DonF Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 These 50 senators feel its a terrorists right http://hyperationalist.com/guns/50-senators-50-victims it seems other here believe it to be as well please feel free to explain why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 What would be the justification for denying someone the right to purchase a firearm without having prior committing a crime? Just about everyone actually everyone that I know of on the terror watch list is "suspected" of having possible terrorist ties, but none of them have been formerly charged, tried or convicted of having ties to terrorism. Are we now to the point where we deny someone their civil or constitutional rights because we "suspect them" of doing something? There is something to be said for not denying someone their civil or constitutional rights without due process, which is what it would be if someone on a watch list for being suspected of doing something were to be prohibited from purchasing a gun or flying on a plane for that matter. Or at least I tend to think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 So domestic abuse isnt a crime ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Was Mateen ever charged, tried and convicted of domestic abuse? Now, after the fact and without any corroboration that I can find, Mateen's wife says he was an abuser but Sitora Yusifiy, who was married to Mateen for four months never turned in a police report about the alleged domestic violence so far as any information I've read. The police (to the best of my knowledge) was never called to a domestic violence abuse complaint at the couple's house and again so far as I can find, there is no court documentation about a charge, trial or conviction for domestic violence. So are you saying there absolutely was domestic abuse based on the statement of a disgruntled wife? I can't say there wasn't because there is no report other than her statement to the media about her being abused, no arrest record and no trial documents and while I am inclined to believe her, but what I believe, or you believe doesn't really matter in a case like this. Without evidence it is just "suspicion", supposition not incontrovertible proof that it any kind of abuse actually happened. So again It would be denying someone their constitutional and civil rights based solely on "suspicion", not substantiated fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 his first wife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 I find it interesting that there is always outrage but as soon as someone suggests a regulation that could prevent such an attack , oh no we cant do that the guy had a file , hed been pulled in twice for questioning, been on a watch list . one of the other attacks the shooter bought the gun because of the three day rule , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Sitora Yusifiy, the person I mentioned in my post was Mateen's first wife. His second wife, the one who allegedly bought ammunition for him and is now cooperating with the FBI is Noor Zahi Salman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Look Im likely more anti ban than even the most conservative members But to ignore that this as well as some other mass shootings and terrorist attack could have been prevented with common sense regulation, only harms Gun owners in general Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 the senate will be voting on an amendment that would fail those who have been on a watch list in the last five years from passing the fire arms back ground check. not having read this piece of legislation Its hard to say one way or the other , one mark against it is that Dianne Feinstein is backing it. no I dont like her https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/15/sen-toomey-and-bloomberg-discussing-gun-control-measure-to-close-the-terror-gap/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, DonF said: I find it interesting that there is always outrage but as soon as someone suggests a regulation that could prevent such an attack , oh no we cant do that the guy had a file , hed been pulled in twice for questioning, been on a watch list . one of the other attacks the shooter bought the gun because of the three day rule , And for whatever reason, Mateen was removed from the terror watch list... So should he still have been prohibited from making a legal firearms purchase even though he was investigated and according tot he Director of the FBI, the agency found nothing in his background, his recent activities or his statements to keep him on the watch list... Or if a person appears on a watch list should they be prohibited from purchasing a firearm for life? Mateen was never reported, charged or tried for domestic abuse, but his wife says he was an abuser... Should someone's word alone have been reason for anyone to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm? If the newly proposed legislation is as stated, to keep people on the terror watch list from buying a firearm, would not have been a red flag that would have shown up on any kind of background check for the Orlando shooter So the whole enhanced background check proposal is little more than ineffective smoke and mirrors - proposed "feel good" legislation. Yes Mateen had a file and was pulled in twice for questioning and as a result of those steps or possibly the concern that his being investigated "looked bad" he was removed from the terror watch list so your point is moot. Your second point, we don't even know if the weapon Mateen used would have been banned even if the 1980 assault weapons ban was still a law. Did it have a flash suppressor? Did it have a folding stock? Did it have a bayonet mount? Did it have an extended pistol like grip? As for the most recently proposed assault weapons ban legislation his weapon probably would have been banned for the simple reason that it "looked like" a military style rifle... But did the weapon Mateen use have an extended clip or magazine? Something else in the most recently and newly proposed gun regulation legislation and something that to my knowledge hasn't even been asked - or answered yet. There is just way too much speculation and supposition going on while certain absolutely known facts are either being ignored or outright denied. None of the recently or presently proposed changes to the gun laws would have precluded Mateen from legally purchasing his weapons - Then as I previously mentioned, there have been approximately 5 million AR style rifles sold in the United States since 2004 and of that number only a tiny fraction of one percent have been used in mass shootings. And that doesn't even count the number of other types of "assault" rifles sold in the U.S. during that same time period. The background check system we have presently works, we don't need more or more extensive background checks, so long as people who are supposed to submit their findings comply with the law, as it is presently. The weapon Mateen used was purchased at a licensed gun dealer, there is not need to enact legislation that would make it illegal for guns to be purchased at gun shows without a background check (although personally I would not be opposed to that). There is certainly no need for legislation that would make it illegal to sell or transfer a firearm among private citizens or family members without an accompanying background check (I am adamantly opposed to that provision). Someone explain to me... Since neither of those two provisions I mentioned would have effected the Orlando club shooting or possibly any, of the known mass shootings, both of which are in the proposed legislation that people claim would stop shooting like this. How would manditory enhanced background checks at gun shows or for private sales have stopped the Orlando shooting? I don't even know at this point if Mateen used an extended clip of magazine on his rifle, so how would banning extended clips of magazines have stopped the Orlando shooting? Mateen was not presently on any terror watch list according to the FBI, so how would banning people on the terror watch list from buying guns have stopped the Orlando shooting. Why is it there don't appear to me more people asking these kinds of questions?!? Edited June 16, 2016 by Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 He used a Sig Sauer MXC, not an AR, however that doesn't stop the anti-gun lobby from claiming AR-15s should be banned. I don't think being on a list should cost you a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 gun bans arent the answer but keeping them out of the hands of some is. I personally dont buy the whole assault weapons BS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Good points Clay. For visual purposes I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference between a Sig MXC and a Colt (or other manufacturer) AR body, but I probably should have stressed AR type of rifle a little more strongly. Also as I mentioned being on the terror watch list just means a person is "suspected" of having terrorist ties so yeah I agree being on the list should not be prohibitive to someone attempting to purchase a weapon as that would be denying a citizen of their right to "due process", something guaranteed by the Constitution, but I already mentioned that. Now I wouldn't be opposed to an extended waiting period being imposed for people on the terror watch list to give the intelligent community and the Department of Justice an opportunity to more thoroughly investigate someone on the watch list wanting to buy a firearm... but so far as I know that hasn't even been recommended in the proposed legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) I'm confused about an extended waiting period. Years ago it was two weeks known as a cool down period, meant to prevent a person from buying while hot with emotion. Time to think it over and cool down. I would guess terrorists would just put the period into their plans or find the rifle elsewhere. But what do I know? I just know my right to bear arms wasn't created for me so I could hunt. To be honest, I feel the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, has already been infringed. We have defined a class that is no longer "people" under the 2nd amendment. There are federal and state laws dictating who may legally own or sell guns. These laws are designed to infringe In my opinion. Edited June 17, 2016 by Clay added an after thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Kadet Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 They say he was born in Queens NY, but I haven't seen any PROOF. Someone told he was from the Socialist stronghold of Girard, Kans. or maybe Afghanistan. One of those anti-democracy places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Ace Kadet said: They say he was born in Queens NY, but I haven't seen any PROOF. Someone told he was from the Socialist stronghold of Girard, Kans. or maybe Afghanistan. One of those anti-democracy places. Here you go, this should get the discussion going here too... NYC Officials Say Document Submitted by Donald Trump Is Not His Birth Certificate Journo Demands 'Real' Certificate, Two Newspaper Birth Announcements, Witnesses to U.S. Childhood - And What about Trump's Foreign-Born Parent? http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/03/29/nyc-officials-say-document-submitted-by-donald-trump-is-not-his-birth-certificate/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcbuff Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Trumps 2011 submission looks just like the one the hospital gave my parents when I was born. Mine has my footprints on the back. I have never owned my official birth certificate. I need to get one before retirement I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcbuff Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 I know the thread is about gun purchase laws but the current knee jerk was sparked by Muslim terrorism. From my observation, the goal of this administration and gun control advocates is to curb mass shootings, it is not about ending or addressing