San Bernardino

It’s quite amazing that CNN managed to cram this much stupid into a single media outlet.



http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2015/12/03/cnn-guest-san-bernardino-office-holiday-party-may-have-been

CNN Guest: San Bernardino Office Holiday Party ‘May Have Been Offensive’ to Muslim Gunman

By Curtis Houck | December 3, 2015 | 12:57 AM EST

Just when the liberal media’s extrapolations concerning the motives of the San Bernardino gunman couldn’t grow any more jaw-dropping, an expert appearing during the 11:00 p.m. Eastern hour of CNN Tonight predicted late Wednesday that the office holiday party where the shooting occurred “may have been offensive” to the Muslim gunman.
Criminologist Casey Jordan was called on by host Don Lemon and began by suggesting that the “[d]isgruntled employee” appeared to “have Arabic or Middle Eastern names, but the key is that from the beginning everything that was reported about him, going into this conference room where there was a holiday party which may have been offensive to him.”
Jordan further opined that “the bottomline is the motivation always appeared to be intrinsic not, extrinsic” and “he was prepared for this” because “it was almost like he was looking for an excuse to go get the guns, get the female getaway driver — you know, put on his fatigues and let it look like terrorism.”
She agreed with other guests in analyzing the situation as “a mash up” or “amalgamation” of “terrorism and disgruntled employee” and reaffirmed her belief that “his motive was very intrinsic,” “personal,” and “about a grudge and it looks like terrorism and he might like that, but it isn’t what it’s about.”
Overall, it’s been quite a day of rushing to conclusions on CNN. As this writer wrote earlier, CNN law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes predicted in the 4:00 p.m. Eastern hour that it was likely carried out by “an anti-government domestic militia group” while fellow law enforcement analyst Harry Houck pointed out in the 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour that those responsible “could be some right-wing group, for all I know.”




http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama said Thursday "it's possible" the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, was terrorist related.
"At this stage we do not yet know why this terrible event occurred," Obama said, speaking from the Oval Office, while raising the possibility that the shooting could also have been the result of workplace violence.
"It is possible that this was terrorist related, but we don't know. It's also possible that this was was workplace related," Obama said, adding that more conclusions will be drawn after the FBI conducts a large number of interviews.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/adam-pally-mass-shootings_5660c642e4b079b2818dfd6d

Adam Pally: You Or I Will Likely Die In A Mass Shooting

"We need to look at the Second Amendment and amend it."

• Ryan BuxtonSenior Editor, HuffPost Live

"Statistically, you'd have to think that you or I is going to die in a mass shooting," Pally told host Alex Miranda. "That's really tough to take."



Yes, that is really tough to take.
Much like your grammar.

Well, at least the cuddly little peace-loving Islamists got someone who had it coming.
Right, folks?



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-mass-shooting-victim-loyal-nra-supporter-article-1.2454796

Calif. mass shooting victim Nicholas Thalasinos was loyal NRA supporter

BY TORI RICHARDS, RICH SCHAPIRO

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Updated: Friday, December 4, 2015, 7:34 AM

California mass shooting victim Nicholas Thalasinos was a devoted husband, an outspoken critic of radicalized Muslims — and fervent supporter of the NRA.
Thalasinos, 52, lived with his wife Jennifer in a ranch house in Colton, a National Rifle Association sticker affixed to the front window.
The county health worker wrote an online message in July blasting a state bill that would ban people with concealed carry licenses from toting firearms on school grounds. “This is an INVITATION to MASS MURDER — the BLOODBATH that will follow will be HORRIFIC!!!” Thalasinos wrote on Facebook.
That message was tame compared with what he had to say about Muslims.
“On behalf of this guy ... You can stick your Million Muslim March up your asses,” Thalasinos wrote on the 12-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks alongside a photo of a victim plummeting from the World Trade Center.

