Active Shooting in San Bernardino, California

[boomerang]

I'm pro gun rights, but even I agree that people on the No Fly List probably shouldn't be able to buy a gun without having a damn good reason to own one.

Even if you appeared on the no-fly list? Therein lies the problem. Right now there are 72 DHS employees on the no-fly list. Is that merely a mistake? If it is, in what respect? That they shouldn't be on the list or that they shouldn't be employed by DHS?

A government that can use the IRS to go after you can also use a no-fly list to void your second amendment rights. Then, they can wrap it all up in enough red tape that it will take years to unravel. A bloated government that puts DHS employees on a no-fly list cannot be trusted to maintain that same list.

Superficially, I agree with you. Practically, not so much.

 

[shady28]

The due process of congress passing a law... as he clearly advocates?

Congress cannot pass laws nor make policies that violate the constitution. To modify rights protected in the constitution requires an amendment. An Amedment requires 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states.

That is why it is called the "supreme law of the land" and explicitly states that Judges are required to adhere to the constitution regardless of any other law passed by the Government (Article VI).

Many "laws" get declared unconstitutional.

 

[Genx87]

The due process of congress passing a law... as he clearly advocates?

This is a really weak and short sighted response.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yes, but the vast majority of people don't have that luxury. What you describe is the .gov doing the work (at their expense) to sort out the situation. As has already been stated, your average person doesn't have that going for them.

FWIW this isn't really a problem until you try to fly commercially, then you provide the affidavit. Renewing the clearance isn't a big deal, they know you aren't the other person because they've got years of personal references and housing records. Your friends however, will mention it any time a flight comes up in conversation.

 

[SP33Demon]

Shooter’s Father: Farook Told Me He Supported ISIS, Al Baghdadi
Shooter’s Mother Active In US Branch Of Pro-Caliphate Islamic Group


Just regular "Americans" caught up in workplace violence...

Deport these dumb fucks who radicalized their son. They shouldn't have the same freedoms as us.

 

[jackstar7]

They shouldn't have the same freedoms as us.

Who is the "us" in that sentence?

 

[bshole]

Deport these dumb fucks who radicalized their son. They shouldn't have the same freedoms as us.

Can we deport all religious fundamentalists or are we constrained to Muslim fundamentalists alone?

 

[SP33Demon]

Can we deport all religious fundamentalists or are we constrained to Muslim fundamentalists alone?

Only ones who instilled radical fucktardary into their kids (who killed in the name of said radical fucktardary) in this country. If it's pretty obvious the parents are radicalized, why are they allowed to stay here and have the same freedoms as all Americans?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Only ones who instilled radical fucktardary into their kids (who killed in the name of said radical fucktardary) in this country. If it's pretty obvious the parents are radicalized, why are they allowed to stay here and have the same freedoms as all Americans?

 

[brycejones]

Deport these dumb fucks who radicalized their son. They shouldn't have the same freedoms as us.

So key missing piece of information....

Are those "dumb fucks" also US citizens or not? If they are citizens do you propose revoking citizenship and deporting those who have views you disagree with?

We have laws in this country concerning material support of terrorist organizations and if they violated these laws they should be prosecuted appropriately. Prosecuting people for having unpopular opinions though is just wrong and rightfully unconstitutional.

 

[brycejones]

Only ones who instilled radical fucktardary into their kids (who killed in the name of said radical fucktardary) in this country. If it's pretty obvious the parents are radicalized, why are they allowed to stay here and have the same freedoms as all Americans?

So you want to punish people who may have unpopular opinions/beliefs for the actions of others in the absence of a criminal conspiracy because they are related to someone who committed a crime.

Interesting

 

[purbeast0]

what is the reason that all pictures of the husband/wife always don't show a picture of the woman? there are pics of the husband but not the wife. is there any reason to this?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I feel a whole lot better after Obama's incredibly lame speech last night...that Republicans will most likely win in 2016.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

what is the reason that all pictures of the husband/wife always don't show a picture of the woman? there are pics of the husband but not the wife. is there any reason to this?

The news has outpaced your perceptions.

They didn't have her picture at the time of the shooting or its immediate aftermath. They eventually got the mug-shot from her visa application, and now they've dug up photos from her life in Pakistan as a college student.

If there's any lack of family photos that would show her face, it may have been deliberate on her part. Apparently, she was already a jihadist in college. And the family says that they never or seldom saw her face, since she wore a burka.

 

[jackstar7]

I feel a whole lot better after Obama's incredibly lame speech last night...that Republicans will most likely win in 2016.

Can you elaborate on what didn't work for you about the speech? Cite some examples and offer alternative solutions?

Thanks.

 

[werepossum]

It was a work party/function. I don't know of many companies or organizations, much less one that is a public sector employer that allows employees to bring firearms to their workplace or job functions outside the workplace. You could have every person in that room be a CCW permit holder and they legally are not allowed to have their weapon with them either on the grounds or due to the party being a function of their job.

I hate the stereotypical gun free zones, but in this case, you have multiple levels of "NO guns allowed" and there is just no way around it.

