Shooting at UCLA

[delldude]

So were you upset when Reagan banned assault weapons?

 
When did Reagan ban assault weapons?

 

[700UW]

Eight years before this letter in the newspaper supporting the assault-weapons ban, Reagan, who was then president, signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was supported by gun rights advocates. In addition to providing protections for gun owners, the act also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
 
n a 1991 New York Times op-ed titled "Why I’m For the Brady Bill," Reagan detailed his support of a seven-day waiting period for gun buyers. "Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics," Reagan said in the op-ed. "… If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."

"Reagan supported the Brady Bill. That was after he had left office, but he did support it," said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. "His views are a little complicated because he also signed legislation easing the (1968) Gun Control Act, so you can take Reagan either way."
 

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/feb/05/barack-obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

 

[delldude]

You still haven't learned from the last time I schooled you on this matter.
 
Reagan never banned assault weapons, he only wrote a letter supporting Clinton's 1994 ban (which was proven to not have made a difference) well after he left office.
 
It's spelled out in your posted source.
 
The Firearms Owner Protection Act ended civilians ability to freely purchase fully automatic weapons, making it illegal to own such weapons after the law was passed, however, anyone owning fully automatic weapons was grandfathered and protected by the same law. In addition, the law made a provision for purchasing fully automatic weapons via a licensing procedure and a yearly tax.
 
The 1994 assault weapons ban was for an entirely different type of firearm.
 
Liberals seem to have no clue when this subject appears.
 
Got it now?

 

[cltrat]

^^^^^^^ burn

 

[Hackman]

Guns and Nuts.

Gun Free Zone libtards.

 

[Hackman]

NRA’s fight to stop assault weapons ban enables killers behind shootings at Orlando nightclub, Newtown, and San Bernardino to use AR-15 rifle
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/orlando-club-shooter-ar-15-rifle-newtown-article-1.2670739?utm_content=buffer7fcbc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

Pressure cooker and pipe bombs are outlawed. Gun Free Zone libtards.

 

[eolesen]

So we have
1) a known Muslim with a history of violence and intimidating his co-workers
2) twice under investigation from the FBI, but cleared
3) who legally purchased firearms from a dealer
4) target non-black gays in a club (apparently, he let the blacks live, and targeted whites & Latinos).

Seems to me he should have been flagged out as a threat, but wasn't out of political correctness.

Same MO as the perps in San Bernadino. Nobody wanted to appear racist, so they didn't act.

Yeah, it's not the guns.

It's regular people being afraid of being labeled racist for properly calling out threats to society.

The meme posted by xUT sums it up:

People didn't die because this nutjob had a gun. They died because people were afraid to call a threat a threat.

 

[FWAAA]

People didn't die because this nutjob had a gun. They died because people were afraid to call a threat a threat.

Those nightclub patrons were sacrificed on the alter of political correctness run amok.

In this case, the killer was known by the FBI to be a threat - and yet he was free to buy guns and kill dozens of people.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Gun Free Zone libtards.

He shot his way past a cop into the club.

 

[Hackman]

He shot his way past a cop into the club.

Sure did. Hidden 12 gauge with 00 buckshot behind the bar would have been a show stopper for the human turd jihad punk. But it was a Gun Free Zone.

 

[Kev3188]

So we have
1) a known Muslim with a history of violence and intimidating his co-workers
2) twice under investigation from the FBI, but cleared
3) who legally purchased firearms from a dealer
4) target non-black gays in a club (apparently, he let the blacks live, and targeted whites & Latinos).

Seems to me he should have been flagged out as a threat, but wasn't out of political correctness.

Same MO as the perps in San Bernadino. Nobody wanted to appear racist, so they didn't act.

Yeah, it's not the guns.

It's regular people being afraid of being labeled racist for properly calling out threats to society.

The meme posted by xUT sums it up:

People didn't die because this nutjob had a gun. They died because people were afraid to call a threat a threat.

Rhetorical question: If he was cleared, should we have still have detained him? Lots of people get right up to the line of committing a crime (or conspiring to), but don't. Do we detain them all? At what point does our law enforcement infrastructure become the Thought Police?

I understand what you're saying here-and I get that it's a tricky balance- I just think that it's a slippery slope.

 

[KCFlyer]

People didn't die because this nutjob had a gun. They died because people were afraid to call a threat a threat.

 
That would include the NRA....the rights of any individual to own a gun must NOT be infringed.  If we passed a law that said "this guy is a threat, dont' sell him a gun"...some libtard lefty is going to twist that so that some poor patriot who was a little depressed and got drunk and kicked the **** of his wife won't be able to buy a gun either.   The drunk patriot isn't a "threat".  He just "made a mistake'.  

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

So we have1) a known Muslim with a history of violence and intimidating his co-workers2) twice under investigation from the FBI, but cleared3) who legally purchased firearms from a dealer4) target non-black gays in a club (apparently, he let the blacks live, and targeted whites & Latinos).Seems to me he should have been flagged out as a threat, but wasn't out of political correctness.Same MO as the perps in San Bernadino. Nobody wanted to appear racist, so they didn't act.Yeah, it's not the guns.It's regular people being afraid of being labeled racist for properly calling out threats to society.The meme posted by xUT sums it up:

People didn't die because this nutjob had a gun. They died because people were afraid to call a threat a threat.

Simple question. Should he have been put on a no gun buy list?

 

[Hackman]

Rhetorical question: If he was cleared, should we have still have detained him? Lots of people get right up to the line of committing a crime (or conspiring to), but don't. Do we detain them all? At what point does our law enforcement infrastructure become the Thought Police?I understand what you're saying here-and I get that it's a tricky balance- I just think that a slippery slope.

The animal should have been at least watched by the FBI, his phone and computer bugged. He was scouting out the gay bar and Disney World, the FBI should have caught him. The killers father is another one who should be watched and possibly deported and or arrested. Being that the POS was apparently a violent radical muslim who cheered 9/11, beat his wife, and made terroristic statements for years.
The ATF back round check should have flagged him for being on the FBI watch list. Then questioned on what he planned on doing with the weapons. He should also not have been allowed a CCL license or work as an armed guard.

A large amount of clues that were dropped.

 

[Kev3188]

The animal should have been at least watched by the FBI, his phone and computer bugged.

So in this case, we shoulda just tossed the 4th out? Before you answer, remember this guy was an American citizen...