Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History

[deepstate2016]

S

What does "radicalize" even mean? That implies some sort of involuntarily magical transformation with some sort of neutral medium at the outset. Using that dumb suggestion, Catholics and Methodists could be "radicalized" to walk into a gay bar and decimate 100 people.

God help us 20 years from now when we look back at the hesitation to act that would make Neville Chamberlain blush.

Radicalized in this context is to change the perception of the united states from a friend or at least neutral to a perception that we are the great Satan that is to be fought by every means necessary. You can see examples of this in the united states in fringes of political movements in the left and the right. In any population most are neutral in a conflict some sympathize and some fight. Radicalization just shifts more people from neutral to supporters to fighters.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[chfo]

 

[powermd]

Would any of you have an objection to, say, the FBI getting a text message or something when someone on their watch list buys a firearm? Just a question.

 

[lymphocyte]

Would any of you have an objection to, say, the FBI getting a text message or something when someone on their watch list buys a firearm? Just a question.

Interestingly, at a very recent town-hall, Obama disclosed that he had just spent the morning in the situation room being briefed about a self-professed ISIS supporter buying semi-automatic rifles. There was nothing that could be done. Even enhanced surveillance was out of the question since no laws had been broken.

There's gotta be a limit...

 

[deleted480308]

Would any of you have an objection to, say, the FBI getting a text message or something when someone on their watch list buys a firearm? Just a question.

yes...innocent until proven guilty for american citizens.

Interestingly, at a very recent town-hall, Obama disclosed that he had just spent the morning in the situation room being briefed about a self-professed ISIS supporter buying semi-automatic rifles. There was nothing that could be done. Even enhanced surveillance was out of the question since no laws had been broken.

There's gotta be a limit...

That's the limit. Convict someone of a crime. Until then, you can't and shouldn't be able to do anything to them.

 

[deleted480308]

In America it's harder to get good pizza than it is to get a semiautomatic weapon... That's definitely a tragedy. I would much rather have a quality slice for a last meal than a bullet.

I've bought a number of both....and pizza is much easier

@Fluffhead87 that was an interesting theme, and ultimately I think it made a key point... The vast majority of these perpetrators are on suicide missions, and the congested arenas that they take place in are ultimately the key to their success... We obviously can't dismantle society to accomodate psycopaths so the only logical deterrent is make it harder for them to access weapons and/or access points of entry to buildings and events. The common argument is that gun control doesn't stop criminals, and I think that might be true for gangsters, drug dealers and other high level criminals, but I live in a state with strict gun laws and as such would have no idea who to approach to get a effin' AR15!!!... It only seems like common sense to make it harder for them to gain access to weapons as well as access to locations.

California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, plenty of shootings there

Can't say I disagree... Personally I was trained safely with firearms at a young age and believe they have their place in society, but I can't pretend that we don't have a cultural issue going on with misuse (grossly understated) of firearms in the US... I would trade in my firearms in a heartbeat if it meant saving 1 life let alone 50 or 100... Problem is that's a leap of faith the vast majority don't want to take.

I would not trade mine in. Banning cars, alcohol, and knives would also save lives...I'm not turning all those in either.

 

[lymphocyte]

yes...innocent until proven guilty for american citizens.
That's the limit. Convict someone of a crime. Until then, you can't and shouldn't be able to do anything to them.

Yeah, that's why you change the laws. That's the point Obama was making.

Again, even Reagan was an enthusiastic supporter of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. I was a member of the NRA for 6 years and support a broad interpretation of the second amendment. But it doesn't make sense that's harder to get a driver's license than to buy a semi-automatic rifle. We can't prevent gun violence but we can easily limit its scope. Ain't nobody killing 50+ with a pistol.

 

[deleted480308]

Yeah, that's why you change the laws. That's the point Obama was making.

Again, even Reagan was an enthusiastic supporter of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. I was a member of the NRA for 6 years and support a broad interpretation of the second amendment. But it doesn't make sense that's harder to get a driver's license than buy a semi-automatic rifle. We can't prevent gun violence but we can limit its scope. Ain't nobody killing 50+ with a pistol.

