Explosives are EASY to get. Your example of Ammonium Nitrate... It is FERTILIZER. I used to, back in the 1970s buy it by the 2.5 ton (about 2300kg) load (2 or 3 loads a day) to spread on my dad's farm. Granted it is a little more difficult to do now since the OK City bombing back in the 1990s, but it is still easy to get enough over a period of time to do some serious damage. And this is just Ammonium Nitrate, a low-grade explosive. Other explosives (especially high explosives like nitroglycerine and TNT) are easy to synthesize out of commonly available chemicals by anyone with a moderate knowledge of chemistry. Even black powder (one of the first explosives discovered) can be made with very little trouble. All it takes is enough advance planning to accumulate enough over a period of time to avoid being flagged. You are not going to stop explosives by someone determined enough to want/use them. Just look at all the IEDs used in war zones like Iraq. Where there is a will, there is a way -- legal or not.

I wouldn't say that Ammonium Nitrate is a low-grade explosive.
Together with alumiminum powder its very explosive.
Rocket booster use it.
Anders Behring Breivik used it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Moderate knowledge of Chemistry:)
Every teenager that I have met know how to do explosives.

Moderate knowledge of Chemistry:)
Every teenager that I have met know how to do explosives.

Chemistry classes either start with how to ferment, make booze, or how to make explosives.

---

No Bernie i am not saying crim can't get guns they can but it's very hard . You can't tell me this guy was a big bad criminal or he would have been in jail by now .

Ah, there is your false assumption. The United States has no law that permits a crazy to be put into confinement until after they act. They have rights, and their rights are more important that society's right to not have crazies in its midst. Lawyers.

Glenn, you are never going to convince anyone that a person who will attack a police station isn't fruit loops crazy. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement If this crazy was in a cell as he should have been, then gun control is moot. The USA has a crazy control problem.

Until they are judged crazy, they have to have done some violent action to get to this point, their name can't be entered into the gun control no purchase list. The USA has a crazy control problem. Update the crazy laws first!

---

Moderate knowledge of Chemistry:)
Every teenager that I have met know how to do explosives.

Chemistry classes either start with how to ferment, make booze, or how to make explosives.

Yes. Been there. Done that:)
My father didn't like that though.
He was a mine expert.

And a friend of mine. His father was a police officer.
Well his father also did moonshine on top of the police station:)

I've been watching the media coverage on this and from what I can see it was one of those "man freaks out because he is not allowed to beat his family" scenarios.

I put it in the whole "man freaks out and kills family because he is getting divorced" and "man freaks out and kills himself/children/family because things are going wrong in his life" category.

These events are not unusual, sadly, just the scale of his efforts to punish the world because he is not getting his own way.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I've been watching the media coverage on this and from what I can see it was one of those "man freaks out because he is not allowed to beat his family" scenarios.

I put it in the whole "man freaks out and kills family because he is getting divorced" and "man freaks out and kills himself/children/family because things are going wrong in his life" category.

These events are not unusual, sadly, just the scale of his efforts to punish the world because he is not getting his own way.

I think delusional may be a better description than wife beater.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/dallas-shooter-was-a-conspiracy-theorist-who-threatened-to-shoot-up-schools-and-churches-reports/

The man who launched an early morning attack on the Dallas Police headquarters has a history with law authorities, causing a lockdown in 2013 after threatening to kill his family and shoot up schools and churches near Paris, Texas.

A man who identified himself as James Boulware, 35, was reportedly shot and killed by police this morning after launching an attack on police headquarters from a heavily armored van — described by its manufacturer as a “Zombie Apocalypse Assault Vehicle and Troop Transport” — firing on police cruisers and leaving bombs in the parking lot.

In 2013 , Boulware was involved in a family argument, choking his mother and assaulting his uncle, before going to his brother’s house in Paris, where he took multiple weapons, ammo, and body armor, according to KXII.

Later, during a “face time” call over the Internet, he threatened to kill all of the adult members of his family, as well as making a vague threat about schools or churches along the way.

