Now It's San Bernardino

[JaneSmith]

The New York Times just ran its first front page editorial since 1920.
"It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region&_r=0

 

[the_mother_thing]

So, you want to do something about the gun problem in this country? Make it a mandatory 25-year sentence for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime or is an accomplice to any gun-involved crime, with no parole/early release option. Remove the "niceties" of prison and make it what it's supposed to be - PUNISHMENT, not a vacation.

I suspect this could be a potentially viable approach to target some gun uses (domestic violence instances or any illegal gun activity), but we'd need something else to defray the gun problem for suicide, mass shootings, and terrorism. In all three of these, death of the perpetrator is the anticipated outcome anyway, so prison consequences won't impact them at all.

I agree; that's why I noted you would need a three-pronged approach to solve the various sources of common gun related crime. But it must be done in a way that does NOT infringe upon the rights of innocent, law abiding citizens. We don't need to abolish the 2A. We need to deal with the SOURCES of these problems, all of which are vastly different and require different approaches. Just like various illnesses where there is no "one-pill cure-all", there is no "one size fits all" solution to terrorism, mentally unstable individuals, and drug/gang related crime.

If you (not "you = alj") want to impose restrictions on the 2A, then we better be prepared to accept restrictions on ALL aspects of the constitution because when you start chipping away at the rights of one, there will be a snowball effect with the rest.

 

[AGBF]

My theory on the whole controversy about calling them terrorists - or not:

1) a lot of people are still PO'ed that the Fort Hood shooting was identified as an incidence of workplace violence rather than terrorism.
2) some of it is because these days, "terrorist" and "Muslim" go hand in hand. So people think the President not labelling someone or (an incident) a terrorist shows sympathy towards Muslims. And some, of course, believe that the President is not just sympathetic or deferential to Islam, but is secretly a Muslim.
3) I have to say that the Pres. referring to the Colorado clinic shooting suspect as a "Christian Terrorist" certainly adds fuel to this particular fire!

Legally, identifying something as terrorism under federal law involves meeting certain criteria - and I understand why law enforcement and (some) elected officials want all the facts before using that label. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition It involves trying to intimidate or coerce the government or a population or governmental policies by violence - so most violence directed at co-workers, and motivated by retaliation for something that happened on the job, would not qualify. I was quite impressed at the restraint San Bernardino law enforcement spokesmen showed in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. I also think the Planned Parenthood shootings do qualify as domestic terrorism, since that incident was probably meant to intimidate all such clinics and the motivation was related to governmental policies. But I am surprised at the President referring to the shooter as "a Christian terrorist" rather than, say, a "domestic terrorist." But - the anti-abortion movement is largely religious, and the shooter's former wife said he was a religious person, so I guess it fits.

I believe that the controversy over whether this latest attack is to be labelled "terrorism" has ended (although one never knows). The FBI is calling what was, in my eyes, clearly terrorism, "terrorism".

I am very glad that, "The New York Times" took a stand against assault rifles. And the weakness of our legislators about gun control. I am just as unhappy with someone shooting up a Planned Parenthood clinic as a center for people with developmental disabilities and I really don't much care what their motives are or where they were born. It really has to stop. People in this thread have commented that we look stupid to the rest of the world. I contend that we are looking stupid because we are stupid.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Deb/AGBF

 

[JaneSmith]

Guns are seen as an inalienable right in the U S. It's deep in the culture. If a politician in a commonwealth country posted this they would get a tremendous amount of pushback and would probably have to make a public apology and would not be re-elected.


Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

 

[Sha]

Guns are seen as an inalienable right in the U S. It's deep in the culture. If a politician in a commonwealth country posted this they would get a tremendous amount of pushback and would probably have to make a public apology and would not be re-elected.


Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

This is a real card, that was sent out?

 

[JaneSmith]

Guns are seen as an inalienable right in the U S. It's deep in the culture. If a politician in a commonwealth country posted this they would get a tremendous amount of pushback and would probably have to make a public apology and would not be re-elected.


Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

This is a real card, that was sent out?

http://m.smh.com.au/world/nevada-republican-michele-fiore-sends-family-christmas-card-featuring-guns-20151205-glgcni.html

 

[the_mother_thing]

Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

And you don't think it's "scaremongering" to insist the 2A be changed in response to one group who has committed to the demise of our way of life? FYI - the Second Amendment isn't broken - if you don't want to own a gun, fine - don't buy one. No one is forcing you - it's a privileged choice, much like other choices we have that are protected. If you want to live in a gun-free society, there are plenty to choose from. To blame a gun or the 2A for two people who clearly committed their crimes based on their religion, well, it would make FAR more sense to ban religion.

And yes, it DOES open up the remainder of our rights for modification. Case in point - Loretta Lynch's statement yesterday with regard to prosecuting people who exercise their free speech rights. Funny how neither she nor the president cared so much when it was Christians or police who were on the receiving end of mass hate speech and protests flat out calling for their death ... recall the BLM movement chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". They were silent.

You know, once upon a time our country used to be a pretty darn good place to live and work, where everyone wanted to immigrate to because they could actually be free. It wasn't until everything had to change to appease this group and that group, this belief and that belief, this culture and that culture and change our entire way of life ... did things start going to hell in a hand basket. I am only 41 yrs young and even I don't recognize this country anymore from that which I grew up in. And it's is NOT because people own guns; it's because people want to blame everything BUT the person responsible when someone does wrong; its because we value people's feelings more than we value lives; its because college kids need a "safe space" but I can't have a "safe home"; it's because common sense is not only on back order, it's near extinct. Answer me this - do YOU feel this country is really better today than it was 20 or 30 years ago? I sure don't! There are some basic human rights things that I think are better/make sense (equal opportunity and equal marriage rights for example). But I do not agree with appeasing one group's irrational fear at the loss of constitutional rights of another.

This incident in SB, the Boston bombing, the shooting at Ft Hood, Newtown, 9/11, CO theater - none were about "guns" and none were NRA members TMK; they were acts of terror based either on mental health issues or radicalized religious beliefs. Find solutions to the problems rather than making scapegoats out of guns.

 

[katharath]

Guns are seen as an inalienable right in the U S. It's deep in the culture. If a politician in a commonwealth country posted this they would get a tremendous amount of pushback and would probably have to make a public apology and would not be re-elected.


Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

This is a real card, that was sent out?

http://m.smh.com.au/world/nevada-republican-michele-fiore-sends-family-christmas-card-featuring-guns-20151205-glgcni.html

Cards like that certainly illustrate very well why much of the civilized world has such a poor opinion of Americans.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And posting this holiday card ... just another example of the hypocrisy in mocking those whose beliefs you don't agree while shunning those who disagree with your own.

I really just need to get back out of Hangout. Reading some of these comments makes me frown when I look at my sparklies. I liked it better when I didn't read what some people think about political, non-diamond/gemstone topics.

 

[packrat]

JCJenn I would give you a big kiss. In a not sexual harassment-y way of course.

 

[the_mother_thing]

JCJenn I would give you a big kiss. In a not sexual harassment-y way of course.

It's cool, if you bring your pretty sparklies with you so we can share.

 

[packrat]

JCJenn I would give you a big kiss. In a not sexual harassment-y way of course.

It's cool, if you bring your pretty sparklies with you so we can share.

But of course!

 

[Maria D]

Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

And you don't think it's "scaremongering" to insist the 2A be changed in response to one group who has committed to the demise of our way of life?

HAHAHAHA!! Oh, that's so rich! First of all, who is insisting that the second amendment be "changed." How about the second amendment being interpreted sanely? But what has me laughing out loud (sardonically, mind you) is this:

"in response to one group..."

Seriously? You can say that with a straight face? As if those of us who believe that the phrase "well-regulated" in the second amendment actually means something are only now in response to this "one group" calling for some rational thought and action with regard to gun ownership in this country?

Gee, how convenient to forget about all the other mass killings that had nothing to do with this "one group!" Never mind Newtown, Aurora, Charleston, etc - we're told that demanding that something be done in the wake of the tragedy is politicizing it. Can't even talk about it! Not the time, never the time...

And this:

"And posting this holiday card ... just another example of the hypocrisy in mocking those whose beliefs you don't agree while shunning those who disagree with your own. "

Who are you calling a hypocrite, the person who posted it here? How is it mocking to straight up re-post that card with the only comment that this wouldn't fly in a different country. The only people doing the mocking is the family in the card! It completely mocks the entire theme of "Holiday Season" which used to be "Peace and Goodwill toward All." I took one look at that card and KNEW that at any moment the folks who believe there's a "War on Christmas" would be all over it, denouncing away. (HAHAHA, now I'm laughing sardonically at myself.)

