- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FBI officially Investigating California shooting as a act of terrorism
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:25 am to Dishmcds
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:25 am to Dishmcds
quote:I'm wondering if they were planning a terrorist attack against another target, but the guy got pissed off and decided to attack his department's holiday party instead. That might explain why their target was so strange and their getaway was so terrible. But I'm probably wrong.
All i know is some mother fricker better not make me mad today or I'll go home and get two homies and my spare pipe bombs just laying around for no reason at all.
4
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:26 am to Dishmcds
quote:
All i know is some mother fricker better not make me mad today or I'll go home and get two homies and my spare pipe bombs just laying around for no reason at all.
Same here, my wife always goes along with my furor especially when it guarantees her death.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 9:28 am
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:27 am to bigberg2000
quote:
agree that it won't stop someone for killing if the really want to. I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't get the strong opposition. I guess I don't get how it would affect those rightful citizens to obtain guns. Would it really make a big difference for law abiding folks?
This is a legitimate question. I'm betting for most, it's a slippery slope argument. If we are okay with infringing on the second amendment only a little bit more, how far does it go? I think most recognize the agenda of some of the left wingers and realize that they won't stop at requiring background checks for private transactions. I don't think anyone is opposed to making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms, but there is a necessary evil in that it is inherently going to also make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:27 am to Hog on the Hill
Google helped me a bit here.
LINK
ETA-
quote:
Title 32 Full-Time National Guard Duty “Full-time National Guard Duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the National Guard. Title 32 allows the Governor, with the approval of the President or the Secretary of Defense, to order a member to duty for operational Homeland Defense activities in accordance with the following sections of U.S. Code (USC):
1. 32 USC 502 (f): This statue allows member of the National Guard to be ordered to full-time National Guard duty to perform operational activities. It was used for the Airport Security mission after 9/11 and also for Hurricane
Katrina and Rita response effort.
2. 32 USC § 901: The term “Homeland Defense activity” means an activity undertaken for the military protection of the territory or domestic population of the U.S., or of infrastructure or other asset of the U.S. determined by the Secretary of Defense as being critical to national security and at risk of a threat or aggression against the U.S.
3. 32 USC § 902 - Homeland Defense activities: funds. (a) The Secretary of Defense may provide funds to a Governor to employ National Guard units or members to conduct Homeland Defense activities that the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate for participation by the National Guard or members.
The key to this instance is that Federal Law provides the Governor with the ability to place a soldier in a full-time duty status under the command and control of the State but is directly funded with Federal dollars. Even though this duty status is authorized by Federal statue, this section is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act; the Governor
may use the Guard in a law enforcement capacity while the chain of command rests in the State.
LINK
ETA-
quote:
State Active Duty (SAD)
The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to “State Active Duty” in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions. SAD is based on State statue and policy as well as State funds. Soldiers and Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. A key aspect of this duty status is that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, giving National Guardsmen the ability to act in a law enforcement capacity within their home state or adjacent state if granted by that state’s Governor.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 9:31 am
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:27 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
I'm wondering if they were planning a terrorist attack against another target, but the guy got pissed off and decided to attack his department's holiday party instead. That might explain why their target was so strange and their getaway was so terrible. But I'm probably wrong.
Has to be what happened. That's the only scenario that makes any sense.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:28 am to Hog on the Hill
These folks aren't criminal masterminds. Who knows what went thru their heads.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:29 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
I'm wondering if they were planning a terrorist attack against another target, but the guy got pissed off and decided to attack his department's holiday party instead. That might explain why their target was so strange and their getaway was so terrible. But I'm probably wrong.
I suppose that's possible.
It's a very strange target but, then again, they like to go after soft targets that have large groups of people all in close proximity to each other.
It's a very odd situation for sure.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:30 am to tigerfoot
quote:
These folks aren't criminal masterminds. Who knows what went thru their heads.
You need to read a little more. Neighbors said several middle eastern men created essentially a revolving door at the suspects apartment over the last 2 months. Also, several packages began collecting at his apartment weeks in advance.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:31 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
The increased frequency of mass shootings shootings is alarming.
