Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Jeff said:

I don't have a problem with this approach, Geezer. It's effectiveness however, seems to be limited and you've named two isolated incidence where it was. We've had 20 or so mass shootings in the US, more world wide.

True. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

I do reiterate that Americans are uniquely qualified to attempt the personal self-defense approach with their own weapons. This has always been part of our culture. So has the ability to adapt to a changing threat situation. I do believe that "gun free zones" are a contributing factor to the terror attacks.

Froot: IMO, a shotgun is the best weapon against a home invasion. It is just silly to talk about a bolt-action rifle in these active-shooter situations. Anyone who has never shot a pistol should try that. Pistols are hopelessly inaccurate unless the owner practices a lot.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

Unlike the 1st and 2nd As, the 4th A isn't absolute in its terms so it's clearly a creature of jurisprudence. I think Miranda is stupid, but otherwise I don't think about it much as I'm neither a criminal nor a criminal defense attorney.

I also didn't get too much into the Patriot Act. It was likely an overreaching, overreaction -- I think that was my take at the time. But, honestly, it wasn't a hot button issue for me.

[Da Geezer]

Rocky said:

. What has changed is the proliferation of ideological, hate-filled, religious nut-jobs in the world. Another "assault rifle" ban won't do anything to change that. A car bomb might be used in the next incident.

Agreed. And if the World Affairs article is close to correct, then 1,000 of the 1,200 Islamic Centers have been built in the last 15 years, and 75% of them have Wahhabi imams or preachers. Speaking as an old fart, I've wondered why Islamists are showing up now as opposed, say, in 1980. Now it makes some sense. One approach would be to declare the Wahhabi sect a hate group, treat it like the KKK, and deport or jail the propagandists that are radicalizing young Muslims. Stan or Doc might feel differently, but I don't ever remember Muslims causing trouble.

[hack]

Afghanistan was a hippie maven in the 60s. Jews got on fairly fine for centuries as minority populations in the Middle East.

But IMO there was always been religious violence, going back before guns. Certainly the effectiveness of the weapons has improved.

[Da Geezer]

I'll tell you my biggest fear in this whole matter of the private ownership of firearms. There are now, and have been, a bunch of fellows driving around in pick-ups with a bumper sticker on the order of "They'll take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers". Heller was 5-4, and Hillary qualifies answers about gun control by saying, "if there is such a right. . .". You would have to be blind not to see that a gun ban is coming once she is elected. It's coming and coming quickly.

And when it comes, what are the guys in the pick-ups going to do? I don't know if it true or not, but those guys believe that the command structure of our military has weeded out officers who said they would refuse to fire on Americans. I fear an uprising. Identity politics has left us in a dangerous situation ( Rural/urban, white/black, Rep/Dem, rich/poor). Please remember that the founders gave as one reason for the second amendment the overthrow of a tyrannical government.

[Mike]

And how exactly do you think an Amendment to the Constitution overturning the 2nd Amendment would be passed? Don't you need 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to ratify an Amendment? Your scenario is fantasyland nonsense that makes people feel tough and patriotic. Rest easy. Gun ownership is in no danger whatsoever. Obama is more liberal than Hillary and there has been no meaningful action taken to restrict gun ownership or purchases despite having Dem control of the Executive branch for 7.5 years and horrific mass shootings on an unprecedented scale. Guns aren't going anywhere. Ever.

[entropy]

They will make background checks tougher and call it success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike]

Yeah, exactly. They'll raise the wait period for handguns from 7 days to 10 days or some such nonsense. It will be the biggest congressional throw down in history, throngs of gun rights supporters will take to the streets in protest, gun control advocates will cheer their sweeping success, and they will all be wrong.

[Wild Hoss]

And how exactly do you think an Amendment to the Constitution overturning the 2nd Amendment would be passed? Don't you need 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to ratify an Amendment? Your scenario is fantasyland nonsense that makes people feel tough and patriotic. Rest easy. Gun ownership is in no danger whatsoever. Obama is more liberal than Hillary and there has been no meaningful action taken to restrict gun ownership or purchases despite having Dem control of the Executive branch for 7.5 years and horrific mass shootings on an unprecedented scale. Guns aren't going anywhere. Ever.

Yeah...if anything, gun control has been walked backwards as a political issue since Sandy Hook, which is why I don?t get worked up about it, or these massacres, any more. This is how life in this country is going to be, for the foreseeable future; massacre>outpouring of sorrow> political posturing> finger-pointing/grandstanding>Squirrel!>nonsensical issues>massacre...

Happy to have discussions with all you fine fellows on a monday, but the issue was been decided after all those little kids were shot full of holes and less than nothing changed. The end.

[Wild Hoss]

They will make background checks tougher and call it success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...there won't even be that much accomplished. You just wait and see.

[Mike]

Yeah...if anything, gun control has been walked backwards as a political issue since Sandy Hook, which is why I don?t get worked up about it, or these massacres, any more. This is how life in this country is going to be, for the foreseeable future; massacre>outpouring of sorrow> political posturing> finger-pointing/grandstanding>Squirrel!>nonsensical issues>massacre...

