Over at CNN, we’ve discovered the following quote from ATF Agent Nunez, investigating the spree killing at Umpqua Community College: “So far, we have recovered 13 weapons. Out of those 13 weapons we currently have in custody, six were recovered at the school, seven were recovered at the shooter’s residence. All 14 (?) have been traced to a federal firearms dealer. They are all at different stages currently in the tracing process.” In other words, it appears that all the guns used in the attack were purchased legally. If Chris Mercer was the original buyer, we can deduce that he underwent a background check – that did nothing to prevent the slaughter.
um…. so they found 13 weapons and traced 14 of them back to a single dealer…. is this just standard ATF logic at work again or am I missing something?
Common Core mathematics at it’s finest there…
Good point. Text amended.
How many of you guys are loyal to an FFL? I make nearly all my purchases through one FFL because he’s good to deal with.
Is it certain that ATF meant a single FFL? Or is it just sloppy syntax resulting in an ambiguous statement, meaning only that each weapon was purchased through an FFL?
Agree that “to a FFL” does not even mean, in English, that each was traced to the same FFL. It simply means that for each gun there had been an FFL recording the sale.
13-14 guns through the same FFL is a problem now?
I always use the same guy, he’s got the best price and is an excellent ‘smith to boot.
I done recieced a 6th grade gubamint educashun and Im a studing to be a brian sturgeon.
Hi, my name’s Brian, and I’m a sturgeon, too.
I couldint cut it as a sturgeon, so I settld own bein’ a double naught spy.
You are missing zero, nada, zilch.
This is the media attempting to find anything, without stating that their hatrred that single, lone, socially retarded young men with no criminal background can but guns.
Strangely enough, a 14th gun was later reported to be found in the murderer’s home. Was this some precognition on the part of the ATF agent, reporting 6 guns found on the campus and 7 in the home and that “All 14(?) were traced . . .”.
Maybe I’m just overly suspicious, but that sort of thing makes me wonder about gun #14.
My guess, if they are referring to one dealer and not that each weapon was traceable to a dealer, is they found all 13 were bought through Joe the FFL, and there was a 14th bought that was not found.
Although, I thought there was one that they said was registered to someone else. Was that from the same FFL?
So maybe background checks should include a check of the subjects social media. (time to crawl into my under computer bunker.)
This illustrates an important point: what is ‘abnormal’? A lot of people, including people on here, have been making a big deal about ‘red flags’ this guy was supposedly sending up because he did ‘macabre drawings’ in class. I bet Tim Burton did ‘macabre drawings’ during his time at college quite often and I am pretty sure he didn’t go on to kill anyone. I sit in a lot of my classes checking gun blogs and looking at rifle deals on slickguns… to a non gun person I am probably ‘abnormal’ as well. Should I lose my gun rights because of it?
No at all. I drew skulls with fire in eye sockets. Went on to serve our country, raise two families and start a business.
When I was a kid, I used to draw pictures of fire-breathing dinosaurs burning down the entire City of New York. Now, that would be considered a white micro privilege trigger aggression warning or something. And the immortal Frank Frazetta would have been locked up for life.
Hey, I did the same thing! Sometimes I branched off into giant bees and such. It was kind of a fad in my second-grade clad, even one of the more tomboy-ish girls joined in.
I drew T Rex chasing and eating people.
That should be “class”, not “clad” (sorry, I’m not gonna jack around any more on this waiting for the edit function to work right.)
I drew nekked women-and was quite good at it. At least likin’ girls was “normal” then-now it ojectifys gals(another non-PC word). The end game is BS like “purchase permits” to prove a “need” to have that evil gun. Or ammo background checks in slave states…oh Another Robert the boy wasn’t “black enough” and maybe got picked on-tragic IRC BS. I have LOTS of insight. Life’s rough but we don’t shoot everyone-we just man up…
in my grade school classes, girls drew pretty things, while boys drew the most bizarre forms of death. one year, we boys randomly placed hangman’s nooses (made from shoe strings and such) around home room. teachers were aghast and made us take them down because the nooses made the room look messy.
If I had been good at drawing I probably would have done the nekkid woman thing too, at some point. I never was, so I stuck with the dinos–LOL!
Wow. Look what I touched off. Just kidding guys. I don’t support background checks at all.
I grew up in the duck and cover generation. I drew pictures of planes bombing cities.
my buddies and i liked drawing pictures of airplanes straffing people on the ground. lotsa bodies with big holes.
