Community Chat

[Maudelynn]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

The only difference that really bothered me in this whole story was his employer.  If I understand his job correctly, he was licensed to carry and worked for the place since 2007.  That means he was interviewed by the FBI twice during that time at the complaint of his coworkers who I assume are also employed by the same company.  How do you keep someone on payroll that other employees who work side by side with him have turned into the FBI because they feel something is really off with him?  Not once but twice.

It is a very different world when a company would rather protect themselves from a wrongful termination lawsuit than err on the side of caution and pull out the "relationship is no longer mutually beneficial" forms and send him on his way.  I think they would be justified after the FBI's second visit especially when you are handing your employees security clearances and weapons.   Common sense needs to become more common again and employers need to pay attention to their employees and not just their bottom lines.         

---

The bigger question, to me, is why this man, who had been visited by the FBI because of his radical claims, was allowed to legally purchase an AR-15 and a handgun (plus the ammunition to go with it)?

---

Supposedly because he had that state license from his employer based on what I understand.  Had he not had that job, he wouldn't have had the license.    

---

So it would seem we should have a law that restricts people who are being looked at for terrorist ties from owning guns or having a license to own one.  Wouldn't that be helpful?

[goldensrbest]

Doesn't seem this will get better,it just keeps going on.

[ChynnaBlue]

No, it's the same world as it was before this event and the same world it was after the Sandy Hook event, after the Aurora shooting, after the Riverside shootings, after Gabby Giffords was gunned down in Arizona, after Columbine, after the Cleveland Elementary shootings, and after the UT Tower shootings. It will be the same world after the next mass shooting, too.

Because when you change nothing, nothing changes.

[Mominohio]

---

@goldensrbest wrote:

The change has been just so upsetting to me, we as a nation are so divided on so many issues.

---

@goldensrbest

We have always been a divided nation, From the very beginning it was that way (and one of the things that makes us great is we have differing opinions). 

But the spirit of common sense and compromise are all but gone. We used to find some common ground between 'us' and 'them' on any given issue, and work from that point. But every single topic today is blown so completely right and left that there are only about 1% left anywhere in the middle, willing to fix 'it' rather than fight about it. 

I don't know how we change that, either, as the problems seem to get bigger and bigger, and more and more dire.

[sunshine45]

[debic]

---

@goldensrbest wrote:

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

For some things, probalby it's a different world - but then it's supposed to be.

I remember my history and well and so should everyone else.  Many Native Americans were slaughtered and killed in the past just to take their land and just to kill them, yet it wasn't considered terrorism.  50 is a small number compared to the many that were killed in the past. 

---

So this is a pay back kind of thing and to be considered acceptable?

---

Ignore her,she always talks of this.

---

+1

[Laura14]

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

The only difference that really bothered me in this whole story was his employer.  If I understand his job correctly, he was licensed to carry and worked for the place since 2007.  That means he was interviewed by the FBI twice during that time at the complaint of his coworkers who I assume are also employed by the same company.  How do you keep someone on payroll that other employees who work side by side with him have turned into the FBI because they feel something is really off with him?  Not once but twice.

It is a very different world when a company would rather protect themselves from a wrongful termination lawsuit than err on the side of caution and pull out the "relationship is no longer mutually beneficial" forms and send him on his way.  I think they would be justified after the FBI's second visit especially when you are handing your employees security clearances and weapons.   Common sense needs to become more common again and employers need to pay attention to their employees and not just their bottom lines.         

---

The bigger question, to me, is why this man, who had been visited by the FBI because of his radical claims, was allowed to legally purchase an AR-15 and a handgun (plus the ammunition to go with it)?

---

Supposedly because he had that state license from his employer based on what I understand.  Had he not had that job, he wouldn't have had the license.    

---

So it would seem we should have a law that restricts people who are being looked at for terrorist ties from owning guns or having a license to own one.  Wouldn't that be helpful?

---

Not familiar with the gun check process as I am not a gun owner but I would certainly support a more detailed check or longer waiting period so the FBI can sign off a third time.  

Unfortunately, if the FBI says you're good, not once but twice, I'm not sure how they could not sell to him eventually.  

It just kind of annoyed me that one news report said that he got the guns easier than most because of his statewide license through his employer.  I was fine thinking how would the employer ever really know the intent until the employer confirmed he worked for them for almost 10 years and it was his coworkers that triggered the FBI checks during that time.           

I'm usually not a fan of lawyers reaching to sue everyone they can when something like this happens but, in this case, I would not be sorry if this company had a bunch of legal fees explaining themselves in court.  Don't think they would be criminally responsible but I would not shed a tear if they have a big headache going forward with the victims' families.   

[Mominohio]

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

The only difference that really bothered me in this whole story was his employer.  If I understand his job correctly, he was licensed to carry and worked for the place since 2007.  That means he was interviewed by the FBI twice during that time at the complaint of his coworkers who I assume are also employed by the same company.  How do you keep someone on payroll that other employees who work side by side with him have turned into the FBI because they feel something is really off with him?  Not once but twice.

It is a very different world when a company would rather protect themselves from a wrongful termination lawsuit than err on the side of caution and pull out the "relationship is no longer mutually beneficial" forms and send him on his way.  I think they would be justified after the FBI's second visit especially when you are handing your employees security clearances and weapons.   Common sense needs to become more common again and employers need to pay attention to their employees and not just their bottom lines.         

---

The bigger question, to me, is why this man, who had been visited by the FBI because of his radical claims, was allowed to legally purchase an AR-15 and a handgun (plus the ammunition to go with it)?

---

We walk a fine line with a citizen (which he was) who is investigated, watched and of concern, and the taking of his rights before we have reason.

I'm sure this will be a real learning experience for all LE but especially the federal agencies, and change future procedures policies practices and follow up on people of suspicion. 

It is a shame we have to have such suffering in the learning process.

[Melania]

Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like  we do.

I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now. 

Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.