Thalasinos, who moved to California from southern New Jersey, was a Messianic Jew and staunch defender of Israel. His death prompted an outpouring of grief online by users who long cheered his provocative posts.
“Yesterday I lost a friend. Yesterday we lost a friend. Yesterday Israel and the Jewish people lost a dear loyal friend,” wrote a Facebook pal. “He was cold-bloodedly murdered by representatives of the same brutal ideology against which he stood so uprightly and fought so bravely.”
Thalasinos posted a typically controversial message following last week’s shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. “The Police will now go into the Planned Parenthood crime scene and check for dead bodies — will that include all the BUTCHERED BABIES?”
In his final Facebook post, Thalasinos described a venomous message sent by a user named Med Ali Zarouk.
“You will never sucsseed (sic) to make a country for jews,” it read. “Soon you’ll get your ass kicked, you will die and never see Israel as country belive (sic) me never.”
Thalasinos mocked the commenter. “Besides his SPARKLING SPELLING SKILLS and FLAWLESS GRAMMAR he seems to forget ISRAEL IS ALREADY A COUNTRY!” he wrote.

happy jack wrote:

It’s quite amazing that CNN managed to cram this much stupid into a single media outlet.

Did other media outlets do any better? I seriously doubt it.

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

It’s quite amazing that CNN managed to cram this much stupid into a single media outlet.

Did other media outlets do any better?   I seriously doubt it.  

Truthfully, I don’t know. I was kind of preoccupied with other breaking news.



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427898/leonardo-dicaprio-bear-rape-the-revenant-film

We Need to Talk about Bear-Rape Culture

by STEPHEN L. MILLER December 2, 2015 4:49 PM

It was reported yesterday that, while on the Alberta set of his new film The Revenant, actor Leonardo DiCaprio was sexually assaulted by his co-star, an adult 800-pound grizzly bear. The assault occurred while DiCaprio was attempting to film a brutal scene depicting his character’s (real-life historical frontiersman Hugh Glass) desperate struggle to survive an encounter with the bear. DiCaprio’s harrowing tale of bear-rape survival was broken on the Drudge Report and quickly started trending on social media. But soon thereafter our media began (and irresponsibly so, I might add) questioning whether the rape had in fact happened at all, suggesting that perhaps it was all made up to drum up publicity for the film — or possibly for a forthcoming book by the famous heartthrob titled “Not That Kind of Griz.”

happy jack wrote:

It’s quite amazing that CNN managed to cram this much stupid into a single media outlet.

I find this much more amazing:

NRA, Republicans block proposed law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns in U.S.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

It’s quite amazing that CNN managed to cram this much stupid into a single media outlet.

I find this much more amazing:

NRA, Republicans block proposed law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns in U.S.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

I'll see your "much more amazing" and raise you "really, really amazing".



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

The Huffington Post  |  By Nick Wing

Earlier this week, The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the government's guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of terror watch lists, including the no-fly list. In their report, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux highlighted the extremely vague and loosely defined criteria developed by 19 federal agencies, supposedly to fight terrorism.
Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations.
Critics say the system is bloated and imprecise, needlessly sweeping up thousands of people while simultaneously failing to catch legitimate threats, like Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
While some individuals are surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions on travel and other forms of monitoring. Here are several ways you could find yourself on a terror watch list, even if you aren't a terrorist:
1. You could raise "reasonable suspicion" that you're involved in terrorism. "Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts" are not required.
This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists -- which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights -- are both subsections.
In determining whether a suspicion about you is "reasonable," a "nominator" must "rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like "reasonable," "articulable" and "rational" are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an "objective factual basis," the next section clarifies that "irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary" to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is "reasonable." So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list?
2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises "reasonable suspicion."

