July 11, 2015

"FBI: Breakdown in background check system allowed Dylann Roof to buy gun."

WaPo reports:
Roof had been arrested for possession of narcotics in February, a felony charge that alone did not disqualify him from buying a gun. But [FBI Director James B.] Comey said Roof’s subsequent admission of the drug crime would have triggered an automatic rejection of his gun purchase if the information had been properly recorded in criminal-record and background-check databases.

Instead, Comey said, the data was not properly entered in databases of criminal records that are submitted by state, local and federal law enforcement agencies, and in records kept by the bureau.
So, now I see what information and data did. Information failed to get properly recorded. Data didn't get properly entered. Were any human beings involved?

Seriously, who screwed up? I can't tell from those sentences.

I haven't read any commentary on this story, but I assume this is an occasion to criticize Obama (and others) for calling for more gun control and to repeat the standard line that what we need is to enforce the law we already have.

136 comments:

Big Mike said...

I haven't read any commentary on this story, but I assume this is an occasion to criticize Obama (and others) for calling for more gun control and to repeat the standard line that what we need is to enforce the law we already have.

Somehow the tone of this sentence suggests you think there's something wrong with the "standard line." Why would you think that? Is it beyond comprehension that the "standard line" is, in fact, correct?

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

The gun, the gun, the gun.

Not the guy, the guy, the guy.

rhhardin said...

It doesn't matter because the felony doesn't really mean anything about the gun. It's just a convention playing the odds.

The problem is craziness not drugs.

traditionalguy said...

Sounds like another case for a huge year end performance bonus, and an early retirement at double the last pay rate calculated from the big promotion awarded by friends the month before.

A Federal Bureacracy has way too much stuff to do for itself to bother with the peasants actual needs that they. PRETEND to serve.

Bob Boyd said...

What happened to the story that his father gave him the gun for his birthday?

Hagar said...

The woman processing the request put it aside to wait for confirmation about resolution of the case, and when that did not come within the specified time limit for denial, the request went through. So, not that much of an error.

Nor would it much matter, since all Roof would have to do is let it be known on the streets of Charleston that he wished to buy a gun, and one or more would have been offered to him in short order.

Democrats tend to swoon at the thought of Federal this, that, or the other, and "FBI background check" is something magical that will see right through people's lies as well as prevent them just going around the laws and ordinances.

Hagar said...

His father gave him some money, and the kid used it for buying the gun.
Poor reporting.

Laslo Spatula said...

Would the Atticus Finch of "To Kill a Mockingbird" defend Dylann Roof?

How about the Atticus Finch of "Go Set a Watchman"?

Just keeping thematic.


I am Laslo.

furious_a said...

The ass-covering bureaucrats are using the Passive Voice. They also want to avoid accountability. Accountability is avoided by use of the Passive Voice.

The Drill SGT said...

There are a couple of problems with the Director's statements.

1. What I have read is that Roof was arrested for a misdemeanor, not a felony. Regardless it was in close proximity to the purchase in early April and I don;t know what the timeline is for local filing and whether there is a legal requirement for the locals to do so.

2. Checking his criminal record, she saw a record of the narcotics arrest, which erroneously listed the arresting agency as the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department. She faxed a request for information to the sheriff’s office and to the county prosecutor. But officials at the sheriff’s office told her they were not handling the case and referred her to the Columbia Police Department.

So he was arrested by the Columbia PD and placed in their Lexington County Jail, but the FBI analyst didn't call the Columbia PD as she was told by the Sheriff, she called the West Columbia PD. A different jurisdiction belonging to a different county.

FBI screwed up.

No need for new laws, just make the government do its job.

Rusty said...

And the solution for all the government fuck ups?
More government!

There are 300 Million firearms in the hands of over 90 Million Americans. What surprises me isn't how much violence is perpetrated with firearms, but how little.
Considering the diversity of the American population this goes to show that an enormous number of your fellow citizens are remarkably law abiding.

Rob said...

Lots to unpack here.

1. You might think that "this is an occasion to criticize Obama (and others) for calling for more gun control and to repeat the standard line that what we need is to enforce the law we already have," but the gun control folks are instead characterizing the provision in the law permitting issuance of gun permits if the FBI hasn't completed a background check in three days as "a loophole."

2. Given that government foot-dragging is so common, the notion that the FBI should be permitted to delay exercise of people's Second Amendment rights indefinitely is bizarre but of course completely predictable.

3. Many of the same people who are outraged that drug possession is a crime now revel in the ability to deny gun licenses to those accused of it. How will they stop tomorrow's Dylann Roofs if they don't prosecute drug possession?

Original Mike said...

"I haven't read any commentary on this story, but I assume this is an occasion to criticize Obama (and others) for calling for more gun control and to repeat the standard line that what we need is to enforce the law we already have."

I think it is an occasion to say something much more important than that. Government, in all its facets, has shown itself to be incompetent at best and malevolent at worse. This, the OPM, ObamaCare, the VA, the IRS, crony capitalism; the list is very, very long. Government needs to be downsized to a set of core functions that it is uniquely positioned to handle and then watched like a hawk.

I am a pragmatic libertarian. If history showed that Big Government was workable I might be inclined to accept it. But it is not. It's not that "we need to enforce the law we already have." We need less law.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Maybe if Fox News hadn't initially reported on this shooting in its hysterical fashion, people wouldn't have jumped to incorrect conclusions!

Hagar said...

The way the "FBI background check" works is that when you buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer, most often a "gun store," you must show your diver's license, and the dealer must call the FBI 1-800 number and read off the information on your license. The FBI employee types that into her computer, and sees if any felony convictions, official designation as mentally unstable or deficient, or whatever, comes up, and if not she says OK, and the sale proceeds.

In this case, she saw the arrest for drug possession, but no conviction, and no record of a conviction appeared within the 3 day waiting period. It does not look like the clerk erred at all, and Comey's "mea culpa" is phoney baloney.

