Orlando Attack...ISIS claims it!

[-JD-]

Seat belts are government forced regulation. As are airbags. And they worked. There are also lobby groups for road safety and we restrict who is allowed to drive. If you're a potential risk to public safety you are not allowed to drive. Are those laws pointless? Since criminals obviously don't follow laws?

 

[MudPie]

So while we're at it... In regards to the Obama/DOJ scrub of the 911 call to remove references to Allah and ISIS.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch had said.

So what she is really saying is they don't wont to inspire more attacks from home grown radical islamist.

And here I thought we had nothing to worry about... religion of peace.

Carry on.

 

[MudPie]

Seat belts are government forced regulation. As are airbags. And they worked. There are also lobby groups for road safety and we restrict who is allowed to drive. If you're a potential risk to public safety you are not allowed to drive. Are those laws pointless? Since criminals obviously don't follow laws?

You sir have missed the point entirely.

 

[-JD-]

You sir have missed the point entirely.

Ok. Well please explain. To me it seems like a logical extension of the analogy being made.

Groups like the society of automotive engineers were among the many pushing for seat belt laws. They were met with a lot of misinformation and skepticism but have been effective in reducing fatalities. Its a great example of government implementing a simple solution and effectively reducing fatalities and injuries.

 

[MudPie]

Ok. Well please explain. To me it seems like a logical extension of the analogy being made.



Groups like the society of automotive engineers were among the many pushing for seat belt laws. They were met with a lot of misinformation and skepticism but have been effective in reducing fatalities. Its a great example of government implementing a simple solution and effectively reducing fatalities and injuries.

The point is that public safety is not the agenda of anti-gun politicians. It's ("gun control") a fallacy carefully crafted to convince an unsuspecting population to willfully forgoe the liberties and protections afforded to them by the constitution. Effectively rendering the constitution toothless and removing any ability of the citizens to measurably resist a tyrannical government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedSled]

The point is that public safety is not the agenda of anti-gun politicians. It's ("gun control") a fallacy carefully crafted to convince an unsuspecting population to willfully forgoe the liberties and protections afforded to them by the constitution. Effectively rendering the constitution toothless and removing any ability of the citizens to measurably resist a tyrannical government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So true, the government will do everything in it's power to take away everything our for fathers fought and died for, it is the only way to hold on to the greed and corruption that they have been profitting on for years. Scare tacktics is just a small part, the people will not be able to fight back, so many people put all their trust in government, i say, For the people by the people. :rain:

 

[1engineer]

Ok. Well please explain. To me it seems like a logical extension of the analogy being made.

Groups like the society of automotive engineers were among the many pushing for seat belt laws. They were met with a lot of misinformation and skepticism but have been effective in reducing fatalities. Its a great example of government implementing a simple solution and effectively reducing fatalities and injuries.

Your logic is flawed. It's much deeper than safety. Go back and re read the last few posts talking about the chances of getting hurt or killed by guns or vehicles for that matter.

 

[AntleredRuin]

Seat belts are government forced regulation. As are airbags. And they worked. There are also lobby groups for road safety and we restrict who is allowed to drive. If you're a potential risk to public safety you are not allowed to drive. Are those laws pointless? Since criminals obviously don't follow laws?

Um...there is a big difference. There already are restrictions on firearms, same as there are restrictions on who's allowed to drive.
The problem is that apparently being on the FBI's watch list does not mean anything.
We already have background checks, whose sole point is to weed out potential troublemakers, but if the FBI is willing to ignore blatant evidence, the checks don't mean much.
Anyone who legally owns a gun and wants to use it anywhere besides their own property must be licensed. This is the same with driving. If you have a small area to drive in circles in in your backyard, you don't need a license,you don't need a seatbelt, and the car can have 10 year expired plates. It's your property.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Trail Wonka]

Um...there is a big difference. There already are restrictions on firearms, same as there are restrictions on who's allowed to drive.
The problem is that apparently being on the FBI's watch list does not mean anything.
We already have background checks, whose sole point is to weed out potential troublemakers, but if the FBI is willing to ignore blatant evidence, the checks don't mean much.
Anyone who legally owns a gun and wants to use it anywhere besides their own property must be licensed. This is the same with driving. If you have a small area to drive in circles in in your backyard, you don't need a license,you don't need a seatbelt, and the car can have 10 year expired plates. It's your property.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I have no license for my guns and go shoot them on lands all over, in multiple states. I have no clue what you are talking about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AntleredRuin]

