“How does a man investigated by the FBI for possible links to terrorism buy an assault-style weapon in America?” nbcnews.com asks. “Easily,” they answer. “The American-born Mateen had security and firearm licenses and his guns were legally purchased within the past week . . . That suspected terrorists can legally purchase weapons in the U.S. has been a fierce point of contention in Congress and among gun-control advocates.”
Literally not to mention gun rights advocates. Americans who see federal infringement on their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, without due process, based on an unaccountable and secret list generated by the federal government, a really bad idea. Unlike . . .
Gabby Giffords, the former U.S. representative who survived a 2011 mass shooting, referenced that vote in an impassioned statement following the Orlando attack.
“These actions may or may not have stopped last night’s shooting, but we know they will save lives,” she said.
How pathetic is that? We know this wouldn’t work but let’s do it anyway! Just in case it does. The Orlando shooting is bring out the same anti-gun agitprop as all the other high-profile mass shootings, only more so. Election year, don’tcha know. Make it count.
This is a dumb question, are your rights taken away because you are investigated? Is this minority report? WTF are you thinking. We do not want the Gov to have any more power. If we let them do this then the gov under the libtards will put people on by the millions and stop or slow down transfers. How about we stop Muslims from entering the country that is a great start.
If this (losing your 2nd Amendment rights because you’re being investigated for links to terrorist orgs) logic is to be applied consistently, shouldn’t Hillary lose her Freedom of Speech because of the investigation into her email scandal?
Oh no, naturally this only applies to the 2nd A. Give the government the power to arbitrarily deny that right to people due to “suspicion” or “investigation” or being listed on a secret list for an unknown reason and there’s no way on earth it could happen to our other rights. Forget the fact that the people calling for this change to the law are the same ones deriding Trump for his comments about monitoring mosques and registering Muslim immigrants, etc etc. When he suggests infringing upon rights due to government suspicion the left says he’s evil, but when the left suggests doing the exact same thing against 2nd A rights it’s suddenly “common sense.”
Forgetting the fact that this shooter was investigated two or three times and never charged with anything. Exactly what Constitutionally-protected rights are we supposed to strip from this person, again? Should we have prevented him from going to his place of worship, forced him to register as a suspicious Muslim, tapped his phones, spied on him, blocked his internet access, seized his assets, revoked his passport or driver’s license? The same people saying we should have revoked his 2nd A rights would freak the F out if it were suggested that any of these other rights be infringed upon based on suspicion and investigations that found nothing conclusive.
You refer to Mateen’s phony “Birthright citizenship”? His parents were not legitimately in the US (or no such report). Daddy apparently is Taliban. She spawns and we are so STUPID that the demtards gift him US Citizenship. BS and not Constitutional.
They are already here! They are in every walk of life; the guy in the army at Fort Hood remember him. It will be a black guy, it will be a white guy, it can be just about anyone that ISIS can influence to do terrorist acts. Twenty years before the fall of Saigon Vietnam, the communist planted into the Saigon government, agents, the day of the fall they came out of the wood work. When people want to kill others, they will do it.
Nbc nightly news then segued into the fact that even tho Orlando and San Bernadino were terror related, that’s usually not the case and proceeded to show James Holmes (theater shooting), the kid from Charleston who shot up the church, the crazy old white supremacist in Kansas who killed some Jews. Basically calling those last two events an aberration and mass shootings are always racist and/or crazy white guys. No mention Nadal Hassan and other I can’t think of at the moment. Then unto a speak by Tom Brokaw about how evil the AR15 is (a complete Fudd who loves his shotguns). I know NBC is totally biased but this was truly unreal to me. It was the most blatant propaganda I think I’ve ever seen. So bad I can’t believe any of the new media hasn’t spoken about. Segment aired last night around 7:00pm est right after NBC Nightly news.
It’s even worse than that. The outcome of the investigations was that there was no substantial link. In otherwords all they want is an investigation to permanently remove rights.. sickening.
They obviously don’t understand the concept of Due Process.
They understand it perfectly. That’s why they have to get the sheeple to demand their own rights be taken away.
Wrong question. Question should be “why wasn’t someone in the club armed so they could have fought back?”
