Pensacola AFB terrorist - authorities are right!
Look it up for yourself in ATF P5300.4 (Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide), page 198. A legal nonimmigrant (tourist, student, etc) may purchase a firearm if he first gets a hunting license. Who would have thought it was that easy?
Apparently the perp had enough free time on hands to research US firearms laws. Maybe it's just not that difficult to learn how to speak English & fly airplanes. I'm sure that Mohammad bin Salman knew nothing about his plans. At least, a couple of his classmates caught all the action on their cellphones for their home movies.
I can think of all kinds of ways to amend that law. How about, "Nonimmigrants in the US may not possess firearms"? But, more than likely, our representatives will propose making "assault weapons" illegal, since logic is rarely used when proposing legislation.
Neal
Apparently the perp had enough free time on hands to research US firearms laws. Maybe it's just not that difficult to learn how to speak English & fly airplanes. I'm sure that Mohammad bin Salman knew nothing about his plans. At least, a couple of his classmates caught all the action on their cellphones for their home movies.
I can think of all kinds of ways to amend that law. How about, "Nonimmigrants in the US may not possess firearms"? But, more than likely, our representatives will propose making "assault weapons" illegal, since logic is rarely used when proposing legislation.
Neal
0
-
how about non immigrant foreigners and members of foreign militaries WILL NOT wander freely around the USA but remain only where they are being trained (supposedly for our benefit).......AMERICAN soldiers trained in the use of weapons will carry them on our bases...foreigners shall NOT be allowed any weapons anywhere in AMERICA except at supervised training sessions 0 -
I just read that the guy got PO'ed because one of the instructors called him Porn Stash because of his mustache.
I knew a Non-citizen can get a gun in the US but I thought it was only a rifle or shotgun for hunting. He used a Glock 9mm Pistol.0 -
spasmcreek wrote:how about non immigrant foreigners and members of foreign militaries WILL NOT wander freely around the USA but remain only where they are being trained (supposedly for our benefit).......AMERICAN soldiers trained in the use of weapons will carry them on our bases...foreigners shall NOT be allowed any weapons anywhere in AMERICA except at supervised training sessions
Once again I find myself agreeing with your assessment.
Personally, I do not believe we should be training any Saudis. Look at 9/11. These people are not our friends.0 -
and I thought I heard Sam that the guy failed either 2-3 times and was about to get booted out, I wondered how he got the weapon when I first heard it myself, I thought you had to be a citizen of US to buy a weapon here.. 0 -
Go to a form 4473. Read question 12D, and the instructions for it. Does not take a lot of research, 0 -
Sam06 wrote:I just read that the guy got PO'ed because one of the instructors called him Porn Stash because of his mustache.
I knew a Non-citizen can get a gun in the US but I thought it was only a rifle or shotgun for hunting. He used a Glock 9mm Pistol.
Dude it's Florida. They have dudes selling guns out of their trunk of the cars at the airport.0 -
If he couldn?t have got a gun, he would have found another way. 0 -
I think we should quit trying to buy foreign peoples love.
Quit giving them foreign countries money and training and let them hate us for FREE.
0 -
We're the largest supplier of military hardware in the world. An F35 starts at $150 million each, & the Saudis bought a bunch of them. But, if we didn't agree to train their military, they would buy from the competition (the Russians & Chinese). It's just business, folks in the military get killed every day.
For those of you who may have forgotten, 15 of the 18 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Just a coincidence, the Saudi government had nothing to do with.
The Draft Dodger may not bow to their king, but he is sure anxious to keep his friendship.
Neal0 -
Pensacola is not an Air Force Base. If you can't get even the basic facts right, why should anyone give any credence to your opinions? 0 -
If one believes in the wording of the 2nd Amendment, it should be fairly clear that people legally residing in the United States have the right to possess firearms.
This guy shouldn't have had one, but there are plenty of people that, in retrospect of the actions they have committed, should not have one.
Perhaps we should not be so fast to assist the leftist control mongers in assigning rights based upon or our emotions.0 -
Sorry, but Members of a foreign Muslim Country, (especially Saudi Arabia, based on their track record.) DO NOT have the right to possess Weapons in our Country. (While "Training," or otherwise.)
