Waffle House shooting leaves 4 dead, several injured; gunman sought

Your links are nothing but propaganda. You cannot even read the Snopes link before you are spammed with popups.

 

I don't care what other countries do, but I would suspect that other countries would restrict this guy's gun rights given the stunt at the White House and previous suicide attempt where he told the authorities that Taylor Swift was stalking him.

 

Purposefully missing the point doesn't seem to be a winning strategy here. The FBI were investigating whether the alleged shooter was still a threat in the community, they concluded he was not. It is eerily familiar to others the FBI also investigated only to let them go on to kill so many, like Orlando....

 

Must be a leftover obama policy much like the Promise program.

 

You can't lock up every nut case. But they did take away his gun rights. Unfortunately private transfers don't face any roadblocks. They should. It should be illegal to transfer a gun without a background check.

 

except the majority of americans do indeed believe that. Whether rightly or wrongly is a different discussion. but you are factually incorrect when you claim the American people don't want more gun laws.

 

Gun friendly Tennessee laws allowed him to own guns even after Illinois made it illegal for him to own a gun

 

You are a hopeless case who does not know how to do a simple search on Honduras gun laws, Switzerland gun laws and world homicide rates.

 

No they do not.

 

Here are some facts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Honduras

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/world/un-world-murder-rates/index.html

Now that I have destroyed your propaganda I guess you will continue to ignore the facts about Mexico.

 

It would seem that you are right. A history of bizarre conduct. His guns were previously removed by the Police and given to his Father to be kept under lock and key.

 

As an avid member of the NRA and supporter of the rights of American citizens to protect themselves with firearms, I must actually agree with you. I don't like the whole idea of 'background checks' -- if only because I've grown so distrustful of the government agencies that conduct these checks.

But we are at an impasse... we MUST take hard-core action to get weapons OUT of the hands of "criminals and crazies", as I call them. It begins by discovering WHO these people ARE, and then, as much as I hate the overall idea, confiscate their firearms and make it impossible for them to EVER possess firearms legally again.

I know, I know... "They'll just get guns illegally!" I can hear it now. That's where MUCH stricter and harsher punishment MUST be used when people do break laws regarding firearms!

Surely anything is better than a horrible situation in which law-abiding American citizens are literally "thrown to the wolves" by gun-grabbing, rabid Leftists. How many of you want to be left defenseless when "da boyz in da 'hood" decide that YOUR house is a great place for a "home invasion"? How many of you want to be utterly defenseless when some crazy bastard barges into a restaurant where YOU are eating dinner and starts shooting at YOU?!

 

actually 2016 was a fluke and I think even you know that, Trump was no mandate, Trump was lack of dem turn out as many thought a freak like Trump could never win and Hillary had it in the bag, so why bother voting - the people will correct that mistake in 2018 and 2020

as for gun laws, most believe ar-15's should be harder to get, just like machine guns

do republicans think mass shooters like this Waffle guy should have easy access to ar-15's

 

You seem unseemingly tolerant of the FBI failure here. So, blame the family for returning the weapons instead? Why, if the FBI concluded dude wasn't a threat, why should he still be under a restriction from having weapons? Or, better question is, why did the FBI conclude that in the first place? Obviously, their assessment was wrong, no? Why, in your estimation, would there be roadblocks at all then? How would your intrusive government behavior have stopped this unfortunate event when you're willing to dismiss the culpability of the FBI, and at the same time, overreach by suggesting the control you're advocating for would have been effective at all?

 

Your first link states that "citizens of Honduras and foreign citizens who are legal residents of Honduras may purchase, own, possess, or transport any handgun, shotgun, or rifle as permitted and defined under the Act on the Control of Firearms, Ammunition"

Your second link does not say that "Switzerland requires citizens to own guns" and goes further to say that there is only 2M guns in private hands! Hardly every citizen and no doubt that many citizens have more than one gun

So, once again:
Your claims:
1. Honduras bans citizens from owning guns - WRONG
2. Switzerland requires citizens to own guns - WRONG
3. Switzerland has the Lowest homicide rate in the entire world - WRONG

Edit : removed unwarranted insult - sorry

 

Ah, yet another mental patient running around with an AR

Sounds like daddy is yet another 'responsible' Murican gun owner too, eh.



What a country..................................

 

This seems entirely disingenuous with the "I'm a lifelong NRA member and supporter garbage"... We have laws, today, that make gun possession illegal for a number of demographics already, do we now? We have some restrictions both on folks who have criminal history as well as mental health already do we not? Why are these ineffective?

Second, who get's to conclude what "criminal or crazy" means? You? Given your own logic, what would you do if say the government chooses a political side, and decides that anyone who doesn't support said political side is "crazy" or "criminal". Given your own prescriptions, government would be able to attack political opponents given this very arbitrary standard.

Of course, this didn't occur to you. It never does....

 

What would you have the FBI do? They were the only law enforcement agency that took any action.

 

Which looks like directly resulting in tragedy. Again. Yes, they took action. They cleared the alleged shooter. How would your tawdry government overreach have precluded this? If dude wasn't a threat, or crazy, how would your restrictions of personal transfers have stopped this? Answer? It wouldn't.

 

when the secret service busted him at the white house, he should of been locked up for a long time at that point or at the very least committed to a mental facility

I am guessing as a Trump supporter they let him off easy... that was a mistake

 

So you are saying:
1) Every citizen in Honduras can own a gun. lolz! Yeah right.
2) No citizen in Switzerland is required to own a gun...not even the military? lolz! again.

3)Switzerland has a high homocide rate.....double lolz!

 

because in the US people have the right to own guns. You think that crime would just vanish if we restricted guns? The only reason criminals do crime is because people can get guns ?

we should hold Killers responsible for killing.

 

Lefties gonna lefty.

 

the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you’d ever actually read it, you’d know that it declares itself as such. So yes, the 2nd amendment is in fact a law. You’re wrong.

 

Laws definitely stop some people from smoking pot, just like gun control stops some people from owning guns.