IF merely being suspected of "terrorism" or being investigated by the FBI

[EMNofSeattle]

So why does your FBI claim second hand purchases are the primary method by which felons acquire firearms ?

because their definition of second hand sales include criminal arms dealers and people knowingly making illegal sales to criminals.

Who's checking then ?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobcacco, Firearms, and explosives.

 

[Crimefree]

So why does your FBI claim second hand purchases are the primary method by which felons acquire firearms ?

Because they have an agenda like gun control.

Are you suggesting every firearm sold to a released felon is going to be used in crime? What percentage of these firearms will be used to commit a crime?

Did it occur to you that released felons may also need a firearm for self defence? Sorry stupid question of course it did not.

Who's checking then ?

WTF do the police do? Or are supposed to be doing. This is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives job . Created specifically for the interstate commerce act and 5000 unemployed moonshine cops.

 

[spud_meister]

Murderous arsehole should've been banned from buying guns for domestic violence. That's where the system failed.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

You think that not being able to differentiate between something as serious as plotting terror and being less careful with emails than you should makes you seem rational?

So my not being careful with my e-mail is the same as her lack of regard for National Security.:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Murderous arsehole should've been banned from buying guns for domestic violence. That's where the system failed.

Should have, except it hasn't been reported he was ever convicted of domestic violence or under a restraining order for such, which is what it takes to trigger that.

 

[blackjack50]

You think that not being able to differentiate between something as serious as plotting terror and being less careful with emails than you should makes you seem rational?

That took some mental gymnastics. You don't consider mishandling of classified documents to be "serious?" Then what is serious to you?

 

[DVSentinel]

In the recent past, the left have protested against gun shop owners that refused to sell to muslims.
They deride programs intended to hunt down and identify muslims that are radical and therefore a danger as being "prejudicial" to muslims.

Now we have someone whom the left wanted protected killing others that the left wanted protected and the insist that the government who's hands they tied should of done something.

Perhaps if the shooter would of joined the TEA Party or other right leaning group, then the FBI would of taken action against him.

 

[Ntharotep]

Nope, just recognize the reality that people with power or the potential to obtain power are generally more likely to be accused of crimes for no reason than some random dong is. The police generally don't have the funds to waste a ton of time on some random dong as a result there's very little interruption to the typical person's liberties. When it's a presidential candidate there is a lot of deep pockets that will fund such witch hunts. If we blocked every candidate just for being accused there would be no candidates.


Seems to indicate a pretty high bar necessary to flag someone. Seems like the fears of right wing nuts are not justified.

Even if he would have been flagged though he still could have purchased the weapon.


No, but the republican Benghazi committee sure was and if it weren't for that giant waste of time nobody would even know about this silly email ****. Start a BS investigation into any republican in congress and I guarantee you it will turn up more serious **** than what Hillary is being accused of.

Since you brought up Bin Ghazi. Which part was the waste of time? Actually finding out what happened to our dead soldiers or making sure the country knows who lied about the information?
Do the words "will be the most transparent Administration in history" mean anything to you?

Don't get me wrong. This is hardly the first Administration that has lied or failed to treat our dead properly but none of the previous ones claimed to be transparent. And we should constantly demand better from our leaders not status quo or worse.

 

[TurtleDude]

Only in the US is this a political issue. In any other developed nation its a very legitimate health and concern that has broad support across the entire political spectrum. Any proposed legislation that would introduce a US style system of unrestricted firearms access would see the party who proposed it cast into electoral oblivion at the polls and rightly so

As I've said before bullets don't care about your politics. This is not an issue of what is right and left here but of what is right or wrong

we really tire of foreigners telling us why we should be like other nations. Its a worthless argument

 

[Abbazorkzog]

It was detrimental to national security and should be treated as such.

 

[ludin]

Nope, just recognize the reality that people with power or the potential to obtain power are generally more likely to be accused of crimes for no reason than some random dong is. The police generally don't have the funds to waste a ton of time on some random dong as a result there's very little interruption to the typical person's liberties. When it's a presidential candidate there is a lot of deep pockets that will fund such witch hunts. If we blocked every candidate just for being accused there would be no candidates.

Finding out if someone has violated federal laws is what their job is. that is why the FBI exists. police are limited in their capability and their authority doesn't go past state lines.
Only if that presidential candidate has broken the law. if they have then it is up to the court system to try them based on the evidence obtained. That is how our justice system works.
Yet people want to take away rights of citizens for just being accused. so why should the same not apply to someone wanting to hold the top position in the country?

