On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:33:18 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
What Trump keeps saying is "until we figure out what's going on". We
know what's going on. And if Trump is the candidate for president then
he should know better than anyone what's going on and what the required
solution is, not give vague blanket bans.
The first problem is that no matter how much vetting you do, it's
impossible to root out these terrorists to be, especially second
generation ones. Farook's wife for example, was checked out, met
with consulate staff a couple times. She appeared to be an ordinary
Pakistani on her way to get married here. Even in the aftermath,
media interviews with her family, friends, etc didn't produce any
red flags. So, short of having CIA agents follow every person like
that around 24/7 for a year, or tapping their communications overseas,
I don't see how you're going to do some twist on the vetting and stop it.
The second problem is that Trump called for a complete shutdown on
muslims entering the USA, not just immigration. That would mean the
Canadian businessman who's a muslim could not come here, nor could the
mayor of London or the King of Jordan.
The third problem is there is no way to identify who is a muslim and
who is not. It's just like the gun bans, only the non-criminals will
That's why I think a better solution is to just substantially reduce
the number of immigrants that we allow in from the terrorist countries.
You cut it 75%, you've sure reduced the number of potential problems.
Obviously they have a clue and are doing an overall good job. Of course
every time they get a future Farook, you're here posting that it was
a setup, entrapment, etc. I don't see introducing an undercover FBI agent
to one of those suspected types and selling them bomb making materials or
weapons, entrapment. They have interecepted and prevented a lot of attacks.
Nothing is going to be 100%. In the case of Mateen, we'll have to see all
the facts to figure out what more could have been done. The FBI had him
under surveillance, monitored his communications, interviewed people,
including him twice, set him up with an undercover agent, etc. Just
because they didn't find anything, doesn't mean that they screwed up.
And if the govt was putting people on lists that prevent them from
buying guns with nothing substantial to back it up, I think the gun
rights people, including you, would be up in arms about it. Of course
they can't do that because current law doesn't allow it.
We know in many cases. With countries in civil war, then I agree.
But it's not like there is some majic new approach that is going to
clear up that fog.
I am impressed you thing the government runs so smoothly. How many
billions have been spent now? How much surveillance has been condoned?
How about the 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight
them here' wheeze?
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:07:46 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
See, there you go again. First you complain that the FBI isn't doing
enough, then you complain about how much surveillance has been condoned.
Typical Monday morning quarterback.
'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here'
The problem is Obama's idea of fighting them is to take baby steps
and to miss the huge opportunities that would have made a difference.
Letting ISIS grow out of the ashes of Al Qaeda. Ignoring ISIS, calling
it JV even as it started to take over Iraq. Pulling all US troops out
of Iraq. We had 10,000 troops there and a stable Iraq, no ISIS. He
let if fall, now we have 5,000 troops back and Iraq lost and we're
hoping to get it back to where it was in 2011. Biggest act of failing
to act was when ISIS was driving all those tanks, Humvees, artillery
back to Syria. Obama watched and would not order air strikes.
THAT isn't fighting, it's wussing.
I'm not complaining the FBI isn't doing enough. I'm stating that for all
the money poured down the rathole, all the warrantless snooping, and so
forth they have their head up their ass.
I know you like to have it all ways; run down Trump, shill for the
government, or whatever your fancy is that day.
Seriously? Murdered by a gun is any different than a knife or bat or
hammer or car? Seriously?
Guns are insurrection weapons. The rest are not. That is why
the totalitarianist don't care about the rest.
Banning guns won't stop murder or suicide. It will enable us
to sit in tyranny and not be able to do a thing about it.
If you met some random person in a Walmart parking lot would you sell
them a firearm where the paper trail would lead to you? Would you sell
to someone you know personally? Conversely, would you buy a firearm from
someone you met in a Walmart parking lot?
Yes, it's possible but I think the gun show loophole is overstated. Of
course, being an undocumented transaction, who knows? otoh, Hasan,
Farook, and Mateen didn't go shopping at gun shows.
There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".
The facts are these:
(1) Every licensed firearms dealer is required by law to conduct a background check on
every purchaser, on every purchase, whether that purchase takes place at the dealer's
regular place of business, at a gun show, or anywhere else.
(2) Private individuals are not required to conduct background checks.
(3) Most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers, not individuals.
Here are a few more FACTS for the ignorant
I need to get around to looking for some newer stats, but these are
still instructive.The only stats I could find right off (admittedly
1997) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics looked at those who were
carrying at the time of their offense. (BTW: only about 1 in 3 who were
carrying were convicted for violent crimes). Of these, 8.3% bought at
retail stores, 0.7% got their guns at gun shows and another 1.0% got
them from pawnshops. Roughly 4 of ten got them from friends/relatives
(39.6% and about the same (39.2) got them from illegal sources. So
amongst the bad guys, 80% came from places that can't be regulated.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:37:50 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
The buyer in a private sale is only allowed to legally own the gun if
he's legally allowed to own that gun in that state period. Avoiding the
background check doesn't make the transaction legal. For example, if
you're a felon, then it's still illegal, no matter how you acquire it.
And it should be called the "private sale loophole", because that is
what it is. The overwhelming number of guns sold at gun shows are sold
by licensed gun dealers, just like if you walked into their store.
There is a presumption of fitness to own inherent in every gun sale ,
whether private or from a FFL dealer . If some wild-eyed slack jawed drooler
such yourself came up to me at a gun show (I don't actually go to them ...)
and said "Uh wanna buy yer gun " I'm sure not going to sell to him . Most
responsible gun owners feel that way too ... but there are others who don't
care and they are the problem . Whether on the street corner or in the show
, if a criminal wants a gun he/she is going to find a way . And they aren't
going to obey any new laws any more than they do the ones we have now . And
it's the same where you live too , if there's a want there's someone to fill
it . bang bang
I can't speak to the rest of the world but the US has demonstrated
that we have far more trouble when we make something illegal than when
we legalize it. That is a fact that is totally lost on drug warriors
and leads to most of the shootings. They tend to be people nobody
cares about shooting other people nobody cares about so we do not hear
much of the details but it does drive the statistics.
I doubt a "gun war" would do anything but make millions of new
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
The law implies no such thing. Whether a federal database check is run
or not, has nothing to do with whether the sale itself is legal. If I
sell any gun to a person I know is a felon, it's a crime. If state law
requires a permit to buy a pistol and I sell it to someone without one,
it's a crime. If I directly sell a gun to someone from out of state,
in most states that's a crime. There are a lot of laws on the books like
that and whether you run a check or not doesn't change it.
Why do you say that? Just because you don't want it doesn't mean the person
standing next to you doesn't. You are ingrained to not have it. We are
ingrained to let people decide for themselves.
I am no history major so others can help here: Taxation without
representation, right to firearms, free speech, warrant-less searches,
structure of the gov't. There are more, I'm sure, but my foggy brain is not
kicked in. Keep in mind that as time has gone on there are changes to both
Or you could say the Bill of Rights was the peoples' response to the
open-ended big government blueprint that came out of the closed session
that was supposed to just touch up the Articles of Confederation.
It goes without saying the Bill of Rights consists of amendments; they
were not part of the original document or intent of the authors.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.