So... What will it take for our current administration to (A) mutter the word Terrorism, and then (B) decide enough is enough?

add the pipe bombs and a gopro cams and it leans towards Terrorism and a recruiting video

PO2 Mark Saffell - I'm reserving judgement at the moment. It takes almost a week for the dust to settle after most of these events. The news agencies are just horrible about what is factual and not-factual. That said, it's a spectrum, and we've shifted pretty far away from the Workplace violence side.

MAJ Bryan Zeski - I have guns that I just think are cool. I want some cars that I just think are cool. Not because I ever want to drive them 200+ mph.

"Need" has nothing to do with the execution of Rights. And the Protection to the Right clearly says BEAR ARMS anyways. If Poll Taxes (on Voting) are Unconstitutional, then wouldn't comparable poll taxes on any other Protection also be? And the Government shouldn't have to "subsidize" the execution of a Right, on something which has become a de facto Poll Tax, because when those subsidies go away (For whatever reason), that becomes an infringement on said Right.

What happens when the Government puts you on 12 month Bureaucratic "wait list" for that subsidy, but you have an immediate need?

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I don't think that the right to bear arms is infringed by requiring that people be trained in those arms. You have the right to free speech, but even that has certain responsibilities that go with it - you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and expect it to be covered. People who wander around with loaded weapons and no training are similar - they are more of a liability than an asset in most situations.

SSG (Servicemember) - I understand that it's a right, not a privilege. I also understand that we are far removed from the time-frame that the right was established. Rights are not blanket statements to do whatever you want within that right - rights still have limits. Rights also come with responsibilities - and we have, for far too long, neglected to enforce the responsibilities that come with those rights.

I have no issue questioning policies, but every day that we continue to question them instead of making rational decisions, we continue to lose lives to negligent, untrained and irresponsible gun owners who are just "exercising their rights."

I don't want to "disarm the populace." I want to train the populace. I want to make the populace responsible for their actions - and right now, in regards to guns, they just aren't.

MAJ Bryan Zeski - Falsely yell fire in a theater is actually what that says. Not yell fire in a theater. And that that case was overturned and limited dramatically in scope in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio, which changed it to "inciting a riot." There is a far cry difference between someone having a gun, and inciting a riot by mere LAWFUL possession.

I heard he was a citizen but I am not sure about his wife

PO2 Mark Saffell - So it COULD be said it is home grown, however, it appears that overseas travel, including Pakistan should be taken into account.

I agree and they have still not said anything about his wife.

True.