You wouldn’t say “why was flammable material allowed in the building”. You’d say “why weren’t there sprinklers”. Same type of thing.
The liberal/progressives have had a long run with their gun control schemes. They don’t work. It’s now time to remove all gun control and see a different result. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Not to be a drag, but there was an armed police officer inside the building. He was beaten back by superior firepower which allowed the shooter into the building.
I hear you.
I like the mantra “two is one, one is none.”
In this case it could have easily been dozens making it a two way range.
Superior firepower, and the element of surprise.
It’s no matter, if there were two guards the Jihadi would have attacked with four assailants. They have planning and time on their side, and will always seek out the soft targets – they are playing dirty and mean to win at any cost.
Point taken. They fight dirty for sure.
Even four walking into a packed club would have been surrounded by potential defenders. Hard to fight a 360 battle. That is, only if it wasn’t a Gun Free Kill Zone.
Was it one uniformed armed security guard? Doesn’t work. It is the first person to get shot or stabbed. It only works as deterence against an attacker that is afraid to die or work hard for his kills. You want potential attackers to know that it is not the person you see that will stop them, it is what they don’t see that will get them. If you do that, they will find a softer target.
“You wouldn’t say “why was flammable material allowed in the building”. You’d say “why weren’t there sprinklers”. Same type of thing.”
Brilliant. Extremely well put.
I am lost how was he able to obtain a security guard license and a license to have a weapon when he was on a watch list?
How is it that G4S his employer a very large Security agency wasn’t aware he was being investigated?
There are people who work for DHS who are on the terror watch list. Seriously, look it up. It’s a slippery slope. Was he convicted of any crime? No. So what you have left is a guy who, according the government, who is always trustworthy, was a suspected terrorist. What to do with him? This time, it turned out the guy really was a terrorist. Now consider the language and whims of the left, wishing to designate the NRA a terrorist organization (I’m a life member) and you can see where this goes. If only integrity and common sense could be applied, then we’d be able to restrict gun sales to people on that list. However, the smart money says that as time goes on, the names on the list will be less related to terrorism and more in line with a who’s who of folks the government considers undesirable.
Was he actually on a “watch list” (Are frequent visitors to TTAG on a watch list?), or was he simply questioned by the FBI because he was a Muslim who had made several trips to the middle east?
Even if the FBI questions or investigates you, if they do not arrest you and file charges there is no possible way that your Constitutionally protected rights can be “taken away”.
I guarantee he was not on the watch list. Do you know the multiple-orgasm feeding frenzy that would have hit the media if someone on the “Terrorist Watch List” committed a mass shooting after the NRA said we shouldn’t deprive people of rights on that reason alone?
“The NRA wants terrorists to have machine guns” narrative would reach epic proportions.
Interesting to note as well that when some 82,000 people packed the convention hall at the NRA convention a few weeks ago there was no terrorist attack. Could it be they do not want those virgins quite that bad?
How many feet inside any of those doors do you think an armed terrorist would have survived?
According to the LA Times , he had once been on the list but had since been removed.
“Even if the FBI questions or investigates you, if they do not arrest you and file charges there is no possible way that your Constitutionally protected rights can be ‘taken away’.”
Cliff, that is the problem here. The Administration and the anti-freedom, gun control crowd want ANYONE who appears on anyone of these “watch lists” to be denied the ability to purchase guns. WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS or without one even being aware that they are on the list. And without even the FBI or and other alphabet soup agency having to question you, much less arrest you.
The administration also wants to deny 2A rights to anyone who receives Social Security and has someone who helps them with their finances.
I think we can all agree that true terrorists and criminals should not be able to purchase guns, but the problem is the creep of that list and the definition of “terrorist” and who gets on those lists.
Remember, Ted Kennedy was on the terror watch list.
And Ted Kennedy, unlike most of the people on the watch list, ACTUALLY killed someone.
He was investigated for a possible link to someone in the next town who went to Syria and blew themselves up. Ft. Pierce and Vero Beach are both relatively small so a “possible” link means there more than likely was one.
G4S is a UK based multi-national purveyor of shady deeds, much like every other ‘security company’ in the employ of Fedzilla. It might be actually hard to get actual gov employees to drive illegals around the country and just drop them off – but some poor slob working for $12 will do it because he needs the paycheck.
