Criminal Charges to Be Brought Against Enrique Marquez, Ex-Neighbor of San Bernardino Shooters

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Good comparison, thank you, why the same rule does not apply to gun industry??

How did the firearms malfunction?

Thanks for asking the question.... because yes, this is intent of those weapons, and clearly background check will not do justice - because just like posted in OP, they avoided it by having someone else purchase it for then, leaving us with only one conclusion and option that will work - BAN on weapons like that.

It took bit to get to correct conclusion...

As for Enrique Marquez, he was already checked in mental institution iirc from news. Seems he will play on mental sickness card, that could drop death sentence. He does deserve to spend rest of life in prison, mentally ill or otherwise...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Not sure if playing dumb and mentally sick will help him with this one... I hope not.

Anyone involved in purchase of guns used should be prosecuted... I would go step further - those who made this kind of transactions possible should be held accountable as well... including NRA.

When you went a step further, I believe you stepped off the mountain. You'd have to go back a long way to prosecute those who made these kinds of transactions possible.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Thanks for asking the question.... because yes, this is intent of those weapons, and clearly background check will not do justice - because just like posted in OP, they avoided it by having someone else purchase it for then, leaving us with only one conclusion and option that will work - BAN on weapons like that.

Considering the majority of people killed by firearms are with a handgun by a huge margin what purpose does this serve? He could have easily purchased that type of firearm instead.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The NRA does not pass or enforce laws.

Sounds like you will almost say NRA does not have any effects on the law?!

They do not directly make laws, but their puppets, our USA government representatives are making laws that made it impossible to track if someone who previously purchased asult grade weapon went unstable and should not have it anymore.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
If Marquez legally purchased the firearms years ago and then gave them to Farook then he is the one responsible.

I still think people responsible for production of guns used should be held responsible. Look what happened with airbags that killed people - how is different with guns that killed people?? Hold them responsible, fine them and use money to prevent further attacks...

Gun-lovers claim that guns are there to keep us safer, which is the same what airbag claimed, and when innocent died, why hold only one responsible and fine them - just use the same logic and be fair to both industries...

The airbags malfunctioned. If a gun malfunctioned and killed someone then you'd have a comparison.

You're afraid of guns, we get it man. You're letting it cloud and decide your opinion on this matter for you. You're basically giving the neighbor and the muslim couple a pass so you can blame guns and gun makers and none other than the big bad NRA.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Sunwolf
What is an asult grade weapon?Geez,don`t know what you are talking about,just know all the leftist rhetoric!

Don't worry, any legislation banning those weapons will make it clear just for you...

Interesting, none of you responding don't like to even knowledge similarities about products that you claim should keep us safer...

Seems that 'safer' rhetoric works only when it helps your cause, doesn't it??

Thankfully the criminals listen to laws and will put away their assault rifles if the law bans them, right?

He is being charged because he bought the guns in 2013 to use in a planned attack with Farook but they called it off.

originally posted by: LSU0408
Thankfully the criminals listen to laws and will put away their assault rifles if the law bans them, right?

That is crappy response, because if those guns are not available, then criminals would not be able to get a hold of them, would they??

False rhetoric is just that, false...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: LSU0408
Thankfully the criminals listen to laws and will put away their assault rifles if the law bans them, right?

That is crappy response, because if those guns are not available, then criminals would not be able to get a hold of them, would they??

False rhetoric is just that, false...

No. Your argument is one of false logic. Here are some facts.

As of 2013 some studies show that there are roughly 1.5 - 3.2 million "assault style" rifles owned by American citizens. In 2014, the FBI data shows only 248 murders committed with rifles (it does not designate how many of these were with "assault style" rifles. For the sake of the argument, lets say they all were. That means, of the "assault type rifles" owned roughly 0.0001% - 0.00008% were used in a murder.

So your answer is to ban this type of firearm, because .0001% - .00008% have been used in a murder? I think you should stop with the emotional, illogical, hoplophobic arguments.

FBI Stats on Murder
Study on Assault Rifles in Private Ownership

Why are you all arguing about the wrong thing?
He confessed to planning an attack with Farook but they called it off. He bought the guns for that attack.

a reply to: SonOfThor

That is a lots of labels for simple thinking that more guns are not keeping us safer. (what has been already established)

But according to you and your statistic, nothing to worry, right??

My argument is simple - ban weapons that can be used to kill us... does not sounds so stupid like you made it sound...

On the other hand, your is crappy - compared to other deaths by weapon, assault weapons are minority, thus keep selling them....

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: SonOfThor

That is a lots of labels for simple thinking that more guns are not keeping us safer. (what has been already established)

But according to you and your statistic, nothing to worry, right??

My argument is simple - ban weapons that can be used to kill us... does not sounds so stupid like you made it sound...

On the other hand, your is crappy - compared to other deaths by weapon, assault weapons are minority, thus keep selling them....

I am not trying to be rude, but I am having trouble understanding your response, it seems either rushed, or incoherent - is English not your first language? (Not being snarky, just asking). Also, even a ban will never get rid of the hundreds of millions of weapons that are out there.

Anyway - I think there are more charges coming related to this attack; I wouldn't be surprised if Farook's mother or other family members also find themselves charged...

a reply to: FamCore

Fam agreed; I believe there will be a much deeper investigation and as some speculated last week, - This is just the beginning...

As soon as old Enrique ran and checked himself into a mental health facility, we all knew that he was starting to build a defense. If I was on a jury, I would assume that this was a ploy suggested by his lawyer. Enrique knew what he was doing when he bought the rifles, which, according to CA law, were also illegally outfitted.

I think Enrique will end up in a fun-filled Federal prison with a lot of time to study the Koran.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
If I am in a car accident that killed someone, should the Holden car dealer be held to account for making the purchase of the car possible to me?

Car industry IS HELD accountable if reason for death was malfunction of car that lead to death, isn't it???

Good comparison, thank you, why the same rule does not apply to gun industry??

DURH.. because they didnt malfunction durh...... Sheesh your bias.

YOU are not HEARING them tell you WHY its different. AIRBAGS and PRODUCTION ERRORS should be investigated and punished. THE GUNS USED WERE NOT MANLFUNCTIONING and THEREFORE ARE NOT LIABLE(aka responsible)

Is that clear enough?

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: LSU0408
Thankfully the criminals listen to laws and will put away their assault rifles if the law bans them, right?

That is crappy response, because if those guns are not available, then criminals would not be able to get a hold of them, would they??

False rhetoric is just that, false...

Actually theres a way thaT dont involve banning all weapons. Weapons that will not fire if they are not held by the owner. dna verfied weapons. They arent just sci fi anymore.

But really ANYTHING can be a weapon and th eonly way to ban all weapons is to ban everything.

a reply to: ReadLeader

So, does this mean Tashfeen wasn't the mastermind, after all, and that ISIS had nothing to do with it? They weren't even a thing, in 2012, right?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Not sure if playing dumb and mentally sick will help him with this one... I hope not.

Anyone involved in purchase of guns used should be prosecuted... I would go step further - those who made this kind of transactions possible should be held accountable as well... including NRA.

I agree. And if you let someone borrow your car and they hurt someone both you and Ford should be responsible.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Al Shabah, was the source for his radicalization. It's been happening since before Isis. Look up a little terror organization called Al Qaida they predate Isis....

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Not sure if playing dumb and mentally sick will help him with this one... I hope not.

Anyone involved in purchase of guns used should be prosecuted... I would go step further - those who made this kind of transactions possible should be held accountable as well... including NRA.

I agree. And if you let someone borrow your car and they hurt someone both you and Ford should be responsible.

SO the few members who were ATS members if we follow your logic ATS should be held respnsible for their actions as well then right? UNless it was a MALFUNCTION or WILLFULLY DONE By the Orginization its WRONG to hold them accountable for something they could not control.