Page 10 of 13
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:47 pm
by Jago668
The guy is dead, and that is all that I really care about him.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:23 pm
by dale blanker
VMI77 wrote:
Given the lying government and lying administration and media we have I was highly suspicious about the 2.4 million rejected background checks, and I was right to be. On the way home from work I was listening to Mark Levin and he had John Lott on the show. After talking about Obama's arrogance and narcissism (Lott encountered him when he was a professor at the University of Chicago), Lott said that the background check system was a mess and that the 2.4 million rejected number was 99% false positives. IOW, 99% of these rejections were rejections of people legitimately entitled to purchase firearms, but were rejected by error. Nothing this narcissist says or our media says is anything but a lie, usually a lie of omission.
I'm not familiar with the context of Lott's comment but I suspect the false positive percentage was based on the number of actual followup indictments. Gun sales denials are not developed from a roll of the dice but from FBI and state/local records of felony convictions/indictments, domestic violence, mental health issues, dishonorable discharges, age, and other. Some denials are appealed and corrected but I believe this is a small percentage of the total denials.
As I said before... Cornyn's bill (as I understand it) might improve state reporting and federal database maintenance and thereby the background checking that is done. It might even help the few who would otherwise be false positives avoid a delay. But not including the 40% of gun sales done privately does not make much sense.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:31 pm
by mojo84
Dale, what are you talking about? The feds choose not to prosecute those that lie on the form and try to purchase a gun. We all know it's not up to chance or a roll of the dice.
What doesn't make sense is the government not enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Why do you think more laws would help?
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:44 pm
by ScottDLS
mojo84 wrote:Dale, what are you talking about? The feds choose not to prosecute those that lie on the form and try to purchase a gun. We all know it's not up to chance or a roll of the dice.
What doesn't make sense is the government not enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Why do you think more laws would help?
The reason that they likely fail to prosecute the denials is that the vast majority of them (99%?) are false positives. There's anecdotal evidence of guys on this board getting denied multiple times, getting fed up trying to clear it up with FB,I and just getting (legitimately) a CHL so they can purchase. And by the way, the CHL background runs the NICS check too, but different day, different results which does not improve my faith in the system. Then you've got agencies VA, SSA, etc. just arbitrarily putting people in the system without an adjudication.
The last thing we need is more Federal interference in private transfers. There's a good argument that the Feds don't even have the constitutional authority to impose them on private intrastate transfers which is why the GCA '68 didn't add requirements to private sales.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:27 pm
by JALLEN
There is something weird going on here.
The way the MSM is covering this story makes it sound like this guy was a loner weirdo.
http://theconservativetreehous...odified-and-deleted
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:53 pm
by WildBill
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:12 pm
by JALLEN
Thanks. Copying links on the iPad is an uncertain business.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:22 pm
by JP171
No he was NOT ever a soldier, he was an enlisted recruit, he was in the army for less than 30 days and administratively discharged for failure to adapt. Again he was NEVER a soldier so please don't use that term in reference to him. Thank you for listening to this public service announcment
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:28 pm
by Beiruty
JP171 wrote:
No he was NOT ever a soldier, he was an enlisted recruit, he was in the army for less than 30 days and administratively discharged for failure to adapt. Again he was NEVER a soldier so please don't use that term in reference to him. Thank you for listening to this public service announcment
Post is updated.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:40 pm
by Taypo
JP171 wrote:
No he was NOT ever a soldier, he was an enlisted recruit, he was in the army for less than 30 days and administratively discharged for failure to adapt. Again he was NEVER a soldier so please don't use that term in reference to him. Thank you for listening to this public service announcment
Getting REAL tired of listening to people call him a soldier too. He didn't make it out of basic training. In this day and age if you can't get through that, you're pretty much hopeless.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 11:31 pm
by The Annoyed Man
DEB wrote:First, I feel that in order to have a fully effective Background Check the Government must have full registration of all firearms. In order to have a fully effective registration of firearms the Government must have the ability to enter one's home, without notice, of those they suspect having firearms. Don't believe me? Become an FFL and read what you are agreeing to allow. Also, check what is happening to gun-owners or those who are suspect in having a firearm, in England, South Africa and Australia. Still don't? See what it is like to be a Soldier living on base, either in the Barracks or in Housing and what they must agree to. As an NCO, I was complicit in enforcing those rules, although I believe nobody had any illusions about their Bill of Rights within the military. I was also complicit in Bosnia, in the removal of those folk's weapons. I was on Fort Hood during both of the attacks, even assisted with a Soldier who had suffered a Gun Shot wound in his lower chest on the left side. Full gun control sure didn't stop those acts. Now, I am no longer in the Military, I want to remain free to react to how I will allow someone to victimize me, i.e. theft of property versus attack on person. So, although I feel for those who are victimized by the evil within