Terror at Orlando Nightclub, 20 Feared Dead.

@Region Philbis,

Quote:

Reported gun store visit

The owner of a Florida gun store said Thursday that employees contacted the FBI four or five weeks ago because they became suspicious when Mateen tried to purchase body armor and a large amount of ammunition.

Robert Abell of Lotus Gunworks in Jensen Beach said a man asked for soft and then hardened body armor but was told the store didn't carry that merchandise.

During his visit, the man spoke on the phone to somebody in a foreign language and asked to buy 1,000 rounds of ammunition -- a request the store turned down, Abell said.

What I fail to comprehend is 1) - A Gun Store does not photocopy Drivers Licenses (granted they can be fake) 2) Confirm that the person who wishes to purchase alot of ammunition etc, has a gun license and proof of such and copied and 3) That a Gun Store does not have surveillance outside their stores...



2 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

What you can't fathom is the 2nd Amendment.

Americans have a right to gun ownership without all sorts of restrictions.

I'm fine with your not liking this fact but if you want to change it, change the Constitution.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . While your description is factually correct, I question how your added
detail is at all relevant, and how my description is inaccurate for leaving
out this detail . . .

I assume that the "added detail" is that fact that for pistol grips or any
other of the harmless cosmetics (as you describe them} to contribute to the
ban, they must be in addition to the rifle being semi-automatic and having a
detachable magazine. That is why the "added detail" (and to have been
correct you should have written "added details") is relevant. It is the
difference between AND and OR. You maintain that the ban is only about
cosmetic features, but the fact of the matter is the ban is about both
functional and cosmetic features. AND, not OR.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, grow up in Australia and watch all of this. Why on earth should there be no restrictions, rediculous but more so:-

People have the right to feel protected as much as possible and I think it's our job as a Nation to attempt to do that. Simular, a man walks into that Gun Store with a gun, shoots the owner after robbery and there is no footage to ever find out who murdered him/her, the owner.

It's hard for me to fathom. 1996 was our last mass murder as guns were banned. People will always murder I get that, let's restrict it to less people dying, let's ensure that people are safer where ever possible, let's ensure that every murderer gets caught because there is footage, evidence, faces to work with.

3 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

I understand the guy tried to buy body armor and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. They declined the sale, so had no right to demand id, gun license, or anything else. They could certainly not detain them. They did notify the FBI, and that is about all they could do.

Licensing depends on the state. New Mexico does not require anything beyond federal requirements. Our neighbors in Arizona don't even require a permit for concealed carry.

1 Reply

@roger,

True, I wasn't aware that without sale they can't demand id, gun licenses I would have thought anyone asking to start with, then that would be the course you would go down.

According to his "wife" he purchased, from where who knows and according to what happened, he purchased, from were who knows.

How much she knew is a huge question as well.

Quote:

Salman apparently gave conflicting accounts about what she knew of Mateen's intentions in the hours before the attack. authorities said. She also told investigators that in the weeks before the attack, Mateen spent thousands of dollars, including for the guns used in the attack.

0 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

Whether or not there should be restrictions is immaterial.

We have a constitutionally protect right to bear arms, and it doesn't list restrictions.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Yep, and so, 1 a day mass murders will just have to continue over there.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

1996 was our last mass murder as guns were banned.

Only semi-automatic weapons, and pump-action or lever-action weapons were banned. You can still purchase traditional hunting weapons of most calibres, and shotguns. If you wish to own a hand-gun, you can join a pistol club, and purchase a semi-auto handgun.

There are conditions on your ability to secure a gun license, which should be the case in any developed nation, as well as a cooling off period between selecting your weapon for purchase, and receiving it.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Only semi-automatic weapons, and pump-action or lever-action weapons were banned.

In other words, almost any gun even remotely useful for self defense.

I believe they overlooked banning pump rifles because the people behind the gun ban didn't have much clue about guns. Did they ever go back and change that?

Builder wrote:

You can still purchase traditional hunting weapons of most calibres, and shotguns.

Not if that traditional hunting weapon is a semi-auto or lever action rifle, or a semi-auto or pump shotgun.

Builder wrote:

There are conditions on your ability to secure a gun license,

In other words, even to get one of the remaining types of guns, you have to convince a government bureaucrat that you "need" the gun.

Builder wrote:

which should be the case in any developed nation,

No. The lack of freedom is appalling. Developed nations should be free, like the US is.

Builder wrote:

as well as a cooling off period between selecting your weapon for purchase, and receiving it.

The only point of a waiting period is to hassle people. Not acceptable in a country where people have rights.

The most noteworthy thing about Australia's appalling ban is that it kicked off a massive crime spree where both armed and unarmed robbery rates went through the roof for five years.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . how my description is inaccurate for leaving out this detail. . .

Your description is "In fact, assault weapons bans are only about harmless
cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors." Your description is
inaccurate because you say the ban is only -- only -- about cosmetic
features. The key word here is "only".

