Jump to content

Domestic Terrorism

Politics   (160,920 Views 223 Comments)
7 Followers; 34,910 Visitors; 2,399 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 4 of Domestic Terrorism. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

4 hours ago, DaveICURN said:

Yes to more mental heath should be the key to this discussion. The disjointed nature of our mental health system leave much to be desired in the day to day activities of people who are in need of those services.

It is my belief that many of the mental health issue suffer from a breakdown at the primary level. How are we encouraging people to deal with personal mental health issues when the culture of today is one of, "I want to see results now!". This has led to an increase of patients not continuing medication regiments, sending them into regressive depression.

Another attributable factor is the constant self administration of endorphins through group assurance. We can now surround ourselves with those who affirm us and make us feel good. We are slowly taking away our ability to handle negative and stressful situations by insulating ourselves from the things , and people, we don't like. 

The tools that are used in acts of evil are not themselves evil. To stand on these children's graves and push for "something to be done!" is only a veiled attempt to remove the thing you don't like. Be it guns, knives, hammers, etc. 

You had me in agreement with you, until your last line.

No one I know, and I am involved with Moms Demand Action On Gun Violence, is seeking the total removal of guns from society.

We advocate for sensible gun laws.

No one gun owner should be threatened by safe storage laws.

It is common sense.

No gun owner should be threatened by Red Flag laws.

It is common sense.

You want a conceal carry license?

You should be required to take a live, hands-on gun safety course.

Again, common sense.

The old, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' adage is part of the past.

With mass shootings happening daily, we need to approach the problem from many directions, and with as much common sense as possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

You had me in agreement with you, until your last line.

Great! That means we can have a productive discussion about what we don't agree with and attempt to find more common ground.

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

No one I know, and I am involved with Moms Demand Action On Gun Violence, is seeking the total removal of guns from society.

We advocate for sensible gun laws.

Sensible according to whom? I only ask because I believe this to be the cornerstone of disagreement with both sides. 

Who gets to define sensible? Would you not agree that there are those out there who would view total ban as sensible? I certainly understand that there are those who would view tanks and automatic weapons as a sensible weapons. 

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

It is common sense

Once again, whose common sense are we using. As i'm sure we can all agree from a healthcare perspective, people are not always the brightest in their decision making. So are you, and by extension your organization, saying you know better than they?

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

No one gun owner should be threatened by safe storage laws.

Well, to be frank, yes they should. According to Giffords law center, https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/;

       "The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. 

            All firearms are required to be kept disabled with a locking device except when an authorized user is carrying it on his or her person or has the firearm under his or her immediate control." Bolding is my doing.

This requirement is not a suggestion. Failure to meet this requirement has the threat of law behind it. This in no way protects the owner, neigh it holds the owner solely responsible for action with said firearm in the event of an accident or theft.

Do I think these are good ideals? Absolutely, I have most of the safety features outlined on my own weapons. However I feel this will not change to state of illegally bought and sold guns on the market. 

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

No gun owner should be threatened by Red Flag laws

I think people in general should be worried by red flag laws. This gives anyone the power to completely disrupt your own life, and safety by reporting you to the authorities as a person of interest. You then lose your Second amendment rights for up to a year while you are investigated. So, your solution to maintain safety is giving people, not professionals mind you, the ability to remove someones rights if they feel its prudent?

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

You want a conceal carry license?

You should be required to take a live, hands-on gun safety course.

Yes, this is fine. No qualms here. Interesting though that my state of Oklahoma will be a constitutional carry state starting Nov. 1st.  I also have no problem with this law either. 

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

The old, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' adage is part of the past.

But it makes it no less true. I am open for an that will overthrow this line if thinking.  

 

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

With mass shootings happening daily

Just wondering what number do you consider a mass shooting? I believe most polls place it at 3?

On 5/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lil Nel said:

we need to approach the problem from many directions, and with as much common sense as possible.

Again I agree. One thing I can't get over is how no one is addressing education at home or school? In my elementary days we had hunter safety training once a year in grades 1-6. This is where I was taught the safety and respect for firearms. Would you be against government sponsorship for school age children about gun safety?

Thanks in advance for the reply!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DaveICURN said:

Great! That means we can have a productive discussion about what we don't agree with and attempt to find more common ground.

Sensible according to whom? I only ask because I believe this to be the cornerstone of disagreement with both sides. 

Who gets to define sensible? Would you not agree that there are those out there who would view total ban as sensible? I certainly understand that there are those who would view tanks and automatic weapons as a sensible weapons. 

Once again, whose common sense are we using. As i'm sure we can all agree from a healthcare perspective, people are not always the brightest in their decision making. So are you, and by extension your organization, saying you know better than they?

Well, to be frank, yes they should. According to Giffords law center, https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/;

       "The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. 

            All firearms are required to be kept disabled with a locking device except when an authorized user is carrying it on his or her person or has the firearm under his or her immediate control." Bolding is my doing.

This requirement is not a suggestion. Failure to meet this requirement has the threat of law behind it. This in no way protects the owner, neigh it holds the owner solely responsible for action with said firearm in the event of an accident or theft.

Do I think these are good ideals? Absolutely, I have most of the safety features outlined on my own weapons. However I feel this will not change to state of illegally bought and sold guns on the market. 

I think people in general should be worried by red flag laws. This gives anyone the power to completely disrupt your own life, and safety by reporting you to the authorities as a person of interest. You then lose your Second amendment rights for up to a year while you are investigated. So, your solution to maintain safety is giving people, not professionals mind you, the ability to remove someones rights if they feel its prudent?

Yes, this is fine. No qualms here. Interesting though that my state of Oklahoma will be a constitutional carry state starting Nov. 1st.  I also have no problem with this law either. 

But it makes it no less true. I am open for an that will overthrow this line if thinking.  

 

Just wondering what number do you consider a mass shooting? I believe most polls place it at 3?

Again I agree. One thing I can't get over is how no one is addressing education at home or school? In my elementary days we had hunter safety training once a year in grades 1-6. This is where I was taught the safety and respect for firearms. Would you be against government sponsorship for school age children about gun safety?

Thanks in advance for the reply!

If I might join...

Good questions.

In terms of sensible, we could start with the definition. Cambridge Dictionary 

I would suggest that the society determines how 'sensible' or 'responsible' are defined in terms of gun legislation. While each individual will continue to have their own views or feelings on the topics, a democratically organized republic should be responsive to the majority as it executes it's responsibility to keep the population safe from threat. The extremist views from any perspective on a topic should never drive the policy in our type of government, IMV.

I would agree to stipulate mass shooting = 3+ victims. 

Children who live in homes with firearms absolutely have a need to be educated in gun safety.  That could be part of a national campaign to address this public health crisis. 

I live in Alaska. I own multiple firearms. I advocate regulation. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DaveICURN said:

Great! That means we can have a productive discussion about what we don't agree with and attempt to find more common ground.

Sensible according to whom? I only ask because I believe this to be the cornerstone of disagreement with both sides. 

Who gets to define sensible? Would you not agree that there are those out there who would view total ban as sensible? I certainly understand that there are those who would view tanks and automatic weapons as a sensible weapons. 

Once again, whose common sense are we using. As i'm sure we can all agree from a healthcare perspective, people are not always the brightest in their decision making. So are you, and by extension your organization, saying you know better than they?

Well, to be frank, yes they should. According to Giffords law center, https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/;

       "The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. 

            All firearms are required to be kept disabled with a locking device except when an authorized user is carrying it on his or her person or has the firearm under his or her immediate control." Bolding is my doing.

This requirement is not a suggestion. Failure to meet this requirement has the threat of law behind it. This in no way protects the owner, neigh it holds the owner solely responsible for action with said firearm in the event of an accident or theft.

Do I think these are good ideals? Absolutely, I have most of the safety features outlined on my own weapons. However I feel this will not change to state of illegally bought and sold guns on the market. 

I think people in general should be worried by red flag laws. This gives anyone the power to completely disrupt your own life, and safety by reporting you to the authorities as a person of interest. You then lose your Second amendment rights for up to a year while you are investigated. So, your solution to maintain safety is giving people, not professionals mind you, the ability to remove someones rights if they feel its prudent?

Yes, this is fine. No qualms here. Interesting though that my state of Oklahoma will be a constitutional carry state starting Nov. 1st.  I also have no problem with this law either. 

But it makes it no less true. I am open for an that will overthrow this line if thinking.  

 

Just wondering what number do you consider a mass shooting? I believe most polls place it at 3?

Again I agree. One thing I can't get over is how no one is addressing education at home or school? In my elementary days we had hunter safety training once a year in grades 1-6. This is where I was taught the safety and respect for firearms. Would you be against government sponsorship for school age children about gun safety?

