Shooting at Oregon community college.

[philip964]

ATF reported he had 6 weapons at the scene, 7 at home. They are researching how he got them all.


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10 ... blicanism/

He is an immigrant from the UK, not US born.

Thus his interest in the IRA, but it would seem on the non UK side.

[mojo84]

This makes it clear it wasn't the guns' fault.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... qua_c.html

[NotRPB]

Some odd stuff out there

Posted by EU Times on Oct 2nd, 2015

http://www.eutimes.net/2015/10/oregon-m ... om-russia/

[NotRPB]

ATF reported he had 6 weapons at the scene, 7 at home. They are researching how he got them all.


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10 ... blicanism/

He is an immigrant from the UK, not US born.

Thus his interest in the IRA, but it would seem on the non UK side.

So over half his weapons were good guns & fewer than 50% were evil guns.

[VMI77]

Cornyn is apparently fostering a bill that will upgrade background reporting and improve the federal database. BUT his bill does not require background checks on gun show or private sales. I believe that the great majority of gun owners, including NRA members, approve of better background checking and closing the loopholes so I don't see why it doesn't happen.

What is the loophole you want closed? Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to run background checks. The only way you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check is by buying one from a private owner at the show. If you force them to do background checks at the shows, some of them will comply but some will simply sell their guns in other ways.

If you require ALL private sales to require background checks, then you impose a financial burden on private owners that will cause some to go underground, especially those who are shady to begin with.

The problem with background checks, like all other laws, is they are completely ineffective against law breakers.

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.

[VoiceofReason]

If we can get laws passed that requires a metal detector at the door to the “gun free zones” lock boxes at the door to leave our guns and armed security, that will go a long way to prevent these shootings.

If it is not “gun free” the perp may run into a CHL. If it is gun free he may have a problem getting his gun in the door, then there is that armed security.

That would probably cut the number of “gun free” zones way down because most are too cheap to pay for that security.

[brian1973]

This morning on the radio I heard a clip from an interview with one of our state reps expecting they will repel the campus carry laws next session because thinking a"good guy with a gun" would have helped is fantasy..did anyone else hear this and does anyone know who this representative was.. I never did catch his name.

[dale blanker]

Cornyn is apparently fostering a bill that will upgrade background reporting and improve the federal database. BUT his bill does not require background checks on gun show or private sales. I believe that the great majority of gun owners, including NRA members, approve of better background checking and closing the loopholes so I don't see why it doesn't happen.

What is the loophole you want closed? Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to run background checks. The only way you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check is by buying one from a private owner at the show. If you force them to do background checks at the shows, some of them will comply but some will simply sell their guns in other ways.

If you require ALL private sales to require background checks, then you impose a financial burden on private owners that will cause some to go underground, especially those who are shady to begin with.

The problem with background checks, like all other laws, is they are completely ineffective against law breakers.

Laws are completely ineffective??? As McEnroe used to say: "You cannot be serious!". Then who are the characters that are filling our prisons?

So if we have no laws there will be no law breakers!

I don't know about you but I take my guns seriously and would not sell to a questionable character. Those who would deserve a little financial burden or maybe even complicity in a crime that develops from their casual sale. IMHO

[JP171]

Dale blanker, how many of those in jail were convicted of weapons crime? less than 1 percent I would imagine. The over 1000 gun laws in the federal system let alone state laws are not prosecuted so there fore they do nothing. sorry dood but I gotta go with B.E. on that and that was what he was talking about and you know it.

OH VM, chairman Maobama was NEVER a professor, he was merely an speaker at the law college, he was not even an adjunct instructor just a lecturer and only did that 2 to 3 times a month and is also now disbarred from practicing law

[mojo84]

Cornyn is apparently fostering a bill that will upgrade background reporting and improve the federal database. BUT his bill does not require background checks on gun show or private sales. I belie7ve that the great majority of gun owners, including NRA members, approve of better background checking and closing the loopholes so I don't see why it doesn't happen.

What is the loophole you want closed? Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to run background checks. The only way you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check is by buying one from a private owner at the show. If you force them to do background checks at the shows, some of them will comply but some will simply sell their guns in other ways.

If you require ALL private sales to require background checks, then you impose a financial burden on private owners that will cause some to go underground, especially those who are shady to begin with.

The problem with background checks, like all other laws, is they are completely ineffective against law breakers.

Laws are completely ineffective??? As McEnroe used to say: "You cannot be serious!". Then who are the characters that are filling our prisons?

So if we have no laws there will be no law breakers!

I don't know about you but I take my guns seriously and would not sell to a questionable character. Those who would deserve a little financial burden or maybe even complicity in a crime that develops from their casual sale. IMHO

Dale, those people are in jail because they committed a crime and got caught afterward. Apparently it was already illegal for them to commit the crimes and they got caught after the crimes were committed. Does that indicate they were effective in preventing the crimes?

As far as your comment about selling guns, do you really think more laws are going to stop criminals from obtaining guns? If other laws don't prevent criminal behaviour, why would new ones? Do you also believe a seller of a vehicle should be held responsible for the ctions of the buyer once the sale is made.

Hasn't most of these shooters experienced either death or prosecution after they committed their crimes? Apparently, it being illegal to murder someone didn't prevent the act.

[DEB]

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.

[Beiruty]

The guy was a military recruit who was dismissed (fired). He could not join a firearms academy? There are tons of red flags about this mass killer.

More info http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/ ... EP20151003

[philip964]

Some odd stuff out there

Posted by EU Times on Oct 2nd, 2015

http://www.eutimes.net/2015/10/oregon-m ... om-russia/

Agree very odd.

[philip964]

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/vide ... -religion/

Says the shooter is Muslim leaning. Can't vouch for the website, maybe just wishful thinking on their part.

My anti gun friends on Facebook are moving towards Bernie Sanders, but only if he changes his gun stance.

[Beiruty]

The guy was Satanic.