Page 15 of 30

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 9th, '17, 13:08
by Mister Moose
freeski wrote:Most of the time I agree with you, but you're the only one in the country that doesn't see this should have been prevented.
Better make that at least 2.

How do we know he didn't already own the gun before his FBI interview?
What degree of psychiatric treatment warrants a removal of your 2nd amendment rights? You can't just say all/any.
How was the flight even related to the event? He could have just as easily walked in off the street, the flight was incidental.

We live in an open society. Bad people are everywhere. Good people snap and do bad things. Removing all risk, or even just trying will remove our open society.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 9th, '17, 14:14
by freeski
He was denied bail today. Do you agree? Should we give him his gun back and hope for the best?
Is he more dangerous now than when he went to the FBI and said the government was making him watch ISIS videos? :roll: He was involuntarily committed, that's the bar for loosing your gun and it's pretty high.
BTW, I never said he should loose his right to fly. Don't think he'll be flying anywhere soon, at least not without US Marshals.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 9th, '17, 14:29
by XtremeJibber2001
freeski wrote:He was denied bail today. Do you agree? Should we give him his gun back and hope for the best?
Is he more dangerous now than when he went to the FBI and said the government was making him watch ISIS videos? :roll: He was involuntarily committed, that's the bar for loosing your gun and it's pretty high.
BTW, I never said he should loose his right to fly. Don't think he'll be flying anywhere soon, at least not without US Marshals.
It's rare someone who shoot's another is given bail and I don't think that's what Moose and I are suggesting. You can't willy nilly enforce rules that are unsupported by the laws on the books.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 9th, '17, 14:35
by freeski
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
freeski wrote:He was denied bail today. Do you agree? Should we give him his gun back and hope for the best?
Is he more dangerous now than when he went to the FBI and said the government was making him watch ISIS videos? :roll: He was involuntarily committed, that's the bar for loosing your gun and it's pretty high.
BTW, I never said he should loose his right to fly. Don't think he'll be flying anywhere soon, at least not without US Marshals.
It's rare someone who shoot's another is given bail and I don't think that's what Moose and I are suggesting. You can't willy nilly enforce rules that are unsupported by the laws on the books.
Involuntarily committed is the law. His gun was pulled and he got it back despite his family saying he lost his mind. He was interviewed at least 3 times by the police. FBI, local and I hope a third before they gave the gun back.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 9th, '17, 14:53
by Bubba
freeski wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
freeski wrote:He was denied bail today. Do you agree? Should we give him his gun back and hope for the best?
Is he more dangerous now than when he went to the FBI and said the government was making him watch ISIS videos? :roll: He was involuntarily committed, that's the bar for loosing your gun and it's pretty high.
BTW, I never said he should loose his right to fly. Don't think he'll be flying anywhere soon, at least not without US Marshals.
It's rare someone who shoot's another is given bail and I don't think that's what Moose and I are suggesting. You can't willy nilly enforce rules that are unsupported by the laws on the books.
Involuntarily committed is the law. His gun was pulled and he got it back despite his family saying he lost his mind. He was interviewed at least 3 times by the police. FBI, local and I hope a third before they gave the gun back.
I do not believe that he was involuntarily committed, rather, he was referred by the authorities for psychological evaluation and subsequently released. Involuntary commitment suggests that a court order is required. Furthermore, the comments from his family came after the fact and were not part of the original referral.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 9th, '17, 17:07
by freeski
My gripe is if he goes to the FBI mumbling about ISIS they should have done something besides handing him over to the locals. How many of these terrorists have the FBI had their hands on and released: Orlando-Omar Mateen, NY-Ahmad Rahami and Boston-Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Add this guy to the list. Maybe the locals didn't go to a judge, but why was he dropped by the FBI. Couldn't he be considered a terrorist suspect with less rights? How many times does this have to happen. One of these days a terrorist is going to have a huge body count and he'll likely be on the FBI's radar. Look for Trump to make changes.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 10th, '17, 08:56
by XtremeJibber2001
freeski wrote:My gripe is if he goes to the FBI mumbling about ISIS they should have done something besides handing him over to the locals. How many of these terrorists have the FBI had their hands on and released: Orlando-Omar Mateen, NY-Ahmad Rahami and Boston-Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Add this guy to the list. Maybe the locals didn't go to a judge, but why was he dropped by the FBI. Couldn't he be considered a terrorist suspect with less rights? How many times does this have to happen. One of these days a terrorist is going to have a huge body count and he'll likely be on the FBI's radar. Look for Trump to make changes.
I don't think there are laws permitting the FBI to detain anyone saying something about ISIS. Our freedom is a greatest asset and, at time, our greatest weakness. I don't think we want the FBI to detain people willy nilly based on ramblings on social media or hearsay from third-parties.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 10th, '17, 12:58
by freeski
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
freeski wrote:My gripe is if he goes to the FBI mumbling about ISIS they should have done something besides handing him over to the locals. How many of these terrorists have the FBI had their hands on and released: Orlando-Omar Mateen, NY-Ahmad Rahami and Boston-Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Add this guy to the list. Maybe the locals didn't go to a judge, but why was he dropped by the FBI. Couldn't he be considered a terrorist suspect with less rights? How many times does this have to happen. One of these days a terrorist is going to have a huge body count and he'll likely be on the FBI's radar. Look for Trump to make changes.
I don't think there are laws permitting the FBI to detain anyone saying something about ISIS. Our freedom is a greatest asset and, at time, our greatest weakness. I don't think we want the FBI to detain people willy nilly based on ramblings on social media or hearsay from third-parties.
He was in the FBI office and had a gun in his car. If we're going to stop/reduce the attacks the FBI needs to act against terrorists the same way as the SS does when the president is threatened.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 10th, '17, 18:58
by brownman
In our lifetimes, many of us have witnessed or dodged LIVE horror and terror all the way back to Jack Ruby.
Including my wife's phone call from 1 block away from the Boston Marathon bombing .. and my imagination running wild when authorities cut all communications from the Back Bay during her call. No longer shocked when these tragedies occur, regardless of the deed and the perp, I have grown essentially numb to these events.

After the fact, we often discover connections that would lead one to believe these events are completely preventable.
In a Country of laws, it's often impossible to take what looks, in hindsight, to be the appropriate action.
No entity can possibly prevent all of these misguided and hopelessly lost souls from carrying out their 'call to action'.

Just be thankful that your guardian angel is watching out for you. :wink:

:Toast

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 30th, '17, 07:29
by madhatter
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-2 ... s-reported" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 30th, '17, 07:33
by madhatter
By a margin of 48 percent to 42 percent, voters supported “suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees.”

A plurality of voters also said they would support requiring immigrants from Muslim-majority nations to register with American officials.

Fifty-three percent agreed and 41 percent opposed such an idea.


http://ilovemyfreedom.org/boom-quinnipi ... ral-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 30th, '17, 07:41
by XtremeJibber2001
The ban is ridiculous. I don't agree with it, not even a little. If you're going to do the ban ... sh1t at least include those Saudis Arabia fukcers.

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 30th, '17, 07:58
by madhatter
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:The ban is ridiculous. I don't agree with it, not even a little. If you're going to do the ban ... sh1t at least include those Saudis Arabia fukcers.
we have diplomatic relations w that country so that's not going to happen...

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 30th, '17, 08:23
by XtremeJibber2001
madhatter wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:The ban is ridiculous. I don't agree with it, not even a little. If you're going to do the ban ... sh1t at least include those Saudis Arabia fukcers.
we have diplomatic relations w that country so that's not going to happen...
So the ban isn't to keep America safe, but just to protect us from citizens of countries we're not friends with?

Re: More Muslim Violence

Posted: Jan 30th, '17, 08:44
by Bubba
madhatter wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:The ban is ridiculous. I don't agree with it, not even a little. If you're going to do the ban ... sh1t at least include those Saudis Arabia fukcers.
we have diplomatic relations w that country so that's not going to happen...
Ahem...we have diplomatic relations with a number of the countries on the list.