Unreal....I doubt the friends and family of those killed and wounded agree.

Quote:The massacre at an Orlando LGBT club has predictably provoked the same reaction as past terror attacks: recriminations that authorities should have done more to stop it in advance, accompanied by demands for new police powers to prevent future ones. Blame-assigners immediately pointed to the FBI’s investigation of the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen. “The FBI closed this file because the Obama administration treats radical Islamic threats as common crimes,” GOP Sen. Lindsey O. Graham argued on Fox News. “If we kept the file open and we saw what he was up to, I think we could have stopped it.” Others cited core fundamental rights, demanding they be eroded. “Due process is what’s killing us right now,” proclaimed Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin about the FBI’s inability to act more aggressively against Mateen.

Ever since the Sept. 11 attack almost 15 years ago, every act of perceived terror, and even thwarted ones, have triggered identical responses. The Boston Marathon attack, for instance, prompted this critique of the bureau, which had looked into the older brother: “Many people thought the FBI should have continued to investigate [Tamerlan] Tsarnaev until the Boston plot was uncovered,” David Gomez recalled this week in Foreign Policy. About Orlando, he wrote: “As more terrorists become successful in hiding from the FBI in plain sight using encryption and other means, perhaps it is time to revisit the probable-cause standard to open investigations in potential terrorism cases.”

Underlying this mind-set is an assumption that is both dubious and dangerous: that absolute security is desirable and attainable. None say that explicitly, but it’s the necessary implication of the argument. Once this framework is implicitly adopted, a successful attack becomes proof that something went wrong, law enforcement failed to act properly and more government authorities are needed. To wit: Hillary Clinton this week proposed an “intelligence surge” to halt “plots before they can be carried out.” And Donald Trump called for more intelligence activity to give “law enforcement and the military the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks.”

[The problem with explaining Omar Mateen through his social media accounts.]

This is wrong, and based on what we know, the FBI acted properly. Agents have the power they need, and they were right to close the case on Mateen. Just because someone successfully carried out a violent mass attack does not prove that police powers were inadequate or that existing powers were misapplied. No minimally free society can prevent all violence. In the United States, we do not hold suspects for crimes they have not committed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery...-shooting/

Jeff Bezo's personal mouthpiece.

Bet at the same time he believes it should be made harder for the rest of us who would never do such a thing to get guns.

And a ban on automatic assault weapons.

By logical extension, should they absolve Bush for the specious claim that he ignored warnings before 911?

(06-18-2016 07:18 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  By logical extension, should they absolve Bush for the specious claim that he ignored warnings before 911?

Particularly since the indicators in this instance were far more actionable than the "warnings" that Bush "ignored."

(06-18-2016 07:18 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  By logical extension, should they absolve Bush for the specious claim that he ignored warnings before 911?

Not at all. Didn't you know that he planned the whole thing to get his hands on oil, or something? Jesse Ventura told me that, and he's of sound mind and would neve lie to me.

This is where terrorism brushes against freedom of speech.

I feel strongly that any person in this country has the right to advocate for whatever extreme position they want because it is extreme, or rather unpopular, speech which must be protected the most.

Taking an unpopular or extreme position should not get you put on a list necessarily or have your life turned upside down.

We must fight terrorism in a way which does not impact the rest of us.

(06-18-2016 09:15 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:18 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  By logical extension, should they absolve Bush for the specious claim that he ignored warnings before 911?

Not at all. Didn't you know that he planned the whole thing to get his hands on oil, or something? Jesse Ventura told me that, and he's of sound mind and would neve lie to me.

So does the current leader of the Republican party.

(06-18-2016 10:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 09:15 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:18 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  By logical extension, should they absolve Bush for the specious claim that he ignored warnings before 911?

Not at all. Didn't you know that he planned the whole thing to get his hands on oil, or something? Jesse Ventura told me that, and he's of sound mind and would neve lie to me.

So does the current leader of the Republican party.

Did the voices in your head tell you that?

The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

(06-18-2016 10:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

Assault weapons aren't purchased by the general public.

(06-18-2016 11:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

Assault weapons aren't purchased by the general public.

Then exactly who are they purchased by?

From my understanding they are allowed to be purchased by anyone. (with background check if legal gun store, no check needed at many states gun shows or privet exchanges)

(06-18-2016 11:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

Assault weapons aren't purchased by the general public.

Then exactly who are they purchased by?

From my understanding they are allowed to be purchased by anyone. (with background check if legal gun store, no check needed at many states gun shows or privet exchanges)

The military.

As usual your understanding is incorrect.

(06-18-2016 11:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

Assault weapons aren't purchased by the general public.

Then exactly who are they purchased by?

From my understanding they are allowed to be purchased by anyone. (with background check if legal gun store, no check needed at many states gun shows or privet exchanges)

Individuals that have to pass the FBI background check.

(06-18-2016 11:22 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

Assault weapons aren't purchased by the general public.

Then exactly who are they purchased by?

From my understanding they are allowed to be purchased by anyone. (with background check if legal gun store, no check needed at many states gun shows or privet exchanges)

Individuals that have to pass the FBI background check.

not at many gun shows or private exchanges. The FBI background check is also limited.

I think any gun owner should be required to purchase liability insurance. The NRA should be able to provide for pennies since there is apparently little risk.

An assault weapon is a selective fire rifle meaning that is is capable of semi-automatic or fully automatic fire. You haven't been able to purchase a fully automatic weapon in this country without registering the weapon and paying a special tax since 1934. No one except the government can possess a fully automatic weapon manufactured after May 19, 1986. Every fully automatic weapon that was legally purchased by a private owner since 1934 has been registered with the federal government.

Omar Mateen committed his Orlando terrorist act with a semiautomatic firearm, not an assault weapon.

As I stated above, as usual your understanding of the issue is incorrect.

(06-18-2016 10:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

So you believe that the first and fifth amendments are sacrosanct but the 2nd amendment isn't.

Got it.

(06-18-2016 11:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I think any gun owner should be required to purchase liability insurance.

For what reason?

(06-18-2016 11:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:22 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The USA still has things like 'free speech' & ' innocent until proven guilty'.

While I am shocked and depressed by what happened, the issue is more why do we allow/need assault weapons to be purchased by the general public?

Assault weapons aren't purchased by the general public.

Then exactly who are they purchased by?

From my understanding they are allowed to be purchased by anyone. (with background check if legal gun store, no check needed at many states gun shows or privet exchanges)

Individuals that have to pass the FBI background check.

not at many gun shows or private exchanges. The FBI background check is also limited.

I think any gun owner should be required to purchase liability insurance. The NRA should be able to provide for pennies since there is apparently little risk.

The terrorist went to a gun store though, not a gun show. Liability insurance for a constitutional right? You know terrorists are not going to buy insurance.

(06-18-2016 12:39 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 11:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I think any gun owner should be required to purchase liability insurance.

For what reason?

He is a liberal