Mass Shootings San Bernardino

[The Unknown Poster]

Good.

Get rid of these guns. And anyone who says the law can take it from their cold dead hands, so be it.

[Logan007]

Probably because he comes across a higher percentage of angry Muslims than angry "fat white people". And wow, nice to see the PC Police falling over themselves here to defend the honour of the poor Muslims from about the lightest criticism you can get.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know I am very anti Politically Correct. 

 

Firstly, I was just answering his question, I wasn't trying to be facetious.  Maybe if you thought about where he was, i.e. KFC, a fast food place where you would find a lot of fat white people (fast food places and Walmart), you'd understand why I said 'fat white people'.  You don't exactly get treated like a prince working at places like that.  And the people that work there aren't exactly getting the customer support award no matter what race they are.

 

Goalie also left out the part that he was talking about people that grew up here.  In any case no matter who it is, maybe put yourself in their shoes and see where their coming from.  Hell, how does Goalie even know that the person that he was dealing with just didn't have a bad day.  What if someone that guy knows is in the hospital or something.  That goes for anyone of any race, not just muslims.  If it was a black, white or asian kid, he wouldn't have even made the comment.  But because muslims are the "item of the day", that's what we're all focused on.  I'm just saying, maybe put yourself in their shoes (and when I say their, I mean anyone's shoes, not just the muslims you're judging).

[iso_55]

 

Tired of having to apologize for the colour of my skin, my way of life, in the country where I was born. Or for the fact I've never experienced war disease, sickness or starvation in my life. Not every "fat white person" treats refugees badly.

How often have you actually apologized for any of those things?

 

It's always white people's fault here. We treat all refugees like ****.  If Logan says so then IT MUST BE TRUE.

[The Unknown Poster]

(CNN)Last week's mass killing in San Bernardino, California, was an act of terrorism, law enforcement officials and President Barack Obama agree.

The 14 deaths at a holiday party left the community shaken, but it's become apparent that for shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the mass shooting was motivated by political ideologies.

 

On Sunday night, Obama called the attack "an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people."

 

While the couple supported ISIS, investigators are still trying to find out if either of them ever actually met any ISIS leaders or took orders from anyone.

 

Farook was "fixated" on Israel and supported ISIS' ideology of establishing an Islamic caliphate, his father told an Italian newspaper.

 

Before the shooting, the younger Farook had expressed some troubling beliefs, his father told La Stampa newspaper.

 

"He said he shared the ideology of (Abu Bakr ) al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was fixated on Israel," the elder Farook said, referring to the ISIS leader.

The father, also named Syed Farook, recalled the first time he saw his son with a gun.

 

"I became angry. In 45 years in the United States, I yelled, 'I have never had a weapon.' He shrugged his shoulders and replied, 'Your loss,'" the father said.

 

"I cannot forgive myself. Maybe if I had been at home, I would have found out and stopped him," he told the newspaper.

 

 

***Cant imagine the anguish and pain that father feels. 

[max power]

The New York Times should publish their front page editorial on the need to stop Muslim terrorists any day now...

[basslicker]

Yup.  What a joke.

 

The easiest thing in the world is to immediately stop sale of these weapons.  Period.  Im pretty ******* sure the founding fathers didnt intend for Americans to get their hands on assault rifles.

 

Secondly, they have to stop being wishy washy on terrorism.  And people need to be told its okay to report suspicions.  Its not racial profiling to find suspicious activity by any specific ethnicity or religion to actually be suspicious. 

 

I'm not gonna lie, I'd buy an assault rifle if they were legal.  It would be fun to shoot off.  Not as much fun as the .44 revolver I got to shoot a couple years back, but still fun.

[The Unknown Poster]

Which is why you hve to be protected from yourself. In a perfect world we'd have little or no laws or rules. Everyone would just do the right thing and be kind to each other.

The gun lobby feels mass killings are a necessary evil to protecting so called rights. It's time to change that thinking.

[max power]

Regarding the founding fathers, they wanted the citizens armed to be able to prevent the government from getting out of control.  If anything the founding fathers intended people today to have even more powerful weapons.  It's not really a fair fight anymore.

[The Unknown Poster]

Regarding the founding fathers, they wanted the citizens armed to be able to prevent the government from getting out of control. If anything the founding fathers intended people today to have even more powerful weapons. It's not really a fair fight anymore.

Impossible to say. It's more likely they had vision of weapons today and if they did would never want the citizenry to possesses them.

