FBI said he wasn't tied to terror plot. He sounds more homophobic to me.

 

They now say that he has visited the club at least a dozen times before the shooting. He was friends with a drag queen, and she said that at one point he had gay friends.

Terrorist attacked Paris and they went after the terrorist. Terrorist attacked Orlando and we go after the guns.

 

SWAT already got the terrorist. And there's another difference: the majority of mass shootings in America are committed by American citizens.

Thanks. I found this on what appears to be a NRA site.

 

NRA-ILA | Why NRA Opposes Gun Control Supporters` "Terrorist Watchlist" Bills

 

One of the main objections is that a class of people without much supporting evidence may be denied their right to own a gun or that the majority of people who fall into a group (gun owners) are being lumped in with the few that cause problems.

 

Ironic considering today's arguments put forth in a somewhat related subject.

 

Yes, this is my point, Clyde. It is not enough for the FBI to suspect that the person has ties to terrorism. They need to have solid proof before violating a citizen's rights. To give the government the power to deny a citizen their 2nd amendment rights based on a suspicion is opening a pandora's box of government power. People have been placed on a no fly list for specious reasons and have a hard time proving otherwise.

 

The article you linked to said this:

 

"A person accused of serious wrongdoing has the right to know what he has been accused of, to offer evidence in his defense, and to be judged by a jury. A constitutionally protected right cannot be taken away on the basis of a secretive or unsubstantiated accusation. A judge should be allowed to consider evidence which may support the innocence of the accused."

 

and this:

 

As the name suggests, the “watchlist” is not limited to people guilty of “terrorism”1 or who are suspected of other acts serious enough to warrant their arrest. It broadly includes people “known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,”2 including those only “being preliminarily investigated to determine whether they have links to terrorism” and those “for whom the FBI does not have an open terrorism investigation.”

 

This is the problem with prohibiting law-abiding citizens from exercising a constitutional right based solely on a suspicion. It ain't right!

 

So will this immigration screening stop the the boy from Indiana who just got caught before shooting up the parade in Los Angeles?

 

It would have stopped the San Bernadino killings. It will stop any future Muslim terrorist from entering the US to kill Americans.

 

But you are MISSING my point. I am not advocating this. I am comparing this sort of thing to increasing gun control laws, esp. those that want to target the mentally ill. You are just going to lump all kinds of people in with the few who commit crimes and prohibit a constitutional right for an entire class of people (the mentally ill) because it may prevent a future terrorist act.

 

I am against this in both cases. You are against it when it comes to immigration but for it when it comes to gun control laws. I think you are inconsistent. I oppose screening for mental illness because it will violate the doctor-patient confidentiality, cause mentally ill people to stop seeking treatment, and discriminate against law-abiding people who may have been diagnosed with a mental illness at some point in their life.

Yes' date=' this is my point, Clyde. It is not enough for the FBI to suspect that the person has ties to terrorism. They need to have solid proof before violating a citizen's rights. To give the government the power to deny a citizen their 2nd amendment rights based on a suspicion is opening a pandora's box of government power. People have been placed on a no fly list for specious reasons and have a hard time proving otherwise. The article you linked to said this: "A person accused of serious wrongdoing has the right to know what he has been accused of, to offer evidence in his defense, and to be judged by a jury. A constitutionally protected right cannot be taken away on the basis of a secretive or unsubstantiated accusation. A judge should be allowed to consider evidence which may support the innocence of the accused." and this: As the name suggests, the “watchlist” is not limited to people guilty of “terrorism”1 or who are suspected of other acts serious enough to warrant their arrest. It broadly includes people “known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,”2 including those only “being preliminarily investigated to determine whether they have links to terrorism” and those “for whom the FBI does not have an open terrorism investigation.” This is the problem with prohibiting law-abiding citizens from exercising a constitutional right based solely on a suspicion. It ain't right! It would have stopped the San Bernadino killings. It will stop any future Muslim terrorist from entering the US to kill Americans. But you are MISSING my point. I am not advocating this. I am comparing this sort of thing to increasing gun control laws, esp. those that want to target the mentally ill. You are just going to lump all kinds of people in with the few who commit crimes and prohibit a constitutional right for an entire class of people (the mentally ill) because it may prevent a future terrorist act. I am against this in both cases. You are against it when it comes to immigration but for it when it comes to gun control laws. I think you are inconsistent. I oppose screening for mental illness because it will violate the doctor-patient confidentiality, cause mentally ill people to stop seeking treatment, and discriminate against law-abiding people who may have been diagnosed with a mental illness at some point in their life.[/quote']

 

Do we agree you cannot be against this yet be for extra scrutiny or deportation of Muslims?

It would have stopped the San Bernadino killings. It will stop any future Muslim terrorist from entering the US to kill Americans.

 

But you are MISSING my point. I am not advocating this. I am comparing this sort of thing to increasing gun control laws, esp. those that want to target the mentally ill. You are just going to lump all kinds of people in with the few who commit crimes and prohibit a constitutional right for an entire class of people (the mentally ill) because it may prevent a future terrorist act.

 

I am against this in both cases. You are against it when it comes to immigration but for it when it comes to gun control laws. I think you are inconsistent. I oppose screening for mental illness because it will violate the doctor-patient confidentiality, cause mentally ill people to stop seeking treatment, and discriminate against law-abiding people who may have been diagnosed with a mental illness at some point in their life.

 

 

I just want the focus on solutions to problems that exist right now. We don't have foreign born terrorists sneaking in and killing our citizens right now.

 

We do have citizens for whatever reason killing innocent children and people with a disgusting frequency. This is where we need a solution.

Kudos to Chik Fil A in Orlando for opening up on Sunday and delivering sandwiches to people waiting in line to donate blood.

 

Facts

[ATTACH]56430[/ATTACH]

 

Facts

 

See a pattern?

See a pattern?

 

But not all Muslims are bad, so we need to be PC and just forget all of those instances of murder. What we really need to do is create stricter gun laws so those type of people will not be able to obtain a firearm in this country.

A former police academy classmate says the shooter was gay.

 

Another report says he has a profile on a gay dating site.

JetBlue is flying family members to Orlando for free.

Do we agree you cannot be against this yet be for extra scrutiny or deportation of Muslims?

 

See my post #558 at the end where I am responding to Hellcats. Yes, this is my exact point! To be consistent you have to be opposed to both, as I am, as I have consistently stated.

 

I just want the focus on solutions to problems that exist right now. We don't have foreign born terrorists sneaking in and killing our citizens right now.

 

We do have citizens for whatever reason killing innocent children and people with a disgusting frequency. This is where we need a solution.

 

Dec. 2, 2015 there were 14 killed and 21 injured in San Bernardino, CA by a married couple who were radicalized Muslims. THe wife was named Tashfeen Malik and this is what an article on CNN.com said about her:

 

Malik was born and raised in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States on a "fiancée visa." She later became a lawful permanent resident.

 

So yes, we do have foreign-born terrorists sneaking in and killing our citizens right now.

 

Could you do me a favor? Since you keep arguing against the prohibition of all Muslims from emigrating to the US it appears that you think I am arguing for this. I am not. I have stated repeatedly that I am not for that kind of discrimination. I was simply showing that the rationale for excluding Muslims in immigration was similar to an argument for going after all "mentally ill" people to prohibit them from owning guns.

 

@Hellcats, would you please acknowledge that you understand that I, too, am against a policy that would prohibit all Muslims from entering the US?

 

 

Incidentally, I also am against a policy that would target "mentally ill" people by placing them on a list that would prohibit all mentally ill people from exercising our 2nd amendment rights and discriminates against them by singling them out for violation of their HIPPA rights. They should only be prohibited from purchasing a gun for the same reasons that other citizens are prohibted from purchasing guns. These reasons show up in a background check.

SWAT already got the terrorist. And there's another difference: the majority of mass shootings in America are committed by American citizens.

 

You still can't legislate all of the evil out of the world.

See my post #558 at the end where I am responding to Hellcats. Yes, this is my exact point! To be consistent you have to be opposed to both, as I am, as I have consistently stated.

 

 

 

Dec. 2, 2015 there were 14 killed and 21 injured in San Bernardino, CA by a married couple who were radicalized Muslims. THe wife was named Tashfeen Malik and this is what an article on CNN.com said about her:

 

Malik was born and raised in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States on a "fiancée visa." She later became a lawful permanent resident.

 

So yes, we do have foreign-born terrorists sneaking in and killing our citizens right now.

 

Could you do me a favor? Since you keep arguing against the prohibition of all Muslims from emigrating to the US it appears that you think I am arguing for this. I am not. I have stated repeatedly that I am not for that kind of discrimination. I was simply showing that the rationale for excluding Muslims in immigration was similar to an argument for going after all "mentally ill" people to prohibit them from owning guns.

 

@Hellcats, would you please acknowledge that you understand that I, too, am against a policy that would prohibit all Muslims from entering the US?

 

 

Incidentally, I also am against a policy that would target "mentally ill" people by placing them on a list that would prohibit all mentally ill people from exercising our 2nd amendment rights and discriminates against them by singling them out for violation of their HIPPA rights. They should only be prohibited from purchasing a gun for the same reasons that other citizens are prohibted from purchasing guns. These reasons show up in a background check.

 

I understand you're against both, OG. I can't say I am. I agree with deeper vetting of everyone trying to buy guns; I don't care what race or religion. My argument is with those who want to stop with vetting Muslims at Ellis Island when we have home grown Americans committing the lion's share of these crimes.

 

We need answers not just it's my right or pass out more guns.

You still can't legislate all of the evil out of the world.

 

Can't legislate common sense in either.