Fl shooter told the FBI the CIA was forcing him to watch ISIS videos. He had a GUN with him too.. What do you think happened to his GUN??

Hello f:

Really??   I can't buy a gun because of government controls.  I AM heartened, though, that you see a need for people like me to be well armed..

excon This post was edited by excon at January 9, 2017 3:41 PM MST

I am disheartened knowing that our government, historically, would sooner arm militants and dictators in the Middle East than its own citizens who've been out of jail and off parole for a length a time without further offense.

Consider the hypocrisy of officials that would claim the American People have no hypothetical right to use arms to throw off tyrannical government, yet the Syrian People do and we should provide them with the means of such. Like I said, they do a poor job of deciding who should and shouldn't be armed. Saddam Hussein comes to mind.

By the way, a felon can regain their right to a firearm in the state of Louisiana if they've been off parole without arrest for 10 years or more. Just saying.

Hello again, F:

By the way, a felon can regain their right to a firearm in the state of Louisiana if they've been off parole without arrest for 10 years or more. Just saying.

Very cool.  But, that SOUNDS like a GUN LAW, and one that WORKS.  I thought, you thought, they didn't work.

excon This post was edited by excon at January 9, 2017 9:54 AM MST

I have no problem with law being used to legalize freedoms, that is its true purpose. imo. In fact, I even think legalization is itself a control.

The law in question is an automatic pardon, thus complete restoration of all citizen rights upon completion of sentence. It includes the right to hold office and own / possess a firearm, but wasn't crafted exclusively for either. It's part of the constitution of the state.

@FNdR -- Right, because private citizens have legitimate need for hand grenades, RPGs, aircraft carriers, and nuclear warheads...;-D...

Saddam Hussein didn't need nerve gas, but our government gave it to him. Our government is as bad at deciding what people do and don't need as they are who should and shouldn't be armed.

Americans don't need to consume alcohol, but it's legal. Private citizens* don't need vehicles that move at speeds of 220mph, but we buy them. We don't need cell-phones that type messages we can just as easily speak verbally, but we have them and that technology behind the wheel leads to more deaths annually than firearms. Both of the former pose a risk to 'public safety,' and yet they're completely legal.

There are loads of things that I own that I don't absolutely need. I suspect you likely have many items you don't absolutely need as well.


This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 9, 2017 10:08 AM MST

@FNdR -- Actually, SH did "need" nerve gas. Iran is a much larger and more populous country than Iraq. Had the US NOT supported SH against Iran, it is likely the Iranians would have kicked SH's butt into the Persian Gulf.

You can argue that the US government's geopolitical goal in the that conflict was hypocritical and/or short-sighted (and I would largely agree with you), but when war breaks out, conventional definitions of "need" go out the window.

Meanwhile, if you want to argue that guns should be regulated like alcoholic beverages (which must meet purity standards, have strict limits on time/place/manner of sale in many jurisdictions, etc.) or Bugatti Veyrons (which must meet an extensive array of safety, fuel economy, emmissions, etc. standards, which are registered with the government and all sales transfers MUST be reported, and whose operators MUST show they are trained/licensed and insured against any damages they might cause) you go right ahead.

I suspect you weren't attempting to make my arguements for me, but that's what happens when you start with bad analogies...;-D...

Nope, just pointing out that whether or not a person needs a particular thing has nothing to do with whether or not said thing should be legal.

But thank you for noting that the exhaustive regulatory efforts you mentioned above still fail to ensure total safety of the aforementioned objects.

Hello S:

Huh??  I think you're missing WHO is on WHAT side in terms of gun control laws..  Right wingers DON'T want 'em..  Liberals DO.. 

excon

So you deny law enforcement has any deterrent effect whatsoever?

OK, let's abolish all law enforcement agencies and go back to Law of the Jungle. See how that works for you...;-D..

.....just passing through....

No , I concede they serve an important function.

Are they a deterrent? That's a big no.   They are a reactionary force to spank offenders after a crime.   For law enforcement to be of any effect in preventing crime then there needs to be total control over the population and that's kinda worse.  There's a balancing act.
The militarized and abusive policing we see today is the direct result of trying to prevent crime before it happens and the outcome is showing to be worse than the problem it is intended to solve.  Safety starts with the individual.