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . If you ban harmless cosmetic features from semi-autos with
detachable magazines, the only thing you are doing is banning harmless
cosmetic features. . .

Now, put that way, I can certainly agree with you. Given that a
semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine that does not have any of the
features on that list would not be banned, but a semi-automatic rifle with
detachable magazine that has two of those features would be banned, those
features do make the difference in this case.

Very good!

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Not if that traditional hunting weapon is a semi-auto or lever action rifle, or a semi-auto or pump shotgun.

Anyone keen on target or varmint shooting would use a bolt-action rifle. Putting a target scope on a semi-auto is rather pointless, because they're only accurate to a certain limited range.

Quote:

In other words, even to get one of the remaining types of guns, you have to convince a government bureaucrat that you "need" the gun.

They're not ornaments. And statistics can be found to show that owning one does not increase your personal safety.

Quote:

The only point of a waiting period is to hassle people. Not acceptable in a country where people have rights.

Not at all. If you've had an argument with someone, and figured that killing them is the solution, then you have two whole weeks to consider the ramifications of your possible actions. It's basic human nature.

Quote:

No. The lack of freedom is appalling. Developed nations should be free, like the US is.

Cavity searches at domestic airports, even on the side of the roads, and you call that free? NSA eavesdropping on your calls? You call that free? Whistleblowers murdered, or forever on the run? You call that free?

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Anyone keen on target or varmint shooting would use a bolt-action rifle. Putting a target scope on a semi-auto is rather pointless, because they're only accurate to a certain limited range.

Nonsense. Semi-autos (as well as pump and lever action) are extremely accurate at long ranges. Plenty of varmint shooters and target shooters not only use semi-autos, they use assault weapons.

Builder wrote:

And statistics can be found to show that owning one does not increase your personal safety.

Bogus statistics.

Builder wrote:

Not at all. If you've had an argument with someone, and figured that killing them is the solution, then you have two whole weeks to consider the ramifications of your possible actions. It's basic human nature.

And if you've just realized that someone is trying to kill you, that gives them two whole weeks before you can defend yourself (presuming that this waiting period happened in a nation that allowed people to buy guns that were suitable for self defense).

Builder wrote:

Cavity searches at domestic airports, even on the side of the roads, and you call that free?

That's not going to happen without serious probable cause.

Builder wrote:

NSA eavesdropping on your calls?

Metadata is hardly eavesdropping.

Builder wrote:

Whistleblowers murdered, or forever on the run? You call that free?

Traitors are hardly whistle blowers.

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

Now, put that way, I can certainly agree with you. Given that a
semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine that does not have any of the
features on that list would not be banned, but a semi-automatic rifle with
detachable magazine that has two of those features would be banned, those
features do make the difference in this case.

Very good!

So do you now understand that all the law does is ban harmless cosmetic features?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Semi-autos (as well as pump and lever action) are extremely accurate at long ranges.

If that were the case, then sniper rifles would not be bolt-action. Your slip is showing.

Quote:

And if you've just realized that someone is trying to kill you, that gives them two whole weeks before you can defend yourself

So, you just ask the guy (or gal) to hang on a tick while you head to the local gun store to pack some heat, right? Are you on drugs, any chance?

Quote:

That's not going to happen without serious probable cause.

The TSA hasn't caught anyone for anything yet, but they have been found guilty of theft thousands of times. Enjoy your "freedom".

Quote:

Traitors are hardly whistle blowers.

Truth hurts, and I guess you're in a lot of pain.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

If that were the case, then sniper rifles would not be bolt-action.

There are plenty of non-bolt action sniper rifles.

Builder wrote:

Your slip is showing.

You are the one here who keeps making untrue statements.

Builder wrote:

So, you just ask the guy (or gal) to hang on a tick while you head to the local gun store to pack some heat, right?

As if the only time anyone could find out that they were in danger was just before they were killed?

Builder wrote:

Are you on drugs, any chance?

No. You are just unused to dealing with free people.

Builder wrote:

Truth hurts, and I guess you're in a lot of pain.

The truth has never caused me any pain. I've just got no problem with the government killing traitors.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There are plenty of non-bolt action sniper rifles.

Snipers carry contact weapons, and sniper rifles. If you don't know the difference, I'm not concerned at all.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

So do you now understand that all the law does is ban harmless cosmetic features?

That statement, as it stands, is still incorrect.

The law does not ban such features except on semi-automatics with
detachable magazines. On those firearms, the presence of such features
is what makes the difference between a banned and a legal weapon.

But it is certainly true that the ban, to be consistent, should ban all
semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines regardless of features
such as bayonet clips. On this we agree.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

I'm not going to respond again about the politically motivated, and inaccurate "I A Day" stat, but this nation, unlike many, has a governing constitution that has served us exceedingly well for hundreds of years. There is a process for changing that constitution and if it's the will of the people that it be changed, it will be.

0 Replies

Terror at Orlando Nightclub, 20 Feared Dead.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know