So people should stop the gun free zone argument in this case. I'm pretty sure those arguing for it aren't allowed to carry in their place of work unless they own their own private business. Shit... I'm not even allowed one in my vehicle if on company property.

But multiple levels don't negate the point, they reinforce it. Gun-free zones and gun-free work places leave one vulnerable to terrorism. I'm not sure this is a problem overall - simple arguments are more likely to escalate to lethality if easy lethal means are at hand - but the corollary to terrorism is undeniable. The safest and most effective place (for the terrorist) to commit terrorism is a gun free zone.

Shooter’s Father: Farook Told Me He Supported ISIS, Al Baghdadi
Shooter’s Mother Active In US Branch Of Pro-Caliphate Islamic Group


Just regular "Americans" caught up in workplace violence...

lol Yep.

Sadly, there is also a "large amount of bullshit" in your spin of those surveys. They show Muslims overwhelmingly reject terrorism, no matter how you choose to cherry-pick and misrepresent results.

Your first link does NOT show a quarter of British Muslims sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo attacks. It shows about a quarter (27%) have "some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks." Note it's not the attacks themselves but the motive behind the attacks: a belief that their religion was being demeaned by Charlie Hebdo. In spite of this, only 11% believe organizations like Charlie Hebdo deserve to be attacked.

While 11% is still too large, it is comparable to American extremists who sympathize with anti-abortion violence (examples here, here, and here). Both examples show that some religious fanatics are screwed up, though fortunately they are minorities.

Another interesting statistic you ignore from your first link is a full 93% of British Muslims agree that British laws should always be obeyed. Yes, there is also support for using Sharia law, but it's in addition to British law, not instead of it. I didn't bother to look for a corresponding American poll. I'd be shocked if 93% of Americans would agree American laws should always be obeyed.

Your second link is, I think, the most significant. It shows how Muslims across the globe resoundingly reject ISIS. For you to pervert this into "tens of millions of Muslims have a favorable view on ISIS" is intentionally deceptive. The fact is only a tiny minority of Muslims support ISIS, obviously an inconvenient truth that "contradicts what [ you ] want to be true." The vast majority of Muslims do NOT support ISIS. Sorry.

Your third link, just like your first, conflates support for motives with support for actions. After you cherry-picked the 20% with sympathy for their motives, the very next sentence reports that "99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity." You perverted this 180 degrees, to pretend the survey shows the opposite of what it actually shows. It's yet another inconvenient truth that "contradicts what [ you ] want to be true."



I'll keep saying it's a tiny minority because that's the truth. You are wrong, as your own links show.

I agree violence by radical Muslims is a dangerous problem that we need to counter. Having a bunch of bigoted ignoranuses turn this into a war against all of Islam is only going to exacerbate the problem, and is likely to give ISIS the Armageddon it wants. We need informed and reasoned responses, something we'll never get from The Donald or most of the other chicken-hawk war-mongers shooting their mouths off.

11% of Muslims believing that people should be murdered because they disrespect Islam is hardly a "tiny minority". And that doesn't even include people like Farook's father who supposedly do not support violence but also believe that Israel somehow will cease to exist within two years.

 

[werepossum]

The news has outpaced your perceptions.

They didn't have her picture at the time of the shooting or its immediate aftermath. They eventually got the mug-shot from her visa application, and now they've dug up photos from her life in Pakistan as a college student.

If there's any lack of family photos that would show her face, it may have been deliberate on her part. Apparently, she was already a jihadist in college. And the family says that they never or seldom saw her face, since she wore a burka.

This is our new daughter-in-law. Or maybe son-in-law, who can tell? We're calling her Cousin It.

 

[purbeast0]

The news has outpaced your perceptions.

They didn't have her picture at the time of the shooting or its immediate aftermath. They eventually got the mug-shot from her visa application, and now they've dug up photos from her life in Pakistan as a college student.

If there's any lack of family photos that would show her face, it may have been deliberate on her part. Apparently, she was already a jihadist in college. And the family says that they never or seldom saw her face, since she wore a burka.

oh okay, just clicking on the recent link in this thread, they show a picture of the guy but just a silhouette of the woman.

 

[bshole]

11% of Muslims believing that people should be murdered because they disrespect Islam is hardly a "tiny minority". And that doesn't even include people like Farook's father who supposedly do not support violence but also believe that Israel somehow will cease to exist within two years.

Agreed. That is an awful awful stat.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

This is our new daughter-in-law. Or maybe son-in-law, who can tell? We're calling her Cousin It.

No less -- it definitely seems weird. The family noted that they hardly ever crossed paths with her, excepting her mother-in-law. And there have to be reasons that she hasn't made a news appearance -- which I suspect are legal.

 

[woolfe9998]

Even if you appeared on the no-fly list? Therein lies the problem. Right now there are 72 DHS employees on the no-fly list. Is that merely a mistake? If it is, in what respect? That they shouldn't be on the list or that they shouldn't be employed by DHS?

