Boulder, Colorado mass shooting suspect known to FBI: report

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Assassin82

No need to detain, wouldn't ask for that. Now if they showed up and introduced themselves, maybe had a chat, I don't see the harm in that. As for capacity, hire more agents. I know why they can't, it's the same reason they can't get qualified cyber people on the job. Low pay and other restrictions they have in place.

Do you have any idea how many people the FBI would have to hire to respond to every person that meets the requirements for a check up (whatever those requirements might be)? And then imagine if you’re just a regular guy who never harmed anyone, never would harm anyone, but met these subjectively created requirements, gets interviewed and is now “profiled” as such in the government database. Cause you know that information stays in there forever. Does it show up on background checks? Do employers get notified?

I’m playing devils advocate because when we start walking down this slope it gets real slippery, real fast. And the government has proven to be incredibly unreliable with protecting innocent citizens and their information.

a reply to: Assassin82

Totally agree it's a slippery slope, also agree on the staffing needs for that sort of thing. In no way, shape, or form do I want to cede any additional power to the FBI, they are highly unreliable. I would be interested to know what the subjective requirements would be, that may be a way to nip this sort of thing in the bud. Obviously it would probably turn into a profiling issue as whomever sets the requirements will do so in such a fashion that at least one group would feel targeted by them.

I don't know the answer, maybe some sort of automated way to tell what has higher confidence of being an actual issue vs some jackass with a big mouth? I know RPA can check for patterns like that and with a reasonable degree of accuracy be utilized to have resources directed to the right people. Just a thought on my end.

Why do I get the impression I’m more likely to get a friendly visit from Frank’s By the Inch for being on ATS then anyone that is about to commit such an atrocity?

Why am I reminded of post-9/11 and LE going undercover to gyms, bake sales, and sewing circles to investigate peoples’ beliefs?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: slatesteam

originally posted by: Gnawledge
There are too many damn guns in America.

2nd amendment. To protect ourselves from those exercising that 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately there are crazies in America.

I think you have a different Constitution

I've lived here for 42 years and the constitution I've read, hasn't changed.

People have.

Correct.

The 2nd Amendment is not clear what it means.

NO ONE knows exactly what the 2nd Amendment means.

Throwing the Constitution into this — never changes the fact that the 2nd is unclear in meaning.

How is "shall not be infringed" not clear?

ALL of the other Amendments pertain to individuals, the people. The 2nd is no different. Don't get hung up on the "militia" part. The Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller case ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

a reply to: Annee

Read the Federalist Papers. John Addams makes it clear what the 2A is about.

Also: when does this become a Hate Crime?

Boulder, Colorado mass shooting suspect known to FBI: report

That is the topic.
Not the 2nd Amendment. Not each other.



Terms And Conditions Of Use




You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Assassin82

Totally agree it's a slippery slope, also agree on the staffing needs for that sort of thing. In no way, shape, or form do I want to cede any additional power to the FBI, they are highly unreliable. I would be interested to know what the subjective requirements would be, that may be a way to nip this sort of thing in the bud. Obviously it would probably turn into a profiling issue as whomever sets the requirements will do so in such a fashion that at least one group would feel targeted by them.

I don't know the answer, maybe some sort of automated way to tell what has higher confidence of being an actual issue vs some jackass with a big mouth? I know RPA can check for patterns like that and with a reasonable degree of accuracy be utilized to have resources directed to the right people. Just a thought on my end.

Personally, I think the correct approach is for the FBI to engage local LEO's to "keep an eye on that person" in their jurisdiction. Let the local LEO manage it, while supplying the FBI with reports of suspicions conduct or reports.

The FBI have been acting as political tools for the left for the last 4 years and further back than that. Thus they are helping the leftist agenda.

Part of that whacko agenda is stripping away gun rights from law abiding citizens, not from criminals. It's important to note that difference.

Them knowing about this guy beforehand and doing nothing about him, proves all of the above.

Assisting the left to realize their goals of removing all threats so they can really put the hammer down on Americans and fortify full control.

You could interpret this as a full out attack on American citizens by the FBI and their leftist overlords within the very corrupt democrat party. And if you interpret it that way you would be correct.