5
5
0
The thing that gets me about this is how bound and determined some people are to allow no, none, not one, restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. One guy even said he supported that unrestricted right for “EVERYONE.” He said it twice: EVERYONE!
Which includes people (by definition) on death row.
People seem to be afraid of any dilution of the RKBA. I guess so that is so you can be ready to overthrow the government at a moment’s notice, or resist its depredations with your soon to be cold dead fingers.
Those attitudes are making us less effective in our fight to keep ISIS from sending out more Farooks.
Someone the other day touted Operation Eldorado Canyon as the way a strong president acts. I had to google that name. Turns out it was the 1986 op to kill Khaddafi by bombing him. At the time I thought, “They are finally going to some return on the F-111”, the aircraft so bad they never even gave it a name.
But I soon recalled that of course that op DIDN’T kill Khaddafi. It did kill a toddler, a little girl.
We all went about our business. If that toddler’s death is part of the problem we have no way of knowing or not. But lots of other innocent dead people probably are part of the problem. And the problem, to state the maybe obvious, is that people are willing to kill Americans –any Americans-- for randomly and callously condoning the killing of other people far away and then acting as if it is no big deal.
And we are like, “They must be horrible, callous killers to shoot up a Holiday party!” And they are like: “Americans are horrible, callous killers to be using bombs and drones to kill many, many innocent people.”
Look for more Farooks, and don’t wonder why they think it is a good idea to whack Americans.
Walt
Which includes people (by definition) on death row.
People seem to be afraid of any dilution of the RKBA. I guess so that is so you can be ready to overthrow the government at a moment’s notice, or resist its depredations with your soon to be cold dead fingers.
Those attitudes are making us less effective in our fight to keep ISIS from sending out more Farooks.
Someone the other day touted Operation Eldorado Canyon as the way a strong president acts. I had to google that name. Turns out it was the 1986 op to kill Khaddafi by bombing him. At the time I thought, “They are finally going to some return on the F-111”, the aircraft so bad they never even gave it a name.
But I soon recalled that of course that op DIDN’T kill Khaddafi. It did kill a toddler, a little girl.
We all went about our business. If that toddler’s death is part of the problem we have no way of knowing or not. But lots of other innocent dead people probably are part of the problem. And the problem, to state the maybe obvious, is that people are willing to kill Americans –any Americans-- for randomly and callously condoning the killing of other people far away and then acting as if it is no big deal.
And we are like, “They must be horrible, callous killers to shoot up a Holiday party!” And they are like: “Americans are horrible, callous killers to be using bombs and drones to kill many, many innocent people.”
Look for more Farooks, and don’t wonder why they think it is a good idea to whack Americans.
Walt
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
6
6
0
There is unquestionably a right to bear arms in the Constitution, and two centuries of case law have crystallized what the limits of that are:
Violent felons can not purchase a firearm.
Minors can not purchase a firearm.
Certain firearms require additional permits, such as fully automatic weapons.
This is all well established, and has been this way more or less unchanged since the Brady Bill regulating fully automatic rifles.
The debate today is over moving the goalposts on those regulations, and who they would actually affect. Reasonable people are not demanding that machine guns and anti-tank missiles are a part of the 2d Amendment and that they should be available at Walmart.
First, proposed regulations:
1. The POTUS wants to see mandatory background checks and waiting periods for all purchases, including gun shows.
Commentary - sounds pretty reasonable to me. I can't think of anyone really negatively affected by that, except the select few that are vendors at gun shows. The exemption for person to person sales is a pretty big loophole.
2. POTUS wants to ban sales to people on the "no-fly" list.
Commentary - Sounds great, right? Except a high percentage of people on the "no-fly" list are not in any way associated with terrorism. They have the misfortune of sharing a name with a guy. Maybe they travelled to the "wrong" country. Problem is, this runs afoul of the 2d, 5th, and 14th Amendments. No person can be denied rights, privleges, or property without "Due Process" of law. The "No-fly" list is arbritrary, and limits an individual's ability to travel by a mode of transportation. In and of itself, it is in a pretty shady place, Constitutionally. The main argument against this is as stated above.
