Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Terrorized Americans (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Terrorized Americans
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Americans seem to be alarmed and fearful lately - so much so that we just had to have the Commander in Chief talk us gently out of the closets where we were cowering with our newly-bought guns, eyes darting left and right in case the sound of that car backfiring was actually Ram Amandeep or Adele Dazeem carrying out holy orders.

I thought it might be handy to trot out things more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack.

* crushed by furniture
* bitten by snakes
* left-handed people using right-handed implements (e.g. power saws)
* falling out of bed
* train crash
* food poisoning
* scalded by hot water
* vehicular collisions with deer

Time for a little bit of perspective - and I think we need to send in the ground troops against all those deer.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We DO send in ground troops against all those deer. It borders on a holiday in some regions in my state where a lot of work stops for deer season. [Razz]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stupid deer. Measly little flesh things. Doesn't seem fair they can wreck a car.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
* left-handed people using right-handed implements (e.g. power saws)
I live in frightening world, to be sure.

And, yeah, the deer thing too. All over the place this time of year.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I keep thinking of the number of murders in 2013.

Over 14,000 according to one site I saw.

So San Berdoo terrorist attack made us 0.1% less safe.

And for that we should consider over a billion people as "dangerous." [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm happy everyone here agree on this, because there's an internet storm going on where the recent attack is being painted as 'the last straw' in how stupid Americans are to allow everyone to have guns. The "prayer won't stop this" headline is helping fuel this furor, and lots of people online that I know are posting the headline in solidarity with the idea of...I don't know exactly...taking away all the guns? Something like that. I don't think they would see banning assault weapons as going far enough.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's popular because it snubs not only gun rights advocates but also what they view as shallow religious posturing for political reasons.
Or, in some cases, an open hostility to religion.

This latest incident, being both gun violence of the sort we are "use to" (sorry Mr. President) and ALSO Islamic fundamentalist inspired terrorism is a perfect storm for this type of message/sentiment. The last thing some people want to hear in the wake of religiously inspired murder (as they see it) is to hear religious speech put forward as a proper (or worse, only) response.

The last straw is that it shames us as a nation to face that we have no response of substance, and the offers of sympathy and impotent attempts at politicking make us feel worse not better. We've had even our fantasy of "It will all be OK eventually" trampled on too many times.

Welcome to a free society where the solutions to exceedingly rare horrors are quite possibly the greater evil because of how impactful they would be in proportion to the risk they seek to mitigate. We haven't decided what sacrifices we are willing to make if any yet. Acknowledging that inaction IS a sacrifice and may be the "best" option is a level of horror most aren't willing to look at.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward, the next time the Black Lives Matter movement laments the latest wave of killings of unarmed black men by cops in suspicious circumstances, I am sure you will dutifully point out to them that black men are far more likely to be killed by other black men than rogue cops. No doubt the percentage of black men murdered by cops is in the 0.1% range or thereabouts. I am sure they will feel quite relieved.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now, see, the likelihood of being shot is not so remote. Firearms actually make the top ten of ways Americans die.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is being shot by someone else in the top 10? Or is it firearm related death (which includes suicide)?

Seems relevant when discussing this in terms of things to be worried about.

Saying something like, "You are X times more likely to shoot yourself than be shot by a mass shooter.", is related to this topic still I suppose.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Wayward, the next time the Black Lives Matter movement laments the latest wave of killings of unarmed black men by cops in suspicious circumstances, I am sure you will dutifully point out to them that black men are far more likely to be killed by other black men than rogue cops. No doubt the percentage of black men murdered by cops is in the 0.1% range or thereabouts. I am sure they will feel quite relieved.

Are we paying the other murderers to do it?

And, BTW, Chicagoans Actually DO Protest Violence In Their Communities All The Time

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Is being shot by someone else in the top 10? Or is it firearm related death (which includes suicide)?

Seems relevant when discussing this in terms of things to be worried about.

Saying something like, "You are X times more likely to shoot yourself than be shot by a mass shooter.", is related to this topic still I suppose.

Firearm related death including suicide and accidents. Both of which are far more likely in homes where there are guns.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So Americans seem to be alarmed and fearful lately - so much so that we just had to have the Commander in Chief talk us gently out of the closets where we were cowering ...
So let's be clear, this little meme of being afraid is unmitigated crap. It's a way for some to feel a sense of moral superiority, as though they are the enlightened adults surrounded by uninformed fools. It's crap. Americans are not afraid, they're not fearful. I suspect the reason this gets said so many time is the idea that repeating it often enough could make it true, it's like gaslighting on a national scale.

What Americans are is angry. They're angry at a dishonest leadership that habitually lies to them, a president that appears utterly devolved from reality and is more concerned with his bracket pick and what's on sports center than protecting American interests and lives and a media that completely abandoned all pretense of journalism and willingly becomes a propaganda arm to big government and corporate interest.

The idea that prompted this thread is a deceitful meme.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:


The idea that prompted this thread is a deceitful meme.

Tsk tsk... polling does not agree with you. In fact it looks like fear to me.

check it "Nearly half of Americans fear they or a family member will be victimized by terrorism at some future time. The highest level recorded was 59% post-9/11 - people not realizing their fears were and continue to be entirely unjustified."

[ December 07, 2015, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which one is deceitful - that Americans are afraid, or that the risk to USA citizens as a result of terrorism is vanishingly small even when compared to other remote dangers, and that the real risk is overreaction?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah. I am even less thrilled to arm angry people.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If someone asks me if a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is likely or not, I may say yes.

If someone asks me if I think it is likely that I will be targeted or a victim of a terrorist attack, they will get a different answer.

Concern over national security is not the same as fear. We ARE capable of worrying about things within a context of probability. Some more than others.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's not put the cart before the horse. One reason some Americans may be afraid OR angry is because the media whips them into a frenzy any chance it gets. It's not like people suddenly start cowering in the corner in a vacuum, it's because they read a headline that says ISIS IS HERE NOW, IT MAY BE COMING FOR YOU!!

The mental health care issue is part of it, and so is the media's system of psychological manipulation.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's one that's about personal fear of terrorism. This isn't just about terror in the abstract sense... this is actually how stupid people are when it comes to statistics.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Is being shot by someone else in the top 10? Or is it firearm related death (which includes suicide)?

Seems relevant when discussing this in terms of things to be worried about.

Saying something like, "You are X times more likely to shoot yourself than be shot by a mass shooter.", is related to this topic still I suppose.

Firearm related death including suicide and accidents. Both of which are far more likely in homes where there are guns.
Your argument is less effective than you might imagine, because gun owners don't typically stay up at night worrying that they ate going to shoot themselves.

Another point: most Americans look to government to protect us from thugs and enemies; we don't see the government primarily as out personal babysitter to keep each person from harming herself.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Yeah. I am even less thrilled to arm angry people.

I am to my knowledge the only Offering to have been crippled in a mass shooting.

The shooter was an angry man who had been denied social security and believed that Judge Phillip Pro had discriminated

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your argument is less effective than you might imagine, because gun owners don't typically stay up at night worrying that they ate going to shoot themselves.

Another point: most Americans look to government to protect us from thugs and enemies; we don't see the government primarily as out personal babysitter to keep each person from harming herself.

That's not MY argument at all Pete. I was just trying not to be dismissive or rude to those who do hold that opinion.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did not mean to be dismissive. The point about suicides and accidents is both valid and relevant, and SHOULD be addressed in policy. My point was simply that the argument will have little purchase among gun rights advocates.

I apologize for my rudeness and flippancy. I was trying too hard to be funny.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have little hope that any argument will have much purchase with gun rights advocates. Guns are security blankets, not insurance policies
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then your point echoed my own Pete, but with more bluntness. [Razz] No apology needed in this direction.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
If someone asks me if I think it is likely that I will be targeted or a victim of a terrorist attack, they will get a different answer"

40% of Americans suffered severe depression and/or anxiety related to 9/11. Bin Laden boasted of that survey as if it was his intent to cause such distress.

In that light I think you should revise your assumption about the number of "victims" of terrorism.

Victims of terrorism include those terrorized by the initial brutality, and also those victimized by the bastardy who are inspired to brutality by the initial terrorist acts. Every victim of ISIS is a victim of 9/11. Bin Laden said 9/11,was to inspire the gathering of a grand validate, aka an Islamic state.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed, replace victim with casualty. I think that's a more accurate label for "receiving physical harm" or "being killed by".
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Here's one that's about personal fear of terrorism. This isn't just about terror in the abstract sense... this is actually how stupid people are when it comes to statistics.

First of all, the poll you site combines "somewhat worried" with "very worried," which on a topic like this is probably unwarranted. I'm somewhat worried about tooth decay, doesn't mean I'm afraid of it. It's also a bit of a mislead to jump from worry to fear.

Second, terrorism wouldn't work if people actually understood statistics. But then, we wouldn't be talking about gun control either if people understood statistics.

Consider though that it's almost impossible these days to NOT be impacted by something like terrorism. The funny part of six degrees of Kevin Bacon was always how you could link two actors that quickly, in today's world I'd be shocked not to be linked through social media within six degrees to every person in the US. Slight exaggeration of course, but it's almost impossible to imagine, that a terrorist act occurs with many victims and your not linked to it through social media somehow.

Take any rare medical condition, and look on an active Facebook feed for a week, you'll probably see it come up in a link. Having people you know "talk" about these things in such immediate terms makes them seem much more real and local.

At this point, do you know anyone, who doesn't know someone (or someone who knows someone) directly impacted by 9/11?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have little hope that any argument will have much purchase with gun rights advocates.

Well certainly not illogical ones, or ones that advocate taking away the rights of millions without any reasonable basis.

Be happy though to revisit existing gun control laws that have been shown not to be effective, like say the prohibition on licensed concealed carry permit holders carrying in gun free zones.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have little hope that any argument will have much purchase with gun rights advocates. Guns are security blankets, not insurance policies

The issue is that these incidents of violence are irrelevant as regards the basic question of gun control in America. The use of a mass shooting by the media to push a gun control narrative is predictable but no less abusive of public's desire to 'do something' about mass shootings.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring that's kinda like saying that gun rights groups are being abusive pushing a "gun free zone murder trap" narrative after an incident.

There is a group who wants to be protected from violence and will relinquish a certain amount of control to get some level of protection. Then there is a group who wants to protect themselves from violence and will not tolerate a loss of control which impedes that goal. They are two rather incompatible mindsets.

If a balance should be struck, and if so how to achieve it, is the basic question of gun control in America.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:


The idea that prompted this thread is a deceitful meme.

Tsk tsk... polling does not agree with you. In fact it looks like fear to me.

check it "Nearly half of Americans fear they or a family member will be victimized by terrorism at some future time. The highest level recorded was 59% post-9/11 - people not realizing their fears were and continue to be entirely unjustified."

Word a question that way to develop the framework and you get the response you're looking for Do they "fear" as in afraid for their lives about to be ended (as this meme purports) or do the "fear" as in suspect it is a distinct possibility? I fear it is the latter but I'm not really afraid, know what I mean?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wayward, the next time the Black Lives Matter movement laments the latest wave of killings of unarmed black men by cops in suspicious circumstances, I am sure you will dutifully point out to them that black men are far more likely to be killed by other black men than rogue cops. No doubt the percentage of black men murdered by cops is in the 0.1% range or thereabouts. I am sure they will feel quite relieved.
No one is excusing blacks murderers for killing blacks. In fact, the police routinely search for such murderers and, when caught, prosecute them, all with great zeal.

The same cannot be said for cops who may murder people, including blacks. [Frown]

My point was that, while we should search for terrorist and prosecute them with great zeal, we should not use the excuse of terrorist to deny basic help to people. Especially when there is so little relative danger from such terrorists. Any Muslim coming into this country are in more danger from us than we are from them! [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The issue is that these incidents of violence are irrelevant as regards the basic question of gun control in America. The use of a mass shooting by the media to push a gun control narrative is predictable but no less abusive of public's desire to 'do something' about mass shootings.
You have a good point, Fenring. We shouldn't use a mass shooting with 14 murdered to push gun control.

We should use the more than 9000 murders (as in 2013) with firearms each year to push gun control. [Mad]

We got to do something more to try to keep these guns out of the hands of guys like Farook and Dear, if only to enforce the current laws better.

Otherwise, those 9000 people are just the sacrifices we make each year for our right to bear arms. We shouldn't have to sacrifice so many just to have guns.

[ December 07, 2015, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Fenring that's kinda like saying that gun rights groups are being abusive pushing a "gun free zone murder trap" narrative after an incident.

There is a group who wants to be protected from violence and will relinquish a certain amount of control to get some level of protection. Then there is a group who wants to protect themselves from violence and will not tolerate a loss of control which impedes that goal. They are two rather incompatible mindsets.

If a balance should be struck, and if so how to achieve it, is the basic question of gun control in America.

I'd agree with you if I thought this mass shooting was the result of gun laws being as they are. Maybe in the case of a kid taking his dad's gun to school and going on a spree there's something to be said for this, but even then even with good gun control to screen adults that really has no bearing on what their kids do. It's not like someone's entire family gets screened along with the person applying.

In the case we're talking about here we're looking at two possible terrorists with alleged ISIS ties. Would it really be so hard for people like this to get some weapons off the black market? We're talking about an organized stockpile, not some yahoos who bought some guns at a gun show. So of all shootings to use as a pretext to push gun control in the media, this one is the least logical.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Especially when there is so little relative danger from such terrorists. Any Muslim coming into this country are in more danger from us than we are from them! [Roll Eyes]

Based on what? Seriously, the reaction and backlash in this country has been about as muted as is even conceivable. In what way are they threatened by us?

By the way, just listened to the President's speech. The whole thing was pretty weak, but one thing struck me as grossly beyond the pale, and it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. He called for the "common sense" measure of prohibiting those on the no fly list from buying assault weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no due process associated with that unconstitutional government list. Government suspicion is NOT a basis for the curtailment of rights. Adding even more to a list that was unconstitutional in the first place is not common sense, its just another brick in the prison of the autocrat.

If you want to grant due process to those on the list, I have no problem with adding consequences.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He called for the "common sense" measure of prohibiting those on the no fly list from buying assault weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no due process associated with that unconstitutional government list. Government suspicion is NOT a basis for the curtailment of rights.
Yeah, he said "Freedom is more powerful than fear." Now let me take your guns away based on a secret list that only I control. Doesn't matter that this would not have prevented anything - the only person on the list known to have actually killed anyone is Ted Kennedy. There are, however, 72 people working at DHS on this secret list.

Can you believe this ****? Sounds like an onion article.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really hope the bit about the no-fly list was just theatre. A way to put the opponents of gun control in a politically awkward spot.

That Obama accepted, for political expediency, that the no-fly list was a valid and functional tool that accomplishes something useful. I mean, the logic of too dangerous to fly, then too dangerous to have guns is sound. It's just that the premise that someone's on the no-fly list because it's too dangerous to let them on a plane doesn't hold up.

This kind of blatant political dishonesty is bad but not as bad as him treating the no-fly list as a valid indicator of a potential threat.

Rafi, that bit about 72 DHS employees isn't accurate:
http://www.snopes.com/72-dhs-employees-terrorist-watch-list/

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If a balance should be struck, and if so how to achieve it, is the basic question of gun control in America"

Or rather, that's where we would be if it wasn't for the second amendment, and for the fact that the anti gun rights cannot show a single case of a gun control law resulting in a reduction of violence.

The rhetoric that ignores the 2ND amendment, or that uses idiotic word games and pseudo legal thaumaturgy to evade the plain language meaning of 2a, creates the threat of precedent that can sweep away all of our constitutional rights at the whim of the mob. If 2a can be brushed aside because of nutcases, how long until "blaspheming" Mohammed becomes akin to yelling fire in a crowded firehouse? And so on.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since the right to travel is inherent to privileges and immunities (14a), the parallel to 2a is reasonable. But to extrapolate from what NH said, it's unreasonable and Tyrannical to take what is in effect a tyrannical system enacted ad how in the spirit of Martial Law, and turn it into some permenant exception to the constitution. If Obama was not making a joke, then this call suggests that his eagerness to embarrass Republicans exceeds his desire to honor his oath to uphold the constitution.

Since 14a applies to Citizens, it would make more sense for the no fly list to be barred from applying to citizens without due process. Say 30 days notice and a hearing prior to restrictions going in place on a citizen.

With those limitations, and with civil rights penalties applying to those that bring spurious or politically motivated charges, I would be OK to the list applying to gun purchasing rights as well as to flight rights.

With that said, I think we need to recognize the Right has a valid fear of the Obama Administration's good faith. A pattern of denying terrorism aspects of Fort Hood, etc, does give the impression that the Admin places a higher priority on disarming Americans than protecting them from Islamist terrorism. This bad faith stunt can only cement that sense of betrayal

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1