Also note that other things, like the e-verify requirement for employment, have made it profitable to produce and market excellent false driver's licenses on an industrial scale.

The Godfather said...

They'll find out that the clerk who fouled up the background check has a Confederate flag decal on his car.

Hagar said...

I also see that many "news" reports still refer to the gun as 45 caliber pistol. It was .40 cal. Glock, and I think the .40 caliber being only a few decades old, these reporters just assume it is a misprint for .45.

Pettifogger said...

The working assumption should be that the misdeed (in this case, the failure to record data) is the fault of the person or organization using passive voice. Passive voice is a technique I have sometimes used when acknowledging things unfavorable to my client. Depending on context, it can be useful in that way. Knowing that makes me cynical about the use of passive voice in situations such as this.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

What happened to the story that his father gave him the gun for his birthday?

By my understanding of the federal regulations, that would constitute an illegal transfer.

The truth was deliberately distorted by the media. Roof was given a gift of cash, which he used to purchase the pistol.

Given this Administration's sordid history, the infamous and deadly "Fast and Furious" scandal in particular, Obama has neither the moral authority or the simple competence regarding anything pertaining to gun rights.

buwaya puti said...

Bureaucratic evasion language.
Someone was at fault but must not be identified.
It's not even a matter of protecting the negligent, but of avoiding conflict. Open conflict or disagreement within a bureaucracy is a more serious fault than a blunder.

virgil xenophon said...

Just stumbled by and read that Big Mike, above, has already beaten me to the punch! EXACTLY the right take, Big Mike..

Michael K said...

" just make the government do its job."

Are you kidding ? What is its job ? To survive long enough to collect a pension that is about 75% of the highest salary,

This is like asking politicians to "do their job." Their job is to get elected.

Besides, the FBI software was probably written these people

madAsHell said...

She faxed a request for information to the sheriff’s office and to the county prosecutor.

Faxed?? I guess Hillary Clinton took down her email server!!

There is so much about this story that seems to be obfuscation.

tim in vermont said...

The woman processing the request put it aside to wait for confirmation about resolution of the case, and when that did not come within the specified time limit for denial, the request went through. So, not that much of an error.

Why didn't it come back within the time limit? Nobody's fault, just something didn't get done. That's how root cause analysis works, you keep asking questions until you get bored of it.

Hagar said...

And, speaking of "enforcing the laws we already have," Bill O'Reilly is off on a tear again for something he calls "Kate's Law," calling for Federal mandatory sentences of at leat 5 years for any illegal alien with a felony conviction, who returns to this country illegally.
It does not seem to occur to him that this will be just one more "law" for the "sanctuary cities" and the Federal Government to ignore.

Is he aware that President Obama (for whom AA once voted) has threatened ICE and the Border Patrol agents with individual "consequences" if they persist in enforcing the immigration lawas and rules as written rather than as decreed by him?

I would think this must surely have an effect far beyond those agencies, so that all Federal agents in whatever field take a more cautious approach to their work - like the cops in Baltimore apparently are doing for similar reasons.

Big Mike said...

@virgil, thank you kindly, sir.

Hagar said...

And for the record, I am totally opposed to any law whatever named after people - especially young girls - or dogs.

Bruce Hayden said...

I also see that many "news" reports still refer to the gun as 45 caliber pistol. It was .40 cal. Glock, and I think the .40 caliber being only a few decades old, these reporters just assume it is a misprint for .45.

Are you sure about that? Glock does have almost as many .45 ACP variants (G21, G30, G36, G41) as .40 S&W (G22, G23, G27, G35, G24). And three more .45 GAP (G37, G38, G39). Interestingly, here in CO, the .40 and .45 ACP Glocks are much easier to find than the standard 9 mm, due to magazine sizes - CO bans everything above 15, and 9 mm G17, G19, etc. come with 17 round magazines standard, while the .40 G22, G23, etc. have just 15.

jr565 said...

Dems will use this as a push for more gun control, but really, we already have gun control. And the peope failed to do job.

Bob Boyd said...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/nyregion/plan-to-require-background-checks-for-ammunition-sales-is-suspended-in-new-york.html?referrer=

Hagar said...

I am sure that I have seen it reported as .40 cal. Glock, but after that just assume that a specific detail is more likely correct than "45 cal. gun."

Hagar said...

Roof apparently up and admitted to drug possession at his arraignment, and that is the fact that got lost in transmission. A kid with more sense would have kept his mouth shut, and it would have been 6 - 9 months, if ever, before his case came up for trial.

Bruce Hayden said...

I saw it reported as a .45 Glock, and didn't think much of it, having looked at both .40 and .45 a couple days ago. When I asked for a 9mm G17 is when we got into the magazine size discussion. Not sure now what is correct, though not sure if it is really that relevant to this discussion.

Terry said...

Roof's narcotic arrest was pretty much random. It wasn't like he was a drug kingpin. If he hadn't gone to the mall the day he was arrested, his record would have been pristine, and he still would have shot all those people.

Terry said...

jr565 wrote:
"we already have gun control"
There is entire genre of liberal commentary that revolves around the lie that we no control at all in the US, and anyone can go and buy a gun anytime, anywhere. This would come as a surprise to people who have actually bought a gun.

Hagar said...

"E.P.A free" states, anyone?

hoyden said...

"Seriously, who screwed up? I can't tell from those sentences."

You aren't suppose to be able to place the blame if the Liberal media have their way because placing blame would disparage the Obama government and Obama's latest call for more gun laws.

MSM Reporting: Mission Accomplished.

Hagar said...

Not very relevant at all, except as reminder that any reporting on "push button" issues need to be scrutinized sentence by sentence, comma by comma.

Lonetown said...

That data that didn't enter itself is probably the same data that is always lying about statistics.