The interpretation of the amendment that it was for the citizenry to act as a militia in the absence of a strong central army is fair.

[max power]

Pretty much everything in the constitution was designed to prevent government over-reach.  That's also the whole reason they fought a war and formed their own country.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Regarding the founding fathers, they wanted the citizens armed to be able to prevent the government from getting out of control. If anything the founding fathers intended people today to have even more powerful weapons. It's not really a fair fight anymore.

Impossible to say. It's more likely they had vision of weapons today and if they did would never want the citizenry to possesses them.

The interpretation of the amendment that it was for the citizenry to act as a militia in the absence of a strong central army is fair.

 

 

At the time the Americans expected that the British would re-organize and try to take back the 13 colonies at some point, and so they wanted to make sure every American had a gun and could be mobilized should the British sweep over the border from Canada and start another armed conflict.  Turns out that they were right, as in 1812 war broke out again.  And the British walked into Washington and burned down the president's mansion, but not before eating the dinner that President Madison had left behind when he and his staff fled the city.  The British tried to burn down Washington, but it was saved by a hurricane that put out all of the fires.  Weird eh?

[The Unknown Poster]

The problem is the constitution has become a sacred cow.  Most of the amendments date from 1789.  The most recent was 1971 and most of the ones from the 20th century were essentially housekeeping amendments. 

 

There is precedent for the so-called "right to bear arms" being "subject to suitability and allowance by law".  Its based on the English Bill of Rights and was meant to prevent the monarch from creating a standing militia and allowing certain religious groups to be armed and preventing others.  Essentially, all or none, seems to be the thought.  If everyone is armed, then no one will subjugate the other.

 

The idea that laws could be made in the 1700's and not be open to adjustment in the 2000's is sort of silly.  If amendments were really such sacred things, then prohibition would still exist. 

 

Frankly, America should repeal the 2nd amendment and create national laws prohibiting the ownership of powerful guns above hand guns and hunting guns.  And for all the gun nuts who would oppose that, they'd get used to it.  Their kids would get even more used to it and in time, no one would complain.

 

Would it stop crazy people from trying to shoot others?  No.  But when a killer opens fire with a hand gun and only kills 3 people rather than 17, we'll all be happier for it.

[Goldkobra]

Regarding the founding fathers, they wanted the citizens armed to be able to prevent the government from getting out of control.  If anything the founding fathers intended people today to have even more powerful weapons.  It's not really a fair fight anymore.

 

[kelownabomberfan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-attacks-france-shuts-down-three-mosques-in-security-crackdown-a6757596.html

 

Trump is completely nuts, and his policies, if you can call them that, are crazy, but I do agree that there should be more co-operation with the Muslim community, and that something has to be done to try and work with them to stop these attacks.  Look what is going on in France right now.  They are finding military grade weaponry in mosques.  Why weren't they searching these places sooner?  And why are mosques in France being used as store-houses for weapons?  Why were no Muslims reporting these weapons to authorities?

[basslicker]

Pretty much everything in the constitution was designed to prevent government over-reach. That's also the whole reason they fought a war and formed their own country.

The U.S. is built with checks and balances so power doesn't get out of control. You're absolutely right when you say the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have the means to fight tyranny.

And tyranny appears to be approaching.

'Every now and then the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Pretty much everything in the constitution was designed to prevent government over-reach. That's also the whole reason they fought a war and formed their own country.

The U.S. is built with checks and balances so power doesn't get out of control. You're absolutely right when you say the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have the means to fight tyranny.

And tyranny appears to be approaching.

'Every now and then the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'

 

No, tyranny is not approaching.  And no, the "people" will not over-throw the government.  Its moot.

[johnzo]

Pretty much everything in the constitution was designed to prevent government over-reach. That's also the whole reason they fought a war and formed their own country.

The U.S. is built with checks and balances so power doesn't get out of control. You're absolutely right when you say the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have the means to fight tyranny.

And tyranny appears to be approaching.

'Every now and then the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'

Would you support American black communities who choose to arm themselves so they can fight the cops?

You look at the DoJ's Ferguson report, and that's what you'll see -- tyranny. Widespread violations of the Fourth Amendment. Cops and courts used as an instrument of taxation, intentionally targeting black people. Unaccountable cops beating and harassing the people they're supposed to protect.

