San Bernardino

happy jack wrote:

Temporary safety is at least preferable to no safety, isn’t it?

So the only laws that are worthwhile, in your view, are those with prison sentences?

happy jack wrote:

If you could establish that a group of persons is in fact a bona fide domestic ISIL terrorist cell, then I think you’d have a pretty good legal case for keeping ammo and weapons out of their hands.

Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury.  So your answer is "Yes, they should, 'cause I did once"?

happy jack wrote:

I am not a terrorist and I never intended to use my weapons or ammunition for nefarious purposes.

So said a married couple in California up until last week...  So completely acceptable, yes? Because buying in bulk saves money?

I wrote:

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?

happy jack wrote:

I don’t place my faith in laws being able to prevent crimes. I’m realistic enough to know that sometimes the best you’re gonna get out of a law is punishment after the fact.

Which is what exactly?  Little to nothing at all?  Is that worth the millions/billions in court costs and infrastructure?  How so?  And again, why do you single out gun control legislation and nothing else... like say... abortion, drugs, or explosives?  Speed limits?  Drinking age?  Gun ownership age?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

So your answer is "Yes, they should, 'cause I did once"?

happy jack wrote:

Is your solution, then, to presume that everyone is a terrorist until proven otherwise?

No.  I've previously explained workable solutions to you. They remain unchanged.  

Also, terrorism happens only after the fact.  I'm legislating for the ability for law enforcement to intervene prior to the act.  Your argument, on the other hand, is going out of its way to make it as easy as possible for would-be terrorists to kill Americans with little to no interference from law enforcement.  Our enemies abroad, who are very familiar with what effective gun control looks like, are very aware of this fact:

Quote :

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?” American-born al-Qaeda spokesmen Adam Yahiye Gadahn said in a message to followers in 2011. Gadahn, once the American face of al-Qaida, was killed in drone strike in 2015.

Similarly, a six-page jihadist document obtained by The Violence Policy Center (VPC), instructs would-be terrorists “on the advantages the United States offers for firearms training and advises readers on how to exploit them.”

Yet you keep dancing around explaining why this is preferable.  So far all I have is "I buy a lot" and "it saves me money".  

If the muppets in the GOP are correct, and one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, how do we prevent that from happening at the hands of such domestic terrorists as an ISIL cell?  Or do we really just say "fuck it, can't do anything 'til it happens"?

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I am not a terrorist and I never intended to use my weapons or ammunition for nefarious purposes.

Heretic wrote:

So said a married couple in California up until last week...  So completely acceptable, yes?  Because buying in bulk saves money?

Once again - is your solution, then, to presume that everyone is a terrorist until proven otherwise? That nobody anywhere should possess anything of which you don’t approve, just in case they suddenly snap?

Like explosives?  Military grade assault rifles?  Tanks?  Nukes?  So again, is it acceptable, in your view, for domestic ISIL terrorist cells to legally stockpile enough weapons and ammunition for a small army?

happy jack wrote:

You are correct - bombers gonna bomb.
And bombs are already illegal.
So what ya gonna do?

Make 'em legal.  Won't change anything, right?  Pipe bombs, chemical bombs...  the big Timothy McViegh kind, too.  Call it The Boomer.  All pre-mixed, packaged, guaranteed, with a wireless trigger with a range of several hundred meters.  And no background checks.  Get a discount if you buy two!

Yup, that fateful day in San Bernadino would have gone down exactly the same if those were available, 'cause laws don't matter.

happy jack wrote:

On the other hand, (and I really, really hate to be the one to break it to you) these Islamopigs, and others of their ilk, will break and/or circumvent existing laws, and if new laws are enacted, they will find ways to break and/or circumvent those laws.
So, by all means, enact new laws.
Just don’t be overly surprised when San Bernardino happens over and over again.

I'm not sure why you continue with this line of reasoning, acting as if it's a revelation.  I've acknowledged it from the very beginning of this thread (and others), explaining that your framing of the issue as "all effort is useless unless risk is reduced to zero" is false.

Resorting to the usual obfuscation and repetition in an attempt to dodge my more relevant questions?  Wasn't expecting that to happen so soon.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

On the other hand, (and I really, really hate to be the one to break it to you) these Islamopigs, and others of their ilk, will break and/or circumvent existing laws, and if new laws are enacted, they will find ways to break and/or circumvent those laws.
So, by all means, enact new laws.
Just don’t be overly surprised when San Bernardino happens over and over again.

I'm not sure why you continue with this line of reasoning, acting as if it's a revelation.  I've acknowledged it from the very beginning of this thread (and others), explaining that your framing of the issue as "all effort is useless unless risk is reduced to zero" is false.

Resorting to the usual obfuscation and repetition in an attempt to dodge my more relevant questions?  Wasn't expecting that to happen so soon.

Guns don't kill people,yada,yada,yada coming in 3....2.....1

Heretic,Thanks for taking the time to present an intelligent argument and plan. It's not a complete waste of time as I always learn something from them. I hope you don't mind but I will certainly be borrowing some of them when I come up against the gun nuts in future discussions.

Like I said...

I wrote:

Resorting to the usual obfuscation and repetition in an attempt to dodge my more relevant questions?  Wasn't expecting that to happen so soon.

But I'll play.

Here's the first, and the most obvious:

Scorpion wrote:

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.

happy jack wrote:

I already answered that question, 2 posts before Scorpion commented on it.

No, you didn't.  You provided an answer, sure, just like the one you provided before.  And just like that one, it didn't actually answer my very simple yes/no question either.  Hence, Scorpion's comment.

But by all means, continue dancing.

The others:

I wrote:

What about the bombs? Should that ignored law be scrapped? Bomb control clearly doesn't work either.

I wrote:

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?

I wrote:

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?

I wrote:

If the muppets in the GOP are correct, and one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, how do we prevent that from happening at the hands of such domestic terrorists as an ISIL cell?  Or do we really just say "fuck it, can't do anything 'til it happens"?

I wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You are correct - bombers gonna bomb.
And bombs are already illegal.
So what ya gonna do?

Make 'em legal.  Won't change anything, right?

Finally.  

happy jack wrote:

No, clearly, there should be strict laws against the possession of bombs.

Why?  And why would such "control" work for bombs but not guns?  And what exactly do you mean by "laws against the possession of"?  As it's legally defined now or do you have something else in mind?

happy jack wrote:

I singled out gun control because that was, um, kind of the topic. But, you’re right, people will break all manner of laws, not just those related to guns.

But yet you're for bomb control?  Interesting.  Why won't any of your arguments against gun control apply to explosives?

happy jack wrote:

I suppose you could keep an especially close eye on those who fit the profile of the type most likely to be involved with an Islamic terrorist cell (but you probably wouldn’t like that), monitor their phones, e-mail, and social media (but you probably wouldn’t like that), and possibly get a mole inside any of the mosques with which they are affiliated (but you probably wouldn’t like that).

So, your answer is racial profiling, as demonstrably ineffective as it is.  How does that protect against non-Muslim domestic terrorists (the bigger threat at the moment)?  Wouldn't "strict laws against the possession" of such a number of firearms be better and easier?  For example, same restrictions you're willing to afford to explosive possession.

happy jack wrote:

What would your suggestions be?

That's listed here.  Feel free to browse.  Questions are encouraged.

happy jack wrote:

I’d be happy to answer this one if you could clarify and provide some context.

I was referring to this sadly not uncommon scenario anymore.

If a would-be shooter is indistinguishable from any American fuckwit with an ammo fetish, how is a) the public, both the wanna-be Cordell Walkers and us cowardly liberals, supposed to identify them and respond appropriately and in time, and b) law enforcement going to have the legal grounds to intervene prior to a shooting?

My vote is still:

Quote :

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.  Because open carry and Jesus."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/enrique-marquez-warned-muslims-ready-haywire-article-1.2459822

Enrique Marquez, who bought rifles for San Bernardino gunman Syed Farook, had ties to killer's family by marriage: documents

BY NANCY DILLON, LARRY MCSHANE

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Updated: Thursday, December 10, 2015, 2:15 AM

A longtime friend of terrorist gunman Syed Farook faces likely criminal charges for providing the rifles used in the California mass killing, the Daily News has learned.
Enrique Marquez, 24, remained a free man Wednesday as the investigation into the ISIS-inspired slaughter continued — but it appeared he faced imminent arrest, a source told The News.
“Looks like it,” said the source, saying there was no indication that the transfers of the rifles from buyer Marquez to his pal was done with the legally required paperwork.
Marquez, who reportedly checked himself into a mental hospital after the shooting, was also tied to the killer’s family by marriage, documents show.
The family connection comes as Marquez reportedly confessed to investigators that he and Farook planned a 2012 terror attack in the United States — only to abandon the idea after they became spooked.
Marquez bought the .223-caliber DPMS model AR-15 and a Smith & Wesson M&P15 about four years ago — both weapons ending up with Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik.
A trace of the weapons’ ownership goes directly to Marquez, who could face state charges under California’s strict gun laws and a possible federal charge of proving material support to a terrorist.