Non-Citizens should not have that Right. Disagree based on principle?
Well, that is on you.
Non-Citizen rights are not spelled out in the Constitution.0 -
NON-citizen rights seem to be called out clearly by congress and the courts......regardless of the LAWS 0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:Sorry, but Members of a foreign Muslim Country, (especially Saudi Arabia, based on their track record.) DO NOT have the right to possess Weapons in our Country. (While "Training," or otherwise.)
Non-Citizens should not have that Right. Disagree based on principle?
Well, that is on you.
Non-Citizen rights are not spelled out in the Constitution.
I would argue that persons legally residing in the US have the same natural or God given rights as those of us who are citizens.
Do they not have 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendment Rights?
If they do, how can we justify denying 2nd Amendment Rights?
There is a tendency for people to view the 2nd Amendment as somehow different than the others. A view that we can selectively enforce it based upon our own personal beliefs or feelings.
We see this in the gun control debate. As with most things, if we agree that certain groups can be denied a right because they belong to a group, the door is open to denial of any group.
Principle is important. There are people that would confiscate semi-auto rifles out of fear of what some people may do with them. Banning legal residents from buying and possessing firearms out of fear of what they may do is no different.0 -
and i argue that extending rights, privileges, multitudinous free benefits to any one who comes into this country and demands they are OWED is a self destructive and dangerous principle that a nation cannot afford to do.....one is supposed to be able to protect ones home from attack from without so why not would one deny this right to a country as a whole.....and the number of working taxpayers of this country CANNOT GIVE the worlds millions less fortunate FREE welfare to their satisfaction 0 -
spasmcreek wrote:and i argue that extending rights, privileges, multitudinous free benefits to any one who comes into this country and demands they are OWED is a self destructive and dangerous principle that a nation cannot afford to do.....one is supposed to be able to protect ones home from attack from without so why not would one deny this right to a country as a whole.....and the number of working taxpayers of this country CANNOT GIVE the worlds millions less fortunate FREE welfare to their satisfaction
Not on topic, but I generally agree.
Free benefits are not a natural or God given right, they are legislated constructs that can be directed to citizens only, disabled citizens only, children only, etc.
To get back on topic and to make things simple:
Do legal non-citizens have 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures?
If so, are 'the people' as noted in the 4th Amendment a different group than 'the people' as noted in the 2nd Amendment?
The operative clauses of both amendments begin with the exact same wording: 'The right of the people'. Logically, these are the same people.0 -
I think anyone coming to this country should become a citizen to gain full constitutional rights, the rights for legal protection, lawyers and such, and emergency medical care are pretty much for everyone regardless, if we were to adopt a reciprical immigration policy with other countries, we give their citizens the same right here they give ours in their country, it may force them to want to become citizens instead of demanding we give them freebies............ 0 -
Are the lessons of our founding lost upon people?
Natural right transcend nationality, race and faith.
If you do not accept the concept of natural rights, you do not understand the concept that is the United States.
No wonder the left is successful in throwing our rights to the wind. They have willing accomplices everywhere.
Even here.
Hell, especially here.
Depressing as hell.0 -
You have a point, Don. In so many other threads, the "shall not be infringed" group demands no restrictions of any kind on anyone, regardless.
Except of course, when they talk about Muslims, illegal aliens, inner city gang members...
What's right? Beats the hell outta me. Both arguments have severe downsides.0 -
Rocky Raab wrote:You have a point, Don. In so many other threads, the "shall not be infringed" group demands no restrictions of any kind on anyone, regardless.
That would be "Citizens of this Country."
The rest, should not be allowed Firearms.
If you are not a "Citizen of this Country," you have no business possesing a firearm, in this Country.
Here for "Training," from a Muslim Country known to have done us harm? Oh Hell No.
Flame on.0 -
No flame here, Don. As I said, there are no easy answers to this, and all arguments have some logic. 0 -
Don McManus wrote:Are the lessons of our founding lost upon people?
Natural right transcend nationality, race and faith.
If you do not accept the concept of natural rights, you do not understand the concept that is the United States.
No wonder the left is successful in throwing our rights to the wind. They have willing accomplices everywhere.
Even here.
Hell, especially here.
Depressing as hell.
