Youth motivated to political action, and there just has to be a conspiracy theory

[WVU82]

 

[Deo Volente]

There seem to have been failures at multiple levels of law enforcement that allowed this kid to commit this act.

 

[mule_eer]

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Sheriff Scott Israel endorses Hillary Clinton - LEO Affairs Forums
forums.leoaffairs.com/showthread.php?596671-Sheriff-Scott-Israel...Hillary-ClintonJan 2, 2016 - 10 posts - ‎1 author
At the Broward Democratic Executive Committee meeting today Sheriff Israel announced he is endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Of those 39 visits by law enforcement, how many times was he detained? What's his record after those 39 visits? That matters. He was kicked out of several schools, but how is that a restriction against a legal right to purchase a firearm? Should it be?

The point here is that the guy obviously had some serious issues. None of those serious issues made their way into a database used for background checks for firearms purchases. Maybe this is where we can start having a discussion that leads somewhere. I think that was Rubio's point in the town hall, and I think it's a good one.

Law enforcement can only enforce the laws we give them. Gun shops can only deny those that fail a background check. Even if the FBI knocked on this kid's door 2 weeks ago and questioned him about his comment on YouTube, what could they have legally detained him for? What law could they have cited in order to take guns he purchased legally, assuming they even knew he had any guns? Could a sheriff's deputy have legally removed guns from the house where he lived on one of those 39 visits?

We need to answer these questions and look for ways to avoid this happening again while still honoring the Constitutional rights of the people. That's not an easy thing to do, and Rubio also pointed that out. We have to start having discussions where both sides can talk honestly and openly. Rubio was being shouted down at times, and that's counter productive. LePierre painted large swaths of his opposition as people out to take away all of our rights - not just our guns. Neither side is innocent in the lack of discussion.

 

[atlkvb]

Of those 39 visits by law enforcement, how many times was he detained? What's his record after those 39 visits? That matters. He was kicked out of several schools, but how is that a restriction against a legal right to purchase a firearm? Should it be?

The point here is that the guy obviously had some serious issues. None of those serious issues made their way into a database used for background checks for firearms purchases. Maybe this is where we can start having a discussion that leads somewhere. I think that was Rubio's point in the town hall, and I think it's a good one.

Law enforcement can only enforce the laws we give them. Gun shops can only deny those that fail a background check. Even if the FBI knocked on this kid's door 2 weeks ago and questioned him about his comment on YouTube, what could they have legally detained him for? What law could they have cited in order to take guns he purchased legally, assuming they even knew he had any guns? Could a sheriff's deputy have legally removed guns from the house where he lived on one of those 39 visits?

We need to answer these questions and look for ways to avoid this happening again while still honoring the Constitutional rights of the people. That's not an easy thing to do, and Rubio also pointed that out. We have to start having discussions where both sides can talk honestly and openly. Rubio was being shouted down at times, and that's counter productive. LePierre painted large swaths of his opposition as people out to take away all of our rights - not just our guns. Neither side is innocent in the lack of discussion.

I agree with most of this. But just like the NRA had nothing to do with that kid going off, those protestors should not have been calling the lady from the NRA a "murderer". If we agree we all should protect the Second ammendment above all else (which is the NRA's deal) and we agree we all should protect the kids in schools (which didn't happen here) to me there's not a lot left to argue about. Mule_eer points out an important fact, you can't detain someone just because you get a police call on them. I'm not sure anything more could have been done to keep him from getting that gun because he passed the background check.

So then the issue is what could have been done better to protect those kids at that school? Lots of room to find a solution there, and I think Trump is working on it with folks who have some good ideas.

 

[Boomboom521]

Of those 39 visits by law enforcement, how many times was he detained? What's his record after those 39 visits? That matters. He was kicked out of several schools, but how is that a restriction against a legal right to purchase a firearm? Should it be?

The point here is that the guy obviously had some serious issues. None of those serious issues made their way into a database used for background checks for firearms purchases. Maybe this is where we can start having a discussion that leads somewhere. I think that was Rubio's point in the town hall, and I think it's a good one.

Law enforcement can only enforce the laws we give them. Gun shops can only deny those that fail a background check. Even if the FBI knocked on this kid's door 2 weeks ago and questioned him about his comment on YouTube, what could they have legally detained him for? What law could they have cited in order to take guns he purchased legally, assuming they even knew he had any guns? Could a sheriff's deputy have legally removed guns from the house where he lived on one of those 39 visits?

We need to answer these questions and look for ways to avoid this happening again while still honoring the Constitutional rights of the people. That's not an easy thing to do, and Rubio also pointed that out. We have to start having discussions where both sides can talk honestly and openly. Rubio was being shouted down at times, and that's counter productive. LePierre painted large swaths of his opposition as people out to take away all of our rights - not just our guns. Neither side is innocent in the lack of discussion.

Well said as usual. These are the types of statements we need to hear from lawmakers, and I credit Rubio for standing in there and taking it on the chin.