Islamic Terrorism

[Kelly the Dog]

Are you telling me you could not have bought an automatic rifle from a registered dealer 50-60 yrs ago?

Yes you could. It's just not as easy. There weren't as many of them. The dealers didn't have as many of them.

 

I'm not against people owning guns at all. I only think there isn't much use for assault weapons. That's really mine and a lot of people's only real issue. The actual amount of homes with guns is way down over the last few decades. Like from 50% to 35% or something like that. But the amount is way up. More guns than people. That seems ridiculous to me and I still don't want to stop people from having them. Just the ease of automatics.

[GG]

Yes you could. It's just not as easy. There weren't as many of them. The dealers didn't have as many of them.

 

I'm not against people owning guns at all. I only think there isn't much use for assault weapons. That's really mine and a lot of people's only real issue. The actual amount of homes with guns is way down over the last few decades. Like from 50% to 35% or something like that. But the amount is way up. More guns than people. That seems ridiculous to me and I still don't want to stop people from having them. Just the ease of automatics.

 

To recap, you could buy fully automatics. Greater percentage of homes owned guns. But mass murders were a fraction lower.

 

What's changed in the last 50 years?

[DC Tom]

I was in the process of adding even if it doesn't automatically have an ideology or political purpose. And I take it back. I shouldn't have said definition because I know the definition. But it's the same thing. It creates terror. It serves the same purpose. It cries out for the same reaction.

 

It doesn't come out of nowhere.

 

And even if it's not domestic terrorism, which it is, ha, it calls out for the same questions about shouldn't we worry more about the people here doing this way more than people trying to get here doing this. It's the same discussion.

No, it's not. If it is, then the definition of "terrorism" has been so warped then pretty much every crime is terrorism.

[Kelly the Dog]

No, it's not. If it is, then the definition of "terrorism" has been so warped then pretty much every crime is terrorism.

I think you and I both know that I was not implying that, and that I was implying the worst of the mass murders where dozens are mowed down. If you want to be technical, then of course you are right. You don't honestly believe that I would be saying this thing if one guy had taken a rifle to one or two people in Las Vegas do you?

[Numark3]

The state of Nevada does not have the authority to define what "terrorism" is, and the definition they attempted to forward is useless, and attempts to modify the definition presented by the group who is charged with combating terrorism, so yes, ignore the state law of Nevada, because it's incorrect. Unless you're saying that the state of Nevada supersedes federal agencies as relates to terrorism? Is that really the hill you want to die on here?

 

And no, it's not the same thing, at all.

Dude, you have a bad bad bad understanding of law. Unless you can point me to the federal-law-preempts-States-from-defining-terrorism law. Your overall point is arguable, but try not to butcher legal facts. Its no bueno. Your whole post is factually wrong somehow, which is kinda impressive lol

 

ISIS is taking credit for it.

Can I sell anyone who believes this something? Like a rock for 10,000 dollars or something....please? Edited October 2, 2017 by Crayola64

[DC Tom]

I think you and I both know that I was not implying that, and that I was implying the worst of the mass murders where dozens are mowed down. If you want to be technical, then of course you are right. You don't honestly believe that I would be saying this thing if one guy had taken a rifle to one or two people in Las Vegas do you?

No, I don't think you'd say that. Which is why I want to be technical aboyt it. The magnitude of a crime or the fear it creates are not what distinguish crime from terrorism.

[Kelly the Dog]

No, I don't think you'd say that. Which is why I want to be technical aboyt it. The magnitude of a crime or the fear it creates are not what distinguish crime from terrorism.

I understand and I imagine you know I do. Which is why I brought this up only after 600 people have been hit by bullets.

 

I would say that number does elevate it.

[Numark3]

I agree terrorism should be confined to people affiliated to terrorist groups who are furthering their agenda. The problem is its not used that way colloquially (by both sides, ie calling any crime by a Muslim an act of terrorism) or legally in lots of contexts

[DC Tom]

I understand and I imagine you know I do. Which is why I brought this up only after 600 people have been hit by bullets.

 

I would say that number does elevate it.

1) So what's the cutoff, then?

2) Show me the report that 600 people were hit by bullets.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Dude, you have a bad bad bad understanding of law. Unless you can point me to the federal-law-preempts-States-from-defining-terrorism law. Your overall point is arguable, but try not to butcher legal facts. Its no bueno. Your whole post is factually wrong somehow, which is kinda impressive lol

Terrorism is a Federal crime, and the relevant statute places jurisdiction with the Department of Justice, who uses the definition found in the US Code, which I provided up-thread.

