Jump to content

Domestic Terrorism

Politics   (160,020 Views 213 Comments)
7 Followers; 34,749 Visitors; 2,341 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 5 of Domestic Terrorism. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

4 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.

Yeah, I have seen this argument used before.

If we apply this logic, to let's say, any other crime, such as murder, drunk driving, speeding, bank robbery, well then, you have just made a case to do away with all punishments for any type of crime!

After all, these crimes continue, even with the threat of punishment.

And as a society based on the rule of law, we don't do that, do we?

So it is a very flawed way of thinking.

Again, the number one responsibility of any parent, is the safety and we'll-being of their child.

If they fail at that, how can they be trusted with the awesome responsibility of gun ownership?

They can't.

Regulations and laws should exist for purposes of public safety.

I bet you want the government regulating the manufacturer of the prescription drugs you take, and the food you eat.

Why do some gun owners feel they should have unfettered access to firearms?

With rights, come responsibility.

I have met several gun owners who are members of Moms Demand Action On Gun Violence.

These people believe in responsible own gun ownership, not the outlawing of all guns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

Yeah, I have seen this argument used before.

If we apply this logic, to let's say, any other crime, such as murder, drunk driving, speeding, bank robbery, well then, you have just made a case to do away with all punishments for any type of crime!

After all, these crimes continue, even with the threat of punishment.

And as a society based on the rule of law, we don't do that, do we?

So it is a very flawed way of thinking.

Again, the number one responsibility of any parent, is the safety and we'll-being of their child.

If they fail at that, how can they be trusted with the awesome responsibility of gun ownership?

They can't.

Regulations and laws should exist for purposes of public safety.

I bet you want the government regulating the manufacturer of the prescription drugs you take, and the food you eat.

Why do some gun owners feel they should have unfettered access to firearms?

With rights, come responsibility.

I have met several gun owners who are members of Moms Demand Action On Gun Violence.

These people believe in responsible own gun ownership, not the outlawing of all guns.

 

I am often content to let conservatives contradict their own supposed values. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have law enforcement in our family.  What would happen if that fellow lost his right to keep firearms in his home because of his negligence resulted in his son's death? Would that be different than losing your driver's license for negligence that resulted in death of another? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Parkland School yearbook has dedicated a page to the therapy dogs who helped survivors cope. 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/therapy-dogs-parkland-shooting-survivors-yearbook?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeed&ref=bffbbuzzfeed&fbclid=IwAR0yeMgL3P2QJQLWH0SlmtIMVsq3pFYFFt5kZZ-yye9XRxTNIP7ViOK4w_4

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/444265-parkland-students-dedicate-page-in-yearbook-to-therapy-dogs-for

At least is something more than thoughts and prayers. 

I was at a conference this week and I wanted to cry while a police officer and an attendee discussed the finer points of how schools respond to active shooter situations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a form of terrorism to tell women that if they are raped they must maintain any resulting pregnancy or risk penalty?

Share this post


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

Yeah, I have seen this argument used before.

If we apply this logic, to let's say, any other crime, such as murder, drunk driving, speeding, bank robbery, well then, you have just made a case to do away with all punishments for any type of crime!

After all, these crimes continue, even with the threat of punishment.

And as a society based on the rule of law, we don't do that, do we?

So it is a very flawed way of thinking.

Again, the number one responsibility of any parent, is the safety and we'll-being of their child.

If they fail at that, how can they be trusted with the awesome responsibility of gun ownership?

They can't.

Regulations and laws should exist for purposes of public safety.

I bet you want the government regulating the manufacturer of the prescription drugs you take, and the food you eat.

Why do some gun owners feel they should have unfettered access to firearms?

With rights, come responsibility.

I have met several gun owners who are members of Moms Demand Action On Gun Violence.

These people believe in responsible own gun ownership, not the outlawing of all guns.

 

No, it’s not the same.  If you rob the bank, going to jail is the most likely consequence.  That is a deterrent.

If you have children and fail to safely store a gun, you aren’t going to jail unless some other horrific event happens first.  Jail isn’t a deterrent.  The threat of jail in this case isn’t changing behavior.

Maybe you have some data that says otherwise?

Do you wear a seatbelt because the law says you have to and you’ll maybe get a ticket if you don’t?  Or do you do it because you’ll be much safer in a car if you do so?

Cosleeping infant deaths are on the rise.  I’ve witnessed the immediate aftermath of a few.  Would throwing moms in jail after their infant dies this way solve the problem?

of course storing a gun safely is the right thing to do.  Just making more laws isn’t the smartest way to get people to do so.

Share this post


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

No, it’s not the same.  If you rob the bank, going to jail is the most likely consequence.  That is a deterrent.

If you have children and fail to safely store a gun, you aren’t going to jail unless some other horrific event happens first.  Jail isn’t a deterrent.  The threat of jail in this case isn’t changing behavior.

Maybe you have some data that says otherwise?

Do you wear a seatbelt because the law says you have to and you’ll maybe get a ticket if you don’t?  Or do you do it because you’ll be much safer in a car if you do so?

Cosleeping infant deaths are on the rise.  I’ve witnessed the immediate aftermath of a few.  Would throwing moms in jail after their infant dies this way solve the problem?

of course storing a gun safely is the right thing to do.  Just making more laws isn’t the smartest way to get people to do so.

Hmm.

Several states threaten with jail time, pregnant women, whose babies are born addicted to drugs.

Is that a way to combat opioid addiction?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lil Nel said:

Hmm.

Several states threaten with jail time, pregnant women, whose babies are born addicted to drugs.

Is that a way to combat opioid addiction?

 

Obviously, no.

Edited by SC_RNDude
I

Share this post


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

My cause is not futile.

Your cause is not futile, but the logic is flawed. You stated, "Think of all of the children's lives saved by such a law" You ask for X= saving children, then we must have Y= stricter gun legislation. You offer no room for compromise in the middle. You assert, through indirect means, that anyone who doesn't agree doesn't care about children. This it not so. This only means that people have various ways of approaching a solution to a problem. 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

The majority of domestic terrorism cases have used legally purchased guns

On further inspection of data you are correct. I apologize for the wrongful information and have learned something new in the process. 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

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

Because this is the name of the laws you want to pass. If I don't believe in what the meaning of those words are in this context how can I know if I agree? It is legally relevant to define common sense if you want to pass laws in it's name. 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

So, I am not interested in being your dance partner

Then why are you here? If you are not ready to stand and defend your own cause, then why bother? I have been nothing but respectful and courteous but I am to be cast off?

 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

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

Once again I am here to broaden my own understanding of the debate. I am under no delusion that I am here to change anyone's mind. I just want to have a good dialog with people of opposing viewpoints. 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

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

Punished how and to what degree? If we are going to dislocate families and throw kids into foster care for an unfortunate accident, then should there be terms and conditions?

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

With rights, come responsibility

But responsibilities are taught, not forced. Teaching responsibility is a hard thing to do to a free mind. The threat of force will not make lasting lessons on the person, it takes constant education and reinforcement of positive and negative feedback to make happen. 

How then do we encourage good and just responsibility, instead of just fining and condemning?

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

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

Completely agree that this should be a parents number one priority, not the Governments. 

23 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

But you are more than welcome to your point of view

As are you and I thank you again for sharing you thoughts and feelings on this subject. 

Where would go to find out more information on your organization?

Share this post


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

Your cause is not futile, but the logic is flawed. You stated, "Think of all of the children's lives saved by such a law" You ask for X= saving children, then we must have Y= stricter gun legislation. You offer no room for compromise in the middle. You assert, through indirect means, that anyone who doesn't agree doesn't care about children. This it not so. This only means that people have various ways of approaching a solution to a problem. 

On further inspection of data you are correct. I apologize for the wrongful information and have learned something new in the process. 

Because this is the name of the laws you want to pass. If I don't believe in what the meaning of those words are in this context how can I know if I agree? It is legally relevant to define common sense if you want to pass laws in it's name. 

Then why are you here? If you are not ready to stand and defend your own cause, then why bother? I have been nothing but respectful and courteous but I am to be cast off?

 

Once again I am here to broaden my own understanding of the debate. I am under no delusion that I am here to change anyone's mind. I just want to have a good dialog with people of opposing viewpoints. 

Punished how and to what degree? If we are going to dislocate families and throw kids into foster care for an unfortunate accident, then should there be terms and conditions?

But responsibilities are taught, not forced. Teaching responsibility is a hard thing to do to a free mind. The threat of force will not make lasting lessons on the person, it takes constant education and reinforcement of positive and negative feedback to make happen. 

How then do we encourage good and just responsibility, instead of just fining and condemning?

Completely agree that this should be a parents number one priority, not the Governments. 

As are you and I thank you again for sharing you thoughts and feelings on this subject. 

Where would go to find out more information on your organization?

You can find information about Moms by Goggling Moms Demand Action On Gun Violence.

You arguments are very similar to dude's, so you can read my response to him.

You do not have to agree with me.

The threat of force surrounds all of us.

Trump is using the threat of force against Iran.

Police use the threat of force against Black motorists, such as Sandra Bland.

Death penalty proponents use the threat of death as a deterrent to crime, and so on.

To say the threat of force, just doesn't work, is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

Is drunk driving, simply an unfortunate incident?

This nation puts people in prison daily, for driving drunk, and killing innocents.

Yeah, as I stated to dude, I am very familiar with this line, coming from those who really don't want any controls over guns.

Very familiar.

And, yes, I have been respectful to you.

We simply disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 7:59 AM, BCgradnurse said:

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.

 

Lunatics always cause a mess for everyone.

I believe more security (armed forces) is the answer.

 

But having said that, we also need to screen social media- all "communication platforms" of people that even mention a threat against our nation.

Also, I think that people should be stripped of their right to bear arms, if they have any Psych conditions (even a prescription of an SSRI)..or even a misdemeanor (seriously).

Edited by KonichiwaRN

Share this post


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

No, it’s not the same.  If you rob the bank, going to jail is the most likely consequence.  That is a deterrent.

If you have children and fail to safely store a gun, you aren’t going to jail unless some other horrific event happens first.  Jail isn’t a deterrent.  The threat of jail in this case isn’t changing behavior.

Maybe you have some data that says otherwise?

Do you wear a seatbelt because the law says you have to and you’ll maybe get a ticket if you don’t?  Or do you do it because you’ll be much safer in a car if you do so?

Cosleeping infant deaths are on the rise.  I’ve witnessed the immediate aftermath of a few.  Would throwing moms in jail after their infant dies this way solve the problem?

of course storing a gun safely is the right thing to do.  Just making more laws isn’t the smartest way to get people to do so.

I wear a seatbelt because in 1995, I was fined $25, for not wearing one.

Since I was a poor graduate student at the time, working three jobs, the fine was a lot of money to me.

Now, I wear a seatbelt because I have been educated to how sear belts actually save lives.

But that initial $25 fine, changed my behavior.

There are many examples of behaviors changed via laws, fines and incarceration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×