He’s precisely the kind of guy these companies hire.
Bingo. They are a shady bunch of clowns, and they should be busted for all manner of crimes not remotely associated with this event.
The government is actually extremely secretive about who is and who isn’t on those lists. It’s ridiculous to the point where you can be denied boarding the plane, and the person at the counter will outright refuse to tell you why – because they’re legally prohibited from doing so.
As I recall, some people have even sued the govt over it, and it took over a year for the government to admit in court (!) that the name was on the no-fly list in the first place.
Can someone please tell me what these “firearm licenses” are? I didn’t think Florida required a license to purchase firearms.
He had a D and G license, this is required to be an Armed security guard in Florida, it’s not really a firearms license, its a security license.
He had a D and G license. D = Security Officer G = Statewide firearms license. A G license is required to be a security officer.
https://licensing.freshfromflorida.com/access/individual.aspx
http://invictussecurity.com/statewide-firearms-class-g-license/
The better question is why we allow Islamic terrorists to keep breathing inside our borders? Why do we allow the “religion” of hate to continue to be practiced?
A ban on Islam inside the borders of the United States would be far less a violation of the 1st amendment than the current gun control laws are a violation of the 2nd.
There is precedent. So far as I know the Mormons are the only religious group (previous to the current difficulties) to go to war against the United States government. Any Mormon readers may feel free to correct or clarify, as it has been a while since I read about this. I believe the biggest contention was the plural marriage business and the conflict ended when The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints agreed to stop the practice.
Since murdering non-believers seems to be a little more egregious than just having a bunch of wives it would seem to follow that demanding that your religion stop that practice or be banned in the U.S. would be more justified than blocking anything the Mormons were doing.
Found a link. Gotta love the Internet.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5981536/a-19th-century-war-against-mormons
Outstanding. I’m going to steal that one. Hope you don’t mind.
Spread it around. People need to know that just because you call what you believe a religion does not give you carte blanche to violate other people’s rights.
So in the summer of 1857, Mormons killed around 120 people…
Guess that one doesn’t count as the biggest mass shooting either.
In this case the shooter was born in the USA and by law a citizen.
For the rest, you need to brush up on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments.
On the other hand, if the Constitution doesn’t matter to you, that’s a whole different ball game.
There is precedent for actually reasonable restrictions to the 1st amendment. Take a look at the example of Mormons above.
Oh, and no other country on Earth practices birthright citizenship rather than inherited citizenship or naturalization. That’s something that needs to end immediately.
Of course the Constitution matter, but it seems that you are the one who need to brush up on the Constitution. The shooter may have been born in the U.S. but that doesn’t make him a citizen. The 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to foreigners born inside the U.S. Don’t take my word for it take the word of Sen. Jacob Howard who authored the amendment.
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
When Sen. Lyman Trumbull was asked about the meaning of jurisdiction thereof he said “…means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.”
In response Sen. Jacob Howard agreed and said “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States…that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
It is clear that the jurisdiction thereof clause was meant to apply to children of citizens and not to children of foreigners. Of course the actual intent and application of the amendment has been corrupted by modern courts.
>> Oh, and no other country on Earth practices birthright citizenship rather than inherited citizenship or naturalization.
28 other countries do. This includes Canada and, ironically, Mexico.
The Constitution does NOT make you a US Citizen just because your mother manages to crawl/swim/sneak across the border. “Birthright Citizenship” is NOT lawful. We have tolerated the BS for too long and now have the result.
1) Gabby didn’t survive a mass shooting. She survived an assassination attempt.
2) A whole lot of people dropped the ball when some asshole bought the guns. All other arguments about rights aside, the government is fairly inept. More laws aren’t going to suddenly improve their job performance.
3) You can bet Space Cadet Kelly had his hand up his puppet on this one, just like every time before.
They’re just pissed because those who investigated the guy didn’t do their jobs. He made threats, pledged to isis and was under investigation, then they deemed him not a threat. Who signed off on that?
“Justice” Dept “Human Rights” Div – Obumer loves him some mohammadans there for big gov’t will make nice with them.
It is truly a shame that people fail to understand that the only person who can keep you safe is you. It is your responsibility. Nobody else can do it for you. The idea that legislation can be anything but reactive is a ridiculous sham. The more we allow the government to control our daily lives, the sadder this country and its economy will become.
