50 Shot dead in Orlando nightclub and dozens injured

[Gavin_Sons]

I'm all for keeping guns out of criminals hands. Like stated before, background checks are already done and this guy still got a gun. If the FBI would have done their job he would not have got these guns from the gun shop. He would have bought them illegally off the street. Maybe they should require a background check on all private sales too. Take it to a gun shop and have them run it before they sale is complete. This all goes back to drunk driving. They don't blame the car for crashes, so why blame a gun for murders? I have yet to hear anyone give a good explanation. The government doesn't tell me i can't have a 1000 hp car or one that goes 300 mph. I guess guns are black and scary 
I'm sick of everyone blaming guns. Guns are not the problem, our problem is the government wanting to run our lives and trying to take the guns away. How will we protect ourselves from criminals that have guns if we don't have any of our own? Guess i'll be a criminal when the time comes because i'm not giving mine up.

[Robert]

So all the issues discussed and criticism made and pitches for controls comes down to a mental health issue among gay men. Actually a Muslim gay man.

 OK Now what do we discuss about this issue? Mental health among gays, banning gays from owning guns, reports of the sanity of gay men, Doing a real study on mental illness among gays, all this comes tongue in cheek as we hear the real cause of a disturbed individual. But in truth the wild examples I have made are no more wild that what the media circus has proposed before this came out. I wonder what the press will do with this if anything. How about the politicians?

http://time.com/4369577/orlando-shooting-sitora-yusufiy-omar-mateen-gay/

Jack'd - Gay Chat & Dating on the App Store - iTunes - Apple

Ex-Wife Says Orlando Shooter Might Have Been Hiding Homosexuality From His Family

Their five-month marriage was abusive from the start. He was controlling. He kept her from seeing her family. He beat her, pulled her hair, dug his fingernails into the soft flesh of her wrists when she wandered away from him in the supermarket.

“He would take a long time in front of the mirror, he would often take pictures of himself, and he made little movements with his body that definitely made me question things,” she recalled, “It definitely popped up in my head whether he was totally straight.”

Mateen’s sexuality has been in question since he was revealed as the killer. Various media outlets have reported that that users on the gay dating app Jack’d say they have exchanged messages with Mateen, but the CEO of Jack’d says they have not yet found any proof that Mateen had an account. A former classmate at Indian River Community College told the Palm Beach Post that Mateen went to gay bars with classmates and once tried to pick him up. Four regulars at Pulse, the nightclub where the shooting occurred, told the Orlando Sentinel they had seen Mateen there before.

Yusufiy recalls once hearing Mateen’s father Seddique Mateen call his son gay in Farsi, but Mateen laughed it off. “They had this relationship where Omar was always trying to impress him and be the perfect son for his father and live up to his approval, because his father is such a prominent political figure,” she said.

Pro 8:36  But those who miss me injure themselves. All who hate me love death."

[Serk]

How do background checks "mess with your rights" If you are a law abiding citizen you would be able to purchase.

Considering we already have background checks on all transactions from any FFL, I'm assuming you're referring to the "Universal Background Check" push, forcing all legal transactions, even citizen to citizen go through a background check process?

Here's the problem with this idea - How would it be implemented? The only way to actually enforce such a rule would be to build a master registry of all guns and all gun owners so that any "illicit" transfers could be tracked, and THAT is the problem with such a law, not the law itself, but what would be required to actually implement and enforce it.

And even after all that, it STILL wouldn't have helped in any of the recent marquee cases. The Orlando shooter not only passed a NICS check to purchase the guns, he also carried a Florida Security Officer Class D license and a Florida Security Officer Class G Firearm permit.

He went WAY beyond passing any background checks, he had armed security officer training and screening, annual background re-checks, more training, etc. etc. etc...

So even after we'd built this huge registry of all guns and gun owners, even after we've made legal gun owners jump through even more hoops, opened themselves up to more legal jeopardy, even after we've wasted all this money, time and effort... it wouldn't have stopped a cursed thing.

Source - here's a link to his license from the state of Florida: http://tinyurl.com/hsaps2l

[Valkorado]

They don't blame the car for crashes, so why blame a gun for murders? I have yet to hear anyone give a good explanation. The government doesn't tell me i can't have a 1000 hp car or one that goes 300 mph. I guess guns are black and scary.

   That pretty much puts it in a nutshell.

[Jess from VA]

So, it appears we have a (closet) gay man, muslim raised, who attended this particular gay establishment for years, often getting knee walking drunk.  He was clearly severely conflicted on his own gayness, so he married but that didn't work out (abusive husband).  

