civil liberties are the rights of the individual. The minute that the individual demonstrates himself to be a risk to himself but more specifically to others then it's no longer question civil liberties it's a question of the state's ability and compelling interest to protect its citizens from those of us that may not be mentally well. There were several instances by which the state could have a engaged criminal justice system by which this person would have had a criminal record that would have prevented them from having a gun or be pursued some form institutionalization or correction because this person that demonstrated time and time again that his emotional / mental state made him an imminent threat to others.

---

civil liberties are the rights of the individual.  The minute that the individual demonstrates himself to be a risk to himself but more specifically to others then it's no longer question civil liberties it's a question of the state's ability and compelling interest to protect its citizens from those of us that may not be mentally well.  There were several instances by which the state could have a engaged criminal justice system by which this person would have had a criminal record that would have prevented them from having a gun or be pursued some form institutionalization or correction because this person that demonstrated time and time again that his emotional / mental state made him an imminent threat to others.

So which is it then? Police state in which everyone is subject to surveillance at all times but we all get an AR-15, or limitations on who can own a gun and what guns can be owned?

---

civil liberties are the rights of the individual.  The minute that the individual demonstrates himself to be a risk to himself but more specifically to others then it's no longer question civil liberties it's a question of the state's ability and compelling interest to protect its citizens from those of us that may not be mentally well.  There were several instances by which the state could have a engaged criminal justice system by which this person would have had a criminal record that would have prevented them from having a gun or be pursued some form institutionalization or correction because this person that demonstrated time and time again that his emotional / mental state made him an imminent threat to others.

So which is it then? Police state in which everyone is subject to surveillance at all times but we all get an AR-15, or limitations on who can own a gun and what guns can be owned?

The answer is to give everyone an AR-15. Teachers, students, principals, janitors. The more guns the better!

And to the people saying “if these people didn’t use guns, they’d find another way.” I would honestly love to see these mass murders get creative. Can you kill 18 people in minutes with a butter knife? How about a hello kitty backpack? Right now it’s too easy with all these assault rifles.

---

So which is it then? Police state in which everyone is subject to surveillance at all times but we all get an AR-15, or limitations on who can own a gun and what guns can be owned?

The answer is to give everyone an AR-15. Teachers, students, principals, janitors. The more guns the better!

And to the people saying “if these people didn’t use guns, they’d find another way.” I would honestly love to see these mass murders get creative. Can you kill 18 people in minutes with a butter knife? How about a hello kitty backpack? Right now it’s too easy with all these assault rifles.

How about explosives? FYI, the largest mass killing on school grounds utilized just such a tool.

---

civil liberties are the rights of the individual.  The minute that the individual demonstrates himself to be a risk to himself but more specifically to others then it's no longer question civil liberties it's a question of the state's ability and compelling interest to protect its citizens from those of us that may not be mentally well.  There were several instances by which the state could have a engaged criminal justice system by which this person would have had a criminal record that would have prevented them from having a gun or be pursued some form institutionalization or correction because this person that demonstrated time and time again that his emotional / mental state made him an imminent threat to others.

So which is it then? Police state in which everyone is subject to surveillance at all times but we all get an AR-15, or limitations on who can own a gun and what guns can be owned?

What makes you think you aren’t subject to surveillance 24/7/365? Your identity and online actions are monitored, bought, and sold daily. Your phone records to include photos, texts and location are stored seperate from your device.  Traffic cameras track your vehicle whereabouts. It goes on and on and you have agreed to most surveillance measure when you agree to a TOS or EULA

---

civil liberties are the rights of the individual.  The minute that the individual demonstrates himself to be a risk to himself but more specifically to others then it's no longer question civil liberties it's a question of the state's ability and compelling interest to protect its citizens from those of us that may not be mentally well.  There were several instances by which the state could have a engaged criminal justice system by which this person would have had a criminal record that would have prevented them from having a gun or be pursued some form institutionalization or correction because this person that demonstrated time and time again that his emotional / mental state made him an imminent threat to others.

The problem here is the alphabet agencies don't play well with each other. There are simply too many government agencies anyway, and it's worse in cases like this where they don't talk to each other, or the communication is S-L-O-W. They are also understaffed and overworked which compounds the problem. Then you have the people in it for the steady pay and benefits and don't really care about the job; you have the ones close to retirement who don't really care anymore, they're just biding their time; the ones who don't want to deal with the "case thrown on their desk" so they half [BLEEP] it. 

Many, many reasons why this and so many others slip through the cracks.

---

civil liberties are the rights of the individual.  The minute that the individual demonstrates himself to be a risk to himself but more specifically to others then it's no longer question civil liberties it's a question of the state's ability and compelling interest to protect its citizens from those of us that may not be mentally well.  There were several instances by which the state could have a engaged criminal justice system by which this person would have had a criminal record that would have prevented them from having a gun or be pursued some form institutionalization or correction because this person that demonstrated time and time again that his emotional / mental state made him an imminent threat to others.

So which is it then? Police state in which everyone is subject to surveillance at all times but we all get an AR-15, or limitations on who can own a gun and what guns can be owned?

There are already limitations on both.  

And I am not talking about a police state or universal surveillance.  I am talking about law enforcement following their own protocols to investigate credible threats.  And when those threats turn up probable cause to believe that someone is a danger to themselves or others then we follow the laws on the books to temporarily detain the person for observation.  IF that person then demonstrates long term mental impairment then there are mechanisms in place so that they can be institutionalized.  

That's not a violation of due process, that is due process.  This person shouldn't have been walking on the streets let alone able to purchase a firearm.

---

civil liberties are the rights of the individual.  The minute that the individual demonstrates himself to be a risk to himself but more specifically to others then it's no longer question civil liberties it's a question of the state's ability and compelling interest to protect its citizens from those of us that may not be mentally well.  There were several instances by which the state could have a engaged criminal justice system by which this person would have had a criminal record that would have prevented them from having a gun or be pursued some form institutionalization or correction because this person that demonstrated time and time again that his emotional / mental state made him an imminent threat to others.

The problem here is the alphabet agencies don't play well with each other. There are simply too many government agencies anyway, and it's worse in cases like this where they don't talk to each other, or the communication is S-L-O-W. They are also understaffed and overworked which compounds the problem. Then you have the people in it for the steady pay and benefits and don't really care about the job; you have the ones close to retirement who don't really care anymore, they're just biding their time; the ones who don't want to deal with the "case thrown on their desk" so they half [BLEEP] it. 

Many, many reasons why this and so many others slip through the cracks.

you're right.  Lest we forget, there are currently over a thousand open FBI investigations about suspected ISIS operatives.  IT would take 16k FBI agents just to maintain surveillance on them. That says nothing of Alqueda, Bokoharam, AQAP, HAMAS, Foreign State Actors, Organized Crime, Drug Cartels, and any potential active serial killers.  The resources of the Federal government are limited.  Which brings me back to the point that it falls to the individual to be their primary source of defense against these whack jobs.  That's why it doesn't make sense to go overboard trying to keep responsible people from owning their own means of self defense.  

I could actually postulate a long drawn out string of thought about warrants and probable cause holds on being able to purchase a firearm during an open competence/threat assessment based on credible intel.  I could give a basic run down of how all of our rights are limited and can be suspended by the state if they show cause.  But then we have to remember that Soldiers returning from War can sometimes wait years just to get their disability rating.  We have a system where veterans were in a government health facility for the better part of a decade and never saw a doctor.

---

And to the people saying “if these people didn’t use guns, they’d find another way.” I would honestly love to see these mass murders get creative. Can you kill 18 people in minutes with a butter knife? How about a hello kitty backpack? Right now it’s too easy with all these assault rifles.

How about a car?  Maybe outside a stadium after a football game?  Thousands of people walking out at once, the traffic light turns red and in two seconds there are 50 people in the crosswalk right in front of you.  All you have to do is step on the gas......

PS  What exactly do you think this guy was able to do with an "assault rifle" that he couldn't have done with a handgun?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I really wish people would stop calling the AR type rifles assault rifles since they are not...

---

Hey guys.... No logic or truth about the gun. It spoils the narrative....

---

Hey guys....  No logic or truth about the gun.  It spoils the narrative....

Long gun or just plain rifle isn’t scary enough. There must be some type of miliatant picture painted otherwise we’d actually have to look at the trigger puller or environment as a root cause. No political clout to be gained actually addressing the real issues. Not to mention going after scary guns cost pennies to adress when compared to boring ol’ mental health, school security, and poking at law enforcement.

