Lefist terror groups such as the Black Panthers and SLA were willing to harm people.
The main difference is that leftist economics is a fundamentally flawed system. As a result, there is very little interest in leftist economic systems and the hard core leftist extremists cannot replace themselves. Most are now 60 plus years old and there are very few new Black Panthers and SLA types willing to continue the "struggle".
Meanwhile, right wing economics is not a failed system and there are many people interested in right wing economic theories. a small number turn to extremist groups. Right wing extremists can replace themselves- but only to degree (once there were tens of thousands of hard core KKK types. Today, there are probably only several hundred truly committed members). Thus, as there are more right wing terrorists out there, there is more right wing violence against individuals.
You had to go back 40 or 50 years to find one or two? Were you even alive then?
The CNN article said there were 34 killings by right wing extremists since 9/11 and zero by left wing extremists.....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hurch-shooting-w-224-a-55.html#post1064732556
For example, say that the measure we're considering is a regulation requiring gun owners to keep their guns locked up when they're not home. Would that stop all gun murders? Of course not. Some murders are committed by the gun owner, so locking it up when they're not around would be irrelevant. Some people would ignore the law and leave their guns unlocked. Some shooters who would otherwise have taken an unlocked gun will find a gun elsewhere. But, it is equally impossible that it would not reduce the incidence at all. Some people would lock up their guns, which would mean that some shooters wouldn't be able to get those guns, and some of those potential shooters would be unable to find a different gun at least until they cooled down. The answer to the question of how effective that measure would be can't possibly be either 0% or 100%, so answers in the binary form you're giving can't possibly be correct.
All I am asking is the questions so the subject can be discussed.
I would say that when a person kills nine persons and makes statements like those attributed to the alleged killer - those are strong warning signs pointing to political grievances as at least part of the motivation.
We already have effective gun control. What Democrats want is draconian gun control. Banning "that thing that goes up"? What the hell will that do? Little scumbag reloaded 5 damn times....what would the stupid mag capacity limits have done there? NOTHING! The FBI failed to name a SINGLE gun law that had a discernible effect on lowering crime. NOT ONE. So what makes you think that MORE laws would even do anything, except annoy the law abiding?
Arresting criminals and then the criminal justice system locking them away for a couple decades or longer is the best gun control. Not some stupid law that sounds good but doesnt work.
Taking all the guns away from law abiding mentally stable and legal gun owners isn't going to address this particular problem.
If you really want to address the problem of the crazed mentally unstable using guns to randomly kill people, keep guns out of their reach. That would be far more effective at dealing with the root causes of this particular problem.
Surely you can see the logic and common sense of this.
Yep, Gun Control has worked wonders in places like Baltimore, Detroit, Washington DC , St Louis and Chicago... .
Obviously, you didn't read my post...because included therein was this:
"And one cannot point to, say, those American cities which have strong gun control laws on the books, because those laws are not enforceable - all one need do is to bring a car full of guns legally bought the next state over."
Next time, try READING a post before you metaphorically step in it, willya?
Only in the minds of liberals with a need to attack conservatives are the actions and statements of the alleged killer here fantasized as political. We could just as easily discuss the possibility that young men who have their hair cut using cereal bowls as a guide are prone to mass murder.
His comments, in my view, were those of a white supremacist who seemed to have grievances against black people, grievances personal to him. Where's the political agenda that he was advancing in what he did and what is known at this time?
Well those cities can repeal those laws and make something more enforceable, that's always an option
If you've ever really paid attention, you'd already know that MOST liberals (including me) do not support total gun bans. MOST liberals do not support taking guns away from "law-abiding mentally-stable, legal gun owners". What we liberals DO support is full gun registration (to minimize gun smuggling and trafficking), outlawing of extended magazines (if that idiot in SC had not had to change mags 5 times, how many more would have died?), mandatory firearm safety training (because we get tired of reading about this and that stupid idiot who killed himself or his wife while cleaning his gun), continued outlawing of automatic weapons, and outlawing of military-grade sniper rifles (because there's absolutely no need for either of those among the civilian populace).
Personally, I strongly support smart gun tech - and yes, it would work just as well as my fingerprint sensor on my iPhone works, and it would prevent a heck of a lot of kids from killing themselves or their siblings because they found a gun.
One more thing - if you were to describe exactly what is entailed in the gun-control laws enforced in Israel and Switzerland, you'd find that most liberals would support those laws...and you might find that a heck of a lot of American "gun-rights supporters" would start calling those nations tyrannies.
Impossible. Re-read what I said, that all one has to do is to drive a car full of firearms legally bought across the state line. The fact that this is so easily and legally done makes any such gun control laws unenforceable for all practical purposes.
I think what you might be missing is the fact that racism and political beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Try living down in the Deep South sometime and you'll see what we mean. Or you could just re-read about the opposition against the Civil Rights Act in general and segregation in particular in the Deep South.
What I'm getting at is that it's very, very difficult for someone who hasn't lived there to really understand just how deeply the racism is ingrained in Southern society...where among most whites there, racism is understood and tolerated...and IMO among most whites there aged 40 and over, accepted and even expected...
...and this does play very much into their politics.
That's just the way it is in the Deep South.
So your platform if I translate this to normal English fom the BS you just posted
1) violate persons fourth amendment right to privacy
2) ban standard magazines (hehe nice double talk for finding a way to justify banning standard magazines from an incident where someone used a gun with a smaller standard magazine.
3) continue a ban that has no public safety justification
4) ban regular rifles with no practical criminal application
5) cite gun control examples in countries that allow virtually all of what you just advocate banning
It is not legal to cross a stateline with guns illegal in another state unless you're transiting through
We can boil it down simpler, you as a anti rights advocate (becuase there's nothing liberal about demanding the state violate peoples civil rights) do not believe in a total ban, just a regulatory framework so expensive and complicated for so little benefit that no one bothers to do it. Got it
I think most people realize that this is plain evil and does not represent all whites or all young people or all males.
I just want to know that if what being reported is the .45 caliber pistol was a birthday present from his father is true. If it was, why did he think the perfect gift for a 9th grade dropout without any desire to work and been arrested for possession of a controlled substance would be a gun?
Moot, why don't you provide us with a list of mass murderers and what their political leans were?
as I recall, John Wayne Gacy (the basement dwellers fame) was a Democrat party official in Chicago. The zebra killer(s) were hardly conservatives either.
Um, no, required firearm registration does not violate the fourth amendment any more than require vehicle registration.
same difference, something tells me you don't like the factory standard magazines I own that are 12 and 17 roundsI said, ban EXTENDED magazines, not standard mags, guy. Please don't try to twist my words.
I don't know, and neither do you. more might not have died, fewer may have died, there was a mass shooting in England 5 years ago where the shooter racked up a 25% higher body count with a double barrel.If the idiot in SC hadn't had to change clips five times, how many more would have died?
Are you referring to my support of mandatory firearm safety training? And you're seriously claiming this has no public safety justification? Dude...you really should read the news sometime.
if you used accurate language to describe your intentions no one would support you. so you have to make stuff up like "military sniper rifle"Did I say REGULAR rifles? Of course not - that's just you making up crap.
which are next to never used in any crime, and in fact weren't really used for crime before the 34 and 86 bans.Of course, REGULAR rifles are among the LEAST problematic firearms. But there is NO justification for the public to have AUTOMATIC
like a scoped remington 700? a .308 bolt? an M-1C garand sniper? there is no distinction between military sniper rifles and civilian rifles. in fact civilian firearms have always followed military developments.firearms or military-grade sniper rifles.
Um, 'scuse you, but my post was part of a side discussion that had nothing to do with gun rights. Haymarket had connected the racist beliefs of the shooter to politics in the area, and CanadaJohn was trying to claim that there's no connection between racism and politics.
Next time, please make sure that you really understand what someone's post is about before you start slamming that post.
I think what you might be missing is the fact that racism and political beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Try living down in the Deep South sometime and you'll see what we mean. Or you could just re-read about the opposition against the Civil Rights Act in general and segregation in particular in the Deep South.
What I'm getting at is that it's very, very difficult for someone who hasn't lived there to really understand just how deeply the racism is ingrained in Southern society...where among most whites there, racism is understood and tolerated...and IMO among most whites there aged 40 and over, accepted and even expected...
...and this does play very much into their politics.
That's just the way it is in the Deep South.
Um, 'scuse you, but my post was part of a side discussion that had nothing to do with gun rights. Haymarket had connected the racist beliefs of the shooter to politics in the area, and CanadaJohn was trying to claim that there's no connection between racism and politics.
Next time, please make sure that you really understand what someone's post is about before you start slamming that post.
I know, courts these days will uphold anything on nothing more then irrational paranoia... sad really
same difference, something tells me you don't like the factory standard magazines I own that are 12 and 17 rounds I don't know, and neither do you. more might not have died, fewer may have died, there was a mass shooting in England 5 years ago where the shooter racked up a 25% higher body count with a double barrel.
mandatory training does not, there is no statistical difference in accidents that stands out between states that have said training and ones that do not.
if you used accurate language to describe your intentions no one would support you. so you have to make stuff up like "military sniper rifle" which are next to never used in any crime, and in fact weren't really used for crime before the 34 and 86 bans. like a scoped remington 700? a .308 bolt? an M-1C garand sniper? there is no distinction between military sniper rifles and civilian rifles. in fact civilian firearms have always followed military developments.
My claim, if you want to be fair, is that there's no connection between the obvious racism in this incident and politics as far as we know at this point in time when the bodies are barely cold and not yet buried. To leap to a conclusion, a compulsion, to claim that conservative politics led to this massacre is what I object to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?