According to the document, "postings on social media sites ... should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received." Instead, those investigating the individual should "evaluate the credibility of the source" and, if they judge the content to pose a "reasonable suspicion" of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is "uncorroborated." If this sounds disturbing, don't worry: There's a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual "for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities." So as long as your free speech isn't accompanied by any other "suspicious" behavior, you should be fine, maybe.
3. Or somebody else could just think you're a potential terror threat.
The guidelines also consider the use of "walk-in" or "write-in" information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating "the credibility of the source," could opt to nominate you to the watch list.
4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.
The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a "representative" of a terrorist group, even if you have "neither membership in nor association with the organization." Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as "reasonable suspicion" is established.
5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist -- including spouse, children, parents and siblings -- may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, "without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity." According to the document, "associates or affiliates" of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow "linked to" them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that "individuals who merely 'may be' members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization" may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by "derogatory information."
But there's also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating "individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism ... but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard."
6. And if you're in a "category" of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be "upgraded" at the snap of a finger.
The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire "category of individuals" to an elevated threat status. It's unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be "current and credible intelligence information" suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended.
7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.

The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of "false positives," or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother.
The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student whoended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form.
But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn't know -- unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review "that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community."
And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren't even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful.
The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process "wholly ineffective."

It’s pretty clear that the lefties have completely lost it when they are reduced to whining because someone is praying for the victims and their families.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-candidates-call-prayers-calf-massacre-article-1.2453261

GOP presidential candidates offer prayers — not solutions on gun control — after San Bernardino massacre

BY RICH SCHAPIRO

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Updated: Thursday, December 3, 2015, 7:16 AM

Prayers aren’t working.
White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.
But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.
Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer.
“Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the first responders in San Bernardino who willingly go into harm’s way to save others,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted.
It was remarkably similar to the response from Cruz following the shooting at a Planned Parenthood office in Colorado Springs last week.
“Praying for the loved ones of those killed, those injured & first responders who bravely got the situation under control in Colorado Springs,” Cruz tweeted at the time.
Democrats — even those not running for office — slammed the GOP presidential candidates for offering prayers instead of action.
“Your ‘thoughts’ should be about steps to take to stop this carnage,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn) posted on Twitter. “Your ‘prayers’ should be for forgiveness if you do nothing — again.”



………

All the while they are busily defending the rights of people on no-fly and terrorist watch lists to buy guns.

happy jack wrote:

I'll see your "much more amazing" and raise you "really, really amazing".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

Oddly enough, this is the kind of shit I, and others, were complaining about when Bush et al. started it over a fucking decade ago. I couldn't figure out why any conservatives didn't give a shit then anymore than I can understand their feigned concern now.  It's a shame it took magnitudes more dead than were actually killed on 9/11 to bring them around.  

Stranger still that they were all for rollbacks of civil liberties all across the board, but preventing terrorists from stockpiling seems to be "over the line".  

happy jack wrote:

It’s pretty clear that the lefties have completely lost it when they are reduced to whining because someone is praying for the victims and their families.

Not a Bible reading Christian then, huh?  That hippie dipshit Jesus was doin' the same thing.  What an ass.

Or to put it in stark legal terms, if they were parents offering nothing but prayers for their kids cancer, they'd be in fucking jail. So is this another religious freedom thing for you, maybe?

It's the only thing we can do... amiright?

Heretic wrote:

It's the only thing we can do...  amiright?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/04/a-few-house-democrats-to-attend-prayer-services-at-u-s-mosques/?_r=0

A Few House Democrats to Attend Prayer Services at U.S. Mosques

A small number of House Democrats will attend prayer services at mosques on Friday in what is intended to be a show of solidarity with American Muslims.




My, my.
They could be busy crafting legislation to take assault weapons off the street.
They could be busy crafting legislation to increase the efficiency of background checks.
But noooo!
These folks, who are supposed to be our public servants, are wasting their time .... gasp .... praying!!!!
Unconscionable, I tell you.
The nerve!
As the NY Daily News says:

As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes

Oh, wait - having a ‘D’ after your name makes all the difference.
Never mind.

Heretic wrote:

   
.... if they were parents offering nothing but prayers for their kids cancer, they'd be in fucking jail.  

