Politics Looking for reasonable solutions in the wake of the Orlando massacre (tl;dr alert)

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Head Censor, Jun 15, 2016.

  1. Head Censor

    Head Censor Turgid Member VIP

    Reputations:
    393,478
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    26,914
    Thousands of posts in numerous threads have been authored here over the past three days in response to the tragic shooting in Orlando. Two predominant themes have emerged. Those skewing more to the right have tended to focus on both the role that muslim ideology plays in inciting this sort of senseless violence, as well the opportunities our questionable immigration policies present to would be terrorists - either directly, or through the actions of their disaffected children - to lash out in this indiscriminate, brutal manner.

    The more progressive voices, on the other hand, have cited the Second Amendment, America's so called gun culture and the citizenry's relatively easy access to firearms as the areas where we should focus if we wish to reduce the death toll of future incidents.

    It's no secret to most here that I'm a strong proponent of the 2A. Therefore, as part of a good faith effort to see if any sort of consensus is possible, I will set aside the issue of radical islamism and instead place the focus on the latter half of the equation. To wit, are there any measures under the broad category of restricting firearm access that could be 1) reasonably effective, 2) quickly implementable and, most importantly, 3) acceptable to both sides?

    The majority of proposals seem to entail either restricting all firearm access to certain individuals, or restricting the access of certain firearms to all individuals. Obviously, our third and final goal above will be the most difficult to achieve. But if we're to have any chance of success, I would suggest that we approach this from the standpoint of looking for some equitable way to restrict all access to certain individuals.

    I understand some are passionately in favor of an "assault weapon" ban, but I honestly can't see gun owners ever acceding to such a restriction being placed on law abiding citizens. Insofar as the 2A specifically protects the individual citizen's right to gather and form militias, standard semi-automatic, military style rifles most certainly fall under its protections. As well, it's already been demonstrated in other tragedies, that, given the proper "gun free zone", hand guns can do very nearly the same amount of damage as a rifle.

    So the more narrowly defined question then becomes, can we find a way to restrict certain individuals' access to guns without shredding our Constitution in the process. For his part, President Obama has been a vocal proponent of suspending the 2A rights of any citizen on the No Fly list - and a very vocal critic of the NRA's opposition to this plan. With his typically demagogic flair, he has tried to paint NRA members as simply being callous and uncaring to the suffering of the victims of gun violence and their families. In reality, however, there are some very thorny Constitutional issues with his plan that he fails to acknowledge.

    Understand, a person doesn't know when they are being put on the No Fly list, they don't know who has put them on the list, they don't know why they've been put on the list and, in many cases, they have no effective means of redress to get their name removed from the list if they believe it has put on there in err. The president is therefore advocating that people who have never even been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one, be denied one of their most fundamental Constitutional rights, on the basis of suspicion alone, without any meaningful due process or means of redress.

    All in all, while the intentions may be honorable, this seems a pretty dangerous precedent to be setting. And it comes on the heels of some other recent governmental initiatives - most notably one aimed at restricting certain veterans' access to firearms - that have struck gun owners as equally poorly thought out and lacking in due process. I don't highlight these things to weaken our collective resolve in looking for viable solutions, only to demonstrate why much of this mistrust exists in the first place.

    It would therefore seem to me that any legitimate attempt to deny terror suspects their clear Constitutional rights would, at an absolute minimum, have to be based on some sort of court proceeding. Restricting travel access is one thing. Suspending the most fundamental protections afforded a citizen by the Bill of Rights is something else altogether. These people deserve some ability to face their accuser. It may well be that certain intelligence gathering means and methodologies will need to be protected. And perhaps not all evidence will be presentable in open court. But I hope most here would agree that, no matter what type of court is employed in these proceedings, it would need to offer more transparency than that which we've seen with the FISA courts. Ultimately, a judge will have great discretion in these matters. And as a Californian, having seen first hand how our state courts and the 9th Circuit justices often shirk their responsibility to uphold the Constitution in favor of adhering more to a party ideology, that gives me pause as well. It would thus also be necessary to ensure that a robust appeals process is in place.

    Political rhetoric aside, it goes without saying that no NRA member wants to see the Omar Mateens of the world spilling blood on American soil. But our reverence for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers demands that the slightest thing we do to walk back the freedoms they provided, be considered carefully and with great deliberation. Certain anti-gang measures have ventured into this territory. Perhaps they can provide the blueprint required to get all responsible citizens behind the efforts to limit the damage capable of being inflicted by this infestation of wanabe jihadis.