Secondary arguments get into why there is a 2d Amendment in the first place. If allowed to come to fruition, this ban would open the door to reclassify and expand this "no-fly" list to encompass far more than people who travel to Somalia or "like" the wrong facebook post. Don't believe it is possible? See the IRS targeting of politically disfavored groups and individuals for audits.
Second, who it affects:
Making it harder to buy a gun only makes it harder for those who are law-abiding. Criminals are unaffected. Terrorists are unaffected. Just you and me.
If I were to read deeper into the motives of those who would further restrict gun sales, it would seem the goal is to get "military looking" weapons out of people's hands, to restrict the sale of ammunition (a very insidious way to limit people's 2d Amendment rights. Great. I have a very expensive club to bludgeon an intruder), and generally reduce the number of guns out there in circulation. Problem is, there are already tens of millions of firearms out there.
What has actually happened is all of this talk of restricting weapon purchases and ammunition has caused an absolute boom in sales - the opposite of what I think proponents of these restrictions want.
Speaking for myself, current events and the political climate are making me consider purchasing a weapon for self-defense for the first time. And I feel like if I wait, I may not be able to get what I would prefer as my choice of weapon. I'm just a suburban guy that lives in a quiet neighborhood, but the world is rapidly becoming a more dangerous place, and I have a family to protect.
I am not a "gun nut". I am not a crazy. I am not afraid that black helicopters will swoop in and take my property. But I am a realist, and I am not alone in my reasoning.
Violent felons can not purchase a firearm.
Minors can not purchase a firearm.
Certain firearms require additional permits, such as fully automatic weapons.
This is all well established, and has been this way more or less unchanged since the Brady Bill regulating fully automatic rifles.
The debate today is over moving the goalposts on those regulations, and who they would actually affect. Reasonable people are not demanding that machine guns and anti-tank missiles are a part of the 2d Amendment and that they should be available at Walmart.
First, proposed regulations:
1. The POTUS wants to see mandatory background checks and waiting periods for all purchases, including gun shows.
Commentary - sounds pretty reasonable to me. I can't think of anyone really negatively affected by that, except the select few that are vendors at gun shows. The exemption for person to person sales is a pretty big loophole.
2. POTUS wants to ban sales to people on the "no-fly" list.
Commentary - Sounds great, right? Except a high percentage of people on the "no-fly" list are not in any way associated with terrorism. They have the misfortune of sharing a name with a guy. Maybe they travelled to the "wrong" country. Problem is, this runs afoul of the 2d, 5th, and 14th Amendments. No person can be denied rights, privleges, or property without "Due Process" of law. The "No-fly" list is arbritrary, and limits an individual's ability to travel by a mode of transportation. In and of itself, it is in a pretty shady place, Constitutionally. The main argument against this is as stated above.
Secondary arguments get into why there is a 2d Amendment in the first place. If allowed to come to fruition, this ban would open the door to reclassify and expand this "no-fly" list to encompass far more than people who travel to Somalia or "like" the wrong facebook post. Don't believe it is possible? See the IRS targeting of politically disfavored groups and individuals for audits.
Second, who it affects:
Making it harder to buy a gun only makes it harder for those who are law-abiding. Criminals are unaffected. Terrorists are unaffected. Just you and me.
If I were to read deeper into the motives of those who would further restrict gun sales, it would seem the goal is to get "military looking" weapons out of people's hands, to restrict the sale of ammunition (a very insidious way to limit people's 2d Amendment rights. Great. I have a very expensive club to bludgeon an intruder), and generally reduce the number of guns out there in circulation. Problem is, there are already tens of millions of firearms out there.
What has actually happened is all of this talk of restricting weapon purchases and ammunition has caused an absolute boom in sales - the opposite of what I think proponents of these restrictions want.
Speaking for myself, current events and the political climate are making me consider purchasing a weapon for self-defense for the first time. And I feel like if I wait, I may not be able to get what I would prefer as my choice of weapon. I'm just a suburban guy that lives in a quiet neighborhood, but the world is rapidly becoming a more dangerous place, and I have a family to protect.
I am not a "gun nut". I am not a crazy. I am not afraid that black helicopters will swoop in and take my property. But I am a realist, and I am not alone in my reasoning.
(6)
(0)
2
2
0
I think you are stretching credibility connecting a domestic controversy on the right to bear arms with Farook and others of his ilk. As of today there is no evidence connecting the two. The common thread between Farook and other terrorists is their desire to kill in reaction to a call from what they consider the "real" interpretation of Muslim writings. World-wide, guns, bombs, knives motor vehicles and any other device that can be converted into a weapon has been utilized. Terrorist actions are not reactions, they are efforts to establish a caliphate which they consider the undeniable right of their religion. There are no rules in their quest. Just like the zealots of the past, anything is appropriate in their quest. Women, children, artifacts and anything else held in regard by other cultures is fair game. Their goal is to have their targets surrender what they consider their god-given rights to them. The concept of women and children first is unique to the cultures they wish to overthrow.
Regarding Operation Eldorado Canyon, Aardvarks (F-111s) and Intruders (A-6s) successfully attacked assigned targets in Libya in retribution for Gadaffi's direct involvement in various terroristic acts and support of various organizations such as the IRA and the Red Army Faction. Many of the civilian casualties reported were part of Gadaffi's own efforts to discredit the attack. Up to 131 casualties were claimed including the toddler you so dramatically pointed out. Said toddler was also claimed to be Gadaffi's step child. All that aside, Gadaffi and Libya greatly reduced their involvement in world affairs and he was generally unheard of after the raids until he was killed.
You seem to take pleasure in pointing out our acts that produced accidental deaths to give the terrorists validity. You can believe what you like, but I will trade any number of the casualties we inflicted for one hair on my granddaughter's head; and she is at risk in today's world.
Regarding Operation Eldorado Canyon, Aardvarks (F-111s) and Intruders (A-6s) successfully attacked assigned targets in Libya in retribution for Gadaffi's direct involvement in various terroristic acts and support of various organizations such as the IRA and the Red Army Faction. Many of the civilian casualties reported were part of Gadaffi's own efforts to discredit the attack. Up to 131 casualties were claimed including the toddler you so dramatically pointed out. Said toddler was also claimed to be Gadaffi's step child. All that aside, Gadaffi and Libya greatly reduced their involvement in world affairs and he was generally unheard of after the raids until he was killed.
You seem to take pleasure in pointing out our acts that produced accidental deaths to give the terrorists validity. You can believe what you like, but I will trade any number of the casualties we inflicted for one hair on my granddaughter's head; and she is at risk in today's world.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"The F-111[N 1] was in service with the USAF from 1967 through 1998. The Strategic Air Command had FB-111s in service from 1969 through 1992. At a ceremony marking the F-111's USAF retirement, on 27 July 1996, it was officially named Aardvark, its long-standing unofficial name."
On the F-111 name, whatever.
"Regarding Operation Eldorado Canyon, Aardvarks (F-111s) and Intruders (A-6s) successfully attacked assigned targets in Libya in retribution for Gadaffi's direct involvement in various terroristic acts and support of various organizations such as the IRA and the Red Army Faction. "
The purpose was to kill Gaddafi. (I guess I will change my spelling.)
"Forewarned by a telephone call, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his family rushed out of their residence in the Bab al-Azizia compound moments before the bombs dropped."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya
"You can believe what you like, but I will trade any number of the casualties we inflicted for one hair on my granddaughter's head; and she is at risk in today's world."
Our killing innocents puts your granddaughter at greater risk.
Walt
On the F-111 name, whatever.
"Regarding Operation Eldorado Canyon, Aardvarks (F-111s) and Intruders (A-6s) successfully attacked assigned targets in Libya in retribution for Gadaffi's direct involvement in various terroristic acts and support of various organizations such as the IRA and the Red Army Faction. "
The purpose was to kill Gaddafi. (I guess I will change my spelling.)
"Forewarned by a telephone call, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his family rushed out of their residence in the Bab al-Azizia compound moments before the bombs dropped."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya
"You can believe what you like, but I will trade any number of the casualties we inflicted for one hair on my granddaughter's head; and she is at risk in today's world."
Our killing innocents puts your granddaughter at greater risk.
