Mass shooting of the day

[Bob Juch]

What's ridiculous is the party split on this. Every Senate Republican but one voted against the bill that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. WTF?!

[BackInTex]

What's ridiculous is the party split on this. Every Senate Republican but one voted against the bill that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. WTF?!

Its more about how people get put on that list, now and in the future, that needs to be considered.

Its one of those things that sound good now. I mean, who could argue that someone we think might be a terrorist should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

But that designation, "might be a terrorist", is placed on a person without due process, thus their 2nd amendment right is being denied without due process. There is a lot of gray area here, but who determines who gets placed on that list, and what are the guidelines?

I can see every KKK member, or suspected member being put on that list when liberals are controlling it, and every Black Panther being put on the list when conservatives control the list. Every anti-abortion activist being put on when liberals control the list, every PETA or Occupy Whaterver member when conservatives control the list.

It is not a cut and dried issue.

[silverscreenselect]

What's ridiculous is the party split on this. Every Senate Republican but one voted against the bill that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. WTF?!

Its more about how people get put on that list, now and in the future, that needs to be considered.

Its one of those things that sound good now. I mean, who could argue that someone we think might be a terrorist should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

But that designation, "might be a terrorist", is placed on a person without due process, thus their 2nd amendment right is being denied without due process. There is a lot of gray area here, but who determines who gets placed on that list, and what are the guidelines?

I can see every KKK member, or suspected member being put on that list when liberals are controlling it, and every Black Panther being put on the list when conservatives control the list. Every anti-abortion activist being put on when liberals control the list, every PETA or Occupy Whaterver member when conservatives control the list.

It is not a cut and dried issue.

I actually agree with BiT on this one. But on the other hand, a national gun registry does make sense, especially when mass shootings occur in which the shooters are packing as much firepower as the two in California were. Buying a lot of guns isn't illegal of itself, but if you add that with what terrorist ties these two already had, that could have raised a very big red flag that led to closer FBI scrutiny.

[littlebeast13]

But that designation, "might be a terrorist", is placed on a person without due process.

You might be a terrorist if..... maybe we should put Jeff Foxworthy in charge of the list...

lb13

[flockofseagulls104]

What's ridiculous is the party split on this. Every Senate Republican but one voted against the bill that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. WTF?!

Its more about how people get put on that list, now and in the future, that needs to be considered.

Its one of those things that sound good now. I mean, who could argue that someone we think might be a terrorist should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

But that designation, "might be a terrorist", is placed on a person without due process, thus their 2nd amendment right is being denied without due process. There is a lot of gray area here, but who determines who gets placed on that list, and what are the guidelines?

I can see every KKK member, or suspected member being put on that list when liberals are controlling it, and every Black Panther being put on the list when conservatives control the list. Every anti-abortion activist being put on when liberals control the list, every PETA or Occupy Whaterver member when conservatives control the list.

It is not a cut and dried issue.

I actually agree with BiT on this one. But on the other hand, a national gun registry does make sense, especially when mass shootings occur in which the shooters are packing as much firepower as the two in California were. Buying a lot of guns isn't illegal of itself, but if you add that with what terrorist ties these two already had, that could have raised a very big red flag that led to closer FBI scrutiny.

One thing you never address: There is a thing called the "Black Market". All the left's attempts to establish these nebulous 'Common Sense Gun Laws" never address the fact that even if you have whatever laws geniuses like President Obama and Candidate Clinton can come up with, anyone with a will to do so can get whatever they want on the Black market. And although it might be harder to obtain, the black market will expand to meet demand. I put our efforts to ban illegal drugs in evidence. People that want them and people who make money selling them seem to have no trouble getting them, despite the government's best efforts. In the meantime, all you've done is make it impossible for good, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the people who disregard the gun laws, and most other laws as well.

If you are intent in taking away rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, at least do it the right way. Go ahead and mount a campaign to repeal the 2nd amendment.