The right to say and draw what you want is a scary concept to some people and they will support restricting that right at the drop of a hat. Much like the people ao ready to give up the right to self defense. It’s all fear based decision making at its best(worst).
Stockholm syndrome.
People live in a big city, or other country, and are used to being told what to do with just about every aspect of their lives. They move to a different locale that has actual freedom, and they panic, they are so afraid of making a decision, they can’t function in daily activities.
When election time comes, they see a candidate that will tell them what to do and vote for that person.
Thanks for that little ray of hope Brian. As a Utah resident that has to put up with Californians and their “insight” they bring. Funny thing is that they run from Cali to escape taxation, high cost of living, and lack of freedom. It’s nice to know someone else understands the strange phenomenon.
There are people nationwide, of all ages, who are preparing, decorating and celebrating Halloween, which as I recall entails some scary skeletons and assorted icons of death. Death is part of life. These symbols and observances of it are healthy.
Now, taken to an extreme? Less so, but there’s a lot of leeway before reaching that point. The proof? Look at Dia de los Muertos. Basically, Hispanic Halloween, on steroids. Yet, it doesn’t turn half a billion Latinos into head lopping savages. (Some already are, but for different reasons.)
JWM-all of us regulars don’t take it the wrong way. Heck I NEVER leave a sarc tag-the sign of an amateur.LOL
+1
Just another killer who followed the law until he decided to not follow the law.
Just like his victims who also followed the law by not carrying a consealed firearm in a gun free zone.
Following the law can get you killed sometimes.
Technically, it wasn’t a ‘gun free’ zone. Although, given liberal professors’ and teachers’ attitudes, they’re not going to explain to students what their rights actually are. Then, in a community college, I’d bet that most are under 21… So, unless one is of the mind to independently go about and figure out exactly what the law really says, AND unless one of their priorities is personal defense (and not relying on cops to protect them) they probably won’t carry even if it is legal. And it turns out that only one guy, some distance away, (admits, anyway) carried.
Technically, it was a gun free zone. It wouldn’t be a criminal violation to carry in OCC, but the school has a policy, legal under Oregon law, that anyone who does can be removed from the premises and expelled. Expulsion usually entails loss of any tuition paid as well as other potential problems. That’s a heavy penalty.
It was not a gun free zone, but it was.
No, technically, it was NOT a ‘gun free’ zone. Official policy wasn’t ‘gun free’ but tell that to a student that has a professor that hates guns… wait, I already made that argument, and you missed it.
Ok maybe someone can ‘splain this to me. The excerpt from their Campus Security web page RF posted the other day was this:
“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.”
The phrase that seems to be their way of wiggling through Oregon’s state preemption is “except as expressly authorized by law.” In other words, maybe if you have a concealed carry permit recognized in Oregon, that’s expressly authorized by law and you’re ok to tool up?
That would make it not a gun-free zone. Unless I’m misunderstanding the whole thing, which is possible.
Curtis, you got it right. It’s not a ‘gun free’ zone. However, unless one really digs deep into the law, AND takes seriously their right to self defense, AND challenges their instructors’ views (which are probably anti-gun), they’ll probably just leave it at home, or not have a firearm at all. So, technically, it’s not ‘gun free’. Sounds like only one person actually knew the law and policy well enough, AND took his self defense seriously enough to actually carry. And he was 200 yards away, so not effective against that threat.
It looks like:
1) There is no state preemption in Oregon, but
2) No local laws can interfere with a CCW holder’s right to carry “in a public place”
Found the following at
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors166.html
166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:
(a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.
(b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.
(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370.
(e) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a loaded firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1995 s.s. c.1 §4; 1999 c.782 §8; 2009 c.556 §3]
Yes, it was a gun-free zone. The school lawfully prohibits, via (non-force of law) school policy, the possession of firearms inside its buildings, where the attacks happened.
On campus grounds outside the buildings the school could not lawfully prohibit licensed concealed carry. But the attacks did not happen outside.
No, they don’t.
Well, thank you for the well thought-out, articulate rebuttal.
I can only assume what part of my comment you’re rebutting, so I assume it is the “lawfully prohibit the possession of firearms inside their buildings” part.
In fact: yes, they do.
The policy is lawful, in that it does not run contrary to law (as did the state university system’s blanket ban of concealed carry, that was overturned by the state court of appeals). Now, that policy does not carry the force of law. Students may lawfully violate it, and violating it will not lead to criminal charges. The school can only enforce its own discipline, such as trespassing, suspending, and/or expelling the student.