Walt
1986 United States bombing of Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 1986 United States bombing of Libya, code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon, comprised air strikes by the United States against Libya on Tuesday, 15 April 1986. The attack was carried out by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps via air strikes, in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing. There were 40 reported Libyan casualties, and one US plane was shot down, resulting in the death of two airmen.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
I found this:
Gaddafi’s daughter Hana’s death in 1986 all a hoax?
By Elizabeth Flock August 26, 2011
South African President Nelson Mandela stands for a picture with the family of Moammar Gaddafi. At center stands a girl the AP says could be a 13-year-old Hana Gaddafi. (Obed Zilwa/AP)
For years, mystery surrounded Hana: Had she ever existed? Was she really dead? Had Gaddafi concocted the story as propaganda?
Now, an investigation by the Irish Times in Gaddafi’s compound, overtaken by rebel forces this week, seems to lay these questions to rest. In a room that is believed to have been Hana’s, the newspaper found documents and photographs that show it’s likely Hana is alive and working as a doctor in Tripoli.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/gaddafis-daughter-hanas-death-in-1986-all-a-hoax/2011/08/26/gIQAaUVFgJ_blog.html
Walt
Gaddafi’s daughter Hana’s death in 1986 all a hoax?
By Elizabeth Flock August 26, 2011
South African President Nelson Mandela stands for a picture with the family of Moammar Gaddafi. At center stands a girl the AP says could be a 13-year-old Hana Gaddafi. (Obed Zilwa/AP)
For years, mystery surrounded Hana: Had she ever existed? Was she really dead? Had Gaddafi concocted the story as propaganda?
Now, an investigation by the Irish Times in Gaddafi’s compound, overtaken by rebel forces this week, seems to lay these questions to rest. In a room that is believed to have been Hana’s, the newspaper found documents and photographs that show it’s likely Hana is alive and working as a doctor in Tripoli.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/gaddafis-daughter-hanas-death-in-1986-all-a-hoax/2011/08/26/gIQAaUVFgJ_blog.html
Walt
Gaddafi’s daughter Hana’s death in 1986 all a hoax?
Hana Gaddafi, adopted daughter of Moammar Gaddafi and believed to be killed as an infant in a U.S. attack, is now believed to be alive and working as a doctor in Tripoli.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Capt Walter Miller - Assuming this were a true article (which it very well might be), wouldn't this suggest that no matter what we do as Americans, the leaders of enemy nations will still find ways to paint us as the bad guy? This is what happens when the government is able to control information, the press, education (or lack there of), and essentially a significant portion of their people.
The Jewish population in Europe was hardly performing anything violent in Europe and yet they were made the scapegoats of Germany's problems in the 1930s. It's easy to use similar tactics against Americans too.
The Jewish population in Europe was hardly performing anything violent in Europe and yet they were made the scapegoats of Germany's problems in the 1930s. It's easy to use similar tactics against Americans too.
(0)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
Capt Miller,most of this discussion is happy hour talk. I would like to hear your thoughts on "The common thread between Farook and other terrorists is their desire to kill in reaction to a call from what they consider the "real" interpretation of Muslim writings. World-wide, guns, bombs, knives motor vehicles and any other device that can be converted into a weapon has been utilized. Terrorist actions are not reactions, they are efforts to establish a caliphate which they consider the undeniable right of their religion. There are no rules in their quest. Just like the zealots of the past, anything is appropriate in their quest. Women, children, artifacts and anything else held in regard by other cultures is fair game. Their goal is to have their targets surrender what they consider their god-given rights to them. The concept of women and children first is unique to the cultures they wish to overthrow." You gloss over religious zealots and their cheap regard for life. They do not care about any of your sensitivities.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
I fail to see that you've made any reasonable connection between the gun control debate and the threat of terrorism. I am a life member of the NRA, yet I believe some basic controls are necessary, just as they are for driving a car or practicing medicine. Yet, laws intended to restrict certain categories of people from obtaining firearms will only impact people who are inclined to obey those laws. Terrorists certainly will not care about our laws, and they will undoubtedly violate a great many laws obtaining firearms from any available source to accomplish their goal. You failed to make any coherent argument for any real change.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Tim Parkhurst
Your original post seemed to be an attempt to make a connection between our efforts to fight terrorism and the domestic gun control issue. Your follow up question about the NRA is irrelevant to both my response and your original post. While I'm an NRA member, I clearly said that I agree with some controls, regardless of what the NRA says. I still don't see that you've made the connection between gun control and the fight against terrorism. You spoke of our governments decision to send aircraft to bomb Quadaffi, which resulted in the death of, I believe, his little niece. What has that got to do with domestic gun control? While that action was likely counterproductive in stemming the rampant hatred against America, it has NOTHING to do with the gun control issue. You and I likely agree on some key points, but your argument is unclear and misconceived. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make? Clear that up, and we can have a rational discussion.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Qadaffi didn't cause any trouble for about three decades after El Dorado Canyon. It probably worked even better for not killing him but leaving him in power and completely out of desire to sponsor terrorism anymore.
