CNN)At least 12 lives were cut short Wednesday when a gunman stormed a Southern California bar and opened fire.
On Friday, the Ventura County Medical Examiner confirmed the identities of all the individuals killed.
Here's what we know about the people who died in the shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks.
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
stop lying. there is no proof "extended clips" (WTF IS THAT) made this possible. Standard capacity Glock 21 is 13 rounds. California Nanny State is 10 rounds.
California law prevented the off duty cops in the bar from being armed. Once again, it was a gun free zone that an active killer chose
This case shows a committed killer is immune from all the wet dream gun laws the scum bag politicians on California passed
He waited at least ten days before taking possession of the pistol after passing a background check
HE was actually interviewed by a crisis intervention team which cleared him
Under the stupid California laws, his standard issue magazine was "illegal" but someone willing to kill and die doing it isn't going to worry about that stupid law
Actually, unbeknownst to the gun-grabbing crowd, people like Long love gun control laws.
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
Are you talking FEDERAL restraining orders? They already exist at local levels. And we have background checks through the FBI. Nobody I've seen objects to either.I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
The shooter was examined by mental health professionals and not found to be a danger. Would the federal,government have more competent mental health professionals than the state of California? Is that your point?
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
If someone is considered so dangerous due to mental health issues that they need to lose their right to keep and bear arms? Then IMO they should either be institutionalized in a mental health facility, or diagnosed as too mentally ill to possess/access weapons.
In either case I would not object to their right to keep and bear arms being infringed. But no one should lose this right just on the say-so of another common citizen.
Are you talking FEDERAL restraining orders? They already exist at local levels. And we have background checks through the FBI. Nobody I've seen objects to either.
Didn't trump sign an executive order allowing mentally ill people to possess / access guns?
Maybe we wait for a few facts.=jet57;1069283208]I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
But Kalistan has all these gun laws that almost make it impossible to own a gun let alone with an extended 'magazine'. Blame a state next door?And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible.
So what you mean is a ban on Vets owning firearms. That's your issue you want to see opened up as a restraining order.An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders.
Seems the Corps had know knowledge of this.Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner,
And that's what it's all about.that his guns be confiscated…
https://www.dav.org/learn-more/news/2018/veterans-guns/THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
And he wasn't even a Marine.The VT shooter killed 32 people with two pistols and 10 round magazines.
To tell the truth I didn't either BUT I didn't shoot my mouth off.I suspect he didn't know that the shooter had been so evaluated.
I thought he was talking just about PTSD. I wouldn't think it's a felony.You could kill 12 people without extended magazines. So they didn't make it possible it's possible with just about any firearm.
As far as your question goes it seems disjointed and I'm having a hard time making sense of it.
So you think people should be against the federal government confiscating weapons from an individual who has a felony record?
Summary: H.J.Res.40 — 115th Congress (2017-201Didn't trump sign an executive order allowing mentally ill people to possess / access guns? trump has blood on his hands ....AGAIN!
Didn't trump sign an executive order allowing mentally ill people to possess / access guns? trump has blood on his hands ....AGAIN!
Translation:stop lying. there is no proof "extended clips" (WTF IS THAT) made this possible. Standard capacity Glock 21 is 13 rounds. California Nanny State is 10 rounds.
California law prevented the off duty cops in the bar from being armed. Once again, it was a gun free zone that an active killer chose
This case shows a committed killer is immune from all the wet dream gun laws the scum bag politicians on California passed
He waited at least ten days before taking possession of the pistol after passing a background check
HE was actually interviewed by a crisis intervention team which cleared him
Under the stupid California laws, his standard issue magazine was "illegal" but someone willing to kill and die doing it isn't going to worry about that stupid law
I thought he was talking just about PTSD. I wouldn't think it's a felony.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?