Tough talk from candidates who, to a man, never wore a uniform or were in combat and one of whom would not pass the physical. The closet he has come to physical activity is jumping up and down in Jerry Jones' sky box.
24
Of all the idiotic narratives "progressives" have tried to push, this one is probably the most idiotic and dangerous. Blaming the US bill of rights on domestic Islamic terrorism is simply foolish and distracts from the real problem - Islamic terrorists. I would bet the farm this couple were not NRA members.
5
Set me straight, please.
The 2nd Amendment was about enabling citizenry to protect against state take-over of private property.
The weapons, which citizens could acquire, were presumed to be more or less equivalent to those the state could acquire.
Today, that once-presumed equivalency is unimaginable. Not even the NRA would support the notion that civilians have a constitutional right to acquire, for example, US Army AH-64 attack helicopters, much less nuclear attack submarines.
If the 2nd Amendment doesn't establish my (a US citizen's) constitutional right to buy an attack helicopter or a nuclear attack submarine, then on what basis does it establish my right to buy an assault rifle?
Can I legally buy a grenade launcher, as well as an assault rifle, thanks to the 2nd Amendment?
The 2nd Amendment was about enabling citizenry to protect against state take-over of private property.
The weapons, which citizens could acquire, were presumed to be more or less equivalent to those the state could acquire.
Today, that once-presumed equivalency is unimaginable. Not even the NRA would support the notion that civilians have a constitutional right to acquire, for example, US Army AH-64 attack helicopters, much less nuclear attack submarines.
If the 2nd Amendment doesn't establish my (a US citizen's) constitutional right to buy an attack helicopter or a nuclear attack submarine, then on what basis does it establish my right to buy an assault rifle?
Can I legally buy a grenade launcher, as well as an assault rifle, thanks to the 2nd Amendment?
27
"While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."
These votes should be considered acts of treason.
These votes should be considered acts of treason.
40
If the presidential candidates of the Republican party really mean what they say and if what they say really represents what a significant fraction of the American people think and want, then this country is very, very sick.
20
As Americans become frightened, intimidated, our freedoms and privacy reduced by security measures, the NRA/GOP carry out the mission of bin Laden, al Queda and ISIS far more than these terrorists could ever have dreamed of themselves. Lax gun laws are reaping their inevitable conclusions and there is no going back, as the whole country is now saturated with firearms and no means of control that won't reduce the freedoms and privacy enjoyed by generations. Essentially the great American experiment in freedom is over. All that's left now is for history books to be written about the tragic flaws that caused our downfall, as stubborn, senseless, blind allegiance to this singular agenda has ruined this great nation.
15
I don't agree with the no-fly list. Why should somebody be deprived of the right to fly without due process? But if somebody is too dangerous to let onto an airplane it seem they are definitely too dangerous to have a gun.
3
There is a problem with using the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watch list to screen purchasers of guns: it is a secret list. Individuals who may be on the list have no clear right to be informed whether or not they are in fact on the list, and if on the list, no clear right to learn the reasons for their listing or to challenge them. Persons can be put on the list based on "suspicion," which may be merely who their relatives or friends are. Contrast that with other reasons to deny gun purchases -- a criminal conviction or a civil commitment -- which are the result of legal processes that can be challenged in court. I'm surprised that The Times is not more sensitive to the constitutional and civil rights issues involved in the use of watch lists.
4
what politically correct nonsense.
it's another reason to be armed, get trained and be alert.
and avoid the left wings self serving hysterical hyberbole.
it's another reason to be armed, get trained and be alert.
and avoid the left wings self serving hysterical hyberbole.
4
Enjoy your thoughts and prayers and your moments of silence, because with our paralyzed congress, that's all you're going to get. That's all any of us are going to get. The numberless massacres over the last several years have established that the gun lobby are the only people in this country who can get anything done.
So let's look forward to many more moments of silence. Because, at the end, that's all we'll have. Between our worthless Congress, our ineffective president, a gun lobby that's running everything, and Islamic terrorists who want to kill us all, none of us are long for this world. And after we're all gone, the silence will be deafening and forever.
So let's look forward to many more moments of silence. Because, at the end, that's all we'll have. Between our worthless Congress, our ineffective president, a gun lobby that's running everything, and Islamic terrorists who want to kill us all, none of us are long for this world. And after we're all gone, the silence will be deafening and forever.
5
I might own a weapon, legally or not. I might want that weapon to defend myself against someone else who is armed. But would I think I should be "packing" when I go to a social service facility? I wonder how many of the victims had weapons - at home.
2
I wish Paul Ryan, et. al., would as jealously protect the legal rights of women to abortion and birth control. Maybe then they and their providers would not be threatened on a daily basis by folks with their constitutionally protected weapons.
Nobody ever got killed by a uterus or a birth control pill...as far as I know. But then Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, also et. al, could, I am sure, find a case that is being perniciously hidden by some radical...radical...you know...whatever.
Nobody ever got killed by a uterus or a birth control pill...as far as I know. But then Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, also et. al, could, I am sure, find a case that is being perniciously hidden by some radical...radical...you know...whatever.
7
The FBI has just reported that the wife, Ms. Malik, in the San Bernardino terrorist attack, had made a pledge to ISIS on Facebook. Yet the Government didn't have her on any terrorist watch list. Despite the fact she was also muslim immigrant, here from Saudi Arabia only a couple of years, or so.
This is an example of how the US Government, in possession of laws which make it possible to track the activities of suspected terrorists, and terrorist sympathizers, completely failed to find a pair of bright, shiny needles. Why? Possibly because they were likely too busy building a bigger and bigger bureaucratic haystack.
And here we have the Times Editorial Board, and any number of commenters denouncing the Republican Party as the real bad guys, because they don't want to engage in magical thinking,
This is an example of how the US Government, in possession of laws which make it possible to track the activities of suspected terrorists, and terrorist sympathizers, completely failed to find a pair of bright, shiny needles. Why? Possibly because they were likely too busy building a bigger and bigger bureaucratic haystack.
And here we have the Times Editorial Board, and any number of commenters denouncing the Republican Party as the real bad guys, because they don't want to engage in magical thinking,
4
But for one critical item I agree with your editorial about the misguided Senate vote on preventing potentially dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. I don't think the buck stops with the Republican senators and candidates or even the gun lobby. Rather it stops with some justices of our Supreme Court that have refused to recognize that our constitution is supposed to be a living document that can be reinterpreted to accommodate changes in society. In particular: (1) their decision in "Citizens United" threatens to destroy our democracy by changing "one person, one vote" to "one dollar, one vote," and (2)their failure to recognize that the Second Amendment was designed for a very different time and society has threatened to destroy our own society.
29
Getting rid of the gun lobby and the Republicans (and Democrats) who support it is essential at this point. They lie about the meaning of the 2nd amendment to justify profits and bigotry.
17
When Obama was elected, he was popular, and he had majorities in both houses of Congress. He even had 60 in the Senate to deal with their bizarre interpretation of majority rule.
The Democrats could have done something about firearm possession while wringing their hands that something, anything must be done. They're the cowards. The Republicans are merely exploiting the politics of this offensive propaganda that free people should give up their rights because it will make them safer. And why not? If the Democrats could figure out a way to lock in 30-40 million votes, wouldn't they employ it?
You want a Trump presidency? Keep up this gun grabbing talk, and you'll have it.
The Democrats could have done something about firearm possession while wringing their hands that something, anything must be done. They're the cowards. The Republicans are merely exploiting the politics of this offensive propaganda that free people should give up their rights because it will make them safer. And why not? If the Democrats could figure out a way to lock in 30-40 million votes, wouldn't they employ it?
You want a Trump presidency? Keep up this gun grabbing talk, and you'll have it.
6
Dear Dopes, If we're at war, wouldn't it behoove us to restrict the enemy's ability to procure arms? Doh.
33
In the last four years more than 120,000 gun deaths in America as compared to the total combat deaths the Vietnam, Korean and Gulf wars total less than 90,000 combat deaths, if you add in the military deaths that are not from combat it is still less than gun deaths in America in the last four years, more than 31,000 gun deaths per year multiple by four years equals over 120,000 gun deaths in America, can we arrogantly refer to ourselves as a civilized nation
5
If at the end of 2016 we find the United States having elected the Republican view of the world the we deserve everything that comes after. The conduct of the Republican Party speaks not to the ideals of America but to selfish, narcissistic, opportunism. If the voting public, in addition to apathy on the part of our younger generations in not participating, sit by and watch such demagoguery no one will have room to complain about what occurs to our Republic. Call it what is is but I view it as the dumbing down of a nation. Talk of electing "political outsiders" is ignorant, no way around it.
6
The guns were purchased not by "suspected" terrorists but by actual, confirmed terrorists. Thank you, Republicans, for keeping us safe from, uh, some "government officials." Keep up the good work.
4
The despicable gun votes in the senate should be called for what they are: a total unwillingness for bipartisan compromise, due to completely caving in to the gun activist position that even the most mild gun safety legislation is just the first step to a total gun ban. It is mind boggling that we cant even agree on universal background checks, the most mild of any gun safety proposal and an idea that has near universal public support.
It is impossible to achieve any bipartisan agreement with such toddlers. Throw the bums out.
It is impossible to achieve any bipartisan agreement with such toddlers. Throw the bums out.
8
The pretense for this article is a joke. The perpetrators were an American and his fiancee here legally on a fiancee visa. The guns were purchased legally, and neither person was on a no-fly list.
I actually agree with what the NYT board proposes here. That said, it's diversionary to bring this issue up at this time. This horror was caused by radical Muslims. It is very likely that even without assault rifles, they could easily have inflicted similar damage without an assault rifle, given the large number of pipe bombs they had and they presumably would have had hand guns if assault rifles were illegal.
This is the same crazed radical Muslim ideology that has inspired the Paris attacks and 9/11.
Yes, legalizing assault rifles may aide terrorists to a small extent, but that said, people insane enough to forego their own newborn to strangers simply because they are not devout Muslims are the true threat.
Where is the NYT board to address this insane ideology that drives these massacres? Where is the President to call this out?
I actually agree with what the NYT board proposes here. That said, it's diversionary to bring this issue up at this time. This horror was caused by radical Muslims. It is very likely that even without assault rifles, they could easily have inflicted similar damage without an assault rifle, given the large number of pipe bombs they had and they presumably would have had hand guns if assault rifles were illegal.
This is the same crazed radical Muslim ideology that has inspired the Paris attacks and 9/11.
Yes, legalizing assault rifles may aide terrorists to a small extent, but that said, people insane enough to forego their own newborn to strangers simply because they are not devout Muslims are the true threat.
Where is the NYT board to address this insane ideology that drives these massacres? Where is the President to call this out?
4
I feel that we have reached a tipping point, but not in a good way. With 200 million plus guns already in circulation and a system of government that defines a corporation as a person, our lawmakers are no longer free to represent their constituents.
The changes required to drastically improve the system seem to me to be insurmountable. I am truly concerned the future of our country.
Imagine what would happen if someone decides that revenge is required and begins to attack mosques. I shudder to think of the consequences.
The changes required to drastically improve the system seem to me to be insurmountable. I am truly concerned the future of our country.
Imagine what would happen if someone decides that revenge is required and begins to attack mosques. I shudder to think of the consequences.
7
The rhetoric flowing from the republican candidates is insulting to any listener's intelligence - instead of making any meaningful comments regarding gun control, because it may not satisfy their political base or be looked at negatively from the public's present (and probably dying out equally quickly) furor - attack the President and his policy. No surprise there.
But what is surprising is the defense from some of commentators to this column. Because these two individuals slipped through the government watchlist and would not have been barred from buying these firearms, we should not pass any bills that would prevent potential terrorists from purchasing firearms. First, this mass shooting by a pair of possible terrorists using legally purchased firearms has revealed a true security breach - namely, terrorists that America considers a possible threat can legally purchase firearms capable of fulfilling acts of mass murder. Even though these two weren't stopped doesn't mean we should make it easy for the next terrorists that are on the watchlist. Second, using Congressman Ryan's logic every single one of those on the current watchlist must be found a definite threat before they should be banned from purchasing a firearm. How long will this take after a procedure, which is not in existence now, be implemented. Years? And before these terrorists are tried do you think they will use their ability to buy firearms while they have the right to do so?
But what is surprising is the defense from some of commentators to this column. Because these two individuals slipped through the government watchlist and would not have been barred from buying these firearms, we should not pass any bills that would prevent potential terrorists from purchasing firearms. First, this mass shooting by a pair of possible terrorists using legally purchased firearms has revealed a true security breach - namely, terrorists that America considers a possible threat can legally purchase firearms capable of fulfilling acts of mass murder. Even though these two weren't stopped doesn't mean we should make it easy for the next terrorists that are on the watchlist. Second, using Congressman Ryan's logic every single one of those on the current watchlist must be found a definite threat before they should be banned from purchasing a firearm. How long will this take after a procedure, which is not in existence now, be implemented. Years? And before these terrorists are tried do you think they will use their ability to buy firearms while they have the right to do so?
2
I wonder about the intelligence, or maybe the sanity, of those who keep voting for these "legislators."
1
"our enemies are at war with us and I believe this nation needs a wartime president to defend it.” - Senator Cruz
Senator Cruz can surely fall back on his war record to show us the way.
Wait, he has no war record, just a lot of fancy credentials as a 1 percent-er.
Senator Cruz can surely fall back on his war record to show us the way.
Wait, he has no war record, just a lot of fancy credentials as a 1 percent-er.
2
This 'Gun Control' debate is a horrendous waste of time - words to make it seem the Dems are doing something.
1. Guns control has little to do with this - America has had guns for 300 years - I'm not a gun person so no problem with more laws if I thought they would help
2. The real problems - which are talked about because they won't be dealt with is:
a. Break up of the familiy - most are loners isolated people
b. Extreme violence in media, games, TV, Movies
c. Godlessness - yes, not PC but true, if person believes in 'ultimate' accountability obviously they are more likely not to kill people and themselves
3. As far as Islam aspect - polls are clear that it is NOT a 'peaceful' religion - not only do 8% of Muslims sympathize with ISIS (that means 100's of millions!) but 50% believe person should be killed for leaving the faith and more than 60% believe in stoning for adultery. They are NOT going to assimilate here!
1. Guns control has little to do with this - America has had guns for 300 years - I'm not a gun person so no problem with more laws if I thought they would help
2. The real problems - which are talked about because they won't be dealt with is:
a. Break up of the familiy - most are loners isolated people
b. Extreme violence in media, games, TV, Movies
c. Godlessness - yes, not PC but true, if person believes in 'ultimate' accountability obviously they are more likely not to kill people and themselves
3. As far as Islam aspect - polls are clear that it is NOT a 'peaceful' religion - not only do 8% of Muslims sympathize with ISIS (that means 100's of millions!) but 50% believe person should be killed for leaving the faith and more than 60% believe in stoning for adultery. They are NOT going to assimilate here!
1
It's time for the federal government to require that, like seat belts, we are required to wear bullet proof vests at work and all other public places. And like motorcycle riders, helmets. Who knows, the NRA might actually like the idea of a combat-ready populace.
1
Due process is a legal standard. Only the most twisted gun nut would argue, like Paul Ryan, that such a standard should apply to buying assault rifles. Yesterday's vote by the GOP makes every American less safe. Shame on them.
8
Congress is out of touch with the reality of their policies. Every one of these people who oppose sensibly restricting those on the terror list from purchasing weapons and explosives needs to be voted out in the next election. Get registered and get ready we need to get rid of these people. Maybe when they are working in regular workplaces at risk like the rest of us they might realize how foolhardy it is to allow people with known risk to purchase weapons.
3
This isn't a Second Amendment issue. It is a public safety issue. The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The First Amendment doesn't protect someone from liability for defamation or from criminal liability for making certain threats against public officials. Every competent adult without a criminal record should have the right, following a background check, to purchase a hunting rifle or shotgun. There is no Second Amendment right, however, to owe a machine gun, a grenade launcher, or a sawed-off shotgun. And, there is no Second Amendment right, if Congress had any true concerns about public safety, to own an assault rifle, hollow-point bullets, or any number of non-hunting firearms including handguns. It isn't complicated, America, a majority of members of Congress are more concerned about being re-elected than they are about your safety and apparently no amount of needless bloodshed of your brothers, your sisters, or your children will change them.
10
The part I hate of all the coverage, analysis, politics and bickering in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings is the politicization and false "facts" (like the claim there is a mass shooting a day, as Mark Follman sensibly debunked in today's Times). Frankly, it can't be a call for gun control. It can't be a call for more anti-terror legislation. It can't be anything at this point because the facts aren't known well enough yet to dissect them to that level, period.
Whatever your politics, please accept that Paul Ryan raises a valid point--there have been and are people wrongly on those watch lists. Denying someone their constitutional rights (whether you agree with the 2nd Amendment or not, it exists today) without having their day in court is sets a wildly reactionary precedent that is itself dangerous. Lawmakers and leaders need to resist the rush to react to decisions until measured policy steps (if necessary) can actually be analyzed and crafted. We don't need politicized reactionary behavior from political leaders on either side of the aisle. You can't get good governance that way. Feinstein's measure and quote is an example of a politician trying to score political points by striking when the iron is hot. That's good politics, but poor leadership.
Whatever your politics, please accept that Paul Ryan raises a valid point--there have been and are people wrongly on those watch lists. Denying someone their constitutional rights (whether you agree with the 2nd Amendment or not, it exists today) without having their day in court is sets a wildly reactionary precedent that is itself dangerous. Lawmakers and leaders need to resist the rush to react to decisions until measured policy steps (if necessary) can actually be analyzed and crafted. We don't need politicized reactionary behavior from political leaders on either side of the aisle. You can't get good governance that way. Feinstein's measure and quote is an example of a politician trying to score political points by striking when the iron is hot. That's good politics, but poor leadership.
2
#72hourgopchallenge Turn off Fox 'News' and hate radio for 72 hours starting Christmas morning 12/25/15. Peace.
5
The GOP is playing god: They have been given jobs with a living wage, excellent healthcare. However, the right-wing politicians get a thrill out of denying increases to the minimum wage (just to match inflation!), deny expanded healthcare in their states and continue to deny us the right to be alive vs a gun owner's rights. If our founding fathers "came back, and saw what was being done in their name…they'd never stop throwing up"*.
Who could have guessed we'd be this stuck?
* Hannah and Her Sisters
Who could have guessed we'd be this stuck?
* Hannah and Her Sisters
5
Such a devisive and ridiculous opinion piece. Fact is, Americans do not want any intrusion on their second amendments rights. Get over it and focus on something achievable such as preventing terrorists from entering the US, identifying those here with radical tendencies, and better screening. The female shooter in CA was radicalized and the US Govt screening process missed it!
As for the vote, no sane person would believe that the measure defeated would accomplish anything, other that start a steady slide of second amendment rights. (Not one incident has occurred wherein a person on a no fly list has purchased a gun and purpetrated a mass shooting.)
