Politics 2015

[Hixter]

l would argue that it's a special kind of stupid to not realize that allowing pretty much anyone to buy weapons of war is allowing us to arm terrorists within our own borders. 

They are not weapons of war. They are relatively small-caliber rifles that look like weapons of war. They're just like any other rifle or pistol: pull the trigger once and one bullet is fired.

 

As I argued a couple of pages ago, the organization to which you now belong has absolutely zero interest in keeping arms out of the hands of terrorists.

Absolutely untrue.

 

This graphic is pretty telling.

First of all, any gun control statistics that lump in suicides are purposely misleading and their only purpose is to vastly inflate the numbers in order to frighten/shock people. I consider suicide to be an absolute right of all human beings. With suicides included, Alaska looks like the murder capital, when it actually sees on 20 or 30 murders per year. DC's murder rate is about 6x Alaska's, but the nation's capital is one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

 

And when you compare a state like New Hampshire and its lax gun laws to Illinois (strict gun laws and 7x the gun murder rate) it all falls apart. Demographics, not gun laws, dictate murder rates in this country. A state with a lot of guns isn't necessarily more violent, while a state with tough gun laws and a large number of gang members and drug dealers tends to be very violent.

 

Yeah, the NRA has gotten some bad press recently for lobbying to keep guns in the hands of people on the terrorist watch list.

The NRA doesn't want to see terrorists buying guns. The NRA wants to prevent the government from keeping law-abiding Americans from being denied their constitutional rights because of a secret, poorly maintained database.

 

A few days ago the New York Times chided the NRA for blocking the watch list bill. But here's what that very same newspaper had to say about the list a year ago:

 

Welcome to the shadowy, self-contradictory world of American terror watch lists, which operate under a veil of secrecy so thick that it is virtually impossible to pierce it when mistakes are made. A 2007 audit found that more than half of the 71,000 names then on the no-fly list were wrongly included.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/opinion/terror-watch-lists-run-amok.html

 

 

And another chart that we should all remember:

 

 

So about the president's speech last night

At least he finally called the Fort Hood shootings an act of terrorism.

[John Smith]

And like clockwork...

[John Smith]

In this country gun violence is a very real thing, yet when anyone suggests anything other than proliferation, there is a well rehearsed loud outcry against any new laws rules or even suggestions of ways to curb it. However voter fraud, which is statistically zero in the US get more actual action and laws are passed across the country to prevent this essentially non-exist any crime. Something is seriously wrong here.

[Winston Legthigh]

Hixter often brings up a good point though. Why do we need more gun rules when we don't even bother to enforce the once we have?

 

How about we put focus on enforcing the CURRENT laws, and see how that works?

 

Then, we can make a rational decision about the need for more gun laws. 

[KevinG]

In this country gun violence is a very real thing, yet when anyone suggests anything other than proliferation, there is a well rehearsed loud outcry against any new laws rules or even suggestions of ways to curb it. However voter fraud, which is statistically zero in the US get more actual action and laws are passed across the country to prevent this essentially non-exist any crime. Something is seriously wrong here.

 

Hey don't forget how we have to do something about the problem that all Syrian refugees as well.  There is another non-existent problem that we definitely need a solution to.   

 

 

Hixter often brings up a good point though. Why do we need more gun rules when we don't even bother to enforce the once we have?

 

How about we put focus on enforcing the CURRENT laws, and see how that works?

 

Then, we can make a rational decision about the need for more gun laws. 

 

I am all for enforcing current gun laws as well, but lest we forget the NRA is pretty actively lobbying to weaken those too.    

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/never-mind-new-guns-laws-the-nra-keeps-weakening-the-existing-ones.html

 

And consistently undermines the ATF

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045.html

 

But hey GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS!

 

And DAMMIT people you sucked me back into this pointless discussion.  

[Hixter]

In this country gun violence is a very real thing, yet when anyone suggests anything other than proliferation, there is a well rehearsed loud outcry against any new laws rules or even suggestions of ways to curb it. 

The outcry isn't against new laws, rules or suggestions. The outcry is against new laws, rules or suggestions that punish, demonize and/or criminalize people who currently own and operate firearms in a safe, legal manner. Californians were just murdered by radical Islamist terrorists with ties to ISIS and the president wants to take away from law-abiding citizens the most popular sporting rifle in the country.

 

The president wants an "assault" weapons ban. Such a ban already exists in California.

 

The president wants a "high-capacity" magazine ban. Such a ban already exists in California.

 

The president wants a "cooling off period." Such a period already exists in California.

 

The president wants to deny firearm sales to people on a terrorism watch list. The California killers weren't on that list.

 

The president's proposals would have done nothing to stop the San Bernardino terrorist attack. But they will affect the average gun owner by potentially disarming him/her and possibly even turning him/her into a felon with the stroke of a pen.

 

Former Carter press secretary Jody Powell said the following in a letter to the new Clinton administration in 1994:

 

"As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while have little or no impact on violent crime or criminals."

