cvfd1399

There was a background check on the legal purchase They would have known a straw purchase was illegal What you are suggesting is a box under the one where you say this gun is for your own use that says "are you really sure this gun is for you"

The police stated this just wasn't a spur of the moment deal. They had tactical gear and weapons ready to go, and made a stop to drop off the kid beforehand. This wasn't a drunk argument in the parking lot where a guy went and got a pistol out of his glove box.

Obviously they need more sarcasm! How about laws that work and are enforced? Remove the ineffectual ones and design ones that can be policed. I will repeat what I said in the other thread reports are this was a strawpurchase. Legally obtained weapons given to them. What law would stop this? The person buying the guns lied on the forms and broke laws in place when they stated the guns were being purchased for their sole use. Are you suggesting lie detectors to prove you are not lying when you check this box?

ABSOLUTELY not a god dammed thing, and that is not what the argument here is about!! That angle is how normiss is trying to get out of admitting it was terrorism by hiding under the fact of that is the best charge they had. It is about what actually happened when discussing the indent out of the context of the legal argument. It was fucking terrorism at face value they just had a better more suited charge. It would be the picture of terrorism in a text book.

Early reports which could change, but have been valid for other shootings discussed here was that the guns were purchased legally by someone the shooters knew. How do you close a loophole like that? They already lied on the form when they said it was for themselves and not a straw purchase.

Well obviously they need more laws!

So after all this we have a guy who -Admitted it was terrorism -Had credible ties to a terrorist leader who was later killed in a drone strike -Yelled "Allahu Akbar" before he shot up US service members -Said he committed the murders to as an attempt to protect taliban leaders in Afghanistan from American troops But his actions doesnt fit this definition when referring to the INCIDENT not the CHARGES in your mind. Yet you still do not think it was terrorism because of the way he HAD to be charged. Amazing.....

Or whatever the charge was, it still does not change the fact that they could not charge him with terrorism because it did not exist.

They charged him with workplace violence because terrorism charges did not exist. Your argument is completely worthless due to that fact. If they DID have workplace violence AND terrorism charges and they CHOSE not to use terrorism your argument would have merit. They charged him with workplace violence due to the fact it had the best chance of getting a good strong stern conviction and a better written charge was not present. It doesnt change the fact that it was actually terrorism Your ability to willfully ignore this to continue arguing or not understand what everyone else already know about the circumstances around the charges and what actually happened is what is going on here. AGAIN what they charged him with is irrelevant when we are talking about what actually occurred when the charge does not exist as they had no choice. If the only record on the books was reckless discharge of a weapon and they chose to use that instead it doesn't change the fact that it was terrorism or murder because that is the best charge they have. Would you still be defending the term of the incident as reckless discharge of a weapon then, or do you understand now?

Some are direct most indirect, but one can see a pattern of your unprovoked aggressiveness which is returned when given I will admit, but only once it was started.

No one is fucking arguing that he was charged incorrectly or ANY legal issues are incorrect!!!!! I am simply trying to get through your obtuseness and willingness to argue over absolutely everything I say and show you that ON THE SURFACE IT WAS ABSOULTY TERRORISM! http://havokjournal.com/nation/fort-hood-terrorism/ The mods blind eye to your attacks are what is impressive.

Workplace violence

No....not at all. I even googled the term after the fact and could not come up with anything related to this. He has everyone scramble over some bullshit technical argument about what the military had to charge the guy with. They couldn't charge him with terrorism as he himself said it did not exist. That doesn't change the fact that it was terrorism by a guy who had credible ties and TOLD everyone it was terrorism!! Normiss is the one dragging everyone into this UCMJ shit, as an angle to try to prove he was right about what the icident actually was. Workplace violence or terrorism... I'm done with his childish troll comments dealing with this.

I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it? To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic. There is no pattern of Islamic terror in the US. Inciting panic is almost never a good idea. If that was his reasoning, it would appear to be pretty sound. Why exactly are you so vehemently opposed to this reasoning? I'm not that's why I left it him having his own reasons. My main point was the two other items as it directly pertains to normiss understanding of it being charged as one thing but known as another. Just ignore the part about obama it was a side point and irrelevant. So you want the CinC to disregard the UCMJ? CinC?

I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it? To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic. There is no pattern of Islamic terror in the US. Inciting panic is almost never a good idea. If that was his reasoning, it would appear to be pretty sound. Why exactly are you so vehemently opposed to this reasoning? I'm not that's why I left it him having his own reasons. My main point was the two other items as it directly pertains to normiss understanding of it being charged as one thing but known as another. Just ignore the part about obama it was a side point and irrelevant.

I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it? To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic.

You do realize a great majority of the people we bring to the charity hospital are African American uninsured and most likely democrat so that's 2 strikes for you care for a third.

Republican plan huh. Well I guess the titles sitting in my safe for my 2008 gmc, and 2011 Nissan Murano makes your complete horse shit.

You need to think about that post again. The direction of every presidents term is completely determined by their personal feelings and beliefs. Look at the things obama has done and tell me it wasn't out of his personal motives to do certain things because he believed in them.

No one here but you is arguing that fact. You can't seem to understand there are three things going on. The legal charge that the military HAD to use, what it actually was, and how POTUS spun it. We(and most of America) are all talking about how it was terrorism. He admitted it himself with credible proof. You are sticking with the arguement it was only workplace violence because that's the only thing to charge him withdue to there being no other charge trying to make yourself right. The media also agreed it was terrorism but understood the charges due to the circumstances. And the president well we know his reasons for trying to sidestep it. It was terrorism plain and simple everyone and their mother knows it was charged like it was due to no terrorism charge in the UCMJ. That doesn't change the fact that it is what it was no matter the default charge it falls under. I'm surprised you can't understand the fact that people still do things that are illegal and do not have a specific law to fall under so it gets amended or interpreted another way and filed under an applicable law. It still doesn't change what it actually was.

Feelings, intentions, motives, beliefs etc. Your telling me you don't want to know the real person running the country?

If you want someone to be honest, never be wrong, and still communicate often then you are gonna get people who only read pre done Telepromp speeches, or someone who when asked a question will start talking about something completely else or just sit there and stonewall until you give up. Both act like robots and you never will know their true feelings.

He has hit trolling level 1000

Right only in the sense due to a technical that the charge does not exist for them to use and anything else would not get the most severe jail term. Wrong due to the fact that 1.He himself admitted it was terrorism and had valid history and contacts to prove he just wasn't making it up. 2.Military members that charged him understood it was terrorism. But used the charge they did to get the harshest sentences. 3.Many media outlets have written stories about how it was terrorism but conceed that the military lawyers used "workplace violence" to their advantage. 4.Majority of Americans agree it was terrorism. Despite the term they used it was terrorism only not called that for a better outcome for punishment

No this is the part where you grow up.....