Another lie. The media is hyper-focused on them, historically we are seeing the same frequency over the last 2.5 decades which is lower than it was in the 3 decades prior to that.
quote:
seemingly unwilling to participate in a rational attempt of compromise.
What compromise? Do you know what that word means. I have seen zero compromise from gun-control advocates. Maybe you should do more research so that you half way know what you're talking about.
quote:
This is quite evident in the responses to my and others posts.
It's because you are terribly ignorant on all parts of this topic. You don't know the current laws, you don't understand historical contexts so you don't understand why your arguments make zero sense. Gun-control is position advocated from ignorance, it always has been.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 9:32 am
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:32 am to LSUTigersVCURams
I watched CNN for about 10 minutes this morning and I heard the news anchor change the conversation back to gun control. I believe the bigger issue was the fact there were bombs in the building. There was also a "bomb factory" at the dudes house.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:34 am to Large Farva
Has there been anyone in this thread talking about the rumors that they had GoPros strapped to their body armor?
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:35 am to Rhino5
quote:
You need to read a little more. Neighbors said several middle eastern men created essentially a revolving door at the suspects apartment over the last 2 months
What happened to the reports of this guy being a "known person of interest"? Was that all BS?
quote:
Also, several packages began collecting at his apartment weeks in advance.
Eh, they said he just moved in, so I don't think that's completely out of the ordinary.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:37 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
I'm wondering if they were planning a terrorist attack against another target, but the guy got pissed off and decided to attack his department's holiday party instead. That might explain why their target was so strange and their getaway was so terrible. But I'm probably wrong.
Well - maybe. This is certainly possible. On the other hand, this may have been the target all along. And he went and scouted out the place to make sure everything was a go - he attended the same event last year, by some reports. Possibly because it was Christmas themed or just because it was a known, soft target that 2 people could easily handle. They didn't plan to go to siege or die in place. Obviously, we don't know but they may have been planning to do additional operations if they weren't discovered. Obviously, they were ready and willing to duke it out with the cops, although - as EVERYONE can see - that was a lot tougher for them than taking on a room full of unarmed, unaware folks.
Just sad all around, but it's not like this is the first incident here (Boston, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Umpqua) and they're getting closer together.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:37 am to Langston
quote:
They do in cali. How'd that work?
You're completely missing the point. It is damn near impossible to discuss gun control on this board without useless hyperbole from both sides. I'm asking what is the legal/logical reason for requiring background checks for dealers but not for private transactions.
Is it a compromise between gun right advocates and gun control advocates? If it improves safety without infringing on the 2nd amendment, why isn't it applied to private transactions? On the other hand, if background checks are pointless, why are they required for dealer transactions?
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:37 am to SundayFunday
Fox News has been reporting that they did wear GoPros. The recent Press Conferences haven't given very much information.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:38 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
Late to the party today. Is this terrorism or not?
Yes, but authorities are going with "workplace violence" and are going to urge us not to alienate muslims and push for additional gun control.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:38 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
Late to the party today. Is this terrorism or not?
That depends on which news channel you have on.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:39 am to SundayFunday
quote:quote:
A law enforcement source told Fox News that the couple were each carrying an AR-15 rifle and a pistol when they were shot and killed by police after a brief chase in their black SUV about 2 miles from the initial shooting site. The source said the vehicle also contained so-called "rollout bags" with multiple pipe bombs, as well as additional ammunition. The couple also had GoPro cameras strapped to their body armor and wore tactical clothing, including vests stuffed with ammunition magazines. "That's a military tactic for a sustained fight," the source told Fox News of the rollout bags.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:39 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
This is dumb. The first amendment only guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging your right to free speech. It doesn't entitle you to anything else. Free speech is not, in any way, "outlawed" by the media. Words have meanings and you're dragging our language through the mud.
This is not entirely true. The first amendment is also applied to the states through the 14th amendment.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:40 am to slackster
quote:
Is it a compromise between gun right advocates and gun control advocates? If it improves safety without infringing on the 2nd amendment, why isn't it applied to private transactions? On the other hand, if background checks are pointless, why are they required for dealer transactions?
Is the dealer background check really a more stringent check? Or is it just an opportunity to get some more $$$$
Page 152 of 212
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News