our society, I do not want to be the willing victim, I want the chance to protect myself and my family and those others I love. Even if I lose and perish, I never want either me or those I love to have to bend our necks to the knife or get on our knees for the bullet, reference Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mexico, Honduras, et al, even this most recent act in Oregon. So, IMHO, those who support mandatory full Background Checks, either don't understand the ramifications of that or are complicit in a scripted end result of a full gun ban. Because I fully believe that is the intended end result. They may say whatever they please, but I can tell a Leopard by its spots. RIP to all those who perished under this monster's attack. I believe though, that some of the blame can be pointed toward those who have intentionally disarmed the American people, both in thought and action. Most no longer have the Martial spirit, as even that has been dumbed down by the intentional snide, elitist attacks on what was once considered to be honorable. Look at the frenzy after each of these attacks, disarm, disarm. I would rather see them teaching these, (Young People for crying out loud), to attack those who wish to do them harm. Instead of Run, Hide, Fight; teach Fight, Run. If all 9 of those (now deceased) young folks would have attacked this person and then beat him to death, how many would have died? Just because you get shot, doesn't mean death, especially immediate death. Go to the local VFW and you will find many individuals who have stories of survival. But if you allow someone to place a firearm to your head and then allow them to pull the trigger, you most assuredly will perish. But, no one will react like this unless you train them, just as the Military does for React to Contact and etc. These are young dynamic people and they are allowing themselves to be willing accomplices in their deaths. I salute their bravery for not denouncing their Lord and Savior, but I really salute the young Veteran who at least attempted to stop the shooter. What would it have looked like, if all 9 of those who died had assisted him, is my question? Hopefully this didn't sound heartless or uncaring, because it most assuredly wasn't meant to be. My heart breaks when I hear of these actions, but my heart ache is both from feelings of loss as well as my frustration and anger at our leadership within our Churches, the media, each of the separate States as well as at the National stage.
I would have broken this up into paragraphs for readability, but I think you're spot on. I note that one of the dead students was shot as she stuck her head out of the classroom into the hall to see if escape was possible. Apparently, the teacher in the classroom where the slaughter took place was killed immediately before he could do or say anything. But I had much the same question that you had: what rooted the victims in place, instead of trying to bum rush the shooter?
But this is hardly the first time this has happened. On 9/11/01, only the passengers on flight 93 tried to organize any resistance to the hijackers. The others on the other flights were presumably paralyzed by fear, and simply went like sheep to their own slaughter. I don't say this to be disrespectful at all, but it does seem to me that when the chips are absolutely down, and you're probably going to die anyway, you've got nothing to lose by trying to take that plane, or classroom, back. I don't recall how many passengers were on each of the 4 hijacked flights that day, but we know that the hijackers numbered only 5 per flight, so they were far from invincible. I think that, to our detriment, society has largely bred the capacity for righteous violence out of us.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:14 am
by dale blanker
ScottDLS wrote:mojo84 wrote:Dale, what are you talking about? The feds choose not to prosecute those that lie on the form and try to purchase a gun. We all know it's not up to chance or a roll of the dice.
What doesn't make sense is the government not enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Why do you think more laws would help?
The reason that they likely fail to prosecute the denials is that the vast majority of them (99%?) are false positives. There's anecdotal evidence of guys on this board getting denied multiple times, getting fed up trying to clear it up with FB,I and just getting (legitimately) a CHL so they can purchase. And by the way, the CHL background runs the NICS check too, but different day, different results which does not improve my faith in the system. Then you've got agencies VA, SSA, etc. just arbitrarily putting people in the system without an adjudication.
The last thing we need is more Federal interference in private transfers. There's a good argument that the Feds don't even have the constitutional authority to impose them on private intrastate transfers which is why the GCA '68 didn't add requirements to private sales.
I don't know about you but if I were denied a gun sale based on a false positive background check, I would appeal, appeal, appeal until it was corrected. I came across this DoJ report about FBI background checks for gun sales in 2010 that shows that denial appeals resulting in reversals amount to .06% of the total year's applications. Ok, so some don't bother - too busy, too lazy, whatever. It sure looks like the VAST majority of denials were not false positives that year. What am I missing?
By the way, it seemed to me that Texas CHL background checking was pretty thorough and I didn't mind it a bit except for having to repeat fingerprinting to get an acceptably readable set. Maybe more thorough ID for gun sale background checks would help reduce the false positives even more(?).
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:05 am
by rbwhatever1
CNN must have had screen settings too bright when they posted their version of this selfie...
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:37 am
by MeMelYup
rbwhatever1 wrote:CNN must have had screen settings too bright when they posted their version of this selfie...
One of them has been photoshopped, look at his nose and lips.
Re: Shooting at Oregon community college.
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:37 am
by MeMelYup
rbwhatever1 wrote:CNN must have had screen settings too bright when they posted their version of this selfie...
One of them has been photoshopped, look at his nose and lips.