|
Orlando shooting
|
|
Topic Started: Jun 12 2016, 12:10 PM (411 Views)
|
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 15 2016, 02:06 AM
Post #31
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 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? I'm not trying to be over-difficult here, but can you further define "ties to Isis"? For example, what if they have a sibling or cousin or friend in Isis....are you considering g that a tie to Isis?
I think after that is defined, then we need to make that definition an illegal action under rules of war. Essentially the person would be declared an enemy combatant and thus not have the rights that free citizens have in the US. I think it's always better to pass laws using our representative system that follow a process vs arbitrarily removing rights from certain people.
|
 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.
|
| |
|
rkl15
|
Jun 15 2016, 04:51 AM
Post #32
|
All-Star
- Posts:
- 1,970
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #460
- Joined:
- December 24, 2013
|
I'm no gun expert, but ran into this article about the AR 15.
AR 15 Rifle
Interesting info in the article.
|
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 15 2016, 05:43 AM
Post #33
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 02:06 AM
- 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?
I'm not trying to be over-difficult here, but can you further define "ties to Isis"? For example, what if they have a sibling or cousin or friend in Isis....are you considering g that a tie to Isis? I think after that is defined, then we need to make that definition an illegal action under rules of war. Essentially the person would be declared an enemy combatant and thus not have the rights that free citizens have in the US. I think it's always better to pass laws using our representative system that follow a process vs arbitrarily removing rights from certain people. Let's say this, someone with close enough ties that you personally feel like they should be put on a "no fly list".
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
Post #34
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
Post #35
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'. I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 15 2016, 02:56 PM
Post #36
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Donald Trump said that if everyone in the room that night had guns, fewer deaths would have occurred.
My question to the Donnie: if all nightclubs and bars were packed full of drunk people with guns, would the amount of shootings go up or down?
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 15 2016, 03:13 PM
Post #37
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
FWIW as well, Florida is one of the most gun-friendly states and even they recognize the problem with allowing concealed carry at places of business that serve alcohol. All government businesses as well as any private establishment that sells alcohol (outside of a restaurant) does not allow concealed carry. Even in non-government and non alcohol-serving businesses, it is against Florida law to carry a firearm if your BAC is above .02....about 5 times under what most states consider legally drunk.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
Post #38
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer. I actually answered the question already further down on that post.
|
 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.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 15 2016, 06:47 PM
Post #39
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
I actually answered the question already further down on that post. No, you answered what you think the process should, but currently isn't, be. Your solution, while certainly feasible, doesn't currently exist. So under the process we have right now, should someone with ISIS ties be allowed to purchase a gun?
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 16 2016, 07:32 AM
Post #40
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 06:47 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
I actually answered the question already further down on that post.
No, you answered what you think the process should, but currently isn't, be. Your solution, while certainly feasible, doesn't currently exist. So under the process we have right now, should someone with ISIS ties be allowed to purchase a gun? i don't have enough information on our current system to answer dreach. Is it illegal to have ISIS ties?
|
 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.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 16 2016, 09:53 AM
Post #41
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 07:32 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 06:47 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
I actually answered the question already further down on that post.
No, you answered what you think the process should, but currently isn't, be. Your solution, while certainly feasible, doesn't currently exist. So under the process we have right now, should someone with ISIS ties be allowed to purchase a gun?
i don't have enough information on our current system to answer dreach. Is it illegal to have ISIS ties? I know. Like I said before, for the purpose of this question I would like you to assume the person has been put on the no fly list for reasons that you agree are legitimate.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 16 2016, 10:02 AM
Post #42
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 16 2016, 09:53 AM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 07:32 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 06:47 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
I actually answered the question already further down on that post.
No, you answered what you think the process should, but currently isn't, be. Your solution, while certainly feasible, doesn't currently exist. So under the process we have right now, should someone with ISIS ties be allowed to purchase a gun?
i don't have enough information on our current system to answer dreach. Is it illegal to have ISIS ties?
I know. Like I said before, for the purpose of this question I would like you to assume the person has been put on the no fly list for reasons that you agree are legitimate. no, I'm actually asking the question.....is it illegal to have ISIS ties and be in the United States?
|
 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.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 16 2016, 10:10 AM
Post #43
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 10:02 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 16 2016, 09:53 AM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 07:32 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 06:47 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
I actually answered the question already further down on that post.
No, you answered what you think the process should, but currently isn't, be. Your solution, while certainly feasible, doesn't currently exist. So under the process we have right now, should someone with ISIS ties be allowed to purchase a gun?
i don't have enough information on our current system to answer dreach. Is it illegal to have ISIS ties?