His internal conflict drove him to mental illness and he hated his life, decided to make a big splash (it's all about me), so he dedicates his planned actions to ISIS to make his mass murder something noble (in his own mind), but he is not affiliated with ISIS or any fundamental organization.  He was twice looked at by FBI, but there was not enough there to do anything about (he gets due process like everyone else).  

His muslim upbringing no doubt drove his severe gay internal conflict, and his mental illness, but this was not really an act of muslim extremism, this was mass murder by a mentally ill person who had unfortunately never done anything bad enough in his life to prevent him from lawfully buying/owning firearms.  Since his own gayness drove him crazy, he took out his hatred of himself and his life on other gays, and ultimately committed suicide.  This is a variation on a theme of most mass murders (and very similar to Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook, who killed normal children because he was far from normal, and because he knew it would make an extra special splash).

These people should just kill themselves and be done with it (and leave a long letter if they feel that helps), but they feel compelled to show everyone how bad they feel by making a big splash of blood by killing innocents on the way to their own miserable deaths.  

I certainly am in agreement with all the comments on using catastrophes to push gun control on law abiding Americans.  That is also an old and tired story.    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

[The emperor has no clothes]

How do background checks "mess with your rights" If you are a law abiding citizen you would be able to purchase.

Considering we already have background checks on all transactions from any FFL, I'm assuming you're referring to the "Universal Background Check" push, forcing all legal transactions, even citizen to citizen go through a background check process?

Here's the problem with this idea - How would it be implemented? The only way to actually enforce such a rule would be to build a master registry of all guns and all gun owners so that any "illicit" transfers could be tracked, and THAT is the problem with such a law, not the law itself, but what would be required to actually implement and enforce it.

And even after all that, it STILL wouldn't have helped in any of the recent marquee cases. The Orlando shooter not only passed a NICS check to purchase the guns, he also carried a Florida Security Officer Class D license and a Florida Security Officer Class G Firearm permit.

He went WAY beyond passing any background checks, he had armed security officer training and screening, annual background re-checks, more training, etc. etc. etc...

So even after we'd built this huge registry of all guns and gun owners, even after we've made legal gun owners jump through even more hoops, opened themselves up to more legal jeopardy, even after we've wasted all this money, time and effort... it wouldn't have stopped a cursed thing.

Source - here's a link to his license from the state of Florida: http://tinyurl.com/hsaps2l

It could be done without a registry of guns. It could be done thru the same system we have now. Yes it would add some expense and time to the transaction . Would you not be willing to make it harder for criminals and nut jobs to get them ? We are never going to have a perfect system, but we can improve what we have.

[Serk]

It could be done without a registry of guns. It could be done thru the same system we have now. Yes it would add some expense and time to the transaction . Would you not be willing to make it harder for criminals and nut jobs to get them ? We are never going to have a perfect system, but we can improve what we have.

How so? By just making a law saying "All transactions have to go through a background check"? Do we open NICS checks up to citizens? (Right now I can't just call NICS and say "I want to sell a gun to a private individual, please do a check on them." Sounds simple, except the NICS check system is ALREADY over loaded. Throw more money at it? Once again, wasted resources.

I, and many other responsible gun owners here in The Republic make it our personal policy to only sell a firearm to someone we know well or to someone who carries a Texas LTC, which counts as a NICS check on it's own.

Passing another law won't stop the back alley dealings, it will only encumber citizens more, and won't help one iota with actual crime.

[..]

It could be done without a registry of guns. It could be done thru the same system we have now. Yes it would add some expense and time to the transaction . Would you not be willing to make it harder for criminals and nut jobs to get them ? We are never going to have a perfect system, but we can improve what we have.

How so? By just making a law saying "All transactions have to go through a background check"? Do we open NICS checks up to citizens? (Right now I can't just call NICS and say "I want to sell a gun to a private individual, please do a check on them." Sounds simple, except the NICS check system is ALREADY over loaded. Throw more money at it? Once again, wasted resources.

I, and many other responsible gun owners here in The Republic make it our personal policy to only sell a firearm to someone we know well or to someone who carries a Texas LTC, which counts as a NICS check on it's own.

Passing another law won't stop the back alley dealings, it will only encumber citizens more, and won't help one iota with actual crime.

I've sold handguns privately. To buyers with a current GA driving license and a Concealed Weapons Permit and a current utility bill showing the same address as the driving license and CCW Permit. Everyone else can go whistle up a gum tree.

[98valk]

more disgusting lies and mistruths.  The UN and new world order do not want anybody except themselves and their police state to have guns, our 2nd is the last thing in the way of their plans.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/un-human-rights-chief-urges-robust-us-gun-control-measures-after

[Jess from VA]

We have 320 million humans in this country.  A percentage of all humans will always be defective units, prone to erratic, unlawful behavior, including murder and mayhem.  This will never be changed by any law or regulation.  Mentally ill defective units will always be able to kill their fellow humans one way or another, including with firearms, no matter how draconian those gun laws may be.  The more humans we have, the more mass murders (and other crimes and aberrant behavior) we will have.  The 2d A allows all law abiding citizens to own the same type of small arms in current use by police and military forces (except we lost our full automatic rights decades ago, with very limited exceptions).