The right to keep and bear arms is essentially absolute in the clear words of the Constitution. You know, that document you swore to uphold and defend.
The right to keep and bear arms is essentially absolute in the clear words of the Constitution. You know, that document you swore to uphold and defend.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
And I am not saying that the RKBA should be done away with.
One aspect of this is that if members of the United States Militia (every mass shooter I know of in this country is a member of the militia) can't be regulated, then some changes may be made no matter what I think or what you think.
Walt
One aspect of this is that if members of the United States Militia (every mass shooter I know of in this country is a member of the militia) can't be regulated, then some changes may be made no matter what I think or what you think.
Walt
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
There are nuts on both sides. Pro and anti. Regulation should be in place. Just not so much that the common citizen can't comply.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To be honest I have never heard anybody say that there should be no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms Capt Walter Miller.
I think it is perfectly reasonable that people on the terror watch list should not be permitted to buy or own firearms. Reasonable and efficient background checks can be a good thing.
Hopefuly one day there will be an efficient and effective way to keep those who ignore laws in general from owning or using weapons.
I think it is perfectly reasonable that people on the terror watch list should not be permitted to buy or own firearms. Reasonable and efficient background checks can be a good thing.
Hopefuly one day there will be an efficient and effective way to keep those who ignore laws in general from owning or using weapons.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Capt Walter Miller - I hope Sgt. Whatshisname was not being serious - everyone includes toddlers - that is one group of people I would never want to see armed :-)
(0)
(0)
Capt Mark Strobl
LTC Stephen F. - I would respectfully disagree with you on this point: Prohibiting guns for those on terror watch lists, no-fly lists, and the like. The laws prohibit convicted felons from owning/purchasing a firearm. However, those folks in the former category haven't actually done anything to cause their rights to be infringed. We can't reasonably deny rights based upon assumptions: That's very "Minority Report-esque."
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Capt Mark Strobl - I reread my response to make sure I knew what i said. I didn't mention the [USA] no-fly list which has problems because of a number of reasons.
I limited my initial response deliberately to the terror watch list which is international in scope and most of the people are not US citizens and wouldn't be permitted to buy weapons here anyway.
I limited my initial response deliberately to the terror watch list which is international in scope and most of the people are not US citizens and wouldn't be permitted to buy weapons here anyway.
(0)
(0)
Capt Mark Strobl
LTC Stephen F. - The article is from FoxNews. So, it has it's own slant. But, it is interesting. I am trying to find out... Is citizenship required? The background checks don't check for citizen status... only criminal records. Thanks for clarification on your statement. I may have read more into what you were trying to say.
http://myfox28columbus.com/news/local/suspected-terrorists-can-buy-guns-legally
http://myfox28columbus.com/news/local/suspected-terrorists-can-buy-guns-legally
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 1) from BARE -- Netflix Special
Jim Jefferies' Freedumb Tour is happening now. Get tickets: http://bit.ly/Freedumb Comedian Jim Jefferies breaks down the absurdity of America's obsession wi...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 2) from BARE -- Netflix Special
Jim Jefferies' Freedumb Tour is happening now. Get tickets: http://bit.ly/Freedumb Comedian Jim Jefferies breaks down the absurdity of America's obsession wi...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google