It amazes me that liberals believev it feasible to disarm America, yet they think it impossible to build a wall or deport those who have unlawfully invaded our country.
As for the vote, no sane person would believe that the measure defeated would accomplish anything, other that start a steady slide of second amendment rights. (Not one incident has occurred wherein a person on a no fly list has purchased a gun and purpetrated a mass shooting.)
It amazes me that liberals believev it feasible to disarm America, yet they think it impossible to build a wall or deport those who have unlawfully invaded our country.
2
At the minimum, all gun sales should be subject to background checks. Not only criminal history, but mental health history should be considered. And those whom police would otherwise profile as having a high potential of sympathizing with extremist ideologies should also be vetted with additional scrutiny by the gun dealers.
1
One would wonder what party affiliation the terrorist this week and last associate with. There is not much question that the Republicans are in bed with the NRA and gun lobby. Guns, bullets, money makes a happy Republican. The Republican call for targeting Muslims is quite disturbing. The rest of the world is laughing at us.
3
Ted Cruz: "... this nation needs a wartime president..." The last time we had a self-described 'wartime president' was George W. Bush and look how well that turned out.
3
"...Another bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and online firearms sales to screen out convicted felons and the mentally ill also failed on Thursday..."
Just as there is a 'No fly list' there should be a 'No purchase list'. Yet, at the same time, let's drop the hypocrisy and not try to restore the voting privileges to convicted felons.
Just as there is a 'No fly list' there should be a 'No purchase list'. Yet, at the same time, let's drop the hypocrisy and not try to restore the voting privileges to convicted felons.
There are 300,000 people on that list. They are on there because their name matches a name of a suspected terrorist. They are not on the list because they are personally suspected of terrorist activities. Other restrictions would apply to them if they bought weapons in a gun shop, including a federal check. How many of the 300,000 are actual terrorists or potential terrorists? Like most lists the feds keep, it is ridiculously imprecise.
AR-15s are not assault rifles. They are not automatics. This is an assault rifle:
http://navyseals.com/weapons-demo/
There are roughly 3 million AR-15s in the world. There are over 100 million Kalashnikov rifles including 75 million AK-47s some of which are used in committing much of the terrorist mayhem in the world. AK-47s were brought to you by the secular humanists in the Soviet Union and their allies. They are everywhere. The United States doesn't have a gun problem. The world has a gun problem and people of the United States are adamant in retaining the right to defend themselves, screeching NYT editorials notwithstanding.
AR-15s are not assault rifles. They are not automatics. This is an assault rifle:
http://navyseals.com/weapons-demo/
There are roughly 3 million AR-15s in the world. There are over 100 million Kalashnikov rifles including 75 million AK-47s some of which are used in committing much of the terrorist mayhem in the world. AK-47s were brought to you by the secular humanists in the Soviet Union and their allies. They are everywhere. The United States doesn't have a gun problem. The world has a gun problem and people of the United States are adamant in retaining the right to defend themselves, screeching NYT editorials notwithstanding.
4
Legislation won't stop terrorism or madmen. These two hit a soft target. If the two cowardly shooters knew that there may be a few in the audience with concealed weapons they may have felt less sure about doing their deadly deed. More trained people in this country need to carry weapons. And cities like NYC and Philly need to start allowing this. The key here is "trained" gun concealed carriers.
2
What we are witnessing is the last stand of fearful Euro-American men who really have no moral high ground to pontificate from anymore, if they ever were justified in high ground pontification in the first place.
I used to think Euro-America, that I'm a part of, was just dumb when it came to guns, with our not being able to link the widespread availability of guns and our being the most violent “civilized “nation on the planet. But it’s worse than that, gun worship is a toxic religion that’s the antithesis of real Christianity and the enemy of the American people. We see the results of this worship weekly, and in our annual shooting death stats. Euro-American authority is perpetuating, even enabling the annual slaughter of tens of thousands of US citizens annually. Obviously there are foreign religion-based threats overseas, but these fears are overblown and used as a smokescreen to divert American eyes from the inbred domestic violence threat at home from our gunslinger culture.
The murder of Walter Scott, Laquan McDonald, and Tamir Rice and the Charleston church shooting were acts of terrorism, just to name a few of the hundreds of thousands of American citizens shot dead in our country by Americans during just this young century. The surveillance, harassment and jailing of the pacifist and human rights advocate Martin Luther King 50 years ago was a human rights offense. Authority based on native American genocide, slavery and Jim Crow and gun worship is specious.
I used to think Euro-America, that I'm a part of, was just dumb when it came to guns, with our not being able to link the widespread availability of guns and our being the most violent “civilized “nation on the planet. But it’s worse than that, gun worship is a toxic religion that’s the antithesis of real Christianity and the enemy of the American people. We see the results of this worship weekly, and in our annual shooting death stats. Euro-American authority is perpetuating, even enabling the annual slaughter of tens of thousands of US citizens annually. Obviously there are foreign religion-based threats overseas, but these fears are overblown and used as a smokescreen to divert American eyes from the inbred domestic violence threat at home from our gunslinger culture.
The murder of Walter Scott, Laquan McDonald, and Tamir Rice and the Charleston church shooting were acts of terrorism, just to name a few of the hundreds of thousands of American citizens shot dead in our country by Americans during just this young century. The surveillance, harassment and jailing of the pacifist and human rights advocate Martin Luther King 50 years ago was a human rights offense. Authority based on native American genocide, slavery and Jim Crow and gun worship is specious.
2
While the causes of gun violence are many and our cultural bent is becoming more crude and violent. I hold the NRA directly responsible, in large part for the deaths that are occurring. I once belonged to the NRA, and this present organization is not remotely the same group as it once was. The acronym did not stand for National Assault Gun association, nor National Hand Gun Association. What was once a hunting and gun safety support organization has become the front for national arms dealers and purveyors of death.
5
Any problem for which there is no PC solution is bound to be solved with an iron fist approach. If Congress and the federal government can't get it done, fringe groups will take the initiative and solve the problem themselves. Patience is finite because no one wants to suffer forever.
1
You leftists are having a field day over these terrible shootings aren't you? You would love to disarm the law abiding American public to pave the way for a total banking and corporate dictatorship so they could impose tyranny with nary a shot fired. Well ain't gonna happen unless you can change the U.S. Constitution. Also remember that "liberal" governments under the Tsarist constitutional monarchy in Russia passed strict gun control laws that paved the way for Lenin and Stalin, the Weimar Republic in Germany did the same and paved the way for Hitler, the constitutional monarchy with its corrupt politicians in Italy did the same for Mussolini's takeover, and in more recent times "liberal" regimes did the same in Cambodia for Pol Pot and Uganda for Idi Amin to impose terror. Apparently the millions dead, catastrophic wars, endless suffering, and trillions in property damage along with loss of freedom and individual rights that might have been prevented had the civilian populations in all those countries been well armed means nothing to the globalist and leftist elites who own and control the New York Times. The gulf between the elite and the other 99.9% grows wider and deeper on an almost daily basis. Before it is over I fear it will mean revolution and civil war but apparently the One World crowd wants this to happen and knows if they can first disarm the American people as they already have in many Anglophone countries: Australia, Britain, Ireland, it will be much easier.
1
So, in short,
"We're at war! It's us or them. Why won't liberals accept that?"
"Okay, so if we're at war, let's make it harder for the other side to arm themselves."
"Ridiculous! Why do you hate freedom?"
The watch lists and other terrorism databases are admittedly a due-process nightmare with the potential for abuse, but if conservatives really cared about due process and constitutional rights, they would already be challenging the lists for other reasons (Rand Paul is at least sort of consistent on this), and certainly not calling for increased surveillance and restricted religious freedom for citizens and legal residents based on religion and country of origin.
This is just like the days of the PATRIOT act, when half the Bill of Rights was ignored in the name of War on Terror, but the notion that we might make it harder for people who want to kill us to buy things to kill us with was going too far. Let's make sure they haven't been reading scary books at the public library, but sure, let them stockpile all the ammunition they like!
"We're at war! It's us or them. Why won't liberals accept that?"
"Okay, so if we're at war, let's make it harder for the other side to arm themselves."
"Ridiculous! Why do you hate freedom?"
The watch lists and other terrorism databases are admittedly a due-process nightmare with the potential for abuse, but if conservatives really cared about due process and constitutional rights, they would already be challenging the lists for other reasons (Rand Paul is at least sort of consistent on this), and certainly not calling for increased surveillance and restricted religious freedom for citizens and legal residents based on religion and country of origin.
This is just like the days of the PATRIOT act, when half the Bill of Rights was ignored in the name of War on Terror, but the notion that we might make it harder for people who want to kill us to buy things to kill us with was going too far. Let's make sure they haven't been reading scary books at the public library, but sure, let them stockpile all the ammunition they like!
1
we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.
So the no fly terrorist watch list is an arbitrary list? Wow I feel much safer now....
We have the best and most robust security in the world and it is based on arbitrary decisions? Yeesh-and Ryan is #3 in line to be POTUS? Might want to try to ahh, tighten up your security protocols there bro....
So the no fly terrorist watch list is an arbitrary list? Wow I feel much safer now....
We have the best and most robust security in the world and it is based on arbitrary decisions? Yeesh-and Ryan is #3 in line to be POTUS? Might want to try to ahh, tighten up your security protocols there bro....
1
I have a solution: try this Bill again, but add language so it's clear that it'll only apply to all Moozlims, environmentalists, members of the IPCC, union members, Planned Parenthood employees and donors, contraception users, Mother Jones readers, everybody on Medicaid, and Jimmy Carter.
It'll pass in five seconds.
It'll pass in five seconds.
4
It ain't guns that kill people, it's moslems that kill people.
Republicans want to refuse all Syrian refugees on the unproven possibility that some of them could be ISIS terrorists. Yet, they refuse to pass legislation that would prevent those the FBI has identified as having terrorist connections or those on the No Fly list from obtaining guns, such as the assault rifles that killed and injured innocent people in California. There is no logic, none.
2
Do the American people really fall for the line that a white American person who mows down a group of innocent people with a gun is not catagorized as a terrorist? ........maybe because he/she is not a Muslim.? Does one need a passport to be called a terrorist after murdering a random bunch of people.
The GOP and Wayne Lapierre are really putting one over on them!
The largest terrorist group in the world, the one that has caused more deaths than any other organization, is the NRA along with any U.S. congress that refuses to pass a law enforcing background checks: the only country in the Western world.....and the only country that allows people to walk the streets with guns, in some States, loaded guns. They are so blood thirsty and greedy that they even sell weapons of war and are willing to pay off U.S. senators to vote according to their bidding. Money and power speak again while children are murdered in schools and people at their desks. Sickening, disgusting and unforgivable.
The GOP and Wayne Lapierre are really putting one over on them!
The largest terrorist group in the world, the one that has caused more deaths than any other organization, is the NRA along with any U.S. congress that refuses to pass a law enforcing background checks: the only country in the Western world.....and the only country that allows people to walk the streets with guns, in some States, loaded guns. They are so blood thirsty and greedy that they even sell weapons of war and are willing to pay off U.S. senators to vote according to their bidding. Money and power speak again while children are murdered in schools and people at their desks. Sickening, disgusting and unforgivable.
5
Well, we'd vote these yahoos out if most of the country (and practically all of the south) weren't completely gerrymandered.
6
With regards to the second amendment, isn't "a well regulated Militia" the equivalent to today's National Guard?
The Founders would not be happy with what is happening in this country now.
The Founders would not be happy with what is happening in this country now.
2
Doesn't it seem that the people actually perpetrating these events are not the sharpest knives in the drawer? Look at the circumstances surrounding many of the most high-profile attacks. We all remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing where a pivotal break in the investigation came when a perpetrator went back to the van rental company for his deposit after the bombing... not the act of a genius. If I remember correctly, the Tsarnaev brothers were planning an attack on NYC but jumped on the Boston Marathon opportunistically because of a lack of patience. Although we are not yet privy to all of the facts on the San Bernardino event, the large cache of weapons and pipe bombs found in their home might suggest planning for a bigger attack. But an opportunity arose and, once again, the perpetrators were too impatient to wait.
So how do you keep those people with the mentality of children from harming themselves and others? You remove opportunities. You put obstacles in their way.
By the way, has anyone here tried recently to purchase an assault rifle illegally on the street? I'd imagine you'd have as much success as hiring a hitman to off your ex. You might be lucky enough not to be dealing with an informant or undercover agent, but who knows?
If we put obstacles in the way of opportunity they certainly won't prevent every instance, but aren't they likely to prevent a few?
So how do you keep those people with the mentality of children from harming themselves and others? You remove opportunities. You put obstacles in their way.
By the way, has anyone here tried recently to purchase an assault rifle illegally on the street? I'd imagine you'd have as much success as hiring a hitman to off your ex. You might be lucky enough not to be dealing with an informant or undercover agent, but who knows?
If we put obstacles in the way of opportunity they certainly won't prevent every instance, but aren't they likely to prevent a few?
1
It would be interesting if this bill had been passed by Congress, and signed into law.
We'd have the spectacle of the otherwise despicable Roberts majority of the Supreme Court protecting the constitutional rights of Americans against the Democratic minority's attempt at creating a creeping police state in a deeply principled and important 5-4 decision.
(The Editorial Board of the NYT can't possibly imagine that this partisan showboat legislation would ever pass constitutional review in the courts.)
We'd have the spectacle of the otherwise despicable Roberts majority of the Supreme Court protecting the constitutional rights of Americans against the Democratic minority's attempt at creating a creeping police state in a deeply principled and important 5-4 decision.
(The Editorial Board of the NYT can't possibly imagine that this partisan showboat legislation would ever pass constitutional review in the courts.)
The NRA trots out the line about "guns provide protection etc etc etc". Just curious, how many shooters have been stopped by a "good guy with a gun"? Crickets....I thought so, why doesn't the media dig into this statistics and show the statement to be totally and completely false?
5
Liberalism knows no respect but hateful dialog after each crisis which sends both sides to fight not debate. Real intellectuals know this cowardly editorial board lacks the self control and intellect to comprehend the real enemy is hateful dialog in time of crisis. Then these over paid six and seven figure earners more on to the next subject while ignoring they threw a monkey wrench into complicated debate.
Gun Control can occur with intellectuals but no one has accused the media of being journalists lately. Seriously, name calling is for voters aka the public not bullies with laptops who retired their pens and intellect long ago.
As a conservative I support the gun show loophole and background checks for retail sales but will the media and dems ever comprehend they lack the self control long enough to contain themselves or figure out they are only feeding the activist cult for money personalities on both sides???
Gun Control can occur with intellectuals but no one has accused the media of being journalists lately. Seriously, name calling is for voters aka the public not bullies with laptops who retired their pens and intellect long ago.
As a conservative I support the gun show loophole and background checks for retail sales but will the media and dems ever comprehend they lack the self control long enough to contain themselves or figure out they are only feeding the activist cult for money personalities on both sides???
2
Well, according to the Republican gun-nuts, all we have to do to be safe is equip everyone with assault rifles - shoot 'em up, cowboy!
1
As to the background checks, I am all in favor of them for all purchases. With today's technology, these could be done quickly and are aimed at the individual in question. As to the no fly list restriction, however, Congress has gotten something right for a change.
This list is established in a completely arbitrary manner; often the only way one knows one is on it is when one is not allowed on an airplane. There is no transparency as to the criteria which are used, there is no recognized appeal process to allow someone on the list to contest their inclusion, nor is there any check on the accuracy of the information used to establish the list. Until and unless these are changed, this list is a prime example of the Star Court mentality of the Homeland Security Agency, and its use for anything is suspect.
This list is established in a completely arbitrary manner; often the only way one knows one is on it is when one is not allowed on an airplane. There is no transparency as to the criteria which are used, there is no recognized appeal process to allow someone on the list to contest their inclusion, nor is there any check on the accuracy of the information used to establish the list. Until and unless these are changed, this list is a prime example of the Star Court mentality of the Homeland Security Agency, and its use for anything is suspect.
Whether the Administration or the New York Times agree or not, purchase and possession of guns is constitutional right, recently affirmed by the highest arbiter of law in the land.
From that premise, use of the so-called "terrorist watch list" to prevent gun purchases constitutes a deprivation of a constitutional right. The question then becomes: on what basis is such a deprivation made?
Convicted criminals are prevented from acquiring guns because they have been convicted -- that is, judicially determined to have committed a felony. Loss of civic rights on such a basis is universally recognized.
But who determines who gets to be "watched" and "listed"? What recourse at law does someone have if he or she has been "listed" erroneously or on the basis of malicious mis-information?
Terrorism and gun violence are certainly problems, but depriving a person of a constitutional right on the basis of a secret decision by a police agency bureaucrat is the essence of tyranny and is a cure more insidious than the disease.
"Trust us" is not "the rule of law."
From that premise, use of the so-called "terrorist watch list" to prevent gun purchases constitutes a deprivation of a constitutional right. The question then becomes: on what basis is such a deprivation made?
Convicted criminals are prevented from acquiring guns because they have been convicted -- that is, judicially determined to have committed a felony. Loss of civic rights on such a basis is universally recognized.
But who determines who gets to be "watched" and "listed"? What recourse at law does someone have if he or she has been "listed" erroneously or on the basis of malicious mis-information?
Terrorism and gun violence are certainly problems, but depriving a person of a constitutional right on the basis of a secret decision by a police agency bureaucrat is the essence of tyranny and is a cure more insidious than the disease.
"Trust us" is not "the rule of law."
The NRA and obstinant members of Congress are not the sole cause of our nation's weapon insanity. Our Supreme Court, incredibly, has interpreted the Second Amendment so broadly, a private citizen can purchase any weapon of choice. Many, many voters sincerely believe - no matter the illogic of it - that any restriction whatsoever on gun sales encroaches on their rights. Some even believe they need military weapons to protect themselves from the very government under which they enjoy freedoms most of the world's people do not have.
If enough voters make sane gun laws a major pivotal issue, their representatives will follow suit regardless of special interests. (The NRA's dollars don't buy you much if your constituents throw you out of office.). Members of Congress who vote down gun laws probably believe they are following the will of the people. This editorial aptly points out the contradiction of Congressmen and women talking tough on protecting us, while failing to actually do so. This is not is not taking a strong stand for our rights. It is weakness, and the same representatives who are so quick to recommend we send the most courageous among us to war are demonstrating how they themselves are small, frightened people.
If enough voters make sane gun laws a major pivotal issue, their representatives will follow suit regardless of special interests. (The NRA's dollars don't buy you much if your constituents throw you out of office.). Members of Congress who vote down gun laws probably believe they are following the will of the people. This editorial aptly points out the contradiction of Congressmen and women talking tough on protecting us, while failing to actually do so. This is not is not taking a strong stand for our rights. It is weakness, and the same representatives who are so quick to recommend we send the most courageous among us to war are demonstrating how they themselves are small, frightened people.
