• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

It's already illegal for anyone that is deemed mentally deficient to buy or posses a firearm. It's a federal felony. Has been for decades.



Federal law only applies when someone has reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” How would a seller even know such a thing?:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

One of the first things Trump did after becoming President was rollback a specific regulation restricting gun sales to those with mental illness:

Trump Overturns a Mental Health Regulation on Gun Purchases
 
Federal law only applies when someone has reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” How would a seller even know such a thing?:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

One of the first things Trump did after becoming President was rollback a specific regulation restricting gun sales to those with mental illness:

Trump Overturns a Mental Health Regulation on Gun Purchases

They wouldn't, just like they wouldn't know that a person is a felon. That is what the background check is for. It is a felony to lie on the purchasing questionnaire for the background check, which asks if the person is mentally deficient. It's already illegal, so I guess if we pass another lie it will be twice as illegal.
 
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.

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.
Or the FBI could do its job. So far, they look like the jokes.
 
It's already illegal for anyone that is deemed mentally deficient to buy or posses a firearm. It's a federal felony. Has been for decades.

Yeah, well that just doesn't cut it, does it. Just not good enough, is it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, well that just doesn't cut it, does it. Just not good enough, is it.

It isn't. I don't think our reporting is good enough. Our enforcement has sucked forever. That is on BATF and the FBI. Nobody is held accountable. The FBI field agent that looked into the shooter should face some major repercussions. It's maybe 50/50 that he does. Maybe a letter in his file or suspended for two seeks is what I think will probably happen. Sessions has helped with the enforcement but enforcement has been ignored for so long that it's an even larger problem now.
 
Any ruling that upholds a law that restricts gun ownership IS the law and not in conflict the 2nd Amendment unless so ruled by a higher court. Like Patrick Moynihan said "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” The facts are other than is your opinion.
I don't dispute that it is the law. I do dispute if the law is constitutional. Any law that infringes on a person's right to keep and bear arms is in direct conflict with our 2A.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Or the FBI could do its job. So far, they look like the jokes.

The only thing that is a joke is our "president" and the way he can't even be bothered to read briefings in depth. "Yeah, just a bunch of blah blah blah, I don't need that ****." :doh
 
They wouldn't, just like they wouldn't know that a person is a felon. That is what the background check is for. It is a felony to lie on the purchasing questionnaire for the background check, which asks if the person is mentally deficient. It's already illegal, so I guess if we pass another lie it will be twice as illegal.



Background records are nowhere near complete. States do not necessarily submit info to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In fact, per the DOJ:

“States, which handled about 68 million NICS transactions during our review period, are required to update the database with supporting documents as necessary after processing a transaction. We reviewed a judgmental sample of 631 state-processed transactions and determined that in 630 of them the states did not fully update the NICS database or inform the FBI of the transaction’s outcome.”

The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report published, at the end of 2014 there were 7.8 million active-warrant records in state warrant databases, but only about 2.1 million such records in the NCIC database.

The system for background checks is ineffective.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/

https://oig.justice.gov/press/2016/2016-09-28.pdfchurch-shooting/
 
One of the problems as far as public opinion goes is we don’t see all the attacks that the FBI stops. They do a pretty damn good job given the resources they have and the rules (aka the Constitution) they have to follow.

They can do everything right and still fail to stop an attack. However, that doesn’t appear to be the case here. The Director is saying they failed to follow their own protocols. They need to address that ASAP.

I think you are correct. We have no idea how many "tips" come into the FBI that are even valid. We have such a surplus of raging mad idiots in this country how do we keep an eye on each individual one?

Without a criminal record how do you arrest a moron for using his freedom of speech? Should the Neo Nazis marching in our streets been arrested?

We expect our FBI to know precisely what this kid was going to do while the people who live eat and sleep with him had no idea.
 
This thread is about FBI failures. Not Trump. Not even about gun rights. Yet here you are.
 
