JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
(1) his rights wouldn't be impacted and that

There are a frightening number of gun owners that feel that way, and so, have no concern over expanded BGC's or laws like I-594 or SB941. They are a big part of the problem as they often share these views with others and give even more credence to the anti's.
 
Heard another important detail - the murder spree happened over a 3 hour period, including a standoff where he barricaded himself in a bathroom with hostages. Orlando SWAT did a breach entry through a wall to get at him.

Obviously, being cunning enough to put himself in bathroom definitely implies a level of planning to this guy's madness. This was a planned massacre.
 
Just hearing some additional info on the shooter this morning:

* He had been interviewed by the FBI 3 times due to threats he had made to co-workers and claims to radical Islam as early as 2013
* He bought both guns within the last week, and passed the background checks
* As already noted yesterday, he was actively working security and carried a card that allowed him to purchase and carry firearms
* His ex-wife stated he was mentally unstable, bi-polar

So, knowing this, what the F is wrong with the FBI? Is this now the second, third mass shooting where they could have stopped someone from purchasing the guns they used? Tehy blew it, again. This guy had the combination of suspected terrorist ties plus mental illness, yet there was no flag put on his file to prevent a firearm purchase?? Goes to show BGC's don't work, they'll never work. The entire BGC system is a joke, only used to track American citizens that purchase firearms, and in addition, in the state of Oregon, a revenue generating tax levied against gun owners.

as much as it is tough to say it, you should not lose your rights until you are convicted of something. If we gave the FBI power to take away constitutional rights because they were investigating someone, they would clearly abuse that power. Just like they arent supposed to raid a house without a warrant

This is the price of freedom.
 
I would normally agree.
However in cases of terrorism with ties to terrorism, It a slippery slope for sure.

With this administration most of us are more likely to be considered terrorist than this guy.

But where does the line get drawn.
Do we let people just do this without trying to stop it?

I guess it's no different than our police force. They can't talk to people, ask for ID, frisk them, etc without offending someone and causing protests (riots)

Now they are just a report writing and response force.
They investigate AFTER a crime has happened.

Just like this guy, they knew he was dangerous, everyone around him knew he was a powder keg, fuse lit.

They need to take a hard look at his family.
Not sure if all the news about his father was true, but imhe seems like a contributor.
 
This guy's entire family is connected to Taliban the shooter followed a prison convert and NBP thug. In April the dad was in DC lobbying for the Taliban, his son sold his home to his sister for $10. Like the San Bernardino shooters this guy had a Green Card wife who fled once she had an anchor baby. #2 wife fled from his beatings. He was constantly using steroids and in his mosque, went to Saudi Arabia twice, worked for G4S security the same outfit that trucks OTM illegals inland for release into the US interior for Obama. Does anyone see a pattern here? Fundamentalist, Rabid Jihadi, Obama, DC contacts, unusual amounts of money, "Bungled FBI investigations" protected status because he's Muslim, access to weapons, possible SWAT training
 
This I am sure is crass to more then a few here but this is what I get from this story (sexual preference shouldn't even be in the dialogue IMO):

100 people were victims because not a single one of them was armed...

Largest shooting spree in US history because we have more gun free zones then ever - not because we have more crazies.



Oh, and my CCL should be all the BGC they need for either buying guns or selling guns or anything else they try to regulate.
 
as much as it is tough to say it, you should not lose your rights until you are convicted of something. If we gave the FBI power to take away constitutional rights because they were investigating someone, they would clearly abuse that power. Just like they arent supposed to raid a house without a warrant

This is the price of freedom.

My main purpose in posting what I did was to highlight the ineffectiveness of the FBI in such situations. I do agree, we should default to benefit of the doubt for Americans and not unduly restrict their rights, particularly over hearsay.

But I have to wonder where we do draw the line. My wife, when she was a day care provider, was a 'mandatory reporter' of certain events. All she had to do was suspect any kind of child abuse and she was required by law to report it. I suspect, as a physician that list grows longer for you. So I would wonder, where is the line that you have to draw? I'd be curious to know that conditions would mandate a report by you? I'm not sure I've really heard what those are before.

This guy is now noted by a former co-worker as having made personal threats to him. He also noted this guy made repeated statements about wanting to kill blacks, jews and gays. He had mentioned ties to radical Islam. The FBI interviewed him over the potential connection to radical Islam at least 3 times. His ex-wife said he was bi-polar and had physically assaulted her and their child. So my question is, at what point does a line get drawn - at least to the point where the FBI flags his record so any attempt to purchase firearms at least gets closer scrutiny?

I'm not advocating for going overboard on every person that expresses dislike for the country, politicians or even certain groups. And I know we can't stop all of these types of incidents. But in this case, each new piece of information that comes out seems to highlight the fact that this guy wasn't unknown and he certainly had a number of red flags in his behavior and actions. Seems like they simply let this one slip through their fingers.
 
This I am sure is crass to more then a few here but this is what I get from this story (sexual preference shouldn't even be in the dialogue IMO):

100 people were victims because not a single one of them was armed...

Largest shooting spree in US history because we have more gun free zones then ever - not because we have more crazies.



Oh, and my CCL should be all the BGC they need for either buying guns or selling guns or anything else they try to regulate.

I read in a story this morning about the limited number of exits from this nightclub, leaving many unable to escape. Seems to me, as a country we still haven't solved THIS problem, much less worrying about guns. In February 2003, 100 people were killed and 230 were injured in a night club fire in RI. One of the biggest contributing factor were not enough exits and blocked exits. This event didn't kill or injure even half that number, but the focus will be on guns. Why not focus on night clubs and how dangerous they are??