Forget the weapons charges - he deserves 25 to life just for the picture.

happy jack wrote:

I don’t know if such control necessarily works for guns or bombs...

But yet you're "clearly" in favor bomb control and not gun control.  Why the distinction between the two?  What's it based on?

Why won't any of your arguments against gun control apply to explosives?

happy jack wrote:

...but we do need to have a mechanism in place in order to punish those who would use either of them to harm others.

I'm far more concerned about saving lives by reducing the number of such incidents, not punishment after the fact, which you've already explained to us does very, very little.

happy jack wrote:

What in the fuck are you even talking about?

I was merely asking you to define your terms.  Just wanted to be sure we're both on the same page, referring to laws of bomb possession as they're currently written and not something else.

happy jack wrote:

It doesn’t protect against non-Islamic domestic terrorists. But that’s not what you axed me.

I didn't axe anything.  But I did ask about domestic terrorists such as ISIL, which, as Enrique Marquez demonstrates, doesn't necessarily mean they will be Arabs or Muslims.  But I'll ask it again, a little clearer this time:

Quote :

If the muppets in the GOP are correct, and one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, how do we prevent that from happening at the hands of domestic terrorists?

The answer to me is clear: strict laws on possession and acquisition.  Otherwise, law enforcement's role is only punitive, a job to be done long after we start counting the dead.

happy jack wrote:

What number would that be?

I don't have an answer, but I do think it's worth discussing.  This goes back to my earlier question:

I wrote:

Is it acceptable, in your view, for domestic terrorist cells to legally stockpile enough weapons and ammunition for a small army?

If the answer is no, then quantity is a relevant part of the discussion, just as it is for the otherwise legal ingredients used in bomb making.

happy jack wrote:

How would your plan reduce that number?

That is also explained here.

happy jack wrote:

I'm not a fan of open carry, and I’ve never advocated for it.

Yet you're against making such things illegal, limiting the response of law enforcement to after a trigger pull.  Why?

New question:

Are you in favor of the same limitations on military grade weaponry as you are explosives?

Heretic wrote:

   

happy jack wrote:

I don’t know if such control necessarily works for guns or bombs...

Heretic wrote:

But yet you're "clearly" in favor bomb control and not gun control.  Why the distinction between the two?  What's it based on?

A gun serves a purpose when used as a defensive weapon; it’s hard to make that argument for a bomb.
A bullet from a gun will, under most circumstances, do damage to only one person - its intended target. A bomb may cause widespread, indiscriminate damage.

Heretic wrote:

I was merely asking you to define your terms.  Just wanted to be sure we're both on the same page, referring to laws of bomb possession as they're currently written and not something else.

What “something else”?

happy jack wrote:

It doesn’t protect against non-Islamic domestic terrorists. But that’s not what you axed me.

Heretic wrote:

I didn't axe anything.  But I did ask about domestic terrorists such as ISIL, which doesn't necessarily mean they will be Arabs or Muslims.  

Yeah, what are the odds that members of ISIL will be Arab or Muslim?

     

happy jack wrote:

What number would that be?

Heretic wrote:

I don't have an answer, but I do think it's worth discussing.  This goes back to my earlier question:

Quote :

Is it acceptable, in your view, for domestic terrorist cells to legally stockpile enough weapons and ammunition for a small army?

How many times do I need to answer this one?

Heretic wrote:

If the answer is no, then quantity is a relevant part of the discussion, just as it is for the otherwise legal ingredients used in bomb making.

No, quantity is not relevant, at least not to me (unless, that is, you count zero as a quantity). I would highly prefer that a known terrorist cell have no weapons at all.

happy jack wrote:

How would your plan reduce that number ?    

Heretic wrote:

That is also explained here.

Your link does nothing but take me to Page One of the gun control thread. I have neither the time nor inclination to wade through 40+ pages of posts to figure out what you’re talking about. If you’d like to point me to specific posts, fine.  Otherwise, I’m done with that avenue of debate.

happy jack wrote:

I'm not a fan of open carry, and I’ve never advocated for it.

Heretic wrote:

Yet you're against making such things illegal, limiting the response of law enforcement to after a trigger pull.  Why?

I’d prefer open carry to be prohibited.

Heretic wrote:

Are you in favor of the same limitations on military grade weaponry as you are explosives?