I don't dispute that it is the law. I do dispute if the law is constitutional. Any law that infringes on a person's right to keep and bear arms is in direct conflict with our 2A.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of gun control laws, in consideration of the 2nd Amendment, a number of times. Your dispute remains refuted:

Supreme Court Upheld Gun Control For Convicted Batterer’s: 2-26-09:
https://xene.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/supreme-court-upheld-gun-control-for-convicted-batterers/

San Francisco Gun Control Law Upheld By U.S. Supreme Court 6-8-15:
https://www.inquisitr.com/2154851/san-francisco-gun-control-law-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court/

Supreme Court Upholds Wide Reach of U.S. Gun Ban for Domestic Violence 6-27-16:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-wide-reach-u-s-gun-ban-domestic-n599816

Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Connecticut Ban on Semiautomatic Weapons 6-20-16:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/...rt-gun-control-semiautomatic-connecticut.html
 
SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of gun control laws, in consideration of the 2nd Amendment, a number of times. Your dispute remains refuted:

Supreme Court Upheld Gun Control For Convicted Batterer’s: 2-26-09:
https://xene.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/supreme-court-upheld-gun-control-for-convicted-batterers/

San Francisco Gun Control Law Upheld By U.S. Supreme Court 6-8-15:
https://www.inquisitr.com/2154851/san-francisco-gun-control-law-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court/

Supreme Court Upholds Wide Reach of U.S. Gun Ban for Domestic Violence 6-27-16:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-wide-reach-u-s-gun-ban-domestic-n599816

Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Connecticut Ban on Semiautomatic Weapons 6-20-16:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/...rt-gun-control-semiautomatic-connecticut.html
There was a time when slavery wasn't considered unconstitutional either, but that does not mean it was right. The amendment is pretty clear in its language and anything that infringes on a person's ability to keep or bear arms is in conflict with the amendment.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Background records are nowhere near complete. States do not necessarily submit info to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In fact, per the DOJ:

“States, which handled about 68 million NICS transactions during our review period, are required to update the database with supporting documents as necessary after processing a transaction. We reviewed a judgmental sample of 631 state-processed transactions and determined that in 630 of them the states did not fully update the NICS database or inform the FBI of the transaction’s outcome.”

The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report published, at the end of 2014 there were 7.8 million active-warrant records in state warrant databases, but only about 2.1 million such records in the NCIC database.

The system for background checks is ineffective.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/

https://oig.justice.gov/press/2016/2016-09-28.pdfchurch-shooting/

Do you want to pass more laws that don't get enforced or do we enforce the ones we have? I like enforcing the ones we have. If the states can't get on board then let them take the heat for their failure. If the FBI can't get their act together then hold the individuals that are tasked with that job accountable. I can't see punishing people that are law abiding to make a point by passing unenforced laws. For instance, we have a magazine restriction in Colorado. We are restricted to 15 round magazines unless a person owned one before the restriction was passed. The law is unenforceable. The Governor has even admitted it. There hasn't been one arrest since it has been passed. There isn't any way to prove when a person owned the magazine. I can drive to Cheyenne, Wyoming and buy cases if I want and nobody can prove anything. The sheriffs in Colorado have said they won't even try to enforce it as it is unenforceable. They passed an emotional feel good law that is worthless.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when slavery wasn't considered unconstitutional either, but that does not mean it was right. The amendment is pretty clear in its language and anything that infringes on a person's ability to keep or bear arms is in conflict with the amendment.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk



In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. The Court also stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The above is an excerpt from https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

You have your opinion. I have the facts.
 
Do you want to pass more laws that don't get enforced or do we enforce the ones we have? I like enforcing the ones we have. If the states can't get on board then let them take the heat for their failure. If the FBI can't get their act together then hold the individuals that are tasked with that job accountable. I can't see punishing people that are law abiding to make a point by passing unenforced laws. For instance, we have a magazine restriction in Colorado. We are restricted to 15 round magazines unless a person owned one before the restriction was passed. The law is unenforceable. The Governor has even admitted it. There hasn't been one arrest since it has been passed. There isn't any way to prove when a person owned the magazine. I can drive to Cheyenne, Wyoming and buy cases if I want and nobody can prove anything. The sheriffs in Colorado have said they won't even try to enforce it as it is unenforceable. They passed an emotional feel good law that is worthless.


