Tiberius Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Quote Earlier on Sunday, six former National Security Council senior directors for counterterrorism wrote a joint statement calling on the federal government to take domestic terrorism as seriously as international terrorism. “We call on our government to make addressing this form of terrorism as high a priority as countering international terrorism has become since 9/11,” read the statement, signed by Joshua Geltzer, Nicholas Rasmussen, Jen Easterly, Luke Hartig, Chris Costa and Javed Ali. “This also means providing a significant infusion of resources to support federal, state, and local programs aimed at preventing extremism and targeted violence of any kind, motivated by any ideology or directed at any American community. We simply cannot wait any longer,” it continued. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/el-paso-mass-shooting-domestic-terrorism_n_5d47609ae4b0acb57fce5b14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Is this speech a change for Trump? Is he shaken by what his words have helped fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: This line that criminals will get guns is curious. It's true for a lot of gang-related crime for sure. But it can't be put the test in many of these cases of the mass shooters because the guns were legal. Whether these people would have had the social acumen to navigate an illegal firearms market to get the guns is unknown, but it at least could have been harder. I am not for banning firearms but reducing the number and ease with which people can acquire them, especially weapons like this that are not for hunting, seems prudent. Trump's role? Don't know. He's a symptom of a problem on this front. Joking about shooting illegal aliens looks pretty bad right now. On the specific issue of gun control, part of the issue is how politicians seek to enact it. IMHO - the only path to meaningful gun control is through the amendment process. The constitution is clear on this and yet we never hear a peep about the process. I believe that because of this, we never see real, actionable idea, just pandering and roadblocks. The amendment process, by definition, brings together all relevant stakeholders to have a say in its drafting and adoption. And once it’s in place it’s effective and difficult to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 9 minutes ago, dubs said: On the specific issue of gun control, part of the issue is how politicians seek to enact it. IMHO - the only path to meaningful gun control is through the amendment process. The constitution is clear on this and yet we never hear a peep about the process. I believe that because of this, we never see real, actionable idea, just pandering and roadblocks. The amendment process, by definition, brings together all relevant stakeholders to have a say in its drafting and adoption. And once it’s in place it’s effective and difficult to change. She you want the most difficult or impossible path to be followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: She you want the most difficult or impossible path to be followed. Well, I’m not sure I agree with that assessment. My take is that because we have a fairly evenly split nation, politically, each party thinks they are so close to passing legislation and taking total control that they can simply bully the other side into submission. Then each side digs in and it becomes a stalemate. In the event that sweeping legislation does pass, ie Obamacare, the other side then spends their energy seeking to undo it for the same reason. We need, as a nation, to understand civics and how our constitutional republic works. I think it’ll rightly, refocus what the federal government can do, what it’s not allowed to do, and get our lawmakers to understand that the amendment process will necessitate more cooperation and lower the temp of the country. Maybe its an optimistic take, and it’s not going to be easy either, but I think it’s the appropriate way to frame these types of sweeping legislation. Face it, even if some laws were passed, they will undoubtably be challenged at all levels of the judicial system. Even then it’s been decades of this issue and nothing gets done. Can it get any slower. Edited August 5, 2019 by dubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, dubs said: Well, I’m not sure I agree with that assessment. My take is that because we have a fairly evenly split nation, politically, each party thinks they are so close to passing legislation and taking total control that they can simply bully the other side into submission. Then each side digs in and it becomes a stalemate. In the event that sweeping legislation does pass, ie Obamacare, the other side then spends their energy seeking to undo it for the same reason. We need, as a nation, to understand civics and how our constitutional republic works. I think it’ll rightly, refocus what the federal government can do, what it’s not allowed to do, and get our lawmakers to understand that the amendment process will necessitate more cooperation and lower the temp of the country. Maybe its an optimistic take, and it’s not going to be easy either, but I think it’s the appropriate way to frame these types of sweeping legislation. Face it, even if some laws were passed, they will undoubtably be challenged at all levels of the judicial system. Even then it’s been decades of this issue and nothing gets done. Can it get any slower. Honestly, it seems like you just want the path that is most likely to fail. No way a constitutional amendment gets passed, but I think that's the point. I mean what gun control would you like to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Honestly, it seems like you just want the path that is most likely to fail. No way a constitutional amendment gets passed, but I think that's the point. I mean what gun control would you like to see? What?!? Do you simply just enjoy inflammatory statements toward people on this board and assuming their intentions? When you respond with something other than assuming my intentions, maybe I’ll respond again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. (works every time) 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, dubs said: What?!? Do you simply just enjoy inflammatory statements toward people on this board and assuming their intentions? When you respond with something other than assuming my intentions, maybe I’ll respond again. You might want to get a book................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, jrober38 said: Agreed. Banning things will never work. But making it harder to access weapons should be the goal. It shouldn't be an inconvenience for someone to take a course, get vetted and prove that they're actually a responsible gun owner. If the trade off is making people safer, how can that not be something everything is on board with? If you have to get licensed to drive a car, why should you not have to get licensed to own firearms? I agree. Bans just speed up the evolution of the means. Today it's guns. Tomorrow it's drones. Why shoot up a place when you can fly a drone or drones inside it and detonate the bomb you've attached to it? Edited August 5, 2019 by dpberr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 ...So, any updates on the Las Vegas shooter -- including motive? (Just asking for a friend) 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Pro Satan leftist??? Oh come on! That's great! What video game made him become that? I love right wing damagae control! 2 minutes ago, dpberr said: I agree. Bans just speed up the evolution of the means. Today it's guns. Tomorrow it's drones. Why shoot up a place when you can fly a drone or drones inside it and detonate the bomb you've attached to it? Technology will keep changing, these guns will get smaller and more deadly. God help us all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 I mentioned to hubby (and a few friends) this past weekend that the gun-grabbers make me want to get a pistol license, only problem is I'd actually have to shoot a gun. Hubby assured me I do not have to shoot a gun in order to get, or keep, a pistol permit license in NYS. And then he immediately said to me we can go to the shooting range together. Not sure what I am going to do, but if these gun-grabbers are beginning to turn someone like me - who truly dislikes the thought of firearms, and has never wanted to possess or shoot anything - into someone who is considering getting a license, what is it doing to those who are on the cusp? This is one of my two biggest lefty leftovers... I hate guns. Yes, we have them in the house. Hubby is licensed in a lot of states, and is also a big hunter. Me? I don't say too much as that is his right under the Constitution, and it is something he strongly believes in. But for myself it has never been a consideration. Until the past year. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Trump specifically and forcefully denounces white supremacy, citing El Paso killer's manifesto. Also 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 And -- it's like they don't listen to the words but instead run with what they assume he said/will say and continue to push their false narrative without any hint of irony. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And -- it's like they don't listen to the words but instead run with what they assume he said/will say and continue to push their false narrative without any hint of irony. Another example from the Washington Post's White House bureau That is NOT journalism, but advocacy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Another example from the Washington Post's White House bureau That is NOT journalism, but advocacy It’s infantile garbage 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts