Another shooting - San Bernadino California.

[smaneck]

Also for all here. The FBI and US gov does not determine if an attack is terrorism by religion or ethnic origin. They do so by the US declared terrorist groups/cells.

I've not seen any evidence as yet that this couple was part of a cell. She may have pledged allegiance to the caliph, but I'm not sure ISIS even knew of her existence. So by your definition, they might not be terrorists.
Don't buy it though. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of non-combatants in order to create terror for political reasons. Both Robert Dear and this couple are terrorists.

 

[Armoured]

i think it demonstrated the point quite nicely.

FACT: Tyranny was involved in the situation, so it was hardly 'nebulous'.

FACT: An armed citizenry corrected the situation...without loss of life. Who told you that armed citizens would be 'unregulated'? This is clearly not the case either in 1946 or today.

It was what you asked for, it was what you got. i have other examples.

For the record, i think that the citizenry today is capable of doing the job as well if not better than their grandfathers (great grandfathers?) in 1946.

Well I disagree with you. I base my opinion on familiarity with large scale military operations. You appear to be basing yours on a single incident from 70 years ago.

 

[Armoured]

We are not back to that again?

The FBI is probably working on which specific terror group in the Middle East. That better. And probably ruled out Israel.

Sherlock Holmes not withstanding here.

When the FBI determines which Christian terrorist group Dear was part of I'm sure they will let us know too.

Shall we go to the next layer of what I just laid out above?

Also for all here. The FBI and US gov does not determine if an attack is terrorism by religion or ethnic origin. They do so by the US declared terrorist groups/cells. They have one for domestic and one for foreign.

http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm

https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism

So this shooting is now deemed terrorism. Which means there's evidence of some declared terrorist group.

They are not saying which one probably pending potential suspects follow up.

On Dear and PP? If they can't link him to a known terrorist group it will be considered a mass shooting crime.

That's the way it works folks.

For example
If the Muslim couple was found not to be connected to a known declared terrorist group then the FBI would look for other motives.
H
That's the sterile non PC deal.

terrorism is determined by a number of factors, the most important being motivation and intent. Organisation structure (e.g. "cells") has nothing to do with it.

 

[smaneck]

Most of them by Muslims.

Not hardly. If we define a mass shooting as one with four or more victims there have been 208 mass shootings in this country in the last year. Two of them were committed by Muslims which means the other 205 were committed by non-Muslims. If you include Garland, Texas where two Muslims were killed but not anyone else, the number would rise to 3.

 

[Armoured]

Most of them by Muslims.

Demonstrably false. Someone is lying to you, or you're making stuff up and assuming it's true (like that dry Euphrates nonsense). You really should try fact checking before stating. It makes you much more credible.

 

[smaneck]

That is the purpose in having the Second Amendment.

Our purpose in having the Second Amendment was so we would not have to have a standing army. Instead state militias would be called up in cases of war. Our Founding Father's were persuaded that a standing army would only lead to tyranny. For that reason the Constitution provides for a standing navy but insists that an army be authorized for no more than two years. (Which would make military contracts rather difficult.) Somehow that little constitutional violation doesn't bother anyone, but providing health care for our citizens? Clearly a tyrannical move!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Someone else shifted them. He provided data based on that.

So long as we both agree that the goalposts were indeed shifted, as the conversation was about the US, not the world.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Ever noticed how the War on Terror has lasted 14 years, cost trillions & only boosted terrorism yet nobody says 'Maybe time for a re-think'?
Same as war on drugs

Let me assure you that plenty of people have noticed it, from both the 'right' and the 'left' (however you chose to define those terms).

The 'War on (some) Drugs' and the 'War on Poverty' generated the same type of results.

More specifically, the 'war on terror' has cost the economy of the Western world quite a bit of it's treasure. This was one of the goals that Osama bin Laden was trying to achieve through a 'long war of attrition'.

We call that fourth (and to some extent fifth) generation warfare. It is something that the US has been historically unable to deal with since military thinking is still along the lines of primitive iterations of third generation warfare at best. US tactics are in essence: using a 120mm mortar to kill a housefly.

Yes, a good deal of re-thinking needs be done.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

No one lives in New Zealand.

LOL!

Recently saw a 'descriptive map of the UK'. In the centre of the Scottish Highlands were the words "NOBODY lives here". My favourite was the southeast near Suffolk that describes the inhabitants as "Too fond of tractors".

• 

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Maybe take a deep breath. You get filtered news from the US.

In Texas there is little gun control. Two terrorists drove up to a conference hall yelled Allah is great, started shooting and were mowed down immediately.

People safe, gunmen dead.

At least that is the case now. Texas had to change some laws. This incident was a part of that happening.

 

[Belk]

Those are definitely options.

However will not pass Constitutional muster. The Second Amendment is an enumerated right. Car ownership is not. That is why the States can regulate car ownership and licensing.

According to whom?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I was bothered by that. Especially when I watch someone claimed. That people would bug him about his religion.
I agree. It might have set him off. And he decided to do something right there. But I think he was planning something bigger.

Yes, there is no question, what they did was in the plans for a while and they were planning something bigger.

The interview with the wife of the person killed was interesting to me though, because she didn't pull any punches talking about just how aggressive her husband was at arguing religion, even with people at work. I wonder if it is possible, this helped trigger them choosing this get together as a target, while still clearly having bigger plans in store. I also wonder, why an employer (especially a government employer), would allow an employee to evangelize his religion at work.

 

[redleghunter]

terrorism is determined by a number of factors, the most important being motivation and intent. Organisation structure (e.g. "cells") has nothing to do with it.

There are 100s of thousands of groups and organizations which use force or no force with motivation and intent. Not all of them are on the FBI terror list.

A lot does factor in. Organization and magnitude.

The CA attack had all of the above.

 

[redleghunter]

So long as we both agree that the goalposts were indeed shifted, as the conversation was about the US, not the world.

Yes they were. Probably because over 20,000 attacks fits a certain design.

But yes they goal posts were shifted. Or at least we are talking about an entirely different sport.

 

[redleghunter]

According to whom?

For the second amendment to be abolished it would take an Amendment to the US constitution.

There are Constitutional scholars who deem such a move against an enumerated right would allow movement against other enumerated rights.

We could abolish unlawful searches too and allow the police to search everyone's home to ensure their are no illegal drugs and guns. And use frequent gun searches to make sure everyone allowed one has trigger locks.

Of course no one would suggest such. Why? Because the majority of US citizens are law abiding.

So take a pick on which enumerated right you want amended.

What about speech? If people were not allowed to publicly debate contentious issues and the press did not flame bait the emotionally disturbed we would have less shootings. Everyone would be happy and "unoffended." Government would regulate speech.

Take your pick. There's a Constitution for a reason.

 

[Belk]

For the second amendment to be abolished it would take an Amendment to the US constitution.

There are Constitutional scholars who deem such a move against an enumerated right would allow movement against other enumerated rights.

We could abolish unlawful searches too and allow the police to search everyone's home to ensure their are no illegal drugs and guns. And use frequent gun searches to make sure everyone allowed one has trigger locks.

Of course no one would suggest such. Why? Because the majority of US citizens are law abiding.

So take a pick on which enumerated right you want amended.

What about speech? If people were not allowed to publicly debate contentious issues and the press did not flame bait the emotionally disturbed we would have less shootings. Everyone would be happy and "unoffended." Government would regulate speech.

Take your pick. There's a Constitution for a reason.

This did not address my question. The question was according to whom would the suggestions I proposed not pass constitutional muster?

 

[TLK Valentine]

For the second amendment to be abolished it would take an Amendment to the US constitution.

There are Constitutional scholars who deem such a move against an enumerated right would allow movement against other enumerated rights.

We could abolish unlawful searches too and allow the police to search everyone's home to ensure their are no illegal drugs and guns. And use frequent gun searches to make sure everyone allowed one has trigger locks.

Of course no one would suggest such. Why? Because the majority of US citizens are law abiding.

So take a pick on which enumerated right you want amended.

What about speech? If people were not allowed to publicly debate contentious issues and the press did not flame bait the emotionally disturbed we would have less shootings. Everyone would be happy and "unoffended." Government would regulate speech.

Take your pick. There's a Constitution for a reason.

It wouldn't be the first time a Constitutional Amendment was repealed.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

It wouldn't be the first time a Constitutional Amendment was repealed.

What you're referring to is the 18th Amendment which is popularly known as "Prohibition". The amendment was popularly known does not translate into "The amendment was popular".

It was openly disregarded even in the White House, and was repealed 13 years later.

The original "Bill of Rights" (the first 10 amendments) were ratified with the US Constitution, and have a very long history.

By contrast, the so-called "equal rights amendment" never got past the necessary number of state legislatures to be qualified for ratification...even after the time period was extended.

The difficulty in repealing the Second amendment would be profound. There would simply not be enough state legislatures who would approve of such a thing. No politician in his or her right mind would openly say "Out of the overriding concern for (fill in the blank), i am going to vote to approve the removal of a right that has been enumerated in American History since the inception of America." It is simply not going to happen.

A simple principle of jurisprudence is that one does not make or repeal a law that is not able to be enforced, and will be disregarded. It denegrates respect for the rule of law and the courts.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Lol.

The FBI and DOJ only attribute the term "terrorism" if a suspect or group are actually on a known or declared terrorist group. As far as the government sees it that's how it goes. If an attack happens and the suspects have no connection to a known or declared terrorist organization then it is not terrorism. It's still a crime of course.

So if Dear was linked to AoG or any other Christian domestic terror groups the attack will be deemed a terrorist attack.

Looking at what was released on him I see it doubtful he was acting for a specific group.

Sounds like you've never heard of lone-wolf terrorism. That or you just don't know what a terrorist actually is. You don't have to be part of a group to commit politically motivated violence. That's what terrorism is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What you're referring to is the 18th Amendment which is popularly known as "Prohibition". The amendment was popularly known does not translate into "The amendment was popular".

And yet it was popular enough to get ratified in the first place -- no simple feat.

It was openly disregarded even in the White House, and was repealed 13 years later.

A simple principle of jurisprudence is that one does not make or repeal a law that is not able to be enforced, and will be disregarded. It denegrates respect for the rule of law and the courts.

A pity we learned that lesson the hard way regarding the 18th Amendment.