It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Stormdancer777
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Just thinking, should someone who is on the radar be able to legally own a firearm?
Good point.
If he is a citizen, why not? Or can we deny his right before due process?
Or should we change law to not allow citizens on the radar to own (or purchase) firearms even if they had them before they went on the radar?
"On the radar" is such a vague phrase that gives us no information upon which to draw conclusions about what *should* be done.
There are people that are not allowed to purchase guns.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: opethPA
Yes, I agree that targets closer and more confined are easier to hit than some outside and moving. Still 50! that's just worth questioning the background of the said perp.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TheRedneck
Just the mass manufacturing of guns. Treat them like Nukes. You make them, but they only reach the desired authorities. I can do without my shotgun. Have hunted enough over the years.
originally posted by: JimBielson
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JimBielson
I'm sure it was very terrorizing for the victims.
Just as rape is terrorizing. As is armed robbery. And murder. And attempted murder. And kidnapping.
Apply your logic and reasoning to the fact (not hyperbole, actual fact) that something being scary does not make it terrorism. Using the US Code definition of terrorism and the crime of terrorism does not make me a sheep or a lefty or whatever other cute name you want to try and throw at me.
Not calling everything scary "terrorism" does not make me a lefty or a sheep or whatever other name you want to try and apply to me. It means I understand there's a difference between legitimate acts of terrorism and the all too trendy trope of applying the terrorism label at every last little thing that happens.
And again, this may well turn out to be an ACTUAL act of terrorism. Nothing I've said can be taken, without extraordinary levels of twisting and spinning, as somehow me saying this is definitely not terrorism.
Information is good.
It does make you a sheep if you dont realize what this was and you need some bureaucrat to tell you want it was. I don't know where you come from but a radical (Insert your name for it) going into anywhere and spraying people with lead is the very definition of terrorism.
This is just as much terrorism as any mass shooting in America.
Again people, the "Official" version of terrorism has been used to convict people of lesser crimes. With reasoning and thoughtful reflection, you too can come to the same conclusion of what most Americans are calling this..
Understanding the legal definition of terrorism and what it requires to fulfill that definition...
originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Oh so he was a security officer at one time.
originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: opethPA
i2.cdn.turner.com...
originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: jhn7537
No these threads are what make ATS one of the best sites for breaking news. Lots of insight, commentary AND vetting.
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: llpoolej
But an investigation doesn't constitute a conviction.