EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2600
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 04 2015 03:40 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, it's pretty much confirmed that this is Muslim terrorism. Probably not ISIS-related (I'd think that we'd have seen an ISIS press release by now if it was), but still terrorism. The most disturbing aspect of all of this is that Farook was basically a home-grown terrorist, having been here for at least a decade, attending an American high school and university. Wife, baby, home, stable job --- none of it mattered in the end. If anything, the fact that it wasn't related to ISIS is even more damning. ISIS or no ISIS, there's no problem getting radicalized and pulling this shit. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 04 2015 03:40 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, it's pretty much confirmed that this is Muslim terrorism. Uh, no it's not. Terrorism is usually defined as to involve a political goal. From what we know, this is a mass murder by people who happen to be Muslims. We don't know more at this point. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 04 2015 04:40 oneofthem wrote: not enough information out right now to judge the source or method of radicalization The LA times quoted an officer saying it was a form of "self radicalization", which is a new use of that word for me. | ||
|
Eskendereya
United States97 Posts
On December 04 2015 03:54 Plansix wrote: Its the same problem when a white supremacist decides to shoot of a church or some religious nutjob attacks an abortion clinic. The majority of mass shootings committed in the US are not done by Muslims. Radicalization is an issue that needs to be combated, but we are kidding ourselves if we think it is the majority of gun violence in this country. Yes, we have a mental health problem in this country where wackos go shoot up a bunch of people and then commit suicide, usually. That and radical Islamic terrorism are two different problems. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
The police suppressing information beyond what is necessary to protect those in the immediate vicinity until an investigation has actual facts to give is probably a good thing. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On December 04 2015 04:43 KwarK wrote: The irony being that we will passionately argue in total ignorance about each newly speculated "fact" that the media proposes while the bodies are still warm and cease to care by the time the investigation is concluded. The police suppressing information beyond what is necessary to protect those in the immediate vicinity until an investigation has actual facts to give is probably a good thing. It absolutely is and I'm pretty surprised that more folks don't see that. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 04 2015 04:40 oneofthem wrote: not enough information out right now to judge the source or method of radicalization Doesn't change the fact that they were radicalized. They even had go-pro cameras to post their massacre online like any good jihadi. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On December 04 2015 04:48 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't change the fact that they were radicalized. They even had go-pro cameras to post their massacre online like any good jihadi. So what do you think about impounding the weapons of people on the terror watch list? //I have seen reports that this shooter was in contact with guys being watched by the FBI. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On December 04 2015 05:12 KwarK wrote: Trying to take guns from the sovereign citizen movement will make them go full Waco. A lot of domestic So? Not seeing how "going full Waco" is at any point justified. Granting extra liberties to the militia segment of our society just because they are violent and dangerous is a nasty precedent. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 04 2015 05:09 CannonsNCarriers wrote: So what do you think about impounding the weapons of people on the terror watch list? //I have seen reports that this shooter was in contact with guys being watched by the FBI. This is a hard one. Regardless of where you stand on gun control, the fact remains that ownership of firearms is a recognized Constitutional right, and curtailing that right has implications for other Constitutional rights. Frankly, I'm not sure that there's a good way to do it. Due process would require some kind of judicial or administrative process (probably including an opportunity for the subject suspect to be heard) that could compromise the effectiveness of the terror watch list. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On December 04 2015 05:17 CannonsNCarriers wrote: So? Not seeing how "going full Waco" is at any point justified. Granting extra liberties to the militia segment of our society just because they are violent and dangerous is a nasty precedent. Tell that to Bundy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Bundy.27s_worldview I agree with the government decision not to massacre all of the crazies who denied the existence of the Federal government and were willing to engage in an armed struggle against it, by the way. I think the paperwork and bullshit involved with the massacre and the subsequent reaction would probably have cost more than the grazing fees. But the precedent is set. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 04 2015 05:17 CannonsNCarriers wrote: So? Not seeing how "going full Waco" is at any point justified. Granting extra liberties to the militia segment of our society just because they are violent and dangerous is a nasty precedent. Its not watch list isn't legally actionable, or they would just arrest people on it. Unless they pass new laws, they can't seize the guns. Especially since the NRA fought to prevent the watch list from being added to background checks for fire arms purchases. The NRA would prefer you buy your own gun to defend yourself against this kind of stuff. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On December 04 2015 04:43 KwarK wrote: The irony being that we will passionately argue in total ignorance about each newly speculated "fact" that the media proposes while the bodies are still warm and cease to care by the time the investigation is concluded. The police suppressing information beyond what is necessary to protect those in the immediate vicinity until an investigation has actual facts to give is probably a good thing. No, the irony is that FBI watchlists and confirmed financial ties are being treated by the media as less conclusive than an anonymous source saying a killer (who lived, by choice, without running water and dedicated much of his life to moonshining)muttered something. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On December 04 2015 05:19 KwarK wrote: Tell that to Bundy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Bundy.27s_worldview I agree with the government decision not to massacre all of the crazies who denied the existence of the Federal government and were willing to engage in an armed struggle against it, by the way. I think the paperwork and bullshit involved with the massacre and the subsequent reaction would probably have cost more than the grazing fees. But the precedent is set. Nvm, I just saw you read the wiki too. I had to look up how it was disposed of. Has he paid the fines or what? | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On December 04 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote: Its not watch list isn't legally actionable, or they would just arrest people on it. Unless they pass new laws, they can't seize the guns. Especially since the NRA fought to prevent the watch list from being added to background checks for fire arms purchases. The NRA would prefer you buy your own gun to defend yourself against this kind of stuff. Yes, this is the problem. A more rigorous terror watch list, with a better means to challenge your presence on it, coupled with weapon inspections and possibly impounding could help in these situations. Yes there will be some false positives and some people's hobbies will be compromised for a little while, but as long as there is some judicial/administrative scheme to investigate this stuff I think the sacrificed hobbies would be worth it. | ||
| ||
