20 shooting victims in California active shooter situation -

Post Reply New Topic

I've read every post on this thread (I started reading it, yesterday evening), and the one thing that I haven't seen mentioned, is the numbers don't add-up.....

I've read articles that said they were married for two years----then, I've read articles that said Farook came-back from Saudi Arabia, 6 months ago, with a wife.....

Now, maybe they were actually married 2 years ago, and he just never told anyone..... That would mean, seemingly, that he's been back-and-forth to SA, several times, maybe, over the years.....

There's this baby girl----if he just all-of-a-sudden came-back with a wife, six months ago (meaning, he only just met / married her), and the baby is 6 months old, maybe that baby isn't even HIS / wasn't born here? What if SHE recruited him for terrorist reasons, and to become an American citizen (by marrying him)----then, that baby's not a citizen (it doesn't seem like any official person has considered that----they are assuming the baby's his). Even if it IS his, it doesn't seem to have been born here----but, like someone said, if he's the father, then the kid is a citizen. Someone SERIOUSLY needs to run a DNA on the kid!

(I went to that website where some article said they met, and it says they are there for the disabled to meet / marry, and for second marriages. What does that MEAN, in regard to this Farook guy, or his wife? Has SHE been married, before?)

It's possible that the baby's his----but, like I said, he would've had to have made SEVERAL trips to SA, for that to be so.

Another thing is, I agree with whomever said they thought more people were involved----or, at least, that these two are part of a larger group----because, I TOO, read that there were all these men going back-and-forth to their house, all-the-time.

Also, how does someone who only makes, like, 53,000 dollars a year afford a house in CA, an arsenal like his, and several trips to SA, unless, maybe, he's been "funded" by someone? (I read that the couple bought a couple of the guns legally, but a couple of the OTHER guns, were bought by someone ELSE..... WHO?)

I'm thinking that him having an argument with someone at that party, was some type of a ruse----because, as others have said, this has been planned, for a lonnnnng time.





Edit: To correct spelling.

The Victims

Sly

I haven't heard one person in congress ever take that extreme of a position. Even senator Feinstein added a grandfather clause that would let anyone keep the guns they have regardless if the law banned their sale. And it was more about the attachments and extended magazines more than anything. So no, they are not going to ban semi autos. I have never heard anyone seriously propose anything close to that. The laws being discussed mainly have to do with background checks, straw purchases, and weapons made for war.

Again the vast majority of Americans support an individuals right to own a gun. With the amount of push back to any gun regulation no matter how modest I don't see how it would ever get that far. I don't see the slippery slope being an issue here.

Besides you haven't answered my first question. Who would physically take the guns when so much of the police forces and military forces support gun ownership? I just don't see how a gun ban is even possible in this country.

There are reasonable actions that can be taken. Let's not let the fear of a gun ban prevent us from doing anything at all.

Dox

I didn't agree that the NRA shouldn't politicize this. I agreed that they shouldn't use this event to fundraise. This thread is full of people politicizing this event on both sides and I don't have a problem with it at all. I'm just against the NRA because I think the message it promotes is that of the gun manufacturers rather than gun owners. That and I believe they are disingenuous with the statements they make.

I guess this all hinges on what our definitions of politicizing are. I think having an honest and open debate on our laws is perfectly reasonable after events like this. We just need to remain respectful.

Deleted for racist comments - please review the WP rules asap. Keep it in perspective please.

B19
Moderator

As more details emerge, it seems more and more apparent to me that the killers were planning an attack somewhere else, and that they may have acted prematurely when this opportunity presented itself.

In other words, I suspect that the holiday party was not their original target.

And for those of you who keep talking about the damn gun laws not being strict enough - they already said nothing would have stopped this shooting from happening because all the guns are purchased legally and they had no criminal records. And as far as the magazines go - they reloaded several times. They hit that building because it was soft armed which means we actually need MORE guns and not less to fight these bastards! I'm really pissed off! Once you start seeing the names and the pictures of the dead, then it all gets real.