Freedom and individual liberty has costs.  If you don't like personal liberty, you should immigrate to any of most of the other countries who have less personal liberty.

Mass murder is not a gun problem, it is a human problem.    

[FLAVALK]

Who doesn't want keep guns out of the hands of bad guys? The problem is preventing that from happening without taking away more freedom from law abiding citizens. As many here have pointed out, that will be no easy task. I heard it discussed on conservative radio the last couple days that anyone known to be associated with a terrorists group should not be able to own a gun. This sounds like an excellent idea until you start thinking......well, who defines what a "terrorist group" really is? Just recently, we heard some of our representatives in Washington describe conservatives and especially Tea Party folks as terrorists. So there's that.......

[Chrisj CMA]

Preventing gun violence in America and preventing Radical Islamic Terrorism in America are NOT the same thing.  Sure Obama wants you to treat them the same so therefore the solutions would be the same.

To minimize non radical Islamic terror gun violence the answer is:
A.  Enforce current laws more vigorously (don't need new ones)
B.  Punish gun crime more harshly

To reduce/eliminate radical Islamic terror we need to defeat the terrorists.  Before we can defeat them, we need to really start fighting them.  I suppose this would back up to even actually calling them a threat and identifying them for what they are.  The longer our bonehead in chief keeps praising Islam as the worlds great religion and separating islam from Islamic terrorism then we will never begin to defeat them.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It could be done without a registry of guns. It could be done thru the same system we have now. Yes it would add some expense and time to the transaction . Would you not be willing to make it harder for criminals and nut jobs to get them ? We are never going to have a perfect system, but we can improve what we have.

How so? By just making a law saying "All transactions have to go through a background check"? Do we open NICS checks up to citizens? (Right now I can't just call NICS and say "I want to sell a gun to a private individual, please do a check on them." Sounds simple, except the NICS check system is ALREADY over loaded. Throw more money at it? Once again, wasted resources.

I, and many other responsible gun owners here in The Republic make it our personal policy to only sell a firearm to someone we know well or to someone who carries a Texas LTC, which counts as a NICS check on it's own.

Passing another law won't stop the back alley dealings, it will only encumber citizens more, and won't help one iota with actual crime.

I have purchased and the phone call to 5 minutes tops. That doesn't sound like a backed up system. I will say it again. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FULL PROOF PERFECT SYSTEM. But if we make it harder for criminals and deter some of them I see that as a good thing.

[Serk]

I will say it again. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FULL PROOF PERFECT SYSTEM.

No we aren't...

[The emperor has no clothes]

I will say it again. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FULL PROOF PERFECT SYSTEM.

No we aren't...

my bad  typing and chopping up dead animals don't mix 

[Gavin_Sons]

I will say it again. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FULL PROOF PERFECT SYSTEM.

No we aren't...

my bad  typing and chopping up dead animals don't mix 

The government will never put a fool proof system into action. That goes against their agenda. They want people to think guns are evil. Chris is right, we don't need more stupid laws they won't enforce, they need to enforce the ones that are already in place.

[..]

What we need is a government that isn't governing to enforce it's agenda.

[98valk]

and oloser and helldemon want to disarm us.  they are at war with us.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/islamic-refugee-gas-pipeline-plans-arrested-new-mexico-border-county/

A few months ago Judicial Watch reported that members of a cell of Islamic terrorists stationed in Mexico cross into the U.S. to explore targets for future attacks with the help of Mexican drug traffickers. Among the jihadists that travel back and forth through the porous southern border is a Kuwaiti named Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, an ISIS operative who lives in the Mexican state of Chihuahua not far from El Paso, Texas. Khabir trained hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen and has lived in Mexico for more than a year, according to Judicial Watch’s high-level Homeland Security sources. Now Khabir trains thousands of men—mostly Syrians and Yemenis—to fight in an ISIS base situated in the Mexico-U.S. border region near Ciudad Juárez. Khabir actually brags in a European newspaper article about how easy it is to stake out American targets because the border region is wide open. In the same story Foreign Affairs Secretary Claudia Ruiz, Mexico’s top diplomat, says she doesn’t understand why the Obama administration and the U.S. media are “culpably neglecting this phenomenon,” adding that “this new wave of fundamentalism could have nasty surprises in store for the United States.”