---

I really wish people would stop calling the AR type rifles assault rifles since they are not...

Agreed. AR Type weapons are semi-automatic. You have to physically pull the trigger every time you fire the weapon, unless you somehow modify it, (which is illegal) or add a bump stock. What I call "assault weapons" are fully automatic firearms, where you just hold down the trigger and spray bullets everywhere.

---

The simple answer is to allow those who are licensed to carry concealed, to carry in schools if they choose to.

The average number of victims in a mass shooting that is ended by a cop = 14.
The average number of victims in a mass shooting that is ended by a citizen = 2.5.

---

Now the gnu has acknowledged a second tip on Jan 5 this time specifically identifying Nicolas Cruz.  

So to recap in the last 7 years local police were summoned to the kids home 39 times, he was expelled from school after repeated disciplinary problems including fights, threats, and bringing ammunition to school "which I believe is a crime." The fbi was notified in September that a user with his name a total of only 13 in the country" was aspiring to be a school shooter and on Jan 5 the gnu was notified by someone in the kids circle that he had a gun, wanted to kill people and might be a candidate for a school shooter.   And that says nothing of the Iraqi and Syrian resistance videos the kid apparently watched.

Two of the worst shootings in our countries history have happened in this state in the last 18 months And both shooters were known to the gnu and telegraphed an intent to do mass harm.  This is a failure of epic proportions.

The FBI drops the ball more often than a one-armed wide receiver. If they FBI was competent, we wouldn't have the Department Of Homeland Security. But the answer to bad government is always more government, isn't it?   Maybe the FBI can refocus its effort in trying to catch The Kingsmen saying naughty words on "Louie Louie". And if they succeed this time, they should roll some tanks in on them to show them they mean business.

---

It is likely that the FBI did contact Nikolas Cruz. He is exactly the kind of emotionally and mentally challenged individual who makes a perfect patsy for false flag attacks. And there is a credible witness saying she walked out of the school with Cruz while the shooting was still happening. The details of Cruz's arrest also suggest that he did not know he was the shooter.

---

It is likely that the FBI did contact Nikolas Cruz.  He is exactly the kind of emotionally and mentally challenged individual who makes a perfect patsy for false flag attacks.  And there is a credible witness saying she walked out of the school with Cruz while the shooting was still happening.  The details of Cruz's arrest also suggest that he did not know he was the shooter.

Define "Credible Witness" please?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It is likely that the FBI did contact Nikolas Cruz.  He is exactly the kind of emotionally and mentally challenged individual who makes a perfect patsy for false flag attacks.  And there is a credible witness saying she walked out of the school with Cruz while the shooting was still happening.  The details of Cruz's arrest also suggest that he did not know he was the shooter.

Wasn’t he trying to blend in with students after shooting them?

---

Why are you guys even acknowledging this?

---

Now the gnu has acknowledged a second tip on Jan 5 this time specifically identifying Nicolas Cruz.  

So to recap in the last 7 years local police were summoned to the kids home 39 times, he was expelled from school after repeated disciplinary problems including fights, threats, and bringing ammunition to school "which I believe is a crime." The fbi was notified in September that a user with his name a total of only 13 in the country" was aspiring to be a school shooter and on Jan 5 the gnu was notified by someone in the kids circle that he had a gun, wanted to kill people and might be a candidate for a school shooter.   And that says nothing of the Iraqi and Syrian resistance videos the kid apparently watched.

Two of the worst shootings in our countries history have happened in this state in the last 18 months And both shooters were known to the gnu and telegraphed an intent to do mass harm.  This is a failure of epic proportions.

The FBI drops the ball more often than a one-armed wide receiver. If they FBI was competent, we wouldn't have the Department Of Homeland Security. But the answer to bad government is always more government, isn't it?   Maybe the FBI can refocus its effort in trying to catch The Kingsmen saying naughty words on "Louie Louie". And if they succeed this time, they should roll some tanks in on them to show them they mean business.

But it's so much easier to pass a new law targeting honest citizens than it is to stop a known criminal who broke laws already on the books. You don't really expect government bureaucrats to get up from their cushy jobs and risk facing a real criminal, do you?

And the persons responsible will keep their cushy jobs. No matter that people died because of their failure. After all, no one went to jail when veterans died because of VA incompetence, and only three were even fired.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"