Boulware was later apprehended after police launched a full scale manhunt. His case was dismissed in April 2014 after he fulfilled several court-ordered conditions.

In the police report, Boulware’s mother said that her son “frequently talks to himself and appears delusional.”

In conversations with police, conducted as authorities attempted to negotiate with his this morning, Boulware complained that police had previously called him a terrorist and had taken his son.

“The suspect has told our negotiators that we took his child and we accused him of being a terrorist and that he’s going to blow us up,” Dallas Police Department Chief David Brown said.

And yes, the USA obviously has a crazy control problem.

---

No Bernie i am not saying crim can't get guns they can but it's very hard . You can't tell me this guy was a big bad criminal or he would have been in jail by now .

Ah, there is your false assumption. The United States has no law that permits a crazy to be put into confinement until after they act. They have rights, and their rights are more important that society's right to not have crazies in its midst. Lawyers.

It's the same here you have to do something before they can put you in the nut house .

This guy was know to the police and the courts so must have already done something to give him a record and that should be enough to have him barred from buying guns full stop

So you are right about those laws that is part of what gun control is but it you constution i believe that needs to be change so the other laws can all so be changed.

Obama wanted to do what we have done because things where the same here before we changed them but it's you constution that is the major stopping factor in having guns control .

Not the gun lobby's b/s about the problem being mental health that's wedge politic and is being used well by smart people to confuse the issues and keep the status quo.

Are you lot that silly you don't get it the people at the top of the gun lobby are the ones making the dam guns . Throw away you membership in that very bad organisation .

---

In Europe it's more easy to buy an illegal weapon than a legal one.
If you want a Kalashnikov go to Tallin Estonia.
If you want a hand gun go to the Balcan States.

Two of the finest handguns I own and regularly shoot were made in Croatia. A Springfield Armory XDm 9mm competition target pistol and a Springfield Armory XDs .45 ACP as my concealed carry weapon.

Yes I'm licensed, went through an FBI background check and carry daily, as do 12,000 other citizens in my county of Colorado alone. In my philosophy there are 3 legal reasons for owning a firearm. a) For sport/target shooting. b) For hunting/survival. c) For personal protection. Having a firearm for any other reason should be considered illegal possession.

Robert Heinlein once wrote "An Armed society is a polite society".

":D)

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Yes I'm licensed, went through an FBI background check and carry daily, as do 12,000 other citizens in my county of Colorado alone. In my philosophy there are 3 legal reasons for owning a firearm. a) For sport/target shooting. b) For hunting/survival. c) For personal protection. Having a firearm for any other reason should be considered illegal possession.

The first 2 reason yes but you don't need assult rifles for them .

The 3 rd well

Robert Heinlein once wrote "An Armed society is a polite society".

An Armed society is a polite society very true because you all live in fear of being shot buy someone losing there temper or going nuts .

But the last part is never used and there fore confuse you all into a false sence of "you right and everyone else is wrong " attitude

---

The first 2 reason yes but you don't need assult rifles for them .

You need air, water, food; clothes and shelter are nice. Everything else is a want. But an assault rifle may be a requirement to obtain your needs. Nice and blurry? Good!

---

You need air, water, food; clothes and shelter are nice. Everything else is a want. But an assault rifle may be a requirement to obtain your needs. Nice and blurry? Good!

A another false statement . You don't need a assault rifle .

Hunting only requires a bolt action rifle , and you din't have them when you kicked the Brits out (yeh ok you mite now ) but only your armed forces do

But i would say Gary by your post i could think your talking about stealing or using guns to oppress people so having a assault rifle may not help at all if your just simply out numbered .

So he whom has the most men and assault rifles rule , yehhh so much for FREEDOM

That is called a war of attrition

---

In Europe it's more easy to buy an illegal weapon than a legal one.
If you want a Kalashnikov go to Tallin Estonia.
If you want a hand gun go to the Balcan States.

Two of the finest handguns I own and regularly shoot were made in Croatia. A Springfield Armory XDm 9mm competition target pistol and a Springfield Armory XDs .45 ACP as my concealed carry weapon.