[cookiedough]

and oloser and helldemon want to disarm us.  they are at war with us.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/islamic-refugee-gas-pipeline-plans-arrested-new-mexico-border-county/

A few months ago Judicial Watch reported that members of a cell of Islamic terrorists stationed in Mexico cross into the U.S. to explore targets for future attacks with the help of Mexican drug traffickers. Among the jihadists that travel back and forth through the porous southern border is a Kuwaiti named Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, an ISIS operative who lives in the Mexican state of Chihuahua not far from El Paso, Texas. Khabir trained hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen and has lived in Mexico for more than a year, according to Judicial Watch’s high-level Homeland Security sources. Now Khabir trains thousands of men—mostly Syrians and Yemenis—to fight in an ISIS base situated in the Mexico-U.S. border region near Ciudad Juárez. Khabir actually brags in a European newspaper article about how easy it is to stake out American targets because the border region is wide open. In the same story Foreign Affairs Secretary Claudia Ruiz, Mexico’s top diplomat, says she doesn’t understand why the Obama administration and the U.S. media are “culpably neglecting this phenomenon,” adding that “this new wave of fundamentalism could have nasty surprises in store for the United States.”

Exactly,  now if Trump was in there,  a GREAT WALL barrier would be on the border of Mexico and U.S. and patrolled 24/7, plus he already stated he would immediately ban all Muslims 'temporarely'  from entering the U.S.

Hillary totally disagrees and states we need to talk with the Muslims more so to get more information out of them with no bans, but better relations instead.  How is that going so far _itch?

Problem is with Trump is the majority of free Americans think this banning of Muslims and Mexicans, etc. into the U.S. is unconstitutional and at the very least racist/discriminatory.  His IN YOUR FACE comments will overall I think hurt his chances of being President so we get stuck with the old bag instead.   :'(

[Bighead]

It could be done without a registry of guns. It could be done thru the same system we have now. Yes it would add some expense and time to the transaction . Would you not be willing to make it harder for criminals and nut jobs to get them ? We are never going to have a perfect system, but we can improve what we have.

How so? By just making a law saying "All transactions have to go through a background check"? Do we open NICS checks up to citizens? (Right now I can't just call NICS and say "I want to sell a gun to a private individual, please do a check on them." Sounds simple, except the NICS check system is ALREADY over loaded. Throw more money at it? Once again, wasted resources.

I, and many other responsible gun owners here in The Republic make it our personal policy to only sell a firearm to someone we know well or to someone who carries a Texas LTC, which counts as a NICS check on it's own.

Passing another law won't stop the back alley dealings, it will only encumber citizens more, and won't help one iota with actual crime.

I have purchased and the phone call to 5 minutes tops. That doesn't sound like a backed up system. I will say it again. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FULL PROOF PERFECT SYSTEM. But if we make it harder for criminals and deter some of them I see that as a good thing.

Meathead I really want you to answer this question Truthfully. How will any new law passed help deter or make it harder for a criminal to get a gun?

[The emperor has no clothes]

It could be done without a registry of guns. It could be done thru the same system we have now. Yes it would add some expense and time to the transaction . Would you not be willing to make it harder for criminals and nut jobs to get them ? We are never going to have a perfect system, but we can improve what we have.

How so? By just making a law saying "All transactions have to go through a background check"? Do we open NICS checks up to citizens? (Right now I can't just call NICS and say "I want to sell a gun to a private individual, please do a check on them." Sounds simple, except the NICS check system is ALREADY over loaded. Throw more money at it? Once again, wasted resources.

I, and many other responsible gun owners here in The Republic make it our personal policy to only sell a firearm to someone we know well or to someone who carries a Texas LTC, which counts as a NICS check on it's own.

Passing another law won't stop the back alley dealings, it will only encumber citizens more, and won't help one iota with actual crime.

I have purchased and the phone call to 5 minutes tops. That doesn't sound like a backed up system. I will say it again. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FULL PROOF PERFECT SYSTEM. But if we make it harder for criminals and deter some of them I see that as a good thing.

Meathead I really want you to answer this question Truthfully. How will any new law passed help deter or make it harder for a criminal to get a gun?

Bighead, I answer everything truthfully.

[Bighead]

Well what's your answer? How will it deter a criminal from getting a gun?

[Gavin_Sons]

Well what's your answer? How will it deter a criminal from getting a gun?

Well, since you put it that way there is only one logical answer........ Background checks.     

[Bighead]

Yep Crickets

[The emperor has no clothes]

Guys, I've stated my positions on guns so many times on here since 20 First Graders were massacred at Sandy Hook. There is really not much sense in going over it again. Besides Willow and the other moderators are in Morgantown having a great time. Let's not add a bunch of Bullshit on here to bring them down. I'm sure he's plenty busy, he doesn't need to have to start refereeing a food fight here.

