Mass Shooting in the USA

[eyeball]

Not likely...your monarchy tried that and it didn't work out.

It just didn't try hard enough at all.

The Donald doesn't look like a quitter to me.

Edited December 10, 2015 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

It just didn't try hard enough at all.

Well there 'ya go....'Muricans try harder and have the guns to do it.

[eyeball]

The world's your cherry, you just have to go pick it.

[GostHacked]

So I hear that the Republicans and the NRA are opposed to a ban on using the "no-fly list" in firearms background checks because they're worried that it would result in unfair discrimination against people who are on the "no-fly list" by mistake.

This would be the first case in recorded history where Republicans are concerned about discrimination against people on the "no-fly list".

-k

The problem as it was explained was that there is no real criteria for being put on a 'no fly list'. Well, none that the average citizen can verify to the extent of having a chance of clearing their name. You just need to be suspect, without charge or even an investigation. How does one go about getting off this arbitrary no fly list? American children have been prevented from flying because they have the same name as someone on the no fly list.

If you have a criminal record, then I can see that as being a reason. But as for the no-fly list, it should not prevent someone from obtaining a firearm legally.

[Wilber]

The problem as it was explained was that there is no real criteria for being put on a 'no fly list'. Well, none that the average citizen can verify to the extent of having a chance of clearing their name. You just need to be suspect, without charge or even an investigation. How does one go about getting off this arbitrary no fly list? American children have been prevented from flying because they have the same name as someone on the no fly list.

If you have a criminal record, then I can see that as being a reason. But as for the no-fly list, it should not prevent someone from obtaining a firearm legally.

Do you not think that being on a no fly list should at least warrant a closer look at someone before allowing them to buy a firearm?

[GostHacked]

Do you not think that being on a no fly list should at least warrant a closer look at someone before allowing them to buy a firearm?

Being on this list should not bar you from purchasing a gun. The real kicker is that the closer look should have already been done by the authorities before putting them on a precautionary list. Fly? Sure no problem, I'll go by bus. train, boat.

[Wilber]

Being on this list should not bar you from purchasing a gun. The real kicker is that the closer look should have already been done by the authorities before putting them on a precautionary list. Fly? Sure no problem, I'll go by bus. train, boat.

The problem is every excuse possible its being dredged up not to vet people properly for gun ownership and only gun ownership. Take away any anything you want but not the right to own a gun. Carrying on crazy.

[GostHacked]

The problem is every excuse possible its being dredged up not to vet people properly for gun ownership and only gun ownership. Take away any anything you want but not the right to own a gun. Carrying on crazy.

I don't mind taking the 'right' away. As long as you can justify it. Suspecting people of being a terrorist is not a valid reason. Prove that the person is a terrorist or planning on doing bad. Then you got something to go with. What is the criteria for getting put on a no fly list anyways?

There are many other illegal ways to obtain firearms if the legal route does not work out.

[Wilber]

There are many other illegal ways to obtain firearms if the legal route does not work out.

Nowhere easier than the USA.

[Rue]

It should be pointed out that each state in the US has different gun laws so certain states have restrictive regulations on gun purchases no different than in Canada.

Canadians should also understand you have no law preventing you from owning a gun. You have laws restricting the purchase of weapons but not a total ban so any of you thinking you are morally superior to Americans when it comes to guns, get off your smug, leftist pedestal.

Also before anyone stereotypes the entire US, Americans are not when polled against restrictions put in place to purchase guns-they see that as a seperate issue from the right to own a gun.

Many Americans who own guns and are members of the NRA contrary to belief, when polled have concerns with certain people having entitlement to own guns.

The right to own a gun, and who should own a gun are not mashed into one issue in the USA as they are in Canada by our beloved leftists.

Gun ownership is a fundamental constitutional right to most Americans. What qualifications you need to own one, is another issue.

[Wilber]

It should be pointed out that each state in the US has different gun laws so certain states have restrictive regulations on gun purchases no different than in Canada.

Canadians should also understand you have no law preventing you from owning a gun. You have laws restricting the purchase of weapons but not a total ban so any of you thinking you are morally superior to Americans when it comes to guns, get off your smug, leftist pedestal.

There are all kinds of laws that can prevent you from owning a gun in Canada. There is no right to gun ownership as there is no right to drive a car. We are much more restrictive when it comes to what firearms can be owned and how they may be used. The use of a gun for self defence is a very grey area in Canadian law and if you had a loaded firearm that was accessible enough to be used for self defence, you would likely be charged with unsafe storage of a firearm and other offences depending on how you used it, whether anyone was injured or not.