1
Lets see if I get this correct. The Editorial Board of the NY Times is arguing that a Constitutional Right should be taken away from a Citizen because they are put onto a list by the Government without any hearing, trial, or any other process.
One could argue that today they come for the 2nd Amendment and tomorrow they come for the First Amendment.
When will people stop confusing a privilege like a drivers license or flying in a commercial airplane with a Constitutional Right. A privilege the Government can deny you, a basic Constitutional Right it cannot.
I really do not have an issue with doing something about guns, I have in these pages suggested some creative alternatives. But if you want to take away a Constitutional Right then CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.
One could argue that today they come for the 2nd Amendment and tomorrow they come for the First Amendment.
When will people stop confusing a privilege like a drivers license or flying in a commercial airplane with a Constitutional Right. A privilege the Government can deny you, a basic Constitutional Right it cannot.
I really do not have an issue with doing something about guns, I have in these pages suggested some creative alternatives. But if you want to take away a Constitutional Right then CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.
I am all for a march on Washington for Meaningful Gun Control. Our generation had an impact on Vietnam, we can do this as well.
Another thought: the way to possibly "fix" this insanity is to push for rational congressional districts set up by a non-partisan group. The gerrymandering of congressional districts is responsible for most of the extremism in Congress.
Another thought: the way to possibly "fix" this insanity is to push for rational congressional districts set up by a non-partisan group. The gerrymandering of congressional districts is responsible for most of the extremism in Congress.
5
The Times Editorial Board is well aware that the FBI terrorist watch list has a huge number of people on it, many of whom are on the list for dubious reasons. Furthermore, the Board is aware that legal recourse for those who manage to learn that they are on the list is quite limited.
Perhaps we should think carefully about administratively stripping constitutional rights from anyone some FBI officer decides to put on an administrative list somewhere.
Possibly for the first time in my life, I applaud the Republican vote, and I find it disturbing that the Times has so little respect for the basic guarantees our constitution gives us.
Perhaps we should think carefully about administratively stripping constitutional rights from anyone some FBI officer decides to put on an administrative list somewhere.
Possibly for the first time in my life, I applaud the Republican vote, and I find it disturbing that the Times has so little respect for the basic guarantees our constitution gives us.
Remember in November 2016
1
Any sane, long overdue legislation, which even hints at cutting into their beloved NRA/gun lobby's bloodstained profit margins will be voted down by the unconscionable GOP.
Their cowardice, as deaths by firearms grow exponentially in our country,
makes them complicit in the carnage.
They are accessories to murder.
Their cowardice, as deaths by firearms grow exponentially in our country,
makes them complicit in the carnage.
They are accessories to murder.
5
I have said before that there are only a few reasons to be a Republican:
a. You are rich and selfish (I've got mine; to heck with the rest of you).
b. You are uninformed.
c. You are stupid.
d. You are mentally ill.
Given the frequency of these shootings and the coverage in the news, no one in this country could possibly claim option b as an excuse for putting Republican politicians in any position of power, where they patently shouldn't be. Stupid it all certainly is. With regard to this most recent vote by the despicable Republican Congress, I honestly can't decide whether it's mostly mental illness on their part, or the greed for the money from the gun lobbies and for the power.
America: wake up. Stop putting these truly appalling people in positions of power.
a. You are rich and selfish (I've got mine; to heck with the rest of you).
b. You are uninformed.
c. You are stupid.
d. You are mentally ill.
Given the frequency of these shootings and the coverage in the news, no one in this country could possibly claim option b as an excuse for putting Republican politicians in any position of power, where they patently shouldn't be. Stupid it all certainly is. With regard to this most recent vote by the despicable Republican Congress, I honestly can't decide whether it's mostly mental illness on their part, or the greed for the money from the gun lobbies and for the power.
America: wake up. Stop putting these truly appalling people in positions of power.
7
It's high time to do what Australia did -- a national gun registry, mass gun buybacks and confiscation of guns. When Ebola was seen as a threat, infected people were isolated and treated. I don't remember Chris Christie being overly cognizant of people's civil liberties when he held an (uninfected) person in isolation. The gun violence virus is distorting our freedoms (from fear, of assembly ... even of speech, if you happen to be a public official who crosses the N.R.A.), of assembly, of myriad activities we routinely take in pursuit of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It has changed our feeling of well-being, brutalized our political frame of reference, destroyed our "American way of life." It's way past time to enact legislation that makes the attempt to drastically reduce the number of guns in circulation. Or do we like being like Iraq?
7
NYT Editorial Board is clueless. Conflating terrorism and gun control is a red herring, totally politically motivated. The ISIS threat has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. From a practical point of view alone, the country is awash in firearms. If sales were to be totally banned, do you really think terrorists wouldn't get the guns, or do you think they wouldn't resort to other weapons manufactured in their own homes? We're at war. Now, start talking about the best way to defend the homeland by projecting unbridled power on the enemy in Syria and Iraq.
On Black Friday people bought 185,000 guns. A 5% increase over last year’s big shopping day.
The election of an intelligent black POTUS and terrorism brought on by our continued invasion into the Middle East is making gun manufacturers VERY wealthy...and their lobbying arm the NRA has ratcheted up the Fear factor among Americans.
Our second amendment is a horrifically interpreted bill. I look at our country in horror. Every night I wake up drenched in sweat from PTSD from all the children and young men who have bled to death on my ER gurneys...bled out from bullets designed for war.
I am learning to really hate what our country has become--a nation os simpering fools terrified of their own shadow egged on by horrible politicians screaming fear. I feel as if I am in the middle of a terrible dystopian nightmare that never ends.
Other countries think we have completely lost our minds. I agree.
The election of an intelligent black POTUS and terrorism brought on by our continued invasion into the Middle East is making gun manufacturers VERY wealthy...and their lobbying arm the NRA has ratcheted up the Fear factor among Americans.
Our second amendment is a horrifically interpreted bill. I look at our country in horror. Every night I wake up drenched in sweat from PTSD from all the children and young men who have bled to death on my ER gurneys...bled out from bullets designed for war.
I am learning to really hate what our country has become--a nation os simpering fools terrified of their own shadow egged on by horrible politicians screaming fear. I feel as if I am in the middle of a terrible dystopian nightmare that never ends.
Other countries think we have completely lost our minds. I agree.
5
I don't think a dead child or the parent who lost her, or a dead parent, or the little boy who lost his father, or spouses, siblings, friends and neighbors care what the motivation was for a killing spree with assault weapons. The obsession with motive seems ludicrous to me. IT'S DONE WITH GUNS EVERY TIME!!
If you lost a loved one in Colorado or California this week do you really care what the shooter was thinking? Those in the Senate who once again voted down the bill have fallen in love with their guns more than they care about their constituents. Saving innocent American children is way less important than making sure everyone has access to all types of firearms and all the ammunition that money can buy.
The second amendment argument doesn't even hold water in this day and age. If that is the reason for human beings rating less important that guns, change the constitution. When it was written, women couldn't vote and black people were only considered to be 2/3 of a human. We changed that. There have been 27 amendments to the constitution since it was written. James Madison did a wonderful job, but times change.
I think the NRA and weapons manufacturers love these killings. More guns sell insuring there will be more mass murders insuring that more guns will sell and on and on it goes.
When was the last time the NRA promoted saving lives from gun deaths???? And the GOP line up for donations in exchange for no legislation. IT'S ABOUT THE GUNS!!!
If you lost a loved one in Colorado or California this week do you really care what the shooter was thinking? Those in the Senate who once again voted down the bill have fallen in love with their guns more than they care about their constituents. Saving innocent American children is way less important than making sure everyone has access to all types of firearms and all the ammunition that money can buy.
The second amendment argument doesn't even hold water in this day and age. If that is the reason for human beings rating less important that guns, change the constitution. When it was written, women couldn't vote and black people were only considered to be 2/3 of a human. We changed that. There have been 27 amendments to the constitution since it was written. James Madison did a wonderful job, but times change.
I think the NRA and weapons manufacturers love these killings. More guns sell insuring there will be more mass murders insuring that more guns will sell and on and on it goes.
When was the last time the NRA promoted saving lives from gun deaths???? And the GOP line up for donations in exchange for no legislation. IT'S ABOUT THE GUNS!!!
2
“I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.” So said Speaker Paul Ryan.
Does that mean putting suspected terrorists on a list is ok, like the ones who can't go on planes? Because that makes no sense, which is the norm nowadays.
Does that mean putting suspected terrorists on a list is ok, like the ones who can't go on planes? Because that makes no sense, which is the norm nowadays.
"But when a mass shooting at home calls attention to laws that put guns into the hands of suspected terrorists...".
Note the dogged spin the NYT insists on continuing: the gun laws. Not the Islamist terror motive that every successive news story makes more plausible here. Not the fact that had guns not been available, bombs, which the dead terrorists had built, could have been used to similar effect. Or arson. Or other terrorist deviltry.
Even if more gun control is needed, the ignoring by the Times of the growing national security threat is astonishing in its blindness. What is the matter with you?
Note the dogged spin the NYT insists on continuing: the gun laws. Not the Islamist terror motive that every successive news story makes more plausible here. Not the fact that had guns not been available, bombs, which the dead terrorists had built, could have been used to similar effect. Or arson. Or other terrorist deviltry.
Even if more gun control is needed, the ignoring by the Times of the growing national security threat is astonishing in its blindness. What is the matter with you?