Yes I'm licensed, went through an FBI background check and carry daily, as do 12,000 other citizens in my county of Colorado alone. In my philosophy there are 3 legal reasons for owning a firearm. a) For sport/target shooting. b) For hunting/survival. c) For personal protection. Having a firearm for any other reason should be considered illegal possession.

Robert Heinlein once wrote "An Armed society is a polite society".

":D)

Why do you think I'm growing my hair to look like a better-looking Ted Nugent? ;)

So you are right about those laws that is part of what gun control is but it you constution i believe that needs to be change so the other laws can all so be changed.

Glenn, It may (or may not) interest you to know, the reason for the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was not to protect our citizens from each other, it was written to protect those citizens from their Government should the need ever arise again as it did in 1775.

[Edit]

Hunting only requires a bolt action rifle ,

ever hunted a 200 pound feral pig and only wounded him with the first shot? You would be very glad to have those extra rounds.

Additionally an AR-15 is not an 'Assault Rifle' AR stands for Advanced Rifle and design number 15.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

dg6580004 yes i did know why it's there but it's not needed mate . I suspect that after you kick out the brit's they conveniently forgot about the Magna Carta which gives you the right to bear arms against your King , Queen or government even if it does not say Government .

Ask a lawyer about it

And i must say that was around long before 1775

constitutions like a lot of things need to be updated and in the case of weapons they have become way to dangerous to be in the hands of non military people .

I'm 100 % certain if your founding fathers knew how far weapons would come they would have changed it and possibly had restrictions on what type of weapon you can have or just not have it and have it as a assumed right based on the Maga-Carter

If you wish to have a gun or rifle then i believe you should have to prove you are a responsible person to own one and to do that you need good gun control laws . I have never advocated a total banning of weapons only that you should have gun ownership at the highest level of proof that you are the right person to own one .

1 strike and you lose the right to own one . Any arrest involving a assault or threat should disqualify you from ever owning a gun .

---

dg6580004 yes i did know why it's there but it's not needed mate . I suspect that after you kick out the brit's they conveniently forgot about the Magna Carta which gives you the right to bear arms against your King , Queen or government even if it does not say Government .

Ask a lawyer about it

I agree completely.

And i must say that was around long before 1775

Also complete agreement.

constitutions like a lot of things need to be updated and in the case of weapons they have become way to dangerous to be in the hands of non military people .

I partly agree in that the Constitution has been updated regularly,27 times starting in 1789, by Amendment ratified by the States. I disagree that firearms should only be possesed by the military. That was the philosophy of the NAZI party in Germany which led to Jews and other disenfranchised citizens being left defenseless.

I'm 100 % certain if your founding fathers knew how far weapons would come they would have changed it and possibly had restrictions on what type of weapon you can have or just not have it and have it as a assumed right based on the Maga-Carter

Again I disagree partly. I don't believe evolution of firearms would have had any bearing on the formulation of the 2nd amendment. There ARE restrictions on the type of weapons available legally to qualified citizens. Fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you obtain a license from BATFE. All such purchases are subject to FBI investigation BEFORE the sale is allowed to be consummated. Carrying these types of weapons IS illegal except for qualified Law Enforcement personnel or the military in the line of duty. Artillery is even more heavily restricted and bombs, missiles and armed aircraft are not legal to own. In Colorado we can't posses FIREWORKS! But that's a fire danger thing. ":D

If you wish to have a gun or rifle then i believe you should have to prove you are a responsible person to own one and to do that you need good gun control laws . I have never advocated a total banning of weapons only that you should have gun ownership at the highest level of proof that you are the right person to own one .

I agree completely and so does the membership of the NRA. Education and qualification are the cornerstone of NRA principals as we realize firearms are not toys or status symbols. Where we draw the line is the retention of purchase records for firearms by the Government, touted by all gun control proposals, without legal warrant which is prohibited by the 4th amendment. This is the first step to confiscation as was proven last year in New York City.