It was a gun-free zone by policy, not by law. That doesn’t make it any less of a gun-free zone.
That policy statement sure did a great job of intimidation of CCW holders, and the college administration appears to have accomplished their gun free campus. In spite of the law, they manage to deny armed students with a CCW from entering “public buildings” on campus, if not carrying on the campus grounds.
It’s really strange, but there are two “exceptions” to note.
Item (2) (c) in the law 166.173 speaks to a CCW holder being exempt from “a city or county” gun ordinance (but no mention of a “college policy”).
Then, in (2) (d) the law also exempts “A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370“, where we find:
Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility
(1)Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
. . .
(3)Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
. . .
(d)A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.
The college administration presents its policy as if it had absolute authority over guns on campus, but in a CYA move adds “except as expressly authorized by law”. They manage to obfuscate matters so that an infringement that neither a county government nor a city government is permitted to legislate, is effectively committed by a college administration policy statement.
It is a “de facto” gun free zone, though not “de lege”, if I have my legalese correct.
It’s 100% as gun free as a mall or theater with posted no weapon signs in a state where said signs don’t carry force of law.
Which is to say, it will disarm anyone who isn’t either 1: a criminal or 2: 100% sure of their rights and the law.
I think that counts.
Ralph/Ben/Chris —-
Would it be a fair assessment of the situation to say that a mere agency of a government (county gov’t, I suspect), subordinate to the state government of Oregon, has been permitted to infringe on the state-endorsed and legislatively protected rights of CCW holders? They do so by the threat of “merely civil penalties”, which Ralph has described as including expulsion of a student who violates the policy of the college administration.
Consider the paradox that a mere agency of a subordinate government (I assume OCC is a public educational institution) can effectively violate the clear intent of state laws by merely issuing a policy statement, when — by state law — no subordinate government level is permitted to legislate an interference with the right to carry of a CCW holder, in a “public place” or “in or on a public building”.
The only way I see to correct this situation is a further expansion of the law to specifically address and limit the power of such agencies, even though that should not be necessary.
But you gotta admit, if every purchaser were required to get police permission to have a weapon (after proving true ‘need’) then likely this guy would never have been able to buy a firearm. No firearm, no mass killing with a firearm. Horse is out of the barn, now. And it will be truly amazing to watch an attempt at total gun confiscation (from law-abiding residents, only).
The logic of gun control (prohibition/confiscation) is unassailable: Forget the constitution, we can’t let a law get in the way of doing the right thing. No guns, no gun violence (screw the criminal element killing each other; they deserve it. innocent victims in gang-controlled neighborhoods? well, life is tough; move out if you don’t like it).
While it would be fun to watch all the gun-grabbers become victims of criminal assault, that is unlikely. But the simplicity of “no guns; no gun crimes” is actually beautiful. Wish POTG has a similarly elegant and simple solution to advertise (no, railing about constitutional rights does not win the argument, or win hearts and minds, we need something powerful that energizes the emotions in our favor).
I’ll nibble at the bait.
Please answer this question oh wise learned one…does a criminal ask the police permission to rob, rape or murder? Do robberies, rapes and murder only happen with firearms?
The true evil is asking for permission to lawfully protect oneself and a government denying the use of the most cost effective tool preventing law abiding citizens from using it.
Not bait. Just a review of the way statists think (mostly they don’, but regurgitate something they heard). The war about guns in this country is not an academic exercise, it is real. The simple logic of the left is difficult to counter because of its simplicity. POTG need something emotionally compelling because the anti-gun crowd cannot be convinced to listen to anything other than emotion.
@mk: Nailed it, thank you
Not really.
The original point was to demonstrate the strength of the simple logic of the gun-grabbers and camp followers. Trying to elevate the argument to some sort of noble mission with lofty ideals, we need to understand how weak-minded people think, how they reason, and how to use that against them to reach a truce, or cease fire. No sense calling-out high principles of rights, and a free society and soaring paeans to logic and reason. Are we not casting pearls before swine?
Wrong question. It is a logic trap that attempts to make people stop thinking about the real problems and recruit them for a specific political goal.
.
Exactly. 2A is a political cause of the first order.
I want the unthinking anti-gun (and sympathizers) to at least be neutral or stop agitating for controlling others. Emotional argument is the only way to appeal. Facts, figures, data, stats, reason cannot reach them. If being objective worked, we wouldn’t be in a war to protect our rights protected by the constitution.