It isn't about banning guns and it isn't about left or right, it is about trying to achieve a reasonable balance between gun ownership and public safety. I think Canada has done a far better job in this respect.

[Moonlight Graham]

No, we just have to kill them.

I don't feel putting myself in the shoes of a crazy religious fundamentalist is necessary. All that needs to be done is to kill them.

Well, I'm interesting in hearing your military solution to defeating ISIS, radical Islamism, and jihadist terrorism. Hasn't been going very well so far...but even if you want to kill them, you're going to need to understand them and their motivations in order to predict their behaviour etc.

Personally, I don't think there's a military solution to this war. So far it's made it a whole lot worse.

If it's necessary to kill tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of religious wackos to defend ourselves then I'm perfectly fine with that.

If you want to kill that many of them, we're going to have to go boots on the ground meaning hundreds of thousands of dead NATO soldiers including Canadians, or just simply carpet-bomb every damned town they live in meaning an insane # of innocent civilian casualties. Either that or nukes, again killing a crazy amount of innocent civilians. Even then, I highly doubt it will be effective, it will mobilize people to radicalize all over the middle-east and those Muslims in western countries.

I think there's 2 possible solutions to end the "war on terror":

1. Figure out a way to maintain control of oil resources in the middle east that doesn't involve things that piss off Muslims to attack the West, including: western countries killing mass #'s of Muslims (through war or sanctions), supporting Israeli domination of Muslims, or otherwise dominating Muslims through puppet regimes/military bases etc.

2. Switch largely to another source of energy besides oil (coal, nuclear, renewables?) so we can GTFO of the region and be left alone.

Since I don't see any signs of the West doing anything like either of these options, terrorism will continue in the foreseeable decades and beyond. I see #2 happening eventually but who knows when the technology for renewable energy will become cheaper than oil. Could be 50 years or more!

[Argus]

Well, I'm interesting in hearing your military solution to defeating ISIS, radical Islamism, and jihadist terrorism. Hasn't been going very well so far...but even if you want to kill them, you're going to need to understand them and their motivations in order to predict their behaviour etc.

Personally, I don't think there's a military solution to this war. So far it's made it a whole lot worse.

The West has almost infinite resources compared to ISIS. What it lacks is the will. This is understandable, in a way. Why should Joe Smith go over there and die in order to protect what are supposed to be independent national entities from an enemy?

I admit I have some sympathy for that view, which basically says "Bad cess on them all. Let them kill each other". The problem with that view is that however satisfying it is in the short term, in the long term, what happens over there is, if it progresses in the wrong way, show up over here. I think there is more than enough ability from local governments to destroy ISIS. Only their incompetence prevents it. Local armies have lousy leadership, and very reluctant soldiers. Your believe it would cost enormous casualties is flat wrong. They said the same about the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan and it was actually quite easy, with few casualties. The problem came later.

Frankly, what the West needs is a rapid response force made up of mercenaries. There isn't even a need to use western citizens. You could hire a sort of NATO foreign legion, build it into a couple of divisions of mostly eastern European, Russian, South American and others, give them cast off equipment, and then use them on situations which arise, like this, like Somalia a decade ago, where they could quickly rout the rabble and our politicians wouldn't cringe over every casualty. Two reasonably well equipped divisions would evict ISIS from anywhere they cared to try and set up shop in fairly short order.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, and their outcomes, should be plenty of evidence for you as to why the military solution didn't, and won't work.

[DogOnPorch]

Your examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, and their outcomes, should be plenty of evidence for you as to why the military solution didn't, and won't work.

America is great at the actual military campaigns. Rotten re: pacification. Mainly due to their nagging habit of caring about civilian casualties.

[On Guard for Thee]

America is great at the actual military campaigns. Rotten re: pacification. Mainly due to their nagging habit of caring about civilian casualties.

I don't think it was concern over civilian casualties that paved the way for ISIS to form. Probably more to do with the fact they had no real clue as to how the country actually worked before they trashed it, politically as well as physically.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't think it was concern over civilian casualties that paved the way for ISIS to form. Probably more to do with the fact they had no real clue as to how the country actually worked before they trashed it, politically as well as physically.

No...that's not how war actually is supposed to work. Saddam's fascist Baathist officer corp should have been executed to the last man...bang.

[On Guard for Thee]

No...that's not how war actually is supposed to work. Saddam's fascist Baathist officer corp should have been executed to the last man...bang.

Naw they just laid them all off, put incompetents in charge so the country ceased to work, then left behind a bunch of military equipment and pissed off people who knew how to operate it. ISIS is born...bang.