1 strike and you lose the right to own one . Any arrest involving a assault or threat should disqualify you from ever owning a gun.

Again no disagreement and that is what the law says here, no prior arrests or felony record, no restraining orders, no mental health holds.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

So you are right about those laws that is part of what gun control is but it you constution i believe that needs to be change so the other laws can all so be changed.

Glenn, It may (or may not) interest you to know, the reason for the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was not to protect our citizens from each other, it was written to protect those citizens from their Government should the need ever arise again as it did in 1775.

[Edit]

Hunting only requires a bolt action rifle ,

ever hunted a 200 pound feral pig and only wounded him with the first shot? You would be very glad to have those extra rounds.

Additionally an AR-15 is not an 'Assault Rifle' AR stands for Advanced Rifle and design number 15.

This is an assault rifle. Full auto grenade launcher and 5.62mm auto weapon system. If you have the right permits, yes you can own it in the USA or some other nasty stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY

---

I partly agree in that the Constitution has been updated regularly,27 times starting in 1789, by Amendment ratified by the States. I disagree that firearms should only be possesed by the military. That was the philosophy of the NAZI party in Germany which led to Jews and other disenfranchised citizens being left defenseless.

I only mean fully Automatics like Assault rifles not a shotgun or whinchester or a glock .

Where we draw the line is the retention of purchase records for firearms by the Government, touted by all gun control proposals, without legal warrant which is prohibited by the 4th amendment. This is the first step to confiscation as was proven last year in New York City.

And there is one of the problems the police checks can't be done so no gun law will have teeth if you can't do a police check .Not shore what your talking about with New York.


Why is it then o.k as you say to do a police check with a Assault rifle .

Fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you obtain a license from BATFE. All such purchases are subject to FBI investigation BEFORE the sale is allowed to be consummated. Carrying these types of weapons IS illegal except for qualified Law Enforcement

So how did a man with 2 prier arrests for domestic violence get a assault rifle among other weapons he had ??? who owned the weapons before he did ??

Sometimes and under certain conditions you must make a exception to a rule or law and in the case of your 4th then make a bloody exception and allow police checks before weapons are granted .

So the NRA need to stop there B/s and join the party not constantly come up with B/S reason to not have gun control . people are needlessly dieing

---

heheheheheClyde there is nothing worse than a woman with a gun when there angry

You mite need to buy a bullet proof vest mate now or be a very god boy now she has the weapon and is a bloody good shot .

---

I only mean fully Automatics like Assault rifles

You might have missed this..

Fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you obtain a license from BATFE. All such purchases are subject to FBI investigation BEFORE the sale is allowed to be consummated. Carrying these types of weapons IS illegal except for qualified Law Enforcement

Where we draw the line is the retention of purchase records for firearms by the Government, touted by all gun control proposals, without legal warrant which is prohibited by the 4th amendment. This is the first step to confiscation as was proven last year in New York City.

We have no problem with the sales records being kept by the Gun Seller which is and has been the law, what is objectionable is the Government having access to those records without a court order.

And there is one of the problems the police checks can't be done so no gun law will have teeth if you can't do a police check.

Again 'Police' Background checks are already required on all legal purchases of firearms in the US.

Not shore what your talking about with New York.

Three years ago the State of New York passed a magazine limit on all firearms limiting them to 5 rounds. In New York City owners were required to register all firearms, and last year the NYPD sent letters to all who had registered to immediately turn in those legally owned and registered guns.

http://www.bitterrootbugle.com/2014/07/10/gun-confiscation-begins-in-new-york/

Why is it then o.k as you say to do a police check with a Assault rifle .

Not sure what you mean by that statement. As I said ALL firearms purchased legally in the US require a background check. In my state that check is done by the gun seller over the internet with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and takes about an hour. Here's a link to the BATFE forms website,
https://www.atf.gov/content/library/firearms-forms
download the .pdf of form ATF 4473 and look at the information required to buy a firearm legally in the US. Contrary to what the propaganda says, there are police checks required for every firearm purchase done legally,

So how did a man with 2 prier arrests for domestic violence get a assault rifle among other weapons he had ???