    Oh yeah, and
    [​IMG]
    and
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Gwarn1

    Gwarn1 Worlds poorest sugar daddy VIP

    Reputations:
    102,449
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    68,800
    Likes Received:
    16,958
    Golly that sure is a lot of words
     
    doughhead63 and Head Censor like this.
  3. Head Censor

    Head Censor Turgid Member VIP

    Reputations:
    393,478
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    26,914
    Can't say you weren't warned. :D
     
    1Vegasgirl likes this.
  4. Shithead

    Shithead Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    91,348
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    13,317
    Likes Received:
    21,451
    People have spoken, they want their weapons and they're willing to accept the occasional slaughter that comes with it
     
  5. JameGumb

    JameGumb We're all out of toner!

    Reputations:
    227,517
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    35,478
    Likes Received:
    26,801
    Shut up Gwarn
     
    1Vegasgirl likes this.
  6. SuperFarts

    SuperFarts Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    46,731
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,131
    Likes Received:
    9,606
    Secretive government watch lists. Just that should be a red flag.

    Guilty without the opportunity to be proven innocent.

    We dont know whos on it, why theyre on it and theres no way (currently) to be removed from it.

    Just some of the people who have been "listed": Senator Ted Kennedy (3 times actually), a 6 year old Christian girl and actor Mark Ruffalo.

    Government "watch" lists really go against everything that America was founded on and (hopefully) still stands for.

    TPTB sincerely believe in incrementalism and this is the next logical step.

    Liberty minded individuals warned of setting a precedence regarding "watch lists" and these warnings have already come to fruition:

    Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens.

    And which restriction is next: barred from being hired, denied medical coverage, how about a credit card or a mortgage?

    Now, lets say that these lists arent used to harass "political dissidents" (which theres no way to confirm since we cant see it), is it reasonable to believe that someone on this list is "so dangerous", that the only restriction is that they "cant fly"? Or, as is being suggested, be prevented from buying a gun and thats it?

    If they were really such a threat, shouldnt they be arrested, tried, convicted, deported and or incarcerated?

    Obviously, something isnt right here.

    Now, if all of that isnt reason enough to do away with government watch lists (especially ones that strip people of their right to travel or bear arms), I give you the following news report:

    Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota.


    No one likes or approves of nor wants violence, not even us pro-2A people.

    But stripping away rights is not the answer.

    To date (and still growing) 47,000 people on the "no fly" list. 1,000,000+ on the "terror watch list".

    And who or what fits the description/definition of a "terrorist"? The term has been used to describe everyone from OWS to the Bundys...

    From the mastermind of the "no fly/no buy list" and NJ law makers caught on an open mic shortly after voting to become the first state to actually turn the no buy list into law:



     
  7. potroast

    potroast Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    53,939
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,565
    Likes Received:
    9,914
    No. The NRA is against any changes to guns or laws, period.
     
  8. CrucifiedAGT

    CrucifiedAGT He's Around VIP

    Reputations:
    334,110
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    11,667
    Likes Received:
    24,500
    The fact is this was rebranded a "mass shooting" instead of what it really is; yet another Islamic Terrorist Attack.

    Until the reality of Muslim terrorism being fully actualized on our soil is realized by our leaders, no amount of gun control is ever going to save lives.
     
  9. SuperFarts

    SuperFarts Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    46,731
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,131
    Likes Received:
    9,606

    Couldnt ask for a more perfect set of circumstances on which to push the no fly/no buy agenda:

    Moslem.
    Tactical rifle.
    Purchased legally.
     
  10. rolltide

    rolltide Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    39,125
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    7,716
    Until the President and Congress are ready to publicly acknowledge the fact that Muslims do not fit into the American way of life; we are doomed.

    I guarantee you one thing; if the "peaceful" Muslims living in this land are called upon to help in the effort of rooting out the "radicals" in the community preparing to damage in this country, they will choose to protect their own and stay silent. They won't help out soldiers abroad; what will compel them to help here when the tenets of their religion is based on murdering those that don't believe.

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
     
  11. Head Censor

    Head Censor Turgid Member VIP

    Reputations:
    393,478
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    26,914
    Thanks for adding such detail in explaining why Constitutionalists have so many misgivings about pursuing this course of action.

    I will therefore pose the question to you - is there any set of safeguards you would find acceptable that would allow the FBI to place some sort of sanctions on a person like Mateen, after his second or third terror related investigation, while also passing Constitutional muster?

    Getting a court order to authorize surveillance is already in place. But with the current administration doubling down on their plan to introduce even more unvetted muslims into the country (some reports indicating we're now receiving up to a hundred Syrians every day)...