[DogOnPorch]

Naw they just laid them all off, put incompetents in charge so the country ceased to work, then left behind a bunch of military equipment and pissed off people who knew how to operate it. ISIS is born...bang.

Yup...rotten at pacification. Should have waxed 'em all. Make it look like an accident if they're so worried about political correctness.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yup...rotten at pacification. Should have waxed 'em all. Make it look like an accident if they're so worried about political correctness.

Should have left the Sunni's running things since they knew how since they had been doing it a while. Then started to balance things by integrating Shia over time. Much smarter approach.

[Moonlight Graham]

The West has almost infinite resources compared to ISIS. What it lacks is the will. This is understandable, in a way. Why should Joe Smith go over there and die in order to protect what are supposed to be independent national entities from an enemy? I admit I have some sympathy for that view, which basically says "Bad cess on them all. Let them kill each other". The problem with that view is that however satisfying it is in the short term, in the long term, what happens over there is, if it progresses in the wrong way, show up over here.

This is EXACTLY the argument that was made during the Vietnam War. If it were up to people with your thinking, Canada would have joined the Vietnam War and burned through how many trillions and killed how many people...for what? But now instead of the Communist boogieman possibly spreading from Vietnam to Canada and wherever else it's the radical Islamism boogieman that will spread to Canada and wherever. Preventative war is stupid, as proven many times over.

Your believe it would cost enormous casualties is flat wrong. They said the same about the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan and it was actually quite easy, with few casualties. The problem came later.

You said you were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims to win this war. Yes, the casualties would be enormous. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, all we did was remove a regime from government (at least temporarily), but we didn't defeat those people we removed. They're still fighting.

Two reasonably well equipped divisions would evict ISIS from anywhere they cared to try and set up shop in fairly short order.

Do you not understand that we lost to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Sunnis in Iraq? Thousands of Saddam's baathist officers are now fighting for ISIS. But ISIS will be easy to defeat? The US has tried to pacify the Sunni insurgents in Iraq since 2003 with no success. Now they're called ISIS and you suddenly think we can defeat them? Name a guerrilla war the West has won in the last century? Not even the West...the USSR lost against the rag-tag mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80's, which was a factor in the USSR's collapse. You keep betting on a losing strategy. I'd love to play poker with you!

Edited December 16, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[DogOnPorch]

Should have left the Sunni's running things since they knew how since they had been doing it a while. Then started to balance things by integrating Shia over time. Much smarter approach.

Oh gosh no. Anyone looking at Allied forces sideways arrested and detained. Shoot a few so they get the idea. Brutal society...brutal measures.

The Phoenix Program worked, if you recall...perhaps not. Anyhow, this may sound rash: But war isn't a second place sort of thing. If one decides to...as Von Clausewitz said...to engage in politics by other means...be sure you win decisively not only the campaign but the occupation. This is for keeps. Anything else is a waste of time and soldier's lives. And of course those innocent civilian lives everybody frets over during war...

Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is rubbish.

---Manfred Von Richthofen

Edited December 16, 2015 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Communism did win in Viet-Nam. A Communist country invaded three other countries and took one by force.

The UN rewarded them with a full seat. This as the Boat People died in droves.

[Argus]

This is EXACTLY the argument that was made during the Vietnam War.

To be more accurate, it was the argument made during the cold war, when the West confronted an expansionary Soviet Union across the world in many locations. It was not an incorrect argument, either.

Preventative war is stupid, as proven many times over.

Your reading of history is different from mine.

You said you were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims to win this war.

Millions.

Yes, the casualties would be enormous.

Not really. Arabs are crappy soldiers.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, all we did was remove a regime from government (at least temporarily), but we didn't defeat those people we removed.

I've said in the past that the mistake made was not going the British route and backing local strongmen to put a lid on the radicals. Instead the pie-in-the-sky Americans spent ten years trying to introduce democracy into a region which was entirely unprepared for it.

Do you not understand that we lost to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Sunnis in Iraq?

No, we didn't. They were easily defeated on the field. But then the Americans tried to transplant a western governmental system there instead of giving them what they need, a strongman who will crush all opposition.

Thousands of Saddam's baathist officers are now fighting for ISIS. But ISIS will be easy to defeat?

ISIS is a hell of a lot less organized, capable and disciplined than the Revolutionary Guards, and a lot smaller. And the RG collapsed like a stuck balloon when facing western forces.

[Shady]

This topic needs to be changed to Terrorist Attack in America.