I have no license for my guns and go shoot them on lands all over, in multiple states. I have no clue what you are talking about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean to conceal or open carry. I can shoot my gun too, on my in-laws 20 acre land. But I'm not allowed to bring them into a public area without a license.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Trail Wonka]

That is not true, I can bring them into a public area, I just can't conceal, or have them loaded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AntleredRuin]

That is not true, I can bring them into a public area, I just can't conceal, or have them loaded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand what you're saying, but I know you understand me too. You're being very literal, but this is pretty obvious. Yes, you can have it in your car. Yes, you can bring it to 'public' land to go hunting (with a hunting license). Yes, you can bring it to a gun range. Yes, you can bring it to a gun show. Yes, you can walk around Academy Sports and Outdoors after the initial purchase with it in a shopping bag. You can probably even bring a real gun to a sci-fi convention. (I don't know) All without a license. Technically in 'public'.
But NO, you can't carry it around your local grocery store, hardware store, etc. Not in real, everyday life. Loaded or not, concealed or not. Not without having a license. Unless you live in some small weird offshoot of America with differing laws, it's typically not allowed. (I'm assuming you're actually IN America) You're not allowed to just walk around everyday life holding a firearm. Pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. It does not matter. Not without a license. Academy won't let you brandish the gun after the purchase on their premises unless you are licensed and the gun is properly holstered. You're not allowed to just walk around Wal-Mart with a shotgun slung on your back. There are regulations.

What you're literally saying (which leads me to believe that you understand the difference) is that you are free to open carry every day, all day, anywhere, any state, without a license, provided the gun is not loaded. This is not true.

This was kind of besides the point anyways. As I was saying, unless you buy your firearm through a personal (Craigslist-style) sale, you are most likely going to have your background checked. If your background check brings up a red flag, but this flag is ignored, THERE'S your problem. If the background check says "FBI Alert: Suspected Terrorist", you DON'T sell that guy a gun. Common sense.
The gun itself is not the issue. Ignoring the already implemented regulations is.

If we're going to use the car comparison, we might as well outlaw all vehicles, except for the police and the military, because of a few bad drivers. It makes no sense. Simply enforcing the pre-existing laws helps A LOT.

 

[Trail Wonka]

Um...there is a big difference. There already are restrictions on firearms, same as there are restrictions on who's allowed to drive.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Only for a concealed carry permit. I can buy a gun with no background check, no waiting period, no registration, no nothing, and go shoot it, all legally. And anyone wanting to shoot a bunch of people is not going to apply for a carry permit.

Anyone who legally owns a gun and wants to use it anywhere besides their own property must be licensed. This is the same with driving.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Yes I am being literal, because this blanket statement is just not true.

And it is, no question, more difficult to get a drivers license. The debate is not about getting a concealed carry permit, it is about buying guns. [emoji23][emoji379]





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AntleredRuin]

Only for a concealed carry permit. I can buy a gun with no background check, no waiting period, no registration, no nothing, and go shoot it, all legally. And anyone wanting to shoot a bunch of people is not going to apply for a carry permit.


Yes I am being literal, because this blanket statement is just not true.

And it is, no question, more difficult to get a drivers license. The debate is not about getting a concealed carry permit, it is about buying guns. [emoji23][emoji379]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes you can buy it, but if you buy from a store and not a personal Craigslist Style sale, as I mentioned before (this can include gun shows), a background check will be run. It might not be the 3 day waiting period background check, like in some states, but they will at least do a precursory check. Enough for FBI flags to pop up. I live in Texas, and it still took me almost 2 hours to purchase my gun, with a bunch of paperwork. It's not just "sign here and give me the money; here's your gun."
And yes I am legally able to shoot it, with no CHL. But only at gun ranges, on hunting land, or on my personal property.

I am NOT allowed to simply carry the gun around with me all day in REAL public through. Loaded or not. Concealed or not. I am not allowed to be like Linus and his blankie, only with my gun. Not without being licensed.