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016...-threatening-u-s-100-syrian-refugees-per-day/

    ...we will soon be facing the problems governments in Europe are facing - namely that there are more people worthy of being surveilled than there are agents to keep up with them.
     
  12. Mark Mayonnaise

    Mark Mayonnaise You look like a tree! VIP

    Reputations:
    315,302
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    177,063
    Likes Received:
    59,104
    :jj:
     
  13. Daveindiego

    Daveindiego Confirmed Internet Legend Gold

    Reputations:
    449,457
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    74,981
    Likes Received:
    29,483
    Is this OPs first ever message board?

    This guy is a shit head, and certainly does not deserve the respect of having a post like this read.

    tl;dr
     
  14. Head Censor

    Head Censor Turgid Member VIP

    Reputations:
    393,478
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    26,914
    There have been many threads here over the last couple days that skirted all around the question I posed above. It's a dilemma that's clearly on a lot of people's minds, including the president and, as of last night, Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson (who rather ominously floated a trial balloon last night stating his belief that this latest tragedy now gives the DHS authority to begin unilaterally pursuing new gun control measures).

    Rather than focus on the ad hominems, why not simply point out if and where you specifically find fault with my premise in the OP?
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
    CrucifiedAGT and 1Vegasgirl like this.
  15. 1Vegasgirl

    1Vegasgirl Well-Known Member VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    449,199
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    32,496
    Likes Received:
    45,916
    I don't expect much. The reality of a criminal like Michael Brown has not been realized by the likes of these leaders. Obama will always take the side of the criminal and that makes him the biggest racist.
     
    Head Censor and CrucifiedAGT like this.
  16. Daveindiego

    Daveindiego Confirmed Internet Legend Gold

    Reputations:
    449,457
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    74,981
    Likes Received:
    29,483
    But yours is way too wordy, much like all of your posts.
     
  17. Calloused Shins

    Calloused Shins Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    68,875
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Messages:
    4,861
    Likes Received:
    8,158
    Sad thing is, there are no right or wrong answers. Ban all Muslims cause they don't fit the American way? They'll find other ways to cause terrorism.... Anthrax by mail anyone? Ban guns? Never gonna happen and guns aren't to blame. Religion is to blame. Ban religion? Than you've got 5 billion people running around with no purpose ready to cause havoc, even more fearful than they already are. Sorry guys, big bad Obama nor lil fingers trump is gonna save you. Humans are just being humans.
     
  18. FeetToTaste

    FeetToTaste Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    30,248
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    6,529
    I'm wayyyyyy more liberal than most people on this board, probably more liberal than some of the more outspoken liberals on this board. I don't particularly understand "gun culture" or why single-issue voters on the right seem to flock to the NRA's side. That being said, I do own 2 handguns and my wife owns 2 handguns. Mostly shoot for fun, but also keep a pistol for protection. Gun control laws as they are now, would not have stopped this from happening. This guy was a nut case that wanted to kill people. If he couldn't purchase weapons legally, he would have figured out another way to kill these people.

    As cheesy as it sounds, to stop homegrown terrorists or even foreign terrorists, I think the old saying "see something, say something" is the most important thing.

    Look at this asshole's co-worker:

    http://www.wptv.com/news/region-st-...ming-former-co-worker-talks-about-omar-mateen

    "I saw it coming." Former co-worker talks about Omar Mateen

    “I saw it coming. I mean everything. he told me he was going to do it. Besides the date and the location, he said he was going to kill a whole bunch of people.”


    Well why the fuck didn't you tell people this BEFORE it happened.
     
  19. Chief2Kick

    Chief2Kick I'm all sixes & sevens & nines Staff Member

    Reputations:
    143,532
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    44,285
    Likes Received:
    15,461
    Instead we can listen to the rantings of a lunatic like you. :unuts:
     
    JameGumb and CrucifiedAGT like this.
  20. Head Censor

    Head Censor Turgid Member VIP

    Reputations:
    393,478
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    26,914
    On a macro level, I think you're probably right.

    But again, for the purposes of this thread, I'm trying focus specifically on people like Omar Mateen. He was a radicalized shithead who also happened to be a U.S. citizen with no criminal record.

    We shouldn't lose sight of the fact, however, that in the mind of our president, you and I are both radicalized shithead citizens with no criminal records.

    So how then can we go about restricting the ability of legitimate terror threats to inflict mass casualties, without setting ourselves - and millions of other American citizens - up for future reprisals motivated by nothing more than political differences?
     
    sternadamsapple and FeetToTaste like this.