1
Vote for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or basically any other Republican candidate and realize that you are not really voting for them, but rather for Wayne LaPierre and Gilbert Norquist. Wouldn't it be more honest if these two ran on the Republican ticket, instead the current bunch of lapdogs pretending to be their own men?
2
There was a time when the phrase "American exceptionalism" had the ring of truth. But with every utterance of the Republican breed of politician and their putative leaders, these two words, when paired, have become oxymoronic.
From addressing terrorism abroad and at home, to providing for America's healthcare needs, to forcing the sand of religion into the gears of government and the lives of pregnant women, the GOP is on a forced march backwards into irrelevance. The day is coming and, judging by the quality of their "presidential caliber best," close at hand.
From addressing terrorism abroad and at home, to providing for America's healthcare needs, to forcing the sand of religion into the gears of government and the lives of pregnant women, the GOP is on a forced march backwards into irrelevance. The day is coming and, judging by the quality of their "presidential caliber best," close at hand.
3
One can only conclude that Paul Ryan and the Republicans view the "no fly list" as being another government regulation that needs to be eliminated. Surprisingly or perhaps not the public doesn't seem to be to concerned with this position.
Disgusting. Pitiful. But the GOP's lack of accountability to Americans they are supposed to defend and protect by virtue of the offices they hold should be informative to the voters - but, if history is any indication, the voters they represent won't care. Trump wants to "make America great again" - how? He suggests mass extermination of Muslims. And his poll numbers go up. Rubio, Cruz and the rest? They answer to the NRA, and for the most part, their supporters think that the answer to domestic terrorism is to arm more of us, because apparently, to them, an armed population is a safe population, even if some of the armed population are terrorists. Insane. Craven. Greed.
1
Succinct and straight to the point.
When will our elected leaders start to demonstrate the leadership that is so sorely needed in this time of peril. The prevalence of gun-related violence in the U.S. is on such a scale that it no longer can be merely regarded as a 'partisan' issue - it affects each and every one of us, regardless of political, ethnic or religious affinity.
When will our elected leaders start to demonstrate the leadership that is so sorely needed in this time of peril. The prevalence of gun-related violence in the U.S. is on such a scale that it no longer can be merely regarded as a 'partisan' issue - it affects each and every one of us, regardless of political, ethnic or religious affinity.
1
The problem isn't firearms. The problem in this particular case is religious fanaticism. I hope the Obama administration will address the issue of religious fanaticism together with the issue of mental illness instead of ignoring those issues.
As important to what unfolded in San Bernardino:
It is unfortunate that California has made concealed carry so onerous that none of the "good guys" - the attendees - could return fire with a proper weapon. They were helpless victims of a slaughter.
As important to what unfolded in San Bernardino:
It is unfortunate that California has made concealed carry so onerous that none of the "good guys" - the attendees - could return fire with a proper weapon. They were helpless victims of a slaughter.
I call Shenanigans. The complete lunacy on gun control is contrived to energize the base. Nothing that had been proposed would have stopped the two Islamic terrorists from gunning down the innocent. Purely another effort to make one feel better - let us do something, regardless of any real impact.
Enforce the laws in place. Do not let criminals that have used a firearm out of jail. Do not allow fiancée visas to anyone from the ME.
Enforce the laws in place. Do not let criminals that have used a firearm out of jail. Do not allow fiancée visas to anyone from the ME.
1
Cry the beloved country. This madness will not end until we will it to, and make real gun reform a central issue among all political parties. How many more must die to make this happen?
1
Watching the morning shows I realize that most of what is being “reported” is not news. Aside from the facts it is all what if fantasies of intellectually suspect people and the questions asked as if those fantasies were real.
You can say all that is known and honestly reportable on the event in less than two minutes.
Everything else being done is socially destructive hyperbole. Before de-regulation destroyed the country it used to be that News people had some sense of pride and were intelligent enough to understand the destructive effect of doing what they do now. Then I realize that no one on TV news is “News people” they are performers.
The same seems to apply to papers more and more.
For instance an AR15 and a pistol is hardly “armed to the teeth”. Most hunters carry a long gun and a pistol when they hunt in wild places. The amount of ammunition they had was unusual but reporting that amount without also saying it was not ready for use misleads. A .223 is essentially a .22 caliber with a larger shell casing.
If you want to stop violence with guns then address the ignorance that is being spread by all this hyperbole. We seem to be operating on assumptions that deny the basic premise of America, which is that people can self govern. Why has this failed us? Hyperbole posing as thought.
You can say all that is known and honestly reportable on the event in less than two minutes.
Everything else being done is socially destructive hyperbole. Before de-regulation destroyed the country it used to be that News people had some sense of pride and were intelligent enough to understand the destructive effect of doing what they do now. Then I realize that no one on TV news is “News people” they are performers.
The same seems to apply to papers more and more.
For instance an AR15 and a pistol is hardly “armed to the teeth”. Most hunters carry a long gun and a pistol when they hunt in wild places. The amount of ammunition they had was unusual but reporting that amount without also saying it was not ready for use misleads. A .223 is essentially a .22 caliber with a larger shell casing.
If you want to stop violence with guns then address the ignorance that is being spread by all this hyperbole. We seem to be operating on assumptions that deny the basic premise of America, which is that people can self govern. Why has this failed us? Hyperbole posing as thought.
1
In every comment section, on every right wing show, the same thing is being said:
“Background checks and current laws would NOT have stopped the San Bernadino shootings!” So we do nothing?
How about some common sense laws such as the NJ law not allowing a person’s mental health history to be expunged? Unanimous until Christie vetoed it and now the Republican assemblymen are terrified to over ride it.
1) No civilian can buy or possess assault weapons--modified AR-15s, AK-47s.
2) No magazines holding more that 10 rounds/and no “bullet buttons” to allow larger capacity magazines
3) Gun permits must be like driver’s licenses. Field and written exams and NO ONE can use a gun without having this permit. It must be renewed every four years.
4) Required liability insurance for each gun
5) ONLY smart guns can be owned. Guns that can only be fired by the owner. They are available rightnow! Everything we own is now digital including watches--driver less cars etc. Only guns remain analog. We need digitized smart guns.
6) Guns must be locked up in heavy gun safes--NOT sitting loaded at bedside
7) Universal back ground checks. You can’t give ownership of a vehicle to another person--the title MUST be transferred. Same with a gun.
8) Computer registration of every gun transaction now not allowed thanks to the NRA.
9) We MDs MUST be able to ask about gun ownership with our patients. 19,000 people commit suicide with a gun each year. Let us do our job!
Common sense!
“Background checks and current laws would NOT have stopped the San Bernadino shootings!” So we do nothing?
How about some common sense laws such as the NJ law not allowing a person’s mental health history to be expunged? Unanimous until Christie vetoed it and now the Republican assemblymen are terrified to over ride it.
1) No civilian can buy or possess assault weapons--modified AR-15s, AK-47s.
2) No magazines holding more that 10 rounds/and no “bullet buttons” to allow larger capacity magazines
3) Gun permits must be like driver’s licenses. Field and written exams and NO ONE can use a gun without having this permit. It must be renewed every four years.
4) Required liability insurance for each gun
5) ONLY smart guns can be owned. Guns that can only be fired by the owner. They are available rightnow! Everything we own is now digital including watches--driver less cars etc. Only guns remain analog. We need digitized smart guns.
6) Guns must be locked up in heavy gun safes--NOT sitting loaded at bedside
7) Universal back ground checks. You can’t give ownership of a vehicle to another person--the title MUST be transferred. Same with a gun.
8) Computer registration of every gun transaction now not allowed thanks to the NRA.
9) We MDs MUST be able to ask about gun ownership with our patients. 19,000 people commit suicide with a gun each year. Let us do our job!
Common sense!
3
Republicans have blood on their hands.
The Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino was conducted with guns purchased legally in the United States. Republicans always oppose all regulation of guns, and want to make it easy for Islamic terrorists to buy guns here to kill Americans.
I predict an electoral rout next November: the G.O.P. will lose control of Congress.
The Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino was conducted with guns purchased legally in the United States. Republicans always oppose all regulation of guns, and want to make it easy for Islamic terrorists to buy guns here to kill Americans.
I predict an electoral rout next November: the G.O.P. will lose control of Congress.
1
Soft on terrorism. That's the only way to describe Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Paul, et al. They refuse to face the real threat posed by the enemy and to take the action needed to keep deadly weapons of war out of their murderous hands.
1
“I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”
Since when did every GOP congressman become card-carrying members of the ACLU? And why are they not calling for the abolition/reform of the no-fly list itself, which certainly has problematic features that Speaker Ryan highlights here?
Apparently it's acceptable to have a no-fly list, but unacceptable to keep the same people on it from purchasing a product with the explicit purpose of causing serious injury or death. Where's the missing link?
The Second Amendment is not the answer here. The rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not limitless, especially where public safety is at stake. Thus, the rule that one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater ought to apply to free speech and bearing arms.
Since when did every GOP congressman become card-carrying members of the ACLU? And why are they not calling for the abolition/reform of the no-fly list itself, which certainly has problematic features that Speaker Ryan highlights here?
Apparently it's acceptable to have a no-fly list, but unacceptable to keep the same people on it from purchasing a product with the explicit purpose of causing serious injury or death. Where's the missing link?
The Second Amendment is not the answer here. The rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not limitless, especially where public safety is at stake. Thus, the rule that one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater ought to apply to free speech and bearing arms.
Dear Editorial Board,
Thank you for continuing to hammer Congress on their long-standing inaction to seriously consider, assess, research, or take actions against violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. Your focus on this topic is a testament to the importance of acting now on this topic.
