“We do not know if this is a terrorist incident,” David Bowdich, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, said at the same news conference. “It may be, or it may not be.” Burguan said that “at minimum, we have a domestic terrorist-type situation that occurred here.”...
The San Bernadino County Public Health department had rented out the room to host a holiday party, complete with Christmas trees and other decorations....
[Burguan] added that the attackers had “long guns, not handguns,” but said he did not have specific information available yet on the type of guns used.
December 2, 2015
"As many as three attackers opened fire at a holiday party for county employees in San Bernardino, Calif., on Wednesday, killing at least 14 people..."
"... and injuring 14 others," The Washington Post reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
109 comments:
Cue the people who will politically accuse other people of politicizing this atrocity.
Christmas party.
Ski masks and AK-47s sounds like a terrorist incident to me.
"No information available at this time" = "Does not fit the narrative."
It's only 'domestic terrorism' if the shooter can be tied to conservatives. Otherwise it's just 'saddening violence.'
@MB: "Cue the people who will politically accuse other people of politicizing this atrocity" Sorry, no: only killing by white men of Others should be politicized, because racism and gun control; otherwise it would be unfair to politicize anything.
Ski masks and AK-47s sounds like a terrorist incident to me.
The target doesn't make sense. Cartel attack?
We could probably surmise the nature of the attackers if they told us who rented the conference room being used for the party.
This sounds very premeditated and precise. Did they just do layoffs or something?
It's been a long time since we read a story like this and were surprised. I think it's rapidly become ingrained in our national identity . In America , lots of mass shootings happen, but our politicians and citizens are very good at sending out prayers and calling it "tragic" every time, so at least there's that.
What's with this new trend of calling weapons "long guns" instead of assault rifles? Is the media finally admitting they don't know as much about guns as they think they do, or just trying to show that all guns, even rifles, are bad?
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/12443/web
Here's the link to the local police scanner in case anyone's interested.
If they are blacks, they will be labeled as "rambunctious youths". If Muslim, we will be told it had nothing to do with their religion.
If they are White, it will be blamed on Rush Limbaugh and Fox news.
It would certainly point to an "organized" terrorist cell of some sort if there were three shooters. But, looking back over initial reports from the last few mass shootings, there were initial reports from some of them that multiple shooters were involved & it turned out to be only one shooter.
My really out on limb, no facts yet guess: There was only one shooter, and he was a disaffected (ex-)employee. How else did he (they) know when & where the Christmas party was being held? I'm betting on one pissed off employee. But, if were Islamic terrorists, I don't think three Islamist terrorists decided to shoot up a local government complex & just happened on the Christmas party. If it was Islamists, one of them worked there & knew about the party.
No less than three major outlets announced there was a planned parenthood a mile away. Stupid.
They are trying so hard to create a meme.
By now, I'm 99% positive these are not white males with conservative views. How do I know that? Because the media is mum on the rumors of their identity. If they were white males, speculation would run wild. Because they aren't, they'll wait for confirmation.
Really pathetic.
Latest news is suspect van cornered, one suspect down and dead. Hope they got the right SUV -- a bunch of years ago a cop from Prince Georges County, Maryland, chased what he thought was a drug lord into suburban Virginia, cornered the SUV, and shot the driver about 16 times. Turned out to be a Howard University student. Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about the event here.
MisterBuddwing: "Cue the people who will politically accuse other people of politicizing this atrocity"
Actually, it's cue the people who will cue the people who will politically accuse other people of politicizing this atrocity.
The executive director of the Inland Regional Center, Lavinia Johnson, told CNN she believes county health officials were having a holiday event at a conference center where one to three shooters entered and opened fire.
If accurate "Country Health Officials" doesn't sound like a natural target for any suspect group.
http://www.wtma.com/news/california-shooting-scene-pray-for-us-says-a-text/
Well, it is terrorism; the question is in behalf of what cause, if any.
It sounds like 2 of the 3 are dead so far.
Maybe the third one will be captured alive and will enlighten us.
Cherchez La Femme.
I think it is fair to say that whoever did this they are people who shouldn't have had guns who had guns. I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
I'm waiting to hear from Jim Hoft and his crack reporting team. He always has the best scoops.
It's still going on and police report residents of homes in the area seeing a man jumping fences.
It sounds like a terrorist incident but no motive or ID yet,
My prayers are with the family and friends of those injured and killed, everyone involved in this tragedy.