30+ people at VT...

but, specifically which law do you want to enact that would have stopped a man with no disqualifying criminal record that had a obtained a security guard license from buying a gun?

 

[Hoya11]

I am frustrated reading about the details of this guy because he SHOULD have been identified. Young male from high risk country, loner, abused his wife, divorced, known anti-gay sentiment, talking about killing people, goes and buys a weapon that can do this damage. He was interviewed by the feds for concerns of terrorism. Then later is allowed to buy an assault rifle. This is not about whether an everyday person is allowed to do these things, this guy, with all these warning signs should definitely be on a list denying him access to weapons capable of this level of destruction.

I think the newtown incident, where you have this weird psychotic hermit from within their own society who was being hidden by his family while he turned into a monster, was more difficult to predict/prevent. This recent shooting is from a guy who clearly raised concerns and was still allowed to buy an assault rifle. I have a low threshold for denying an individuals right to assault rifle.

Beyond all that, once an individual who was investigated for terrorism does indeed buy an assault rifle, dont you think it should set off some kind of alarm to the police for temporary investigation?

 

[deleted480308]

I am frustrated reading about the details of this guy because he SHOULD have been identified. Young male from high risk country, loner, abused his wife, divorced, known anti-gay sentiment, talking about killing people, goes and buys a weapon that can do this damage. He was interviewed by the feds for concerns of terrorism. Then later is allowed to buy an assault rifle. This is not about whether an everyday person is allowed to do these things, this guy, with all these warning signs should definitely be on a list denying him access to weapons capable of this level of destruction.

I think the newtown incident, where you have this weird psychotic hermit from within their own society who was being hidden by his family while he turned into a monster, was more difficult to predict/prevent. This recent shooting is from a guy who clearly raised concerns and was still allowed to buy an assault rifle. I have a low threshold for denying an individuals right to assault rifle.

Beyond all that, once an individual who was investigated for terrorism does indeed buy an assault rifle, dont you think it should set off some kind of alarm to the police for temporary investigation?

Young male from high risk country......American citizen, the rest doesn't matter
loner......once again doesn't matter
abused his wife.......as I understand it, she never filed (which legally means the same as didn't happen). One domestic abuse conviction and he's done with firearms.
divorced........you can't be serious about this meaning anything
known anti-gay sentiment.......makes him crappy but it's not even close to being illegal, you want to ban all the christians from having guns because you think they're antigay?
not to police he wasn't.....we have laws for people making verifiable threats to picked up and charged
goes and buys a weapon that can do this damage....all weapons can do damage. As a non-criminal with legally obtained security guard license there isn't remotely anything legal that should be able to stop an american citizen in that status from buying a firearm. I get the intention to think you can design a system that stops the crazy.....but crazy doesn't respond to laws.

 

[lymphocyte]

30+ people at VT...

but, specifically which law do you want to enact that would have stopped a man with no disqualifying criminal record that had a obtained a security guard license from buying a gun?

Pardon, but the VT guy used semi-automatic pistols. Why would a security guard need semi-automatic pistols? Why would most people need any kind of semi-automatic weapon without an extensive background check and training? The point is, somebody that unstable, who had already been reported by the school psychologist, wouldn't have passed an extensive background check.

The Second Amendment was written when guns were single-shot and manual loading. Even an originalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights doesn't support the right to semi-automatic weapons. Notably, the Scalia Supreme Court turned down review of this very issue several times despite upholding a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment under Heller. It just doesn't hold up.

Also, 8 out of the 10 worst American gun massacres have occurred after the Assault Weapons Ban lapsed. All of those massacres involved semi-automatic weapons. This is an empirical fact. This ban would be the law I would enact, and it would probably save a lot of lives (like Reagan and some House Republicans correctly anticipated in 1994).