Muslim terrorism. Why must the conversation suddenly be diverted to gun control laws, a subject that most certainly will divide Americans rather than unite them against the enemy? I have every reason to believe that if every gun in the United States suddenly vanished, Muslim terrorism would continue to thrive. Terrorism doesn't require a gun to achieve its goal, all it takes is knowing that the threat is real, that suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots exist. All it takes is to convince the populace that an entire family will be put to death in horrific scenarios, to know that victims will be skinned alive, blindfolded and tossed from atop tall buildings, to believe that the subjugated could be forced into hunger then fed the flesh of their own children, all it takes is someone to victimize. If you don't believe it, take a look at the unarmed/ disarmed victims of Muslim terrorism. Even further off topic: If you happen to believe that PTSD is real, then you should consider the mental effects of PTSD on women, men and children that have been subjected to and witnesses to the horrific crimes on humanity perpetrated by Muslims. If the reports of the negative effects of PTSD are valid, why is it a good idea to invite tens of thousands of "refugees" into our midst, many of whom are victims, witnesses or participants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 knee jerk reaction to over a thousand mass shootings every year ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcbuff Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 6 hours ago, DonF said: knee jerk reaction to over a thousand mass shootings every year ??? No, just as I wrote, this single night club incident where one protected class has terrorized another. But that fact is secondary. The effort to demonize the tool is the preferred choice rather than the perpetrator. The same perpetrators killed 3000 people in a single morning (about 4 hours actually, only an hour more than the Pulse shooting incident) and injured 6000 others without a shot being fired, but but but the guns have to go, look at the guns they are the evi! The same perpetrators, detonating suicide vests, crowd the newspapers in cities abroad on a daily basis, as their innocent victims are splattered about in restaurants, gift shops and markets . The Boston Marathon incident is a perfect example of how to instill terrorism in a population without any kind of gun. Oh and what is you definition of mass shootings? How many victims equals mass? Oh, the 50 Senators you linked to are doing the job they should be doing. Those that infringe on our rights, the ones that might disarm us in the face of Muslim terrorism are little better than terrorists or at best complicit by their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 the 50 senators did their job alright making sure they protected this muslam terrorists ability to legally buy a fire arm and kill 49 Americans. Thats Ok though because the 49 killed were deviants and perverts, right ? After all the Bible tells us to kill them , Ive seen a number of famous conservative Christian preachers tell us so (maybe thats infamous) even in prayers before some of those very senators. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/04/pastor-calls-for-killing-gays-to-end-aids/19929973/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/30/492188/churches-preach-anti-gay-violence/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcbuff Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 And how about the idea of banning a type of gun that has the potential of being used in a terrorist attack while increasing the number of potential Muslim perpetrators that will employ any method necessary to carry out their attack. It sounds like policy one would expect to find in the movie Idiocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 no weapon should be banned we arent talking Bans here we are talking regulations and back ground checks . to get a license to shoot fire works you have to submit three fingerprint files, undergo a indepth back ground check, I have yet to see a single case where fireworks were used in a mass murder case theres no reason firearms and ammo purchases shouldnt require the same for 7 years you guys have been claiming Obama's gonna take your guns, not one has been taken so your powers of prediction suck. fact is Obama has presided over the most gun sales in history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Now we can discuss gun laws again if you like but you wont like who actually passed the most restrictive, As they were all pushed through by republicans from the first in the 20s, to the ban on sales of any full autos manufactured after 1986. seriously if you are going to jump in claiming evil liberals taking your guns Bull crap you should really do your damn research. The GOPs attack on gun ownership isnt shown in their public face they hide in in other regulations. like the DOT regs limiting the number of carriers that can transport ammunition across the country, changes to BATFE regs which made it nearly impossible for gun stores to handle reloading supplies. All things you have ignored since 2001because you are foolish enough to believe campaign commercials and political propaganda rather than look at the damn laws that are slid through. You didnt pay any attention at all when GW signed a bill into law that would fail US military vets from purchasing firearms , but its all those evil liberals because the GOP says so . Yes I find it humorous when you guys start claiming the liberals are after your guns when you GOP has been herding you sheep any direction they want . Heres a note from history to choke on , the second amendment was written into the bill of rights by a liberal for that matter the entire bill of right was the product of progressive liberals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonF Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 of course for some their gun is their only penis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.