But if they were lefties offering 'solutions' that would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the San Bernardino attack, they'd be heroes.
Right?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/4/atf-says-weapons-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-were-illegal-in-california


ATF Says Weapons Used in San Bernardino Shooting Were Illegal in California


BY LIZ SHELD DECEMBER 4, 2015

More information about the San Bernardino massacre is trickling out as federal officials investigate details surrounding the attack on a county employee Christmas party.  Many people, including myself, were curious about the firearms used since California has notoriously strict gun regulations. Reports of "automatic weapons" and even "semi-automatic assault-style weapons" seemed to be disconnected from California's almost uniform prohibition on such firearms.
Another reason the guns in question are important is that the left and its media handmaidens swiftly mobilized to beat the gun control drum...even before the shooters were permanently put out of business.
The media proudly reports that the firearms were purchased legally. They are trying to create the narrative that the current gun laws allowed this to happen. They want you to know: "Hey, this was all legally done. We need more laws to stop this from happening again."
But not so fast.  It may be true that these guns were purchased legally, but they were not used legally and in fact, they were modified in violation of the California firearms laws, says the ATF.
While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF.
The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.
Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading.
The state legally allows the sale and ownership of assault weapons that have fixed magazines.
While we hear more grandstanding about the need for more gun control, keep in mind all the current laws that were broken to execute this violent massacre:
• The shooters used weapons they did not purchase (sounds like a straw purchase or illegal transfer).
• The shooters modified guns to accept high-capacity magazines.
• The shooters modified guns for automatic fire.
Can anyone think of a law we could put in place that these homicidal maniacs, or any criminal or homicidal maniac, would follow? I can't.
And because the media is so stupid about guns, they don't know that the firearm laws pertain not just to purchases but also to the way a gun is used. That is an inconvenient pill to swallow for the gun grabbers because if they consider the way firearms are used, the focus turns to the person using the gun and not the gun itself. Their propaganda is designed to demonize the gun, not to look at the people who are misusing firearms. They don't want you to ask questions like "What's going on in the inner cities of Chicago?" Instead they want you to say "Look what guns are doing to the inner cities of Chicago!"
We live in an era where no one wants to be held responsible for anything, so it’s much easier to vilify an inanimate object. Be on alert: every time you read how these guns were legally purchased, the media is trying to put one over on you.






Key question from this article:

Can anyone think of a law we could put in place that these homicidal maniacs, or any criminal or homicidal maniac, would follow?

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-says-california-killers-14-were-followers-111704711.html

Islamic State says California killers of 14 were their followers

By Yasmeen Abutaleb and Rory Carroll | Reuters – 1 hour 32 minutes ago

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (Reuters) - Islamic State said on Saturday that a married couple who killed 14 people in California in an attack the FBI is investigating as an "act of terrorism" were followers of the militant group based in Syria and Iraq.



Will we ever be able to put a stop to this Islamic terrorism workplace violence?

Quote :

Key question from this article:

Can anyone think of a law we could put in place that these homicidal maniacs, or any criminal or homicidal maniac, would follow?

Really? Criminals don't follow laws, so we shouldn't have any? *That's* you're take away from this?

Christ.

Anyway... Yes. Every gun purchase should be registered and tracked, and the government should know who is stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammunition, assault rifles, and ammunition. Had they been flagged months ago, I imagine the situation would have turned out very differently. And even better, it wouldn't have required any change in the soon to be shooter's behavior.

I've been over this repeatedly in the gun control thread. Perhaps reread it? You still seem to think it's an all or nothing game. That's not the case. There are reasonable and effective steps we could take that would REDUCE, not ELIMINATE, the number of shootings in this country. The point you're attempting to make is a tired old strawman.

So here's my question(s): You seem to think Islam is an inherently dangerous religion. Are you seriously telling us you're OK letting them stockpile perfectly legal ISIL level weapon caches because Freedom? What about the bombs? Should that ignored law be scrapped? Bomb control clearly doesn't work either.

That really perfectly fine with you? That the *only* thing we can do is literally just pray that the individual approaching you with an openly carried weapon just loves freedom and isn't about to go all jihad?