 

Nevada does not have the authority, under the US Code which defines the authority, to amend the definition of terrorism; nor is any definition they provide useful as it isn't relevant to the body that has jurisdiction.

Edited October 2, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Kelly the Dog]

1) So what's the cutoff, then?

2) Show me the report that 600 people were hit by bullets.

The cutoff number is "a schit ton."

Are you kidding me? Two hours ago, the last I saw, it was 58 dead and 515 wounded. Sure, some if not a huge number of the over 600 number of injured or killed were likely trampled in some way. But it was hundreds. Why would you take the time to quibble about this. Even if it were 60 and not 600.

[Numark3]

Terrorism is a Federal crime, and the relevant statute places jurisdiction with the Department of Justice, who uses the definition found in the US Code, which I provided up-thread.

 

Nevada does not have the authority, under the US Code which defines the authority, to amend the definition of terrorism; nor is any definition they provide useful as it isn't relevant to the body that has jurisdiction.

There can be state and federal versions of a crime. It doesnt mean federal law preempts it.

 

Nevada isnt amending the US code, it is creating its own state crime for terrorism.

 

Nevada of course does have jurisdiction for a crime committed wholly in Nevada for the most part (unless federal law premepts it, think bank robberies)

 

 

Here is an example of a similar situation......drug crimes lol. Take the advice you just have. Argue your point differently, this isnt a hill you want to die on.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Crayola64

[Doc Brown]

They're going to need more information to come out before they consider it a terrorist attack or not. All that's being reported is he's a rich, retired and wealthy white guy without a criminal record who played high stakes poker. He bought some guns in California, but they apparently weren't found in his hotel room. Motive is still missing here as this isn't your typical mass shooter.

[row_33]

Hillary mouthing off about silencers was a dumb move.

[Azalin]

There can be state and federal versions of a crime. It doesnt mean federal law preempts it.

 

Nevada isnt amending the US code, it is creating its own state crime for terrorism.

 

Nevada of course does have jurisdiction for a crime committed wholly in Nevada for the most part (unless federal law premepts it, think bank robberies)

 

 

Here is an example of a similar situation......drug crimes lol. Take the advice you just have. Argue your point differently, this isnt a hill you want to die on.

 

This is going to be amusing.

[Kelly the Dog]

They're going to need more information to come out before they consider it a terrorist attack or not. All that's being reported is he's a rich, retired and wealthy white guy without a criminal record who played high stakes poker. He bought some guns in California, but they apparently weren't found in his hotel room. Motive is still missing here as this isn't your typical mass shooter.

From Wall Street journal he had 18-20 guns, a couple of them fully automatic. I'm sure some reports will be exaggerated either higher or lower but they seem to be a legitimate source for something like this.

[TakeYouToTasker]

There can be state and federal versions of a crime. It doesnt mean federal law preempts it.

 

Nevada isnt amending the US code, it is creating its own state crime for terrorism.

 

Nevada of course does have jurisdiction for a crime committed wholly in Nevada for the most part (unless federal law premepts it, think bank robberies)

 

 

Here is an example of a similar situation......drug crimes lol. Take the advice you just have. Argue your point differently, this isnt a hill you want to die on.

I'll task you with presenting an example of a prosecution for terrorism at the state level absent a federal prosecution.

 

I'll also ask you to present the carve out in the federal statute defining terrorism, and the federal statute placing the prosecution for instances of terrorism solely with the Department of Justice which makes way for the states in the way you're describing.

[DC Tom]

The cutoff number is "a schit ton."

Are you kidding me? Two hours ago, the last I saw, it was 58 dead and 515 wounded. Sure, some if not a huge number of the over 600 number of injured or killed were likely trampled in some way. But it was hundreds. Why would you take the time to quibble about this. Even if it were 60 and not 600.

 

Because it's not a quibble: there is a significant difference between "600 people shot" and "100 people shot, 500 trampled."

 

Particularly if a "**** ton" is more than 100.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'll task you with presenting an example of a prosecution for terrorism at the state level absent a federal prosecution.

 

I'll also ask you to present the carve out in the federal statute defining terrorism, and the federal statute placing the prosecution for instances of terrorism solely with the Department of Justice which makes way for the states in the way you're describing.

That took eight seconds.

 

http://accesswdun.com/article/2017/4/523952

[Dorkington]

 

ISIS is taking credit for it.

I'm somewhat skeptical of that... should be interesting to see what our intelligence agencies find, though... I guess?

 

 

Note that a large number of the recent mass shootings in this country have been by white American males.

 

Now tell me what that says about either your theory, or Democratic policies.

A lot of white people are feeling 'threatened' (rightfully or not, is up for debate) due to continued changing demographics. Generally speaking.