[Bighead]

So you have NO answer . You know good and well there is NO law that has ever or will ever deter a CRIMINAL from doing what ever the Hell he pleases. Why because he is a Criminal how hard is that to understand? They don't  give two craps what the law says that is WHY they are Criminals.
But what another law would do is make it more difficult for you,me or any other law abiding citizen to legally purchase a firearm.
And a ban would Stop you,me or any other Law abiding citizen from buying one ( why because we are law abiding)but it wouldn't stop a Criminal from getting one.

[signart]

All right, being a total 2nd amendment supporter, I am willing to submit to a experimental ban of all "assault rifles" for a total of one year just to see if the murder rate declines significantly, in CHICAGO.  All "assault rifles" by any definition should be banned for this experiment and used an example for gun control advocates to prove that the absence of this horrible firearm has no place in the hands of the public in the city of Chicago. The month of May of this year, 62 murders occurred in Chicago, and went unnoticed by the world, with no prayer vigils, no visit by the president, no chick-fila on Sunday, no outrage. If only there had been a ban on "assault rifles" for just the one month of May in Chicago, think how many victims could have been saved. Just stop for a moment and think... 62 murders in Chicago last month alone. That's 12 more than in Orlando. 262 or so murders for the year in Chicago, (but who's counting) all because people can't see what a difference could be made by controlling the sale and ownership of weapon that has no other purpose but to kill people.
I sure HOPE this works, because something has to CHANGE in Chicago, and you've got to start somewhere.  Let's all get behind some common sense gun control in Chicago.

[The emperor has no clothes]

So you have NO answer . You know good and well there is NO law that has ever or will ever deter a CRIMINAL from doing what ever the Hell he pleases. Why because he is a Criminal how hard is that to understand? They don't  give two craps what the law says that is WHY they are Criminals.
But what another law would do is make it more difficult for you,me or any other law abiding citizen to legally purchase a firearm.
And a ban would Stop you,me or any other Law abiding citizen from buying one ( why because we are law abiding)but it wouldn't stop a Criminal from getting one.

[dinosnake]

So you have NO answer . You know good and well there is NO law that has ever or will ever deter a CRIMINAL from doing what ever the Hell he pleases. Why because he is a Criminal how hard is that to understand? They don't  give two craps what the law says that is WHY they are Criminals.
But what another law would do is make it more difficult for you,me or any other law abiding citizen to legally purchase a firearm.
And a ban would Stop you,me or any other Law abiding citizen from buying one ( why because we are law abiding)but it wouldn't stop a Criminal from getting one.

Look, I agree that a determined criminal will always get what he or she wants.  However, conversely, we still all lock our doors and windows, have ignition keys or encoded security systems, alarms and safes.  I think we can all agree that, while not perfect, there is no need to allow a criminal the easy way out.

In this instance, I can hope that all us reasonable people can agree I'd that this guy should have NEVER been allowed to legally purchase his weapon.  Sure, if he was determined then he would have gotten it anyway...but, hopefully and maybe with a bit of daydream fantasy, doing so would have aroused suspicion versus just walking into a shop, like everyone else, and getting what he wanted.

At the very least, I can hope that individuals on the terrorist watch list be refused legal weapons purchase.  Again, why make things easy?  After 2 investigation a big red flag should have gone up for his connection with firearms.  What about his job?  For me, I guess, his connection with legal weapons allowed him to get that job, and if he could not get weapons then he would have found another line of work.  Maybe that's too harsh, limited gun rights when you are on our suspected terrorist list, but maybe we have to start somewhere - it's a very different world out there today.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

So you have NO answer . You know good and well there is NO law that has ever or will ever deter a CRIMINAL from doing what ever the Hell he pleases. Why because he is a Criminal how hard is that to understand? They don't  give two craps what the law says that is WHY they are Criminals.
But what another law would do is make it more difficult for you,me or any other law abiding citizen to legally purchase a firearm.
And a ban would Stop you,me or any other Law abiding citizen from buying one ( why because we are law abiding)but it wouldn't stop a Criminal from getting one.

Look, I agree that a determined criminal will always get what he or she wants.  However, conversely, we still all lock our doors and windows, have ignition keys or encoded security systems, alarms and safes.  I think we can all agree that, while not perfect, there is no need to allow a criminal the easy way out.

In this instance, I can hope that all us reasonable people can agree I'd that this guy should have NEVER been allowed to legally purchase his weapon.  Sure, if he was determined then he would have gotten it anyway...but, hopefully and maybe with a bit of daydream fantasy, doing so would have aroused suspicion versus just walking into a shop, like everyone else, and getting what he wanted.