I like regulation that is working based on states with low gun death rates and pass laws for those regulations in as many states as possible and enforce as necessary. That's unlikely to happen in states with a high rate of gun ownership, which also tend to be states with higher rates of gun related deaths which would be the ones that most need gun control, unless such regulation is made federal law. Such states should at least enforce existing law. We should also improve our NICS system and background checks.
 
In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. The Court also stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The above is an excerpt from https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

You have your opinion. I have the facts.
No, what you have is a political body's opinion. 5-4 split says a lot too. And even they do not get the final word because a future court can overturn a previous court decision.

Imo, some of our guns laws are unconstitutional, even though the scotus has upheld them as legal. If you want to make more of these laws it is fair to continue to challenge their constitutional legitimacy. If that bothers people, what needs to be done is they need to amend the amendment. As it is currently written, the language is absolute, which is unique to any of the other amendments.

In order to accept that felons and mentally ill people being prohibited to posses arms requires one to accept that both of those things forfeits one constitutional protections. I'm not completely opposed to that but I do have a very big problem with the vaguely defined terms, legally speaking.

There is various degrees of felonies and mental illnesses. If we as a society are going to restrict certain people's constitutional rights, we need to be very specific about who that is. Imo this is where the legislators and courts come up short.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
I like regulation that is working based on states with low gun death rates and pass laws for those regulations in as many states as possible and enforce as necessary. That's unlikely to happen in states with a high rate of gun ownership, which also tend to be states with higher rates of gun related deaths which would be the ones that most need gun control, unless such regulation is made federal law. Such states should at least enforce existing law. We should also improve our NICS system and background checks.
Im not sure federal laws would be very effective if states refused to enforce those laws. Look at the fight states are engaged in with immigration laws. Why do you think it would be any different when it comes to gun laws. Imo this is an issue that will remain contentious as long as there are people on both sides of the issue. It's akin to abortion in that sense. There is no real compromise. It's a yes or no answer.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
No, what you have is a political body's opinion. 5-4 split says a lot too. And even they do not get the final word because a future court can overturn a previous court decision.

Imo, some of our guns laws are unconstitutional, even though the scotus has upheld them as legal. If you want to make more of these laws it is fair to continue to challenge their constitutional legitimacy. If that bothers people, what needs to be done is they need to amend the amendment. As it is currently written, the language is absolute, which is unique to any of the other amendments.

In order to accept that felons and mentally ill people being prohibited to posses arms requires one to accept that both of those things forfeits one constitutional protections. I'm not completely opposed to that but I do have a very big problem with the vaguely defined terms, legally speaking.

There is various degrees of felonies and mental illnesses. If we as a society are going to restrict certain people's constitutional rights, we need to be very specific about who that is. Imo this is where the legislators and courts come up short.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk



The court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question. Still, they have inserted themselves into the political arena with Bush v. Gore and redistricting cases. The 5-4 decision is typical of high profile cases, which often come down to a one-vote difference. This one favored those against gun control legislation. And, yes, whenever you get judges together who were not part of a previous decision, they can use their own differing interpretation and overturn that prior decision. Yeah, the Court has become more ideological for many years and thus more political. They have always weighed the political impact of their decisions to some degree.

That different SCOTUS judges have interpreted parts of the 2nd Amendment differently. They’ve been all over the map. So, I don’t think they’re taking 2nd Amendment language as absolute. No Amendment is absolute. Anyway, here’s a pretty good article on the language and grammar of the 2nd as was “meant” at the time:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/402/402media/2nd amendment.pdf

There are better ways of identifying telling characteristics of whom is a potential killer. Simply being mentally ill does not work as a lone characteristic:

https://www.propublica.org/article/myth-vs-fact-violence-and-mental-health

Yeah, specificity is so important.
 