This is not some esoteric mental exercise or refined debating contest conducted on the grass courts of Wimbledon. There is no way to persuade gun-grabber to come over to our side. I will be happy for a permanent cease fire.
Once read some philosopher who pronounced, “People are not persuaded by the height of your reasoning, but by the depth of your emotion.” We should not be engaged in asymmetric warfare. Use the enemy’s strength against them.
I agree that no private guns equals no private gun crime and that North Korea is a utopia for that very reason. Gun crime committed by the State is another matter.
Indeed.
We can go round and round but he answer is simple, the USA has a Constitution which guarantees the 2A as a Right, not a privilege. It is very clear. This fact will shut down any and all battles.
Then why this forum, why this conversation?
Like a tire, they wear with time and sometimes pop. Avoiding a failure is near impossible to predict. Preventative maintenance might help, and if you’re lucky you’ll see a nail or a bulge before you end up in trouble.
+1 (I think)
No Guns / No Gun Crimes just means that there will be plenty of knife, machete, and baseball bat crimes.
Agree, but the anti-gun crowd already stipulated that is acceptable. After all, without a gun, you can kill 20-30 people at one go. And there are just about zero stories of a neighbor child killed by a bat, hammer, tire iron, etc. that blasted through the wall after being flung by a mentally disturbed person in the house next door.
“But the simplicity of “no guns; no gun crimes” is actually beautiful.”
Is it “simple” or “simplistic”? Whenever I find someone lamenting “GUN murders” — I take a page from Gertrude Stein:
“A corpse is a corpse is a corpse”.
I know what you mean though, something pithy and more emotional than logical. Perhaps a parody, such as “no rain; no flood”. Let them think that over a bit.
Now, that might be something to build on.
This is easy. It is the duty of every citizen 18 yrs. and older to be armed at all times in public places. This is the opening position from which we negotiate. Considering the current state of infringing laws, antis need to make concessions to get back to common sense laws.
The need here is to find a compelling/overwhelming emotional argument that will cause the antis to leave us alone. At present, we (POTG and allies) do not have the political clout to pass laws such as you recommend. To get that clout, anti-gun nuts need to be neutral (little prospect of getting them to support us). Simple posturing does not advance the cause. Nor does being right about rights.
Which goes to show you that lone gunmen cannot be traced, unlike terrorists who conspire, using phones, the mails, and the interwebs. Which is why we have 9/11 and not much else–there is intelligence on terrorists. There aren’t many terrorists, but there are a lot of people with mental health issues, a very very small minority of whom will act out violently. The only difference between this guy and a serial killer is that he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, while serial killers do not plan on getting caught.
The same FFL dealer sold the shooter 13 or 14 guns? Man, the FFL must be really bummed about losing such a good customer. Loss of license to follow.
BTW, turns out that the scvmbag’s father is a Brit and the shooter himself had a valid British passport. There seems to be some controversy in the media about where the shooter was born. Some say Britain, some say California. Will someone please check with Pierced Organ?
@Ralph: Why would the FFL lose their license ? If this guy had no history of mental problems then the sales were likely to be legai, right ?
It’s a complicated business, I’m sure if you look hard enough into any FFL you’ll find some sort of error here or there. And this FFL dealer WILL be looked into hard enough to find those errors.
Exactly. This dealer is about to have his undershorts examined under a microscope. Something bad will be found, whether it’s there or not.
“vague and broad federal laws have made honest citizens into federal felons.”
The conversation reminded me of the idea that there are so many vague laws on the books that your average “law abiding” American commits an average of 3 felonies a day.
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
How many victims families will sue the gun dealer for selling legal guns to the killer?
Or
How many mixed race gun buyers will sue a gun dealer for refusing to serve them because the gun seller was uncomfortable selling to the buyer. Can you still refuse service to anyone who makes you uncomfortable? Or you are suspicious about?
All good questions. The Sandy Hook families are suing Remington for making the rifle used by the murderer. The suit hasn’t been kicked yet.
http://abc13.com/news/newtown-families-suit-against-gun-maker-sent-to-state-court/1011411/
And I’ll wager that an FFL who declined a mixed-race customer after passing a NICS check would find himself in court faster than a Christian baker.
“Can you still refuse service to anyone who makes you uncomfortable? Or you are suspicious about?”
Yes.
I personally have refused to sell to a customer who made me uncomfortable.
I excused myself to the back room and bumped heads with the shop owner. I let him know my concerns, he agreed and took my place at the counter and finished the rest of the non-transaction.