Tongue-in-cheek: You still haven't answered my question if you're paying your way through residency? I know you live in Galt's Gulch, but GME is funded through Medicare, you know...

 

[deleted480308]

Pardon, but the VT guy used semi-automatic pistols. Why would a security guard need semi-automatic pistols? Why would most people need any kind of semi-automatic weapon without an extensive background check and training?

The Second Amendment was written when guns were single-shot and manual loading. Even an originalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights doesn't support the right to semi-automatic weapons. Notably, the Scalia Supreme Court turned down review of this very issue several times despite upholding a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment under Heller. It just doesn't hold up.

Also, 8 out of the 10 worst American gun massacres have occurred after the Assault Weapons Ban lapsed. All of those massacres involved semi-automatic weapons. This is an empirical fact. This ban would be the law I would enact. (Like Reagan and the House Republicans supported in 1994.)

Tongue-in-cheek: You still haven't answered my question if you're self-funding through residency? GME is funded through Medicare, you know...

semiautomatic pistols are used because that's what is useful. You certainly wouldn't want to end up in a gun fight having to manually reload after every shot. You wouldn't even want to need a gun against a knife wielding attacker with a gun that only shot once. That's patently absurd. No police dept in the country would ever use single shot pistols/rifle as the norm. Our military doesn't use single shot pistols/rifles (barring very specific items). There isn't a reason at all to restrict private citizens from the same effective level of self-defense.

 

[lymphocyte]

semiautomatic pistols are used because that's what is useful. You certainly wouldn't want to end up in a gun fight having to manually reload after every shot. You wouldn't even want to need a gun against a knife wielding attacker with a gun that only shot once. That's patently absurd. No police dept in the country would ever use single shot pistols/rifle as the norm. Our military doesn't use single shot pistols/rifles (barring very specific items). There isn't a reason at all to restrict private citizens from the same effective level of self-defense.

Yes, in fact there are over a dozen: over a dozen children in Sandy Hook, over a dozen people in San Bernadino, and well over a dozen people in Orlando.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes, in fact there are over a dozen: over a dozen children in Sandy Hook, over a dozen people in San Bernadino, and well over a dozen people in Orlando.

who were all unarmed because of legal philosophies like yours (in cali, they would have been legal only to open carry without the gun loaded, which you can imagine is problematic for defense)

but those are not reasons to stop others from self-defense

 

[lymphocyte]

who were all unarmed because of legal philosophies like yours (in cali, they would have been legal only to open carry without the gun loaded, which you can imagine is problematic for defense)

but those are not reasons to stop others from self-defense

You seem grossly misinformed.

Can you kindly explain to me who has been "unarmed" since the Heller decision? In fact, all states now offer some form of concealed carry. And in California, there is no system of firearms registration, there is no owner license required, most counties are eliminating the "good cause" requirement for a CCW permit, and there's only a 10 day waiting period. I have owned guns in California. It has never been easier.

By the way, Florida also has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's actually a felony under Florida law to create a registry or record of firearm owners, ISIS member or not.

But okay. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because when facts meet ideology... ideology tends to bludgeon its way to victory.

 

[deleted480308]

You seem grossly misinformed.

Can you kindly explain to me who has been "unarmed" since the Heller decision? In fact, all states now offer some form of concealed carry. And in California, there is no system of firearms registration, there is no owner license required, most counties are eliminating the "good cause" requirement for a CCW permit, and there's only a 10 day waiting period. I have owned guns in California. It has never been easier.

By the way, Florida also has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's actually a felony under Florida law to create a registry of firearm owners.

But okay. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because when facts meet ideology... ideology tends to bludgeon its way to victory.

you mentioned sandy hook, which is a school property making it illegal for the staff to carry on campus
you mentioned san bernadino, which unless I'm mistaken was at a state facility where guns would be not allowed
you mentioned the pulse shooting, which due to Fl law is barred from firearms as well due to it's alcohol status

 

[CantStop_WontStop]

I've bought a number of both....and pizza is much easier

Yeahhh I thought this was obviously not meant to be taken literally....