Happy to have discussions with all you fine fellows on a monday, but the issue was been decided after all those little kids were shot full of holes and less than nothing changed. The end.

Couldn't agree more. Sandy Hook was Waterloo for the gun control crowd. The fight/debate is settled. I only can laugh at the paranoids that think gun ownership is in jeopardy. It's been the same exact song since Bill Clinton was president. If I owned a gun store I'd raise funds for Dems. They are the best gun salesmen on the planet.

[Jeff Buchanan]

So, Mike, Hoss, et. al., you're reducing the macro issue of the government's role in protecting it's citizens from terrorist attacks to the micro issue of gun control then saying, "aint gonna happen."

While I agree with you both when viewed at the micro level that it "aint" ....... I believe there are much larger and more significant risks to security and safety posed by the potential for escalating terrorist acts. I don't care what the motivations are for these or whether they are domestic or international in character.

What I care about is reducing this threat and when viewed in that context maybe there are better ways to skin the gun control cat. Sure, the Second Amendment can be like the third rail of Social Security ..... politicians can't touch it ....... but framing the discussion regarding the impact of escalating terrorism as a national security threat, which is exactly what it is, kind-of eliminates the validity of the arguments of the gun crazies who think the public should be armed with "uzzies" (or any type of military style weapons) which was NEVER the intention of the Second Amendment to begin with.

My view is that this discussion needs to elevated to one that involves questions of national security and how far the government needs to go and should go to eliminate or at least reduce the escalating terrorist threat. If you don't advocate for this, the macro issues are subrogated to the micro issue of gun control and will always die over it.

We should be asking, why the fuck are we arming terrorists of any ideology? Why are we letting our enemies use the personal freedoms and civil liberties we celebrate in the US Constitution to systematically and effectively attack us?

[Ghengis Jon]

I watched the FBI statement today concerning the Pulse incident. What a bunch of rubbish. “It’s not our fault!” Let the blame game begin.

At the risk of being oh so politically incorrect, I would suggest a little profiling is in order. Not the kind of profiling where people with a particular trait are used for traffic law revenue generation or to boost arrest rates. Nor do I want that stain on America Japanese internment style profiling. But the FBI obviously needs a little help, so here goes:

Terror suspects will be identified using the following point scale (per occurrence):

1 pt – Visiting a jihadist website, facebook page, or twitter account
5 pts – Posting on a jihadist website, facebook page, or twitter account
10 pts – Publically support jihadist ideology and concept of martyrdom
15 pts – Posting more than once a week on a jihadist website, facebook page, or twitter account
15 pts – Downloading from a jihadist website
30 pts – Accessing the Dark Web jihadist websites

A score of 35 points gets you investigated
A score of 50 points gets you thoroughly investigated
A score of 100 points gets surveillance

30 bonus points for being a male of Arab or North African descent.

[The Oracle]

Having not seen the details yet, what score would Mateen have had?

[Mike]

So, Mike, Hoss, et. al., you're reducing the macro issue of the government's role in protecting it's citizens from terrorist attacks to the micro issue of gun control then saying, "aint gonna happen."

While I agree with you both when viewed at the micro level that it "aint" ....... I believe there are much larger and more significant risks to security and safety posed by the potential for escalating terrorist acts. I don't care what the motivations are for these or whether they are domestic or international in character.

What I care about is reducing this threat and when viewed in that context maybe there are better ways to skin the gun control cat. Sure, the Second Amendment can be like the third rail of Social Security ..... politicians can't touch it ....... but framing the discussion regarding the impact of escalating terrorism as a national security threat, which is exactly what it is, kind-of eliminates the validity of the arguments of the gun crazies who think the public should be armed with "uzzies" (or any type of military style weapons) which was NEVER the intention of the Second Amendment to begin with.

My view is that this discussion needs to elevated to one that involves questions of national security and how far the government needs to go and should go to eliminate or at least reduce the escalating terrorist threat. If you don't advocate for this, the macro issues are subrogated to the micro issue of gun control and will always die over it.

We should be asking, why the fuck are we arming terrorists of any ideology? Why are we letting our enemies use the personal freedoms and civil liberties we celebrate in the US Constitution to systematically and effectively attack us?

We don't arm terrorists. We arm potential terrorists. We don't know they are terrorists until they do terrorist shit. In the cases of San Bernadino and Orlando, both male terrorists were born in the USA. These aren't even situations where tougher immigration helps. They use our civil liberties because they are American citizens and there is no mechanism in place to prevent that short of Marshall Law or some really dark shit we probably don't want to get into. I mentioned earlier about blocking jihadist websites that help radicalize these guys. There are limits to free speech. If these don't meet the threshold, I don't know what would. That would be a practical step, IMO. At any rate, our spineless politicians are afraid of breaking eggs so nothing will be done to address this issue. Ever.

I did see a really nice rendering of the all-purpose ribbon thingy earlier, tho. It was red and white stripes on top and the sides were rainbow and blue field with stars. So we have that. Plus I think Congress had a moment of silence so we're all set for the next one.