Deleted
Deleted
Last edited by Cookie Monster; 12-10-2015 at 11:20 PM. Reason: It didn't add anything
People keep saying "the ARs were purchased legally but modified illegally."
True enough that the bullet button removal was against Cali law, and the attempt to go full auto, although unsuccessful, was illegal as well, but the rifles were a straw-purchase:
San Bernardino shooter used friend to dodge gun check, may have planned larger attack, sources say - LA Times.
Not that I expect these facts to make any impression on those wishing to use the current blood-dance to further restrict our civil rights....one of the shooters in last week’s massacre at a San Bernardino social services center, asked a friend to buy two rifles used in the attack so he could dodge a federal background check and also may have been planning an even larger assault, according to government sources familiar with the ever-widening investigation.
One of the sources said Thursday that {dead tango} wanted to make sure “the guns were not tied back to him” when he asked Enrique Marquez to make the purchases at a Southern California gun store in 2011 or 2012. {Dead tango} feared he “wouldn’t pass a background check” if he attempted to acquire the military-style rifles on his own, the source said.
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
The San Bernardino incident proves the accuracy of many of the arguments civil rights proponents have been making for years why gun-regulators' favorite proposals won't accomplish the goal of reducing mass killings:Originally Posted by Drang
- Outlawing standard capacity magazines will not be effective in reducing deaths in mass shootings because (among other things) people intent on committing a mass shooting can illegally obtain standard capacity magazines;
- Outlawing standard capacity magazines will not be effective in reducing deaths in mass shootings because (among other things) people intent on committing a mass shooting can carry multiple firearms;
- Outlawing standard capacity magazines will not be effective in reducing deaths in mass shootings because (among other things) people intent on committing a mass shooting will carry multiple magazines;
- Broadening background checks to get rid of the "gunshow loophole" will not be effective in preventing criminals from getting guns because criminals who want guns will obtain the guns illegally;
- Banning "assault weapons" will not prevent mass killings because mass killers can obtain/make/use other weapons including bombs;
- California's requirement that a tool be used to change magazines will not be effective in reducing deaths in mass shootings because (among other things) people intent on committing a mass shooting will illegally modify the rifle to accept standard capacity magazines without the use of a tool;
- Waiting times do not prevent mass shooters from obtaining enough guns to commit their crime because mass shooters typically plan their crime for protracted periods of time;
- Designating an area as a gun-free zone does not prevent mass shootings, but it does leave victims unable to defend themselves.
Something you don't want to hear from the guys protecting us:
http://observer.com/2015/12/the-inte...an-bernardino/
“Before Snowden we had a definite bias for action,” explained a senior NSA official with extensive experience in counterterrorism. “But now we all wonder how the White House will react if this winds up in the newspapers.” “It’s all legal,” the official added, “the lawyers have approved, and boy do we have lots of lawyers – but will Obama throw us under the bus again?”
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
I'd rather have the NSA quit looking into everyone and have the price of that be that a few terrorists continually slip through the cracks.
You know...the tree of liberty being watered from time to time and all.
Easy to say until you're a victim of Ohmar Shishkabob's Jihad when your kids get gunned down in their daycare. Talk is cheap and the interwebz makes everyone a brave mother fucker.
Last edited by Trooper224; 12-16-2015 at 06:45 PM.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
In other words: constitutional freedoms are great until the rarest of extreme cases occurs.
Would you be willing to reduce constitutional freedoms to improve surgical outcomes in modern medicine or reduce driving accidents? Driving accidents and surgical outcomes result in far more deaths than terrorism EVER will, even if someone sets off a nuke in a highly populated area.
Perhaps we should eliminate the second amendment in order to reduce gun related accidents as well?
Eliminating (even temporarily) constitutional protections for some people, even in limited circumstances is something we cannot allow ourselves to do, even when we see the benefits of that limited instance. Others may have the same ideas regarding eliminating other rights that we care about.
The fact that the interwebz "make everyone a brave motherfucker" is a good thing. It allows free exchange of speech and ideas even from the least of us.
Last edited by Josh Runkle; 12-16-2015 at 09:58 PM.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...&utm_term=Jolt
"....We had these two groups in our sights; if the investigation had continued and additional links been identified and dots connected, we might have given advance warning of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al-Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. It could also have led to denial of Malik’s K-1 visa or possibly gotten Farook placed on the No Fly list.
But after more than six months of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?"
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
^^^ More details and Megyn Kelly video/interview...
Terror threat: When political correctness trumps law enforcement
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
With the understanding that it is easy to Monday morning quarterback, that those doing the vetting process for immigrant visas were prohibited from looking at public social media records, a common practice among employers (we do it at my job), animal welfare organizations, etc., as it might offend someone, just goes to show that those in positions of power are more concerned with political correctness than fulfilling their oaths to protect the constitution and the republic. It's sad that potential terrorists can walk into th US and receive less scrutiny than someone applying for work at a tow truck company or someone adopting a rescued German Shepherd.
Reply With Quote