California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, plenty of shootings there

so does Chicago.... but what's your point? both states are also surrounded by states that have extremely lax gun laws.... making it much easier for a single person to get their hands on weapons and transport them across borders... single states enacting these laws while others don't is one of the key issues here.

I would not trade mine in. Banning cars, alcohol, and knives would also save lives...I'm not turning all those in either.

Please enlighten me on the last time in history that a car (other than a car bomb), alcohol, knives, or pizza were used to intentionally slaughter 100 people at one opportune time??? I drive to work and school with my car, my knife comes in handy when I need to cut my fishing line, alcohol I'll take or leave, and pizza is a godsend...

What do you or any other person possibly need an AR15 for, or any gun for that matter... mine haven't been fired in over ten years, and not once have I been in a situation that I felt I needed one for "protection". For home protection, get a 12 gauge... beyond that I don't see the point.

And if you read my other posts I thought I made it clear that I don't think enacting gun laws is the end all be all of stopping violence, but it could be one critical step in the process along with putting other measures into place... come on man, treat the whole patient not just the symptoms

 

[deleted480308]

Please enlighten me on the last time in history that a car (other than a car bomb), alcohol, knives, or pizza were used to intentionally slaughter 100 people at one opportune time??? I drive to work and school with my car, my knife comes in handy when I need to cut my fishing line, alcohol I'll take or leave, and pizza is a godsend...

What do you or any other person possibly need an AR15 for, or any gun for that matter... mine haven't been fired in over ten years, and not once have I been in a situation that I felt I needed one for "protection". For home protection, get a 12 gauge... beyond that I don't see the point.

And if you read my other posts I thought I made it clear that I don't think enacting gun laws is the end all be all of stopping violence, but it could be one critical step in the process along with putting other measures into place... come on man, treat the whole patient not just the symptoms

boxcutters killed 3000+ onn 9/11

the rifle is a great home defense tool. It's also a great tool for the citizens to have at their disposal should a govt get out of control. If you like your shotgun, then keep it...I'll make the firearm decisions for my family, you make them for yours.

I'll repeat here that far more people die due to pistols...and even more than that to cars/bats/knives

 

[chfo]

 

[chfo]

 

[chfo]

 

[jwk]

Pardon, but the VT guy used semi-automatic pistols. Why would a security guard need semi-automatic pistols? Why would most people need any kind of semi-automatic weapon without an extensive background check and training? The point is, somebody that unstable, who had already been reported by the school psychologist, wouldn't have passed an extensive background check.

Either you don't understand what a semi-automatic weapon is or you're ignoring it. A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires each time the trigger is pulled, and that doesn't have to be reloaded after each shot. A revolver is a semi-automatic weapon. A double barreled shotgun is technically a semi-automatic weapon. I think a lot of uniformed people toss out the "semi-automatic" and "AR-15" terms to the equally uninformed to make is sound like these are military machine guns.

So your solution is that only single shot firearms should be legal?

 

[jwk]

What do you or any other person possibly need an AR15 for, or any gun for that matter... mine haven't been fired in over ten years, and not once have I been in a situation that I felt I needed one for "protection". For home protection, get a 12 gauge... beyond that I don't see the point.

At times like these, sales (and prices) of semi-automatic rifles of all sorts go through the roof. Why? Because people like you say "what do you or any other person possible need an AR15 for, or any gun for that matter". I don't have one - but I might go buy one just to have it.

 

[lymphocyte]

Either you don't understand what a semi-automatic weapon is or you're ignoring it. A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires each time the trigger is pulled, and that doesn't have to be reloaded after each shot. A revolver is a semi-automatic weapon. A double barreled shotgun is technically a semi-automatic weapon. I think a lot of uniformed people toss out the "semi-automatic" and "AR-15" terms to the equally uninformed to make is sound like these are military machine guns.

So your solution is that only single shot firearms should be legal?

Having been trained to use both, I understand the distinction well thank you.

