HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » This message was self-del...

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:59 AM

 

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (Night Watchman) on Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:38 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

24 replies, 1137 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)
Night Watchman Jun 2016 OP
metroins Jun 2016 #1
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #2
Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #13
linuxman Jun 2016 #3
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #5
linuxman Jun 2016 #6
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #8
linuxman Jun 2016 #11
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #16
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply .
linuxman Jun 2016 #17
malaise Jun 2016 #14
linuxman Jun 2016 #15
WillowTree Jun 2016 #19
linuxman Jun 2016 #20
WillowTree Jun 2016 #21
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #4
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #7
romanic Jun 2016 #9
backscatter712 Jun 2016 #10
Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #12
Amishman Jun 2016 #18
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #22
SunSeeker Jun 2016 #23
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #24

Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:07 AM

1. I don't think this is a case for gun control

He was a private security contactor who passed multiple trainings, background checks and was in charge of the safety of people.

If I saw him "on paper", he would be the kind of person who should have access to higher powered weapons.

Up until the whole he was on the FBIs radar and he beat his ex wife. Those are warning signs that he shouldn't have had weapons.

I'm trying to be rational, and personally don't think this will catch traction on gun control. I definitely could be wrong.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metroins (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:14 AM

2. I think you definitely ARE wrong

 

He didn't buy the guns for his job. I have a gun as part of my job, too. But it isn't an assault rifle! And the company requires that I leave it behind at the end of my shift.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:52 AM

13. So you are a gun user?

 

We are going to talk about the full spectrum of this issue even if you don't want to. You don't get to reduce it to slogans and distractions. Not going to happen.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:15 AM

3. I don't have to assume jack.

 

He called in to 911before he kicked of the slaughter to tell them he was doing it in solidarity with isis. Before then, he was known to his coworkers and the FBI as a sympathizer with terrorism and radical islam. We know where his mindset because he straight up told us. For years the Islamic world has railed against the us and our freedom by attacking the institutions that symbolize ut. It's not some big secret that our tolerance and acceptance of lgbt persons is seen as a symbol of our decadent hedonism and apostasy.

Let's drop the bull already.

Can you lay out for me the mechanisms that should have stopped him? The FBI didn't place him on a terrorism watch list, so even if that particular due process murdering mechanism was in place to deny a gun sale, it would have done nothing in this case. He was not a felon either. If someone has committed no crime, what other criteria would you use to restrict the right to buy a gun which would also be constitutional? That's a serious question, btw. I would really like to hear an answer, because nobody else has given me a clear one. Surely we can agree that there should be certain things which prevent one from purchasing a gun. What are those tnings?

Accusation of a crime?

Suspicion of a crime?

Suspicion of terrorist sympathies?

Ties to extremists through families?

Was ever on medication for mental health or sought counseling?

There is a line thst needs to be drawn, but nobody wants to draw it through someone else's civil rights. Where would you place the line and why?



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:22 AM

5. How 'bout this?

 

In your civilian life, you shouldn't be able to buy military-style weapons!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:27 AM

6. I can't buy military style weapons.

 

Unless I have 20,000+ dollars and a hardon for paperwork. Spoiler alert: I don't.

Now, do you have a real suggestion regarding restrictions on who can purchase? I'm being real here. If you do, tell me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:36 AM

8. Are you TRYING to Miss the Point?

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:44 AM

11. Did you have one?

 

Still waiting on your thought for restriction criteria.

Bueler? Bueler?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:09 AM

16. CIVILIANS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM OWNING MILITARY WEAPONS!

 

EVEN POLICE AND ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LEAVE THEIR WEAPONS AT WORK! PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO OWNING HUNTING RIFLES AND BASIC HANDGUNS!

Clear enough for ya????? Jesus!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:16 AM

17. .

 

Your caps lock seems stuck. Calm down.

What makes a hunting rifle? My dad hunts with an ar 15 varient. My home defense pistol is the most comonly used one there is, and is about as basic as it comes. What do you mean military personnel? The don't take their weapons home ever and haven't for more than 100 years. Cops carry theirs off duty because they are required to respond to an emergency if called for.