That remains to be seen. Maybe he bought them illegally as did the Charlie Hebdo assassins. That occurred in a country with no legal ownership of firearms allowed.

who owned the weapons before he did ??

Again if the firearms were sold legally there will be a record with the seller which was also reported to the manufacturer.

Sometimes and under certain conditions you must make a exception to a rule or law and in the case of your 4th then make a bloody exception and allow police checks before weapons are granted .

Again, police checks are already the law. It is the unwarranted collection and retention of that data by the Federal Government that is the issue. It's the same issue as the NSA collection and retention of telephone records without first obtaining court permission.

So the NRA need to stop there B/s and join the party not constantly come up with B/S reason to not have gun control . people are needlessly dieing

I agree people are needlessly dying, but it's not legally owned guns that are killing them. There are laws in place that if enforced and prosecuted will control illegal weapons. The NRA strongly supports the prosecution of gun crimes and enforcement of gun laws.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

You might have missed this..
Fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you obtain a license from BATFE. All such purchases are subject to FBI investigation BEFORE the sale is allowed to be consummated. Carrying these types of weapons IS illegal except for qualified Law Enforcement

no i did not miss it

Where we draw the line is the retention of purchase records for firearms by the Government, touted by all gun control proposals, without legal warrant which is prohibited by the 4th amendment. This is the first step to confiscation as was proven last year in New York City.

good try , so you advocate in letting some unscupulas merchants to fiddle the books , which would be much harder to do if the Gov had control over the register .

i must say you don't do many checks for weapons then on your borders as all the assault rifles must be coming in illegally and you don't make any then .

The same b/s excuses are being said here by mmmmm would n't be the NRA would it , so "F" off NRA "F" your own country up not ours .

Now why would your NRA be trying to change our laws mate wouldn't be to make some one in the NRA a heap of money by trying to sell more weapons here . So don't give me the b?S .

Again 'Police' Background checks are already required on all legal purchases of firearms in the US.

Thants good then so it's ok for your bikies to wage war when ever they feel like it .
Your police checks are crap , One state not being able to ask another state if this person has any priers , no wonder it don't work . Oh that what the NRA do well wedge politics

As for New York i'm not that dumb to think the NRA are not behind that how else are you to prove your stance .

Why is it then o.k as you say to do a police check with a Assault rifle .

Not sure what you mean by that statement.

here's your answer in your own words

All such purchases are subject to FBI investigation BEFORE the sale is allowed to be consummated.

So the F.B.I are not a police force , wait i have your answer "no there a security organisation "
Grow up there a form of police , so it's ok for them to do checks but na we can't let the local police do it . Wedge politic and total hipprocrocy

Sometimes and under certain conditions you must make a exception to a rule or law and in the case of your 4th then make a bloody exception and allow police checks before weapons are granted .

Again, police checks are already the law. It is the unwarranted collection and retention of that data by the Federal Government that is the issue. It's the same issue as the NSA collection and retention of telephone records without first obtaining court permission.

That why when you amend the 4th you also put checks and balences as well

But hey the NRA don't want gun control so keep up with the B/S reasons and don't come up with practical ways to stop it .

I agree people are needlessly dying, but it's not legally owned guns that are killing them. There are laws in place that if enforced and prosecuted will control illegal weapons. The NRA strongly supports the prosecution of gun crimes and enforcement of gun laws.

Tell that to the young girl that killed the instructor or your no.1 sniper, those guns where illegal ok got it .

Or tell that to the school kids killed at columbine High school oh right he stole the guns from his parents . And all those bikies had illegal weapons not one was legal .

I agree people are needlessly dying, but it's not legally owned guns that are killing them. There are laws in place that if enforced and prosecuted will control illegal weapons. The NRA strongly supports the prosecution of gun crimes and enforcement of gun laws.

Biggest load of crap i've herd all words no substance .

I too can go around tell people i'm this or that but actions are louder than words and the NRA only come up with excuses so all B/S

---