Most firearms should be legal. That is the law under Heller. I support that.

But most firearms should not be readily available. Under Florida law, for example, it's a felony to keep a list of known ISIS-supporters who purchase a dozen guns each. How does that make sense? Why do I have to spend months learning how to drive a car but can purchase a semi-automatic over the Internet? Again, 8 out of the 10 worst gun-massacres in US history occurred after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban lapsed. All of those massacres involved assault weapons. Bring back the Ban that Reagan supported. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Of course we can be more lax in regulating single-shot guns. Why? Because they simply have less destructive capacity. Sliding scale.

Remember how the Second Amendment begins? "A well regulated militia --"

Sorry I don't have any cartoons or memes to support my point.

 

[deleted480308]

Having been trained to use both, I understand the distinction well thank you.

Most firearms should be legal. That is the law under Heller. I support that.

But most firearms should not be readily available. Under Florida law, for example, it's a felony to keep a list of known ISIS-supporters who purchase a dozen guns each. How does that make sense? Why do I have to spend months learning how to drive a car but can purchase a semi-automatic over the Internet? Again, 8 out of the 10 worst gun-massacres in US history occurred after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban lapsed. All of these massacres involved assault weapons. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Sorry I don't have any cartoons or memes to support my point.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is an extremely important principle. Being on a list that isn't formed by evidence in open court with a jury of your peers should not be used to bar your from rights as a citizen. And you can't legally buy a firearm over the internet from a dealer without a background check.

But back to specifics, you did say that you see no need for semi-automatic firearms.....do you support the banning of them?

 

[lymphocyte]

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is an extremely important principle. Being on a list that isn't formed by evidence in open court with a jury of your peers should not be used to bar your from rights as a citizen. And you can't legally buy a firearm over the internet from a dealer without a background check.

But back to specifics, you did say that you see no need for semi-automatic firearms.....do you support the banning of them?

Nope. Under Heller, the law permits semi-automatic firearms. They should be available but not readily so. As an aside, it's frankly insulting to people who actually train for and use these weapons that any bozo can buy one.

Again, remember how the Second Amendment begins? "A well regulated militia --"

You can have your guns but regulation comes with it.

Please use common sense here. Known ISIS supporter buys a dozen assault rifles--and you can't even keep a list? It's a felony if you do? Ooooookay. What rights, exactly, are infringed if you keep a list? Seriously. Name them. With references to the Bill of Rights please. And case law if you can find it. What if the ISIS supporter buys a lot of nitrate fertilizer? Are you against them being listed too? How far down the rabbit hole are you going here?

Yeah, yeah. Galt this, and Galt that. When ideology meets facts, it'll bludgeon its way to victory. (I'm still waiting on your answer to your GME funding and Medicare.)

 

[deepstate2016]

Really these incidents are not the thing to hang the control argument on.
1. This was a planned attack, this assault could and would buy these weapons as long as they existed. No gun control law was going to stop him. Period.
2. Even if we lived in a world where these firearms did not exist then it would have been a fertilizer fuel oil bomb.

 

[deleted480308]

Nope. Under Heller, the law permits semi-automatic firearms. They should be available but not readily so. As an aside, it's frankly insulting to people who actually train for and use these weapons that any bozo can buy one.

Again, remember how the Second Amendment begins? "A well regulated militia --"

You can have your guns but regulation comes with it.

Please use common sense here. Known ISIS supporter buys a dozen assault rifles--and you can't even keep a list? It's a felony if you do? Ooooookay. What rights, exactly, are infringed if you do keep a list? Seriously. Name them. With references to the Bill of Rights please. And case law if you can find it. What if the ISIS supporter buys a lot of nitrate fertilizer? Are you against them being listed too? How far down the rabbit hole are you going here?