One can refuse business to people easily unless it is fairly clear that the refusal is based on particular characteristics. That said, you can bet not every FFL will refuse; one will either not pick up the cues, have a different threshold or just not care. It’s not a reasonable fallback position; whatever ‘reasonable measures’ are needed, they must be within the flawed NICS process.
And the fact is, sometimes people will be able to get a gun and then do something criminal with it.
Ralph:
That lawsuit will be thrown out just like the lucky gunner suit was. We can only hope they also charge the families for filing frivolous lawsuits, too.
I think when it is all said and done “A” Federal Firearms Dealer will simply be that they were bought legally from a dealer but not all from the same dealer.
13 guns from one dealer doesn’t sound excessive to me. Before he passed I had a local guy, an ffl with a store, that I did a lot of my business with. When I was at the height of my mil-surp craze I probably bought at least one a month from him.
It got to the point that when I walked in he’d just say, “let me know when you have the one you want and I’ll do the paperwork.”
Knocked him off his stride when I’d buy a new one from the behind the counter rack.
So what if all 13 were bought from ‘A’ dealer? All things being equal from the FFL’s perspective, that’s a good customer! Lots of decent people have GREAT, longstanding relationships with their LGS…
How about this: Any place that is designate at GFZ is required to have metal detectors, armed guards and locked storage safes for any weapons left when entering the area ? If that is not done then the GFZ is really a “Victim Zone”.
That’s the only thing that makes sense to me. I’m okay with Congress being ‘gun free’ if the bad guy can’t walk in with a gun. Same thing with airplanes.
How about this: Any place that is designated a GFZ is required to have the administration wear target shirts that read “I am gun free, shoot me first”.
Absolutely.
I would require any GFZ to be enforced with armed guards (uniformed AND plain clothes on duty), metal detectors X-ray, etc.
Eventually, we will see a lawsuit by some CCW holder obeying the law, who was injured by a criminal in a “gun free zone” magically created by a “No guns allowed” sign.
ATF found another gun so that is how they get to 14. One of the news sites says he was committed at some point. I hope it pans out to show how silly background checks are
He was also kicked out the Army. He couldn’t pass today’s Basic training.
The nitwit who shot the Arizona congresscritter (the one who’s married to the space cadet who looks like Uncle Fester) was rejected for the military due to drug use. The military did not make any report. If it had, the shooter could not have purchased his gun legally. The same may be true in this case. We’ll see.
So much for Anti gun Sen Floyd Proanski’s universal background check bill which was rammed threw last year. All of the anti gun proposals he and Obama want will never stop mass killings. Its just another fascist way to strip Americans of there rights.
“Rammed” is a pretty violent action verb. “Rammed threw” is far too much violent action for two words; roughly equivalent to “exploded upon”.
I think the best quote so far in all this bs has been “stuff happens”
Thanks jeb!
Post-modern sign reading: what you bring to the reading affects how you read what you read.
One person will read “gun free zone” as meaning defenses should be let down because no guns are allowed.
Another will read the same sign as meaning “free fire zone” because defenses are down.
The state that impedes one’s ability to defend oneself without taking on that responsibility itself has less interest in the safety of its citizens than in its agents.
OK, I see CNN is quoting unnamed persons again who are stating that this guy had a racial hatred of blacks. What is the damn deal here–his mother is black, and that’s who he lived with rather than his father. What is the story? Is there something I’m missing, or is CNN joining LA Times and just going full-bore fact-free propagandist here?
All the dead victims were white or pale people with Hispanic surnames. What does that tell you about the shooter’s racial animus?
He killed people who looked like him?
How’d I do?
You missed. Maybe you’ve been looking at that pic CNN has been running of him, the one they kind of whitewashed to make him a couple of shades lighter. Or did I miss an implied /sarc tag?
He still looks more like he could be Obama’s son than the White guy identified as his father, who was shocked to hear what his son did.
I came across one dolt who claimed the murderer was White, “because his parents come from England”.
BTW has anybody found a picture of the mother of this homicidal maniac? We see a lot of the Dad — how about Mom.
Saw a picture of her somewhere but it has escaped me now. But that’s how I remember that she is the black parent and dad is the white. I think the mom’s pic may be in some article at breitbart.
@Another Robert
Thanks for the info. No luck at Breitbart. Their search doesn’t seem to work.