How do you think it would work out if an armed citizen's militia formed in Ferguson? Spoiler alert: it's happened before, and the government resorted to ******* aerial bombing to end the movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

[The Unknown Poster]

I chuckle at the idea of ever having the need to over-throw the government.  I guess it could happen.  But I doubt it.  For every person who'd come up with a reason to simply take control of government "for the good of the people" (let's say **** Cheney) there is way more that wouldnt let him.  I read all over how 9/11 was a plot by Bush and Cheney to eventually declare martial law and become dictators.  They didnt.  They wouldnt.  It just wouldnt happen.

 

And some nut jobs with armouries in their backyards wont stop it if it does.

 

The founding fathers could never, ever have envisioned the sort of weaponry the average person can get their hands on.  How many changes to the constitution have they made since the 1700's?  And yet for some reason this one issue, which isnt clearly spelled out, is the sacred cow?  No way.  Get rid of the guns.

 

The fact Obama isnt using every remaining moment of his term to make this a reality tells me he's just riding it out.  He seems utterly clueless.  About guns, about ISIS, about a lot of things.  What a shame.  50 years from now historians will look back and grade Bush a lot higher than Obama.

[johnzo]

Seriously, what can Obama do about America's gun problem?

[sweep the leg]

I chuckle at the idea of ever having the need to over-throw the government.  I guess it could happen.  But I doubt it.  For every person who'd come up with a reason to simply take control of government "for the good of the people" (let's say **** Cheney) there is way more that wouldnt let him.  I read all over how 9/11 was a plot by Bush and Cheney to eventually declare martial law and become dictators.  They didnt.  They wouldnt.  It just wouldnt happen.

 

And some nut jobs with armouries in their backyards wont stop it if it does.

 

The founding fathers could never, ever have envisioned the sort of weaponry the average person can get their hands on.  How many changes to the constitution have they made since the 1700's?  And yet for some reason this one issue, which isnt clearly spelled out, is the sacred cow?  No way.  Get rid of the guns.

 

The fact Obama isnt using every remaining moment of his term to make this a reality tells me he's just riding it out.  He seems utterly clueless.  About guns, about ISIS, about a lot of things.  What a shame.  50 years from now historians will look back and grade Bush a lot higher than Obama.

I'm with you on this post until the last paragraph. I don't think the President can act unilaterally to change the Constitution. The cowardice of moderate Republicans and the ignorance of the hardliners is what kills any gun control debate.

[sweep the leg]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but some Republicans are trying to change the law so people on the no-fly list can still purchase guns. They feel a person with a suspected link to terrorism should still be able to buy a gun. Let that soak in for a moment...

[The Unknown Poster]

I believe it takes a 2/3rds of both houses or 2/3rds of the States to amend the constitution.  It's not impossible but its not easy.  Its been done numerous times though.

 

My suggestion is, Obama could easly dedicate himself to this cause.  He might fail...but even in failure he makes the issue a forefront issue.  Its going to be way harder to go from 0 to 60.  He has to start the acceleration process.  The President carries a lot of weight.  I understand the partisan nature of politics but there is weight behind the President and his allies.  Promises can be made, quid pro quos, etc, to gather votes, gather steam, rally the power of the people to pressure their representatives and/or their governors.

 

He has nothing left to run for.  Pick a hill to die on.  This is a good one.  This issue wont go away.  it will get worse.  Momentum will grow.  He can choose to drive the bus or be running after it. 

[johnzo]

Hillary Clinton is openly calling out the NRA. She's a follower, not a leader, so she must be convinced that the politics on this are shifting and that the NRA's absolutist Second Amendment views are becoming a minority.

That said, everything hinges on the Supreme Court. The White House and Congress can pass whatever they like* but there will be constitutional questions about anything they do and the NRA has been pretty successful at the Supreme Court (recent reversals notwithstanding). So the best thing to do for gun control right now is to put a Democrat in the White House who will get to make some Supreme Court appointments.

* they won't pass anything, because the federal House is hopelessly shitfucked by the cult of anti-personality that Gingrich established. No gun legislation has any chance of hitting the floor there, unless it's about expanding gun rights.

[The Unknown Poster]

They have to change the constitution.  The Supreme Court doesnt decide laws, the government does.  The Supreme Court interprets the law that the government decides.  They have an obligation to uphold the constitution and make sure laws done over-step.  Change the constitution and the Supreme Court wont have an issue.

[The Unknown Poster]

I'm watching an interesting documentary on the Roosevelts. Teddy sought to take action for which he had no constitutional right. Angrily he told a challenger "the constitution was made for the people, not the people for the constitution".