The Cracker Emcee said...

It was a Glock 21, the full size .45 ACP.

Hagar said...

On the Dannemora escapees (remember that?) they reported that Matt fired a gun at someone's trailer and showed picture with a bullet hole all right, but then reported that a 20 ga. (another report said .410, I think) shotgun was found with his corpse.
I have wanted to hear more about this too.

Bruce Hayden said...

My understanding was that any recent admitted or convicted illegal drug use is disqualifying. It doesn't have tone a felony,though probably a large percentage of the disabling felonies are drug related. Which means that a drug felony is doubly disabling. Which makes things interesting in states like CO, pot is now mostly legal - do you look at state or federal law here? I think that the current consensus is either look at federal law, since we are talking the feds doing the checking in the 30 or so states that includes this one. (CO here has an instant check, which is pretty slick).

As I understood the problem, the drug admission popped up, but couldn't be verified due to problems with the FBI database that was unable to show the correct jurisdiction. So the examiner queried the wrong jurisdiction and didn't get a good response. At the end of the three days,they had to approve, despite having a good reason to believe the purchaser was disqualified

Bobber Fleck said...

Mistakes were made.

There was insufficient funding for the agency due to Republican obstructionism.

If there were no guns this tracking would not be needed.

Bruce Hayden said...

My memory is that the three day limit was a compromise - the feds couldn't deprive law abiding Americans from purchasing firearms through incompetence or just bureaucratic dawdling. So, the burden was put on them to prove disability which, for a enumerated fundamental right,is where I think it should be. My worry here is that the left is going to use this FBI screwup to try to put the burden on applicants - which would guarantee that more and more people who are legally entitled to buy firearms are prevented. It is the 3 day limit that makes the various law enforcement entities all up and down the line responsive - if they don't do their job promptly, they may face a criminal with the purchased gun. The problem, in mind being the inability on the left to appreciate the inevitability of bureaucratic ineptitude.

David said...

Accountability phobia is alive and well and still pissing me off.

Rhythm and Balls said...

But the NRA and reactionary neoconservative gun nuts of this blog think that's a good thing, right? Dylan Roof had just as much of a constitutional right to act against tyranny as Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Bruce Hayden said...

Mistakes were made.

There was insufficient funding for the agency due to Republican obstructionism.

If there were no guns this tracking would not be needed.


Someone called this the bureaucratic passive voice - no one taking responsibility. As for the second point, the major problem seems to have been a database design problem that made it hard or impossible to specify the proper jurisdiction to query. As we discovered withe the Healthcare.gov rollout, throwing millions, if not billions, at the problem is unlikely to solve the problem, esp if it is the government spending the money. And, yes, if we didn't have that pesky 2nd Amdt, we might not have this problem. But then, only the police and the politically connected would be able to protect themselves.

Ann Althouse said...

"Somehow the tone of this sentence suggests you think there's something wrong with the "standard line." Why would you think that? Is it beyond comprehension that the "standard line" is, in fact, correct?"

No, I agree with it, I just thought that it's such an obvious observation and I'm coming in a day late, so I was warding off imagined insults in the thanks-for-telling-me-what-I-already-know vein.

I think it's an extremely important point. Political actors like to do gestures, and that's what getting legislation passed is. You've got to enforce it. I'd rather have no law at all than an unenforced law. And I don't like the incentive to go ahead and pass more laws, if the assumption is the gesture is the thing and enforcement is not going to happen.

Bruce Hayden said...

But the NRA and reactionary neoconservative gun nuts of this blog think that's a good thing, right? Dylan Roof had just as much of a constitutional right to act against tyranny as Nathan Bedford Forrest.

In short - neither had such a right, though for Gen. Forrest, it wasn't all that clear when he joined the rebellion, since maybe 80 years earlier, the US had been formed by 13 colonies/states voluntarily joining together. Why shouldn't they have been able to voluntarily unjoin? Lincoln, plus the might of the Union Army, are why - but that can be seen as a might makes right solution.

I like the sound of "reactionary neoconservative gun nuts", but would first suggest that you invalidate pretty much any point you might have been trying to make with this sort of ad hominum attack. Second, this would seem to be a misuse of "neoconservative", which has classically meant mostly Jewish former liberals (plus Dick Cheney) who favor an aggressive interventionist foreign policy. Not sure why you think that would be relevant to this discussion (though we do know that Cheney has been known to shoot firearms).

MayBee said...

They will do better when you have to start registering your Confederate flags.

Rhythm and Balls said...

...but would first suggest that you invalidate pretty much any point you might have been trying to make with this sort of ad hominum attack.

Ha haha! As if right-wingers ever listen to reason anyway! You are funny, Bruce!

Rhythm and Balls said...

In short - neither had such a right, though for Gen. Forrest, it wasn't all that clear when he joined the rebellion,

Duh. Because he was the modern-day equivalent of a multi-millionaire courtesy of all the slaves he owned.

There is a cure for your allergy to history. It's called "reading".

since maybe 80 years earlier, the US had been formed by 13 colonies/states voluntarily joining together. Why shouldn't they have been able to voluntarily unjoin?

Because the Constitution made no such provision. It was and is a contract to which all parties are bound.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Shit like the above is why Confederate revivalism is allowed to tear the nation's unity apart, even to this day. There are a lot of ignorant Americans, not all of them from the South, most of them Republicans, to thank for that.

Let no one ever tell you that party's don't change over time.

Rhythm and Balls said...

A new description for today's Republicans needs to be made: "Anti-Union Republicans".

"Secessionist Republicans" works also.

khesanh0802 said...

It was interesting to read the on-line headlines of the FBI screw-up yesterday. Both the WSJ and the WAPO headlined it as an FBI screw up that lead to the sale after 3 days. Just glancing at the NYT headline one would have had a hard time knowing the FBI was even involved.

sinz52 said...