There's plenty of time tomorrow for stupid partisanship and scoring internet points.
In two weeks the details will be settled and the hysteria will have moved on to something else.
Gang related? Makes the most sense right now.
Sounds like a hit squad trying to solve the county's budget problems
I don't care what anybody else says about this shooting, I'm going to come out right now and say I'm 100%, unequivocally, four-square against it!
Blogger Michael K said...
It's still going on and police report residents of homes in the area seeing a man jumping fences.
It sounds like a terrorist incident but no motive or ID yet,
At least one is dead and "in custody" if a dead person can be said to be in custody.
Yet, we still don't know anything about them.
Why do you suppose that is?
"I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns."
Pray provide the details as to how it can be done. I'm sure all the responsible people are awaiting your wisdom.
Maybe it was a trio of liberal transgendered extremists.
Hard not to agree with you ARM, until one realizes the terror watch list is managed by the Obummer administration.
Remember DHS secretary Janet Napolitano labeling returning veterans as terror risks?
ARM: I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
The problem is the terrorist watch list has no due process. It is a list put together for the benefit of intelligence agencies as they see fit, which is fine for the purpose it is intended. It has persons on it, perhaps many persons on it, that are not terrorists nor have any reason to be suspected as terrorists and ended up on the list for various reasons (same name as a real terrorist, mistaken identity, etc.) The "No-Fly List" is a subset and, as you are aware, is criticized for errors and difficulties in getting innocent people removed. Names can be added or subtracted by fiat.
If you think about it that way, anyone could be "accidentally" added to the terrorist watch list and deprived of their constitutional rights. You wouldn't even know if you were added. Given the obvious corruption in other executive branch departments, the potential abuse of this power is immense. At it's extreme, it could be turned into a de facto gun ban by simply putting everyone on the list, which can be done because there are no rules as to whom goes on the list. Now, that would compromise the list as a useful intelligence tool, but simply make a new list to be the real "terrorist watch list" and keep the old one around for the gun ban value.
It is also highly unlikely that such a law could pass constitutional muster given it arbitrariness. If you could make a list where a person was put on only with the approval of a judge with evidence provided, that might work but that is not what you are suggesting.
Anyway, if a terrorist really wanted to get guns he can buy them on the black market and/or steal them. I'm pretty sure the Paris terrorists did not buy their weapons at the local gun shop.
I've got 10 zlotys that say they turn out to be Presbyterians.
John Henry
I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
Maybe it has something to do with due process. We don't strip people of their constitutional rights just because someone puts them on a list somewhere. Crazy, right?
Seriously... you live in this country and you can't even see why we don't do that? It's beyond your comprehension?
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
> I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.<
your naive belief in the capabilities of gov't to respond competently is funny.
I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
Open your eyes.
The perps were cool, calm and well planned in their execution. Well except for the fact that the SWAT training facility is only a quarter mile away from the scene and use the scene for training. This was either political terrorism or a hit made to look like it. Although someone at Huffpo will claim they were looking for PP and just got lost.
The chief of police and the local FBI Director just spoke and I think this will turn out to be a jihadi event. They were both cagey about names and motive. Pamela Geller has put out a Muslim name but I didn't take it seriously until now. They found the black SUV by following a lead to a "safe house' in Redlands. They are very slow about approaching the safe house or the SUV fearing booby traps.
Hmmmm.
Police were able to identify one suspect although they are not releasing that name (from something left at the scene?), went to last known address and found the SUV, leading to chase and shoot-out. 2 DOA, one male, one female. Media sources are claiming it is Arabic or Muslim sounding name, although that could be someone who changed more American name after, say, radicalization in prison (for instance). No one yet describing ethnicity. So, still a mystery.
Sounds more and more like home grown terrorism, but could be gang bangers in dispute with family court or something like that.
Good thing El Presidente Grande is going to make sure the cops are not overly militarized, gonna get those armored cars and knives back from them. What we need is more cops walking a beat, nightsticks is all they need.
"Multiple law enforcement sources in multiple agencies tell NBC News that one of the suspects in the San Bernardino shooting is Sayeed Farook." If so, let the politicization cease now, so we can focus on the real killer (climate change) and the real solution (more Muslims, fewer guns).
ARM wrote: I think it is fair to say that whoever did this they are people who shouldn't have had guns who had guns. I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
If denied legally-obtained guns terrorists will get their guns via other channels (see Prophet Muhammad v. Charlie Hebdo et al.)
Why not just arrest people on the terrorist watch list and deport them? Oops, can't do that, can we. It would violate their constitutional rights.
"The problem is the terrorist watch list has no due process."
The Reasonable Man doesn't see a problem with that.
If the shooter's name was Farook, you can bet Obozo will say it was just "workplace violence".
"Long gun" means a gun with a long barrel, and can include shotguns and rifles. These can be short-range or long-range weapons, and are usually deployed offensively.
They are different from short guns, which almost always have limited range and are deployed mostly defensively.
A fight at a holiday party turned into a scene of mass carnage in an LA suburb on Wednesday — as a man who stormed out of the festivities returned with two pals and opened fire on the crowd, killing 14, sources said.
Ya know, I understand how someone can get himself worked into a lather, leave a gathering, & then come back & shoot it up. But, how do you get two other guys to come back with you, all with semi-automatic rifles, body armor, & pipe bombs, for what all three must have known would be a one-way trip? Even tribal, family, or religious solidarity doesn't require near instantaneous acquiescence to some aggrieved nutjob's call to shoot up --- what? --- his damn co-workers.
Who knew that "secret Santa" picks at the office could be so volatile a topic!
Carter Evans of CBS just did his best to get an emotional reaction from a guy near the shooting scene: "Hey, man, that's your wife in there." What a twat.
Original Mike: "The Reasonable Man doesn't see a problem with that."
Because, as a leftist, ARMeltdown knows perfectly well that the lefties in gov't will use the list as a political weapon against conservatives in the same way the IRS has been weaponized.
Starbucks did it.
Yet, we still don't know anything about them.
We do know that expanded background checks would have totes stopped them. And that they're among the half-million people who are on the terrorist watch list.
I listened to some of the coverage on the radio in New York City this evening, and the tone of the coverage was truly odd. I heard a couple of reporters insisting "This is not a terrorist incident," without giving any indication why that might be true, long before significant details were released by law enforcement. As soon as I heard them insisting that it wasn't a terrorist incident in the absence of disclosed information, I said to myself, "That means the scuttlebutt in the newsroom is that perpetrators may have Arabic names, or, given the California location, perhaps Hispanic ones." I am amazed at how cynical I've become regarding the press.
I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
If the government puts you on a list, that is sufficient for your Constitutional rights to be voided? The next person making that list and checking it twice could be a fellow notoriously given to overreaction to perceived slights.
The unthinking responses to what is a reasonable limitation on gun ownership is why we can't have nice things. Instead of aiming for a less violent and more evolved society the population will become increasingly paranoid and insular under the guns everywhere regime and shootings of all kinds will become even more routine than they are now.
One name released: Syed Farook.
I watched the news about this on CNN, Fox and MSNBC for several hours, apparently having nothing better to do.
1. It's looking more like it could be international terrorism, and I don't mean Mexicans.
2. San Bernadino has some impressive people including the police chief, the hospital spokeswoman at Loma Linda and the schoolteacher of the blind who was 200 feet away. And the Hispanic guy from the factory facing the site of the shootout.
3. Shep Smith is underrated. He does a great job.
4. Fox was way better at reporting the story than MSNBC or CNN. Mathews was embarrassingly misinformed and stupid. Rachel Maddow brought a little order to MSNBC coverage, but before her it was incompetence and sermons about gun control. Fox just has more resources and better people. Even after two bodies were clearly pulled out of the van, MSNBC could not get that right.
5. If it is international terrorism, it's a strange choice of target. But maybe that's the point.
6. The facility that was targeted does terrorism drills every month. Like we used to do fire drills. That can't have hurt.
7. Gender diverse killers in camo is out of the movies, and now reality.
8. Obama? WTF?
9. The FBI guy from LA said "we will go where the evidence leads us." That's something people tend to say when someone has been pressing them not to follow the evidence.
10. Both the police chief and the LA FBI guy were right out of central casting.
11. At least 31 families are in misery or mourning tonight in Cali.
12. Megan Kelly interviewed the former New York State coordinator of into terror, etc (a former senior FBI guy from NYC.) He was good and extraordinarily critical of what the Justice Department has done to impede intelligence gathering and sharing. He did it in a low key way but it was persuasive.
