San Bernardino shooting

[PA Ram]

This goes to show how useless this "war on terror" is. This isn't like WWII where you had country against country. This is more like a disease--a mental virus that spreads and they hide it so well when they are "infected" by this insanity. There has to be a smarter way to combat this, one that doesn't cost trillions of dollars or thousands of lives for no real purpose. I just read that the Air Force needs to make more bombs for crying out loud. We can bomb Raqqa into yesterday but the disease is in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, France, Belgium, the United States and so on. You can't put "boots on the ground" there or bomb everywhere to submission.

This will require a smart approach with cultural change and will take a world effort.

Also--a lot of resources are better spent in defense, intelligence, the things that will alert us of attacks. No you won't get them all--but the better prepared we are, the better the chances of stopping attacks.

 

[LesBaker]

I'm going to go with almost never.

@Dodgersrf this is true. But. What is actually supposed to reduce/eliminate crime is the punishment though not the laws. And too often the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Good example......recently a guy named Freddie Gray was killed from negligence by the Baltimore police. There were riots, and the cops were most definitely WRONG as far as how they handled it. But Freddie had been arrested FOURTEEN times in the last few years. He should have been in jail, not slinging crack on the streets. He'd be alive if the justice system worked worth a damn, because he'd be in a cell somewhere.

I should be King, shit would be different. Trust me.

 

[LesBaker]

This goes to show how useless this "war on terror" is. This isn't like WWII where you had country against country. This is more like a disease--a mental virus that spreads and they hide it so well when they are "infected" by this insanity. There has to be a smarter way to combat this, one that doesn't cost trillions of dollars or thousands of lives for no real purpose. I just read that the Air Force needs to make more bombs for crying out loud. We can bomb Raqqa into yesterday but the disease is in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, France, Belgium, the United States and so on. You can't put "boots on the ground" there or bomb everywhere to submission.

This will require a smart approach with cultural change and will take a world effort.

Also--a lot of resources are better spent in defense, intelligence, the things that will alert us of attacks. No you won't get them all--but the better prepared we are, the better the chances of stopping attacks.

I just posted the same sentiment.

We need a "global force" that can move with lightning speed and is ruthless about rooting out and killing extremists.

I just read a few days ago that in response to the attacks in Paris a few mosques had been raided. The first thing I thought is "why the fuck did they wait". Of course had they don't it before the attacks the govt would be accused of targeting/racism and all the rest.

The time to take action is before not after.

 

[Ramhusker]

I just posted the same sentiment.

We need a "global force" that can move with lightning speed and is ruthless about rooting out and killing extremists.

I just read a few days ago that in response to the attacks in Paris a few mosques had been raided. The first thing I thought is "why the freak did they wait". Of course had they don't it before the attacks the govt would be accused of targeting/racism and all the rest.

The time to take action is before not after.

I see the logic in your proposal but it's such a slippery slope when we start talking about a "global force". We already have that supposedly (NATO) but it is seemingly inept and symbolic at best and the biggest reason is probably what you stated (accusations of targeting/racism). It's very difficult to police a world of clashing cultures and even more a task when you implant one culture with the radically different ideology of another. Let's face the fact that much of the Islamic culture is radically different than the majority of the western world. Forced integration is a disaster in the making. It will take centuries for it to happen peacefully.

I started this thread in hopes of intelligent debate without getting too political in nature and you Roddies haven't disappointed. Thanks for keeping it civil and insightful. I don't think my blood pressure has changed at all in three pages of this thread. If they'd just put us in charge for awhile, we could fix a few things I think.

 

[BonifayRam]

Sorry Ramhusker, I going to disappoint you cause I'm going to point a figure here into the political factor side of this. I see no way to discuss it fully with out venturing into it.

Looks to me this should be look at as though its a very deadly virus or a deadly fast spreading cancer that is now invading the body of America. You need to specifically ID the type & rid yourself of it ASAP. It would be very silly to continue to retain & then bring in more of these developing cancers/viruses & not expect these deadly viruses to spread to others which will result in many more deaths & many more American families damaged, heart broken & destroyed .

Looks to me that its moving closer to Stag Four here in this freedom loving country with the PC Police & the Main Stream Media to name a few enabling this cancer to spread without any effective hindrances or resistance. If we can not control this deadly infestation in our own country..... how can we begin to fight this globally? We should be responsible enough here where we should have control....and yet we are currently impotent as we are currently being lead by Washington DC.

The Washington DC answer response has been in advising & desiring for this country to move fast forward in gun control. DisArming our own population would be suicide as a Greatest freedom loving nation that we have known and stood for over 240 yrs.

 

[PA Ram]

Sorry Ramhusker, I going to disappoint you cause I'm going to point a figure here into the political factor side of this. I see no way to discuss it fully with out venturing into it.

Looks to me this should be look at as though its a very deadly virus or a deadly fast spreading cancer that is now invading the body of America. You need to specifically ID the type & rid yourself of it ASAP. It would be very silly to continue to retain & then bring in more of these developing cancers/viruses & not expect these deadly viruses to spread to others which will result in many more deaths & many more American families damaged, heart broken & destroyed .

Looks to me that its moving closer to Stag Four here in this freedom loving country with the PC Police & the Main Stream Media to name a few enabling this cancer to spread without any effective hindrances or resistance. If we can not control this deadly infestation in our own country..... how can we begin to fight this globally? We should be responsible enough here where we should have control....and yet we are currently impotent as we are currently being lead by Washington DC.

The Washington DC answer response has been in advising & desiring for this country to move fast forward in gun control. DisArming our own population would be suicide as a Greatest freedom loving nation that we have known and stood for over 240 yrs.

This thread will probably go down fast from here but I just don't see this "gun control" police that everyone screams about. Every time there is a shooting the first thing the NRA and others do is point out that either it is "not the time" to discuss any sort of gun control or that the government is on its way to retrieve everyone's gun or some such nonsense. While I'm not interested in taking away anyone's gun--and I know that the majority of Americans would never support that---allowing people on a "No-Fly" list to buy guns seems insane to me. Yes--Hillary will make noise about the need for gun control legislation--or others may--but ultimately you can put that tape on repeat because nothing will even be attempted with any real sort of chance to do that and in the end, the noise will die down until the next mass shooting.

When I see government agents confiscating guns door to door, I'll worry about it. Right now, that's nothing but an NRA(a radical group IMO)vision that helps them keep their power and money.

SENSIBLE gun control is not only the right thing to do, it's the sane thing to do.

This taking of guns is a groundless fear that is based on some slippery slope meme that floats around driving fear into gun lovers who react emotionally, and sadly, whose first reaction to a mass shooting is the fear of their guns being in danger.

I can't tell you how many friends I have on Facebook pushing gun memes after every tragedy. Nothing about the victims--never anything about underlying causes of the act in the first place--just PROTECT OUR GUNS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. That's a sad statement about our country. Guns come right below faith and family for a lot of people and maybe not even in that order in some cases.

And before anyone says it--no, I have NO interest in banning guns. i have no interest in taking guns. As a political issue for me, guns aren't even in the top three. So I'm not against any gun owner or their right to have a gun. But, as I said, some sensible legislation or controls can't even be discussed.

If my family was a victim the last thing I'd want to hear was ramblings from the NRA about "guns rights" right after they were shot dead by some lunatics.

 

[12intheBox]

It's a balancing act.

Safety on one side and Liberty on the other.

We would be safer if we had no 4th amendment - if intelligence agencies could search any house, any car, any bag they wanted with or without probable cause.

But I don't want safety that badly. I don't want someone raiding my church - just because some other Christian nut job decided to kill some people.

I want privacy and I want safety.

It's a balancing act. Always has been - we just sometimes overreact (patriot act).

 

[RamFan503]

This thread will probably go down fast from here but I just don't see this "gun control" police that everyone screams about. Every time there is a shooting the first thing the NRA and others do is point out that either it is "not the time" to discuss any sort of gun control or that the government is on its way to retrieve everyone's gun or some such nonsense. While I'm not interested in taking away anyone's gun--and I know that the majority of Americans would never support that---allowing people on a "No-Fly" list to buy guns seems insane to me. Yes--Hillary will make noise about the need for gun control legislation--or others may--but ultimately you can put that tape on repeat because nothing will even be attempted with any real sort of chance to do that and in the end, the noise will die down until the next mass shooting.

When I see government agents confiscating guns door to door, I'll worry about it. Right now, that's nothing but an NRA(a radical group IMO)vision that helps them keep their power and money.

SENSIBLE gun control is not only the right thing to do, it's the sane thing to do.

This taking of guns is a groundless fear that is based on some slippery slope meme that floats around driving fear into gun lovers who react emotionally, and sadly, whose first reaction to a mass shooting is the fear of their guns being in danger.

I can't tell you how many friends I have on Facebook pushing gun memes after every tragedy. Nothing about the victims--never anything about underlying causes of the act in the first place--just PROTECT OUR GUNS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. That's a sad statement about our country. Guns come right below faith and family for a lot of people and maybe not even in that order in some cases.

And before anyone says it--no, I have NO interest in banning guns. i have no interest in taking guns. As a political issue for me, guns aren't even in the top three. So I'm not against any gun owner or their right to have a gun. But, as I said, some sensible legislation or controls can't even be discussed.

If my family was a victim the last thing I'd want to hear was ramblings from the NRA about "guns rights" right after they were shot dead by some lunatics.

I suppose world history has no bearing. How many times does a government have to do exactly as you are saying they would not before people realize that if they continue down this "slippery slope" that is exactly what they will do. Sorry but what you are ignoring is the end goal of the anti-gun groups and they are well armed and have money backing them. Let's not pretend that they will stop at a few "sensible" laws. What constitutes a "sensible law"? Are the laws making it illegal to POSSESS a firearm within city limits sensible?

 

[12intheBox]

The Washington DC answer response has been in advising & desiring for this country to move fast forward in gun control. DisArming our own population would be suicide as a Greatest freedom loving nation that we have known and stood for over 240 yrs.

When did that start? I've never seen DC do a damn thing about guns - and we all know why.

The truth is - very few people want to disarm anyone. I sure don't. I do - however - want guns to be regulated - like cars, like drugs, like dangerous animals, like most every other thing we have in the world that is dangerous.

What I don't get - is why the pushback on regulation?

 

[PA Ram]

I suppose world history has no bearing. How many times does a government have to do exactly as you are saying they would not before people realize that if they continue down this "slippery slope" that is exactly what they will do. Sorry but what you are ignoring is the end goal of the anti-gun groups and they are well armed and have money backing them. Let's not pretend that they will stop at a few "sensible" laws. What constitutes a "sensible law"? Are the laws making it illegal to POSSESS a firearm within city limits sensible?

I know that we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. And therein lies the reason that there will never be agreement on this. America is far too divided on this issue and, honestly, there will never be agreement on this issue. I don't think that banning someone on a "no-fly" list from legally obtaining a weapon is any sort of "slippery slope". I just don't believe that. But I get that you do--that any sort of control will lead to that. I believe that your fear is real. It isn't my fear. While I have a fear on the other side and could push that fear to ridiculous extremes if I chose(the NRA would stand up for your right for personal nuclear devices because if you restrict that it'll end to all of us being put in camps under guard)there isn't much room for agreement. And while even gun control advocates vary in their own personal line of restrictions--I just can't see the majority of Americans allowing the thing you fear.

And if it did--would any sort of law stop it? Do you really believe that the government would pass some sort of laws before they came for your guns? I don't. I think they'd declare a sort of martial law and just take them. There, isn't in my mind, a slippery slope that leads to gun confiscation. If they want them--they'll take them. There are common sense approaches to gun control, however, and lines of agreement possible between reasonable people. Extreme sides will never agree. And in general I seriously doubt anything gets done at all. But it gets tiring after a massacre to have the gun lobby out there waving their guns around before anyone can even catch their breath.

 

[RamFan503]

With the bullet button, you can have the fore grip. The bullet button is essentially the "we feel better and safer" button that was pushed through. As long as you have that, you can basically have any of the "evil" features, flash suppressors, folding/collapsible butt-stocks, forward grips, etc

I have the California codes up on my computer. I'm trying to find anything that says that the bullet button or similar feature waives the "Generic Characteristics" section of the code. I have never actually operated a gun with a bullet button. Even the name makes it seem completely ridiculous though. Because you can operate the mag release with a recessed button it is ok? You gotta admit - that's pretty moronic. And once you release the mag and insert a 30 round clip, that gun is illegal so....

Apparently, the rifle my dad was forced to give up was a pre-ban AR that they made people register in order to keep and then decided to change that law as well. So even though the rifle really is no different in capabilities than those not on the list, it is considered illegal and must be forfeited. Cuzzzzzzz that makes sense.

In terms of high cap guns, I'm not sure what you mean. We have the CA approved handgun roster, that names guns, specifically (as in by make, model, caliber, and color) that are approved for sale in CA. They need to have specific features, such as a loaded chamber indicator, and magazine disconnect, for newer models. If you are selling guns via Private Party, then you can get off roster guns, as long as they are CA legal.

From my understanding, they are not approving any new handguns that are capable of accepting hi-cap mags. I'm only going by what I have read. The new testing requirements are pretty vague.

The magazines are the high cap ones, if they hold more than 10 they are not CA legal, unless they're preban ones. The city of Los Angeles just passed a law that said that high cap mags, even those that are preban, are now illegal within the city, but the entire state doesn't have that rule. Other than a revolver, I don't really think there would be any 'high cap' stuff.

Don't get what you mean here.

AR-15 rifles are legal to own in Ca. They have to have a button to release the magazine. There is a magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds. From what I've heard the rifles were modified to accept magazines that were over the 10 round legal capacity and the pictures I saw indicate to me that they were 30 round magazine and not 10 round magazines. The rifles were purchased legally but modified
to defeat the bullet button feature as well as the feature to allow the mags to be 10 rounds only. The rifles were bought legally and then modified. This obviously indicates there was a plan and help from outside sources. The rifles would have to have been modified to accept large capacity mags and defeat the bullet button feature. AR-15 rifles sold in Ca. Are called California compliant. What I've written is very basic as the laws concerning so called assault rifles in Ca are very complicated. An actual assault rifle is selective fire, meaning it has a fully automatic mode as well as a semi auto or 3 round burst mode One cannot buy a fully automatic firearm in Ca. They are prohibited. By that I mean the average Joe cannot own them. This a very very basic overview of these laws and is by no means comprehensive. There are are also grandfather clauses regarding the ownership of 30 rounds mags and certain AR 15 rifles. That does not seem to apply here...ok I'm going to get another beer.

Generic Characteristics Defining Assault Weapons:
12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Penal Code section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean the following: Rifles (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. (C) A folding or telescoping stock. (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher. (E) A flash suppressor. (F) A forward pistol grip. (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. (3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
Note: Bayonets and bayonet lugs are not assault weapon characteristics under California law.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't think that banning someone on a "no-fly" list from legally obtaining a weapon is any sort of "slippery slope".

See now this one is very personal to me as I was mistakenly put on the "no fly" list and had never had more than a speeding ticket. I went to check in for a flight and it said that I had to see someone with a title I don't recall - aviation authority or something. The person looked me up and found me on the list. She joked that it was ok because Ted Kennedy was on that list at the time. I had to fill out a form in order to simply board the plane. So by that kind of definition, I would not be allowed to own a gun. Yeah. I want the government making lists like that to take away my rights.

 

[RamFan503]

And in general I seriously doubt anything gets done at all. But it gets tiring after a massacre to have the gun lobby out there waving their guns around before anyone can even catch their breath.

And it gets tiring for me when virtually every article written on the shootings calls for more gun restrictions. As if that would have stopped these nut jobs or a group of thugs from doing a home invasion as happens far more often than these shootings. Sorry, but I don't want some bureaucrat or person who knows nothing about weapons telling me what I can use to defend my family. Police are great at figuring out who did the crime. Woefully inadequate at preventing them.

 

[12intheBox]

See now this one is very personal to me as I was mistakenly put on the "no fly" list and had never had more than a speeding ticket. I went to check in for a flight and it said that I had to see someone with a title I don't recall - aviation authority or something. The person looked me up and found me on the list. She joked that it was ok because Ted Kennedy was on that list at the time. I had to fill out a form in order to simply board the plane. So by that kind of definition, I would not be allowed to own a gun. Yeah. I want the government making lists like that to take away my rights.

Are you OK with the government making lists of who is allowed to drive a car? Who is allowed to prescribe drugs? Who is allowed to work with nuclear materials?

 

[RamFan503]

Are you OK with the government making lists of who is allowed to drive a car? Who is allowed to prescribe drugs? Who is allowed to work with nuclear materials?

Those are not rights so - sure.

 

[BonifayRam]

When did that start? I've never seen DC do a damn thing about guns - and we all know why.The truth is - very few people want to disarm anyone. I sure don't. I do - however - want guns to be regulated - like cars, like drugs, like dangerous animals, like most every other thing we have in the world that is dangerous. What I don't get - is why the pushback on regulation?

When did this start ? I understand your concern 12intheBox & appreciate that you read my post. The first words this past week out of this current regime's leader (BO) that addressed the SB Terrorist Event cure was Gun Control Regs....that was a continuing voiced position that we have heard the last 7 yrs. Washington DC ( the Federal Government) wants more ineffective power to regulate & remove of what I hold dear & much of what is known as the the Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (which at this time) protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The current Congress will not move on this issue because as you say the majority of the people do not want it.

Many states have been very active from the state level in the creation of many regulations of guns that thus far have shown to be non effective in preventing gun violence. Fact is most of those states involved with heavy gun Regs have much more gun violence. I sure would not want the same Regs. placed into law from DC (The Fed) Thus we may have the same results that the gun regulated states have. Not good. Truth is we have thousands of Guns regulations now.

Some of the most violent dangerous places in the US, is Federal & State prisons & inside those close social units is totally gun free! What part of some of this that does work is when you hold the the people who use guns to commit acts of violence & put them away for a long long LONG time things work out better. Right now we have recent examples where the Executive branch office in DC has by presidential decree & his signature has released such proven criminals back to our American streets.

I do know that that pipe bombs or IED's are fully 100% regulated & not allowed anywhere. Yet we still see them utilized by violent terrorists & criminals. Those Regs failed in those very ugly weapons.

 

[PA Ram]

See now this one is very personal to me as I was mistakenly put on the "no fly" list and had never had more than a speeding ticket. I went to check in for a flight and it said that I had to see someone with a title I don't recall - aviation authority or something. The person looked me up and found me on the list. She joked that it was ok because Ted Kennedy was on that list at the time. I had to fill out a form in order to simply board the plane. So by that kind of definition, I would not be allowed to own a gun. Yeah. I want the government making lists like that to take away my rights.

This is kind of what I was getting at in a clumsy way. The right fears the government. They don't like it, don't trust it.

The left, while having their own government fears on some issues, believes the government is necessary and can do important things(EPA,FDA, many others)and my mistrust centers more on the corporate world and when that meets with the government.

But this is one of those things that leads to the divisiveness, IMO. Guns are part of that, obviously. I don't fear at all the government of the United States taking away gun rights, and wish they would--if anything regulate them more which in my mind doesn't violate any rights.

But I don't want to take anyone's guns.

Still, people will always think I do.

As for the "no-fly" list--in the case of you and Ted Kennedy, I assume you cleared it up.

Would you scrap the "no-fly" list?

Would you allow known terrorists to legally buy a gun because the price to prevent that might be you being inconvenienced for awhile?

How far do you want the government to go in fighting terrorists?

Is it all about "boots-on-the-ground" and bombing missions?

We know that won't work.

Do we live with it?

Do you want the government making a list of all Muslims?

Do you want them shutting down Mosques? Banning the Koran?

What particular freedom do you want the government to remove if any? What precautions should they take?

These are difficult questions, obviously and there are not certain or easy answers.

 

[12intheBox]

Those are not rights so - sure.

It's the right to bear arms - not guns. Arms could be bombs, flamethrowers, arguably even nukes.

And can you have a right taken away from you? Ask a felon.

 

[12intheBox]

When did this start ? I understand your concern 12intheBox & appreciate that you read my post. The first words this past week out of this current regime's leader (BO) that addressed the SB Terrorist Event cure was Gun Control Regs....that was a continuing voiced position that we have heard the last 7 yrs. Washington DC ( the Federal Government) wants more ineffective power to regulate & remove of what I hold dear & much of what is known as the the Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (which at this time) protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The current Congress will not move on this issue because as you say the majority of the people do not want it.

Many states have been very active from the state level in the creation of many regulations of guns that thus far have shown to be non effective in preventing gun violence. Fact is most of those states involved with heavy gun Regs have much more gun violence. I sure would not want the same Regs. placed into law from DC (The Fed) Thus we may have the same results that the gun regulated states have. Not good. Truth is we have thousands of Guns regulations now.

Some of the most violent dangerous places in the US, is Federal & State prisons & inside those close social units is totally gun free! What part of some of this that does work is when you hold the the people who use guns to commit acts of violence & put them away for a long long LONG time things work out better. Right now we have recent examples where the Executive branch office in DC has by presidential decree & his signature has released such proven criminals back to our American streets.

I do know that that pipe bombs or IED's are fully 100% regulated & not allowed anywhere. Yet we still see them utilized by violent terrorists & criminals. Those Regs failed in those very ugly weapons.

Shouldn't we have the right to pipe bombs? Its an arm, isn't it?

And do you really think a majority of the population doesn't want gun control?

 

[RamFan503]

Would you scrap the "no-fly" list?

An ineffective list made from shoddy criteria? Yes. Would I like it replaced with a smarter list? Yes.

Would you allow known terrorists to legally buy a gun because the price to prevent that might be you being inconvenienced for awhile?

No. And neither would the NRA or any other pro 2nd Amendment group. Inconvenienced for a while? How long? What is considered inconvenience and by whom? Someone is going to tell me that I can't own an AR to defend my home because it looks meaner than a Mini14 but a shotgun is just great because I can rack some shells off my balcony? Yeah. I'm not good with that kind of common sense trying to take away my rights.

My merely possessing a type of gun will not affect you. The ridiculous question of do you allow nuclear weapons and all that isn't just going to extremes to prove a point. It is lame as merely possessing those materials can cause harm to others and in no way can you protect yourself through their use.

How far do you want the government to go in fighting terrorists?

Is it all about "boots-on-the-ground" and bombing missions?

We know that won't work.

Do we live with it?

Do you want the government making a list of all Muslims?

Do you want them shutting down Mosques? Banning the Koran?

What particular freedom do you want the government to remove if any? What precautions should they take?

These are difficult questions, obviously and there are not certain or easy answers.

How far? Aside from the non-sense argumentative points of closing down mosques and the like, most if not all of it should be on the table.

Are the guns that killed so many in France allowed to be owned by any citizen in France? Do we really need to go farther down that road to see how that worked out for them? Does that shooting go down as a terrorist attack and thus is not counted in gun violence stats?

It's the right to bear arms - not guns. Arms could be bombs, flamethrowers, arguably even nukes.

And can you have a right taken away from you? Ask a felon.

Come on - enough with the nukes and bombs argument. It's purely a red herring argument. And as to the felon, that is an individual committing a crime. He took his own rights away by violating others' rights.