At the very least, I can hope that individuals on the terrorist watch list be refused legal weapons purchase.  Again, why make things easy?  After 2 investigation a big red flag should have gone up for his connection with firearms.  What about his job?  For me, I guess, his connection with legal weapons allowed him to get that job, and if he could not get weapons then he would have found another line of work.  Maybe that's too harsh, limited gun rights when you are on our suspected terrorist list, but maybe we have to start somewhere - it's a very different world out there today.

I'd be OK with a well thought out and well written law along these lines. Well thought out and well written is the key. Flying is not a constitutional right, because of that the people on that list are not informed they are on it and have no legal recourse if they are put on it. They can't appeal, they can't get a lawyer and a trial. You can't do that with a Constitutional right. The no fly list would have to be available to the public, people put on the list would have to be informed they are on it and why, and there would have to be an appeal process.

Also, there would have to be some system to make sure it wasn't used to punish political opponents such as we saw with the IRS.

[dinosnake]

:nod nod: +1. Well thought out and appealable, no political witch hunts.

[Robert]

What amazes me is the fact that so many are killed with other means, yet a constitutional right, that was given us by the fore fathers knowing that absolute power corrupts absolutely which is what we see in government today and the only recourse against a corrupt government try to get all to throw more rights away.




Why is not Canada having this discussion since a historical list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population in one year is way higher than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
List of countries by firearm-related death rate

We see the tragic loss of life from an incident like this then the left gets on their high horse and tries to make law abiding caring people feel bad and want to do something about the situation. It turns out like Obama care to not only be knee jerk, ineffective and even harmful and down right destructive but yet we dont hear a word about correcting it or changing it back. I say that Obama care has killed more people than any gun yet we dont hear about it and we give up more rights like lambs to the slaughter on the alter of political correctness.

I have heard give up rights on the battle against terrorism yet we are not safer
We have the NSA and Bush,s surveillance acts of the US population. Yet we are not safer
We have spent trillions on political actions on terror Yet we are not safer
We have not secured our boarders stopped illegal aliens from killing people
We have cameras at every available point and we are  not safer
We have new laws every day and yet we are not safer.
We have goverment liberals and UN saying that they know the way yet we are not safer

We are almost a free society and there are always going to be costs. We as the average citizen trying to protect our families and lives have done so much and given up so many rights for the purpose of being safer yet we are no safer. So tell me exactly why we should give up more rights when NONE OF the trillions spent and rights given up and constitution abolishing laws being passed in a liberal utopia has proved to help the average person? The electric bill on the NSA is 30 million a year and was supposed to keep terrorists at bay by knowing exactly where they were and what they were up to yet why did they not know about this attack? I am sick and tired of the liberal blame it on the good guy because we have spent trillions and cannot get it right mentality and yet we never hear a apology or roll back.


You Are a Suspect
- The New York Times, November 2002
 Patriot Act./NSA

    Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a virtual, centralized grand database. To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you -- passport application, driver's license and toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance -- and you have the supersnoop's dream: a Total Information Awareness about every U.S. citizen.
    This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

YOU ARE NOT A CRIMINAL WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM AND DON'T HAVE TO GIVE UP MORE RIGHTS AND LISTEN TO ONE MISGUIDED INDIVIDUAL ABOUT WHAT HE THINKS WILL SOLVE THE TERRORIST PROBLEM WHEN IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE AND IS BEING DONE NOW. WE NEED A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN THE POWER TO DO ITS JOB.  Find out how many trillions and what rights we have given up just to combat this problem and we find we are no safer and have bleeding hearts telling us we should do more and they have the answer. Arent you tired of this garbage?

In the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, bulk domestic spying in the United States increased dramatically. The desire to prevent future attacks of this scale led to the passage of the Patriot Act. Later acts include the Protect America Act (which removes the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign targets) and the FISA Amendments Act (which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements).


This is the freaking headline today and what are they going to do? This is what they are doing to limit your rights do you feel confident that they can get it right this time, can you say O bama care?  Dont you see really, Something they could not get passed before the liberal Democrat's now try again.

Democrats end filibuster, announce GOP to hold gun votes

As the talk-a-thon went on nearly 15 hours, senators were negotiating on a plan to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

They can sure pass new laws and take away rights but how about making all the money we spend on surveillance work first. Take control of government and we would not be talking about this

and before you get caught up in all the hoopla "ban gun sales to suspected terrorists" they did not know this guy was a terrorist so who are they talking about?

I ask myself today what laws are they passing that further take away my rights and for what purpose in the Congress today. When they cannot even stop a rouge government from using a pen and phone and enacting laws that Congress should stop.

Sad day in the US today.

