Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#1,326
#1,326
SpaceCoastVol said:
If we reduce the number of Muslim immigrants we will reduce the number of potential Muslim terrorists.

Why are inanimate objects so abhorrent, yet ones with brains and a desire to do harm so desirable to the left?
Click to expand...

Because guns dont have feelings...and feelings are all that matter to most left wing loons and the simple minded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,327
#1,327
luthervol said:
How so? I thought your comment was that banning a type of gun would just increase the black market value and make very bad people even more powerful. Did I misunderstand?

If I understood correctly, then that must have been the case when previous types of guns were banned.

If that was the case, then was the ban a failure and should it be reversed?

If that was not the case, why not?
Click to expand...
My argument was to not start a bidding war over buying back firearms.
 
#1,333
#1,333
FBI admits it didn’t investigate tip on alleged school shooter last month | New York Post

The FBI was warned last month that Nikolas Cruz was an armed psycho who might shoot up a school — but it didn’t bother investigating, the agency admitted Friday.

“A person close to” Cruz called the agency’s tipline on Jan. 5 and reported the 19-year-old had a “desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts” and there was “potential of him conducting a school shooting,” the FBI said in a statement.

But the agency said it failed to pass on any of that information to its Miami field office, even thought its own protocols say he “should have been assessed as a potential threat to life.”
Click to expand...
 
#1,338
#1,338
SLICKYINC said:
You're right. They should fire the whole FBI.
Click to expand...

No. But this did happen on Wray’s watch so he owns it. And the FBI absolutely needs to find out what broke down in this process and attempt to fix it.

But no reason it needs to be fleshed out in the public while it’s ongoing. Once they finish the review they need to come clean on the findings. That’s it
 
#1,339
#1,339
1972 Grad said:
I agree. Target acquisition takes time. I also think that Oswald could have fired the 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. From what I understand, it was 5.6 seconds from the sound of the 1st shot until the 3rd. That is almost 3 seconds between shots.

That's doable, although that was a pretty crappy action on that particular rifle, and a pretty crappy scope, but he wasn't far away, and the target was moving down and away from him, not sideways.
Click to expand...

Oswald didn’t even fire a single shot from the purported Carcano carbine he “took” to work with him that fateful day. There are so many discrepancies in the case, we could set Freak’s server into meltdown hundreds of times discussing it.

One simple one, and it’s not an easy “mistake” to make for a well-trained eye (and this was the DPD), is the initial identification of the rifle. Originally identified as a Mauser.

Don’t get me into all the factions of the FBI and CIA, Oswald’s movements, Mexico City, Cuba, JFK’s political adversaries, De Mohrenschildt, Paine, Marina, Ruby, etc. There’s a wealth of conflicting information, and I don’t believe he fired a single shot. Paraffin tests corroborate that much, then you have to consider the lunchroom/stairwell incident at the time the shooting occurred.

Just my .02.

Edit

And I didn’t even include the initial reports by Crenshaw and the other attending physicians at Parkland, the transport back to Andrews, the autopsy, the infamous “magic bullet,” the Warren CR, and the HSCA reports/findings. This was the biggest overthrow of a head of state ever committed.

This is a massive case.
 
Last edited:
#1,342
#1,342
Squints said:
Oswald didn’t even fire a single shot from the purported Carcano carbine he “took” to work with him that fateful day. There are so many discrepancies in the case, we could set Freak’s server into meltdown hundreds of times discussing it.

One simple one, and it’s not an easy “mistake” to make for a well-trained eye (and this was the DPD), is the initial identification of the rifle. Originally identified as a Mauser.

Don’t get me into all the factions of the FBI and CIA, Oswald’s movements, Mexico City, Cuba, JFK’s political adversaries, De Mohrenschildt, Paine, Marina, Ruby, etc. There’s a wealth of conflicting information, and I don’t believe he fired a single shot. Paraffin tests corroborate that much, then you have to consider the lunchroom/stairwell incident at the time the shooting occurred.

Just my .02.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I have heard all of this stuff. I was in the 9th grade when it happened.
 
#1,343
#1,343
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Laws and regulations only hurt the law abiding. Criminals DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!
Click to expand...

luthervol said:
That is such a tired, overused, and juvenile argument'

The rebuttal is so obvious, I can't bring myself to make it.
Click to expand...

T-TownVol said:
I'll be your Huckleberry.......hit me with it there Looth.....
Click to expand...

Since you asked in such a clever way.....

If defendthishouse's argument is true and in turn reason for not enacting laws, then the natural extension would be that there should be no laws at all since they only hurt the law abiding and have no impact on the criminal.

Very few, if any, (although you never know with this crowd) people on this board would advocate for a completely lawless society. Which means laws are (or at least can be) both necessary and beneficial.
 
#1,345
#1,345
luthervol said:
Since you asked in such a clever way.....

If defendthishouse's argument is true and in turn reason for not enacting laws, then the natural extension would be that there should be no laws at all since they only hurt the law abiding and have no impact on the criminal.

Very few, if any, (although you never know with this crowd) people on this board would advocate for a completely lawless society. Which means laws are (or at least can be) both necessary and beneficial.
Click to expand...

no his argument is you have gone beyond the "good laws" that everyone can agree on. you have entered a grey zone where people on one side are fine cutting off their own nose to spite their face, while the other half aren't.
 
#1,350
#1,350
LouderVol said:
no his argument is you have gone beyond the "good laws" that everyone can agree on. you have entered a grey zone where people on one side are fine cutting off their own nose to spite their face, while the other half aren't.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of laws that were once in that grey zone but are now accepted and supported. Grey zone laws are the most needed. It's the laws that everybody easily agrees to that are the most unnecessary.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top