Yeah, yeah. Galt this, and Galt that. When ideology meets facts, it'll bludgeon its way to victory. (I'm still waiting on your answer to your GME funding and Medicare. Feel free to PM me; as a reformed libertarian, I'm genuinely curious.)

the point of the rights to a firearm is that any bozo can go buy one.....the bozo has a right to defend their family just as much as any wannnabe swat afficionado

the militia clause does not remotely imply that the right isn't for the private individual

As for the list, what would you do with the list? What good is a list of citizens who legally have a right to an item and haven't been convicted of any crimes?

 

[lymphocyte]

Really these incidents are not the thing to hang the control argument on.
1. This was a planned attack, this assault could and would buy these weapons as long as they existed. No gun control law was going to stop him. Period.
2. Even if we lived in a world where these firearms did not exist then it would have been a fertilizer fuel oil bomb.

1. Sooooooo utterly false. This guy was on a FBI watch list. Visited twice. Yet we couldn't by law surveille him or stop him from buying an AR-15. The laws prevented us from taking action.

2. Thankfully, we now strictly regulate the sale of nitrate fertilizer. Destructive capacity deserves a sliding scale of regulation. "A well regulated militia --"

 

[deleted480308]

1. Sooooooo utterly false. This guy was on a FBI watch list. Visited twice. Yet we couldn't by law surveille him or stop him from buying an AR-15. The laws prevented us from taking action.
2. Thankfully, we now strictly regulate the sale of nitrate fertilizer. Destructive capacity deserves a sliding scale of regulation. "A well regulated militia --"

it is not ok to stop citizens who have not been convicted of a crime from accessing their rights

 

[lymphocyte]

the point of the rights to a firearm is that any bozo can go buy one.....the bozo has a right to defend their family just as much as any wannnabe swat afficionado

the militia clause does not remotely imply that the right isn't for the private individual

As for the list, what would you do with the list? What good is a list of citizens who legally have a right to an item and haven't been convicted of any crimes?

You're reacting to liberal memes and not actually reading what I'm writing. It was the "well regulated" part that matters. Even the Scalia court took that to mean some regulation was permissible.

The bozo can do whatever he wants. He should just get some training and have an extensive background check. "A well regulated militia --"

And for the love of Gd, can you please cite the Bill of Rights? Or case law? Or facts?

Regarding the list: heightened surveillance at the very least. If you're in a public place, you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[ZzzPlz]

There's always this idea thrown around during times like these that say if every citizen had a concealed firearm during these incidents that someone would have stopped the shooting.... I'm not saying that I think it's right or wrong because I just don't know for sure, but I never hear about proper training for firearms being a requirement... to me, "more permissive" concealed carry permits sounds like it's easier for just about anyone to get a concealed weapon... but just because people can get a weapon doesn't mean they should. How many people in society are actually capable of being in a traumatically stressful situation while using a firearm appropriately? what stops a chain reaction of friendly fire once the shooting begins because nobody knows who is the actual "bad-guy" but just cares about saving themselves and their loved ones, so they decide to shoot everyone with a gun that isn't part of their group?

Hopefully they would have enough common sense to just shoot the guy yelling radical Muslim war cries

 

[lymphocyte]

it is not ok to stop citizens who have not been convicted of a crime from accessing their rights

@sb247, defending the rights of known ISIS supporters since 2016!

 

[urge]

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.

Matthew 10:13
If the home is worthy, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.

Mark 6:11
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that place, as a testimony against them.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44).

Old west adage:
"God created men, Sam Colt made them equal".

 

[deleted480308]

@sb247, defending the rights of known ISIS supporters since 2016! You're voting for Hillary aren't you?

And heightened surveillance in a public setting violates nobody's rights; there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

do all the surveillance you want with a warrant, what you can't do properly is stop someone from using a constitutionally recognized right without due process that includes an open trial with a jury of their peers. The constitution is pretty clear on innocent until proven guilty.

 

[lymphocyte]

do all the surveillance you want with a warrant, what you can't do properly is stop someone from using a constitutionally recognized right without due process that includes an open trial with a jury of their peers. The constitution is pretty clear on innocent until proven guilty.

