Culture of Shootings , "Thoughts and Prayers" But No Solutions

It could hurt a lot since it would be against the 2nd amendment.

 

Good Idea. Only need a license if you want to take a gun on public property

 

Perhaps, and just spit ballin it here but folks who express anger at government, in relation to their religious extremism might warrant some vigilance. In this case, where was it? When you look at the now deleted materials from FB, this one was probably well radicalized. So, if the FBI isn't protecting us from these dangerous jihadists, who will? And should I not have the right to be armed, how do I protect myself from them? And if police aren't here to protect me, (Garcetti and Female mayor of Chicago who regularly use uniforms to protect themselves said) then what? I just die? I must accept that the tyranny of the police state doesn't work for me, and just the elites whom they protect instead? That seems perhaps a tad backwards, would you agree? Lots of folks, get denied approval for their background checks when they attempt to buy guns. If this one had a felony conviction, (there is speculation that this is the case here) how does dude get a legal gun? The background check should have identified him as not being eligible in the first place. So, given dude had a gun it's an obvious question as to how did he get it? And given that he should have been flagged given his history including being potentially on the domestic religious terrorist watchlist, then what? How did this one get a gun? You tell me.

 

What FB posts are they?

 

I will have to disagree with you on this one. You are fine with the FBI doing this to Muslims, but what if they decide it is the radicalized Christian that is a threat, would you be fine with them watching any Christian that expresses an anti-government opinion?

Lets face it, there are a lot of anti-government opinions on this forum, should the FBI be watching all of us?

Where is the line for you?

Of course you should, I have been in here defending the 2nd as strongly as anyone.

From what I read he had misdemeanor due to a fight in college. I would hope such a thing would not keep someone from getting a gun. I personally do not even approve of felons not being able to once they have served their time. I think it is wrong to keep punishing them after they are out of prison.

He went to the gun store and bought it as there was nothing in his past that could legally keep him from doing so.

 

Who are radicalized christians? Example perhaps that I might have agreed with at some point? I will tell you this example doesn't exist.
When folks cross the line of fomenting violence, yes
good for you.
Your sources seem woefully wrong, but hey, you mentioned it.
I look at it this way. If you paid your dues, and you actually are reformed, hallelujah. How many times has this happened?
I don't think we know yet that this one had gone to the gun store. If you have a citation, provide it?

 

So we've had a mostly right wing courts since the inception of the 2A?
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791.

 

Tell me....how do politically corrupt people bring political corruption to it's knees? Thank you...I'll keep my guns.

 

No, he's not.
The anti-gun left, however, believes that the FBI being "aware" of you is sufficient grounds for the removal of your right to keep and bear arms.

 

There has been absolutely ZERO compromise offered.

There is absolutely NO gun legislation that the GOP has not absoltuely opposed.

NONE.

And, that includes legislation that has had majority public approval.

 

The 5th Amendment requires due process before a right can be denied.
The right to keep and bear arms cannot be denied on the basis of a simple mental examination; to be disqualified from the right to keep and bear arms on the basis if mental health you have to be "adjudicated" as mentally defective.
This requires the state to take you before a court and demonstrate cause.

 

Please cite ANY piece of legislation from this century that has had the removal of your rights to own guns as its objective.

I'm really tired of this idea that you are some sort of risk of losing your rights to own guns.

And, the reason is that it is absolute BS.

 

Due process absolutely does NOT require ANY court action.

If you posess a firearm in the US and are stopped by the police, the police are free to kill you.

THAT is considered due process in that situation.

 

No. If you want to USE your gun on public property.
Like parks and government buildings and schools.
Shopping malls? Nope. Grocery stores? Nope. Movie theaters? Nope.
Glad to see you're on board with this.

 

You're right - the Democrats plan to ban this and register that and license everything --- and offer gun owners absolutely nothing they see of value in return.
You don't offer compromise and you don't expect compromise -- you demand acquiescence.
This is why gun owners refuse to give an inch.

 

You'll have to explain how this is relevant to what I said.

 

It seems he was saying the exact same thing

 

In the case under discussion, it does.

 

Here is a source that suggest there was no felonly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladi...ar-style-gun/?sh=3316c1fb40c5#16166246815422&{"sender":"offer-1-ml22p","displayMode":"inline","recipient":"opener","event":"resize","params":{"height":121,"iframeId":"offer-1-ml22p"}}

If you have something to disprove them feel free to offer it. I am not a big fan of "because I said so", just to save you time.

This again put too much power in the government and allows them to take the 2nd amendment rights away on an opinion. I cannot agree to such things. You seem to have too much faith in the government making the right choice.

From the link above....The suspected gunman was identified as 21-year-old Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, who on March 16 purchased a Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic pistol—a gun which resembles a semi-automatic rifle and comes with a large 30 round magazine.

 

Yes and no, in bygone times citizen's militias quite commonly had cannon, and cannon were often cutting edge up until the ACW and beyond. I don't know quite how the transition occurred but it did (maybe, my local VFW still has some old WWII Bofors guns out front, they LOOK to be plugged but...well...)
It should be remembered that this worship of the 2nd is actually more recent than even "under god" being in the Pledge. Up until the 60s the NRA was mainly a gun SAFETY organization very much oriented to adolescents with their first weapon, the very idea that it would lobby for anything, let alone make millions saying that everyone needed to be armed to the teeth to shop for groceries was an alien concept to most of its members

 

Widespread civilian ownership of firearms - and the right of those civilians to own and use those firearms - has been in place here since before we were states.
It was questioned by no one.
Until the political left decided said firearms and the right to own them needed limitin'.
Thus, the change in the posture from the NRA.
You don't like the power of the NRA? Blame anti-gun Democrats.

 

Over and over there are studies that check whether any other correlating factor can be found.

So far, NO correlating factor can be found other than the MASSIVE amount of guns in America.

No other country in the world approaches the guns per capita of the US.

And, no other first world nations comes within a country mile of the slaughter of guns in the US.


It's hilarious to see the right wing demand more science - as if they EVER gave a rusty crap about science.

 

I pointed out that I did NOT SAY THAT!!

Then, YOU turn around and say I did.

My assumption has to be this is a serious reflection on your opinion of honesty.

 

Note to TOB 6:

Our nation has changed since the revolutionary war.

 

Science, eh?
Demonstrate the necessary relationship between the number of guns in the US and its higher rate of gun violence.
Hint: Correlation does not prove causation.