[silverscreenselect]

One thing you never address: There is a thing called the "Black Market". All the left's attempts to establish these nebulous 'Common Sense Gun Laws" never address the fact that even if you have whatever laws geniuses like President Obama and Candidate Clinton can come up with, anyone with a will to do so can get whatever they want on the Black market.

Flock, that's a load of crap. People can forge passports, driver's licenses, and other forms of identification, so why do we even bother with them? The fact that some and not all would-be terrorists and criminals can get around whatever checks we impose doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and surrender. There are a lot of risks on the black market that don't exist when two people can just legally go and buy thousands of dollars of hardware without triggering any alarms. Those two were not exactly rocket scientists. If they tried to buy guns illegally, there's a good chance someone might have remembered and fingering a would be terrorist is a giant "Get Out of Jail Free" card for some petty criminal who gets caught on unrelated charges.

How do you think we catch the would-be terrorists we've caught over the last 15 years? They don't get crises of conscience and they haven't (with the exception of Richard Reid) been caught in the act. They get caught because someone drops a dime on them or they do something that triggers suspicion. Drive them underground and the risk of their getting caught goes up considerably. Will we catch all of them? Of course not, but we'll catch a lot more than if we don't make an effort.

[silverscreenselect]

I put our efforts to ban illegal drugs in evidence. People that want them and people who make money selling them seem to have no trouble getting them, despite the government's best efforts. In the meantime, all you've done is make it impossible for good, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the people who disregard the gun laws, and most other laws as well.

Wrong, again. Our jails are filled with petty drug dealers. If we had as many illegal gun dealers and would-be terrorists behind bars, we'd all sleep a lot easier at night. And how would a national gun registry make it impossible for good law abiding citizens to protect themselves?

[CarShark]

And how would a national gun registry make it impossible for good law abiding citizens to protect themselves?

That would depend on whether the government uses that list to cross-reference other lists as a means to disqualify you. In other words, would registration lead to confiscation, as conservatives believe? Would you lose your gun if you are on anti-depressants? What if you took them 20 years ago? What if you went into counseling for a few weeks, or rehab? And to expand on your thought, what if someone broke a law that didn't have anything to do with guns? What if you got in a fight outside of a bar? What if you didn't pay your child support for a year? None of those things have to do with misusing guns, but all of those would put you in the categories of either mental unhealthy or felon that are most commonly used as rare exceptions where taking someone's gun could be justified. What gun control supporters don't seem to understand about gun rights supporters is that they are not paranoid. They are assuming a bad faith effort from their political opponents, which isn't going to go away as long as liberal politicians and editorial boards keep referring to Australia's forced gun buyback program as a way forward.

[silverscreenselect]

None of those things have to do with misusing guns, but all of those would put you in the categories of either mental unhealthy or felon that are most commonly used as rare exceptions where taking someone's gun could be justified.

Felon means convicted of a felony. The laws of most if not all states prohibit felons from legally owning guns. It's established law that being convicted of a felony results in a loss of certain constitutional rights including the right to vote in many cases.

And one thing the registry would do a pretty good job of is flagging two people who buy $15,000 worth of assault rifles and ammunition. Match that with some possible terrorist links and you've got them under scrutiny.

[Bob Juch]

What's ridiculous is the party split on this. Every Senate Republican but one voted against the bill that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. WTF?!

Its more about how people get put on that list, now and in the future, that needs to be considered.

Its one of those things that sound good now. I mean, who could argue that someone we think might be a terrorist should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

But that designation, "might be a terrorist", is placed on a person without due process, thus their 2nd amendment right is being denied without due process. There is a lot of gray area here, but who determines who gets placed on that list, and what are the guidelines?

I can see every KKK member, or suspected member being put on that list when liberals are controlling it, and every Black Panther being put on the list when conservatives control the list. Every anti-abortion activist being put on when liberals control the list, every PETA or Occupy Whaterver member when conservatives control the list.

It is not a cut and dried issue.

Uh huh, so only Republicans think that? Bullshit.