Clearly the FBI didn't even bother to react to this individual.  They just let him go.  Makes one wonder their motives. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at January 9, 2017 3:39 PM MST

@Glis -- Wow, it's amazing how someone as bright as you can get something so wrong.

Re: Police deterrence -- Yes, having the threat of law enforcement punishment IS a deterrent to crime. It is not a 100% perfect deterrent because criminals, in general, are not capable of rational long-term cost/benefit analyses (for a variety of reasons). But there's a mountain of evidence suggesting crime dramatically increases when law enforcement is withdrawn from society.

The militarized and abusive police practices we see in modern times are the result of what the voters want. So long as voters vote for such policies and fail to hold law enforcement (and their enabling politicians) accountable for abuse, we'll get what we've been seeing. Of course, most voters believe such policies will only ever be enacted against N*gg*rs, Spics, Dirty Ebil Libruhl Hippy Scum, and F***ING HADJIS...er, poor/urban/ethnic people, and since those elements of the population aren't "Real Americans", who gives a f**k what happens to them.

The FBI reacted to the individual in question according to the law. While they had good reason to be suspicious of the person's sanity, our current firearms laws grant great leeway to individuals being able to retain their arms unless the State is given some compelling reason to remove them. Firearms ownership advocates would argue this is a Good Thing (and, in the abstract, I agree).

If you would prefer the FBI confiscate people's weapons without due process on the suspicion they are dangerous whack-jobs, please feel free to do so. It would not be in keeping with your other apparent attitudes towards government power/behavior.

I never said anything about removing law enforcement.   Yet it is purely a reactionary force in a non-totalitarian society. 

You're cherry picking statements and basing arguments on pure conjecture again.


You're right.  The militarized policing is the result of what people want.   The voting public has voted that they want police to prevent crime and have all their safety put into their hands.   Society then wants to ignore the equated outcome of being stopped and frisked for no reason and having heavy handed policing with kicking peoples doors down as that is the only real way such a task can be completed.   the voters want to have their cake and eat it to these days.  The police can't prevent you from being robbed unless they stop and harass everyone.  they can't prevent you from being a victim, only you can mitigate that. Unless you want the police to become a threat to your and everyone's right to walk around without being stopped and questioned for just walking or driving around.  the balance is way out of whack.

@Glis -- You cannot have it both ways. Either the implicit threat of arrest/prosecution/incarceration deters crime or it doesn't.

The problem is, of course, iif a potential criminal doesn't rob/mug/murder me because he thinks, "Gee, I could do that. But I might be arrested and go to jail", we have NO WAY of measuring that, except at the statistical level. The asymmetry between being able to measure crimes committed versus crimes deterred (and your ideological proclivities) are what mislead you into your ridiculous assertions.

Moreover, police do not have to be abusive or totalitarian to deter crime. We can compare crime rates in different locales using different policiing methods and see which ones are more effective (or, at least, which ones have little or no effect).

But, of course, such sophisticated analyses neither fit the 10-second-sound-bite requirements of our Mass Media Culture nor do they appeal to the authoritarian impulse to PUNISH THE BAD PEOPLE! like calls to "get tough on crime" do, so we get a population who largely supports the policing we've recently seen (at least against poor/urban/ethnic/immigrant populations).

Ideological proclivities.   that's funny coming from you on this thread.   You trying to say you don't have a narrow focus based on your Utopian ideological proclivities?   Sorry dude,  you make good points and have a big brain on you, but your flaw is your inflated ego and inability to accept to sides to a coin.  It's all ideology and us against them.  You complain about the black and white mentalities ruining our society and then give black and white solutions.  You're just as one sided and looking through rose colored glassed just as the people and mentalities you despise are.  Either someone agrees with you 100% or you go off whining about how wrong and stupid they are because they have a slightly different perspective or acknowledge other variables.   You complain about authoritarians, but you yourself have a strong authoritarian bent.


I do agree with the last paragraph though