Police knew that the El Paso shooter had an ak47 and that he intended to use it, but did nothing

[hadit]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

As usual there were tips in place to law enforcement who were felt it more important not to miss their meeting at the donut shop.

CIAO

Why in the heck would you say such a thing?

Your linked article explains the call, and your evil stoking comment is the problem with the world today...

If the police cant stop mass killings when they have the name of the killer before, the police are useless.

The police don't prevent crimes, they clean up afterwards and punish the criminals.

 

[hadit]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

As usual there were tips in place to law enforcement who were felt it more important not to miss their meeting at the donut shop.

CIAO

I heard alittle about that. I just don't think there is allot the cops could have done.

Saying that is just not responsible, the FBI also had the both the name of Nikolas Cruse and that he intended to do what he did. Law enforcement failed, but hey they always get the donut

I get it, but in all those cases say they took the guns, what would the news been then? Corrupt FBI confiscating guns! 1776,1776! No frame had been committed. This ain't the minority report. We can't arrest or detain folks just because we think they will commit a crime.

No, but on a judge's order, we should be able to take their guns. Temporarily.

And if the alert is proven to be frivolous, means of redress for the person who "temporarily" lost their guns. Otherwise, you're just giving busybodies another tool to harass their neighbors.

 

[busybee01]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

As usual there were tips in place to law enforcement who were felt it more important not to miss their meeting at the donut shop.

CIAO

Owning a AK weapon is not illegal as it should be now. There was nothing they could have done about it.

 

[KissMy]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

As usual there were tips in place to law enforcement who were felt it more important not to miss their meeting at the donut shop.

CIAO

Wrong! - The NRA & their Repubtard puppets ban government from infringing on anyone's gun rights without a court conviction,

 

[Crixus]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

As usual there were tips in place to law enforcement who were felt it more important not to miss their meeting at the donut shop.

CIAO

I heard alittle about that. I just don't think there is allot the cops could have done.

Saying that is just not responsible, the FBI also had the both the name of Nikolas Cruse and that he intended to do what he did. Law enforcement failed, but hey they always get the donut

I get it, but in all those cases say they took the guns, what would the news been then? Corrupt FBI confiscating guns! 1776,1776! No frame had been committed. This ain't the minority report. We can't arrest or detain folks just because we think they will commit a crime.

No, but on a judge's order, we should be able to take their guns. Temporarily.

And if the alert is proven to be frivolous, means of redress for the person who "temporarily" lost their guns. Otherwise, you're just giving busybodies another tool to harass their neighbors.

As well as ex-boyfriends who want to disarm an ex-girlfriend so he can get even for whatever.

 

[Wry Catcher]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16 are explicit, the above is ambiguous.

Clause 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Is it necessary and proper to regulate arms? It's clear that the Brady Bill was necessary and proper exercise of the powers vested by COTUS and yet allowed to sunset.

It seems the last week, in fact this year alone, mass murders by an ARM killed many innocent people; rational thinkers believe such arms - created to kill large number so human beings in less than a minute - ought to be restricted to LE (SWAT) and the Militia in each state.

You are allowed to think that. We will have to see what the courts say but there is no mistake about it that if those who do support the 2nd continue to dismiss every other possible avenue to address this issue, people one way or the other are going to restrict their rights.

"people one way or the other are going to restrict their rights". Restriction of a right seems to me to be less onerous than losing forever one's life, liberty and happiness.

I'm not advocating law abiding, sober and sane citizens have their right to own and possess a firearm to protect their home, family or business. I believe requiring a license is no more burdensome than securing a license to drive a motor vehicle, or to require one's gun(s) to be registered and insured for misuse or theft.