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.

 

Texas Church Shooting : Thread

page: 45
104
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Xcathdra


I just wanna say that I've been dying to have an actual policy discussion for a while on this matter.

But its impossible to have that discussion without all the shouting.

Thanks man.


sent you a private message




posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
If they have allowed felons to own guns this wouldn't have happened.
Serve their time, get their rights back.


Hence the legal challenge. The argument is being made to restrict people from being able to own / buy a firearm for only felony convictions for violent crimes.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


Definitely agree

I think working together to tackle these important issues is the only real way to move forward. As a person who carries daily, I basically disregard statements from people who are attacking the second amendment and it is very unproductive

It would really make sense to have gun owners as a party to any potential legislation. At least that way these bills would make some kind of sense, and stand a real chance at accomplishing something meaningful.

Don't get me wrong, I'm probably as pro-2A/pro-CC as they come. But I also recognize my own vested self-interest in limiting certain potential avenues for my most likely adversaries to access firearms. Of course there will never be a way to stop it entirely, but providing citizen access to NICS for private sales would be a great place to start (at least in my humble opinion, for what it is worth).

Like you said though, there would actually have to be language introduced that provided for such access, and of course call center expansion costs would be another factor. Worth a shot though, IMHO



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I guess more info will be forthcoming, who knows if it's valid info, CNN reported it.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
If they have allowed felons to own guns this wouldn't have happened.
Serve their time, get their rights back.


Hence the legal challenge. The argument is being made to restrict people from being able to own / buy a firearm for only felony convictions for violent crimes.

To be honest I am amazed they are able to get around the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Same. I am also amazed the GCA and NFA made it through muster.

However, that is in an ideal world - and we do not live in an ideal world.

Fortunately, if you have the spare change, you can still acquire NFA items legally. My RDIAS cost a pretty penny, and was only slightly cheaper than a Colt M16 RR.

This also serves the process of weeding out most criminals/terrorists, as they can not afford them (either afford it financially, or afford it in the long waiting period thanks to backlog).



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Why is it even a question? 2nd is clear.
www.washingtonpost.com... dment-rights/?utm_term=.672c7a4e9dc9



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Some posters here would deny the ex-felons the right to protect their families with guns.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
If they have allowed felons to own guns this wouldn't have happened.
Serve their time, get their rights back.


Apparently this is how it used to be and should be.

These days theyre handing out felonies like candy.

Many industries and employers will not hire someone with an arrest let alone a felony.

Once a person serves their time, their rights must be restored.

If the individual is "that" dangerous, then they probably shouldnt be free to begin with.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

What about federalizing conceal carry laws? I know its being looked at and like I said some states attach CCW notations to drivers license to let law enforcement know they are a valid CCW holder.

Standardize it and create a federal database where disqualifying factors can be entered without compromising any current system setup? CCW info can still be attached to drivers license / license returns however hitting the new database would check for disqualifying felonies or mental health adjudications?

People selling firearms would keep the same system but the check would include the info that is disqualifying but restricted (health info).

The concern I would have is what the VA was doing to veterans. Flagging them in a federal system and sending them letters saying they cant own a firearm because of mental health issues related to combat etc.

While I am all for states rights and limited government I only thing this would work if it were federalized OR if the states were required to set up a separate database and allow the relevant agencies access via the current systems via federal checks?



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Not me.

Except in extreme situations where there is a credible and imminent danger, a felon who has served their time has paid their debt to society and should have restored rights IMO.

I don't agree with restricting those individuals' rights. For violent offenses, I fail to see why prison terms are short enough for this to even be an issue.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
If they have allowed felons to own guns this wouldn't have happened.
Serve their time, get their rights back.


Hence the legal challenge. The argument is being made to restrict people from being able to own / buy a firearm for only felony convictions for violent crimes.

To be honest I am amazed they are able to get around the 2nd Amendment.


Because it is a punishment by the judicial branch. Voting falls under the same situation where a person convicted of certain crimes can lose their right to vote (they can regain it in all states by their procedures).

Conviction for violent crimes makes sense.
Convictions for non violent felonies does not.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
Our government let this threat get worse. Trump tried to get more vetting, but there were people fighting him all the way.
This may or may not be a Middle eastern terror event, but lowering that risk would make it a lot better. Guns were used in this one, and even if the people can have guns, usually the church goers do not take them to church. Maybe they will have to change their policy and have armed parishioners. It sucks when a place of god gets targeted by a killer.


It was a USAF vet who had mental issues because of poor treatment. He couldn't get it from the VA, and he couldn't get it on his own.

I really, really, don't want to politicize this. So what I'm going to say is simple. I don't think anyone knows how to solve this. We have at most a handful of ideas to mitigate it, and all of those ideas are a day late and a dollar short.