Natural rights? The only things that transcends here is The Supreme Court and The leftist agenda. Marriage for same sex couples and a legalized murder with abortions is two of the worst and I doubt our founding fathers would approve of either. Watch gun control being the next big one coming soon,no assault weapons.
serf0 -
Rocky Raab wrote:No flame here, Don. As I said, there are no easy answers to this, and all arguments have some logic.
I did not post the flame on, Rocky, that was Mr. Ken.
I appreciate your thinking on this, and agree that there are no easy answers, just as there are no easy answers with regard to mass shootings in this country.
I happen to come down on the same side of both issues, that being that the overall goal of the American experiment is individual worth, freedom and liberty. The Declaration of Independence states that there are natural rights that transcend government. If that is the case, and if we believe that the Bill of Rights codifies these natural rights, they should, IMO, apply to all persons legally in this country.
As you posted previously, there are downsides to these individual freedoms and liberties. That downside is there will be some people who wrongly use these rights and damage others.0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:Rocky Raab wrote:You have a point, Don. In so many other threads, the "shall not be infringed" group demands no restrictions of any kind on anyone, regardless.
That would be "Citizens of this Country."
The rest, should not be allowed Firearms.
If you are not a "Citizen of this Country," you have no business possesing a firearm, in this Country.
Here for "Training," from a Muslim Country known to have done us harm? Oh Hell No.
Flame on.
If the Bill of Rights mentioned Citizens, you would have a valid point.
Frankly, there are many citizens of this country that I do not think should possess a firearm. We should be thankful that I cannot make that decision, as we should be thankful that any one individual cannot either.0 -
Brain fart. Thought Ken and typed Don.
There are some who I believe forfeit some or all of their constitutional rights. Violent convicted felons, for one.0 -
Rocky Raab wrote:Brain fart. Thought Ken and typed Don.
There are some who I believe forfeit some or all of their constitutional rights. Violent convicted felons, for one.
Or perhaps Muslim's from a Country who have done us harm, and are here to "Train." (Uh, kind of like last time.) Why would you possibly think they should have access to Firearms, while in our Country?
Do you think for one moment (We) would have access to Firearms in their Country? Laughable on its face.(Except not very funny.)
If we are not on the same page, that is perfectly fine with me. I have my views, as you are entitled to yours.0 -
Ken, it's more like reading the other side of the same page. I won't say you are wrong, just as I cannot argue with those who advocate no infringement, period. I've always believed that if we could ask them, the Founding Fathers would say "Hell no" to allowing known or suspected enemies to be fully armed. The problem is with that suspected part. And who decides who the enemies are, to be honest.
Today, half of our country points at the other half and claims THEY are the enemy. There sure as heck is one side trying to disarm the other.0 -
I am really thankful this Saudi didn?t have the patience to wait until he was strapped to an F/A-18 in either Fallon Nevada or El Centro Ca and given a full load of live ordinance to train with.
Bombing run directly on Las Vegas, maybe Reno or Southern California is a pretty gruesome thought.Rocky Raab wrote:Ken, it's more like reading the other side of the same page. I won't say you are wrong, just as I cannot argue with those who advocate no infringement, period. I've always believed that if we could ask them, the Founding Fathers would say "Hell no" to allowing known or suspected enemies to be fully armed. The problem is with that suspected part. And who decides who the enemies are, to be honest.
Today, half of our country points at the other half and claims THEY are the enemy. There sure as heck is one side trying to disarm the other.0 -
How did this fool pass a NICS check?
Yes, its Florida but hey there are federal rules... Authority Wrong !0 -
Warbirds wrote:I am really thankful this Saudi didn?t have the patience to wait until he was strapped to an F/A-18 in either Fallon Nevada or El Centro Ca and given a full load of live ordinance to train with.
Bombing run directly on Las Vegas, maybe Reno or Southern California is a pretty gruesome thought.
I agree with you Sir.
I wonder how that fits in to some here Worldview of Sunshine and Light, that "All People here Legally," should be able to possess/own Weapons? There is a limit. That limit was drawn on 9/11. (By them.)
I wonder how Sam06, feels about arming Muslims here for "training," or otherwise on our own soil? Pretty sure I know the answer to that.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
30 comments