Yes, I'd much rather be able to call the cops and have the man arrested rather than have dispatch tell me, "we can't do anything until he starts shooting." Being able to call the cops prior to a shooting would definitely save lives.

No brainer.

I think we all should thank the republicans, conservatives with very small dicks and the NRA for making the carnage possible.

[size=150]Assault weapon is common denominator in mass shootings[/size]
CHICAGO -- The murder weapons used in the San Bernardino shooting were versions of a very popular rifle called an AR-15. It's a semi automatic version of a U.S. military assault weapon.

Millions have been built, but a few are infamous.

An AR-15 was used to kill nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon in October.

It was also the weapon used in the murders of 12 people at a Colorado movie theater in 2012.

And an AR-15 was used in the 2012 murders of 20 first graders and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut.

At C.I. Shooting Sports in Normal, Illinois, owner Stephen Stewart stocks the AR-15 for a simple reason.
There once was a nationwide ban on such assault weapons, imposed in 1994 following a number of mass shootings in the '80s and '90s.

When it was lifted ten years later, gun rights advocates cheered and sales ros

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-assault-weapon-is-common-denominator-in-mass-shootings/

I think we all should thank the republicans, conservatives with very small dicks and the NRA for making the carnage possible.

Assault weapon is common denominator in mass shootings

CHICAGO -- The murder weapons used in the San Bernardino shooting were versions of a very popular rifle called an AR-15. It's a semi automatic version of a U.S. military assault weapon.

Millions have been built, but a few are infamous.

An AR-15 was used to kill nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon in October.

It was also the weapon used in the murders of 12 people at a Colorado movie theater in 2012.

And an AR-15 was used in the 2012 murders of 20 first graders and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut.

At C.I. Shooting Sports in Normal, Illinois, owner Stephen Stewart stocks the AR-15 for a simple reason.
There once was a nationwide ban on such assault weapons, imposed in 1994 following a number of mass shootings in the '80s and '90s.

When it was lifted ten years later, gun rights advocates cheered and sales ros

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-assault-weapon-is-common-denominator-in-mass-shootings/

edge540 wrote:

I think we all should thank the republicans, conservatives with very small dicks and the NRA for making the carnage possible.

Assault weapon is common denominator in mass shootings

CHICAGO -- The murder weapons used in the San Bernardino shooting were versions of a very popular rifle called an AR-15. It's a semi automatic version of a U.S. military assault weapon.

Yeah, edge, that’s what is unique about the AR-15.
Unlike other weapons, the AR-15 has the ability to jump up out of its box, load itself, and start mowing down innocent people.
The operator of the weapon has absolutely nothing to do with it.
There ya go, placing the blame on an inanimate object again.

     

happy jack wrote:

The laws will only be a mechanism to punish, after the fact, those who aren’t clever enough to not get caught breaking such laws.

Then why have them?

Teach criminals a lesson?  No, recidivism rates show that doesn't happen.  And even you admit it's not a deterrent before the criminal act.  So laws have no effect on crime whatsoever.  So what's left?  Safety?  Our prisons are full of non-violent offenders.  That seems like an incredible waste of money.  And even murderers and rapists get out after a time (and usually faster than non-violent drug offenders).  Clearly there's no benefit there either.  Is it temporary safety?  But I'm not sure how important that is if the next generation of criminals completely unintimidated by our legal system are already on their way.  What exactly does punishing them after the fact actually do? And more importantly, why is it worth spending all that money on the legislation, prisons, law enforcement, court personnel, etc.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

There are reasonable and effective steps we could take that would REDUCE, not ELIMINATE, the number of shootings in this country.

What are they?

I wrote:

I've been over this repeatedly in the gun control thread. Perhaps reread it?

To make it even easier for you, just click here to get to it.  There's even some easy to watch videos in it, if I remember correctly.  I tried to eliminate as much reading as I could for you in that discussion, but I'm not a miracle worker.

happy jack wrote:

There is not an existing law, nor is there any law that may be written in the future that they will obey if they are intent on carrying out their deeds.

