Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

I like the direction BO was heading with Saudi Arabia... not labeling them an enemy, but certainly keeping them at a distance. One of my concerns with Hillary is her relationship with SA and what that means over the next 4-8 yrs. I'd rather see us turn our backs on SA and let them deal with their creations.

Agreed.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Great points, Hack on Saudi and Egypt. 100% in agreement with you regarding how the US should be dealing with the Saudis.

Huge error in our antiterrorism strategy is keeping these people as our allies. They are the seat in the ME of authoritarianism which has had widespread impact on the post t WWII ME. One can trace the initial cause of Arab discontent to the House of Saud.

[Da Geezer]

Pulse was a gun-free zone, and the were ZERO guns in the club (as of this morning's news.) The owner of the private club banned guns, not the government. Reloading the AR-15 would have given ample time for someone with a concealed handgun to begin to fight back. Shooters tend to attack places where there are no guns, be the shooter an Islamicist or a nut case attacking a school. One approach that the media and the government will never suggest is more guns so that maybe there would have been some on scene among 320 patrons. I know everyone here will throw up their hands and say "there goes the reactionary again", but Americans have a history of self-protection. There has not been another jet hijacked for use as a weapon since 9/11. I happen to believe that is in part because the passengers took down the plane in PA. It took Americans a couple of hours to make that leap (from quiet acquiescence and hoping to land safely in Cuba or someplace) to eliminating the weapon and dying in doing so. The same thing happened on the train in France when the shooter happened to pick a car in which there were some Americans. This threat will be with us, but we are uniquely suited to protecting ourselves.

Also, Mateen worked for a CIA subcontractor firm and carried the same weapons as a CIA agent would every day. His job included vetting immigrants. He was able to buy the weapons, in large part, because he had a g-card in FL.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Outlaw all public sales of magazine-fed weapons. If you cannot protect yourself or your home with a revolver, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle, then you are unable to protect yourself in the first place.

Unfortunately that's not going to work now, because there are enough magazine-fed weapons floating around out there to fuel the black market for decades, assuming we could prevent their import to begin with

Not going to work? How far would you go? I can think a few ways to round these weapons up or at least create a huge dent in the black market supply after you have done what you are calling for legislatively.

Is something like this - a national program to remove these weapons from public hands - an intrusion on your civil liberties?

[Rocky Bleier]

Guns have been around for centuries. What has changed is the proliferation of ideological, hate-filled, religious nut-jobs in the world. Another "assault rifle" ban won't do anything to change that. A car bomb might be used in the next incident. Armalite (AR) style rifles will fly off the shelves the minute Hillary is elected, and some will be sold at huge profit in the event of a ban. I know a few people who are planning to buy soon because they believe she will be the next president. The stock prices of Smith and Wesson and Sturm Ruger both increased today. You aren't going to convince Americans to give up their guns when they're vulnerable to terrorists in their own neighborhoods.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......One approach that the media and the government will never suggest is more guns so that maybe there would have been some guns on scene among 320 patrons. I know everyone here will throw up their hands and say "there goes the reactionary again", but Americans have a history of self-protection. There has not been another jet hijacked for use as a weapon since 9/11. I happen to believe that is in part because the passengers took down the plane in PA. It took Americans a couple of hours to make that leap (from quiet acquiescence and hoping to land safely in Cuba or someplace) to eliminating the weapon and dying in doing so. The same thing happened on the train in France when the shooter happened to pick a car in which there were some Americans. This threat will be with us, but we are uniquely suited to protecting ourselves.

I don't have a problem with this approach, Geezer. It's effectiveness however, seems to be limited and you've named two isolated incidence where it was. We've had 20 or so mass shootings in the US, more world wide.

I'm all for learning self defense whether one is using a weapon or otherwise, (e.g., escape and evade) to do it but it isn't going to work on a scale that is required to stop terrorist acts.

[froot loops]

The facts are established: There was a mass shooting. The perpetrator declared allegiance to ISIS via a 911 call while he held hostages. The FBI had him on a terrorist watch list and interviewed him twice ....... and I agree with talent on this one. We need to clean up how this is done. Nevertheless, this was a terrorist act and it is being treated as one by national authorities. What else do you need.

Next question ........ are you throwing up your hands as well?

What a jerk post.

I'm talking about the facts about what the FBI could have done when they interviewed the guy.

Yeah but I'm throwing up my hands, whatever Jeff.

[Rocky Bleier]

Outlaw all public sales of magazine-fed weapons. If you cannot protect yourself or your home with a revolver, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle, then you are unable to protect yourself in the first place.

And when your revolver, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle is empty after 5-6 rounds and the guys invading your home have not been neutralized?

[froot loops]

And when your revolver, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle is empty after 5-6 rounds and the guys invading your home have not been neutralized?

Does this happen a lot?

[lineygoblue]

I know a few people who are planning to buy soon because they believe she will be the next president.

Add me to that number. I plan to buy before its illegal.

[Rocky Bleier]

Does this happen a lot?

I don't know where one would find such a statistic. I do know I wouldn't want to be in that situation.

[lineygoblue]

If you cannot protect yourself or your home with a revolver, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle, then you are unable to protect yourself in the first place.

Back in the 80's I lived about 10 miles south of Orlando.

I remember reading about a local police officer who got into a gun fight with a robber. The robber had a 9mm automatic and several loaded clips. The officer had a .38.

The officer was shot and killed by the robber, when the officer stopped to reload. The robber walked right up to him and shot him dead.

The police departments all went to automatic weapons after that.

[Wild Hoss]

And when your revolver, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle is empty after 5-6 rounds and the guys invading your home have not been neutralized?

Then you are either so inept that owning a gun is more of a threat to those around you than anyone else...or you signed on to star in Lethal Weapon 5.

[froot loops]

Does this happen a lot?

I don't know where one would find such a statistic. I do know I wouldn't want to be in that situation.

I understand the sentiment, I just don't think it happens at any rate where that is a reason to stop any legislation. It is kind of like when some of the administration would argue for torture user the Jack Bauer defense. They were arguing for a ticking time bomb and if you had to torture a guy for the combination would you do it? Well of course they would do it, but it wasn't a realistic scenario and they were arguing it to justify torturing low level operatives that really didn't have a clue.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......I'm talking about the facts about what the FBI could have done when they interviewed the guy.

Fair enough. I didn't read your post that way.

Takes me to talent's point made earlier in this thread. How is a person identified as a potential threat? What means are used to protect this person's civil liberties once he is identified as a potential threat? What means are used to prevent this person from arming himself and then carrying out a terrorist act ....... these are all questions involving a debate about the implications of the Patriot Act, one of the most contentious pieces of legislation enacted that deals with the issues I'm trying to raise. To wit: The protection of Civil Liberties versus implementation of effective Counter Terrorism Policies.