 

[AGBF]

Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

And you don't think it's "scaremongering" to insist the 2A be changed in response to one group who has committed to the demise of our way of life?

HAHAHAHA!! Oh, that's so rich! First of all, who is insisting that the second amendment be "changed." How about the second amendment being interpreted sanely? But what has me laughing out loud (sardonically, mind you) is this:

"in response to one group..."

Seriously? You can say that with a straight face? As if those of us who believe that the phrase "well-regulated" in the second amendment actually means something are only now in response to this "one group" calling for some rational thought and action with regard to gun ownership in this country?

Gee, how convenient to forget about all the other mass killings that had nothing to do with this "one group!" Never mind Newtown, Aurora, Charleston, etc - we're told that demanding that something be done in the wake of the tragedy is politicizing it. Can't even talk about it! Not the time, never the time...

And this:

"And posting this holiday card ... just another example of the hypocrisy in mocking those whose beliefs you don't agree while shunning those who disagree with your own. "

Who are you calling a hypocrite, the person who posted it here? How is it mocking to straight up re-post that card with the only comment that this wouldn't fly in a different country. The only people doing the mocking is the family in the card! It completely mocks the entire theme of "Holiday Season" which used to be "Peace and Goodwill toward All." I took one look at that card and KNEW that at any moment the folks who believe there's a "War on Christmas" would be all over it, denouncing away. (HAHAHA, now I'm laughing sardonically at myself.)

I'm not going to offer to kiss you, Maria. But I'll shake your hand while demonstrating to support education; the teaching of logic (which is apparently badly needed in this country); women's rights; free speech; and any number of other issues in which I think we both believe.

Deb

 

[the_mother_thing]

Fixing the 2nd amendment would not open up the entire document. The slippery slope argument here is simply wrong and scaremongering.

And you don't think it's "scaremongering" to insist the 2A be changed in response to one group who has committed to the demise of our way of life?

1) HAHAHAHA!! Oh, that's so rich! First of all, who is insisting that the second amendment be "changed." How about the second amendment being interpreted sanely? But what has me laughing out loud (sardonically, mind you) is this:

"in response to one group..."

2) Seriously? You can say that with a straight face? As if those of us who believe that the phrase "well-regulated" in the second amendment actually means something are only now in response to this "one group" calling for some rational thought and action with regard to gun ownership in this country?

Gee, how convenient to forget about all the other mass killings that had nothing to do with this "one group!" Never mind Newtown, Aurora, Charleston, etc - we're told that demanding that something be done in the wake of the tragedy is politicizing it. Can't even talk about it! Not the time, never the time...

And this:

"And posting this holiday card ... just another example of the hypocrisy in mocking those whose beliefs you don't agree while shunning those who disagree with your own. "

3) Who are you calling a hypocrite, the person who posted it here? How is it mocking to straight up re-post that card with the only comment that this wouldn't fly in a different country. The only people doing the mocking is the family in the card! It completely mocks the entire theme of "Holiday Season" which used to be "Peace and Goodwill toward All." I took one look at that card and KNEW that at any moment the folks who believe there's a "War on Christmas" would be all over it, denouncing away. (HAHAHA, now I'm laughing sardonically at myself.)

1) Take a look at the statement I quoted to answer this question. There have been several comments with regard to restricting gun rights in this entire thread, and several before it, and some who suggest the eradication of the 2A, gun manufacture, etc altogether.

2) With all due respect, you may wish to re-read my statement. I was not referencing people calling for gun control. Furthermore, if you read my previous posts, I noted the need to address the source of the hatred that spark non-"terrorism" shootings.

3) When one condones mockery of the beliefs of one "group" while shooting down the beliefs of others when they differ, that is an example of hypocrisy, and it is appropriate for whomever the shoe fits.

Please, continue with the handshakes.

 

[kenny]

WHAAAA! Someone disagrees with me! WHAAAA!



Posters can post whatever they want within PS rules.
By all means challenge posts, but please don't try to silence people.