[MP]

So you have NO answer . You know good and well there is NO law that has ever or will ever deter a CRIMINAL from doing what ever the Hell he pleases. Why because he is a Criminal how hard is that to understand? They don't  give two craps what the law says that is WHY they are Criminals.
But what another law would do is make it more difficult for you,me or any other law abiding citizen to legally purchase a firearm.
And a ban would Stop you,me or any other Law abiding citizen from buying one ( why because we are law abiding)but it wouldn't stop a Criminal from getting one.

Look, I agree that a determined criminal will always get what he or she wants.  However, conversely, we still all lock our doors and windows, have ignition keys or encoded security systems, alarms and safes.  I think we can all agree that, while not perfect, there is no need to allow a criminal the easy way out.

In this instance, I can hope that all us reasonable people can agree I'd that this guy should have NEVER been allowed to legally purchase his weapon.  Sure, if he was determined then he would have gotten it anyway...but, hopefully and maybe with a bit of daydream fantasy, doing so would have aroused suspicion versus just walking into a shop, like everyone else, and getting what he wanted.

At the very least, I can hope that individuals on the terrorist watch list be refused legal weapons purchase.  Again, why make things easy?  After 2 investigation a big red flag should have gone up for his connection with firearms.  What about his job?  For me, I guess, his connection with legal weapons allowed him to get that job, and if he could not get weapons then he would have found another line of work.  Maybe that's too harsh, limited gun rights when you are on our suspected terrorist list, but maybe we have to start somewhere - it's a very different world out there today.

And, just WHAT would have stopped THIS GUY from legally buying a gun?  He had broken no laws, he passed a normal background check, he passed extra diligent background checks to get his FL Security License, he had the FBI investigate him, and they found nothing wrong.  On WHAT GROUNDS would you deny him the right to buy a gun?  There is NONE.  The only way would be to ban ALL CITIZENS from ever buying a gun.

A "red flag should have gone up because of his connections with firearms".  Huh?  A private citizen, passing several checks, with NO HISTORY of any problems, buys a gun. 

THAT should throw up a red flag?  WTH!  Most of us here have undergone background checks, many multiple times, to buy firearms, and you are saying THAT ALONE should throw up a red flag, and cause a gun purchase denial?  WOW!

In essence, you are saying background checks should be performed.  If someone wants a background check, that is proof that they are up to no good, and therefore the gun purchase should be denied. 

WOW, just WOW!

[98valk]

if they implement a terrorist or any kind of watch list, they can put anybody on it, an effectively ban guns for over half the populance or more. This is nothing more than a back door UN ploy to remove the guns.  Remember they consider anybody who believes in the bible and God/Jesus to be a right-wing extremist. remember barry's speech in PA during his first election??

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/give-up-your-guns-drudge-takes-on-dhs-you-go-first/

Just months after Department of Homeland Security advisers claimed “the threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism,” DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson is now suggesting his department should be in charge of implementing gun control.

“We need to do something to minimize the opportunities for terrorists to get a gun in this country, and this is now something that is critical to homeland security as well as public safety,” he told the show.

Maybe you UN member you, should do something to minimize the # of terrorist in the country first.  Do u liberals get this??

and more UN take away

WND also reported that there’s a pending public comment period for a proposed rule that would strip gun rights from an estimated four million or more Americans, without any adjudication.

President Obama’s newest plan would be to abruptly take Second Amendment rights away from a vast class of Social Security and government benefit recipients – anyone with help managing their government benefits and a wide range of other individuals. The change would make it a crime, instantly, for those individuals to have guns.

“The regulation promises to aggressively search for and take away the gun rights of Social Security Disability recipients with PTSB, ADHD, post partem depression, Alzheimer’s, etc.,” a report from Gun Owners of America said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/give-up-your-guns-drudge-takes-on-dhs-you-go-first/#A3Rp7g2P1DkXieUd.99

[MP]

This "Terror Watch List" denial is such a red herring.  Gun grabbers keep saying, "if someone is on the List, they should be denied guns".

How does one get on that list?  Nobody in public knows.  It is a secret.  You are NOT notified if you are put on the list.  Someone, somewhere, notifies somebody, to put you on the list, and bingo, you are on the list.

For that, you and others Libs, say you should be denied a Constitution Right.

Ever heard of "Due Process"?  The Constitution demands that before one is denied rights, due process MUST occur, ie, a COURT must find you in violation, and THEN AND ONLY THEN, rights can be taken away.

One example is the name Robert Johnson.  There is A Robert Johnson who MIGHT have terror ties.  So, the name is on the List.

Do you know how many Robert Johnsons there are?  Me either, but I bet a bunch!  Other Robert Johnsons have reported that they are being denied flying, subject to intense scrutiny, being denied rights, because of a name.