Photos of both parents, and evidence of CNN literally white-washing the skin tone of the shooter:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/02/the-curious-case-of-oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-a-social-media-profile-shaped-modified-and-deleted/
Thank you Chip. That link confirmed my suspicions. Too bad that “White supremacist” didn’t try to join the Klan.
There’s a well-known thought exercise in statistics: if you have a man who’s timid, is happily married, wears glasses, and likes to read poetry in his spare time, is he more likely to be a trucker or an Ivy League professor?
The obvious answer is “Ivy League professor.” But there are more than a thousand times as many truck drivers as professors- he’s far more likely to be a trucker.
The same thing is true in this case. Looking back at a madman’s early life, we think we see all the telltale signs of a maladjusted sociopath. But the truth is, there are a million other kids that also seem to fit the brooding, socially incompetent profile, and yet there’s only a few spree killers a year. Hindsight bias will ruin you.
Well said. Reminded me of Chris Rock’s quip about “Orenthal the Murderous Bus Driver”.
I heard the press conference live just after lunch on Friday. They said “a” gun dealer, not “1” gun dealer. The press didn’t ask a single follow up question after the huge news that all guns were traced to “legal” dealer sales – so I didn’t get clarification if it was more than one dealer or not.
BTW, it also sounded like some of the guns were purchased and/or owned by family members.
“The Busboy”. That’s how I’ll always think of him – if indeed I ever do think of him again – because he’s got that busboy look down pat.
Maybe when the ReliablePartyOrgans like LATimes, CNN, and WAPO wipe the egg off their faces from being pwned by the 4chan trolls for “white supremicist” and running like lapdogs eager to offer up their own slanted stats in response to the Obama presser, they can do some reporting in depth.
Specifically, they can ask about mental health funding, and how come the states don’t report to NICS from their own databases on crimes and disqualifying conditions? Why should we add MORE background checking and gun registration, when the Feds cant even do what they have put in place, properly?
Instead of making up new laws that further target the sane, responsible law abiding citizens, how about the ATF and FBI and DOJ carry out their own responsibility to get it right on NICs.
And while you are at it, Free Press, how about you do that thing called “journalism” – do your homework, investigate, and then hold accountable the States, and the feckless, corrupt bureacrats that arent keeping track of stats responsibly for doing so- as CA has already been sued, for failing to abide by its own laws, and stealing money set aside from DROS fees, to pay for the failed effort to update and correct the 60% error rate on its own database.
What, LATimes, did you say?
You’re assuming the mainstream media is expected to (at least sometimes) fulfill their 4th Estate role to society and investigate, then report on government malfeasance or lack of accountability. When in actuality the mainstream media is a government propaganda organ dedicated to helping expand government size, power and influence.
When there is no news to report that can’t be used to promote larger government as the solution …. the American media is simply another entertainment outlet tasked with keeping the masses distracted from noticing the media/gov’t symbiotic relationship working overtime to enslave them.
Remember, its CNN. So the facts are suspect at the very beginning.
Second, its ATF. So the truth is suspect at the very beginning.
Third- no one wants to talk about the mental health issue, because it would assign responsibility to the person, not the gun… against the Obama and ReliablePartyOrgan press Narrative…
One thing I find interesting, is that the press has not found the shooters Mom, but others are digging:
Here is what I get so far, googling at 1734PST:
Posts on Facebook: http://www.vocativ.com/news/236762/oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-guns
Post on Aspergers forum- noting she has a son with same: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/chris-harper-mercer-umpqua-community-college-shooting.html
LATimes- with unattributed quotes from law enforcement sources, in same article mentioning the FBI-
this is apparently where the LATimes meme about “white supremicists” originated, or was shared with 4chan:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chris-harper-mercer-oregon-shooting-20151002-htmlstory.html
Oregon Live- a day ago- talking about use of name “lithium love” and his attending alternative school for troubled kids- lithium is a drug long used for bipolar, and other mental issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/chris-harper-mercer-umpqua-community-college-shooting.html
Is there a point to discussing mental health?
Nothing in this kids background (at least what’s been reported so far) was severe enough to justify taking away his constitutional rights. You are allowed to be weird, to be a loner, to be angry, even to hate…it’s another facet of freedom.
We’d have to set the mental health bar disturbingly low to have caught any of these shooters before they opened fire. And we’ll unnecessarily strip a lot of good folks of their rights in the process.
Exactly. But then, that’s the point of going after the ‘mentally ill’ so it can be all-encompassing.
Government cover up, “Fast and Furious” lets plant a gun. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote. Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Comments are closed.