 

[packrat]

goes both ways

 

[kenny]

goes both ways

Totally.
Everyone can post whatever they want.

 

[the_mother_thing]

FTR: I wasn't trying to silence anyone. Unlike our AG, I am for free speech, and every other constitutional right. That said, it is very difficult to really discuss some of these topics where one "forbidden" PS topic is very central to the issue at hand.

But on that note, I just watched an absolutely disturbing video of a BLM group protest in Minneapolis I believe, in which these protestors called LEOs so many derogatory, racial, homophobic, offensive slurs that I was amazed they maintained their composure. I will be anxious to see how the AG enforces her claim yesterday while this sort of ignorance is allowed to take place without equal punishment. Like Packrat said ... It goes both ways.

 

[kenny]

Yes, it goes both ways.

 

[JaneSmith]

The thing with the 2nd is that it was written a long time ago, and in all that time it has been pored over and interpreted many different ways. There is even a grammatical difference (a comma) between the one housed in the National Archives and the one housed by the Library of Congress.
The main camps are the 'individual rights theory' - where people focus on the last half of the 2nd - and the 'collective rights theory' - where people focus on the 2nd as a whole.

The 2nd is basically saying that a well trained group of citizens (the well-regulated militia) have to have guns to protect the individual nascent states from the Feds. It has since been interpreted to mean any US citizen can buy a weapon capable of quickly killing a large amount of human beings.

It has led to a billion dollar industry and powerful lobby groups protecting that sweet sweet cash.


Like I asked upthread, does anyone here really think that they and others with guns are going to form a militia against the federal gov? And what are you going to do with your power when (in some weird dimension where a bunch of civs overthrow the US gov) you de-throne the tyrant?

It's simply become another part of the culture of entitlement and fear. You are entitled to a gun, it is enshrined in your bill of rights right up there with true human rights. Lots of people have guns, including some baddies, so you feel afraid, you feel that you need one to protect yourself from the other people with guns. It's circular. It's like the mutually assured destruction scenarios from the Cold War (a time in the glorious past that I don't want to go back to).

That amendment needs to go. Guns are not a human right, especially the ones designed specifically to kill people. Hunters and farmers are the only ones who need guns for their civilian jobs, and that can be covered by regular laws, not the bill of rights.





Here's an actual example of the second amendment tearing up part of the first.

http://gawker.com/right-wing-gun-idolator-erick-erickson-flies-into-a-rag-1746415072




The trouble is, it's not just these mass shootings, it's the daily slaughter.






As I said (again, upthread) the three major versions of monotheism are highly patriarchal, and the fundamentalist versions are deeply misogynistic and teach an extreme version of male entitlement. This entitlement and sense of righteous power from being a member of a group that sees itself as supported by the creator of the universe, the only ones following this being's true word, are a most volitile combination.

 

[the_mother_thing]

1) The thing with the 2nd is that it was written a long time ago, and in all that time it has been pored over and interpreted many different ways. There is even a grammatical difference (a comma) between the one housed in the National Archives and the one housed by the Library of Congress.
The main camps are the 'individual rights theory' - where people focus on the last half of the 2nd - and the 'collective rights theory' - where people focus on the 2nd as a whole.

The 2nd is basically saying that a well trained group of citizens (the well-regulated militia) have to have guns to protect the individual nascent states from the Feds. It has since been interpreted to mean any US citizen can buy a weapon capable of quickly killing a large amount of human beings.

It has led to a billion dollar industry and powerful lobby groups protecting that sweet sweet cash.


2) Like I asked upthread, does anyone here really think that they and others with guns are going to form a militia against the federal gov? And what are you going to do with your power when (in some weird dimension where a bunch of civs overthrow the US gov) you de-throne the tyrant?

3) It's simply become another part of the culture of entitlement and fear. You are entitled to a gun, it is enshrined in your bill of rights right up there with true human rights. Lots of people have guns, including some baddies, so you feel afraid, you feel that you need one to protect yourself from the other people with guns. It's circular. It's like the mutually assured destruction scenarios from the Cold War (a time in the glorious past that I don't want to go back to).

That amendment needs to go. Guns are not a human right, especially the ones designed specifically to kill people. Hunters and farmers are the only ones who need guns for their civilian jobs, and that can be covered by regular laws, not the bill of rights.