Thanks in advance for the reply!

Again, I don't know anyone talking about a complete ban of guns.

I suppose some people do advocate for a total ban, but I don't know any.

Nobody in Moms advocates for a total ban.

Just because safe storage can't be applied to ALL guns, ie, illegally obtained guns, isn't a reason to dismiss the proposal.

Think of all of the children's lives saved by such a law.

How many children are killed, or kill a parent because of an unsecured gun?

It is child abuse, and parents should be charged as such.

Think of how many guns would never be stolen, and thus circulated illegally, if properly stored.

No, the government should not be in the business of teaching gun safety to school kids.

That used to be a function of the NRA, back in the day, prior to the organization mismanaging funds, and dealings with the Russians.

Maybe the NRA, while getting its financial messes straight, should revamp their mission.

Safety classes should come with licensing.

Red Flag laws are to protect domestic violence victims.

I don't think it is quite as easy, as you portray, to have a person's guns taken, for safety.

There has to be cause; such as a history of domestic violence or mental illness.

It isn't as easy as me, walking into a police station, and saying my neighbor's guns should be taken away.

Common sense, I will use the definition used by nursing boards; what would any reasonable person do, in a given situation.

The majority of Americans support common sense gun laws.

The majority of Americans are tired of seeing dead kids, and worrying about gun violence in church, at concerts, at synagogue, at movie theaters, etc.

 

Edited by Lil Nel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Again, I don't know anyone talking about a complete ban of guns.

I suppose some people do advocate for a total ban, but I don't know any.

Nobody in Moms advocates for a total ban.

No one? You can personally agree on your word that no one wants a total ban? I'm not trying for a gotcha here, I just want to be sure that the implication that you are asserting that no one in Moms wants a total ban.

With that said, would you support for a total ban on all fire arms? What about non sport weapons? Just want to get a sense on the scope of your idea of policy.

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Just because safe storage can't be applied to ALL guns, ie, illegally obtained guns, isn't a reason to dismiss the proposal.

You miss understand. I think proper storage and safety is an important measure that should be taken. I'm saying that some of the legislature proposed places litigation and blame on the owner if an incident occurs in the form of penalties up to jail time. 

 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Think of all of the children's lives saved by such a law

These arguments, to be blunt, are a false trail. If X then Y is never the base for a solid argument. 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

It is child abuse, and parents should be charged as such

This is also an interesting line of reasoning. Then do you propose that all house place accidents are child abuse? Fell off trampoline and broke arm? Swallowed pills left on floor? Climbed banister and fell onto floor?

The acts are awful emotionally jarring and serious events. But these incidents happen every day. You are attempting to protect from the very nature of humans. We are too curious for our own good. 

I agree that the fault falls on the un-careful parents, but to impose legal action, such as child abuse, is too far. "Sorry you lost your child, here's a $5000 fine and we're taking your other children."

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Think of how many guns would never be stolen, and thus circulated illegally, if properly stored

I encourage you to watch these series on DefCon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48HUctXZUNw&ab_channel=Christiaan008

These outline the susceptibility to attacks on a variety of safes. Once again, I'm not saying they don't serve a purpose in the home. I'm pointing out the futility of punishing people if their firearms are stolen and used illegally.  

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

No, the government should not be in the business of teaching gun safety to school kids.

Why not? It's the Government's job to protect the Second amendment. Why then insulate Government taught children from safety lessons about firearms? Studies have shown that this lessens the curiosity and intrigue in the educated children, thus lessening the chance of a firearm related accident in the home. 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

That used to be a function of the NRA, back in the day, prior to the organization mismanaging funds, and dealings with the Russians.

Maybe the NRA, while getting its financial messes straight, should revamp their mission.

NRA is a private company and not a part of my concerns. Similarly is the dealing of Moms not my concern. I don't give either money so it doesn't concern me.

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Red Flag laws are to protect domestic violence victims.

I don't think it is quite as easy, as you portray, to have a person's guns taken, for safety.

There has to be cause; such as a history of domestic violence or mental illness.

It isn't as easy as me, walking into a police station, and saying my neighbor's guns should be taken away.

But it is. The current laws list conditions by a persons family that would initiate an inquiry that would lead to the seizure. Now with the various manifestos and pre-planned messages from mass shooters, some states are now looking into letting teachers, councilors, co workers, even other student submit an official inquiry to allow a search of a suspect. Does it stop at the child/adult in question? Oh no, it encompasses all in the household as well. So if some of these more extreme Red Flags come into play, it will be exactly as you describe. 

Do you support this?

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Common sense, I will use the definition used by nursing boards; what would any reasonable person do, in a given situation.

So then do you agree that it is reasonable to, if legal, conceal a firearm on your person if you believe you are entering an area that may be deangerous on your life?

I'm wondering how we bring the common sense of the every-man into the legal purview. How can I be judged based on what my neighbor would do, etc.

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

The majority of Americans support common sense gun laws

I know it's a cliche, but can I have some sources? Preferably in APA format. :)

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

The majority of Americans are tired of seeing dead kids, and worrying about gun violence in church, at concerts, at synagogue, at movie theaters, etc.

No madam, everyone is tired of this. However, everyone who want to impose regulations are failing to capture the consent of the people through the omission of one simple problem. 

Nearly all of the mass shooting are committed by illegal guns. These are not card carrying, regulation following, gun lock using, safe storage, background passing people. These are mentally ill people who use the best tool around for the most harm. And until you can convince America you are not punishing the legal firearm owners, then the cause is a futile one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 5:36 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

If I might join

Of course baloney, glad to have ya!

On 5/16/2019 at 5:36 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

In terms of sensible, we could start with the definition

My major issues with this sentiment, is that it's very open to interpretation. If we are going to talk legality I would like to see something a little more concrete. 

 

On 5/16/2019 at 5:36 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

a democratically organized republic should be responsive to the majority as it executes it's responsibility to keep the population safe from threat

I would counter that our Government was not meant to keep the population safe from the inside threats but larger global threats. This is why the Second Amendment was formulated. To allow the people to protect themselves against "...a long train of abuses and usurpations...".

On 5/16/2019 at 5:36 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

That could be part of a national campaign to address this public health crisis. 

Agree completely and would support additional formation of agency to ensure this happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DaveICURN said:

Of course baloney, glad to have ya!

My major issues with this sentiment, is that it's very open to interpretation. If we are going to talk legality I would like to see something a little more concrete. 

 

I would counter that our Government was not meant to keep the population safe from the inside threats but larger global threats. This is why the Second Amendment was formulated. To allow the people to protect themselves against "...a long train of abuses and usurpations...".

Agree completely and would support additional formation of agency to ensure this happens. 

We see today that partisan people cannot agree on even common definitions. A notion of what characterizes something as sensible or responsible or ethical has evolved dramatically in this society in the recent past.

Of course our government is supposed top protect us from domestic threat.  That language is in the congressional oaths of office, right? That's supposed to be why we have police and laws about crime, right?

I don't think that we need another agency to combat this public health issue. 

We need to hold gun owners responsible.  An off duty police officer just lost his toddler son because he did not secure his handgun adequately.  My daughter's childhood friend died because her uncle didn't secure his handgun properly. These people must be held accountable.

IMV there is no sensible reason that legally held firearms are not registered with the local government.  That searchable registration allows LEO'S to track illegal weapons back to their original owners.  A friend of mine here in Alaska died recently, he had quite a collection of firearms. His wife discovered that more than one were reported stolen years before.  He had purchased them privately. 

In your comments to another you mentioned that most mass shootings were accomplished using illegally obtained weapons.  I found that interesting and wonder  if you have a citation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accidently published...

I found that interesting and wonder  if you have a citation. My understanding is that mass shootings are commonly  domestic violence (~50-60%) involving the man, the woman and the people or children around her at the time.  I considered that it was very likely that the weapons were legally owned but maybe that's not correct. The Vegas shooter used legal guns.  Lots of school shootings are kids accessing legal but irresponsibly secured weapons of family, right? I would be interested in the data if it's kept and available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaveICURN said:

No one? You can personally agree on your word that no one wants a total ban? I'm not trying for a gotcha here, I just want to be sure that the implication that you are asserting that no one in Moms wants a total ban.

With that said, would you support for a total ban on all fire arms? What about non sport weapons? Just want to get a sense on the scope of your idea of policy.

You miss understand. I think proper storage and safety is an important measure that should be taken. I'm saying that some of the legislature proposed places litigation and blame on the owner if an incident occurs in the form of penalties up to jail time. 

 

These arguments, to be blunt, are a false trail. If X then Y is never the base for a solid argument. 

This is also an interesting line of reasoning. Then do you propose that all house place accidents are child abuse? Fell off trampoline and broke arm? Swallowed pills left on floor? Climbed banister and fell onto floor?

The acts are awful emotionally jarring and serious events. But these incidents happen every day. You are attempting to protect from the very nature of humans. We are too curious for our own good. 

I agree that the fault falls on the un-careful parents, but to impose legal action, such as child abuse, is too far. "Sorry you lost your child, here's a $5000 fine and we're taking your other children."

I encourage you to watch these series on DefCon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48HUctXZUNw&ab_channel=Christiaan008

These outline the susceptibility to attacks on a variety of safes. Once again, I'm not saying they don't serve a purpose in the home. I'm pointing out the futility of punishing people if their firearms are stolen and used illegally.  

Why not? It's the Government's job to protect the Second amendment. Why then insulate Government taught children from safety lessons about firearms? Studies have shown that this lessens the curiosity and intrigue in the educated children, thus lessening the chance of a firearm related accident in the home. 

NRA is a private company and not a part of my concerns. Similarly is the dealing of Moms not my concern. I don't give either money so it doesn't concern me.

But it is. The current laws list conditions by a persons family that would initiate an inquiry that would lead to the seizure. Now with the various manifestos and pre-planned messages from mass shooters, some states are now looking into letting teachers, councilors, co workers, even other student submit an official inquiry to allow a search of a suspect. Does it stop at the child/adult in question? Oh no, it encompasses all in the household as well. So if some of these more extreme Red Flags come into play, it will be exactly as you describe. 

Do you support this?

So then do you agree that it is reasonable to, if legal, conceal a firearm on your person if you believe you are entering an area that may be deangerous on your life?

I'm wondering how we bring the common sense of the every-man into the legal purview. How can I be judged based on what my neighbor would do, etc.

I know it's a cliche, but can I have some sources? Preferably in APA format. 🙂

No madam, everyone is tired of this. However, everyone who want to impose regulations are failing to capture the consent of the people through the omission of one simple problem. 

Nearly all of the mass shooting are committed by illegal guns. These are not card carrying, regulation following, gun lock using, safe storage, background passing people. These are mentally ill people who use the best tool around for the most harm. And until you can convince America you are not punishing the legal firearm owners, then the cause is a futile one. 

My cause is not futile.

The majority of domestic terrorism cases have used legally purchased guns.

Parkland shooting; legal guns.

Sandy Hook; legal guns.

Las Vegas: legal guns.

CA synagogue shooting; legal guns.

And the list goes on.

You are entitled to your opinions.

But I will not take the time to debate a stranger, online, over the finer points of the definition of "common sense."

I gave you a definition.

Baloney gave you a definition.

So, I am not interested in being your dance partner.

If you hoped to dissuade me from my point of view, you failed.

And I completely disagree that parents shouldn't be punished when one of their children, murders another child because the parent couldn't be bothered to safely store a firearm.

With rights, come responsibility.

Keeping children safe, should be a parent's number one responsibility.

But you are more than welcome to your point of view.

 

Edited by Lil Nel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another type of domestic terrorism occurred near me 2 nights ago.  2 Jewish community centers were set on fire.  Fortunately no one was hurt and the damage was minimal.  Security cameras caught a white male running from the scene at one of the centers.  Not a Mexican, not someone from the Middle East.  My synagogue now has a police officer present every Friday night for Sabbath services.  Parents hire private security for their childrens' Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies.   Members from a mosque in the same town have graciously offered to be present to watch for any suspicious activity during our services.  We've done the same for them.  

Our country is very, very sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

We need to hold gun owners responsible.  An off duty police officer just lost his toddler son because he did not secure his handgun adequately.  My daughter's childhood friend died because her uncle didn't secure his handgun properly. These people must be held accountable.

If the possibility that their own child is going to get ahold of the gun and kill themselves accidentally isn’t motivation enough to properly store their gun, then the possibility of going to jail after such a thing happens isn’t going to.

This is a just one easy example of how many gun laws and proposed laws aren’t really a solution to the problems we are trying to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

If the possibility that their own child is going to get ahold of the gun and kill themselves accidentally isn’t motivation enough to properly store their gun, then the possibility of going to jail after such a thing happens isn’t going to.

This is a just one easy example of how many gun laws and proposed laws aren’t really a solution to the problems we are trying to solve.

So no punishment for failure to keep firearms properly secured which results in death or harm to another? Thoughts and prayers only for those negligent gun owners? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×