You don't need a warrant to surveille in a public setting.

Due process doesn't have to include an open trial and rarely does.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "innocent until proven guilty."

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[deleted480308]

You don't need a warrant to surveille in a public setting.

Due process doesn't have to include an open trial and rarely does.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "innocent until proven guilty."

You clearly have no clue about what you're talking about.

5th amendment... "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"....we don't get to start cancelling rights without that process, which in America, means a trial defined by the 6th amendement as "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

 

[chfo]

It's ironic that leftists want to ban guns, but they don't want to ban those who swear allegiance to ISIS.

 

[deepstate2016]

1. Sooooooo utterly false. This guy was on a FBI watch list. Visited twice. Yet we couldn't by law surveille him or stop him from buying an AR-15. The laws prevented us from taking action.

2. Thankfully, we now strictly regulate the sale of nitrate fertilizer. Destructive capacity deserves a sliding scale of regulation. "A well regulated militia utterly true, he did buy the weapons legally, but do you really think he would not have purchased them illegally?



Sooooo true, while he may have purchased these weapons legally do you really think he would not have purchased them illegally?
I use the fertilizer fuel oil bomb as an example but there are multiple means of producing large explosions. This was a premeditated act with a specific goal. In our society ultimately impossible to stop without fundamentally changing our society.

 

[lymphocyte]

5th amendment... "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"....we don't get to start cancelling rights without that process, which in America, means a trial defined by the 6th amendement as "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Just keep digging man.

1. Kindly clarify where due process of law entitles one to an open trial. There's such a thing as administrative due process, civil procedural due process, etc. FISA is a great example of administrative due process that most definetly side-steps open trials. These are all well-established legal doctrines. If you want to turn back the clock to the 1600s, feel free. But I live in 2016 and violent terrorists are trying to buy assault weapons.

2. Criminal prosecution is not due process of law, though due process of law is owed in criminal prosecution.

3. You're conflating the 5th and 6th amendments. Separate legal doctrines. Separate legal interpretations.

4. You're citing the Bill of Rights, which is not the Constitution. Still waiting for your "innocent until proven guilty" quote.

 

[chfo]

 

[deleted480308]

Just keep digging man.

1. Kindly clarify where due process of law entitles one to an open trial. There's such a thing as administrative due process, civil procedural due process, etc. FISA is a great example of administrative due process that most definetly side-steps open trials. These are all well-established legal doctrines. If you want to turn back the clock to the 1600s, feel free. But I live in 2016 and ISIS is trying to kill us.

2. Criminal prosecution is not due process of law, though due process of law is owed in criminal prosecution.

3. You're conflating the 5th and 6th amendments. Separate legal doctrines. Separate legal interpretations.

4. You're citing the Bill of Rights, which is not the Constitution. Still waiting for your "innocent until proven guilty" quote.

1. The 6th clearly states "public" as one of aspects of trials that citizens have a right to....I don't care what secret proceedings the govt has started, they are not ok
2. to have your rights taken away, you should have to be convicted of something....I don't know what else to tell you
3. No, they both apply
4. They are amendments to the Constitution and part of the document...

 

[lymphocyte]

1. Forget about purchasing them. The FBI could have been following him. Why did the law stop us from following a known ISIS supporter who bought an AR-15? Why is it a felony to keep a registry of known ISIS supporters who buy weapons in Florida?

2. "There are multiple means of producing large explosions." Really? How good's your chemistry? The sale of most reducing agents are tightly monitored. Good luck.

 

[deleted480308]

1. Forget about purchasing them. The FBI could have been following him. Why did the law stop us from following a known ISIS supporter who bought an AR-15? Why is it a felony to keep a registry of known ISIS supporters who buy weapons in Florida?