+1,000,000
Much to due about nothing. FBI and law enforcement in Orlando thrummed on about how they saved lives. Shrillary commend first responders. The fact remains the city of Orlando created no guns legislation, business embraced it, police enforced it and 49 are dead and 50 wounded because of it.
Citizens being attacked are the first reactors. First responders show up to collect their coin but a minutes late.
Every person has the right to lawfully protect themselves. When government removed that right the deaths are their responsibility.
This! ^
Hence the “respond” in responder…
How does a woman investigated by the FBI for possibly violating federal statutes regarding classified material handling run for president in America?
Same answer: innocent until proven guilty.
Of course some of the guilty are more presumably innocent than others.
I’ve said it before, but there’s nothing legally preventing the FBI from cross-referencing NICS checks with terrorism watch lists for investigative purposes. They could run up a red flag and look into why a guy with terrorist sympathies wanted with an AR and a Glock. It’s called a watch list, not a strip-them-of-civil-rights-and-forget-them list. So watch them.
Now the dems are saying just being on a double secret watch list is the same as a conviction? I’d rather have Isis running the streets than dems running the country.
Oops. Bet i’m on a watch list now.
We need a secret handshake.
And decoder rings.
This is just one more glaring example of your government saying it can’t protect you. I don’t know how many opportunities you need to be provided before you say ‘ok’, but I don’t need any more.
If you government (your neighbors who need jobs) says “We cannot protect you, unless you do _ _X__”, then only the first part of that statement is true, and YOU DON’T OWE IT TO YOUR GOVERNMENT TO UN-FUBAR THEM.
“Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)
Oh, by the way…
He purchased the AR15 and pistol within the last week? What happened to the argument that untrained civilians cannot effectively use “assault rifles” effectively so why would they want one for self defense?
This guy supposedly had a lot of training to get his G security license.
In answer to the actual headline question: probably with cash.
Investigation != felony conviction
Correct. To underscore the point, let’s change the object of the question,
“How does a man investigated by the FBI for possible links to terrorism buy gasoline and matches in America?”
well brothers, wish me luck. I have an enclave of liberal cousins(in kansas) who keep posting #disarmamerica and #banassaultrifles on my news feed. I have avoided doing this for years, but I’m about to break out some truth. He we go, here’s to maybe having a civil christmas.
wow #disarmamerica is pretty honest, channeling their inner feinslime maybe 🙂 Drop a knowledge bomb or two.
Your Kansas family better not be related to my Kansas family (I grew up in SW Missouri and spent 11 years in Arkansas). Apparently KS has got some serious stupid in the water.
Tom
“How does a man investigated by the FBI for possible links to terrorism buy an assault-style weapon in America?”
Wrong question (and obviously politically motivated). The answer to the wrong question is called the Fifth Amendment.
The right question is why did the FBI cut this guy loose? What did they know, what did they discount, why EXACTLY did they decide to close the file on him?
Religion of hate,nothing more…nothing less.
Ban assault religion!
The chief of police in Tokyo was shot in 1995 by a cop who was a member of aum shinrikio. How long before a member of law enforcement or the gov pulls something? This guy wasn’t much but he was in a job where he would have been able to arm up under the lefts rules.
Same people that gassed a subway line, right? Because that is so much more civilized than “gun violence”.
Maybe what they need to do is to put anyone that has been recently investigated by the FBI into NICS to send immediate notice the the investigating FBI field agents that they are purchasing firearms.
If the field agents didn’t have enough ebidence to prevent the transaction, at least they could keep watch on the person.
So far I’m seeing the left blaming everything but the ideological elephant in the middle of the room.
The guy wasn’t even on the no-fly list. If he was, this attack might have been stopped without any new laws as the FBI often increases surveillance on people on the no fly list when they buy weapons. This guy flew completely under the radar despite all the warning signs. None of what these dingbats are proposing would have stopped him.
Ban AR-15s? The next guy uses a Ruger Mini. Ban those? The next guy uses pistols. Ban pistols? The next guy locks the exits and throws a few molotov cocktails inside. Or sets up with a hunting rifle on a hill over a traffic jammed highway at rush hour.
