I hear you' date=' more gun laws aren't going to make us safe, they will just expose the honest citizens more. I think it is an opportunity for the US Government to do ANYTHING they want in the name of protecting us. 20, 50, or 100 years from now we won't even recognize America, at this pace America will become a "Police State" all in the name of protecting us. And as horrible as it sounds, Amercia better get busy killing all the bad guys in the world. The longer we wait, the more vulnerable we are and the more our own Government will have to oppress us to keep us safe.[/quote']

 

If Guru was ever destined to create BGP for a reason, it's this post.

I guess they better start in Washington DC

 

I don't feel that way at all, the current Administration tried a different approach with World Security and it has been a miserable failure. It is definitely Plan B time.

 

I am sure many of you disagree but I feel pretty confident we are going to change course and if a Republican is elected look out.

What could we have done to prevent this from happening?

 

California has the strictest gun laws in the nation. If you are talking about gun control, I'm interested in hearing what specifically you think would have made a difference in this terroristic act.

 

The state-by-state gun laws argument is getting pretty tiresome. I'm not necessarily an advocate of strict control laws, but pretending like getting a gun across the California border is like smuggling goods into Soviet Russia is ludicrous.

 

You can move freely from state to state in this country which is why state by state control laws will never work. Kentucky could pass strict control tomorrow but if they can still be manufactured and sold right across the river in Indiana, I'll be able to get one.

 

To implement actual gun control would require massive nationwide effort that will NEVER happen.

More from Lynch. Now they want to control free speech.. From yesterday: Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Thursday at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner she will take aggressive action against the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

 

She told the group “we stand with you” and promised the Justice Department will protect Muslims from “violence” and discrimination.

 

“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American,” said Lynch. “They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

 

Lynch did not clarify what “actions predicated on violent talk” means and did not draw a line between constitutionally protected free speech and violence. She also did not pinpoint individuals or groups she believes participate in “violent talk.

More from Lynch. Now they want to control free speech.. From yesterday: Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Thursday at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner she will take aggressive action against the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

 

She told the group “we stand with you” and promised the Justice Department will protect Muslims from “violence” and discrimination.

 

“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American,” said Lynch. “They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

 

Lynch did not clarify what “actions predicated on violent talk” means and did not draw a line between constitutionally protected free speech and violence. She also did not pinpoint individuals or groups she believes participate in “violent talk.

 

Garbage like this is the beginning of the end.

 

The second the Government starts limiting Free Speech we are doomed.

More from Lynch. Now they want to control free speech.. From yesterday: Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Thursday at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner she will take aggressive action against the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

 

She told the group “we stand with you” and promised the Justice Department will protect Muslims from “violence” and discrimination.

 

“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American,” said Lynch. “They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

 

Lynch did not clarify what “actions predicated on violent talk” means and did not draw a line between constitutionally protected free speech and violence. She also did not pinpoint individuals or groups she believes participate in “violent talk.

 

Even this court won't overturn Brandenburg over the kind of stuff she's talking about. She can try, but it ain't happening. They could really make a mess of things up until that point though.

The state-by-state gun laws argument is getting pretty tiresome. I'm not necessarily an advocate of strict control laws, but pretending like getting a gun across the California border is like smuggling goods into Soviet Russia is ludicrous.

 

You can move freely from state to state in this country which is why state by state control laws will never work. Kentucky could pass strict control tomorrow but if they can still be manufactured and sold right across the river in Indiana, I'll be able to get one.

 

To implement actual gun control would require massive nationwide effort that will NEVER happen.

There are enough guns available to bad guys , both from domestic and foreign sources, that no laws are going to curb their availability or their use. I do not see a scenario where even a national gun law will make a difference.

French gun laws did not protect the victims of the Paris attack.. Why do folks in the U.S. think that they will protect us ??

 

That is a great question.

Garbage like this is the beginning of the end. The second the Government starts limiting Free Speech we are doomed.

 

Everyone, this administration tells us how the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments need to be viewed, in the Kings opinion.

What could we have done to prevent this from happening?

 

California has the strictest gun laws in the nation. If you are talking about gun control, I'm interested in hearing what specifically you think would have made a difference in this terroristic act.

 

I never mentioned anything about gun control. But are you saying that we should just throw our hands up in the air and say the hell with it, we can't do a thing to stop this? This is where I say, and where she probably meant (at least in part) where we can work tougher.

 

Lipton Bash started a good thread about is there anything that we can agree on? This is one thing that we could agree that this is an opportunity as well as the time that we must sit down and figure somethings out.

 

And we all better sit down soon and figure something out, it can curb a lot of this, but not eliminate it.

I never mentioned anything about gun control. But are you saying that we should just throw our hands up in the air and say the hell with it, we can't do a thing to stop this? This is where I say, and where she probably meant (at least in part) where we can work tougher.

 

Lipton Bash started a good thread about is there anything that we can agree on? This is one thing that we could agree that this is an opportunity as well as the time that we must sit down and figure somethings out.

 

And we all better sit down soon and figure something out, it can curb a lot of this, but not eliminate it.

I'm not suggesting anything.

 

I'm asking what do you think we could have done to prevent this attack from happening? I'm just interested in your ideas.

I don't feel that way at all, the current Administration tried a different approach with World Security and it has been a miserable failure. It is definitely Plan B time.

 

I am sure many of you disagree but I feel pretty confident we are going to change course and if a Republican is elected look out.

 

Im just kidding, a lot of good people in DC. Shame they get a bad name because of the current Pres there running amok.

We can't call out Islam do to a few bad apples, which is true we shouldn't but we can declare war on police because of a few bad apples.

We can't call out Islam do to a few bad apples, which is true we shouldn't but we can declare war on police because of a few bad apples.

There are people in here advocating for a war on police?

We can't call out Islam do to a few bad apples, which is true we shouldn't but we can declare war on police because of a few bad apples.

 

There are people in here advocating for a war on police?

 

The answer is the same in both examples, the good ones need to call out the bad ones and if the good ones fail to do it in either case then they are bad ones too.