Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Orlando shooting
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Orlando shooting
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 12 2016, 12:10 PM (412 Views)
brumdog44 Jun 13 2016, 09:50 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:07 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 01:06 PM
I believe Obama pointed blame today as well.....in the wrong direction.
He urged people to not focus on the 'either/or' about terrorism or gun control.

Not sure how that would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Separate question, gray.....do you agree with Trump's stance to ban Muslim immigrants?
Didn't he point blame at the ease of gun purchases?
He pointed at multiple things. He also said that the shooter did fulfill the required three day waiting period.

The important part of his speech, IMO, was:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them.

And my hope is, is that over the next days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this problem, that we let the facts get determined by our investigators, but we also do some reflecting in terms of how we can best tackle what is going to be a very challenging problem not just here in this country, but around the world."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 14 2016, 05:32 AM Post #17
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:50 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:07 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 01:06 PM
I believe Obama pointed blame today as well.....in the wrong direction.
He urged people to not focus on the 'either/or' about terrorism or gun control.

Not sure how that would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Separate question, gray.....do you agree with Trump's stance to ban Muslim immigrants?
Didn't he point blame at the ease of gun purchases?
He pointed at multiple things. He also said that the shooter did fulfill the required three day waiting period.

The important part of his speech, IMO, was:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them.

And my hope is, is that over the next days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this problem, that we let the facts get determined by our investigators, but we also do some reflecting in terms of how we can best tackle what is going to be a very challenging problem not just here in this country, but around the world."

In his speech prior to the shooting that has since gone viral, he mentioned that they have known ISIS threats that they have put on the "no fly list", but they can't prohibit these same people from legally buying a gun. I know gun advocates want to protect their rights, but I would think many of them would be against this.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jun 14 2016, 07:06 AM Post #18
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:09 PM
rkl15
Jun 13 2016, 07:56 AM
Here you go. Richard Blumenthal, Democratic Senator from Connecticut.

Tweets that Senate is complicit because of inaction.

Just read his tweets.

Tweets from Blumenthal
Not seeing what is offensive about his posts.
Didn't say anything was "offensive".

Saying that "Senate inaction on commonsense #GunViolencePrevention" makes it complicit." is just
incorrect.

Senate is not-complicit in this tragedy because of gun laws.

"The shooters in these incidents were motivated by varying factors, from poisonous ideology to mental
illness. But each of these horrific tragedies had one thing in common: the presence of a weapon that
turns one person's twisted idea into horror and death for countless others."

The battle lies moreso in finding and eradicating the extremist than in changing laws.

Chicago has very strict gun laws.
So far this month there have been 189 people shot. 27 killed with 152 wounded.

Gun Laws aren't the problem.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jun 14 2016, 07:38 AM Post #19
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
I'm sure that I will/may get blistered for linking an article to Fox News.

But, when I get a chance, I will look for another link that covers this exchange.

Dems heckle Ryan on House floor....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 14 2016, 08:18 AM Post #20
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
rkl15
Jun 14 2016, 07:06 AM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:09 PM
rkl15
Jun 13 2016, 07:56 AM
Here you go. Richard Blumenthal, Democratic Senator from Connecticut.

Tweets that Senate is complicit because of inaction.

Just read his tweets.

Tweets from Blumenthal
Not seeing what is offensive about his posts.
Didn't say anything was "offensive".

Saying that "Senate inaction on commonsense #GunViolencePrevention" makes it complicit." is just
incorrect.

Senate is not-complicit in this tragedy because of gun laws.

"The shooters in these incidents were motivated by varying factors, from poisonous ideology to mental
illness. But each of these horrific tragedies had one thing in common: the presence of a weapon that
turns one person's twisted idea into horror and death for countless others."

The battle lies moreso in finding and eradicating the extremist than in changing laws.

Chicago has very strict gun laws.
So far this month there have been 189 people shot. 27 killed with 152 wounded.

Gun Laws aren't the problem.

The whole Chicago argument is very, very flawed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

From 2002 to 2012, CPD tracked the origin of over 50,000 guns in Chicago. The majority of them came into Chicago from out of state. Chicago's gun law doesn't live in a vacuum.