[CarShark]

Uh huh, so only Republicans think that? Bullshit.

No, but mainly it's Republicans who think that issue is serious enough that it outweighs whatever positives Democrats think it would have. Remember, they would be putting the control of the list *right now* under a president that they clearly don't trust, while Democrats don't have that problem. Sure, they could say the same thing when a Republican president is elected (I'd expect nothing less), but that's a long-term issue, and politicians don't normally do that.

[BackInTex]

Uh huh, so only Republicans think that? Bullshit.

Where did I say only Republicans think that? SSS thinks that. I don't know what the vote was on the Democrat side. Your post about all but 1 Republicans thing that (voted against the measure) seems to indicate you don't think that. It seems to indicate you are O.K. with denying the 2nd amendment to people based on a list that is 40% incorrect, or deny those rights by some arbitrary measure to be applied by some bureaucrat given direction by the political party of the day.

[BackInTex]

If you want to "make it harder for 'those folks' to get guns" as the President said last night, then close the border. At least enforce our sovereignty. Don't let those that want to kill us simply walk in.

[Bob Juch]

Uh huh, so only Republicans think that? Bullshit.

Where did I say only Republicans think that? SSS thinks that. I don't know what the vote was on the Democrat side. Your post about all but 1 Republicans thing that (voted against the measure) seems to indicate you don't think that. It seems to indicate you are O.K. with denying the 2nd amendment to people based on a list that is 40% incorrect, or deny those rights by some arbitrary measure to be applied by some bureaucrat given direction by the political party of the day.

There was one Democrat who voted nay. The partisan split in the vote makes it plain that the NRA owns the Republican Party.

[Bob Juch]

If you want to "make it harder for 'those folks' to get guns" as the President said last night, then close the border. At least enforce our sovereignty. Don't let those that want to kill us simply walk in.

Close the border with what? A fence? What about Canada?

[CarShark]

There was one Democrat who voted nay. The partisan split in the vote makes it plain that the NRA owns the Republican Party.

Sooo...who owns the Democrats then? Everytown? The Brady Campaign? The Daily Kos? It's not fair to suggest that there are shadowy figures behind your political opponents without acknowledging that there are major political organizations behind your point of view. It's intellectually dishonest. Maybe...just maybe...all the Republicans voted that way because...that's the way all the Republicans feel about the issue.

[tlynn78]

There was one Democrat who voted nay. The partisan split in the vote makes it plain that the NRA owns the Republican Party.

Sooo...who owns the Democrats then? Everytown? The Brady Campaign? The Daily Kos? It's not fair to suggest that there are shadowy figures behind your political opponents without acknowledging that there are major political organizations behind your point of view. It's intellectually dishonest. Maybe...just maybe...all the Republicans voted that way because...that's the way all the Republicans feel about the issue.

Don't go throwing logic around, CarShark. It just doesn't seem to catch hold.

[Estonut]

There was one Democrat who voted nay. The partisan split in the vote makes it plain that the NRA owns the Republican Party.

Sooo...who owns the Democrats then? Everytown? The Brady Campaign? The Daily Kos? It's not fair to suggest that there are shadowy figures behind your political opponents without acknowledging that there are major political organizations behind your point of view. It's intellectually dishonest. Maybe...just maybe...all the Republicans voted that way because...that's the way all the Republicans feel about the issue.

Don't go throwing logic around, CarShark. It just doesn't seem to catch hold.

And BJ is not intellectually anything...

[Estonut]

Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors

So were these 2 assholes until Wednesday...

[Bob Juch]

There was one Democrat who voted nay. The partisan split in the vote makes it plain that the NRA owns the Republican Party.

Sooo...who owns the Democrats then? Everytown? The Brady Campaign? The Daily Kos? It's not fair to suggest that there are shadowy figures behind your political opponents without acknowledging that there are major political organizations behind your point of view. It's intellectually dishonest. Maybe...just maybe...all the Republicans voted that way because...that's the way all the Republicans feel about the issue.