What would have stopped him? A bullet in the head. So how about this? Let’s start a program where volunteers, rigorously background checked by the FBI, get combat pistol training (which the volunteer pays for) until they are up to FBI special agent proficiency (which many of us are right now) and then are granted a national concealed carry license that’s good anywhere except maybe onboard airplanes. Think of it as an army of federal deputies. Just men and women with guns who are willing to engage and try to slow down or stop a mass shooter like this. Because there are only going to be more of these incidents and the cops can’t be everywhere.
throws a few molotov cocktails inside
Ban alcohol….wait….
Here’s a question I haven’t heard yet. If the guy renounces his U.S. citizenship and lies about it on the 4473 then how is that a “legal purchase?” It seems the facts aren’t quite what reporters and .gov would like them to be.
Interesting to see the left basically proposing something worse than the Bush-era Patriot Act laws. What kind of “no fly, no buy, no ‘x'” laws could we see in the future.
How’s that background check system working out for you?
This thread shows the futility of any sort of background check. The terrorist murderer was subject to a typical background check on multiple ocassions, additionally, he was the subject of multiple FBI and Homeland Security invetigations.
Cleared on all counts and good to go.
At the same time, there are hundreds of known felons walking the streets of every major city in the USA carrying guns illegally, buying guns illegally, stealing guns illegally, killing illegally, raping illegally, selling drugs illegally, robbing illegally, ad nauseam.
Go figure.
How does a man investigated by the FBI for possible links to terrorism walk the streets as a free man? That’s the real question.
And the answer is that the revered, exalted and almighty FBI dropped the ball, that’s how.
Just like they will when it comes to the Crusty Old Crook and her home-brewed server.
Boston Marathon bombings.
San Bernardino massacre.
Orlando Gay Bar massacre.
The FBI was warned and they had the evidence right in the palm of their hands.
Just how many Black Eyes can the FBI take?
I wonder what they have planned to improve their image.
Waco was a fund raiser.
What do they have planned as an image raiser?
Can you say False Flag?
“Look. We can catch a Terrorist.
Honest.”
I saw on a FB group a picture of this guy’s Florida concealed carry license. Anyone know how to get access to this DB? The reason I ask, is I’m willing to bet there was more than one FL licensed concealed carrier there in the club, but of course, they were prevented from bringing in their weapon due to club policy. This would be a great research project for someone who does this for a living. hint..hint…
Yep- the FBI dropped the ball. Waiting THREE hours to storm the gay club dropped the ball. Personally my son speaks arabic, is an analyst for DoD and no one had a clue about the Arab Spring 5 years ago(why did I know?-Oh yeah I know bible prophecy). No one had a gun in FloriDUH carried into a bar…pre-crime? THIS dude was OUT THERE in plain sight.
How can he buy a gun after being investigated by the FBI?
Same way she can run for president while being investigated by the FBI.
Something I saw earlier.
In the long run, the person running for President will be larger threat than the Aloha Snackbar fan.
Because Loretta Lynch (Democratic stooge) Let it Happen, and the ATF bosses were more than willing to help, having had practice Gun walking in Mexico under Holder’s tenure!
This is another black flag operation run by the Democrats (San Bernadino) to discredit our values and Constitution!
and blame the Gun!
Semper Fortis, Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Gabby Giffords, in an impassioned statement following the Orlando attack.
“These actions may or may not have stopped last night’s shooting, but we know they will save lives,” she said.
I am amazed Gabby could even utter that non-sensical statement.
So much for gun control and the NICS.
Truth is you cannot stop these people unless you turn the US into a police state. Arrest people under the slightest suspicion. Make guns illegal and unavailable even to law abiding citizens. Even then, it will force these killers deeper. Insane as they are, they are also motivated.
Due process.
Reminds me of a conversation I was part of yesterday.
girl 1: “Sign this petition to ban ar15s!”
some guy: “That’s stupid!”
I came in to ask people to play nice
some relative of girl 1: “I don’t know anyone who owns guns. No one needs one! The second amendment isn’t for your neighborhood conspiracy party!”
Oy. Thanks for coming in and declaring exactly how little you know about something before giving us your strident opinion on that thing.
Comments are closed.