the ATF cannot even go after criminals who are proven to illegally try to buy guns

Do you believe the police have the proper power to investigate perfectly legal activity? for weeks we heard you scream for background checks and CLAIM THAT IS ALL YOU WANTED. and then a case comes along where background checks were executed and you start screaming for fascist style actions.

what justifies an investigation? why do you have such a hard time telling us?

 

and you have YET to FIND a SINGLE case where this same fact pattern had resulted in a massacre in the past.

 

I am done. Defenders of Stephen paddock's freedom make me sick

 

He is your guy. Defend him all night. I find this distasteful

 

that's just a silly argument. He's not "my guy" and I don't believe a thing you say.

You constantly complain about wanting "honest debate" and yet you cannot even tell us what law justifies the ATF interrogating people who have complied with your beloved ITS JUST A FORM. its obvious your posts aren't intended to actually debate this issue.

 

Same Australia until the doubled the size of their police force.

 

And by what mechanism would the ATF or anyone else know how many guns were acquired in what time?

 

I am still trying to understand how exercising your rights-including passing background checks, justifies an "INVESTIGATION" by law enforcement given there is no grounds for one to take place. other than harassing avid gun collectors, what exactly can this accomplish?

 

Minority Report

 

never ever watched it. give me the cliff notes version