13. We are going to see more of this and continue to listen to fools who think gun control will solve the problem.
California's restrictive gun control laws did not seem to help much did they?
This comment section is now worse than useless with moderation. May as well just kill it off and have no comments if you can't have a timely discussion.
Names are Syed Farook and the other is named the M-word (praise be to Allah!)
You know, those damn Quakers again.
I am quite impressed by CNN's relentless focus on the weapons used and not any characteristics of the shooter(s) or any real discussion about what might have motivated "the shooters".
Anderson Coopers and his guests spent quite a bit of time this evening helpfully talking about "Colorado springs", "White supremacists", etc.
Those darn assault weapons just keep going off by themselves. Probably under direct NRA and republican control.
Sayeed Farooq. Gee I wonder what his motive could have been ?
Ok, clearly Muslim terrorists now.
Time to move along people, nothing to see here.
Officials did not name the two assailants, but said the main one was a U.S. citizen.
Why is that important if you won't release the name?
Doublespeak at its finest.
And, true to form, liberals like Matt Yglesias take to Twitter and are mocking Ted Cruz because he had the gall to offer thoughts and prayers to the victims.
If they aren't pegging all repubs for wanting to shoot abortion clinics they will instead peg for not banning guns. Anything but blame the shooters.
This is so common I could have predicted.
"I think it is fair to say that whoever did this they are people who shouldn't have had guns who had guns. I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns."
Why don't we stop them having freedom of speech, too? And make them change their religion while we're at it.
You're an idiot, ARM, but I think that you are beginning to realize that.
I think ARM has a point - anyone on the terrorist watch list should be denied guns, knives (see Palestinian territories recently), vehicles (see the Tarheel Terrorist), gasoline, diesel, matches, fertilizer, bleach and ammonia, welding gear . . . have I forgotten anything?
Anyway, once a couple of hundred thousand semi-random Muslims, CAIR and the ACLU have a complete freakout, we'll see some reform of that terrorist watch list.
A CNN article said that the gunmen had "automatic-style rifles"
What the hell does that mean? It is a shame our journalists can be so pig ignorant that they could write something like that. And editors so stupid that they let it get published.
I guess it means that it looks like it could have been an automatic rifle even though it was not.
They just make shit up.
John Henry
It will be interesting to see if the guns were legally purchased. That is, background checks of an American Citizen Sayed, with no record and no reason to deny him his 2A rights.
If so, it will then be even more interesting what laws could have stopped it.
Or, perhaps, they will turn out to have been bought on the street. Or even come from Fast and Furious.
John Henry
I just watched CAIR stage an incredibly self-serving press conference where they explained to a very credulous press that Islam and Muslims have nothing to do with Radical Islamic Terrorism (i.e. the brother-in-law wouldn't even answer as to whether the ID's shooter was a religious Muslim).
Who thinks that if The Center for Medical Progress had held a similar presser a few days ago they would have been treated so gently? Right.
Our first case of domestic terrorism since 911? One of the shooters was Syed Farook, an American citizen. Ski masks, AK-47s and body armor!
In summary: People who disagree with my politics are responsible for all of the world's ills.
powers that be couldn't keep a lid on it. It was an islamic attack. And, the attackers were wearing go-pros. Watch how fast the MSM doesn't FOIA the go-pro video. Doesn't fit the narrative.
And the NY Times is going with the story that the Colorado shooter was deeply religious, even though reading the article shows a complete nutcase, and is strongly pushing the Colorado event as a religiously inspired shooting of a PP clinic. And because it fits the narrative to withhold information like, for example, where the shooting actually started, we don't know it. We do know all the victims were shot outside the PP clinic, which seems odd if PP was the target, doesn't it?
And CAIR managed to pull together and announce a press conference with the San Bernardino shooters brother in law apparently before the news media even released the names of the killers. Wonder how they managed to pull that off? And of course, even though the killer was deeply religious and it was a Christmas party that was the primary target, we're told by CAIR, and the MSM will echo it, the killings had nothing to do with islam.
Danielle Paquette, writing in the Washington Post has decided that official FBI statistics don't generate enough "mass shootings" to advance her preferred narrative so she now using Reddit as an authority. That way she can claim that there have been more mass shootings than days in the calendar this year. Oh, and she also worked a reference to Planned Parenthood into the story. Of course there was no reference to the fact that most multiple shootings result from gang activities. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-other-mass-shooting-that-happened-today-in-the-united-states/
It is possible that none of the shooters may have been caught, and the whole cell has definitely not been eliminated.
