Enlighten me. Why do we hunt down 90 year old nazi war criminals yet allow this Taliban loving Afghani to enjoy all the rights and privledges of the US?
best i can tell you OG is that the nazi war criminals are criminals. dudes like the orlando shooter weren't until they were.
If someone opposes the ban on assault rifles because "it's not the object", I try to figure out why that is.
By blaming the object, we could destroy personal accountability and responsibility.
I could own an AR-15 and not kill anyone, so why should law-abiding citizens allow our rights be eroded away because of a few bad apples?
To me, this response is the worst type of selfish narcissism. The topic becomes about me me me me. Why should I be inconvenienced? I am law-abiding. Me me me. When 20 kindergarteners and countless other law-abiding Americans are massacred, and the right can only think of themselves, it seems pretty clear where the problem lies.
I still have yet to hear from pro-gun people why they oppose measures to prevent ISIS sympathizers to buy guns.
Tell us how to perfectly identify ISIS sympathizers and I doubt anyone would object to stopping them from buying weapons. But of course you're only covering the legal purchases. You think they couldn't readily find weapons thru various other channels?
I realize that you might trust big gov't, but there's plenty of good reasons that people who don't think like you do not. Obama says there wasn't a scintilla of evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups, and recently they finally admitted they targeted hundreds. We're lead by liars and power hungry egoists/narcissists. I don't want to see new rules put in place that can easily be expanded to cover any new group defined by bureaucrats saying who can and can't buy firearms. I have no trust in the actions of elected officials to protect our rights.
I realize that you might trust big gov't, but there's plenty of good reasons that people who don't think like you do not. Obama says there wasn't a scintilla of evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups, and recently they finally admitted they targeted hundreds. We're lead by liars and power hungry egoists/narcissists. I don't want to see new rules put in place that can easily be expanded to cover any new group defined by bureaucrats saying who can and can't buy firearms. I have no trust in the actions of elected officials to protect our rights.
This has nothing to do with the topic. I guess you just wanted to get another cheap shot in against Obama. Well done!
I realize that you might trust big gov't, but there's plenty of good reasons that people who don't think like you do not. Obama says there wasn't a scintilla of evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups, and recently they finally admitted they targeted hundreds. We're lead by liars and power hungry egoists/narcissists. I don't want to see new rules put in place that can easily be expanded to cover any new group defined by bureaucrats saying who can and can't buy firearms. I have no trust in the actions of elected officials to protect our rights.
This has nothing to do with the topic. I guess you just wanted to get another cheap shot in against Obama. Well done!
Yes, we shouldn't let the lies of our leaders count for any indication of how they will treat us on other issues. Especially when it comes to using the power of gov't against it citizens. Heavens no!
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
his political leanings are a lot more recent. He is pledging allegiance to the Taliban so they should be deported. Unfortunately the MSM is not digging too hard because he is politically connected to the current WH and Hillary's State Dept. Looks like he got a "special WH tour" too, not something you or I can expect.
[Edited on 6/15/2016 by OriginalGoober]
Funny how none of our right wing posters bothered to fact check this photo and just gladly reposted the photo saying that he visited Clinton’s office. I know, completely shocking. But a quick check on Snopes tells a different story.
http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooters-father-clinton/
Tell us how to perfectly identify ISIS sympathizers and I doubt anyone would object to stopping them from buying weapons. But of course you're only covering the legal purchases. You think they couldn't readily find weapons thru various other channels?
I realize that you might trust big gov't, but there's plenty of good reasons that people who don't think like you do not. Obama says there wasn't a scintilla of evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups, and recently they finally admitted they targeted hundreds. We're lead by liars and power hungry egoists/narcissists. I don't want to see new rules put in place that can easily be expanded to cover any new group defined by bureaucrats saying who can and can't buy firearms. I have no trust in the actions of elected officials to protect our rights.
To your first part, I don't think it's as easy as you're making it out to be to get a gun on the black market. However, this is more about his ability to get an assault rifle. That should not be so easy. No military style weapon should be available to the general public. Stick to pistols and deal with it.
To your second part, I don't trust big government. But I do trust that national security is their top priority, and therefore there is a major motive to stop this sort of thing from happening. All I know is that I don't trust the way things are right now. Let's look at the two worst case scenarios. Your worst case scenario is that a good law-abiding American citizen is wrongfully placed on a no purchase list, and therefore his rights are stripped from him. The other worst case scenario is what we have now, mass shootings all over the place on a frequent basis.
If I have to choose between a few good Americans who are wrongfully stripped of their right to purchase a gun, and having mass shootings, it's an easy choice for me. One is far more dangerous than the other. Would it be horrible if that American fell victim to a home invasion and could not protect his family? Of course. But to be wrongfully placed on the list creates a potential problem, whereas the system now allows for mass murder. A few who may or may not fall victim to a home invasion or 50 dead in 20 minutes, or 20 children at school. Easy for me.
So you guys see this as a gun issue, where we are just one more gun law away from solving this and living in harmony with isis and not a radical islam terrorist attack.
Why can't it be both?
The people who have done this attack and San Bernadino, they were citizens, passed background checks, nothing could prevent what they did unless you outlaw any Muslim from being able to legally buy a gun. Should we have national id cards or driver licenses where people have to declare their religion? Would jihadists just lie to be able to get guns anyway? The Florida shooter went to the club several times pretending to be interested, he was just doing reconnaissance.
RE: Radical Islam, Deep down Bob, you know the answer. There are certain groups of elite people. [elite means have lots of money and power] who do NOT want radical islam to go away. Radical Islam fighters help oust leaders of countries from power that legitamite world recognized armies cannot do without getting into trouble for levying war on other countries. This way, the politically correct explanation is that the local people are unhappy with their govt. so they are rising up with adhoc militias and armies to remove the person from power, be it Mubarak, Qaddafi, or Assad. These radical fighters always seem to be helping out the Plug In Anyname Free Any Country Name army. The Free Libyan Army, the Free Syrian Army, etc.etc. And the elite people send money and weapons because they secretly want the governing official removed from power.
Al Qaida and Isis fight to remove state leaders from their posts. Their goal is to establish their own state. The world leaders use them as proxies, sometimes covertly funding them, sometimes overtly funding them. Then if they take out the leader, then the war planes come in and blow them up. When the smoke clears, we have a clear playing field, put in a democratic regime who will go along with trade deals of the elite (multi country). Look at Iraq, case in point. Al Qaida hated Saddam, Osama offered to take him out, but Saudi told him no, the US told Saudi no, we will do it. Now Al Qaida fighters who were fighting in Iraq, formed their own entity, Isis. And here we are.
The intel people report to those in the highest levels of govt. Always have, always will. I am not raggin' on the CIA, but history shows they worked with the militaries to achieve political goals. Examples:
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/death_squads1.htm
Why would anyone think that strategy has changed?
[Edited on 6/16/2016 by gina]
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Religious beliefs are not part of immigration policy. That is the short answer. The rest of the answer is the Taliban never wanted to, nor do they now want to take over any lands. They want their own state sovereignty and have no desire to go beyond their borders or incite anyone else to do jihad in their name. I also read where they disavowed the Father. They did not consider him one of them.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Don't forget the Sandanistas. We funded them, and I read reports of Osama and his beloved brother Salem, flying money to those freedom fighters. The relationship of so called 'terrorists' being part of US political campaigns in other countries is longstanding.
As to the future the CIA Director predicts more attacks on US soil. They are realists.
The CIA estimates the group [Isis]fields up to 20,000 fighters in Syria and Iraq, 8,000 in Libya, 1,000 in Egypt. Well you can tack on some other big numbers. The fighters are in every country. And as other factions merge with them, their strength grows.
The issue is not the fighters in other countries. If you eliminated every ISIS fighter, other groups would form. There is prophecy that guarantees that, there are people who are not happy with secular governance. They love their religion and they want something different than the "humiliating lives" people are currently living. Isis asked that question, "can you really say you are any better living your humiliating life" to people in western countries. We have more wealth, but still, do not provide the quality of lives that people want. They see sin everywhere and nobody cares. They see affluence, ignorance and apathy. It creates anger and disgust, that leads to inspiration to change things, and the change implemented is according to their beliefs about what they should do, what their duty is.
Gun laws will not stop jihad. Those idiots in Boston used pressure cookers. There's your proof. Disarming the people of a nation leads to tyranny. Those are simple true concepts.
[Edited on 6/16/2016 by gina]
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Don't forget the Sandanistas. We funded them, and I read reports of Osama and his beloved brother Salem, flying money to those freedom fighters. The relationship of so called 'terrorists' being part of US political campaigns in other countries is longstanding.
Yeah right. Post a link to those reports.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Don't forget the Sandanistas. We funded them, and I read reports of Osama and his beloved brother Salem, flying money to those freedom fighters. The relationship of so called 'terrorists' being part of US political campaigns in other countries is longstanding.
Yeah right. Post a link to those reports.
Timeline Tags: US-Nicaragua (1979-), Iran-Contra Affair
Mid-1980s: Osama Bin Laden’s Brother Is Allegedly Involved in the Iran-Contra Affair
Quoting a French intelligence report posted by PBS Frontline, The New Yorker reports, “During the nineteen-eighties, when the Reagan administration secretly arranged for an estimated $34 million to be funneled through Saudi Arabia to the Contras in Nicaragua, [Osama’s eldest brother] Salem bin Laden aided in this cause.”
You remember Iran Contra, Reagan denied knowing anything. Poindexter took the rap for that, and Colonel Oliver North testified that he did as he was told to do, because that was his job.
Remark: This information has been documented, and was in one of the books I read about Osama also. it might have been in Steve Coll's book, The Bin Ladens, or else it was in one of the other ones.
[Edited on 6/16/2016 by gina]
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Don't forget the Sandanistas. We funded them, and I read reports of Osama and his beloved brother Salem, flying money to those freedom fighters. The relationship of so called 'terrorists' being part of US political campaigns in other countries is longstanding.
Yeah right. Post a link to those reports.
Timeline Tags: US-Nicaragua (1979-), Iran-Contra Affair
Mid-1980s: Osama Bin Laden’s Brother Is Allegedly Involved in the Iran-Contra Affair
Quoting a French intelligence report posted by PBS Frontline, The New Yorker reports, “During the nineteen-eighties, when the Reagan administration secretly arranged for an estimated $34 million to be funneled through Saudi Arabia to the Contras in Nicaragua, [Osama’s eldest brother] Salem bin Laden aided in this cause.”
You remember Iran Contra, Reagan denied knowing anything. Poindexter took the rap for that, and Colonel Oliver North testified that he did as he was told to do, because that was his job.
Remark: This information has been documented, and was in one of the books I read about Osama also. it might have been in Steve Coll's book, The Bin Ladens, or else it was in one of the other ones.
[Edited on 6/16/2016 by gina]
That is an open source site where anyone can write anything they want to without sourcing. It is Wikipedis for conspiracy nut jobs.
Quoting a French intelligence report posted by PBS Frontline, The New Yorker reports, “During the nineteen-eighties, when the Reagan administration secretly arranged for an estimated $34 million to be funneled through Saudi Arabia to the Contras in Nicaragua, [Osama’s eldest brother] Salem bin Laden aided in this cause.”
They quoted French intelligence reports. They sourced it. it had specifics, even a specific amount of money sent to the Contras. That is not supposition. But you can put back on your rose colored glasses, and feel safe in your world.
[Edited on 6/16/2016 by gina]
Tell us how to perfectly identify ISIS sympathizers and I doubt anyone would object to stopping them from buying weapons. But of course you're only covering the legal purchases. You think they couldn't readily find weapons thru various other channels?
I realize that you might trust big gov't, but there's plenty of good reasons that people who don't think like you do not. Obama says there wasn't a scintilla of evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups, and recently they finally admitted they targeted hundreds. We're lead by liars and power hungry egoists/narcissists. I don't want to see new rules put in place that can easily be expanded to cover any new group defined by bureaucrats saying who can and can't buy firearms. I have no trust in the actions of elected officials to protect our rights.
To your first part, I don't think it's as easy as you're making it out to be to get a gun on the black market. However, this is more about his ability to get an assault rifle. That should not be so easy. No military style weapon should be available to the general public. Stick to pistols and deal with it.
To your second part, I don't trust big government. But I do trust that national security is their top priority, and therefore there is a major motive to stop this sort of thing from happening. All I know is that I don't trust the way things are right now. Let's look at the two worst case scenarios. Your worst case scenario is that a good law-abiding American citizen is wrongfully placed on a no purchase list, and therefore his rights are stripped from him. The other worst case scenario is what we have now, mass shootings all over the place on a frequent basis.
If I have to choose between a few good Americans who are wrongfully stripped of their right to purchase a gun, and having mass shootings, it's an easy choice for me. One is far more dangerous than the other. Would it be horrible if that American fell victim to a home invasion and could not protect his family? Of course. But to be wrongfully placed on the list creates a potential problem, whereas the system now allows for mass murder. A few who may or may not fall victim to a home invasion or 50 dead in 20 minutes, or 20 children at school. Easy for me.
Round and round we go, decade after decade, with the mis-characterization and misunderstanding about weapons and the scary black "assault rifle" canard.
Which would you be more concerned about? A bullet whose round weighed 230 grains, or one that weighs 65 grains?
If you chose the heavier one, you selected the standard 45 cal handgun round. The lighter one is a normal .223 cal round used in an AR, which those who don't know better call an assault rifle.
No civilian can purchase a military version of this rifle, which has full automatic capability. All we can purchase domestically is a semi-auto version.
Next, there's the argument about 30 round mags. I agree that makes mass shooting more easy. But plenty of other options exist to have that and far higher capacity magazines for all sorts of rifles and handguns. My XDM 9mm handgun holds 19 rounds in standard config. Two of those - one for each hand - are both smaller (easier to hide) and have more capacity. I can get 33 round mags for Glock 45 cal pistols. So this argument about magazines is moot once you understand the vast options out there.
The "assault rifle" rally cry is just a way to mollify those who don't know anything about firearms with a silly label they can remember. Nice marketing, but it will do nothing to stop those who want to go out in a blaze of glory by killing as many as they can.
As to the difficulty getting a hold of illegal weapons, tell that to the dozens who get shot in Chicago every month. Those animals are not buying from gun stores in a legal process. There's plenty of ways to buy guns, and there's no way you're going to stop that.
I think you're way off base if you think that security is not politicized and just as corrupt as the rest of govt. Check out he recent book “See Something, Say Nothing,” by former DHS officer Philip Haney. He claims that he was told to delete the records of hundreds of terrorists we had on watch lists by Obama Administration bureaucrats. How can anyone believe that all the Mideast refugees we admitting can possibly be vetted properly? Those countries have no records of their citizens, so what are we checking? And how are we possibly stopping those who want to terrorize at that sieve we call the southern border? Politics and PC are more important to those running govt than your security - bet on it!
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
Fujirich, i believe what you say about the guns but it's irrelevant. Regardless of any type of ban, I would still support written, physical, and mental exams, with renewals every 4 years, in order to purchase any type of firearm. And I know it will never happen, so my suggestion is also irrelevant. What's relevant is the rights opposition to do something! I can't imagine why they don't want to do something.
And the comparison to inner cities and suburban mass shooters is silly. The Chicago example by the right is so weak. Obviously an inner city resident from the streets can get a gun with ease. But do you think a suburbanite has the same street smarts? Obviously not. Mass shooters are suburbanites with mental issues. Comparing Chicago violence to suburban mass shootings simply isn't logical. Not you personally but I believe its a veiled criticism.
[Edited on 6/16/2016 by BoytonBrother]
What's relevant is the rights opposition to do something! I can't imagine why they don't want to do something.
You believe this because most of the media paints this picture endlessly in support of the left's wish to take away rights. Its all part of the left's superiority complex. They don't trust the citizen with real freedom, and wish to limit that and control every aspect they can.
There's plenty to right wants to do. Border security. Tighter immigration policy. Stronger sentencing for crimes committed with guns involved. Profiling to focus on the obvious threats. But all that runs smack into the PC fantasy the left want to impose on everyone. The left wants new voters more than they want to keep you safe. Why else would they want to let illegals or prisoners vote? How do you possibly defend that?
The Chicago example by the right is so weak. Obviously an inner city resident from the streets can get a gun with ease. But do you think a suburbanite has the same street smarts?
So a terrorist with training, interest, connections (possibly), and a specific agenda is not as capable in finding weapons as some street thug? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
You believe this because most of the media paints this picture endlessly in support of the left's wish to take away rights. Its all part of the left's superiority complex. They don't trust the citizen with real freedom, and wish to limit that and control every aspect they can.
There's plenty to right wants to do. Border security. Tighter immigration policy. Stronger sentencing for crimes committed with guns involved. Profiling to focus on the obvious threats. But all that runs smack into the PC fantasy the left want to impose on everyone. The left wants new voters more than they want to keep you safe. Why else would they want to let illegals or prisoners vote? How do you possibly defend that?
Blah blah blah. More Fujirich ignoring facts. Both of the last two massacres were by natural born citizens who legally purchased weapons. The laws allowed them to acquire the weapons to commit the killings. The right refuses to make purchasing guns more difficult, so I guess we will have more massacres and Fujirich can find some way to blame liberals.
SSDD.
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.
The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Since you oppose any further gun control, I guess you are OK with this.
You poor little conservatives. You are so afraid of liberals taking away your guns that you have to buy more. Liberals must really scare you, alloak. 😛
You believe this because most of the media paints this picture endlessly in support of the left's wish to take away rights. Its all part of the left's superiority complex. They don't trust the citizen with real freedom, and wish to limit that and control every aspect they can.
How could we trust our citizens with the 2nd Amendment? Look what that trust has created! Can we agree that we need to preface citizens with "sane law-abiding"?
There's plenty to right wants to do. Border security. Tighter immigration policy. Stronger sentencing for crimes committed with guns involved. Profiling to focus on the obvious threats. But all that runs smack into the PC fantasy the left want to impose on everyone. The left wants new voters more than they want to keep you safe. Why else would they want to let illegals or prisoners vote? How do you possibly defend that?
I agree that liberal extremism has created some harm. But which of your suggestions addresses the mentally ill suburbanite millenial? You mention solutions that will help stop foreign terrorists and gang members.
So a terrorist with training, interest, connections (possibly), and a specific agenda is not as capable in finding weapons as some street thug? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.
ISIL sympathizers, yes. Newtown, CT, Colorado, countless others, no.
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Thanks liberals for what? Where is the problem with your post? Who is opposed to gun sales? Anti-gun crusaders such as myself, Obama, and I guess you mean liberals, would like to weed out the mentally unstable and terrorist sympathizers from getting guns, so why would we care if decent law-abiding citizens buy a 4th or 5th pistol? We don't! This is the problem with the right - unaware of the problem, and not even addressing their own issue. Hilarious.
[Edited on 6/17/2016 by BoytonBrother]
Howard Sterns advice : Dont be a sheep. Too many wolves in America:
On his Wedneday radio show, Howard Stern warned against gun control, saying most people are "sheep."
"I’m so upset about Orlando and what went down, but I can’t believe these people who come out afterwards and their answer to Orlando is to take away guns from the public," Stern said. "It’s fucking mind-blowing to me."
"The military — and they don’t mean it in a derogatory way — but they look at the public as sheep," he said. "And we are sheep. Most of us sit around all day and we don’t know how to defend ourselves. We basically think everything’s OK."
"Except the wolves — the bad guys, ISIS, or terrorists, homegrown or otherwise — they're wolves. The military and police look at themselves as sheepdogs. They’re warriors, but on the good side."
"The terrorists all have AR-15s, they have glocks, they have every kind of pistol."
"Now what if I went up to the sheep and I said, ‘You wanna have a shot at the wolves? I’m going to give you a pistol. You can actually even the playing field with these wolves whose fangs are out — you can shoot them.’ There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen."
"The most gun-free zone on the planet is a plane. On 9/11, what did the wolves do? They said, 'This is great. We’ll just kill the sheep with boxcutters.' So they went on the plane with boxcutters and all the sheep went, ‘Baaaa.'"
"The wolves are always planning. They’ll use boxcutters. They’ll use an airplane and fly it right into a building. They don’t need AR-15s."
"I don’t like violence — I don’t like any of this stuff — but I consider myself a sheep. Most of your politicians have private security, so they’re OK. Those are sheep that are very well protected. You, on the other hand, are a sitting duck."
"I’m not for taking away people’s rights."
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Thanks liberals for what? Where is the problem with your post? Who is opposed to gun sales? Anti-gun crusaders such as myself, Obama, and I guess you mean liberals, would like to weed out the mentally unstable and terrorist sympathizers from getting guns.
[Edited on 6/17/2016 by BoytonBrother]
Speak for yourself. Obama cares mainly about not doing anything that might offend Muslims.
Makes it hard for the investigatory agencies to do their jobs as they normally would.
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Thanks liberals for what? Where is the problem with your post? Who is opposed to gun sales? Anti-gun crusaders such as myself, Obama, and I guess you mean liberals, would like to weed out the mentally unstable and terrorist sympathizers from getting guns.
[Edited on 6/17/2016 by BoytonBrother]
Speak for yourself. Obama cares mainly about not doing anything that might offend Muslims.
Makes it hard for the investigatory agencies to do their jobs as they normally would.
Why is it people who dislike Obama have to lie about him to make their point? There is plenty for them to criticize, but then they go and say (or repeat) stupid made up stuff like this.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
A "proven fact"? Right. The Orlando shooter didn't seem deterred by the armed guard on duty, choosing to shoot his way in rather than look for a "soft" location.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Is this a "proven fact" as well?
[Edited on 6/17/2016 by gondicar]
NRA’s Baseless FBI Claim
By Eugene Kiely
Posted on June 15, 2016 | Updated on June 16, 2016
The National Rifle Association’s chief lobbyist claimed — without offering any evidence — that the FBI was prevented from fully investigating Omar Mateen prior to his attack on an Orlando nightclub because of “the Obama administration’s political correctness.” Others, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, have made similar claims.
But FBI Director James Comey has said that the FBI over the course of two preliminary investigations in 2013 and 2014 recorded Mateen’s conversations, followed him, introduced him to confidential sources, interviewed him, “review[ed] transactional records from his communications, and search[ed] all government holdings for any possible connections.” Both investigations closed without the FBI taking any action against Mateen, because, Comey said, there was no reason at that time to suspect Mateen had terrorist ties or intentions.
“We’re also going to look hard at our own work to see whether there is something we should have done differently,” Comey said at a June 13 press briefing. “So far, the honest answer is: I don’t think so. I don’t see anything in reviewing our work that our agents should have done differently, but we’ll look at it in an open and honest way, and be transparent about it.”
In an op-ed for USA Today, Chris Cox — who heads the NRA’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action — explained why the NRA opposes new gun-control measures — particularly the reinstatement of a federal ban on certain military-style, semi-automatic firearms — in response to the nation’s worst mass shooting in modern history on June 12 in Orlando. Of course, Cox has a right to that opinion.
But in stating his case, Cox makes an unsubstantiated claim about the FBI’s prior contact with Mateen, a U.S.-born Muslim who pledged allegiance to the terrorist Islamic State on the night of the attack.
Cox, June 15: The terrorist in Orlando had been investigated multiple times by the FBI. He had a government-approved security guard license with a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. Yet his former co-workers reported violent and racist comments. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it.
We asked NRA-ILA spokeswoman Amy Hunter what evidence Cox has that political correctness prevented the FBI from fully investigating Mateen. We have yet to receive a response, and we will update our article if we do.
But what we know so far does not support Cox’s claim, and in fact contradicts it.
At his June 13 press briefing, the FBI director said the agency became aware of Mateen in May 2013, when Mateen was working as a security guard at a local court house.
“He made some statements that were inflammatory and contradictory that concerned his co-workers about terrorism,” Comey said. “First, he claimed family connections to al Qaeda. He also said that he was a member of Hezbollah, which is a Shia terrorist organization that is a bitter enemy of the so-called Islamic State, ISIL. He said he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so that he could martyr himself.”
Mateen’s odd behavior was reported to the FBI, and its Miami office opened a preliminary investigation. Under its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, the FBI must complete its preliminary investigation in six months, although it can get an extension of up to six additional months.
Comey said the first investigation in 2013 lasted 10 months, so it must have received an extension.
“Our investigation involved introducing confidential sources to him, recording conversations with him, following him, reviewing transactional records from his communications, and searching all government holdings for any possible connections, any possible derogatory information,” he said. “We then interviewed him twice. He admitted making the statements that his co-workers reported, but explained that he did it in anger because he thought his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim. After 10 months of investigation, we closed the preliminary investigation.”
The fact that the preliminary investigation closed after 10 months indicates that the agency felt its investigation was completed. FBI rules discourage conducting preliminary investigations beyond a year, but a longer extension can be approved “by the appropriate FBIHQ operational section for ‘good cause.'”
Don Borelli, a retired FBI counterterrorism supervisor in New York, told the New York Times that the danger in keeping an investigation open without good cause is the impact that it can have on innocent people. “Imagine if you can’t get a job because you’re on some watchlist and there’s no basis for it,” Borelli told the Times.
Or imagine that someone cannot buy a gun because he or she is on a terrorist watch list and there’s no basis for it.
In fact, that is the very argument that the NRA chief lobbyist makes in response to gun-control advocates who want to give the attorney general the power to prevent people from buying guns if they are on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist — which, as we have written, contains about 800,000 names, including foreigners and U.S. citizens. (Mateen, a U.S. citizen, was on the watch list while under FBI investigation.) In a press release issued June 15, Cox said that “due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.”
Two months after it closed its preliminary investigation of Mateen, the FBI opened a second one after discovering that he knew a Florida man who carried out a suicide mission in Syria. That was in July 2014.
“Our Miami office was investigating the Florida man who had blown himself up for the Nusra Front in Syria. Again, the Nusra Front being a group in conflict with ISIL. We learned from the investigation that the killer knew him casually from attending the same mosque in that area of Florida,” Comey said. “Our investigation turned up no ties of any consequence between the two of them.”
Comey said the FBI again interviewed Mateen “to find out whether he had any significant contacts with the suicide bomber,” and determined that he did not, and that ended the second investigation. We asked the FBI how long that investigation lasted and whether any other investigative actions were taken, besides interviewing Mateen, but it declined to comment beyond Comey’s earlier remarks.
We understand that there are legitimate questions of the FBI. On CNN’s “At This Hour,” Sen. Lindsey Graham also questioned why the FBI closed its investigation. “What do you have to do to stay on the terrorist watch list? What are the criteria to close a file? To me, I want to know the answer to that question,” he said.
Fair enough. But Cox goes too far — and Huckabee even further — in blaming political correctness without any evidence.
In a June 14 blog post, Huckabee said that “political correctness kills, and it just set a new US record.”
There is simply no evidence to support such a claim.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/nras-baseless-fbi-claim/
