Teacher with Gun in Custody after Barricading self in Classroom

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yeah, those last two are extremely important... I can think of 17 reasons why just off hand.

I am most concerned with the 'permit to buy' idea, primarily because it is pushing Constitutionality. It would have to be a process that allows for plenty of due process, and it would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, not to the investigators. If the FBI were not embroiled in their own controversy right now, I might feel better about it. But, on the other hand, if we are to limit access to firearms for a certain portion of the population, we have to limit it. Just limiting it partially is not limiting it.

I would still like to see manual-load long arms available at 18. Kids need to learn. We have drivers permits before a child can get a drivers license, so why would the same principle not apply to firearm safety? One can get a whole new perspective on how a firearm works just by popping some tin cans with a bolt-action .22 rifle, and that removes the movie/video game inspired mystique. Otherwise, a person can just start off with the most awesome looking, more powerful weapons available. I see that as part of the issue.

But yeah, I agree, all those ideas have promise.

TheRedneck

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Look you have to understand the vast majority of us non Americans think this whole gun debate is really really dumb, so yes I'm a complete smart ass when it comes to this conversation, so I'm sorry if it annoys you.

It's not that it annoys me per se, but it dumbs down the argument even further. Tell me, in your country, when a house is on fire, do people line up to dump gasoline on it?

Makes me glad to be an American, even with the problems we have...

TheRedneck

a reply to: liveandlearn

If we are letting these people spy on us all by God they need to prevent something. In this last case it goes all the way to the local level.

It kinda was, indirectly, with the emphasis on improving the FBI response. I would have frankly been shocked if anyone had just blurted out in front of God and everyone that we need to change the problems they created in the FBI/CIA.

In the case of Nikolas Cruz, they didn't need to spy on anyone. Everything they needed, from the FBI to Broward County, was right there in the public eye.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And no law on the books to deal with it.

Because those "red flag" laws (in 5 other states) are a violation of the 2nd.

Apparently.

a reply to: Phage



Not sure what you're trying to say Phage. Can you rephrase?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No need to rephrase. It's pretty clear.

Perhaps you can cite the statute whereby Cruz could have been removed from society or his guns been confiscated.

Everything they needed, from the FBI to Broward County, was right there in the public eye.

Or do you, like the president, seem to think that due process is a pain in the ass?

a reply to: Phage

An open threat to commit murder. You feel free to look up the Florida code numbers.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You feel free to look up the Florida code numbers.

It's your claim. The ball is in your court. What action does the statute stipulate and what authority does the FBI have concerning state laws?

a reply to: Phage

No, it's not my claim; it is the claim of every official I have heard from Florida. It's your claim that his actions were legal. Please back that up, to your own stated standards.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it's not my claim; it is the claim of every official I have heard from Florida.

Please cite the law by which they have made that claim to you.

It's your claim that his actions were legal.

Did I claim that murdering people is legal? I don't recall doing so.

a reply to: Phage

Please cite the law by which they have made that claim to you.

You'll have to ask them. I am not as familiar with Florida law as I am Alabama law.

Did I claim that murdering people is legal? I don't recall doing so.

You're going to get dizzy arguing in circles like that Phage.

You want proof a law was broken. That implies you don't believe a law was broken. Think on that; I'm calling it a night.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You want proof a law was broken.

No.
I asked by what statute action could have been taken against Cruz.

You could have just said that you don't know.

a reply to: Phage

Florida Statutes. Knock yourself out. Good night.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You could have said you don't know.

a reply to: Phage

Perhaps, Phage, you should look up the law and report back rather than just question and leave the proof to others. Give the evidence against, then there can be a conversation.

Off to bed

a reply to: liveandlearn

You have the process wrong. The claim was that there is a statute (or statutes) which could have removed Cruz (or his guns) from society. It is up to the claimant to support the claim.

I'm all ears.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Look you have to understand the vast majority of us non Americans think this whole gun debate is really really dumb, so yes I'm a complete smart ass when it comes to this conversation, so I'm sorry if it annoys you.

It's not that it annoys me per se, but it dumbs down the argument even further. Tell me, in your country, when a house is on fire, do people line up to dump gasoline on it?

Makes me glad to be an American, even with the problems we have...

TheRedneck

Dumb down the conversation! Really, i don't think it's possible to get any dumber than trying to solve a gun problem by adding more guns ,you already have more guns than people, we're already at the bottom of the barrel .

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Really, i don't think it's possible to get any dumber than trying to solve a gun problem by adding more guns ,you already have more guns than people, we're already at the bottom of the barrel .

I didn't think so either, until you posted something about arming children. Congratulations on proving us both wrong.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

It is up to the claimant to support the claim.

Unless the claim is self-evident, like threatening to commit mass murder is illegal.

I'm all ears.

And no do, apparently.

Do your own research. My name is TheRedneck, not Google.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

No need to rephrase. It's pretty clear.

Perhaps you can cite the statute whereby Cruz could have been removed from society or his guns been confiscated.

Everything they needed, from the FBI to Broward County, was right there in the public eye.

Or do you, like the president, seem to think that due process is a pain in the ass?

Florida statue on threats

He posted online threats of harm. Under this law, he could have been arrested and charged with a felony. If convicted, and it was loaded into NICS, he'd fail a background check.

He also had a ton of mental health factors in his past. He was a prime case to be adjudicated or committed, which also would've resulted in him failing a background check.