I know. Like I said before, for the purpose of this question I would like you to assume the person has been put on the no fly list for reasons that you agree are legitimate.
no, I'm actually asking the question.....is it illegal to have ISIS ties and be in the United States? Ah. Honestly, seems to be a gray area, no? Not illegal enough to get arrested, but illegal enough to have certain rights taken away like flying.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 16 2016, 10:31 AM
Post #44
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 16 2016, 10:10 AM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 10:02 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 16 2016, 09:53 AM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 07:32 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 06:47 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
I actually answered the question already further down on that post.
No, you answered what you think the process should, but currently isn't, be. Your solution, while certainly feasible, doesn't currently exist. So under the process we have right now, should someone with ISIS ties be allowed to purchase a gun?
i don't have enough information on our current system to answer dreach. Is it illegal to have ISIS ties?
I know. Like I said before, for the purpose of this question I would like you to assume the person has been put on the no fly list for reasons that you agree are legitimate.
no, I'm actually asking the question.....is it illegal to have ISIS ties and be in the United States?
Ah. Honestly, seems to be a gray area, no? Not illegal enough to get arrested, but illegal enough to have certain rights taken away like flying. I mean, that sort of seams like bullshit to begin with doesn't it? We have determined that certain people do lose their 2nd amendment rights, such as felons, children, and those with certain mental conditions, but I believe in each of those cases, the criteria is clearly defined. I can't justify the removal of someone's rights based on something that seems to be extremely unclearly defined, such as "ties to Isis", and I really don't think it needs to be such a specific criteria. It should be "terrorist threat", and this should have a procedure in place to ensure that a person is defined in this way fairly.......which would be the case if we categorized this as a crime, because we already have a process in place here for fairly determining if someone is guilty of a crime.
I don't know what else to say about this dreach...if you're trying to pigeon hole me into something here, I think it's unfair, because i can't answer questions with unclear or vague definitions. Should a declared member of ISIS who has pledged death to America be able to purchase a gun?......no, but that should be accompanied by the conviction of a crime for the same thing.
|
 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.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 16 2016, 12:37 PM
Post #45
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 10:31 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 16 2016, 10:10 AM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 10:02 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 16 2016, 09:53 AM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 16 2016, 07:32 AM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 06:47 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 15 2016, 06:36 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 15 2016, 01:36 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 15 2016, 11:49 AM
I would amend the statement to say that they are on the FBI no-fly list or are under investigation for being put on the no fly list. I don't think that you can simply say it should be based on what 'personally feels'.
I mean I agree, but since we don't know exactly what lands someone on the federal no fly list, he seems hesitant to use that as a basis for making the decision. So I think if we simply establish that the person is on the no fly list for whatever reasons he would support, then the question of whether this person should be allowed to buy a gun becomes much easier to answer.
I actually answered the question already further down on that post.
No, you answered what you think the process should, but currently isn't, be. Your solution, while certainly feasible, doesn't currently exist. So under the process we have right now, should someone with ISIS ties be allowed to purchase a gun?
i don't have enough information on our current system to answer dreach. Is it illegal to have ISIS ties?
I know. Like I said before, for the purpose of this question I would like you to assume the person has been put on the no fly list for reasons that you agree are legitimate.
no, I'm actually asking the question.....is it illegal to have ISIS ties and be in the United States?
Ah. Honestly, seems to be a gray area, no? Not illegal enough to get arrested, but illegal enough to have certain rights taken away like flying.
I mean, that sort of seams like bullshit to begin with doesn't it? We have determined that certain people do lose their 2nd amendment rights, such as felons, children, and those with certain mental conditions, but I believe in each of those cases, the criteria is clearly defined. I can't justify the removal of someone's rights based on something that seems to be extremely unclearly defined, such as "ties to Isis", and I really don't think it needs to be such a specific criteria. It should be "terrorist threat", and this should have a procedure in place to ensure that a person is defined in this way fairly.......which would be the case if we categorized this as a crime, because we already have a process in place here for fairly determining if someone is guilty of a crime. I don't know what else to say about this dreach...if you're trying to pigeon hole me into something here, I think it's unfair, because i can't answer questions with unclear or vague definitions. Should a declared member of ISIS who has pledged death to America be able to purchase a gun?......no, but that should be accompanied by the conviction of a crime for the same thing. So...yes.
Not trying to pigeon hole you into anything. It was part of Obama's speech that a lot of people seemed to hit on and I was interested in your opinion.
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|