After all this, if a criminal, by definition someone who does NOT obey the law, wants a gun, and is denied, they will just go out in the alley and buy one out of a trunk, or go steal one from someone else.  No problem. In fact, almost all guns used in normal street crime, are obtained illegally.  Almost none are bought thru legal channels.  So, NONE of these laws will affect the VAST MAJORITY of murders in the US in the slightest.

But facts be cursed, lets "Feel Good" and "Do SOMETHING"!

Then, when that FAILS, as it will, and even those of you who support these laws admit they will fail, MORE laws will be passed to even further restrict legal citizens rights.  THAT is the true objective.  Slowly and surely, disarm law abiding citizens of the US.  The President and Hillary have come out publicly and admitted that if they could, they would disarm Americans.

[Robert]

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and fellow Senate Democrats officially relinquished the floor early Thursday morning after spending nearly 15 hours straight talking about gun control, paving the way for high-profile congressional votes on restricting firearms just days after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Though senators had yet to formally strike a deal, the Senate was likely to vote on two Democratic-backed gun measures: a proposal from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) meant to bar those on federal terror watch lists from obtaining firearms, and a plan from Murphy and Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) mandating background checks for sales at gun shows and over the internet. Republicans are expected to put forward two of their own proposals for votes.

“We’ve gotten to a place where we’re going to get votes on these important amendments,” Murphy, who had led the rhetorical charge on the Senate floor, said shortly before 1:30 a.m. Thursday. “What would’ve been unacceptable is to spend this entire week on legislative business that was irrelevant to the epidemic of gun violence that has been made more real than ever.”

The Connecticut senator, who had been a leading gun-control advocate in the Senate since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, took to the floor at 11:21 a.m. Wednesday to draw attention to the Democrats’ latest push to crack down on firearms laws. But it was a caucus-wide effort — 38 other Senate Democrats joined Murphy in the filibuster that lasted 14 hours and 50 minutes, with a handful of lawmakers, including Booker and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), standing with Murphy for hours on end.

[Gavin_Sons]

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and fellow Senate Democrats officially relinquished the floor early Thursday morning after spending nearly 15 hours straight talking about gun control, paving the way for high-profile congressional votes on restricting firearms just days after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Though senators had yet to formally strike a deal, the Senate was likely to vote on two Democratic-backed gun measures: a proposal from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) meant to bar those on federal terror watch lists from obtaining firearms, and a plan from Murphy and Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) mandating background checks for sales at gun shows and over the internet. Republicans are expected to put forward two of their own proposals for votes.

“We’ve gotten to a place where we’re going to get votes on these important amendments,” Murphy, who had led the rhetorical charge on the Senate floor, said shortly before 1:30 a.m. Thursday. “What would’ve been unacceptable is to spend this entire week on legislative business that was irrelevant to the epidemic of gun violence that has been made more real than ever.”

The Connecticut senator, who had been a leading gun-control advocate in the Senate since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, took to the floor at 11:21 a.m. Wednesday to draw attention to the Democrats’ latest push to crack down on firearms laws. But it was a caucus-wide effort — 38 other Senate Democrats joined Murphy in the filibuster that lasted 14 hours and 50 minutes, with a handful of lawmakers, including Booker and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), standing with Murphy for hours on end.

those democrats are the most stupid people i have ever seen. They think you can get on the internet and buy a gun and have it shipped straight to your house. They are morons, the gun has to be shipped to a licensed FFL dealer. Then that dealer does the background check, you pay his fee, usually around 30 bucks then you can have your gun. These stupid politicians cant get that through their stupid thick heads. it's like they have tunnel vision and can only process one thing at a time. Gun control, gun control, gun control. Morons

[98valk]

and what has Obama and his ilk been doing?, letting the boarders be wide open and encourage them to come. He let us to be invaded.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article84049057.html

CIA Director John Brennan will tell Congress on Thursday that Islamic State militants are training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for their territorial losses.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article84049057.html#storylink=cpy

FTA: "ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West," Brennan said, using another acronym for the group. He said IS probably is working to smuggle them into countries, perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel.

Let's focus on part of that more closely: "perhaps among refugee flows..."

Damn. Looks like we're not a bunch of paranoid, Islamophobic racists after all.

[Serk]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people, with no way of knowing who's on it, how you get on it, no way to get off of it, no due process involved whatsoever, a list that you could piss off a low level bureaucrat and be put on (Or bribe to get removed from), and that anyone on that list would be deprived of the right to vote and their right to free speech?

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people, with no way of knowing who's on it, how you get on it, no way to get off of it, no due process involved whatsoever, a list that you could piss off a low level bureaucrat and be put on (Or bribe to get removed from), and that anyone on that list would be deprived of the right to vote and their right to free speech?

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

Wasn't it started by Bush after 9/11 ?