Although all the witnesses say there were three shooters, but the authorities sound like they are almost ready to say it was done by only two people.
Syed Farook was identified as a result of a tip - not clear where that tip came from - and the only thing known is that he had an argument there and he left. And maybe that he and his wife were dressed the same way the shooters were, and armed, when they were killed.
I think he may even have been part of the conspiracy - and yet not part of the 3-person assault team.
It's not clear what the argument was about - it could have been staged. It would be very hard to believe the attack was a spontaneous decision, so we're left with:
A) It's a coincidence and he had nothing to with the assault (unlikely if he wass armed with the same weapons)
B) It's a coincidence and he was part of the plot.
C) It was staged.
One thing that occurs to me is: If he knew what was coming and had let some people in, he might want to get out of there but have a good excuse for leaving.
Or maybe he might have been the driver of the getaway car. In that case, since he couldn't know exactly when it would end, he must have been in telephone (cellphone) contact, probably via text with one or more of the killers.
Or did he leave and put on his uniform, and bring in his two companions? If so, why come there openly n the first place? What do you need that for? To scout things out?
Q. How much time elapsed between when he left and when the shooting started?
We'll know more, and can eliminate and downgrade and upgrade possibilities..
It looks like Islamic terrorism and perhaps even what ISIS was claiming it was going to do - in which case this would actually be a minor plot, while there are other plots in the works.
You can think of other possibilities - non-ISIS jihadists, an unaffiliated group, or even people against vaccinations, but a very elaborate plot related to ISIS, with this being a target of opportunity seems to be the best idea.
The workspace connection would be more because it was ready at hand and available than because someone thought this was the best target.
By the way, this was a "Holiday Party" and not a Christmas party - after all this was December 2nd.
No way was this a spontaneous decision, altough it is possible something caused someone to jump the gun. A very elaborate plot with some elements of a cover-up in place seems to be the best idea, and and the cover-up may be working. The cell has not been smashed, but if the authorities act like it has, the cover-up is working.
Syed Farook may even have been selected as the fall guy.
The public release of information has been pretty bad.
It doesn't sound like the suspicious house with men coming and going is the same house where Farouk lived with his wife, baby and mother. And it's also not the getway car - maybe.
Let's think about this, reports are there is a "swat training facility" within a mile of this location and authorities actually use these buildings for mock training exercises. It also appears this couple has a 6 month old child. If this turns out to have terrorism ties, what is more scary than this scenario.... Fuck you, go train all you want, we'll still get you. This is one reason to conceal carry, you are going to have to protect yourself, or not and have no chance like those 14 poor souls.
"The unthinking responses to what is a reasonable limitation on gun ownership is why we can't have nice things."
-- Actually, a lot of the explanations as to WHY we don't just arbitrarily restrict rights from people shows a fairly sophisticated thought process.
The effort by CNN last night to form the work place violence and gun control narrative was bizarre. Even Lawrence O'Donnel on MSNBC didn't jump the shark that far. The slow drip of info is very strange. But CAIR dragging out the brother in law so quickly was seemed just too convenient.
The coordinated media narrative and distraction seemed almost rehearsed.
CNN's biggest breaking news was confirming that two of the guns were bought legally. One analyst actually said it was workplace violence but the guy just wanted to make it look like terrorism.
It was like there were people in the production booth telling those on air exactly what to say, and to stay on message. The acting was bad, and they didn't seem to believe what they were pushing.
Let's see what we know for sure. Armed shooters enter crowded facility and kill or wound over 30 people. Wear masks to hide identity. Tip results in chase of suspects. Gunfire erupts between suspects and police, two suspects killed. Suspects identified as having Arab names.
From this we can infer: Armed Arabs enter soft target and commit mass murder.
Isn't this what people have been expecting if Jihad comes to America? The only difference between this event and the feared scenario is that the "soft target" is usually assumed to be a shopping mall.
The Left's policy prescription to this is to take away everyone's guns except the police. The Right's is to restrict the importation of more Arabs and to come up with a plan to identify individuals who are potential home grown Jihads.
Which prescription you think is apt to reduce more acts of this type is going to be based on your ideology.