What we really need is for government officials to stop using the passive voice in their pronouncements. ("Mistakes were made" instead of "I made some mistakes.")

sinz52 said...

Rhythm and Balls said: "Because the Constitution made no such provision. It was and is a contract to which all parties are bound. "

In 1860, that wasn't clear at all.

President James Buchanan believed that as a last resort, a state did have the right to secede--but he had no illusions about the disaster that might result.

The Supreme Court didn't declare secession unconstitutional until 1869 (in the case Texas v. White).

Rhythm and Balls said...

Rhythm and Balls said: "Because the Constitution made no such provision. It was and is a contract to which all parties are bound. "

In 1860, that wasn't clear at all.


Well good. Let's hope you got the message since.

Even the SCOTUS, in its preternatural wisdom, seems to have gotten the message 146 years ago. A lot of commenters on this blog and elsewhere are behind on the times.

khesanh0802 said...

It's a little difficult to fully comprehend R&B's short hand comments. I went looking for something that would help him to understand why Nathan Bedford Forrest might feel that secession was justifiable. There were no really succinct pieces that dealt with the State's Rights arguments before 1860, but I was able to find this as a start. On cursory inspection, I think Bruce has a much better grasp of the subject than "R&B". He just doesn't yell as loud.

Anonymous said...

exhelodrvr1 said...
Maybe if Fox News hadn't initially reported on this shooting in its hysterical fashion, people wouldn't have jumped to incorrect conclusions!

***********

Huh? Fox News was slammed for being slow to report shooting, instead broadcasting an interview with Trump.

What exactly was "hysterical" about their coverage?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I know the history khesanh, I just disagree that it would have been justifiable then, let alone now. Yes, some people had their reasons. Enough so that they sacrificed a half million dead to it. Doesn't mean I have to think it was right looking back on it. Would I have understood that, then? I don't see why not. Abolitionist and pro-union sentiment actually existed in 1860, as well. Did you know that? Even in the South. Sentiment was not uniform everywhere. But feelings are not facts. The piece of history you omit is Lincoln's legal argument for unionism as constitutionally required. At least sinz52 reaches back for the first SCOTUS ruling on that, but Lincoln was just ahead of his time. If you want his quotes or reasoning on why the Constitution was as good as a contract, revocation of which was wrong without a clause (amendment) written into it outlining such a process, maybe I can find it. But it seems just as good and self-evident to me. Perhaps I presume too much though.

Bob Boyd said...

"Nothing can be more contemptible than to suppose public records to be true." - William Blake

Rhythm and Balls said...

Don't forget that while secessionists were arguing for their right to secede, those who opposed them were obviously articulating their own position. Lincoln was a lawyer. The constitution is a contract, of sorts. It could not be broken without a provision for doing so. I think that is argument enough. Here are (some of) his own words on it.

Drago said...

Rhythm and Balls: "Shit like the above is why Confederate revivalism is allowed to tear the nation's unity apart, even to this day."

LOL

One of Dylann Roof's chief complaints was that he could not find a group of like-minded individuals to join up with so he was going to have start the next civil war himself.

Dylann Roof couldn't find a group of like-minded individuals to join up with.

In South Carolina.

So much for "confederate revivalism".

I guess this is the predictable fall-back position of the lefties when their initial narratives go off the rails.

Reality: The feds screwed up.

Lefty reality: "confederate revivalism"!!!

Of course.

Michael K said...

"This would come as a surprise to people who have actually bought a gun."

I just sent an hour filling out paperwork to buy a gun. Actually, I bought it and had it shipped to a local outfit with a FFL and then had to fill out pages of stuff. The federal stuff was on line so no forms to be lost.

California has another five pages plus a test I had to take. It took an hour. Now I have to wait ten days to pick it up.

Drago said...

Oh, and Fox News too.

Of course.

Michael K said...

"I guess this is the predictable fall-back position of the lefties when their initial narratives go off the rails."

Of course. I am convinced that Roof is a paranoid schizophrenic and most of these mass shooters are.

There is no "Confederate revivalism" except in the imaginations of the left.

Unknown said...

Too bad it didn't occur to anybody to just have the government buy all the slaves from the slave owners and then send them home or resell them or do whatever. By the way on becoming your hero Lincoln, I say you are because you're clean to him like something when clings to very hard... Anyway, you were Lincoln was no particular lover of the Negro and he would have been perfectly happy to send them back to Africa or two main slaves maintain slavery if the union would have there by pressure.. Just so you know, because to be smarter than everybody else like you are, you need information.

Rhythm and Balls said...

One of Dylann Roof's chief complaints was that he could not find a group of like-minded individuals to join up with so he was going to have start the next civil war himself.

Dylann Roof couldn't find a group of like-minded individuals to join up with.


Oh, but he sure could find a great and powerful symbol for it. One that flew proudly from the glorious grounds of his sacred, sovereign state's capitol! One that received much veneration and respect. Not for what it originally stood for, mind you. Just for the "heritage" of it.

A heritage that Jefferson Davis' descendant Jenny Horne found hateful. It was after all erected as a protest against integration.

But those facts get in the way of you just being a general moron. Intellectual recklessness is your defining trait.

khesanh0802 said...

R&B.. You "know the history", but in your mind state's rights arguments for secession were not "justifiable". They were not in Lincoln's mind either. Unfortunately a Civil War was fought to see which argument was, in fact, justifiable. It turned out that the state's right Democrats were wrong. I only used 1860 as a date because that was when the argument in words turned to an argument under arms.

Rhythm and Balls said...

There is no "Confederate revivalism" except in the imaginations of the left.

Why was the flag originally erected in South Carolina 50 years ago? I bet you don't even know.

The problem that people like you have, is you believe that your ignorance of the things evil people stand for makes those evil things good, or the people who would fight for them as ignorant as you are.