I’d need clear examples of what you consider to be military-grade weaponry, as that could encompass anything from a Ka-Bar knife to a nuclear warhead.

happy jack wrote:

A gun serves a purpose when used as a defensive weapon; it’s hard to make that argument for a bomb.
A bullet from a gun will, under most circumstances, do damage to only one person - its intended target. A bomb may cause widespread, indiscriminate damage.

I agree.  So why don't any of your arguments against gun control apply to explosives?  Why do restrictions on explosives work but won't on firearms?

happy jack wrote:

No, quantity is not relevant, at least not to me (unless, that is, you count zero as a quantity). I would highly prefer that a known terrorist cell have no weapons at all.

I would also prefer known terrorist cells actually be known.  We don't have that luxury.  If the muppets in the GOP are correct, and one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, how do we prevent that from happening at the hands of domestic terrorists?  I see no other solution than effective gun control and I see no reason why it cannot include limits on stockpiling (like we already do for explosives).

happy jack wrote:

Your link does nothing but take me to Page One of the gun control thread. I have neither the time nor inclination to wade through 40+ pages of posts to figure out what you’re talking about.

Not my problem.  Laziness is a poor excuse for ignorance, and I'm definitely not going to do the work for you digging up discussions we've already had.  The answers are there whenever you want to look.

happy jack wrote:

If you’d like to point me to specific posts, fine.  Otherwise, I’m done with that avenue of debate.

You asked me, remember?  If you don't really want to know, then just quit asking.  

happy jack wrote:

I’d prefer open carry to be prohibited.

So it would seem gun laws do serve a purpose, yes?

happy jack wrote:

I’d need clear examples of what you consider to be military-grade weaponry, as that could encompass anything from a Ka-Bar knife to a nuclear warhead.

Any and all weaponry (and configurations thereof) currently restricted to the military.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

I didn't axe anything.  But I did ask about domestic terrorists such as ISIL, which doesn't necessarily mean they will be Arabs or Muslims.  

Yeah, what are the odds that members of ISIL will be Arab or Muslim?

Totally ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorism is committed by NON-Arabs & Muslims.

happy jack wrote:

I don’t believe I’ve claimed that restrictions on explosives do work.

No, you continue to dance around that too, but you did make this claim:

Quote :

No, clearly, there should be strict laws against the possession of bombs.

If you have absolutely no clue whether they will work or not, why be in favor of them?  Why don't any of your arguments against gun control laws apply here?  

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

I would also prefer known terrorist cells actually be known.

And how are we gonna do that?

Not sure.  Like I said:

Quote :

We don't have that luxury.  If the muppets in the GOP are correct, and one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, how do we prevent that from happening at the hands of domestic terrorists?  I see no other solution than effective gun control and I see no reason why it cannot include limits on stockpiling (like we already do for explosives).

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

So it would seem gun laws do serve a purpose, yes?

Yes, but only if they are obeyed.

Well, that's demonstrably false.  As I've already explained, the other thing laws do is give law enforcement the legal authority to respond to a situation.  In this case, either before or after the trigger is pulled.  That's a big distinction.

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I’d need clear examples of what you consider to be military-grade weaponry, as that could encompass anything from a Ka-Bar knife to a nuclear warhead.

Heretic wrote:

Any and all weaponry (and configurations thereof) currently restricted to the military.

What are those, specifically?

Does it really matter?  Can you think of any weapon that you'd not want in the hands of just any civilian?  I bet you can; you're not advocating for zero restrictions like Huckabee is.  Which brings me to my point: How do you keep said weapons out of the hands of civilians without effective legislation on possession and acquisition?

happy jack wrote:

Would you care to give me a rundown on the number of deaths caused by non-Islamic domestic terrorists as opposed to the number of deaths caused by Islamic domestic terrorists?

See here and here, though the numbers are only from 9/11, so the numbers are a little off.

Heretic wrote:

 

happy jack wrote:

Would you care to give me a rundown on the number of deaths caused by non-Islamic domestic terrorists as opposed to the number of deaths caused by Islamic domestic terrorists?

See here and here, though the numbers are only from 9/11, so the numbers are a little off.

Yeah, I’d say your numbers are a ‘little’ off, too.
Just a little.

     









https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

The September 11 attacks killed 2,996 people and injured more than 6,000 others.[1] These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes, 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon.[2][3] The attacks of September 11, 2001, were the deadliest terrorist act in world historyand the most devastating foreign attack on American soil since the sneak attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.[4]