jamesjazzguitar Posted July 31, 2019 13 hours ago, Princess of Tap said: One of the first things the FBI did was to check the murderer's social media pages. When you espouse violence and hatred, it's a good chance that you will create violence to consummate that Hatred... The Ku Klux Klan did not get their reputation by just talking about violence. When we get a good and responsible federal government up there-- A Department of Justice that cares about the welfare of All American citizens-- One of their first priorities will be absolutely doing something about this white domestic terrorism. So what type of changes to the law or law enforcement are you asking for? E.g. major restrictions on 1st Amendment rights related to "hate" speech? (but speech that doesn't actively promote violence, which is already illegal). FBI access so they can read anyone's private blogs, e-mails, phone calls, etc.. WITHOUT a warrant? I ask because after 9\11 a lot of folks, but especially conservatives, wanted such measures, but of course, only against Muslim living in America. I hope we can agree that if we allow the Feds to use more aggressive tactics, such tactics should be apply fairly equally to all groups that have a tenancy to commit violence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jamesjazzguitar Posted July 31, 2019 I believe most know that the Gilroy shooter purchased a gun, illegal in CA, in the state of Nevada. This was a violation of: As of January 1, 2015, a law in California supplants the federal law. It, too, prohibits California residents from buying guns out of state and simply driving home with them (or shipping them home). Now, the seller must ship to a licensed California dealer, who will treat the event like any in-state transaction, involving the waiting period, background check, and safety certificate. What I wonder about is if the Nevada gun dealer violated any laws by not following the CA law above (and in CA one has to be 21 and the shooter was only 19). It appears he did not since these laws only apply WITHIN CA. To me this is something the Feds should address that MAY BE the GOP could get behind (verses having Federal laws like the above and universal background checks etc.. which he GOP will never get behind). Made it a Federal crime to sell a gun to an out-of-state residence, period. No more mail orders, no more going to an out-of-state gun show to purchase a gun etc.... Of course maybe the head-in-the-sand GOP Senate is against such a compromise. (and could such laws be unconstitutional due to the commerce clause????). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCid Posted July 31, 2019 52 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said: I believe most know that the Gilroy shooter purchased a gun, illegal in CA, in the state of Nevada. This was a violation of: As of January 1, 2015, a law in California supplants the federal law. It, too, prohibits California residents from buying guns out of state and simply driving home with them (or shipping them home). Now, the seller must ship to a licensed California dealer, who will treat the event like any in-state transaction, involving the waiting period, background check, and safety certificate. What I wonder about is if the Nevada gun dealer violated any laws by not following the CA law above (and in CA one has to be 21 and the shooter was only 19). It appears he did not since these laws only apply WITHIN CA. To me this is something the Feds should address that MAY BE the GOP could get behind (verses having Federal laws like the above and universal background checks etc.. which he GOP will never get behind). Made it a Federal crime to sell a gun to an out-of-state residence, period. No more mail orders, no more going to an out-of-state gun show to purchase a gun etc.... Of course maybe the head-in-the-sand GOP Senate is against such a compromise. (and could such laws be unconstitutional due to the commerce clause????). No Republican and few Democrats would vote for such a law. It would not be a violation of the Commerce Clause as such. The Feds could require that the seller ascertain completely whether or not the purchaser can make a purchase and if so have the gun delivered to his home of record. They could require valid proof of home of record. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jamesjazzguitar Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, TheCid said: No Republican and few Democrats would vote for such a law. It would not be a violation of the Commerce Clause as such. The Feds could require that the seller ascertain completely whether or not the purchaser can make a purchase and if so have the gun delivered to his home of record. They could require valid proof of home of record. Even few Dems? Man, I didn't view these type of laws as being too narrow or 'harsh'. Note that I believe it should apply to the selling of marijuana as well. E.g. I meet a guy from Arizona. He had just come from a CA Pot store and was going back to AZ. Later on I though; this isn't right. Someone should have to be a CA residence 21-or-older to purchase pot in CA. (CA pot stores can't ship out-of-state so that is already controlled). It is my understanding a majority of Dems in Congress support universal background checks, must-be-21-to-purchase, and a ban on certain weapons. If a member of Congress agrees with those type of laws at the Federal level, why would they be opposed to Federal law changes that make it easier for a state to enforce similar state laws? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCid Posted July 31, 2019 23 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said: Even few Dems? Man, I didn't view these type of laws as being too narrow or 'harsh'. Note that I believe it should apply to the selling of marijuana as well. E.g. I meet a guy from Arizona. He had just come from a CA Pot store and was going back to AZ. Later on I though; this isn't right. Someone should have to be a CA residence 21-or-older to purchase pot in CA. (CA pot stores can't ship out-of-state so that is already controlled). It is my understanding a majority of Dems in Congress support universal background checks, must-be-21-to-purchase, and a ban on certain weapons. If a member of Congress agrees with those type of laws at the Federal level, why wouldn't they be opposed to Federal law changes that make it easier for a state to enforce similar state laws? Note I said a few Dems, not the majority. I think the issue for some Dems is that they come from states/districts with lots of anti-gun legislation voters. That is one reason why many (any?) gun restriction laws were never passed when Dems controlled House, Senate and White House. It is far easier to say you support those laws when you are in the minority and know the GOPers will never even bring them to the floor. Then you don't have to defend your vote when you run for re-election. I believe that some Dems have even run as "pro-gun." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jamesjazzguitar Posted July 31, 2019 13 minutes ago, TheCid said: Note I said a few Dems, not the majority. I think the issue for some Dems is that they come from states/districts with lots of anti-gun legislation voters. That is one reason why many (any?) gun restriction laws were never passed when Dems controlled House, Senate and White House. It is far easier to say you support those laws when you are in the minority and know the GOPers will never even bring them to the floor. Then you don't have to defend your vote when you run for re-election. I believe that some Dems have even run as "pro-gun." One would hope these Dems politicians could convince pro-gun voters that the type of Federal laws I'm proposing do NOT impact their specific state / districts gun rights. They only assist OTHER states in enforcing their laws. E.g. a 19 year old, can still purchase a AK-47 type weapon if their state law allow such. It is just that an OUT-OF-STATE person can't do so. But, sadly I believe you could be right because Dem politicians don't know how to sell their ideas. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCid Posted July 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said: One would hope these Dems politicians could convince pro-gun voters that the type of Federal laws I'm proposing do NOT impact their specific state / districts gun rights. They only assist OTHER states in enforcing their laws. E.g. a 19 year old, can still purchase a AK-47 type weapon if their state law allow such. It is just that an OUT-OF-STATE person can't do so. But, sadly I believe you could be right because Dem politicians don't know how to sell their ideas. What you say is logical and makes perfect sense, but I know a lot of gun owners and they are neither logical nor sensible. ANY restrictions of ANY kind on guns is anathema to them. Unfortunately they are a block that votes in every election and this is the overriding issue for them. Not to mention the NRA and its extensive propaganda machine. Its not Dems being unable to sell their ideas; it is an audience which is unwilling to entertain any deviation from current situation. In fact, they want to reverse current gun restrictions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jamesjazzguitar Posted July 31, 2019 21 minutes ago, TheCid said: What you say is logical and makes perfect sense, but I know a lot of gun owners and they are neither logical nor sensible. ANY restrictions of ANY kind on guns is anathema to them. Unfortunately they are a block that votes in every election and this is the overriding issue for them. Not to mention the NRA and its extensive propaganda machine. Its not Dems being unable to sell their ideas; it is an audience which is unwilling to entertain any deviation from current situation. In fact, they want to reverse current gun restrictions. It was my understanding that the percentage of these hardcore gun-owners continues to decrease, especially with the increase in mass-shootings. Didn't I see a poll where even a majority of NRA members disagreed with the NRA's no-restrictions stances? Anyhow, you could be right, which means the odds of any Federal gun-control bills getting passed are nill. This week some in CA called for border checks! Funny but generally CA pols don't support border checks to ensure illegal immigrants don't cross over but now some are calling on border check points to check for guns. Of course this is impractical since there are two many entry points between AZ and NV; states with 'weak' gun-control laws. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr6666 Posted August 3, 2019 El Paso mall shooting: Multiple people dead, suspect in custody, police say "We’re praying for the victims, the community & our associates, as well as the first responders," Walmart said in a statement on Twitter. Multiple people are dead, with at least 18 taken to hospitals Saturday after a shooting near a shopping mall in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement officials said. One suspect, a man, is in custody, police said. A second person was also taken into custody by authorities, but it is not immediately known what role, if any, the person played in the shooting, sources familiar with the investigation told NBC News. El Paso police said the initial calls about the incident came at about 10 a.m. local time. By about 1 p.m. police said there was no imminent threat at that point. Earlier, in several tweets, police urged people to stay away from the area near the Cielo Vista mall due to an "active shooter.".......... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/active-shooter-near-el-paso-mall-police-responding-n1039001 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr6666 Posted August 3, 2019 @MSNBC · 1h Multiple people are dead, and at least 18 have been taken to hospitals after a shooting near a shopping mall in El Paso, according to law enforcement officials. One person is in custody; reports of multiple shooters appear inaccurate. =============================== @SethAbramson I hadn't realized until today that concealed-carry laws can create mayhem during mass shootings in a way that has nothing to do with crossfire: bystanders will report anyone brandishing a gun as a possible shooter —meaning first responders have no idea how many suspects there are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess of Tap Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, mr6666 said: El Paso mall shooting: Multiple people dead, suspect in custody, police say "We’re praying for the victims, the community & our associates, as well as the first responders," Walmart said in a statement on Twitter. Multiple people are dead, with at least 18 taken to hospitals Saturday after a shooting near a shopping mall in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement officials said. One suspect, a man, is in custody, police said. A second person was also taken into custody by authorities, but it is not immediately known what role, if any, the person played in the shooting, sources familiar with the investigation told NBC News. El Paso police said the initial calls about the incident came at about 10 a.m. local time. By about 1 p.m. police said there was no imminent threat at that point. Earlier, in several tweets, police urged people to stay away from the area near the Cielo Vista mall due to an "active shooter.".......... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/active-shooter-near-el-paso-mall-police-responding-n1039001 Also this week-- Did anybody on this website take note of the Mississippi Walmart mass shooting? I think there may have been several others, but it's getting so commonplace that it's hard for the average person to keep track of them. Though, it does seem the media focuses on one at a time. And the one this week was at the Northern California Garlic Festival. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jamesjazzguitar Posted August 3, 2019 Just now, Princess of Tap said: Also this week-- Did anybody on this website take note of the Mississippi Walmart mass shooting? I think there may have been several others, but it's getting so commonplace that it's it's hard for the average person to keep track of them. Though, it does seem the media focuses on one at a time. And the one this week was at the Northern California Garlic Festival. Yea, I'm wondering if Walmart is a target because of their policy change to not sell certain types of weapons and only to those 21 and older. A gun nut decides that such a place is a good place for his last stand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess of Tap Posted August 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said: Yea, I'm wondering if Walmart is a target because of their policy change to not sell certain types of weapons and only to those 21 and older. A gun nut decides that such a place is a good place for his last stand. The Walmart shooting in Mississippi was a work-related issue about man who had been fired and came back with a gun to settle his grievances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr6666 Posted August 3, 2019 3. This is one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history. Regardless of whether the final number of dead grows from nineteen, this is already one of the deadliest shootings in modern American history. It’s also the fourth of the ten deadliest shootings in the country to have taken place in Texas—joining Sutherland Springs, the 1991 Luby’s Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, and the 1966 shooting at the University of Texas tower on that awful list. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/what-we-know-mass-shooting-cielo-vista-mall-walmart-el-paso/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr6666 Posted August 3, 2019 @cmclymer I'm from Texas. Here are some of our gun laws: -- NO state permit required to purchase -- NO firearm registration -- NO owner license required -- NO assault weapon law -- NO magazine capacity restriction -- NO background check required for private sales #ElPaso 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr6666 Posted August 3, 2019 @JorgeClipper · 2h Replying to @cmclymer But hey @GregAbbott_TX not happy with gun sales in Texas. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess of Tap Posted August 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, mr6666 said: @JorgeClipper · 2h Replying to @cmclymer But hey @GregAbbott_TX not happy with gun sales in Texas. I think Texas is a leader in capital punishment in the United States as well. Yippee yo ki-yay! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sukhov Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said: Yea, I'm wondering if Walmart is a target because of their policy change to not sell certain types of weapons and only to those 21 and older. A gun nut decides that such a place is a good place for his last stand. Unlikely. I read in an article that he was influenced by Brenton Tarrant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LawrenceA Posted August 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said: Unlikely. I read in an article that he was influenced by Brenton Tarrant. That's the New Zealand mosque shooter, for any of those who don't have the names of the all of the mass shooters memorized. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bogie56 Posted August 4, 2019 Wolf Blitzer spoke with the Texas Attorney General trying to assertain what kind of weapon the El Paso shooter used. Then Wolf asked him what could be done to stop these kinds of mass murders. The AG's answer was "awarenesss." Awareness saves lies apparently - so I guess today's victims weren't "aware." 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess of Tap Posted August 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bogie56 said: Wolf Blitzer spoke with the Texas Attorney General trying to assertain what kind of weapon the El Paso shooter used. Then Wolf asked him what could be done to stop these kinds of mass murders. The AG's answer was "awarenesss." Awareness saves lies apparently - so I guess today's victims weren't "aware." AK-47: Same weapon used at the Garlic Festival......... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hamradio Posted August 4, 2019 How Did The AK-47 Became The Most Abundant Gun On Earth? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/how-did-the-ak-47-become-the-most-abundant-weapon-on-earth-2124407.html https://twobirdsflyingpub.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/modernization-of-the-ak47/ Mikhail Kalashnikov inventor of the AK-47 Ice Cube Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr6666 Posted August 4, 2019 Matt Pearce @mattdpearce · 14m This is interesting: @oneunderscore__ reports that law enforcement saw the manifesto before the shooting: “Law enforcement was analyzing the document before the shooting began but were unable to verify the author’s identity or potential target in advance.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigators-reasonably-confident-texas-suspect-left-anti-immigrant-screed-tipped-n1039031 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hamradio Posted August 4, 2019 El Paso shooter had anti government and anti corporation views. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigators-reasonably-confident-texas-suspect-left-anti-immigrant-screed-tipped-n1039031 Excerpt.. The document criticized both Democrats and Republicans and expressed anti-government and anti- corporate views. The author claimed to have developed those beliefs before Trump’s presidency. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess of Tap Posted August 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, hamradio said: El Paso shooter had anti government and anti corporation views. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigators-reasonably-confident-texas-suspect-left-anti-immigrant-screed-tipped-n1039031 Excerpt.. The document criticized both Democrats and Republicans and expressed anti-government and anti- corporate views. The author claimed to have developed those beliefs before Trump’s presidency. You mean when trump was just a racist birther and trying to get the Central Park 5 teenagers executed. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
