Mass Shooting in the USA

[bush_cheney2004]

The rights of law abiding citizens will not be infringed because of the actions by criminals or the mentally ill.

[Derek 2.0]

It's not inalienable. Anyone previously convicted can be denied that right, for example, even after serving their sentence. So can those with mental health issues.

Sure........but the FBI would be required to prove that, absent prior convictions........

The reason Republican voted against it is the same reason Republican candidates are currently trying to outflank each other on the far right in terms of abortion and illegal aliens, because it plays well to their ignorant, mouth-breathing base.

Or they are upholding the USC......as written.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Black Dog]

It's not inalienable. Anyone previously convicted can be denied that right, for example, even after serving their sentence. So can those with mental health issues.

The reason Republican voted against it is the same reason Republican candidates are currently trying to outflank each other on the far right in terms of abortion and illegal aliens, because it plays well to their ignorant, mouth-breathing base.

Don't forget the bribes they receive for this stuff.

[Wilber]

Or they are upholding the USC......as written.

Except for the well regulated militia bit. That part doesn't exist for them.

[Derek 2.0]

Except for the well regulated militia bit. That part doesn't exist for them.

If American gun owners, writ large, start banding into militias, Islamic terrorism, gang violence and the odd nut job will be the least of the FBI's worries.....

[Wilber]

If American gun owners, writ large, start banding into militias, Islamic terrorism, gang violence and the odd nut job will be the least of the FBI's worries.....

That's maybe why it says "well regulated Militia". You know, like Switzerland and those other countries gun owners love to point at.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

That's maybe why it says "well regulated Militia". You know, like Switzerland and those other countries gun owners love to point at.

Good thing the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise then......

[Wilber]

Good thing the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise then......

I would say we are damn fortunate we don't have any such thing in our constitution.

[Derek 2.0]

I would say we are damn fortunate we don't have any such thing in our constitution.

Wouldn't mater, we don't have property rights anyways.

[Wilber]

Wouldn't mater, we don't have property rights anyways.

Nothing to do with property rights.

[Argus]

Good thing the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise then......

This the same supreme court that ruled corporations are people and have so much freedom of speech they can buy elections?

[Hal 9000]

Not allowing somebody gun ownership and placing somebody on a no fly list are 2 different things. Just because someone shouldn't have a gun, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to fly.

[The_Squid]

The guns used in this massacre were purchased legally. A few years ago these people never had a "right" to own these guns. The massacre is the legacy of GW Bush not renewing the assault weapons ban.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-guns-from-the-san-bernardino-shooting-were-legal-thanks-to-the-nra-20151203

The 2nd amendment can be restricted like every other right... and it was up until GW Bush.

[Derek 2.0]

The guns used in this massacre were purchased legally. A few years ago these people never had a "right" to own these guns. The massacre is the legacy of GW Bush not renewing the assault weapons ban.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-guns-from-the-san-bernardino-shooting-were-legal-thanks-to-the-nra-20151203

The 2nd amendment can be restricted like every other right... and it was up until GW Bush.

Nice rant, but its fiction, as new AR-15s were sold legally through the AWB decade......as long as they didn't have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug or a telescopic stock.......

[Guest]

Nice rant, but its fiction, as new AR-15s were sold legally through the AWB decade......as long as they didn't have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug or a telescopic stock.......

Really? No bayonet allowed. That's hilarious. Who thought that one up?

[The_Squid]

uh-huh...

The assault weapons were purchased legally. But these tactical arms are only legal in the United States because of the efforts of the NRA — which cowed congress into watching the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expire under president George W. Bush.

From 2004 to 2014, according to the GAO, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorism watch list successfully purchased guns — at a success rate of greater than 90 percent. The NRA has lobbied against legislation that would close this loophole by calling it "sponsored by gun control extremists."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-guns-from-the-san-bernardino-shooting-were-legal-thanks-to-the-nra-20151203#ixzz3tPmuoNfY

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[Derek 2.0]

Really? No bayonet allowed. That's hilarious. Who thought that one up?

Dianne Feinstein........and what was laughable, one could legally purchase a surplus M16 flash hider/bayo lug and install in minutes on a threaded barrel or just buy a complete pre-ban barrel assembly.....

[Derek 2.0]

uh-huh...

Yeah, sorry you believed a bunk story........google 1994 assault weapons ban compliant AR-15s.....solid fixed stock, like Vietnam era M16s, without a flash hider/bayonet lug.......they're collectors items now

Edited December 5, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[jbg]

What happened to controlling the Muslims who were carrying them yesterday?

In case people haven't figured this out this is a war. The radical Islamists cannot abide the idea of:

1. A West generally supporting Israel, and holding the Western Wall;
2. Their 16 year old daughters being able to date anyone they want;
3. Their family members not having their faces covered (even though the Koran never mentions a hijab); or
4. Parents not having dictatorial control over their children.

In short, they cannot and will not accommodate themselves to any aspect of Western life other than subsidies. While I consider B. Hussein Obama's views that this may be a "workplace" incident to be a dereliction of responsibility, I will grant that some of these people are aggrieved and scared by what they see in the West. In short, walking time bombs.

[Guest]

In case people haven't figured this out this is a war. The radical Islamists cannot abide the idea of:

1. A West generally supporting Israel, and holding the Western Wall;
2. Their 16 year old daughters being able to date anyone they want;
3. Their family members not having their faces covered (even though the Koran never mentions a hijab); or
4. Parents not having dictatorial control over their children.