That is called wishful thinking, and it sure takes a lot of imagination.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Yeah, they did fight and lose that battle - perhaps even testing the strength of their economic argument for slavery and cotton. I watched more of Ken Burns last night. Great film. The fighting force of the north was four times as much as the south, once their slaves are subtracted - whom they didn't dare arm. The industrial output of the north dwarfed the south. They didn't stand a chance, practically speaking and it was just the ambition and incompetence of the first few generals that prevented the north from making more progress sooner.

But Lincoln was no ordinary president. He was our best president - as much as self-styled "Republicans" like Michael K. and Drago can't stand what he stood for. So I don't think his arguments were just any arguments. He was a man who had the sort of intellectual skill and moral conviction that guys like Michael K. and Drago wish they could even identify in others, let alone find within themselves. His words were reaffirmed by the SCOTUS nine years leader. He was a paragon of leadership, either way ahead of his time, or coming onto the scene at just the right time - whichever the case may be.

What I heard in that documentary was a really great quote by Sam Houston, of all people:

“Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

khesanh0802 said...

Can someone please translate this sentence into English?

"The problem that people like you have, is you believe that your ignorance of the things evil people stand for makes those evil things good, or the people who would fight for them as ignorant as you are."

Rhythm and Balls said...

"The problem that people like you have," (SUBJECT)

"is" (VERB)

"you believe that your ignorance of the things evil people stand for makes those evil things good," (PREDICATE CLAUSE)

"or" (CONJUNCTION)

"the people who would fight for them as ignorant as you are." (PREDICATE CLAUSE)

Apparently you didn't pass 6th-grade English. Try diagramming the sentences.

The comment wasn't directed to you anyway, knave. Stick with the comments on Lincoln's arguments against secession. At least there (preposition), you (pronoun) stand (verb) a chance (noun) of (conjunction) understanding (gerund) what I say (predicate clause).

n.n said...

I blame the flag, the lackluster rainbow flag, that is a symbol of selective exclusion in the 21st century.

Monkeyboy said...

Please don't feed the troll.
The question before us is what effect will this have on the government's desire to deny rights though bureaucratic inaction.

"shall issue" is a response to localities deciding that only the 'right people" get guns. Like whites in the pre-civil rights south or the rich in current day NYC. Three days is plenty of time to make a few phone calls.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Listen to Monkeyboy, Lincoln-Haters, and raise that white banner of defeat high!

khesanh0802 said...

@R&B Ken Burns is your expert on the Civil War and its causes? You would be better served by reading "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson for an excellent overview of the causes and conditions both North and South before and during the Civil War.

khesanh0802 said...

@ R&B I didn't ask for a diagram I asked for a translation so we could understand its meaning, if any.

Michael K said...

Ritmo is really on roll today. Lunatic assertions so fast he can't keep up.

Fact free, of course.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Monkeyboy "shall issue" has been a strong movement and it puts the onus in the right place. Though many seem to want to excuse the FBI, I think the Director was correct in saying that they had dropped the ball.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't see a need to pit battles on one source vs. another. Ken Burns is no expert on anything, AFAIK, but film-making. He made an outstanding 13-part series informed by historians galore, narrated primarily by David McCullough - who is somewhat of a great amateur historian in his own right, and borrowing tremendously from Shelby Foote's own insights. There is so much written on it and trust me I know all about all of the causes you linked to. I watched the series because I remember it from high school history and couldn't figure out how next to waste the gifts of my Amazon Prime account. That, and because I wanted to get a more in-depth cultural and military history on it. That's what the series does best, IMO. I think I was inspired to do so by this really cool compressed video on the how ground was made and lost battle-by-battle. And the Ashokan Farewell used both in that one and the documentary is just too pretty to not appreciate.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Michael K I was tempted to defend you, but figure you are a big boy and can handle yourself. Is R&B, in fact, the old "Ritmo"? Certainly sounds like him.

Rhythm and Balls said...

@ R&B I didn't ask for a diagram I asked for a translation so we could understand its meaning, if any.

Stop being an asshole. Ask for "translations" on things addressed to you. When it comes to remediating phrasing too complicated for your simple mind to understand, I'll just use diagrams. I'm allowed to use dependent clauses and compound-complex clauses if I want to. And if you can't follow them, that's your tough luck.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ritmo is really on roll today. Lunatic assertions so fast he can't keep up.

Fact free, of course.


The only fact you've "freed" yourself of is the fact of why that flag was on the S.C. state grounds in the first place.

I bet it wasn't a fact lost on the shooter. Just because you identify with him doesn't mean you're thinking through the meaning of the symbols that appeal to him.

richard mcenroe said...

It was on the state grounds because a Democrat put it there.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It was on the state grounds because a Democrat put it there.

Is that why you were against taking it down?

Sounds like you would prefer to commemorate symbols of segregation if you can make a partisan point with it.

No wonder the Southern Strategy was so useful to you.

khesanh0802 said...

@ R&B. David McCullogh is just a voice in this case. He is , however, a professional historian; his specialty is Revolutionary history. Have you read Shelby Foote's three volume history? Wonderfully done. One man doing all that work is very impressive. I repeat if you want in-depth cultural history, without drowning, McPherson's book is the one to read. As you say Ken Burns just does TV shows.

I am glad you know "all about all of the causes" I linked to. You should, that's pretty basic stuff. I thought you might go for a little more depth. After all you're a young guy, you have plenty of time to learn more.

khesanh0802 said...

@ R&B I wondered how long it would take for your immaturity to surface so that you would call me names too. I feel that I am in excellent company with Michael K and Drago. For your information I have been and will continue to goad you. It appears that you are unable to last more than a couple of comments without calling names.

cubanbob said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Don't forget that while secessionists were arguing for their right to secede, those who opposed them were obviously articulating their own position. Lincoln was a lawyer. The constitution is a contract, of sorts. It could not be broken without a provision for doing so. I think that is argument enough."