A government that can use the IRS to go after you can also use a no-fly list to void your second amendment rights. Then, they can wrap it all up in enough red tape that it will take years to unravel. A bloated government that puts DHS employees on a no-fly list cannot be trusted to maintain that same list.

Superficially, I agree with you. Practically, not so much.

I don't disagree, but I have a problem with the fact that republicans in Congress are opposing this when they have repeatedly voted to renew the Patriot Act. I guess Second Amendment rights are important but not so much Fourth Amendment rights. In other words, it's OK to give up civil rights for safety unless it involves guns.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376

 

[MomentsofSanity]

11% of Muslims believing that people should be murdered because they disrespect Islam is hardly a "tiny minority". And that doesn't even include people like Farook's father who supposedly do not support violence but also believe that Israel somehow will cease to exist within two years.

You need to read the actual artical with his fathers interview. Not what was posted here. In it he says he was essentially trying to placate his son to bring him down while the rest of the quote which was conveniently left out was about the answer not being violence. That the Israel topic is settled and they "won".

 

[Orignal Earl]

Only ones who instilled radical fucktardary into their kids (who killed in the name of said radical fucktardary) in this country. If it's pretty obvious the parents are radicalized, why are they allowed to stay here and have the same freedoms as all Americans?

His brother is a US Navy vet, hasn't that made the news circles down there yet?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't disagree, but I have a problem with the fact that republicans in Congress are opposing this when they have repeatedly voted to renew the Patriot Act. I guess Second Amendment rights are important but not so much Fourth Amendment rights. In other words, it's OK to give up civil rights for safety unless it involves guns.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376

I saw enough of the hysteria following 911 through March 2003.

The angry mob is upset because Obama's Sunday-night chat didn't seem more like a 1930s Nuremberg rally. Obseration #1.

Observation #2. There are wise policy prescriptions, and there are unwise policy prescriptions. Of two opposite opinions in a dialog over some issue, only one of them can be right, or both of them may be wrong. Opinions are equal in the dialog, but you cannot say that both of them are equally correct.

Observation #3. The political history of the last seven years seems to show a congress acting in unison to oppose the President on each and every thing. If something needs to be done and they won't do it, then the Executive Order is wrong, and Obama is trying to drain our precious bodily fluids. Somewhere, in between the cracks, there's the uncomfortable feeling -- never spoken out loud -- that either "The N----- can't be trusted to make good decisions" or "I don' wan' history to show that the N----- made a good decision."

Observation #4. I've long had the sense of it that the exploding opportunity for communication has brought both useful dialog and opinion, but it has polluted the discussion with confusion and nonsense. This has also made the entire period between elections just an extended campaign.

Observation #5. Such campaigns are merely the struggle for power, and a struggle at any cost. So the desperate strategy in such an atmosphere would include much posturing: If the Pres says one thing, we have to advocate the opposite. Not because we're right; we simply hope that our palaver will attract enough lemmings so that we can ascend to power in the elections.

Last night, the Pres's presentation was identical to the one I would make. Not because I'm a blind follower: because it would've been my choice.

What did he say that would prompt me to mild disagreement? He called it a struggle between ISIS and "the West." In fact, I might have said "all of civilization." But that just raises the spectre of an apocalyptic conflict. So perhaps "the West" was the wiser choice of wording.

And he's absolutely right. We won't win by putting massive troop deployments into Syria. Even if that by itself would not be a disaster, people forget that this ISIL thing has affiliates in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Nigeria . . . Libya. Every little underdeveloped shithole among the nations. The tentacles stretch everywhere.

Calm and deliberation should be the path of choice. But it isn't during the election season, and it's not likely to be among the Chicken-Little crowd among us. Always flexing their muscles, always saying we "Have to go kick ass!" But vewwy, vewwy fwightened. Gwanted, it's more than that silly Wabbit . . . but -- yes -- fwightened.

 

[Indus]

I feel a whole lot better after Obama's incredibly lame speech last night...that Republicans will most likely win in 2016.

I remember this kind of rhetoric after 911. I remember it well because Bush said "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and Freedom will prevail."

But as we learned, we all know that administration lied. Who harbors and trains terrorists? Pakistan.. but Republicans were too pussy to go to war with a nuclear power. Instead we went to war in Iraq for oil.

Have we not learned the lesson of our failures in Iraq? You do not put the American military machine into action overseas, because you seem to want to show everyone you're not a pussy but an alpha male.

I remember the deaths and amputations we caused to our own troops because we went to war on a talk strong but total idiot's whim. I remember the money cost because conservatives are always screaming about the federal debt.

Even though the rhetoric has an ear within emotion ridden people, no, I do not want a president to be attack first first, find out facts later as Bush was as all current Republicans are promoting.

BTW the apparent failure is here:

Stop giving them visas without properly checking and stop the visa waiver program.

And if you think about it.. quite a healthy chunk of islamic terrorists on our soil got here through a visa.. from 9/11 hijackers using student visas, boston bombers using refugee visas, underwear/ shoe bomber/ time square bomber using tourist visas and now her using a fiance visa. State department needs to be more selective.