2. "There are multiple means of producing large explosions." Really? How good's your chemistry? The sale of most reducing agents are tightly monitored. Good luck.

for the same reason it would have been wrong to keep list of communist sympathizers with guns under mccarthy.....until a citizen commits a crime or communicates that they are going to and is brought before a court, we can't start suspending rights

 

[lymphocyte]

1. The 6th clearly states "public" as one of aspects of trials that citizens have a right to....I don't care what secret proceedings the govt has started, they are not ok
2. to have your rights taken away, you should have to be convicted of something....I don't know what else to tell you
3. No, they both apply
4. They are amendments to the Constitution and part of the document...

You clearly have no idea what "due process" means. It's a (hopefully) fair proceeding to deprive someone of something. That's it. In the case of a criminal prosecution, you have the right to an open trial but in more than 95% of cases, that right is not exercised. An open trial is relatively rare. An administrative proceeding can also deprive you of your rights. For example, in the case of psychiatry, you can, in fact, be involuntarily detained on an administrative basis (or, temporarily, on the basis of a doctor's testimony). Due process is owed, but has nothing to do with a jury trial. These are all well-espoused legal doctrines.

Still waiting for your "innocent until proven guilty" quote.

If you really want to talk due process, let's bring up the 14th Amendment. You can take all the time you need to Google and copy/paste what you find.

 

[lymphocyte]

for the same reason it would have been wrong to keep list of communist sympathizers with guns under mccarthy.....until a citizen commits a crime or communicates that they are going to and is brought before a court, we can't start suspending rights

How is following someone in public suspending their rights? Again, please cite something.

 

[deleted480308]

You clearly have no idea what "due process" means. It's a fair proceeding to deprive someone of something. That's it. In the case of a criminal prosecution, you have the right to an open trial but in more than 95% of cases, that right is not exercised. An open trial is relatively rare. An administrative proceeding can also deprive you of your rights. For example, in the case of psychiatry, you can, in fact, be involuntarily detained on an administrative basis (or, temporarily, on the basis of a doctor's testimony). These are all well-espoused legal doctrines.

If you really want to talk due process, let's bring up the 14th Amendment. You can take all the time you need to Google and copy/paste what you find.

I'm not in support of violating anyone's defense rights without a conviction of some sort...I'm also not in favor of administrative processes that do the same without the right to mount a defense...so the govt violating rights in other ways isn't a defense to do it in this way

feel free to discuss the 14th if you'd like, but I'm not going to guess your argument so when you articulate it, I'll respond

 

[deleted480308]

How is following someone in public suspending their rights? Again, please cite something.

who said following in public was illegal? follow all you want in public

 

[deepstate2016]

1. Forget about purchasing them. The FBI could have been following him. Why did the law stop us from following a known ISIS supporter who bought an AR-15? Why is it a felony to keep a registry of known ISIS supporters who buy weapons in Florida?

2. "There are multiple means of producing large explosions." Really? How good's your chemistry? The sale of most reducing agents are tightly monitored. Good luck.

But they were not, why? Could have something to do with that pesky constitution and bill of rights. Was he a known supporter of Isis? Is there some master list everyone can consult? As for explosives propane tanks would just rock it out I suspect the government simply does not have the control you assume.

I repeat a planned attack by an individual who is willing to die is nearly impossible to stop.

 

[lymphocyte]

I'm not in support of violating anyone's defense rights without a conviction of some sort...I'm also not in favor of administrative processes that do the same without the right to mount a defense...so the govt violating rights in other ways isn't a defense to do it in this way

feel free to discuss the 14th if you'd like, but I'm not going to guess your argument so when you articulate it, I'll respond

Dude... you're floundering. You almost always have the right to mount a defense. That's usually part of due process. But you mentioned, specifically, this ridiculous notion of "an open trial" being part and parcel of due process. That's very rarely the case.

I frankly don't care what you're "in favour of." I'm only in favour of two things: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Built on top of those two documents is a rich legal tradition with beautifully articulated arguments and ideas.

But no, what you're doing is grasping at bits of phrases you've heard or Googled but never really studied.

I wish you all the best, but I'm truly tapping out.

who said following in public was illegal? follow all you want in public

That is indeed what I said... repeatedly.