"Sayeed Farooq. Gee I wonder what his motive could have been ?"
Whatever the motive was, he appears to fit right in to America. Hell, it wasn't even the only mass shooting of the day. How many total in the last seven days? Dear makes 3. Surely there are others. Who can keep up ?
As a friend of mine said, you knew the shooters weren't white when the race of the shooter wasn't mentioned almost immediately.
In America , lots of mass shootings happen
Stats don't remotely show that.
I can't see why we can't block people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
Because there is no process to be added to the list and it is quite difficult to be removed. Do you often favor restricting rights with no actual criteria to it?
The unthinking responses to what is a reasonable limitation on gun ownership is why we can't have nice things.
What other Constitutional rights do you support restricting with no due process? Speech? Assembly?
Instead of aiming for a less violent and more evolved society the population will become increasingly paranoid and insular under the guns everywhere regime and shootings of all kinds will become even more routine than they are now.
If strict gun control = peace, you'd have no murders in Chicago.
AReasonableMan said...
The unthinking responses to what is a reasonable limitation on gun ownership is why we can't have nice things. Instead of aiming for a less violent and more evolved society the population will become increasingly paranoid and insular under the guns everywhere regime and shootings of all kinds will become even more routine than they are now.
Uh huh. Care to elaborate on any of your points. I'll be happy to debate it with you.
Sam. By "staged' do you mean planned? As in masterminded? Right now I'm going with they were all together in this. The only group they need to be affiliated with is Islam. Until other details emerge.
I am curious about one thing. How difficult is it to get a concealed carry permit in San Bernardino County?
damikesc responds:
"'In America , lots of mass shootings happen'
Stats don't remotely show that."
Heh. The flat-earth impulses are strong with this guy. We've had three this week already, but hey, the week is young.
Seriously. Is anyone of any political persuasion surprised when they see on the news that one of these has occurred?
Muslim-American goes to Saudi Arabia, gets a Muslim wife and brings her back to America. But life in America is deeply disturbing, what with all the permissiveness and unwanted freedom. So sinful. Together they decide to follow the Koran & kill a few infidels. They will do their small part in bringing on the “End Time.” They plan it all out with tactical gear, “long” guns, homemade explosives, etc.
But Muslim-American goes to a holiday party, gets mad(someone probably said “Merry Christmas” to him), goes home and says to wifey, “Forget the school, those kafirs at work have insulted me for the last time.” They suit up, grab the guns, bombs, masks and take off happily for the conference center.
Workplace violence, just like Ft. Hood.
The War on Christmas Gone Wild.
Young Saudi Arabian worshipers of allah cannot stomach seeing a Christmas Party being held in public and just asking for it.
And yet, the LibCong continue to deny people the means to defend themselves. Politicians and terrorists prefer unarmed peasants. Meanwhile, the anti-gunners dance in the blood of the victims.
"I think ARM has a point - anyone on the terrorist watch list should be denied guns, knives (see Palestinian territories recently), vehicles (see the Tarheel Terrorist), gasoline, diesel, matches, fertilizer, bleach and ammonia, welding gear . . . have I forgotten anything?"
not only that, but the terrorist watch list is an internal thing that law enforcement uses to track terrorists. If a person on that watch list was denied a gun he could quickly realize he was on a terrorist watch list. Which defeats the purpose.
Also, was this latest terrorist actually on a terrorist watch list?
OK, there are 100 times as many whites in America as Muslims, so brace yourselves for the 100 mass shootings coming by white people to even out the law of averages.
I certainly don't think that all Muslims are terrorists, or even that all terrorists are Muslims (Bill Ayers anybody?) But there is an issue here and we need to stop making it worse until we figure out how to solve it.
"The unthinking responses to what is a reasonable limitation on gun ownership is why we can't have nice things."
Really? For decades Americans could have all kinds of nice things, including nice guns, with very little restriction. But thanks to Prohibition, the Great Society, mass immigration of 3rd world people who can't or wont assimilate, the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, and the War on Drugs we now have a much more fractured, feral and violent populace. So naturally Obama and his army of sock-puppets like ARM want to further disarm law abiding Americans. As punishment for our White Privilege, I suppose.
holdfast said...
Really? For decades Americans could have all kinds of nice things, including nice guns, with very little restriction. But thanks to Prohibition, the Great Society, mass immigration of 3rd world people who can't or wont assimilate, the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, and the War on Drugs we now have a much more fractured, feral and violent populace.
