Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Father of accused says son is no terrorist

May 6, 2013

MONTEVIDEO — The father of Buford Rogers, the Montevideo man arrested by the FBI on Friday, said Monday his son is not a terrorist....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(34)

ProdigalSon

May-18-13 1:55 PM

"Limits placed on clip size or ownership of a specific type of firearm does not infringe on the right to own a firearm."~h75

in·fringe

verb

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Hate to be a wet blanket, but I believe what you describe is...an infringement. We'll know for sure shortly....54 Colorado sheriffs and other plaintiffs including disabled gun owners, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Colorado's new laws affecting sales and temporary transfer of firearms, and placing limits on magazine capacity. I have an idea the suit against the new laws has been fairly well prepared.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

May-17-13 12:31 PM

I'm not sure if this story is a case of journalistic sensationalism or an abuse of power by local, state and federal authorities. To date, the "suspect" is held for a probation violation. No explosive charges, no terroristic threat charges. Just a probation violation that could have been dealt with by a probation department representative. Read Steve Browne's blog, found elsewhere in the Independent, on his insights to this debacle.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

May-17-13 12:26 PM

"Factored" into it? The National Maximum Speed Limit of 55 m.p.h. was created in 1974 when Richard Nixon signed the Emergency Energy Highway Conservation Act. Safety had nothing to do with it. The bill was sponsored by then Sen. John Warner with guidance from U.S. Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman. The safety aspect was considered and dropped due to it appearing flimsy, and was proved so after the repeal by the Cato Institute that found deaths dropped by 66,000 a year after the 55 limit was lifted.

Please provide a cite that indicates safety was a primary compelling factor.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-16-13 6:15 PM

You are correct Prod, the energy crisis factored into the decision to lower the speed limit in addition to safety factors. There are many reasons our roadways are safer but increased speed is not one of them. Automotive technological advances and laws mandating seat belt use are the primary reasons. Now what were you saying about intellectual honesty?

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

May-16-13 11:54 AM

hartman75, as hard as self discipline can be at times, work on using a little intellectual honesty when commenting.

The National Maximum Speed Law [NMSL] in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour. It was drafted in response to oil price spikes and supply disruptions during the 1973 oil crisis. It was modified in 1987 & 88, was totally repealed in 1995. Some research found that crashes increased due to the restriction, and that repeal made for safer roads. Independent studies found a .05% savings in fuel from the 55 MPH restriction, auto fatality numbers dropped after the repeal.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-16-13 11:09 AM

"What if the government requires that all vehicles are prohibited from driving more than 30 miles an hour to save lives?"

You must be under 40, 56258 since the government DID lower the speed limit to save lives. They "recommended" all States lower the speed limit to 55 mph OR lose Federal funding for highways. Guess what, States complied and so did drivers - unless they wanted to pay a fine for speeding. It certainly made owning a Corvette less attractive.

14 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

May-15-13 4:47 PM

I bought a gun with a large capacity magazine for varmint hunting. I shoot 800-1,200 rounds per day. If there was a ban on these, who knows if I'd be required to turn mine in. Also, if that ban went into effect, it would certainly make it less desireable for me to own or purchase a firearm of the sort. Certainly that doesn't eliminate my right - but makes it less attactive.

What if the government requires that all vehicles are prohibited from driving more than 30 miles an hour to save lives? You okay with that?

1 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-14-13 5:04 PM

Limits placed on clip size or ownership of a specific type of firearm does not infringe on the right to own a firearm. I am not against gun ownership and fully realize criminals will always find a way to circumvent laws. I agree with you that penalties for violating existing law should be greater. I also believe there are non-existing laws that would allow law abiding citizens the right to own firearms while also preventing guns from becoming easily obtained by those bent on committing violence. For law abiding citizens, laws are not a burden.

15 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

May-14-13 1:55 PM

hartman75 - Bucky would have likely grabbed his parent's AR. No law would have stopped that.

The point is criminals commit crimes and find a way around laws - the laws just affect those who actually abide them. Instead, my solution is to levy hefty/meaningful punishments when crimes against existing laws occur - like here. Heck, beef them up if you want - how about a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for felony possession of a firearm?

Or you just want to take guns away from everyone instead of punishing this criminal?

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-14-13 1:47 PM

"My guess is that if Bucky was willing to have a firearm in his possession while being a felon (illegal), this legislation would NOT prevent him from keeping his AR with large capacity clip..."

Good point 56258, so logically we need legislation that WOULD help prevent a felon from obtaining and AR with large capacity clip...um...like background checks on ALL gun sales.

17 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-14-13 1:39 PM

No need to rant Pirate, I simply wanted an example of a current law you believe is sufficient to reduce the ease with which criminals obtain guns. Claiming that those who work outside the law will continue doing so is an excuse, not an argument. In many cases, it's easier to buy a gun than sinus medication. If the bottom line is enforcement call the NRA - they are responsible for the lack of enforcement concerning gun legislation.

Based on your remarks Pirate, it's quite obvious you know little about socialism. Labeling me an elitist is a classification - socialism has no class designations.

17 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pirate

May-14-13 3:05 AM

The bottom line is enforcement. Obama's appointee to head BATFE, B Todd Jones, as US Attorney for Minnesota stated gun crimes were not a high enough priority to spend time on. What laws do you propose would improve that stance?

