When these alt-left terrorist attacks are foiled, they just get a blurb in the local paper or a mention on Fox News, but when they shoot up a baseball field or a church, then we must have a national conversation about how their law-abiding political opponents have to turn in their guns. Go figure.

Quote:LEFTIST WHO WANTED TO KILL FIRST RESPONDERS FOUND WITH ARSENAL OF EXPLOSIVES

Christopher Langer supported anarchist, Occupy Wall Street groups

As even the left-wing Raw Story website acknowledges, “Langer had what appears to be a Guy Fawkes mask favored by left-wing and anarchist demonstrators, and his infrequently used Facebook page suggests support for Occupy Wall Street and Anonymous activism.”

https://www.infowars.com/leftist-who-wan...qus_thread

Quote:Former Student at O.C. University Charged After Allegedly Threatening ‘Killing Spree’ in Videos; Cache of Guns Seized

A man who allegedly sent a staff member at Soka University in Aliso Viejo threatening YouTube videos where he talked about a "killing spree" has been arrested, Orange County Sheriff’s Department officials announced Monday.

Investigators believe that Smith’s threats were credible and that an attack was possible.

http://ktla.com/2017/11/06/former-studen...be-videos/

Quote:Rabid Anti-Trumper Arrested in Calif. after Threatening to Go on Killing Spree

Smith has posted many videos ranting about the president.

In a video dated October 13, 2017, he lamented how President Trump is "systematically dismantling" his beloved Obama's "presidential legacy."

https://pjmedia.com/trending/rabid-anti-...ing-spree/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher...olice-say/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...a0d42d1a10

Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

But we <leftisthysterics> HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! </leftisthysterics>

(11-14-2017 01:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

But we <leftisthysterics> HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! </leftisthysterics>

I agree, it's time to label antifa, bamn, refuse fascism, revcom, and any other related alt-left/communist groups as domestic terrorist organizations, and implement a no-tolerance policy on their veiled threats.

It's not "cute" or "edgy" anymore.

Only good guys with explosives can stop bad guys with explosives, I suppose.

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

Yep, they work themselves into a mad lather of hatred. It is very concerning.

2 Alt-Left/Anti-Trump Terrorist Attacks Foiled By FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force

Trump Foiled Terrorist Attack

FIFY

(11-14-2017 01:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  But we <leftisthysterics> HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! </leftisthysterics>

Agreed. Arm the sheepdogs.

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

I find it intesting that attempts to impede mass shootings are seen by others as attempts to impede law abiding citizens.

Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

(11-14-2017 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

I find it intesting that attempts to impede mass shootings are seen by others as attempts to impede law abiding citizens.

Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

You may claim to find it interesting, but it's true. Other than an "assault weapons" ban (nonstarter) or universal background checks (which has proven to lead to registration which leads to confiscation, and the bad guys wouldn't follow it anyway), what are you proposing?

Regarding Vegas, too many suspicions and unanswered questions remain to be using that as an example for anything.

(11-14-2017 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

Up until the first shot.

I, however, have not shot anyone and outside of an embarrassing traffic ticket almost 8 years ago (my fault, totally) have had no issues with the law.

Yet, you still want to punish me for owning firearms.

(11-14-2017 02:25 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

I find it intesting that attempts to impede mass shootings are seen by others as attempts to impede law abiding citizens.

Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

You may claim to find it interesting, but it's true. Other than an "assault weapons" ban (nonstarter) or universal background checks (which has proven to lead to registration which leads to confiscation, and the bad guys wouldn't follow it anyway), what are you proposing?

Regarding Vegas, too many suspicions and unanswered questions remain to be using that as an example for anything.

There are no suspicions and unanswered questions. The man was a law abiding citizen. That's a fact. He had no record. That is a fact.

(11-14-2017 02:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

Up until the first shot.

I, however, have not shot anyone and outside of an embarrassing traffic ticket almost 8 years ago (my fault, totally) have had no issues with the law.

Yet, you still want to punish me for owning firearms.

No I do not. You have the right to own weapons just like the Vegas shooter did.

(11-14-2017 03:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:25 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you really need an explanation for why terrorist attacks that actually happen get more news than those that don't happen?

It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

I find it intesting that attempts to impede mass shootings are seen by others as attempts to impede law abiding citizens.

Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

You may claim to find it interesting, but it's true. Other than an "assault weapons" ban (nonstarter) or universal background checks (which has proven to lead to registration which leads to confiscation, and the bad guys wouldn't follow it anyway), what are you proposing?

Regarding Vegas, too many suspicions and unanswered questions remain to be using that as an example for anything.

There are no suspicions and unanswered questions. The man was a law abiding citizen. That's a fact. He had no record. That is a fact.