Oddly enough King George the third could have made the same argument. That's the difference between winning and losing a war of independence. Lincoln the lawyer was smart enough not to fire the first shot. Had the South not fired the first shot Lincoln the lawyer and highly competent politician may well have not fired the first shot and simply left things as they were as there was no sentiment in the North at that point to start a war to reclaim the South. If you are going to argue history then do so with facts.

Rhythm and Balls said...

As you say Ken Burns just does TV shows.

They were all part of a team. Burns didn't tell Shelby Foote what to say; that's evident. That's how documentaries are. I could see a reason for concern if he gave them a script or if there was some editorial discretion issue that they later objected to, but that didn't happen. Faulting a cameraman for lacking the talent of his incredible subjects seems a distracting or even unfair basis for judging. I will always treasure what I got from Foote from Burns, as accessible as his thoughts were and his voice was. I'm sure it doesn't do justice to his three volume set, but it still gives me a lot anyway.

Drago said...

R&B's: "Oh, but he sure could find a great and powerful symbol for it."

A symbol so "great and powerful" that it was unable to inspire any individuals in South Carolina with whom Dylann Roof could conspire.

BTW, the head of the OPM finally resigned today.

Why?

Confederate revivalism.

What else?

Confederate revivalism! What can't it do?

Rhythm and Balls said...

@ R&B I wondered how long it would take for your immaturity to surface so that you would call me names too. I feel that I am in excellent company with Michael K and Drago. For your information I have been and will continue to goad you. It appears that you are unable to last more than a couple of comments without calling names.

I treat individuals as individuals. You are free to feel that those Lincoln-Haters are excellent company; I wish they had the objectivity and factual interests that you have. You can "goad" me; I think we share enough interests outside of partisan combat to discuss things enrichingly in any case. I'm not concerned. As long as you have more than name-calling to offer me, I will have more than just name-calling to offer you. I wish you would judge my use of certain tactics by the same standard as those who are willing to use them on me, though.

Drago said...

cubanbob: "If you are going to argue history then do so with facts."

Lefties need facts like a fish needs a bicycle.

So, back to what is relevant: What can be done to make sure the lefts beloved feds under obama don't screw up again?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Confederate revivalism! What can't it do?

It can't get you to agree that what Nikki Haley did was a good thing, apparently.

But what does she know? She's just a governor in a state being led through a contentious issue.

You're a peanut gallery resident.

I'm sure you have many lessons in leadership to teach her.

Give her a call. Let her know you are up for the job. Gratis. So great is your wisdom that it would be an insult to patriotism to deny our country's leaders such access to it.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I appreciate your McPherson recommendation and will look into either getting or accessing a copy, khesanh0802.

Drago said...

R&B's: "But what does she know? She's just a governor in a state being led through a contentious issue."

So, we'll just chalk this up to the obvious: the lefts narrative is once again wrong. The Feds screwed up and now R&B will want to discuss anything about the primary salient fact in this case.

Of course.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oddly enough King George the third could have made the same argument.

Oddly enough he couldn't have. There was no contract equivalent to the Constitution and Bill of Rights operative in pre-Revolutionary America. And yet, once the Confederacy enacted a constitution of its own, guess what? It was exactly the same as our own, with the exception that abolition was permanently outlawed! That's right. The only "rights" these states were fighting for was the preservation of an economy and political union more or less based in it forever. So don't lecture about facts until you get the facts of what the South was not only about as a secessionist movement, but incorporate that into your understanding. There are actually a number of speeches and quasi-legal documents they published on this. Their own "constitution", their declaration of causes for secession. It's all there. People don't access them though because of how embarrassing they are, as they should be to anyone defending their cause.

But if you need them, go ahead and ask. I'll be happy to post you all the documents proudly published by the insurrectionists so that you can compare and contrast the foundational state of their union with the foundational state of our own.

Just let me know when you're ready for it.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"But what does she know? She's just a governor in a state being led through a contentious issue."

So, we'll just chalk this up to the obvious: the lefts narrative is once again wrong. The Feds screwed up and now R&B will want to discuss anything about the primary salient fact in this case.

Of course.


Yes. Nikki Haley and all the SC Republicans voting the way they did were just "leftists". Including Jenny Horne. Of course.

You have a foaming-at-the-mouth partisanism disease. Remedies call for a shot of rational thinking.

Michael K said...

"Just because you identify with him doesn't mean you're thinking through the meaning of the symbols that appeal to him."

No, I think he is schizophrenic like most of the mass shooters. Symbols may appeal if they get into the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics but that doesn't mean the symbol is what you think it is.

You invite ridicule with your wild assertions. I thought Nikki Haley did a good job with the flag issue and I think they were right to remove it from the state capitol where it was flying from a flagpole. The hysteria that has ensued about the mere existence of the flag symbol has gone way beyond anything rational.

I assume you are in favor if digging up General Nathan Bedford Forrest ? It sounds like you.

Terry said...

R&B wrote:
"And yet, once the Confederacy enacted a constitution of its own, guess what? It was exactly the same as our own, with the exception that abolition was permanently outlawed!"

Damn Democrats.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Article I Section 9(4) of the "Confederate Constitution":

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


It's a great document, the one that cubanbob, etc. would defend.

When you're ready, cubanbob, I can post you Article IV Section 2(1) and Article IV Section 3(3).

Just let me know when you're ready.

Any day now.

It was a great cause to fight for, remember. So it must be worth perusing. Just like fighting against George III.

A really noble cause.

Just like any of our natural rights.

Put together your argument for why the rights they claimed to recognize were so great, and I'll give you the text they dedicated to those rights.

Drago said...

BTW, we've seen this act on the part of earlier generation R&B's.

Remember how "the climate in Dallas" killed JFK?

Along with white southern culture, anti-catholic bigotry and the Hunt brothers?

Reality?

Nah. Just your run of the mill, straight out of central casting, leftist killed Kennedy.

But try getting a lefty to admit that!

Rhythm and Balls said...

You invite ridicule with your wild assertions. I thought Nikki Haley did a good job with the flag issue and I think they were right to remove it from the state capitol where it was flying from a flagpole. The hysteria that has ensued about the mere existence of the flag symbol has gone way beyond anything rational.

That's funny. Most blacks and abolitionists would say the hysteria of "heritage defenders" (are you one of them, by chance?) were the ones being hysterical. Their hysterical defense of it, the emotionalism they appeal and that they demand respect for is pretty evident to everyone else. But apparently it's just people who object to the flag who are hysterical. Interesting. I guess revering the stars and bars is just a solemn, objective, grave patriotic practice. But removing it? Nah.

I assume you are in favor if digging up General Nathan Bedford Forrest ? It sounds like you.

I was originally was when I found out about this today. But reading up more on him, it appears he did his best to enact reconciliation, union and the rights of others. So I guess I won't. Other than a particularly gory massacre of POWs for which he should be held to account, his legacy seems like a good one. Sorry if that disappointed you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What's Drago driveling on about now? JFK conspiracies?

Drivel away, Drago. Drivel away.

JPS said...

R&B,

I'm going to assume that you're just as angry now at people who burn the U.S. flag as you are against people who fly the Confederate flag, right? Because I saw pictures of Dylann Roof doing each, but I hear and read a hell of a lot more about the one than the other.

You can try to tar conservatives with this asshole all you like, and I can see you like it a lot, but I would have hated him, and he me, even before he shot up a church.

Michael K said...

Ritmo, nice to see you support hysterical actuates like this nonsense.

Elaine Glidewell told KFSM someone from the store in Fort Smith called her to pick up the ring she'd ordered for her nephew, but when she arrived on Tuesday, a clerk told her she couldn’t have it. The ring had been ordered before Walmart stopped selling items bearing images of the flag, in the wake of controversy that stemmed from a racially-charged shooting in South Carolina.

“I wanted to cry,” Glidewell told KFSM, adding that the store clerk said the ring would be "melted."


Yup, hysteria.

cubanbob said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oddly enough King George the third could have made the same argument.

Oddly enough he couldn't have. There was no contract equivalent to the Constitution and Bill of Rights operative in pre-Revolutionary America.

Of course the King could have. There is no implied right to rebel. Unless the rebellion wins. Otherwise it's treason. Your contractual arguments are equally silly. Unless there is an enforcement mechanism contracts are meaningless. That is why law and the courts exist and the power of the State is what makes enforcement possible. Had the South not fired the first shot, there was no sentiment in the North at the time of succession to go to war to bring the South back in to the Union. No force, no enforcement. Unless Lincoln was willing to start the war and he was not, the succession would have succeeded if the South had simply been tactfully smart. I'm not arguing that morally the South was in the right but simply that your arguments are invalid. As for Northern morality lets be mindful of the fact that NY didn't fully abolish slavery until 1827. MA never formally abolished slavery until 1865. NJ in 1846.

What is interesting is how many here and I include myself were trolled by you in to getting in to a back and forth about an irrelevancy while ignoring that once again government incompetence played a hand in a tragedy.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

But your medical records are in good hands. Your personnel data, maybe not so much. And your IRS filings - depends on your political leanings.

Rhythm and Balls said...

King George III was insane. About the only person who cares what argument he "could have made" is you.

No, there was no equivalent contract to the constitution in force for colonists, let alone one guaranteeing rights. You still have no argument against that.

If you think the Union's "enforcement mechanism" was "meaningless" I suggest you stand in front of one of U.S. Grant's cannons.

You are admitting the South was incompetent? Really? Ok. I guess its flag isn't worth commemorating either, then.

You could call it incompetent to keep that flag flying all this time but it looks like it was the closest to a harmless compromise that could have been made until such time as now.

If you're talking about the incompetence regarding background checks, then that's wonderful! I await to see you fighting for stronger background check laws, resources or enforcement and leave it at that.

grackle said...

What happened to the story that his father gave him the gun for his birthday?

It was actually found by CNN a couple of days after the shooting that Roof had bought the gun himself. But they buried that info near the end of a long article – which is standard treatment for any fact that might reflect badly on the MSM anti-gun narrative.

https://tinyurl.com/ned4o3d

BTW, I pointed out that the background check had probably failed and why it probably failed(government incompetence) back on 6/20/2015 in the comments section of this post:

http://tinyurl.com/pjvvmje

Early reporting is almost always inaccurate with these shootings. Never trust the MSM. Always assume their agenda is driving the words. Always assume they are hiding any fact that tends to negate their favored narrative.

n.n said...

At least the Confederate flag did not oversee establishment of slavery. Neither did the American flag, under which African slaves were freed. This is not comparable to the German Socialist flag under which the atrocities were committed, or the lackluster rainbow flag under which apartheid was established. We should probably lower any flags that depict a donkey, too. The braying donkey represents institutional denigration of individual dignity and debasement of human life on principle and as a political strategy.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why did the flag come down so quickly? South Carolina, etc are now strongly Republican, esp in the state house. And the confederate flag was designed by Democrats, flown by them, and adopted both estate by them. Why wouldn't Republicans quickly show their non-racist bona fides by taking down this Democratic Party flag?

Hagar said...

I see that the Feds say the San Francisco sheriff does not understand the law, the first paragraph of which apparently is that if you get caught screwing up, don't try to blame it on us!

Hagar said...

Is there some cognitive dissonance between the Democrats' cries for more and stricter Federal gun laws, etc., and their insistence on the rights for local governments to "interposition" (Madison) their own laws, or to "nullify" the Federal laws (Jefferson), within their local jurisdictions?

(Though I believe Jefferson and Madison both restricted their theories to state governments, which they thought should be sovereign, and would have been appalled to hear them applied to municipalities and counties!)

Big Mike said...

King George III was insane.

Modern scientists believe that George III suffered from porphyria, which is a blood disorder and not a mental disorder.

Look, the lesson to be learned from Dylann Roof is that government will frequently screw up and there's nothing anyone can do about it. People who put their faith in big government are bargaining for more and larger screw-ups.

CWJ said...

I come back to check this thread after seeing it this morning and wondered what on earth could have turned it into over a hundred comments.

Was it the 40 vs 45 caliber discussion? That seemed to be getting some traction. The dad gave him the gun or not mystery? No, that petered out pretty quick.

But then I saw that Ritmo had happened.

Michael K said...

"George III suffered from porphyria, which is a blood disorder and not a mental disorder. "

Porphyria does cause symptoms of insanity but it is toxic and victims recover, as George did. His remission did not last, however.

George III had a particularly severe form of porphyria. His first attack occurred in 1765, four years after his marriage to Queen Charlotte. Further signs of the disease showed up in 1788-1789. From 1811 to the time of his death in 1820 the royal patient became progressively insane and blind. He was nursed in isolation, and kept in straight jackets and behind bars in his private apartments at Windsor Castle.

The psychiatrist who treated him was rewarded with an estate when the king went into remission. It is now a hotel in northern England on the east coast called Raven Hall. I have stayed there.

Anonymous said...

Oh my, another thread stealing loud-mouth a la Crack, banished but not forgotten. If the secessionist were wrong what about nullification in the North? Please, just look it up, you don't have to answer, for I for one am leaving the thread all to yourself - and Althouse, of course.

To everyone else: Please don't feed the trolls.

One last thing: Remember FBI stands for, "Famous But Incompetent."

The Cracker Emcee said...

It is odd about folks like R&B. He's spent most of one of life's finite supply of summer Saturday afternoons raving on the Internet, changing no one's opinion, and airing a remarkable level of ignorance. Why?

I was once in a Wal-Mart bathroom, washing my hands, and listening to the occupant of one of the poopers carry on a loud, ferocious tirade on his phone-"They'll be sorry they fucked me! I'm serious! They don't know who they're fucking with!". Bad enough, but when he came out I realized he hadn't even been on the phone. He was just sitting on the crapper at Wal-Mart raving against his demons.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You shouldn't have tapped your foot against his, Larry Craig. Keep your foot in your own stall.

Lazy fat-asses need afternoons for their recreation. I prefer the night. Also, did you know that phones have internet?

It was 90 degrees today. Bake your own brain outside if you need to.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I reserve any attempts at changing minds for those who actually have minds.

But that doesn't mean I can't still have fun proving the mindless wrong.

The record is what it is, and changing a solid understanding of reality just to get retrogrades to like you is stupid. It's pitiful that people would look at this comments section as an opportunity for a popularity contest, anyway.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I present you "The Cracker Emcee"

Rhythm and Balls said...

Look, the lesson to be learned from Dylann Roof is that government will frequently screw up and there's nothing anyone can do about it. People who put their faith in big government are bargaining for more and larger screw-ups.

Look. There is a difference between "faith" and a competent legislative and enforcement regime.

Terry said...

" . . . a competent legislative and enforcement regime."
The universe will grow cold before you get a " . . . a competent legislative and enforcement regime." You know the OPM chick who was hired because she said she was Hispanic? That's what you get. You know Clapper? That's what you get. AG Lynch is what you get. Why? Because its a political job, you get political people.
What part of the government is yourt model, R&B? The post office? The DMV? The VA?

The FBI's budget, BTW, has gone up 267% since 1998 ( $3 billion to $8 billion).

Big Mike said...

@Terry, eloquently put. Government is inefficient. It is a bureaucracy run, by definition, by bureaucrats. Does anyone wonder why so many regulations are borderline insane? Anyone can promulgate a good regulation. The way to show your clout is to push a bad regulation through. Are bad regulations good for the country? Why do you think they care? To a bureaucrat in a bureaucracy all that matters is clout.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Clearly, the information needed to be properly recorded. If the needs of the information had been fully understood and properly attended to, this tragedy would not have happened.

The President should act immediately on this crisis to ensure that in America no datum has unfulfilled needs.

Rusty said...

Look. There is a difference between "faith" and a competent legislative and enforcement regime.


That was meant to be ironic, right?


See my post above.

Rusty said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/11/dylann-roof-apparently-had-not-been-arrested-for-a-felony-a-month-before


Apparently an arrest was never made. No felony. Passed background check.

Terry said...

I never liked the reporting on the VA scandal of a few years ago. The news reports, at least the ones I saw, said that administrators had faked reductions in patient wait times and number of patients seen, but did not say why administrators would do this.
The reason the administrators faked the data was money. They were government employees. They couldn't be fired for bad performance, so the government paid them bonuses for just doing their f'ng jobs. The administrators then gamed the bonus system.
This the way its always been, in government and out of government. This is the way it always will be.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ok. Then go repeal murder statutes. Since government is so "inefficient" at enforcing those, too. Same thing with theft statutes.

You guys are literally, totally, utterly insane.

Rusty said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Ok. Then go repeal murder statutes. Since government is so "inefficient" at enforcing those, too. Same thing with theft statutes.

Moron.

Terry said...

R&B wrote:
"You guys are literally, totally, utterly insane."
Uh, on the contrary, R&B, it is insanity to believe that the government will always be competent. You should be able to tell that you are using a poor argument when you have to set up a straw man: "repeal murder statutes. Since government is so "inefficient" at enforcing those, too."

Rhythm and Balls said...

Then by the word "always" you are manifestly not asking for competence. You are asking the government to disinvolve itself of any activity in which it is not invincible or infallible.