1 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pirate

May-14-13 3:02 AM

Your list is a joke. Are you even aware you can't legally buy guns over the Internet without a background check? If you ship to other than a FFL holder for sale you have broken the law. That already exists, by the way, and is enforceable. Those who work outside of that will continue to do so with any new law. Terrorist watch list? If we use that it will cut out sales to infants, animals and dead people. If the FBI can't watch it how can you put that on any shopkeeper. What is a large quantity of ammunition? You obviously are not a shooter so I won't even try to explain. Straw purchases will continue no matter what changes are made. How do you think underage drinkers get alcohol. The stopping point are mostly the dealers. Go ask one to tell you a few stories. A gun dealer has to account for every gun they take possession of.

1 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pirate

May-14-13 2:21 AM

hartman - thanks for bringing up your Liberal/Socialist glory grab again. Thankfully there is little in the US that could even begin to be considered Socialism. Hopefully we are never forced to that level of mediocrity. Simply having a service provided by the government does not make it "Socialist". That does not begin to meet the Socialist Tenants. And it certainly doesn't make it better than provided by the private sector. I know it's tough for an elitist like yourself but look outside the city how the rural water systems work. But you can embrace ObamaCare as your example of a Socialist program. Grossly over budget, damaging to the industry it was supposed to improve and unable to sustain itself without the funding of capitalism.

You reference to bombs and trailer courts is nothing more than small minded bigotry.

2 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

May-13-13 3:03 PM

Revised:: hartman75 - Yes I can. There has been ample proposed legislation aimed at banning semi-auto firearms as well as banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. My guess is that if Bucky was willing to have a firearm in his possession while being a felon (illegal), this legislation would NOT prevent him from keeping his AR with large capacity clip, but may only impact his neighbors and others who are law abiding.

0 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

May-13-13 3:00 PM

hartman75 - Yes I can. There has been ample proposed legislation aimed at banning semi-auto firearms as well as banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. My guess is that if Bucky was willing to have a firearm in his possession while being a felon (illegal), this legislation would prevent him from keeping his AR with large capacity clip, but would only do that to his neighbors are others who are law abiding.

0 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-13-13 11:52 AM

BTW Pirate, 99.9% of all Americans, including yourself, would find it impossible to survive without "socialist" economic polices. For example our "socialist based" municipal utility, water delivery and waste water treatment systems are an infinitesimal few of the countless services that AFFORD Americans the highest standard of living in the WHOLE WORLD. Yet you claim THOSE "socialist" polices are more dangerous than homemade bombs in your garage or local trailer court?

17 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-13-13 11:31 AM

Maybe this list will help you out Pirate. The following are NOT law and allow guns to flow into the hands of criminals easily and with no accountability.

Mn law does not limit the number of guns an unlicensed individual can sell and does not require that all gun sales be conducted by a licensed dealer. Sales of guns to individuals on the terrorist watch list are not illegal. There is no law requiring the notification of authorities to large purchases of ammunition in a short time period. There are no background checks on individuals purchasing guns over the internet, at gun shows or private sales. Straw purchases are illegal but because of inadequate punishment and difficulties in providing intent (burden of proof), few cases are prosecuted. Gun dealers are not required to account for lost or stolen guns. State’s filing civil lawsuits or taking efforts to revoke or suspend a gun dealer’s license are not allowed to use trace data.

17 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-13-13 11:25 AM

You claim "when used" current law is working Pirate. Which current laws do you think are working? Which current laws are NOT being used? Maybe rangeral could help you with this

A study done of 62 mass murders since 1982 revealed that, “Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally”.

“What’s more, most of what the ATF knows about illegal guns, including those used in crimes, can’t be shared with the public because of privacy laws created a decade ago by Congress.”

17 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pirate

May-09-13 4:00 PM

hartman - To the first of your recent posts - the point is when used, current laws work. How is that confusing for you?

To the second post - Do you have more right to espouse Socialism than they being survivalist? I consider Socialism far more dangerous to our country's well being. Unless you also wish to set aside due process, they have as of yet not been shown to be a danger to anyone.

3 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-09-13 12:01 PM

Based on the article and from some of the comments, it’s comical to hear “survivalist” and other like-minded militia members claim they hold the key to “freedom” as they become enslaved by their aberrant and irrational beliefs. Its getting more and more difficult to tell them apart from the jihadists. IMO, both groups pose a threat to American ideals.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-09-13 11:57 AM

"From what I can tell, none of the newly proposed legislation would have changed it. Just might have removed some guns from the neighbors and area residents - all who could have been victims." I don't understand how new laws would have "removed"guns from "the neighbors and area residents" 56two58, could you elaborate.

Requiring background checks on gun buyers would prevent criminals from buying guns on the open market. The claim laws are ineffective simply because crimes are committed is not in accordance with the truth or reality.

19 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

May-08-13 6:31 PM

I think the Rogers family should be the test case for any microchips. And of course prod is spewing more ridiculous paranoya. I think a special chip for him...

20 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

May-08-13 10:47 AM

hartman75 - convicted felons do not have the right to own/possess firearms. Looks like despite being a felon, this individual got his hands on firearms (from his parents presumably). From what I can tell, none of the newly proposed legislation would have changed it. Just might have removed some guns from the neighbors and area residents - all who could have been victims.

In this rare case, the existing law was enforced. Seems it worked here.

21 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SomeSensePlease

May-07-13 10:34 PM

The picture accompanying the article says it all.

22 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 34 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web