Seems to indicate a pretty high bar necessary to flag someone. Seems like the fears of right wing nuts are not justified.

actually they could have charged him with something which would have stopped him, however there was not enough evidence to charge him with anything.

No, but the republican Benghazi committee sure was and if it weren't for that giant waste of time nobody would even know about this silly email ****. Start a BS investigation into any republican in congress and I guarantee you it will turn up more serious **** than what Hillary is being accused of.

and the irrelevant equivalence fallacy. Since when is breaking federal law silly email crap as you put it? are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
does the law apply to everyone or not? or are you just that hyper-partisan? they threw a 4 star general under the bus for mentioning a few things
in a book. Hillary wants to be president and committed way more grievous an error in what she did.

so why should she not suffer the same scrutiny as a 4 star general when she wants to be president? try to be at least half way honest here.

 

[ludin]

Yeah, I'm sure he could have killed 49 people and seriously wounded dozens more … with a butter knife.

you fallacy is noted. irrelevant but noted.

So you gun NUTS are content with a system that allowed this NUT who was twice investigated by the FBI for terrorist connections … to go to the local gun shop, by an assault rifle, and load up with lots of ammunition. Of course. He had a clear constitutional right to … "protect himself," or go "rabbit hunting," or "enjoy some target practice."

we have a thing called innocent until proven guilty. prove where he was charged with anything. simply being accused of something doesn't negate your rights. unless you want to say that Hillary should not be qualified to run for president since she is being accused of several federal felony's at this point.

actually yes he does just as everyone else. you have yet to show where he was charged or convicted of any crime or wrong-doing. if he was supposed to be then the FBI failed to do their due diligence.

As far as I'm concerned, ya better pull yer head out of it before it's someone you care about that gets ripped into by a few of these charming items.

and the poor ad hominem that is irrelevant.

I don't wanna ban guns. Not even close. I want gun nuts who block efforts to make it more difficult for mass murderers to purchase killing machines … to suffer the way the victims of gun violence and their families suffer.

can you identify who is a mass murderer and who isn't? seems like an arbitrary test to me. one that you can't actually perform objectionally. you basically want to punish 99% of the population for the actions of less than 1% of the population. logically this is insane. yes what happened was a bad thing, however no law would have stopped it. if he couldn't have bought a gun on from a store he would have bought a gun on the street
and accomplished the same thing.

And I sure do look forward to eight more years of hysterical delusions regarding emails and Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation and Vince Foster and Cattlegate and Filegate and Travelgate and the Rose Law Firm. I'm getting tired of never went to college, married to his male college roommate, hates America, hates the military, hates whites, hates the police, is destroying America, bows down to every foreign leader he meets, wasn't born in the US, terrorist sympathizer (Frumpy all but explicitly said that today), lies all the times, stutters all the time, secret Muslim, etc , etc. We need some new entertainment.

so you don't think that we as a nation of laws should up hold those laws that ideology should interfere with who gets punished under those laws? good to know.
at least you admit it here for everyone to see.

 

[flogger]

because their definition of second hand sales include criminal arms dealers and people knowingly making illegal sales to criminals.

Prove it because that is not what they actually claim. Your ATF bureau also confirms this

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobcacco, Firearms, and explosives.

So they check all vehicles crossing state lines then ? I very seriously doubt thats remotely possible

 

[flogger]

Murderous arsehole should've been banned from buying guns for domestic violence. That's where the system failed.

It fails an awful lot doesn't it ?

Maybe its time to replace it

 

[TurtleDude]

you fallacy is noted. irrelevant but noted.



we have a thing called innocent until proven guilty. prove where he was charged with anything. simply being accused of something doesn't negate your rights. unless you want to say that Hillary should not be qualified to run for president since she is being accused of several federal felony's at this point.

actually yes he does just as everyone else. you have yet to show where he was charged or convicted of any crime or wrong-doing. if he was supposed to be then the FBI failed to do their due diligence.


and the poor ad hominem that is irrelevant.



can you identify who is a mass murderer and who isn't? seems like an arbitrary test to me. one that you can't actually perform objectionally. you basically want to punish 99% of the population for the actions of less than 1% of the population. logically this is insane. yes what happened was a bad thing, however no law would have stopped it. if he couldn't have bought a gun on from a store he would have bought a gun on the street
and accomplished the same thing.



so you don't think that we as a nation of laws should up hold those laws that ideology should interfere with who gets punished under those laws? good to know.
at least you admit it here for everyone to see.

the Bannerrhoid movement believes owning a gun (and not being a leftwing operative) is a crime in of itself. you don't need any proof of guilt beyond that to many of them

 

[flogger]

we really tire of foreigners telling us why we should be like other nations. Its a worthless argument

We simply value saving lives more than saving guns and that unquestionably gives us the moral high ground here.