So back to "they won't follow them so we shouldn't have them".  Right?  "Gun control won't do anything so don't bother."  Well you've already established that none of them matter so why do you continually single out only gun control?  Why is that set of completely useless laws so different than any other?

But in your specific point, we're in agreement.  Which is why I have explained ad nauseum, cited studies and the currently working models that demonstrate, quite clearly, that putting laws in place to make it more difficult for them to carry out their acts has, and will continue to, save lives.

We saw this firsthand in San Bernardino.  Bombs are difficult to make; there's a lot that can go wrong during the process of making one that will render it inoperable or ineffective.  Since there are laws in place that prevent the sale of military grade explosives in Wal-Mart, our would-be terrorists were forced to make their own.  And they flubbed it, which is why the body count was not near as high as it could have been.  Buying large quantities of bomb making materials also alerts the feds, which is how they have infiltrated and disrupted the planned bombings in this country over the years, saving lives in the process.

But by your logic, bombers gonna bomb, so therefore its all a waste.

Why?

Also, your response . . .

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Are you seriously telling us you're OK letting them stockpile perfectly legal ISIL level weapon caches because Freedom?

 
There is not an existing law, nor is there any law that may be written in the future that they will obey if they are intent on carrying out their deeds.

. . . didn't answer the question. Is it acceptable, in your view, for domestic ISIL terrorist cells to legally stockpile enough weapons and ammunition for a small army?

I'm for gun control, so my answer's no. That way law enforcement would have the legal authority to act prior to the terrorist act instead of after.

What's your answer?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

I think we all should thank the republicans, conservatives with very small dicks and the NRA for making the carnage possible.

Assault weapon is common denominator in mass shootings

CHICAGO -- The murder weapons used in the San Bernardino shooting were versions of a very popular rifle called an AR-15. It's a semi automatic version of a U.S. military assault weapon.

Yeah, edge, that’s what is unique about the AR-15.
Unlike other weapons, the AR-15 has the ability to jump up out of its box, load itself, and start mowing down innocent people.
The operator of the weapon has absolutely nothing to do with it.
There ya go, placing the blame on an inanimate object again.

     

Nope I still blame republican assholes who are bought and paid for by the billion dollar gun industry, gun loving conservatives with very small dicks and the NRA for making the carnage possible.

So tell us jack, during this ban how many first graders and their teachers were shredded by a gun loving lunatic using a  semi auto military assault rifle dick extender?

Answer is none:

The Assault Weapons Ban: Did It Curtail Mass Shootings?

If we look from September 2004 all the way back to 1900 (104 years), as the Washington Post lays out, there were 118 mass shootings. That breaks down to 1.13 mass shooting incidents per year, on average, from 1900 to 2004. In the eight years since the Assault Weapons Ban has expired, there have been 28 mass shooting events. That equals an average of 3.5 a year—an increase of over 200 percent. That is a startling jump, by any measure....

What is an undeniable truth is that we have seen an incredible uptick of mass shootings since the ban expired on September 14, 2004. To be fair, it also is a small sample size, and 2012 was an exceptionally tragic year, but the fact remains that the number of shootings has gone up over 200 percent since the ban expired.

http://www.tcf.org/blog/detail/the-assault-weapons-ban-did-it-curtail-mass-shootings

Heretic wrote:

Also, your response . . .

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Are you seriously telling us you're OK letting them stockpile perfectly legal ISIL level weapon caches because Freedom?

 
There is not an existing law, nor is there any law that may be written in the future that they will obey if they are intent on carrying out their deeds.

. . . didn't answer the question.  Is it acceptable, in your view, for domestic ISIL terrorist cells to legally stockpile enough weapons and ammunition for a small army?

I'm for gun control, so my answer's no.  That way law enforcement would have the legal authority to act prior to the terrorist act instead of after.

What's your answer?

I'm certainly interested in jack's answer... because IMHO, just standing by, watching a terrorist cell arming themselves to the teeth, is totally insane.  I don't see how that can be acceptable to anyone.