Because, as I've said over and over and over and over again - this has NEVER been about saving lives, it's only about control - beginning with taking guns out of our hands.
 
When are all the Super Powers of the world (US, Russia, China, etc) going to all sit at one big table and say enough is enough.

Why would they want to do that? This sort of thing justifies the existence of the leaders. Hell, the US government had a hand in creating ISIS. If they'd left Syria alone and stopped shipping arms to supposed "good" rebels it would not have formed in the first place.

So, knowing this, what the F is wrong with the FBI? Is this now the second, third mass shooting where they could have stopped someone from purchasing the guns they used?

This is the government you are talking about, where there are no downsides for incompetence - even assuming it's not in their interest to arm these people (remember Fast & Furious, hmmm? :oops: )

There are a frightening number of gun owners that feel that way

We are our own worst enemies.

Just like this guy, they knew he was dangerous, everyone around him knew he was a powder keg, fuse lit.

That is the wrong path. You are talking gun control. Gun control is not here to protect us - trust me on this.

The correct path is 1) assume there will always be dangers in this world, no matter how "benevolent" the government is, and 2) don't disarm potential victims. The latter point means don't disarm anybody, since anybody can be a victim.

This event was a failure of gun control, plain and simple (and I DON'T mean in keeping guns out of the attacker's hands, but in having 300 disarmed victims in one place). Keep that fact in your sights, and don't get sidetracked into advocating more gun control.

Just to make my point completely clear, imagine there was no gun control at all. This scenario would not have changed the situation for the attacker one bit, but would there would have been multiple armed responses to the shooting, immediately too, not after 3 hours. Attackers should be killed, and I mean, RIGHT NOW.
 
Last Edited:
My main purpose in posting what I did was to highlight the ineffectiveness of the FBI in such situations. I do agree, we should default to benefit of the doubt for Americans and not unduly restrict their rights, particularly over hearsay.

But I have to wonder where we do draw the line. My wife, when she was a day care provider, was a 'mandatory reporter' of certain events. All she had to do was suspect any kind of child abuse and she was required by law to report it. I suspect, as a physician that list grows longer for you. So I would wonder, where is the line that you have to draw? I'd be curious to know that conditions would mandate a report by you? I'm not sure I've really heard what those are before.

This guy is now noted by a former co-worker as having made personal threats to him. He also noted this guy made repeated statements about wanting to kill blacks, jews and gays. He had mentioned ties to radical Islam. The FBI interviewed him over the potential connection to radical Islam at least 3 times. His ex-wife said he was bi-polar and had physically assaulted her and their child. So my question is, at what point does a line get drawn - at least to the point where the FBI flags his record so any attempt to purchase firearms at least gets closer scrutiny?

I'm not advocating for going overboard on every person that expresses dislike for the country, politicians or even certain groups. And I know we can't stop all of these types of incidents. But in this case, each new piece of information that comes out seems to highlight the fact that this guy wasn't unknown and he certainly had a number of red flags in his behavior and actions. Seems like they simply let this one slip through their fingers.


Instead of trillions of dollars spent on spying on us, recording all our phone calls, paying for useless TSA body scanner machines, they should have had someone watching this guy 24/7 after the clues he gave. Just like the San Bernadino idiots, and the Boston bombers.
 
This is the government you are talking about, where there are no downsides for incompetence - even assuming it's not in their interest to arm these people (remember Fast & Furious, hmmm? :oops: )

Yes, my post was primarily rhetorical in nature. Simply meant to highlight their incompetence and inability to provide the 'protection' of American citizens they claim to be able to do.
 
Instead of trillions of dollars spent on spying on us, recording all our phone calls, paying for useless TSA body scanner machines, they should have had someone watching this guy 24/7 after the clues he gave. Just like the San Bernadino idiots, and the Boston bombers.

No. No, no, no.

You are still assuming those in government are here for us. They victimize us every day (through taxes if nothing else), and you still put your trust in them.

Instead of spending billions on spying on us, they shouldn't be spying on anybody. They are not interested in stopping bad guys - not after they just got done spending billions in the Middle East, creating those very same bad guys. They are interested in stopping YOU.

This is not to say it is the intention of every person who draws a government pay check to turn us into slaves; but pretty much all of them will follow orders that have the same effect, as long as their bosses want it so. What percentage of FBI agents would refuse to enforce a gun confiscation order? Precious few I think.
 
I was hanging out with a buddy yesterday, a gun owner, and we briefly discussed this event. I was very surprised to hear him say he felt more BGCs are needed. This is a guy who, while he probably doesn't really realize it, has very libertarian leanings. His comment was, "If someone wants to buy a gun, they should be just like me". Since he's never bought through an FFL, I listed some circumstances that could disqualify someone along with reminding him that this particular terrorist was a U.S. citizen that passed several BGCs.
He got quiet then changed the subject. Not sure if he reconsidered his position or just didn't want to debate. I just found it striking that someone that typically has such a hands-off-my-rights stance on most issues was immediately ready to give up everyone else's rights because he assumed that (1) his rights wouldn't be impacted and that (2) it would would have saved lives in a situation like this. Mind boggling.

Seems like more people who were converted are changing their tune due to pressure from family and friends. My good friend included, he gets tight-lipped and changes the subject when this bull-bubblegum happens. I think he is wanting to live in a fantasy world again, time to get him straightened out again or let him slip into another circle, void of me.:(
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top