[Hixter]

Hey don't forget how we have to do something about the problem that all Syrian refugees as well.  There is another non-existent problem that we definitely need a solution to.   

It's certainly is a problem when 13% of Syrian refugees are ISIS supporters.

 

 

http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e

[tinnitus photography]

who created ISIS?

but a better question is, what is the strategy that will work? I'm pretty sure the right wing is on the wrong track.
 

 

 

"But let's be honest: what the Republicans are selling isn't a practical plan to solve a practical problem, because the problem defined that way—can we stop an attack just like this one?—has no real solution. So what they promise is an amplification of all the poisonous emotions swirling inside you. Are you afraid? I will validate your fears and shout that things are even worse than you think. Do you hate? I will give your hatred voice, point it outward, translate it into pledges of rage and violence visited upon the guilty and innocent alike."

 

http://prospect.org/article/terrorism-truths-no-politician-will-admit

[Hixter]

but a better question is, what is the strategy that will work?

It's simple: as long as they keep trying to kill us, we keep killing them. Hopefully in large numbers and in places far removed from American soil.

[tinnitus photography]

It's simple: as long as they keep trying to kill us, we keep killing them. Hopefully in large numbers and in places far removed from American soil.

   

 

go 'murica!   

 

 

tell me Hixter, which bombing campaigns have worked? viet nam? afghanistan? or do you want a full-on, boots on the ground war in whatever countries ISIS happens to reside? 

 

it's a game of whack-a-mole with zero possibility of winning. all it boils down to is a massive recruitment drive.

[John Smith]

The US and the French certainly broke the will of the Vietnamese through similar tactics, so it will work now. perhaps a more thoughtful less violent approach is needed? Give people a reason to not join?

[Hixter]

it's a game of whack-a-mole with zero possibility of winning.

You don't have to win. All you have to do is make sure that you don't lose.

 

The United States can't solve the world's problems. But it's a president's responsibility to protect the nation from outside forces. And if that means a never ending campaign of drone strikes and small military actions overseas, then so be it. It's been going on since long before our nation was founded.

[KevinG]

It's certainly is a problem when 13% of Syrian refugees are ISIS supporters.

 

 

http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e

 

Please stop.  I understand that graphic is from the larger paper by the Arab Center for Policy Research, a lengthy paper which read in full represents a more complex picture of the overall Military campaign against IS.  But if you cherry pick that one graphic out of the article and extrapolate like the far right new outlet Gateway Pundit did you are going to be shocked and scared.  

 

This line from that article is about as ridiculous as one can get:

 

 

Factoring the survey results with the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama plans to bring to the United States means Obama will bring in 1,300 ISIS supporters and a total of 3,100 who do not want the US to defeat ISIS.

 

 

It is clear that the author of the Gateway Pundit has no idea how the Syrian Refugee processes works, or is just willfully ignorant to scare the base (I actually think it is the later).  Now, I have no way of knowing if you read the Gateway Pundit article or another similar article or if you just came up to the same conclusion after reading the ACRPS paper.  But it certainly seems that the Right is scared of Syrian refugees and you have followed suit as well.  

 

Also here is link to an article that actually explains the graphic in context.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-refugees-positive-views-isis_564e2c72e4b08c74b734fc83

 

But again it seems we have to go the simplest route.  Take a piece of information and refuse the nuance behind it.  It seems ISIS wants to define this war as the Muslims against the rest of the world.  It also seems that the GOP wants to do the same.  In order to defeat ISIS we need the help of the  Muslim world.  But by equating them all with terrorist (as many GOP candidates have done) we are doing nothing more then isolating and radicalizing, which will further hamper our success against ISIS.  

[tinnitus photography]

You don't have to win. All you have to do is make sure that you don't lose.

 

The United States can't solve the world's problems. But it's a president's responsibility to protect the nation from outside forces. And if that means a never ending campaign of drone strikes and small military actions overseas, then so be it. It's been going on since long before our nation was founded.

so how do you define 'not losing'?

 

we can't solve the world's problem, but we've got a decent track record of creating and/or exacerbating some of them. 

i didn't realize that Madison authorized drone strikes.

 

 

do 'outside forces' include US citizens?

[Hixter]

But if you cherry pick that one graphic out of the article and extrapolate like the far right new outlet Gateway Pundit did you are going to be shocked and scared.

I did not learn about that graphic via Gateway Pundit (whatever that is) and I am neither shocked nor scared. I responded to your assertion that Syrian refugees are a non-existent problem. I posted a poll which shows that 13% of Syrian refugees have a positive view of ISIS, but I could have just as easily reminded you that at least one of the Paris attackers entered the country via the wave of Syrian refugees.

 

I have little faith in the government's vetting capabilities and the fact that one of the California terrorists had recently been granted entry to the United States proves that my lack of faith is entirely reasonable.

[LouieB]

More guns, less refugees.  All simple isn't it?

 

The folks who shot up the center in California were not refugees. One was from Chicago (watch those guys) and the wife was on a visa which was not a refugee visa.  Actually we screen the shit out of refugees, but let in tourists, students, future spouses and spouses with little screening. 