One last thing that bothers me as a math teacher.....if 189 people were shot, and 27 were killed and 152 wounded, what happened to the other 10? Were those 10 born on Krypton and the bullets bounced off? :D

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 14 2016, 08:23 AM Post #21
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
rkl15
Jun 14 2016, 07:38 AM
I'm sure that I will/may get blistered for linking an article to Fox News.

But, when I get a chance, I will look for another link that covers this exchange.

Dems heckle Ryan on House floor....
From your article.....

"Clyburn was going to note that Friday is the one-year anniversary of the Charleston, S.C. mass shooting. Before Clyburn could finish, Ryan ruled his question out of order and directed the House to move to the next vote."

Do you not have a problem with a legitimate question being ruled out of order? Whether you are for or against stricter gun control, do you really believe it is a closed subject?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jun 14 2016, 08:30 AM Post #22
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
brumdog44
Jun 14 2016, 08:18 AM
rkl15
Jun 14 2016, 07:06 AM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:09 PM
rkl15
Jun 13 2016, 07:56 AM
Here you go. Richard Blumenthal, Democratic Senator from Connecticut.

Tweets that Senate is complicit because of inaction.

Just read his tweets.

Tweets from Blumenthal
Not seeing what is offensive about his posts.
Didn't say anything was "offensive".

Saying that "Senate inaction on commonsense #GunViolencePrevention" makes it complicit." is just
incorrect.

Senate is not-complicit in this tragedy because of gun laws.

"The shooters in these incidents were motivated by varying factors, from poisonous ideology to mental
illness. But each of these horrific tragedies had one thing in common: the presence of a weapon that
turns one person's twisted idea into horror and death for countless others."

The battle lies moreso in finding and eradicating the extremist than in changing laws.

Chicago has very strict gun laws.
So far this month there have been 189 people shot. 27 killed with 152 wounded.

Gun Laws aren't the problem.

The whole Chicago argument is very, very flawed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

From 2002 to 2012, CPD tracked the origin of over 50,000 guns in Chicago. The majority of them came into Chicago from out of state. Chicago's gun law doesn't live in a vacuum.

One last thing that bothers me as a math teacher.....if 189 people were shot, and 27 were killed and 152 wounded, what happened to the other 10? Were those 10 born on Krypton and the bullets bounced off? :D

And if our entire country had the same gun laws as Chicago, criminals and terrorists would still
find a way to obtain them.

Enforce the laws on the books.

And as a "Banker" we only care if the numbers are close! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 14 2016, 08:31 AM Post #23
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 14 2016, 05:32 AM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:50 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:07 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 01:06 PM
I believe Obama pointed blame today as well.....in the wrong direction.
He urged people to not focus on the 'either/or' about terrorism or gun control.

Not sure how that would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Separate question, gray.....do you agree with Trump's stance to ban Muslim immigrants?
Didn't he point blame at the ease of gun purchases?
He pointed at multiple things. He also said that the shooter did fulfill the required three day waiting period.

The important part of his speech, IMO, was:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them.

And my hope is, is that over the next days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this problem, that we let the facts get determined by our investigators, but we also do some reflecting in terms of how we can best tackle what is going to be a very challenging problem not just here in this country, but around the world."

In his speech prior to the shooting that has since gone viral, he mentioned that they have known ISIS threats that they have put on the "no fly list", but they can't prohibit these same people from legally buying a gun. I know gun advocates want to protect their rights, but I would think many of them would be against this.
I completely depends on the accuracy of that "no fly list" really....which I don't know much about, but I do personally know of someone who was accidentally declared as a potential terrorist (it wasn't described exactly as that, but that was the general theme), and he was truly just a regular working joe with absolutely no affiliation with anything, and not even remotely political.....it was truly a mistake, but it took a long time to get it cleared up. I would hate for that person to not be able to defend himself and his family because of such a mistake.

In general, if someone is on a "no fly" list, we need to address that more seriously.....they either need to be taken off the list if there is no problem, or they need to be dealt with.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 14 2016, 08:36 AM Post #24
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:50 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:07 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 01:06 PM
I believe Obama pointed blame today as well.....in the wrong direction.
He urged people to not focus on the 'either/or' about terrorism or gun control.

Not sure how that would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Separate question, gray.....do you agree with Trump's stance to ban Muslim immigrants?
Didn't he point blame at the ease of gun purchases?
He pointed at multiple things. He also said that the shooter did fulfill the required three day waiting period.

The important part of his speech, IMO, was:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them.

And my hope is, is that over the next days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this problem, that we let the facts get determined by our investigators, but we also do some reflecting in terms of how we can best tackle what is going to be a very challenging problem not just here in this country, but around the world."

i don't have any problem with this part of the speech....I just took issue with him singling out gun control later. He's been very mellow on this one though, compared to some of the vitriol coming from so many others.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jun 14 2016, 08:42 AM Post #25
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
brumdog44
Jun 14 2016, 08:23 AM
rkl15
Jun 14 2016, 07:38 AM
I'm sure that I will/may get blistered for linking an article to Fox News.

But, when I get a chance, I will look for another link that covers this exchange.

Dems heckle Ryan on House floor....
From your article.....

"Clyburn was going to note that Friday is the one-year anniversary of the Charleston, S.C. mass shooting. Before Clyburn could finish, Ryan ruled his question out of order and directed the House to move to the next vote."

Do you not have a problem with a legitimate question being ruled out of order? Whether you are for or against stricter gun control, do you really believe it is a closed subject?
Personally I am not sure of the "House" rules when it comes to bringing up topics for discussion.

At our local School Board, if you are not on the agenda you may never get a chance to speak.

Obama said this:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them."

I couldn't agree more. Now both sides of the isle need to follow and lead in solving this issue.

And I am not sure how a person who was investigated not once, but twice, for links to terrorism would be
able to purchase any gun.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 14 2016, 08:34 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
rkl15
Jun 14 2016, 08:42 AM


I couldn't agree more. Now both sides of the isle need to follow and lead in solving this issue.

And I am not sure how a person who was investigated not once, but twice, for links to terrorism would be
able to purchase any gun.
Don't you believe the debate begins with the ability to ask questions?

The second statement you made -- why someone who had been searched for links to terrorism twice was able to purchase any gun -- was something that Obama asked his speech. I understand the opposing argument that since he hadn't been charged with the crime that innocence is assumed, but I have to say that obviously the person involved here was obviously mentally unstable and I don't know how that wouldn't have turned up on the investigation.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 14 2016, 08:35 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 14 2016, 08:36 AM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:50 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:07 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 01:06 PM
I believe Obama pointed blame today as well.....in the wrong direction.
He urged people to not focus on the 'either/or' about terrorism or gun control.

Not sure how that would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Separate question, gray.....do you agree with Trump's stance to ban Muslim immigrants?
Didn't he point blame at the ease of gun purchases?
He pointed at multiple things. He also said that the shooter did fulfill the required three day waiting period.

The important part of his speech, IMO, was:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them.

And my hope is, is that over the next days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this problem, that we let the facts get determined by our investigators, but we also do some reflecting in terms of how we can best tackle what is going to be a very challenging problem not just here in this country, but around the world."

i don't have any problem with this part of the speech....I just took issue with him singling out gun control later. He's been very mellow on this one though, compared to some of the vitriol coming from so many others.
I agree....I think he's been pretty even handed on this in stating that this is not a simple issue and there are multiple things that have to be solved here.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 14 2016, 08:39 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
rkl15
Jun 14 2016, 08:30 AM


Enforce the laws on the books.

The gunman in the Orlando shooting purchased his gun legally. There were no applicable laws that were not enforced. You did state afterwards, that you weren't sure how someone investigated twice for terrorist links could have purchased any gun.....there are no laws that eliminate someone in that position from purchasing a gun. If you believe they should not be allowed to, then it's not just a case of enforcing the laws on the books.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 14 2016, 09:30 PM Post #29
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 14 2016, 08:31 AM
dreachon
Jun 14 2016, 05:32 AM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:50 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:07 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 01:06 PM
I believe Obama pointed blame today as well.....in the wrong direction.
He urged people to not focus on the 'either/or' about terrorism or gun control.

Not sure how that would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Separate question, gray.....do you agree with Trump's stance to ban Muslim immigrants?
Didn't he point blame at the ease of gun purchases?
He pointed at multiple things. He also said that the shooter did fulfill the required three day waiting period.

The important part of his speech, IMO, was:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them.

And my hope is, is that over the next days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this problem, that we let the facts get determined by our investigators, but we also do some reflecting in terms of how we can best tackle what is going to be a very challenging problem not just here in this country, but around the world."

In his speech prior to the shooting that has since gone viral, he mentioned that they have known ISIS threats that they have put on the "no fly list", but they can't prohibit these same people from legally buying a gun. I know gun advocates want to protect their rights, but I would think many of them would be against this.
I completely depends on the accuracy of that "no fly list" really....which I don't know much about, but I do personally know of someone who was accidentally declared as a potential terrorist (it wasn't described exactly as that, but that was the general theme), and he was truly just a regular working joe with absolutely no affiliation with anything, and not even remotely political.....it was truly a mistake, but it took a long time to get it cleared up. I would hate for that person to not be able to defend himself and his family because of such a mistake.

In general, if someone is on a "no fly" list, we need to address that more seriously.....they either need to be taken off the list if there is no problem, or they need to be dealt with.
For the sake of discussion, let's focus on the non-mistakes. Let's say we know someone has ties to ISIS, should they be able to legally buy a gun?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mongo Jun 14 2016, 11:00 PM Post #30
Coach
Posts:
11,595
Group:
Members
Member
#160
Joined:
February 12, 2008
dreachon
Jun 14 2016, 09:30 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 14 2016, 08:31 AM
dreachon
Jun 14 2016, 05:32 AM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:50 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jun 13 2016, 09:07 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 13 2016, 01:06 PM
I believe Obama pointed blame today as well.....in the wrong direction.
He urged people to not focus on the 'either/or' about terrorism or gun control.

Not sure how that would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Separate question, gray.....do you agree with Trump's stance to ban Muslim immigrants?
Didn't he point blame at the ease of gun purchases?
He pointed at multiple things. He also said that the shooter did fulfill the required three day waiting period.

The important part of his speech, IMO, was:

"My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened in the past, which is an either/or debate. And the suggestion is either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the problems with easy access to firearms, or it’s all about firearms and we ignore the role -- the very real role that that organizations like ISIL have in generating extremist views inside this country. And it’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

We have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. We have to counter extremism. But we also have to make sure that it is not easy for somebody who decides they want to harm people in this country to be able to obtain weapons to get at them.

And my hope is, is that over the next days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this problem, that we let the facts get determined by our investigators, but we also do some reflecting in terms of how we can best tackle what is going to be a very challenging problem not just here in this country, but around the world."

In his speech prior to the shooting that has since gone viral, he mentioned that they have known ISIS threats that they have put on the "no fly list", but they can't prohibit these same people from legally buying a gun. I know gun advocates want to protect their rights, but I would think many of them would be against this.
I completely depends on the accuracy of that "no fly list" really....which I don't know much about, but I do personally know of someone who was accidentally declared as a potential terrorist (it wasn't described exactly as that, but that was the general theme), and he was truly just a regular working joe with absolutely no affiliation with anything, and not even remotely political.....it was truly a mistake, but it took a long time to get it cleared up. I would hate for that person to not be able to defend himself and his family because of such a mistake.

In general, if someone is on a "no fly" list, we need to address that more seriously.....they either need to be taken off the list if there is no problem, or they need to be dealt with.
For the sake of discussion, let's focus on the non-mistakes. Let's say we know someone has ties to ISIS, should they be able to legally buy a gun?
Abso-fucking-lutely not
Posted Image

"Son, if you really want something in this life you have to work hard for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy