SHOOTING: Aurora, IL (deported, terror, visa, money)

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

It’s clearly time to grab some guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/u...-shooting.html

This guy had already been flagged as not being allowed to have a gun yet he had one anyway.

Unacceptable.

Not going to sugar coat it anymore, if you are not capable of handling guns responsibly then it’s time to take them away from you.

So are you going to listen to me and others who tell you your problem isn't with us but with the .gov who's responsibility it is to ensure firearms aren't legally acquired and start enforcing laws that are currently on the books?

Biden was asked why no convictions occurred from NICS denials of felons... he said that the law couldn't be enforced.

First, it’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.

(Applause.) The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years, that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. That’s not safe; that’s not smart; that’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.

Notice bidens deflection as being firearms sales not being conducted with background checks getting into criminals hands? It's hard to enforce laws. Because it's the firearms that get purchased without background checks being the problem.
My point is simple.
.gov can't and actively doesn't enforce the laws they have on the books.

How many scumbags bought theirs legally?
Let's see...

Most of them. Parkland scumbag. Vegas scumbag. This scumbag.
They weren't the "ghost guns" they weren't home builds they weren't the back alley black market NICS free private sales. These were firearm retailers, that sold firearms per law, performing background checks.

But yes... face to face transactions are the cause. And because we can't enforce laws currently on the books because there's private transactions...
That's the same as saying we can't enforce DWI laws because people don't drink in bars but go to the gas station and buy a 30 pack and get hammered halfway back home. Excuses excuses.


Or through conflation are your going to falsely equate and assume everyone who owns firearms has nefarious intentions and double down on the dumb and insist everyone must be punished equally?

Glad to see you at least shared the same outrage as me when I found out that the little dumbo eared scumbag in Parkland had been protected via the Promise Program from having charges on his record that would have prevented him from purchasing firearms.
Same with the Sutherland Springs scumbag who if the airforce updated their records to NICS would have prevented the scumbag from acquiring firearms.

Laws are either enforced or they're not. If they're not, then you address that.
You want responsible gun owners? How about responsible enforcement agencies carrying out the duties they're assigned? Or is .gov infallible and gets a free pass?
Kind of solidifies my sentiment in repeating Warren V D.C. Police do not have a duty to protect. That nobody should be a victim and has every right to defend themselves as they see fit.

Might want to pump your brakes before insisting confiscation... might want the laws that are on the books enforced before you go drafting new ones that will make felons out of otherwise upstanding law abiding individuals simply exercising their civil liberty to keep and bear arms. Don't introduce problematic solutions to address problems. It doesn't work, all it does do is further divide and push folks to one fringe extreme or another.

You either want laws that are on the books enforced
OR you want total complete confiscation because .gov slips up and gets a free pass that myself and millions of others are to pay the price for.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

As for this situation, the problem was he was asked to volunteer turning over the gun after the conceal carry permit was ruled ineligible due to the felony conviction. We all know "volunteer" gun turnovers don't work, especially with criminals.

But... they'll do no knock confiscation/search and seizure over drugs...
Amazing how that works.

I guess if dude had a church in Waco they'd have sent the entire national Guard for that weapon.
I guess if dude supposedly chopped a barrel down on a shotgun ATF and fbi would have shown up to shoot his dogs, his kids, and wife like ruby ridge.
I guess if dude had cattle and paid grazing fees to the county and not the feds they'd have shown up armed to slaughter cattle and have sniper teams drawing on them and anyone who dared protest outside of "1st ammendment zones", like the Bundys did.


Seems awfully convenient how laws are enforced... any other case would have been opened and closed with a warrant for a felon in possession of a firearm.
You or I couldn't make that kind of error in our business/lives. We would hang for it.

[TamaraSavannah]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

....... The problem is people believe the idea that gun owners deserve more rights than non-gun owners.........

No, we are all Americans and have the same rights. Whether one American or another decides to exercise their rights is up to them but we all have the same rights as it is noted in the Constitution.....especially the 14th which calls for equal protection under the law.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by moneill

Let's ignore the fact the guy had been in trouble with the police for years and should never have had a gun...because that would infringe on your rights to have a gun somehow..

So, you're saying that criminals don't listen to laws? Say it ain't so.....

[ahzzie]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

WOW....what a racist post.....but you are used to it....


How does it make you feel to call someone a racist? Must feel good as much as you post things like this.

So it's "racist" now to point out the similarity between a poster's use of a certain debate tactic with one that was used extensively by Nazi propagandists in 1930s Germany? Please explain, in detail, just what it is in my post that you think is racist. This should be good.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah

Rather like a police state, don't you think? Finger printed to be able to use your rights?

Exactly. That would open the door to fingerprint verification of ID to vote. There's no way the Dems would go for that.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

It’s clearly time to grab some guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/u...-shooting.html

This guy had already been flagged as not being allowed to have a gun yet he had one anyway.

Unacceptable.

Not going to sugar coat it anymore, if you are not capable of handling guns responsibly then it’s time to take them away from you.

Have to wonder why the Chicago Police Department hasn't already done that in Chicago's most violent neighborhoods... Why NOT?

[jeffdoorgunner]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

So are you going to listen to me and others who tell you your problem isn't with us but with the .gov who's responsibility it is to ensure firearms aren't legally acquired and start enforcing laws that are currently on the books?

Biden was asked why no convictions occurred from NICS denials of felons... he said that the law couldn't be enforced.



Notice bidens deflection as being firearms sales not being conducted with background checks getting into criminals hands? It's hard to enforce laws. Because it's the firearms that get purchased without background checks being the problem.
My point is simple.
.gov can't and actively doesn't enforce the laws they have on the books.

How many scumbags bought theirs legally?
Let's see...

Most of them. Parkland scumbag. Vegas scumbag. This scumbag.
They weren't the "ghost guns" they weren't home builds they weren't the back alley black market NICS free private sales. These were firearm retailers, that sold firearms per law, performing background checks.

But yes... face to face transactions are the cause. And because we can't enforce laws currently on the books because there's private transactions...
That's the same as saying we can't enforce DWI laws because people don't drink in bars but go to the gas station and buy a 30 pack and get hammered halfway back home. Excuses excuses.


Or through conflation are your going to falsely equate and assume everyone who owns firearms has nefarious intentions and double down on the dumb and insist everyone must be punished equally?

Glad to see you at least shared the same outrage as me when I found out that the little dumbo eared scumbag in Parkland had been protected via the Promise Program from having charges on his record that would have prevented him from purchasing firearms.
Same with the Sutherland Springs scumbag who if the airforce updated their records to NICS would have prevented the scumbag from acquiring firearms.

Laws are either enforced or they're not. If they're not, then you address that.
You want responsible gun owners? How about responsible enforcement agencies carrying out the duties they're assigned? Or is .gov infallible and gets a free pass?
Kind of solidifies my sentiment in repeating Warren V D.C. Police do not have a duty to protect. That nobody should be a victim and has every right to defend themselves as they see fit.

Might want to pump your brakes before insisting confiscation... might want the laws that are on the books enforced before you go drafting new ones that will make felons out of otherwise upstanding law abiding individuals simply exercising their civil liberty to keep and bear arms. Don't introduce problematic solutions to address problems. It doesn't work, all it does do is further divide and push folks to one fringe extreme or another.

You either want laws that are on the books enforced
OR you want total complete confiscation because .gov slips up and gets a free pass that myself and millions of others are to pay the price for.

so you want to hear about the over sight by the DHS that allowed the 9/11 terrorist attack?

Most of these killers "fall through the cracks" we need to fix the cracks. That means holding the authorities that are responsible for law enforcement accountable

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by ahzzie

So it's "racist" now to point out the similarity between a poster's use of a certain debate tactic with one that was used extensively by Nazi propagandists in 1930s Germany? Please explain, in detail, just what it is in my post that you think is racist. This should be good.

Yes, you and your ilk are not allowed to do that....you see, when anyone on the right would do that, you become a racist homophobe, blah blah blah blah.....yet you and your ilk can do it and get away with it....pretty straight forward....but you'll come back and say I'm wrong and go on in some length about why....





But, lets remember....Hank Jr. did far less when he did NOT compare obama to hitler....and look what happened to him....

[TamaraSavannah]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Exactly. That would open the door to fingerprint verification of ID to vote. There's no way the Dems would go for that.

More than that.


Our basic concept of justice in this country, at least historically, is innocent until proven guilty. It is a trusting of the populace not to do wrong. One really can't have that if they are going to go around and insist that detailed, personal records are kept on everyone........just to make sure.