Yes, there are plenty. Once the official narrative started breaking down, they stopped having press conferences, stopped taking questions, and the fake news MSM completely stopped covering it.

Someone that killed 58 and shot 500 most certainly is not a "law abiding" citizen, but I'll humor you. How do you propose we legislate (again, with the two caveats of my previous post) someone that has never committed a crime, but has decided to commit mass murder? Brain chips? lulz

Admit it, you have no answers.

Starting to see reports that the shooter was a felon and that a neighbor, who's roommate was shot and killed and had his truck stolen, had evidently reported suspicious activity by the shooter.

Unverified at this point but if true it would seem to be a case where existing gun laws were ignored by the shooter (shocking I know) and authorities once again fell down on the job.


http://heavy.com/news/2017/11/rancho-teh...ol-deaths/

Quote:An eyewitness told the news media that his roommate was shot and killed and that there was one gunman, a felon. “Brian Flint …said he received a call in the morning that his roommate was injured and that his truck had been stolen too,” reported The Record Searchlight, quoting him as saying, “The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines. We made it aware that this guy is crazy and he’s been threatening us.”

(11-14-2017 03:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 03:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:25 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  It's not that they get more coverage, it's the fact that we need to get to the root of the problem (radical, alt-left terrorism), and stop attempting to impede the abilities of law-abiding citizens like Stephen Willeford.

I find it intesting that attempts to impede mass shootings are seen by others as attempts to impede law abiding citizens.

Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

You may claim to find it interesting, but it's true. Other than an "assault weapons" ban (nonstarter) or universal background checks (which has proven to lead to registration which leads to confiscation, and the bad guys wouldn't follow it anyway), what are you proposing?

Regarding Vegas, too many suspicions and unanswered questions remain to be using that as an example for anything.

There are no suspicions and unanswered questions. The man was a law abiding citizen. That's a fact. He had no record. That is a fact.

Yes, there are plenty. Once the official narrative started breaking down, they stopped having press conferences, stopped taking questions, and the fake news MSM completely stopped covering it.

Someone that killed 58 and shot 500 most certainly is not a "law abiding" citizen, but I'll humor you. How do you propose we legislate (again, with the two caveats of my previous post) someone that has never committed a crime, but has decided to commit mass murder? Brain chips? lulz

Admit it, you have no answers.

I'm not proposing that we do.

I'm simply pointing out that the argument that gun control only hurts law abiding citizens doesn't hold water because as the Vegas shooter demonstrated, even law abiding citizens can commit mass murder.

(11-14-2017 03:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 03:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 03:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:25 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I find it intesting that attempts to impede mass shootings are seen by others as attempts to impede law abiding citizens.

Let's not forget that the Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen.

You may claim to find it interesting, but it's true. Other than an "assault weapons" ban (nonstarter) or universal background checks (which has proven to lead to registration which leads to confiscation, and the bad guys wouldn't follow it anyway), what are you proposing?

Regarding Vegas, too many suspicions and unanswered questions remain to be using that as an example for anything.

There are no suspicions and unanswered questions. The man was a law abiding citizen. That's a fact. He had no record. That is a fact.

Yes, there are plenty. Once the official narrative started breaking down, they stopped having press conferences, stopped taking questions, and the fake news MSM completely stopped covering it.

Someone that killed 58 and shot 500 most certainly is not a "law abiding" citizen, but I'll humor you. How do you propose we legislate (again, with the two caveats of my previous post) someone that has never committed a crime, but has decided to commit mass murder? Brain chips? lulz

Admit it, you have no answers.

I'm not proposing that we do.

I'm simply pointing out that the argument that gun control only hurts law abiding citizens doesn't hold water because as the Vegas shooter demonstrated, even law abiding citizens can commit mass murder.

OK. Let's entertain your line of thought here.


Since you want to put unnecessary burdens both financially and in terms of time and effort on legal gun owners in some convoluted attempt to stop a mass shooting then you shouldn't have any problem with Voter ID laws right? I mean we are talking about a huge financial difference between a $10 ID and a $25 background check and a $25 at minimum FFL fee for the transfer of a weapon. Using your line of thought if it stops one illegal vote then it's worth the hardship it places upon others right?

(11-14-2017 03:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  even law abiding citizens can commit mass murder.

Yes, true. But unless you are telling me there is a PreCrime Unit of your local PD that knows what I am going to do in the future I am innocent until proven guilty, and your extra do-somethings will have negative impacts on me, the law abiding citizen.

No thanks.

This is the United States of America. We acknowledge our Constitutional right to the defense of our persons, property and liberty. We know this right does not come without cost, but we accept it.