 

And honestly for the life of me I can't figure out why responsible gun owners want more irresponsible gun owners to own more guns.  What's the problem with closing gun show loop-holes, better background checks, and other common sense measures (are these available under the current gun laws, if so let's do it).

 

I totally believe that the carnage is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Maybe there are less gun deaths than there used to be, its possible, but there sure are a shitload of them now.    

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

so how do you define 'not losing'?

The United States, its citizens and its territories remain unconquered.

 

i didn't realize that Madison authorized drone strikes. 

 There was that whole War of 1812 thing against outside forces...

 

do 'outside forces' include US citizens?

If they have joined a foreign entity to fight against their home country? Sure, why not.

[tinnitus photography]

well i am pretty sure that maintaining 'unconquered' status will be pretty easy and won't necessitate escalation of military actions in foreign lands.

 

 

on the last point, it sounds a lot like you would have been a staunch proponent of the jap-am internment camps in WWII or Operation Wetback.

[Hixter]

Actually we screen the shit out of refugees, but let in tourists, students, future spouses and spouses with little screening. 

I read an article which said that the spouse went through an extensive background check.

 

 

What's the problem with closing gun show loop-holes, better background checks, and other common sense measures (are these available under the current gun laws, if so let's do it).

The terrorist in San Bernardino underwent a background check. How could it have been improved? He and his wife weren't on any terror watch lists and he had no criminal history.

[Hixter]

on the last point, it sounds a lot like you would have been a staunch proponent of the jap-am internment camps in WWII

Nope. I clearly stated: "If they have joined a foreign entity to fight against their home country."

 

I would certainly have supported the arrest of Japanese-Americans who fought against the United States or stated their intention to do so. That's called treason and it warrants arrest.

[tinnitus photography]

so how does bombing help stop the internal recruitment? how would you possibly stop this? 

maybe we should ask the Israelis... they have seemed to get a really good handle on stopping suicide bombers over in jerusalem. 


the entire premise is so quixotic and just plays to revenge fantasies. kinda like how most of the concealed carry permit holders feel, like their own little version of Charles Bronson. 

 

 

 

 

it's utter horseshit.

[Hixter]

the entire premise is so quixotic and just plays to revenge fantasies. kinda like how most of the concealed carry permit holders feel, like their own little version of Charles Bronson. 

Like it or not, the United States will continue to kill foreigners who are bent on attacking us and our allies. Nothing new there...

 

And like it or not, every day Americans use firearms to protect themselves. Nothing new there, either.

[tinnitus photography]

so you are cool w/ the collateral, and have no solutions to stopping terrorism other than using the established means that makes more of them?


ok. you sound like a republican. good work here.

[KevinG]

I have little faith in the government's vetting capabilities and the fact that one of the California terrorists had recently been granted entry to the United States proves that my lack of faith is entirely reasonable.

 

So I guess the key is close our borders, eh?  Or just close it to people in the Middle East?  Or maybe we should have a religious test, as some GOP candidates have suggested. The vetting process for refugees has been very successful and I don't see a reason for doubt it going forward.  The Syrian refugees have become a straw man for the GOP, attacking them but really attacking the Muslim world as a whole.  

 

The fact that one California terrorists that entered this country legally actually shows that the Syrian refugees question is a non issue.  It is easier to get into this country via marriage, a visa, etc.  We should look at these ways that is important to the discussion.  Making an issue out of the Syrian refugees and pushing that to forefront actually makes it more difficult to stop people that intend us harm coming to this country.  

 

Unfortunately there is no way to stop someone who intends to do harm to our country.  Just as there is no way to stop a citizen of the US from self radicalizing, grabbing a gun and shooting up a Mall, Plan Parenthood, or blowing up a sporting event, or a Federal building.  There are some people in this world that are just plain evil and will do evil things.    

 

But again the Syrian refugees are a non existent problem.  Ok 13% support ISIS in some way.  That is something to consider and I am sure will be considered by the people/agencies vetting these refugees, but does that mean we will have 1,300 new terrorists in our country?  I don't think anyone logically will believe that.  The facts remain the refugee process has been a success and is not an issue that needs to take up our time.  And posts like yours really do nothing garner fear and ill will towards this population who honestly need our help.

 

 

I did not learn about that graphic via Gateway Pundit (whatever that is) and I am neither shocked nor scared.

 

 And just out of curiosity, since you did not get your graphic from the Gateway Pundit (who first really ran with this story) where did you get it?  GP itself has said that the paper has not been reported by any mainstream news outlets (which seems to pretty true).  Just want to know where you found your original information and in what context it was presented.  

[Hixter]

so you are cool w/ the collateral, and have no solutions to stopping terrorism other than using the established means that makes more of them?

 

 

ok. you sound like a republican. good work here.

Then President Obama must be a republican, too. He killed more terrorists than I ever will and they even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

If someone is intent on killing you, you try to kill them first. Or you die. Simple.