While I agree that a few of these things have been a problem the overall violence and homicide rates have declined for decades so you do not seem to have identified the actual problem right now. Clearly, compared to other western countries, our lax gun laws create more problems than they solve. Background checks and cooling off periods to purchase machines designed to kill do not seem to be unreasonable restrictions. I have to get a license to drive I cannot see why a similar constraint should not apply to those who want to purchase deadly weapons.
I wonder if ARM believes that the decision that constitutional rights apply to all people within our country, legally or not, should be reversed, since, you know, it's a constitutional right to have guns, and these guys on the watch list haven't really committed any crimes.
Heh. The flat-earth impulses are strong with this guy. We've had three this week already, but hey, the week is young.
Take up your beef with the FBI.
Seriously. Is anyone of any political persuasion surprised when they see on the news that one of these has occurred?
If they were common, they wouldn't be news. It's why when gangsters kill each other every week in Baltimore or Chicago, it isn't national news. Because that is common. Mass shootings are exceedingly rare.
Background checks and cooling off periods to purchase machines designed to kill do not seem to be unreasonable restrictions.
Would they be OK for abortions? Those aren't even LISTED in the Constitution.
"Background checks and cooling off periods to purchase machines designed to kill do not seem to be unreasonable restrictions. I have to get a license to drive I cannot see why a similar constraint should not apply to those who want to purchase deadly weapons."
I'm not an expert on gun control laws, but don't we already have this stuff?
tim in vermont said...
constitutional rights
Bleating about the sacred parchment is not an argument, it is the refuge of fundamentalists. For starters its called an amendment and self-evidently is a reinterpretation or addition to the sacred parchment.
I have to get a license to drive I cannot see why a similar constraint should not apply to those who want to purchase deadly weapons.
There is no Constitutional right to drive, or own a car.
ARM said, "Background checks and cooling off periods to purchase machines designed to kill do not seem to be unreasonable restrictions."
we already have those.
And " I have to get a license to drive I cannot see why a similar constraint should not apply to those who want to purchase deadly weapons."
You don't really want to go there.
Then,
"Bleating about the sacred parchment is not an argument, it is the refuge of fundamentalists. For starters its called an amendment and self-evidently is a reinterpretation or addition to the sacred parchment."
No it is a starting point for a reasonable discussion on the subject.
Here is a little thought project that you can do and it won't cost you anything but your time. Go to a gun store and actually try and buy a gun. Fill out all the paperwork. Then gat back to us.
Sorry for all the line breaks, Althouse.
and self-evidently is a reinterpretation or addition to the sacred parchment.
So that's the new line of attack? Whatever. Change it. It can be amended. It's not "sacred." It just takes political will. 2/3 of the states. Go ahead and run on that. Maybe you can repeal the first amendment too, while you are at it. Why not? I wonder though if you have some better form of government in mind that has no need of written rules or constraints on its powers.
Bleating about the sacred parchment is not an argument
It actually is.
The law is BASED on the Constitution. If the "sacred parchment" says something is legal, it is legal. End of story.
Sorry if you missed that lesson in school.
For starters its called an amendment and self-evidently is a reinterpretation or addition to the sacred parchment.
Then PASS A NEW AMENDMENT TO UNDO IT.
They even made it possible to do so.
Not easily, because it shouldn't be easy.
But nice to see that the Constitution isn't a concern for you.
ARMeltdown: " Background checks and cooling off periods to purchase machines designed to kill do not seem to be unreasonable restrictions."
We do not now, nor ever will, trust you and lefty comrades to properly administrate any "reasonable restrictions" since, as leftists, it is beyond argument that you will abuse your political opponents.
When it comes to guns, we know that the Obama-ites (and left in general) will actually provide untraceable weapons to drug cartels in foreign lands without even the courtesy of notifying the destination government while simultaneously opening up our borders to those same elements all the while demanding law-abiding citizens give up their rights.
So, no ARMeltdown. You'll have to sell your leftist pipedreams elsewhere.
Back to the thread topic, where and when will garage mahals celebration of these "courageous" Islamic murderers be held?
I'm assuming it will be in or near Madison.
I mean, these killers probably weren't as "courageous" as garages beloved Hamas killers who put their children directly in the line of fire, but still.
Bleating about the sacred parchment is not an argument, it is the refuge of fundamentalists. For starters its called an amendment and self-evidently is a reinterpretation or addition to the sacred parchment.
You are incorrect, and you illustrate exactly why the Bill of Rights was such a bad idea.
The original understanding of the Constitution was that it created expressed powers of the government. If the power was not included in the Constitution, then the federal government did not have it. Thus since the Constitution did not give the government the power to take guns, or restrict gun ownership, the government couldn't do those things, and no Second Amendment was needed. The Anti-Federalists demanded a Bill of Rights anyway, so one was created. Once the Bill of Rights was created, people like you began saying if the government isn't prohibited from doing something, it may do it. (which is the common but mistaken impression today_
I must say however, that the idea that the Second Amendment doesn't matter because it is an amendment, and not in the original document is a new one to me.
By the way, 1he 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments were indeed a "reinterpretation or addition to the sacred parchment". Does that mean they don't matter?
I must say the Left's current determination that the Constitution is an outdated document that should be ignored, and that it is only a "sacred parchment" and "the refuge of fundamentalists" is very troubling to me. That is the path to dictatorship.
"OK, there are 100 times as many whites in America as Muslims....
Are Muslims a "race?"
I must say the Left's current determination that the Constitution is an outdated document that should be ignored, and that it is only a "sacred parchment" and "the refuge of fundamentalists" is very troubling to me. That is the path to dictatorship.
I know, right? And they hide under Lady Liberty's skirts, all they while promising her that they will kill her last.
Are Muslims a "race?"
Nope. There is a Muslim religion, a Muslim culture and a Muslim people...but Muslims can be any race. Their condemnation and rejection of racism is about the only thing there is to admire about Islam.
"I have to get a license to drive "
Why? Didn't need one when automobiles first came out. http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/exhibition/exhibition_8_2.html As late as 1935, only 39 states required them.
Now, motorized vehicles are big and fast and dangerous when operated incorrectly. But here's another idea. Require all drivers carry insurance. Not the vehicle- the driver. And let the insurance companies determine if a driver can get insurance. If a driver cannot provide valid proof of insurance he's driving unlawfully. Bet we'd get better drivers under that scenario.
Arabs actually are white, in spite of the fact that CAIR does not want them to be.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cenbr01-1.pdf
How are the race categories used in Census 2000 defined?
“White” refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples
of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who
indicated their race or races as “White” or wrote in entries such as
Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/01/census.check.it.right.campaign/
(CNN) -- Maz Jobrani was talking to his high school counselor one day when she delivered some bad news: He was white.
At first, he tried to deny it. Jobrani had brown skin, and his parents spoke with a Persian accent. Strangers called him "sheikh'' and "towel-head." He was living in the San Francisco Bay area during the Iranian hostage crisis in the early 1980s and would occasionally hear, "Go home, Iranian."
But the evidence for his whiteness was plain to see. When Jobrani looked at college applications in his counselor's office, he saw no racial category for Iranians. "That's because you're white," his counselor explained as she instructed him to check the box marked "white."
"I told her, 'What do you mean, white? I've been going through all this crap, all this ribbing and teasing for years, and I've been white all this time? You should have told me earlier.' "
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/24/census-bureau-explores-new-middle-eastnorth-africa-ethnic-category/
Organizations representing people of Middle Eastern and North African descent are asking the Census Bureau to add a new ethnic category on forms. People of this heritage are now categorized as “white,” a decades-old practice advocacy groups say is inaccurate.
Their condemnation and rejection of racism is about the only thing there is to admire about Islam.
bin Laden after 9-11 "Even the slaves [Africans] are celebrating!"
No racism there.
"Mass shootings are exceedingly rare."
Anyone living in America who would write this about America is also "exceedingly rare," as that level of wilful ignorance is abjured by people with even the sense of a chicken.
harrogate said...
"Mass shootings are exceedingly rare."
Anyone living in America who would write this about America is also "exceedingly rare," as that level of wilful ignorance is abjured by people with even the sense of a chicken.
Nope. He's right.
Mass shootings are the exception. You are far more likely to be shot and killed in a drug transaction than by a random shooter.
Anyone living in America who would write this about America is also "exceedingly rare," as that level of wilful ignorance is abjured by people with even the sense of a chicken.
Again, take up your beef with the FBI.
Post a Comment