You seem to be letting your blind anger cloud your sense. Take a breath. You're talking monsemse.

Also, you still never answered my question.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:57 AM

14. The one at the Planned Parenthood Building

said he was doing it for the babies.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:05 AM

15. And in his head, he was,

 

Just as in this guy's head he was doing it for the cause of Islamic extremism.

Your point?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:50 AM

19. Wait a minute!

Do I understand that you think that someone should be denied 2A rights just because he or she has been accused of a crime or who was just suspected of having committed a crime? Or suspected of having terrorist sympathies? Are we completely doing away with the whole concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'?

And anyone who has ever been on meds? So, despite the fact that I have no desire to own (or touch, for that matter) a gun, I wouldn't be able to buy one if I felt the need because I was prescribed Zoloft for a few months to get me over the hump after my Dad died? And what other reasons do you think I should have to give the government access to what medications I take or have ever taken?

Or anyone who's even sought counseling? Really? Would it matter what the diagnosis was? 'Cause I know someone who had to go through a counseling regimen before she was approved for bariatric surgery? Would that be a reason for her to have her constitutional rights abrogated? And if some reasons for counseling would be disqualifiers and others not, are we then suggesting that people have to sign away significant privacy rights?

The suggestions in the OP are really pretty frightening to me on principle.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:55 AM

20. Wow. You have completely misunderstood my point and my thoughts.

 

I support none of those things. I was simply pointing out that you'd have to violate a person's rights in order to implement these ideas.

I was stating that denial of due process would be required in order to use such lists/medical histories, etc and that it would be a problem (i.e, fucked up and unconstitutional ).

Recalibrate your reading comprehension device.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:57 AM

21. Whew!! Thanks for the reply. Like I said, some of those concepts are really scary to me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:19 AM

4. I very much suspect a toxic combination of factors.

 

Homophobia, Jihadism, psychopathy, what appear to have been massive anger issues, and more...a nasty cocktail of horrible influences going on in that asshole's head. There were so many warnings in place, warnings that were noticed by many. That these warnings were not enough to flag the guy as ineligible to possess firearms lies at the core of the problem.

Universal background checks, made against a NICS database with significantly expanded access to multiple types of records, should be a big priority. I once encouraged instituting these at the state level (and helped with the successful campaign to get them here in Oregon), but I've come around to the argument for a national-level regulation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:34 AM

7. As do I

 

Extremists in Christianity, Judaism and Islam hate LGBTQ people. My cousin Pete, who is gay, was badly beaten up by a group of "Christian" thugs just last year, and there are also reports that Mateen was mentally ill, too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:37 AM

9. It's a mixture of both. It's not one or the other.

Obviously the lax law in FL regarding assault rifles gave him the tools to do this, but even if there was a ban, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have gotten his grubby hands on one anyway. It's not just gun control, we have to look at the black markets and also online activities of those who are radical Islamist sympahtizers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:39 AM

10. Extreme religion exploits bigotry to achieve its ends.

Who says it's Jihadism/extremist Islam OR homophobia?

I say it's BOTH. And ISIS sucked this particular shithead into their fold, by using his homophobia and misogyny to draw him in.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:47 AM

12. Ok, that's established. Now let's talk about the other factors, such as his religion, his parental

 

influences and the leeway given him by government and employers/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:30 AM

18. the laws/system in place almost caught this guy but the FBI botched their investigation

He should still have been under monitoring, but wasn't because the FBI cleared him. Sounds like they screwed up their investigation.

A law alerting the FBI when someone on the watch list tries to buy a gun should be in place. I have mixed feelings about actually blocking the sale for two reasons. 1) It would tip off the individual that they are being monitored. 2) its a secret list with no due process

An alert to the FBI might even be possible by executive order, since it would not actually change/block the current background check process as defined by law.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:52 PM

22. 0 Recs

 

Really? Nobody agrees with me on this? It's just common sense!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:48 PM

23. Sad that I am your first rec, especially considering this is supposed to be progressive site. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:46 PM

24. You Have My Thanks Regardless

 

I've been surprised at how many gun-loving members of this site revealed themselves today.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink