interesting stats on support for gun control:
interesting stats on support for gun control:
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Last I checked Bush started the war in Afghanistan and Obama has been the one scaling it back. Certainly he couldn't just pull every soldier out of an unstable theater day one in office. Funnier still is that if he had the same group that made the meme would have been cursing him for letting the troops who died in the conflict previously give their lives in vain, no? It was a conservative group doing it so how they can say we need to stay there yet make that kind of ad is foolish.I can't believe anyone would see the comparison as valid. Shooting up a theater of non-combatants is not the same as waging war against an armed opponent and having civilians killed as an unintentional result. I can understand criticisms of policy, but not ignorant ones and this "ad campaign" is about as pathetic as it gets. I would be willing to guess that if the victims could be asked they would not want to be used as a part of such idiocy and I doubt their surviving friends and relatives find it very appealing either.
But hey, what do I know? Maybe it's a great idea. Maybe we should do our own ads saying that Romney will do to terrorists what the Virginia Tech shooter did to his classmates? Seems like that's the way to go.
The meme speaks truth. Its his foreign policy in general, not just afghanistan.
Obama mentions the death of children during his speech after the shooting yet our drone strikes tend to turn many of them casualties.
Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, 16 year old US citizen, assassinated via drone strike along with his American father Anwar Al-awlaki and 17 year old American cousin Samir Khan. So much for due process.
Originally posted by Oliver North
interesting stats on support for gun control:
Perhaps a little troubling that there was still nothing done in that polling about past mental health issues becoming a barrier or even some perfunctory screening done before sales. If someone is to the point of buying weapons with the specific intent to go on a spree odds are there is enough mental degradation that some to the point evaluation would reveal it. Maybe that's just wishful thinking to hope for that to be enacted, but there should at least be an inquiry into and availability of information on past issues.
Also, still have to say the Assault Weapons ban was garbage and any politician who tries to reinstate it without revision deserves the flak he or she receives. It was ill-conceived then and it still would be so now.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, 16 year old US citizen, assassinated via drone strike along with his American father Anwar Al-awlaki and 17 year old American cousin Samir Khan. So much for due process.
Probably shouldn't be in the same room with terrorist; that's like common sense.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, 16 year old US citizen, assassinated via drone strike along with his American father Anwar Al-awlaki and 17 year old American cousin Samir Khan. So much for due process.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Perhaps a little troubling that there was still nothing done in that polling about past mental health issues becoming a barrier or even some perfunctory screening done before sales. If someone is to the point of buying weapons with the specific intent to go on a spree odds are there is enough mental degradation that some to the point evaluation would reveal it. Maybe that's just wishful thinking to hope for that to be enacted, but there should at least be an inquiry into and availability of information on past issues.Also, still have to say the Assault Weapons ban was garbage and any politician who tries to reinstate it without revision deserves the flak he or she receives. It was ill-conceived then and it still would be so now.
I'd be astonished if there wasn't widespread support for mental health screening (at least mental health history) as well as limitations on, for instance, people on the the terrorist watch list.
When I was listening to talk radio in the States, Ingraham had a former Pennsylvania governor on the show, who said he wanted to pass legislation that prevented people purchasing more than one gun a month, which had 70%+ support, but was killed in committee by the NRA.
Additionally, if you look at what really happened in the Fast & Furious scandal, Nevada law actually prevented the ATF from arresting or following guns being smuggled into Mexico, because the NRA is so powerful there that laws against selling weapons basically didn't exist. People could legally go buy arsenals for themselves, then, minutes later, sell them to other individuals who brought them across the border. The DA basically refused to prosecute the cases, because to prove a crime, you would have to prove the mental intentions of the seller of the gun (did he buy it with the intention to sell, or just sell after, etc; not something easy to prove without a massive wiretap/intelligence system in place).
The point is, the NRA has lobbied for such astoundingly limited regulation of firearms, and it has created a system that the people do not approve of. In terms of the assault weapons ban, you are probably right in that it was ineffective, but I think the more important point is that people want some type of assault weapons ban, and probably one that is far more effective than the previous.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, 16 year old US citizen, assassinated via drone strike along with his American father Anwar Al-awlaki and 17 year old American cousin Samir Khan. So much for due process.
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably shouldn't be in the same room with terrorist; that's like common sense.
Just as a point of clarification, Al-Awlaki's son was not killed in the same strike as his father. He was targeted at a later date, for no reason (at least the Obama administration and the CIA refuse to provide a reason). Ostensibly, he had no connection to terrorism at all.
This is quite literally a case of the US targeting someone who would otherwise be innocent, even going by their incredibly loose definition of terrorism, unless they have now expanded it to include heredity.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I could give a care less about that case, I care more about 13 year old goat herders who get killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
all males in a combat zone are combatants
we're fighting them over there so they don't heard goats over here
Accused Colorado gunman James Holmes’ psychiatrist alerted police before rampage: reportDENVER — The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes contacted a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about Holmes’ behavior several weeks before the rampage, ABC News reported, citing unnamed sources.
The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along, ABC said in a report late on Monday on its website.
They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora, Colorado, Police Department as a part of the investigation of the July 20 shooting that left 12 people dead and 58 wounded.
The sources said Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to contact the police officer or others, the network said.
[...]
ABC News and affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver reported last week that Fenton had contacted other members of the university’s threat-assessment team about her concerns.
[...]
The University of Colorado said last week it had hired a former federal prosecutor to conduct an internal review of the Denver-based campus’ dealings with Holmes.
Obviously, this needs to be taken with due skepticism, but it will be interesting to see what comes out in trial...
provided we get one, unlike in the Loughner case...
Originally posted by Ascendancy
It's interesting, but what could the cops have done just based on that?
well, the only time a psychiatrist is allowed to break confidentiality is when they feel someone is a legitimate threat to themselves or others.
In Canada at least, this allows the police to put someone in essentially an in-patient situation and investigate whether or not they are a threat. Given what little we know about the packages sent to his psychiatrist, the ammunition and explosives stockpile he had in his apartment, the mass purchasing of guns, ammo and body armor, and the overall severity of his mental illness, it is unlikely that there is nothing they could do.
Again, from a Canadian legal standpoint, if a person poses a legitimate risk to society [or themselves], which it can probably be assumed a psychological evaluation of Holmes would have revealed (as this was the case with his own psychiatrist, enough so that she risked her professional credentials and broke confidentiality), they can essentially be held indefinitely.
I'd honestly be astonished if something at least similar didn't exist in Colorado, or something that would have at least allowed the police to look into his recent purchases and maybe have a look around his apartment (in fact, such a report to law enforcement would almost certainly be valid PC for a search warrant).
Originally posted by Esau CairnNot incredibly surprising. California is one of the most anti-gun states in the Country, yet gun sales spiked heavily after the shooting. Having a weapon makes people feel better, I suppose.
I can't find a link but I read another person got arrested for taking a gun, ammunition & several knives to a movie session of TDKR.His defence when arrested was that he was scared of another shooting happening & therefore he was arming himself for protection.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Oliver, I just don't have faith that they would have done much. The guy busted in the Northeast after he threatened to kill is boss isn't being charged and will likely get all his hardware back.
won't =/= can't
also, I don't believe the man in the NE was reported to police by a psychiatrist?
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not really up to date on American laws, but why wouldn't that be attempted murder?
In order to get the attempted murder charge, you actually have to take some actions that shows you attempted murder. Words alone do not constitute attempted murder. So, in court, the prosecutor would have to demonstrate that you made a physical attempt to murder. That could be collecting materials to do it, typing up plans, writing down plans, etc. Stuff like that.