Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jj82284" data-cid="761910" data-time="1465858884">
<div>
The more that comes out, the more this appears to be one of the greater intelligence failures in our countries history.  

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with more Gun control.  The most draconian fantasy of the interpretation of the constitution would have still allowed this person to own a weapon.  Why you ask?  Because he would have been designated a member of a regulated government contracted militia.  The guy worked as an armed security guard for a company that last year received just shy of 100 million dollars in federal contracts to secure airports federal buildings etc. This is a man who was brought to the attention of the FBI not once but twice.  This is a man who one of his co-workers describes as constantly agitated and anger even espousing killing people.  It got so bad that the co-worker had to resign after being harassed by this person.  The threat to do harm to others in and of itself is a crime.  There was  a police officer in Jacksonville that made a threat against Obama he was fired immediately.  That alone should have negated his clearance to work as an armed security guard for a government contractor.  

 

So lets say they fire him ... and? Your point? How does that change anything?


 

Why didn't the FBI dig into this guy?  Why didn't they find his ex-wife who will apparently tell anyone that will listen that this person is a serial domestic abuser who beat her repeatedly (again a crime that would have negated this person from being able to buy a gun?)  How can someone, described as walking around telling anyone who would listen that he doesn't like womens rights, doesn't like gays and fantasizes about being a jihadi and killing innocent people, interviewed by authorities and screened by a private contracting firm, and still be allowed to handle a weapon?  Because even when he ADMITTED to claiming allegiance to foreign terror groups, admitted to threatening violence, admitted to making outlandish statements, he said he only did it out of anger because his co-workers were DISCRIMINATING against his heritage...  That's the country we live in now folks.  That's the change you can believe in.  

 

OK, so he claims his previous inflammatory comments were just venting. Again, what would you advocate we do? Not being snarky, just asking what your policy suggestions are.


 

They have told us, in letters and memorandum that they will use our own addiction to political correctness to destroy us.  I wish to God that someone will start listening.

 

My questions about what you would do are not only addressed to you, they are addressed to anyone who would like to improve our security and still maintain our freedoms. I have previously said that I wouldn't mind increasing ability to carry concealed and also decrease the availability of assault weapons. Just trying to get clarification on what specific actions others such as yourself recommend we take.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

 

Quote:I honestly believe what you are saying is drivel, and am open to being shown that I am wrong. I hope your feelings don't get hurt by that.  From what I see, the main difference is he might be without a job, but I don't see how his inflammatory comments necessarily revoke his right to purchase a gun. Whether he says he was on jihad, or is a Christian soldier, or worships a vengeful spaghetti monster, if he later claims he was just speaking out and wasn't serious, how in our current regulatory environment does that affect anything? None of that has a thing to do with political correctness. 

 

The fact that you are angry isn't an excuse for committing a crime.  Making terrorist threats is a crime.  The idea that "Well i was angry" is a credible defense is preposterous.  As i stated above, a similar situation happened with a JSO lieutenant that i know.  One, not repeated, but one comment about what he'd like to do to the president and it was understood that wasn't the kind of mentality that we wanted from someone entrusted with carrying firearms and entrusting the law.  When you talk about someone with his access, and training with firearms the idea that you would encourage or emotionally subsidize a reckless emotional state defies basic logic.  

 

further, the guy demonstrated a long pattern of abusive behavior.  In the case of a terrorist threat the employer should have been contacted and involved in the investigation to determine the veracity of the claims and also to become active in the monitoring and screening of the individual.   There is no way that you should have a wife running for her life, a co-worker quitting in protest and the FBI not know about it in general.  When you factor in the fact that this is a first generation Citizen who's parents are from a country with a history of extremist views who made two trips to Saudi Arabia this should have been a slam dunk.  These are serious red flags.   

 

For someone of his access and responsibility as an armed employee of a federal contractor the minute that he starts ranting and raving about being a member of hezbollah and wanting to kill everyone he should have been charged with terrorist threats, his ability to work for them should have been revoked and he should have been placed on the terrorist watch list.  The dig into the guys background should have included interviews of his girlfriend and any relevant complaints of mental instability or radicalization of his co-workers.  If we can't catch this guy then God help us!

---