4) Here's an actual example of the second amendment tearing up part of the first.

http://gawker.com/right-wing-gun-idolator-erick-erickson-flies-into-a-rag-1746415072




5) The trouble is, it's not just these mass shootings, it's the daily slaughter.






6) As I said (again, upthread) the three major versions of monotheism are highly patriarchal, and the fundamentalist versions are deeply misogynistic and teach an extreme version of male entitlement. This entitlement and sense of righteous power from being a member of a group that sees itself as supported by the creator of the universe, the only ones following this being's true word, are a most volitile combination.

1) The entire constitution was written a long time ago, and has fueled a multi-billion dollar industry also - lawyers.

2) Considering the era and activities during which the document was written, clearly the founders had reason to believe that another tyrannical government was a reality future generations may face and therefore able to protect themselves from. The 2A is NOT about "hunting and farming".

3) I don't own firearms out of ego or blatant "entitlement" or "fear". For me, it's a matter of common sense & effective preparedness & proactiveness, because a piece of paper is just a that, homes get breached, and people everyday commit personal acts of terror in the form of assault and rape. I can either be a victim or a survivor, and prefer the latter. I AM my family's first line of defense and first responder (since I can't afford a protection service). Not to be cliche' but I don't plan for a kitchen fire, yet I have an extinguisher; I don't plan to blow a tire, yet I have a spare; I don't plan to die & leave my DD motherless and in need, but I have insurance to cover the financial aspect should that happen. Its kind of silly in my mind to sweat over insuring your jewelry, home, car, etc, but not take every measure to ensure your own personal safety.

4) you see the 2A tearing up the first; I see someone being earth friendly who wisely recycled some trash. It's all about perception.

5) again, I posted ideas earlier in this thread for approaching all aspects of gun crimes. You just post tweets, memes and holiday cards and throwing out ineffective, unreasonable blanket solutions.

6) This is such a silly comparison that it's embarrassing to have to point out the obvious difference -- that the one on the right wants to eradicate our society & entire way of life (not to mention pput women back in slave status) all in the name of radical religion. I can take a picture of myself at a desk with an Oval Office scene in the background; doesn't make me equal to the president (thankfully!)

 

[the_mother_thing]

And with that ... I am done.

 

[Calliecake]

JoCeJenn,

Call me crazy but if you are a responsible gun owner, which considering you have a child I sincerely hope you are, what do you think your chances of having your gun on your body and ready to use if someone were to break into your home? My husband has guns. Our guns are locked in a safe with the bullets stored in an another area of our home, which is recommended to do if you are a responsible gun owner. Thieves and rapists don't send you a warning letting you know they are arriving at your home on Saturday at 1:00 pm. How exactly do you think you would have time get your weapon, load it and use it in the time it would take for the person to break into your home? You do realize that a person can break into your home in a matter of seconds.

If you have your guns loaded and ready to use in various locations of your home such as a drawer, on a table, on a countertop you would probably have a pretty good chance of protecting yourself..... and endangering your child. I can't imagine living my life being so paranoid and fearful that I would EVER endanger a child. Do you walk around with your loaded gun on your body at all times? I believe guns should be locked in a safe at all times when not in use. I say all of this having spent a time in my life when I was extremely fearful that someone would try to harm me.

 

[kenny]

She keeps a carrot handy.

 

[kenny]

Honestly the woman on our left scares me much more.
Why?

Both are brainwashed nutcases with assault rifles who believe stuff for which there is no evidence.
Both appear ready to use the two weapons each are holding to force their made-up stuff down everyone's throats, OR ELSE!

But the one with the US flag and Bible is accepted and even widely admired here.
She not only passes under our radar she's likely to get elected to public office.

 

[Ella]

Ok folks calm down the posts on both sides or this thread wil be removed.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@CallieCake - I hope you understand and respect the fact that it would be quite irresponsible for me to divulge on a public forum where and how my firearms are stored/secured, much like it would be to divulge how/where in your home you store your valuables. I am a responsible firearm owner, my daughter is safe, I carry, and I will leave it at that.

 

[yssie]

Deleted.
It's just more , , , , and

 

[yssie]

The New York Times just ran its first front page editorial since 1920.
"It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region&_r=0

THANK YOU for posting this... I just saw it myself a couple of hours ago.