Your nations very bloody example and its casual ambivalence to it is all we need to confirm this

 

[TurtleDude]

Murderous arsehole should've been banned from buying guns for domestic violence. That's where the system failed.

well sadly since the alleged victim of this alleged domestic violence was unwilling to bring any charges against him, he was not ever charged or convicted of such a crime But you are right-IF HE HAD BEEN charged and placed under a restraining order, or down the road, CONVICTED of DV, he would have been banned from firearms possession and he would not have passed the background checks he went through

if the victim of a crime refuses to contact the police, that means, in many cases, there is no ability for the government to prosecute someone. The system didn't fail, the ex wife did. no complaint-no charges, no record. and from what I know about this case, he wasn't beating her in public. It was a case where the witness was her and she didn't divulge that to authorities

 

[TurtleDude]

We simply value saving lives more than saving guns and that unquestionably gives us the moral high ground here.

Your nations very bloody example and its casual ambivalece to it is all we need to confirm this

I don't believe that BS at all. You keep trying to hide your rather extreme phobia about our rights by pretending you care about innocent life. that's complete crap and your posts are not based on desiring to protect innocent life but rather are the product of an incurable case of hoplophobia combined with tertiary degree of Aesop's Fox-itis

 

[ludin]

the Bannerrhoid movement believes owning a gun (and not being a leftwing operative) is a crime in of itself. you don't need any proof of guilt beyond that to many of them

it is a fine line to cross more so when it comes to US citizens. you can't take away peoples rights based on just accusations. that is a dangerous slope that you really don't want to go down at all.
if you want to take these people rights away then charge them with a crime and prosecute them under the law.

if we were to take away peoples rights simply based on accusations then as someone put it we wouldn't have any person available for the president or congress.
I am sure there are a few clean noses out there but they are few and far between probably.

 

[ludin]

We simply value saving lives more than saving guns and that unquestionably gives us the moral high ground here.

Your nations very bloody example and its casual ambivalence to it is all we need to confirm this

guns save people lives all the time. so what is your excuse now?

 

[ludin]

I don't believe that BS at all. You keep trying to hide your rather extreme phobia about our rights by pretending you care about innocent life. that's complete crap and your posts are not based on desiring to protect innocent life but rather are the product of an incurable case of hoplophobia combined with tertiary degree of Aesop's Fox-itis

the bigger issue is that guns save people lives all the time. in fact guns save more lives than they take.
the only defense against the criminal is you not the police.

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

they are not worried about facts or they are only worried about the facts they want to read. a myopic sense of confirmation bias.

 

[flogger]

I don't believe that BS at all.

Yes you do you, and its me reminding you of what you don't want to see that is what upsets you so much

You keep trying to hide your rather extreme phobia about our rights by pretending you care about innocent life.

Well I've yet to hear you care about anything other than gun rights upsetting gun owners and I've been posting here for a while now. The bloody consequences of such a mindset are plain to see in your wider society

that's complete crap and your posts are not based on desiring to protect innocent life but rather are the product of an incurable case of hoplophobia combined with tertiary degree of Aesop's Fox-itis

I stand against wilful hypocrisy wherever I find it and its nowhere more evident than on this sub forum. I make no apologies for that

 

[flogger]

the bigger issue is that guns save people lives all the time. in fact guns save more lives than they take.
the only defense against the criminal is you not the police.

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

they are not worried about facts or they are only worried about the facts they want to read. a myopic sense of confirmation bias.

Which is nonsense of course.

Guns rarely used for self-defense in US — there are 32 criminal homicides for every 1 justifiable killing

 

[flogger]

guns save people lives all the time. so what is your excuse now?

You've lost half a million lives since 2000 to guns the great bulk of which were non defensive shootings. Thats more than you lost in both world wars combined

I'd call that a problem

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes you do you, and its me reminding you of what you don't want to see that is what upsets you so much



Well I've yet to hear you care about anything other than gun rights upsetting gun owners and I've been posting here for a while now. The bloody consequences of such a mindset are plain to see in your wider society


I stand against wilful hypocrisy wherever I find it and its nowhere more evident than on this sub forum. I make no apologies for that

you don't live in the USA

you aren't a US citizen

your constant rants about our rights is beyond obsessive

we don't care about your silly protestations-we don't believe you care about innocent life but rather inflicting UK style nanny state restrictions on us. You all lost, we won, and you're still mad