The FBI said it failed to act on a tip warning of the suspected Florida school shooter's potential

[trouble13]

You gave a perfect example of the reason for the 2nd, which was for the right of the individual to have weapons to defend against possible government tyranny or other danger. A “well-regulated militia" did not mean an existing, standing group of armed defenders, it meant “every able bodied and armed man who was not in the Army whose help could be requested in a time of danger.” In your example, the Minute Men. Again, the amendment starts with and applies to the individual existing as a citizen, not as a literal, trained soldier and part of some regiment, or other standing, managed, group.

So where do you draw the line in the gun debate.

Are background checks infringements on our rights?,
What about felons, and the criminally insane is it legal to revoke their right to posses a weapon?
Does the gov have the authority to tell us what weapons we can not have?
Can they restrict a person from having a gun based on their age?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[JC Callender]

If I were President, I would attempt to fire the director of the FBI and then make an example of anyone else who could've stopped this. This would include the parents, imo. Not knowing that Nikolas Cruz had his own key to the gun safe isn't a good enough excuse. They should probably do time as well. People have to be held accountable.

 

[bluesmoke]

So where do you draw the line in the gun debate.

Are background checks infringements on our rights?,
What about felons, and the criminally insane is it legal to revoke their right to posses a weapon?
Does the gov have the authority to tell us what weapons we can not have?
Can they restrict a person from having a gun based on their age?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Background checks are not an invasion of privacy because they’re done in regard to public safety. Along with national security, those are exceptions to privacy rights infringement.

Very few felons, depending on the crime, can possess a weapon. I think those who have committed a violent crime should not be allowed to possess a weapon. Same with the criminally insane, unless later they are determined sane and the crime was not violent.

The government does have the authority to ban certain weapons, as long as it is not too broad a class, and can restrict possession and use due to age.

 

[Black Dog]

I predict that this joke of a president will yet again use this finding as a chance to flog the FBI in public. Considering that the FBI is one of our safeguards against acts of terrorism, that is about as unpresidential as it gets.

Well it seems they are having problems safeguarding us against a lone mentally disturbed teen with a rifle, let alone terrorist. Does not instil a lot of faith in our system.

If there is a real problem here--and it looks like there is--the presidential thing to do is to have a closed-door meeting to sort out all the facts and to determine what could be done better in future cases such as that disturbed young man's. FFS even Bush Jr. understood this.

It's Trump. You know that is not going to happen.

 

[SMTA]

FULL TITLE: The FBI said it failed to act on a tip warning of the suspected Florida school shooter's potential for violence

---

FBI Director Christopher Wray says the FBI badly fumbled the ball on warnings about Nikolas Cruz.

****ing A right they screwed it up, and kids died.
They don't care, and never will. **** the FBI.

 

[trouble13]

Background checks are not an invasion of privacy because they’re done in regard to public safety. Along with national security, those are exceptions to privacy rights infringement.

Very few felons, depending on the crime, can possess a weapon. I think those who have committed a violent crime should not be allowed to possess a weapon. Same with the criminally insane, unless later they are determined sane and the crime was not violent.

The government does have the authority to ban certain weapons, as long as it is not too broad a class, and can restrict possession and use due to age.

I wasn't asking you how things are. I was interested in your opinion of what's acceptable and what's not.

For instance I could argue that needing a background check is an infringement. I'm not saying I'm opposed to them but that they do meet the denifition of infringement.

What if we applied that standard to other rights.

You need to pass a background check before you can excercise your freedom of speech.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[bluesmoke]

I wasn't asking you how things are. I was interested in your opinion of what's acceptable and what's not.

For instance I could argue that needing a background check is an infringement. I'm not saying I'm opposed to them but that they do meet the denifition of infringement.

What if we applied that standard to other rights.

You need to pass a background check before you can excercise your freedom of speech.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

When I said “Background checks are not an invasion of privacy” I was telling you that I don’t believe background checks are an infringement on our rights. I was being specific as to what rights those were because you didn’t say what rights were being infringed upon. It qualifies as a “no” answer to your question.

As to your question about felons and the criminally insane, I gave you a qualified “yes” that they not be allowed to possess a weapon and specified the exceptions.

I answered your last two questions together at once in kind. You could have used the word “should” instead of “does” in the first and “can” in the second sentence to get the kind of answer you are looking for. Now that you say “opinion of what's acceptable and what's not.”, I don’t know unless you be more specific or give an example. A list of what is and what isn’t would be rather long and require too much time to do.

As to background checks being an infringement, they are not because the definition of infringement is an action that breaks the law, etc. and background checks are not against the law.

To apply that standard of infringement to other rights is nonsensical. What is the equivalence to require a background check before one can exercise freedom of speech because one is required to required to do so to exercise rights under the 2nd Amendment?

 

[trouble13]

When I said “Background checks are not an invasion of privacy” I was telling you that I don’t believe background checks are an infringement on our rights. I was being specific as to what rights those were because you didn’t say what rights were being infringed upon. It qualifies as a “no” answer to your question.

As to your question about felons and the criminally insane, I gave you a qualified “yes” that they not be allowed to possess a weapon and specified the exceptions.

I answered your last two questions together at once in kind. You could have used the word “should” instead of “does” in the first and “can” in the second sentence to get the kind of answer you are looking for. Now that you say “opinion of what's acceptable and what's not.”, I don’t know unless you be more specific or give an example. A list of what is and what isn’t would be rather long and require too much time to do.

As to background checks being an infringement, they are not because the definition of infringement is an action that breaks the law, etc. and background checks are not against the law.

To apply that standard of infringement to other rights is nonsensical. What is the equivalence to require a background check before one can exercise freedom of speech because one is required to required to do so to exercise rights under the 2nd Amendment?

Two things jump out on me in your post

1. You selectively elect one meaning on infringement and ignore the other denifition associated to it.

2.your calling application of a standard to one right nonsensical to another. Imo your being naive

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

Well it seems they are having problems safeguarding us against a lone mentally disturbed teen with a rifle, let alone terrorist. Does not instil a lot of faith in our system.

We've gone 17 years without a major terrorist attack. That did not happen without some hard work by the FBI, CIA, and I hate to say it, but the NSA. Furthermore, if their response is to ramp up whenever someone "shows the warning signs," are they supposed to swoop in every time? These are not easy decisions. Too loose and more shootings and terrorist attacks slip through the cracks; too tight and we risk a police state.

It's Trump. You know that is not going to happen.

Heh. He could always pretend, but, yeah...

 

[Born Free]

Considering your question had exactly zero to do with my post that you quoted, maybe you should try to read what you're quoting next time.

Nice Try :doh

 

[tres borrachos]

Nice Try :doh

Let's review my question:

Whose hand is the blood of 20 dead kids in Sandy Hook on?

Whose hand is the blood of 50+ adults in Las Vegas on?

You butted in with something about the FBI.

So since you want to be in the discussion, maybe you can answer my questions.

Who has blood on their hands for Las Vegas (since people keep talking about blood on their hands)? It wasn't the FBI. What about Sandy Hook? The FBI wasn't involved there, either. So asking a question about the FBI in response to my post means your question had exactly zero to do with my post.