So, yes, if you buy a gun off Craigslist, or from a friend, or from a gun show, or simply steal one, you might stay 'under the radar', with no background check. This IS legal (stealing example excluded). If you buy from a store, however, they know damn well who you are.
Comparatively, you can buy a car from Craigslist with cash, and use it as a deer lease vehicle, and the government will never know, but it's not legal for on-road use without proper registration and licensing. If you buy the car from a dealer, they register your name on the spot. They know who you are. They will see if you have marks on your license that say you are not legally allowed to operate a vehicle (due to past misconduct) and they have no business selling you a car IF you have marks on your license.
If a dealer sold a car to someone with a revoked license, they could be held liable, because it's pretty damn obvious the vehicle will be used in an inappropriate manner.

The killer in topic bought his gun legally from a store, had a background check that he essentially failed, was given the gun anyways, and then used it to kill 50 people. This could have easily been prevented.

I will redact my blanket statement, as I understand your point, but it's still pretty common sense. Yes there are 'loopholes' to registration/ licensing, but again, that was not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is ignoring blatant warnings and alert systems specifically designed to protect the general public. The killer did not exploit these 'loopholes'. He bought his guns and was registered. He was refused his purchase by another gun shop due to the background check, and moved on to the next shop in the hopes they'd ignore it.

 

[wadle5]

Ok. Well please explain. To me it seems like a logical extension of the analogy being made. .

The problem JD as many have pointed out:
What you have said is incorrect
You have already been explained several times
You then go off on unrelated tangents
You then ask for an explanation. . . .again.

What's the point of trying to explain to you when over half a dozen individuals already have and you seem to still ask for an explanation?
This has clearly dragged on throughout the thread and contributed nothing but noise. . :drum:


I would just recommend going back and reviewing this thread and all the mentions at you and you should have the answers for your questions you keep asking.

 

[nevada]

Yes you can buy it, but if you buy from a store and not a personal Craigslist Style sale, as I mentioned before (this can include gun shows), a background check will be run. It might not be the 3 day waiting period background check, like in some states, but they will at least do a precursory check. Enough for FBI flags to pop up.

And yes you are legally able to shoot it then, with no CHL. But only in gun ranges, hunting land, or personal property.

You are NOT allowed to simply carry the gun around with you all day in REAL public through. Loaded or not. Concealed or not. You are not allowed to be like Linus and his blankie, only with your gun.

So, yes, if you buy a gun off Craigslist, or from a friend, or from a gun show, you might stay 'under the radar', with no background check. If you buy from a store, however, they know damn well who you are.

The killer in topic bought his gun legally from a store, had a background check that he essentially failed, was given the gun anyways, and then used it to kill 50 people. This could have easily been prevented.

being in texas, open carry is new to you, I understand that, however..

there are many states where what you are saying simply is not correct.
here in Washington we have open carry. no type of license is required. the only time a permit is required is for concealed carry. but, you can open carry anywhere its legal to have a firearm without any permits or licenses

 

[AntleredRuin]

being in texas, open carry is new to you, I understand that, however..

there are many states where what you are saying simply is not correct.
here in Washington we have open carry. no type of license is required. the only time a permit is required is for concealed carry. but, you can open carry anywhere its legal to have a firearm without any permits or licenses

Ok, I may stand corrected on this particular point. I knew open carry existed in other states before Texas, but I was led to believe that there was licensing for that too. Just for clarification, in Washington, you are allowed to simply walk down the street carrying a firearm, with NO regulation whatsoever, provided it's obvious you are carrying it? Obviously you have to mind stores and businesses that say "no guns", etc.
Out of curiosity, is this only handguns, or rifles and shotguns as well?

However, my point still stands with actually purchasing a gun, though, correct? With anything besides a personal 'cash sale', they at LEAST take your name down? You can't just walk into a store and buy a gun the same way you would buy a candy bar?

 

[nevada]

Ok, I may stand corrected on this particular point. Just for clarification, in Washington, you are allowed to simply walk down the street carrying a firearm, with NO regulation whatsoever, provided it's obvious you are carrying it? Obviously you have to mind stores and businesses that say "no guns", etc.

However, my point still stands with actually purchasing a gun, though, correct? With anything besides a personal 'cash sale', they at LEAST take your name down?

to the first point, yes. we are an open carry state. there are many others, some that allow concealed carry without a permit as well I believe.

we can conceal with a permit. we cannot have a loaded pistol in our vehicle UNLESS we have a concealed carry permit.

to the 2nd point, yes, if purchasing from a licensed dealer, you are subject to a background check. supposedly there is no actual registration in place, however I believe the shop must retain your records for something like 20 years after the sale. and then they must give those records up upon request by the appropriate LEO's.



the matter of carrying, be it open, or concealed without a permit, is how it should be. its called constitutional carry, meaning the constitutions IS our permit to carry.

its the same old story that anti-gun people don't like to hear, or admit to. criminals do not obey laws.
criminals are going to do as please regardless of any laws.

 

[AntleredRuin]

to the first point, yes. we are an open carry state. there are many others, some that allow concealed carry without a permit as well I believe.

we can conceal with a permit. we cannot have a loaded pistol in our vehicle UNLESS we have a concealed carry permit.

to the 2nd point, yes, if purchasing from a licensed dealer, you are subject to a background check. supposedly there is no actual registration in place, however I believe the shop must retain your records for something like 20 years after the sale. and then they must give those records up upon request by the appropriate LEO's.



the matter of carrying, be it open, or concealed without a permit, is how it should be. its called constitutional carry, meaning the constitutions IS our permit to carry.

its the same old story that anti-gun people don't like to hear, or admit to. criminals do not obey laws.
criminals are going to do as please regardless of any laws.

OK, fair enough. I was misinformed. I will bow out on this point of the discussion. I'm NOT anti-gun at all; I agree with you that criminals don't obey laws.
But I still believe that IF a background check is ran, and the check says, "Hey, the FBI thinks this guy is a Terrorist", you DON'T sell him a gun. Carrying permits or not. Actual registration at the time of purchase or not. This is basic common sense.
All businesses hold the right to refuse any sale to anybody at any time for any reason. This refusal can be disputed, but what are the odds that the killer would take this gun shop to small claims court on the basis that they refused to sell him a gun because the FBI said not to? Isn't the whole point to NOT draw attention to yourself?

If the gun store owner had followed the simple (albeit not all-inclusive) regulations that were already in place, this shooting could have been avoided. This was a classic case of liberal 'not wanting to stereotype' crap.

I don't want MORE gun control; I simply think that following the laws that are already in place might actually be beneficial. Anyone should still be able to buy a gun at their own disclosure, but if they fail a BG check, the store owner needs to nut up and say, "No".

 

[nevada]

OK, fair enough. I was misinformed. I will bow out on this point of the discussion. I'm NOT anti-gun at all; I agree with you that criminals don't obey laws.
But I still believe that IF a background check is ran, and the check says, "Hey, the FBI thinks this guy is a Terrorist", you DON'T sell him a gun. Carrying permits or not. Actual registration at the time of purchase or not. This is basic common sense.
All businesses hold the right to refuse any sale to anybody at any time for any reason. This refusal can be disputed, but what are the odds that the killer would take this gun shop to small claims court on the basis that they refused to sell him a gun because the FBI said not to? Isn't the whole point to NOT draw attention to yourself?

If the gun store owner had followed the simple (albeit not all-inclusive) regulations that were already in place, this shooting could have been avoided. This was a classic case of liberal 'not wanting to stereotype' crap.

I don't want MORE gun control; I simply think that following the laws that are already in place might actually be beneficial. Anyone should still be able to buy a gun at their own disclosure, but if they fail a BG check, the store owner needs to nut up and say, "No".

while I wasn't there, and am not privy to exactly how BGC's are done, I do not think the gun store owner is to blame here.
assuming he ran the check, which I expect he did.
there are 3 options that can be returned when the check is ran, deny, proceed, or delayed. if the NICS check comes back as a proceed, the shop owner legally continues with the transaction. the fault would lie with the NICS system, and the FBI.

though, I must agree. someone on a terrorist watch list should at the least get a second look when buying a firearm. that's where it gets to be a touchy situation, because just as the no fly list, its very easy to get on it.


there is more to this story though. im not sure of the REASON he was on their list, but they(FBI) were actively trying to recruit him to do some terrorist activity.
it may very well be that the fbi created this entire mess...