Gee, who could be behind the Democrats? Someone who want to keep Americans alive and healthy? There must be some secret agenda to that.

[Estonut]

There must be some secret agenda to that.

There's no secret. You've been trading handouts for votes for decades...

[Spock]

Interesting article on Jesse James Northfield raid vs the San Bernardino massacre.

http://lesterdentmuses.com/2015/12/08/t ... d-of-1876/

Yes, I get the whole-we don't live in the wild west times and we are a little short of Civil War veterans-Nobody needs to make us aware of that.

As I read this-I was reminded of Louis L'amour's many references to the outcome of this raid and I realized that many (most?) here may not be familiar with his take on the raid and are much more familiar with the mostly false version of timorous townspeople epitomized by movies like High Noon.

Pull Quote>>>In describing the scene, Western story teller Louis L’Amour liked to say the gang was “shot to doll rags.” It took just seven minutes for the robbery to fail because of the swift actions of the men in the town in spotting the robbery and acting.<<<<

>>>We can learn much from this historic narrative. It runs contrary to the fictional western movies where a band of outlaws come in and take over a town and terrorize the helpless citizens, a popular Hollywood theme. In reality an armed citizenry, leavened with battle-seasoned veterans, sized up the situation and took immediate action, sheltering their women and children and dealing swift and unrelenting justice to the barbarians who threatened their civilization.<<<

>>>The citizens were relentless. As many as 2000 men from Northfield and neighboring towns chased the gang members for weeks, eventually capturing the Youngers (and killing Charlie Pitt). The James brothers escaped after splitting from the others a week after the robbery.<<<

[jarnon]

In San Bernardino, the police responded in minutes, and tracked down and killed the terrorists within hours.

Yes, armed employees in the conference hall would probably have stopped the terrorists sooner. But letting concealed weapons in workplaces would lead to deaths elsewhere from everyday workplace violence.

[silverscreenselect]

Interesting article on Jesse James Northfield raid vs the San Bernardino massacre.

http://lesterdentmuses.com/2015/12/08/t ... d-of-1876/

Yes, I get the whole-we don't live in the wild west times and we are a little short of Civil War veterans-Nobody needs to make us aware of that.

And of course those law abiding citizens out west never ever got in stupid arguments and shot each other or innocent bystanders. Why did so many towns in the Old West outlaw firearms within the city limits? Didn't those sheriffs want good law abiding citizens to help them the next time the James gang rode into town?

[Bob Juch]

Interesting article on Jesse James Northfield raid vs the San Bernardino massacre.

http://lesterdentmuses.com/2015/12/08/t ... d-of-1876/

Yes, I get the whole-we don't live in the wild west times and we are a little short of Civil War veterans-Nobody needs to make us aware of that.

As I read this-I was reminded of Louis L'amour's many references to the outcome of this raid and I realized that many (most?) here may not be familiar with his take on the raid and are much more familiar with the mostly false version of timorous townspeople epitomized by movies like High Noon.

Pull Quote>>>In describing the scene, Western story teller Louis L’Amourh liked to say the gang was “shot to doll rags.” It took just seven minutes for the robbery to fail because of the swift actions of the men in the town in spotting the robbery and acting.<<<<

>>>We can learn much from this historic narrative. It runs contrary to the fictional western movies where a band of outlaws come in and take over a town and terrorize the helpless citizens, a popular Hollywood theme. In reality an armed citizenry, leavened with battle-seasoned veterans, sized up the situation and took immediate action, sheltering their women and children and dealing swift and unrelenting justice to the barbarians who threatened their civilization.<<<

>>>The citizens were relentless. As many as 2000 men from Northfield and neighboring towns chased the gang members for weeks, eventually capturing the Youngers (and killing Charlie Pitt). The James brothers escaped after splitting from the others a week after the robbery.<<<

The raid failed because three gang members rode up and down the street to frighten people inside. Some went into hardware stores, took rifles and revolvers, loaded them, and shot at the gang. That's how NOT to rob a bank.