In short, they cannot and will not accommodate themselves to any aspect of Western life other than subsidies. While I consider B. Hussein Obama's views that this may be a "workplace" incident to be a dereliction of responsibility, I will grant that some of these people are aggrieved and scared by what they see in the West. In short, walking time bombs.

He's slowly coming round. From The Guardian:

"Obama said the attack may have been motivated by a mix of reasons, including extremist ideology."

[Moonlight Graham]

In case people haven't figured this out this is a war. The radical Islamists cannot abide the idea of:

1. A West generally supporting Israel, and holding the Western Wall;
2. Their 16 year old daughters being able to date anyone they want;
3. Their family members not having their faces covered (even though the Koran never mentions a hijab); or
4. Parents not having dictatorial control over their children.

In short, they cannot and will not accommodate themselves to any aspect of Western life other than subsidies.

Number 1 is right. Muslim fundamentalists obviously don't agree with Western ways of living, but I disagree that it's a primary motive for terrorism against the West. Bin Laden never claimed this as a primary reason, for instance.

Going back to #1, if you read what these terrorists have been saying since the 90's, they always refer to us as "Crusaders". The Crusades from the middle-ages were Christian-led wars by Western countries in Europe designed to take back control of the Christian biblical holy lands around Jerusalem (now mainly Israel) from Muslim control. Fundamentalists see Western support of Israel/Zionists and domination of the region as a modern Crusade, essentially Christians in cahoots with the Jews to defeat Muslims in the middle east. Completely understandable viewpoint really. Fundamentalists also see those Muslim regimes friendly with the West (like the Saudis) as apostates, traitors of Islam. Similar to how the Western-backed Shah was overthrown by the people of Iran in favour of an anti-West Muslim theocracy that's also been hostile to Israel. This is truly a holy war, even though we may not see it like that. It's Christians and Jews vs Muslims, Sunni vs Shia, secular "apostates" vs true believers. It's how the whole region works.

[Hal 9000]

Number 1 is right. Muslim fundamentalists obviously don't agree with Western ways of living, but I disagree that it's a primary motive for terrorism against the West. Bin Laden never claimed this as a primary reason, for instance.

Going back to #1, if you read what these terrorists have been saying since the 90's, they always refer to us as "Crusaders". The Crusades from the middle-ages were Christian-led wars by Western countries in Europe designed to take back control of the Christian biblical holy lands around Jerusalem (now mainly Israel) from Muslim control. Fundamentalists see Western support of Israel/Zionists and domination of the region as a modern Crusade, essentially Christians in cahoots with the Jews to defeat Muslims in the middle east. Completely understandable viewpoint really. Fundamentalists also see those Muslim regimes friendly with the West (like the Saudis) as apostates, traitors of Islam. Similar to how the Western-backed Shah was overthrown by the people of Iran in favour of an anti-West Muslim theocracy that's also been hostile to Israel. This is truly a holy war, even though we may not see it like that. It's Christians and Jews vs Muslims, Sunni vs Shia, secular "apostates" vs true believers. It's how the whole region works.

There you go, giving them excuses that they don't even want.

Of course it's about our lifestyle, Sure, they mention crusader countries but also that Paris is the capital of prostitution and vice. We know how they feel about homosexuality and women. Us men are unbelievers, so they hate us too. It's all western countries and also those Muslims that they don't feel believe strongly enough.

They've told us over and over again, yet you refuse to listen to them. What do they have to do to make you believe them? Sheesh!

[Bonam]

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dave-schroeder/the-recent-and-troubling-redefinition-of-mass-shooting/10153452653799118

The idea that what we commonly think of as "mass shootings" happens hundreds of times a year in the US, frequently claimed in this thread, is a lie.

[Derek 2.0]

The idea that what we commonly think of as "mass shootings" happens hundreds of times a year in the US, frequently claimed in this thread, is a lie.

Of course its a lie, just as the lie portrayed in the MSM link Squid posted (not suggesting Squid lied, but the author of the piece) that suggested AR-15s wouldn't be available today had not the AWB been allowed to lapse in 2004.......which is complete and utter BS, as AR-15s, semi-auto AK-47s, mini-14s etc were all perfectly legal under the AWB if they didn't have a bayonet lug, adjustable stock, flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment affixed to them.........repeat a lie often enough.....

[jbg]

Number 1 is right. Muslim fundamentalists obviously don't agree with Western ways of living, but I disagree that it's a primary motive for terrorism against the West. Bin Laden never claimed this as a primary reason, for instance.

Going back to #1, if you read what these terrorists have been saying since the 90's, they always refer to us as "Crusaders". The Crusades from the middle-ages were Christian-led wars by Western countries in Europe designed to take back control of the Christian biblical holy lands around Jerusalem (now mainly Israel) from Muslim control. Fundamentalists see Western support of Israel/Zionists and domination of the region as a modern Crusade, essentially Christians in cahoots with the Jews to defeat Muslims in the middle east. Completely understandable viewpoint really. Fundamentalists also see those Muslim regimes friendly with the West (like the Saudis) as apostates, traitors of Islam. Similar to how the Western-backed Shah was overthrown by the people of Iran in favour of an anti-West Muslim theocracy that's also been hostile to Israel. This is truly a holy war, even though we may not see it like that. It's Christians and Jews vs Muslims, Sunni vs Shia, secular "apostates" vs true believers. It's how the whole region works.

Trouble is, it's not the way the rest of the world works. And it was their decision to spread their poison here. The consequences should be ones they don't like.