The court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question. Still, they have inserted themselves into the political arena with Bush v. Gore and redistricting cases. The 5-4 decision is typical of high profile cases, which often come down to a one-vote difference. This one favored those against gun control legislation. And, yes, whenever you get judges together who were not part of a previous decision, they can use their own differing interpretation and overturn that prior decision. Yeah, the Court has become more ideological for many years and thus more political. They have always weighed the political impact of their decisions to some degree.

That different SCOTUS judges have interpreted parts of the 2nd Amendment differently. They’ve been all over the map. So, I don’t think they’re taking 2nd Amendment language as absolute. No Amendment is absolute. Anyway, here’s a pretty good article on the language and grammar of the 2nd as was “meant” at the time:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/402/402media/2nd amendment.pdf

There are better ways of identifying telling characteristics of whom is a potential killer. Simply being mentally ill does not work as a lone characteristic:

https://www.propublica.org/article/myth-vs-fact-violence-and-mental-health

Yeah, specificity is so important.
That link presents a thought provoking argument. Im no legal scholar but i do have an opinion about what the inet of the language was.

I believe the amendment was a direct response to the British march from Concorde to Lexington. It was written as a safeguard from that ever being attempted domestically by our newly formed gov.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
What excuse does the FBI have for this massive failure that resulted in the death of 17 people?

I'd like to hear that.
 
I need to know how many tips like this they receive and actually act upon before I'll put much blame on the FBI. The FBI and Police got tips about JFK being assassinated too but there were so many called in tips they couldn't possibly have listened to any of them
 
I need to know how many tips like this they receive and actually act upon before I'll put much blame on the FBI. The FBI and Police got tips about JFK being assassinated too but there were so many called in tips they couldn't possibly have listened to any of them

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-d...hreats-can-the-fbi-evaluate-on-a-daily-basis/

On 5 January a person close to the teenager contacted the FBI tipline to provide “information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behaviour, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting”, said an FBI press release….In 2016, the FBI received about 1,300 tips a day through its website, which is staffed around the clock by two dozen people. In addition to online tips, FBI field offices receive dozens of calls. About 100 of the tips are considered “actionable”.
 
I need to know how many tips like this they receive and actually act upon before I'll put much blame on the FBI. The FBI and Police got tips about JFK being assassinated too but there were so many called in tips they couldn't possibly have listened to any of them

I don't have a link to it at the moment, but it was mentioned/linked that local police had well over 20 tips about this kid and had been to the house many times. So even if the FBI screwed up, it'd still be on local authorities to actually try to get the person evaluated/committed.

If the FBI dropped the ball, they seem to have dropped it many more times.
 

In 2016, the FBI received about 1,300 tips a day through its website, which is staffed around the clock by two dozen people. In addition to online tips, FBI field offices receive dozens of calls. About 100 of the tips are considered “actionable”.


In a country of 322 million does anyone want to take a realistic guess on how many delusional people we have? We have the delusional raging time bombs, we have the delusional Walter Mittys who will never carry out their threats, and then we have the delusional morons who think they saw "something". Sort through that mess.

Booth this shooter and the Las Vegas shooter had done nothing wrong prior to the shooting. How do you decide who to lock up? Who looks more scarier; the skinny ass dorky kid or the marching Neo Nazis?

I do not think it was the appropriate time for the President to come out blaming the FBI. And what is Trump's solution? Mental Health. Mental health what? Who decides who should be locked up in mental institution?
The family who adopted him did not have a clue. And these were reliable people as I believe she was a nurse and husband a vet.

Trump's mental health plan will be as effective as Melania's anti bullying campaign. In another words it will be like fallen leaves in late November.

Banning guns is likely to be long drawn out battle with a waste of energy on both sides. Ban the gun and the misfits will build bombs.

Nothing is going to change. We will just wait to send thoughts and flower to the next shooting.
 
That link presents a thought provoking argument. Im no legal scholar but i do have an opinion about what the inet of the language was.

I believe the amendment was a direct response to the British march from Concorde to Lexington. It was written as a safeguard from that ever being attempted domestically by our newly formed gov.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



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.
 
Back
Top Bottom