Better health care (including mental health care)
Fewer war vets
More restrictive gun laws
Looser gun laws
Better medications
Ending the political radicialization

That's about it. None of those are going to do it.

Perhaps the price of freedom is the fact that someone else can use those freedoms to buy a gun and kill you at any time, for any reason.


We aren't going to stop all of these kind of massacres. But we should try to fix our society. The press seems to be riling people up, that is not good for our society. I can't blame the parties or even the normal mild liberals or conservatives. It seems to be the very outspoken and radical liberals and concervatives that are riling things up. Tension is higher than I have seen since the sixties. We need to get this chaos under control.

What fired this guy up? What fired up the guy in the Las Vegas shooting. The last terrorist truck event was clearly related to Islamic terrorism, which exact group is it, ISIS probably. Those risks of terrorism by foreigners are easier to identify.

The thing is that somehow this could have possibly been stopped if someone close to the guy would have spoke up and got him help. Our whole country is getting polarized, I see it in the local community here, the brainwashing on the internet is contributing to this.

Maybe the best thing to control this is to get rid of the internet, it seems to be the most logical way to stop the madness from spreading. Then control what the press says, they have no right to spread misinformation to cause civil unrest.

Like I said, I am seeing some questionable behavior here, people fired up about politics. We do not need to have this polarization get worse, something has to change.

People get brave when they go on the net and find people who have the same gripes. It can give them confidence in their delusion. That is bad, they can form a motive based on unreal thought trains.

In this case, a resident with a gun actually contributed to stopping the killing, guns do not kill people, people kill people. We do need to have a little stricter gun laws to keep people who are not mentally stable from buying guns that make them feel big. More of these shootings are done with fancy assault rifles and prestigeous handguns than with a six shooter or 22 piwtol and plain hunting rifle. The problem comes in passing a law to moderately restrict something and the government using that law as precedence to take away our right to bear arms. Guns protect as many people as they hurt people. Taking away our guns will just give power to those who like to steal and kill, criminals will still have weapons.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Fox News is interviewing Tim Clemente (former FBI counter-terror agent) and they were discussing the online posts. Looks like its being looked into now.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Some posters here would deny the ex-felons the right to protect their families with guns.


They shouldn't be.

There is that amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

And there is also the 14th.

They don't lose their right to vote so why should they lose their second?

Once a sentence is served. The debt to society has been paid.


edit on 5-11-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Stricter laws? Maybe not.

However a law that would make relevant information available to those selling firearms to let them know the person wanting to but is ok to do so or not ok to do so.

the Hodge podge of state laws and various privacy laws are problematic.

How do you balance a persons right to privacy against another persons right to not be harmed?

No matter the system it wont be perfect and people who are lawfully able to buy / possess a firearm can still go bonkers. There is also the issue of leaving firearms in cars and having them stolen because they left their car unlocked (or houses / businesses etc).

The current gun laws we have only apply to law abiding citizens.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rickymouse

Stricter laws? Maybe not.

However a law that would make relevant information available to those selling firearms to let them know the person wanting to but is ok to do so or not ok to do so.

the Hodge podge of state laws and various privacy laws are problematic.

How do you balance a persons right to privacy against another persons right to not be harmed?

No matter the system it wont be perfect and people who are lawfully able to buy / possess a firearm can still go bonkers. There is also the issue of leaving firearms in cars and having them stolen because they left their car unlocked (or houses / businesses etc).

The current gun laws we have only apply to law abiding citizens.


Your last sentence is the most important to have people understand.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Latest reports indicate he was an atheist nerd with a hate on for Christians, while at the same time being a bit of a SJW, which is sadly and tragically ironic.

As to the gun debate, I doubt there'd be a way to keep a gun out of the hands of such a person.

Better to look to the underlying motive and insanity, rooted in hatred and intolerance.

If he had even the first clue and bit of understanding as to what the people in the Church were honoring, he would not have shot them.

edit on 5-11-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Krakatoa

I didn’t want to get in a gun argument, but if I mention the countries it will descend to that

Do some research you’ll find them




No Will they won't find it. For you see countries that totally disarmed were victims of their governments. There are no safe countries where a mass murder is not going to happen if some idiot wishes to be so evil.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Wow so this guy apparently killed and or shot the pastor's 14 y/o daughter a 2 y/o child and a pregnant woman and more this is just sad!!!
we really do hear too much of this kind of stuff going on now a days almost every day now.
it makes me sick I pray for the victim's and there family's
let's just hope this one is really being reported to the full truth this time
that would make it even worse if there was some kinda gun control agenda or something other then just some crazy nutcase either way this is sad and sick

O yeah nice work to to the gun toating nabughor who apparently chased down the guy and killed him


edit on 5-11-2017 by DustybudzZ because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
104
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join