While Congressmen and Congresswomen hedge and procrastinate, the Obama administration should immediately commission a blue ribbon panel to study and develop recommendations for comprehensive actions to reduce violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. The Panel should include experts in firearms, law enforcement, social science, and other relevant areas, and develop its recommendations within 3 or 6 months.
To implement the recommendations, President Obama should immediately issue executive orders and deliver recommendations and potential legislation to the Hill and request potential legislation be included in Hill’s legislative agenda.
Once President Obama delivers such recommendations and legislation to the House and Senate, the President should exert maximum pressure on the Hill’s leadership to make sure these recommendations and potential legislation are quickly acted upon.
House and Senate leadership should be held accountable if they do not act quickly on these recommendations. All Senators and Representatives must have a voting record on this topic so that their position and voting records are known and can be widely circulated during election season.
Thank you for continuing to hammer Congress on their long-standing inaction to seriously consider, assess, research, or take actions against violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. Your focus on this topic is a testament to the importance of acting now on this topic.
While Congressmen and Congresswomen hedge and procrastinate, the Obama administration should immediately commission a blue ribbon panel to study and develop recommendations for comprehensive actions to reduce violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. The Panel should include experts in firearms, law enforcement, social science, and other relevant areas, and develop its recommendations within 3 or 6 months.
To implement the recommendations, President Obama should immediately issue executive orders and deliver recommendations and potential legislation to the Hill and request potential legislation be included in Hill’s legislative agenda.
Once President Obama delivers such recommendations and legislation to the House and Senate, the President should exert maximum pressure on the Hill’s leadership to make sure these recommendations and potential legislation are quickly acted upon.
House and Senate leadership should be held accountable if they do not act quickly on these recommendations. All Senators and Representatives must have a voting record on this topic so that their position and voting records are known and can be widely circulated during election season.
1
It is impossible to explain how these legislators can look at themselves in a mirror each morning and be OK with their decisions. It is delusional, really, it reminds of that scene(s) in the movie Borat when he began talking to an audience at a rodeo and people kept cheering him on. As he became more and more bizarre in his descriptions of what to do with anti americans, the audience finally fell silent, a "huh?" moment. We are there
Paul Ryan: “I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”
A question, Mr. Ryan: Does that also apply to a state's government officials creating a list to remove people from the voting rolls?
A question, Mr. Ryan: Does that also apply to a state's government officials creating a list to remove people from the voting rolls?
2
It is completely exhausting trying to engage in coherent rational debate with the current crop of Republican candidates. It's like trying to have a conversation about algebra with a cat. It's a total waste of time. Cruz, Carson, Trump, Christie, Bush - what a bunch of meddlesome, mean-spirited, hypocritical non-entities. We deserve better. The Republican party has clearly achieved an epic, historical low point. Expect nothing from them, except toxic fuming and meaningless non-policies.
1
I am a conservative republican from a conservative state. I own several guns and value the right. I even support the NRA. I carry a concealed weapon. However, I would suggest that my republican leaders act as statesmen rather than politicians in this matter. The Supreme Court has recently ruled on the right to bear arms, a decision I applaud. However, no right comes without responsibility to control its proper use. I do not have a right to openly bear arms in a local school where it generates fear among the students. I do not have the right to carry concealed in many local churches which have asked me not to. I cannot shoot in my neighborhood where it may put others at risk. All this is reasonable and prudent. Perhaps my republican brethren can view some revision in gun control laws not as the first step of an Evil Big Brother to take away their weapons and enslave them, but as a prudent and reasonable step, negotiated in a spirit of statesmanlike nonpartisan politics that increases the protection of all.
1
It it is amusing to watch liberals engaging in emotional mental gymnastics to demand gun control measures that would have done nothing to prevent this latest tragedy. It is also stunning that they are willing to interfere with law abiding American's explicit 2nd Amendment rights, without due process, while fanatically objecting to any attempt to limit court manufactured abortion rights.
I simply do not understand the left's religious faith in government action despite the daily, public evidence of government corruption and utter incompetence. The no fly list is notorious for being inaccurate and arbitrary. Even knowledgable liberals object to it. Yet now we have this fantasy. As usual the proposed solution would restrict Americans rights while doing nothing to address terrorism and mental health. Remove the suicide, gang and terrorist deaths from the homicide stats and we are no different then Western Europe.
I simply do not understand the left's religious faith in government action despite the daily, public evidence of government corruption and utter incompetence. The no fly list is notorious for being inaccurate and arbitrary. Even knowledgable liberals object to it. Yet now we have this fantasy. As usual the proposed solution would restrict Americans rights while doing nothing to address terrorism and mental health. Remove the suicide, gang and terrorist deaths from the homicide stats and we are no different then Western Europe.
It is now time to update the national terror watch list to include: NRA, gun manufacturers who manufacture assault weapons for civilians and all gun show operators.
4
I have a simple question or two:
1. What is the ethnic makeup of those on the terror watch list? If it is from a particular ethnic group, will such a denial of rights be prime example of the phobic reaction that is currently denounced by the Administration?
2. Why not make the terror watch list public? We are told to watch and report. Knowing someone in your neighborhood is a risk would enhance such. Or what that contribute to a phobic reaction?
I get post cards in the mail, telling me that a high risk sexual offender lives down the block. I get his picture. I can search for such on the Internet. If the watch list is a viable tool such that constitutional rights can be denied - let us be aware of these dangerous folks in our area.
Let us really see if the watch list has some reality. After all, before 9/11 FBI agents reported suspicious flight instruction and that was ignored. The Boston bombers were turned into us by the Russians and that was ignored on reason that there was not enough grounds for a warrant. So is the watch list enough to deny a right? Major Hassan was spewing warning signs that were ignored because of PC issues.
Is the watch list useful or posturing? If it is useful - post it.
1. What is the ethnic makeup of those on the terror watch list? If it is from a particular ethnic group, will such a denial of rights be prime example of the phobic reaction that is currently denounced by the Administration?
2. Why not make the terror watch list public? We are told to watch and report. Knowing someone in your neighborhood is a risk would enhance such. Or what that contribute to a phobic reaction?
I get post cards in the mail, telling me that a high risk sexual offender lives down the block. I get his picture. I can search for such on the Internet. If the watch list is a viable tool such that constitutional rights can be denied - let us be aware of these dangerous folks in our area.
Let us really see if the watch list has some reality. After all, before 9/11 FBI agents reported suspicious flight instruction and that was ignored. The Boston bombers were turned into us by the Russians and that was ignored on reason that there was not enough grounds for a warrant. So is the watch list enough to deny a right? Major Hassan was spewing warning signs that were ignored because of PC issues.
Is the watch list useful or posturing? If it is useful - post it.
The Democratic and Republican parties have one thing in common. Both are totally useless.
Anyone not able to purchase and own a gun ought to be in jail, under court-ordered supervised probation, underage, or under legal mental health supervision. With over 300 million guns in circulation here, no law can prevent a motivated killer from obtaining one. And none of the firearms that the mass killers had in San Bernardino were illegally purchased. And the failed Senate amendment would not have prevented the terroristic couple from purchasing their guns. Worse, you failed to condemn the availability of pipes for pipe bombs to people on the "no-fly" list.
Clearly you and other critics of the Senate vote have a different goal than preventing San Bernadino rampages.
If you do not want total gun confiscation, similar to Australia's gun bans, which would be unconstitutional in the United States, which Americans do you suggest ought to have the right to own or buy them? Say, which categories of Americans ought to have a firearm for their personal safety?
Our Constitution's the reason a bipartisan majority of the Senate did not approve the gun restriction amendment. Good for them!
Clearly you and other critics of the Senate vote have a different goal than preventing San Bernadino rampages.
If you do not want total gun confiscation, similar to Australia's gun bans, which would be unconstitutional in the United States, which Americans do you suggest ought to have the right to own or buy them? Say, which categories of Americans ought to have a firearm for their personal safety?
Our Constitution's the reason a bipartisan majority of the Senate did not approve the gun restriction amendment. Good for them!
My advice to the so called "moderate Republicans" whose existence has been debated in these pages. The Republican Party is not the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dewey, Senator Robert Taft (AKA Mr. Republican) and certainly not of Ike and Barry Goldwater. Show some tough love and vote against these poseurs. It might be one step back but it will eventually be three steps forward, for both your Party and the country.
2
This editorial misses the fundamental point. While the events of earlier this week cannot be undone, the connection to/relationship with radical Islamic terrorism is becoming more clear.
Irrespective of the names of these two alleged killers, it seems to me that those on the Left were (secretly?) hoping that the perpetrators were for example, John and Mary Smith. It would offer support to THE NARRATIVE.
The reality is that committed Jihadists will be able to secure an arsenal (just like the deeply disturbed individuals who previously have wrought much horror to this nation and the world).
Saying that we want to keep "long guns" out of the hands of these fellow humans and actually doing it are two vastly different issues.
While the human tragedy of taking innocent lives lost can never truly be understood, the NY Times Editorial Board needs to answer this fundamental question, "How should we handle the law abiding citizen who acts responsibly in regard to fire-arms, irrespective whether these fire-arms are hand guns or "long guns"?
Irrespective of the names of these two alleged killers, it seems to me that those on the Left were (secretly?) hoping that the perpetrators were for example, John and Mary Smith. It would offer support to THE NARRATIVE.
The reality is that committed Jihadists will be able to secure an arsenal (just like the deeply disturbed individuals who previously have wrought much horror to this nation and the world).
Saying that we want to keep "long guns" out of the hands of these fellow humans and actually doing it are two vastly different issues.
While the human tragedy of taking innocent lives lost can never truly be understood, the NY Times Editorial Board needs to answer this fundamental question, "How should we handle the law abiding citizen who acts responsibly in regard to fire-arms, irrespective whether these fire-arms are hand guns or "long guns"?
Guys this story is about ISIS inspired radical islamic terrorism, not gun control. They are a global criminal network that will never have a problem getting weapons to their soldiers. The only people your "gun control" affect are law abiding citizens.
To watch Carly Fiorina on Morning Joe talk around the issue ('lets enforce existing laws") and dismiss any idea of stricter controls on guns, was distressing. To watch Mika, Joe et al. let her get away with it, truly made me ill.
I hear a lot about 'gun rights'. How about the rights of all the children that lost a parent in mass shootings in Colorado, and California this past week? Who's looking out for their rights?
I hear a lot about 'gun rights'. How about the rights of all the children that lost a parent in mass shootings in Colorado, and California this past week? Who's looking out for their rights?
1
Gun control proponents have a valid point in calling for stricter regulation of guns but they undermine the effectiveness of their arguments - and ability to persuade - by vilifying those who believe in gun rights and/or by using every mass shooting involving a gun as a basis to promote gun control.
I believe that it is appropriate to implement reasonable gun control regulation and I also believe that gun control will not prevent the vast majority of gun related deaths that occur, including premeditated incidents such as the Islamic terrorist massacre in San Bernadino,
For people such as myself - who believe in gun regulation as well as gun owner rights - it is offensive when politicians and commentators jump on the opportunity to exploit terrorist attacks as a justification for stricter gun control laws. One has nothing to do with the other and consequently, the argument is counterproductive to the goal.
I believe that it is appropriate to implement reasonable gun control regulation and I also believe that gun control will not prevent the vast majority of gun related deaths that occur, including premeditated incidents such as the Islamic terrorist massacre in San Bernadino,
For people such as myself - who believe in gun regulation as well as gun owner rights - it is offensive when politicians and commentators jump on the opportunity to exploit terrorist attacks as a justification for stricter gun control laws. One has nothing to do with the other and consequently, the argument is counterproductive to the goal.
I have as much confidence in the governments "terror watch list" as I do in their ability to "vet" all of these Syrian refugees. The law abiding citizens of this country are being squashed by the politically correct class that cannot even breath the words ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.
Tough talking Republicans presidential candidates are cowards to begin with. It is why decorated war vet and hero John McCain looks down on them with such disdain, labeling them "wack doodles" which they are.
Talking tough with no sense whatsoever of what their ignorant saber-rattling rants consequences are is hard enough to fathom. What nincompoops.
Supporters so gullible to cast their votes for any one of these buffoons know only what thing, defeat. They can be defeated by sane voters who go to the polls and strike this hateful war rhetoric down.
DD
Manhattan
Talking tough with no sense whatsoever of what their ignorant saber-rattling rants consequences are is hard enough to fathom. What nincompoops.
Supporters so gullible to cast their votes for any one of these buffoons know only what thing, defeat. They can be defeated by sane voters who go to the polls and strike this hateful war rhetoric down.
DD
Manhattan
1
“I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Paul Ryan, which is exactly why we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I interpret it as a collective right to defend ourselves against government aggression, but as all of the other Amendments inherently apply to the individual, I can see why people would interpret it as an individual right to arm oneself however s/he sees fit, no restrictions.
It's true that government officials could abuse "watch lists" to suppress political opponents - it's happened elsewhere, and we'd be naive to believe it couldn't happen here as well. But the intention of the 2nd Amendment was to solidify America's sovereignty at a time when democracy and independence were extremely fragile. We are now the most influential nation in the world, and our firmly established (at least theoretically) system of self-governance is under threat from exactly no one. No one, that is, but the terrorists among ourselves.
Times change, and laws become outdated. The "right to bear arms" in an era when the gun lobby controls large swathes of Congress, and when the media allows demagogues to pander to our basest fears, aided by the deliberate deterioration of our public schools, should go the way of the 3/5 Clause.
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Paul Ryan, which is exactly why we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I interpret it as a collective right to defend ourselves against government aggression, but as all of the other Amendments inherently apply to the individual, I can see why people would interpret it as an individual right to arm oneself however s/he sees fit, no restrictions.
It's true that government officials could abuse "watch lists" to suppress political opponents - it's happened elsewhere, and we'd be naive to believe it couldn't happen here as well. But the intention of the 2nd Amendment was to solidify America's sovereignty at a time when democracy and independence were extremely fragile. We are now the most influential nation in the world, and our firmly established (at least theoretically) system of self-governance is under threat from exactly no one. No one, that is, but the terrorists among ourselves.
Times change, and laws become outdated. The "right to bear arms" in an era when the gun lobby controls large swathes of Congress, and when the media allows demagogues to pander to our basest fears, aided by the deliberate deterioration of our public schools, should go the way of the 3/5 Clause.
1
So let me get this straight- The GOP says a baker shouldn't be forced to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple and proposes constitutional amendments to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. At the same time, they do not want pass legislation that would prohibit suspected terrorists to purchase guns and ammunition..? Yeah- that sounds like the Republicans..
France doesn't allow their to citizens to own guns, still there was a massacre. Same happened in Mumbai, India in 2008. Putting on a list not going to stop a terrorist from owning weapons. Instead they should empower citizens by allowing them to carry guns in public places so that they can protect themselves when needed so causalities can be reduced. On a long tun , lack of causalities can demotivate terrorists in carrying out such attacks.
I don't know why the "founding fathers" wasted their time with anything else but the 2nd amendment since that's the only one that matters. We can be searched at airports, surveilled online, monitored in all sorts of places, profiled as members of religious or other groups, but heaven forbid that even the most potentially dangerous suspects have their right to blow us all to kingdom come restricted. I guess the other "freedom" that matters is that of the NRA to fill these people's pockets in the name of free speech.
2
I'm disappointed in the NYT editorial staff for bestowing the coveted "Editor's Pick" on the post from jb from Weston, Connecticut. jb is quoting from a Pew report that provides statistics through 2010. Included in the same report is the following. "Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s. The downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007". Further, it's one thing to cite overall murder rates and another to cite murders attributable to gun violence. Where I come from, this is called cherry picking.
NYT: where information is twisted to make conservatives looks bad and progessives innocent. What a joke.
How about looking into the past of the shooters? Immigration background? Scrutiny on California's own failed guns laws over the past five years with mass shootings? Coorelation and possible causation of these incidents happening in certain areas of the country? Look at the gun laws in Georgia and mass shootings?
Gun still don't kill, people do, especially mentally ill and brainwashed ones like radical Islamists. There is a need to target these people not gun owners! Let's get real at targeting the problem.
How about looking into the past of the shooters? Immigration background? Scrutiny on California's own failed guns laws over the past five years with mass shootings? Coorelation and possible causation of these incidents happening in certain areas of the country? Look at the gun laws in Georgia and mass shootings?
Gun still don't kill, people do, especially mentally ill and brainwashed ones like radical Islamists. There is a need to target these people not gun owners! Let's get real at targeting the problem.
The selective shredding of the Constitution endorsed by the Times editors is stunning.
Congress should put together a real law under which the executive branch could request no-buy orders subject to judicial review, and with an opportunity by the target to respond. (Obvious problem - the Feds will often be unwilling to reveal their sources, such as confidential informers. Darn that pesky Constitution!)
Otherwise we are in a world which could easily include warrantless wiretaps and pre-emptive Executive orders to squash publication of articles on the basis of national security. And we know the Times can't embrace that.
Congress should put together a real law under which the executive branch could request no-buy orders subject to judicial review, and with an opportunity by the target to respond. (Obvious problem - the Feds will often be unwilling to reveal their sources, such as confidential informers. Darn that pesky Constitution!)
Otherwise we are in a world which could easily include warrantless wiretaps and pre-emptive Executive orders to squash publication of articles on the basis of national security. And we know the Times can't embrace that.
We in the US must immediately take our attention from ISIS, et al, and turn it to the enablers of this disaster who are in the Congress of the US! I for one am sick and tired of the obeisance that some of these legislators make to the NRA, and until we do something to stop them if we are going to make headway on this amazing problem in a free society.
It is time to control guns so that the people [and our government] can know and regulate the use of these deadly instruments of death. Any legislator who promotes gun ownership without the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment ought to be put out of office, if not by vote then by force of law. Perhaps a legislator suffering the humiliation of a public whipping might help make these traitors to America a little more humble and less hateful to the citizens of our country.
I need not speak of the mentally unbalanced La Pierre, who has taken over the NRA for his own political purpose [whatever those are]. This organization should be labeled a terrorist organization and banned in the country.
It is time to control guns so that the people [and our government] can know and regulate the use of these deadly instruments of death. Any legislator who promotes gun ownership without the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment ought to be put out of office, if not by vote then by force of law. Perhaps a legislator suffering the humiliation of a public whipping might help make these traitors to America a little more humble and less hateful to the citizens of our country.
I need not speak of the mentally unbalanced La Pierre, who has taken over the NRA for his own political purpose [whatever those are]. This organization should be labeled a terrorist organization and banned in the country.
1
This political pathology is rooted in the constituents who put these politicians in place, who demand allegiance from would-be political leaders to their own brand of radicalized ideology, and who ultimately fund organizations that block efforts toward reasonable public safety measures. These politicians reside in relatively safe congressional districts and are doing precisely what they were elected to do - represent the people who elected them in these gerrymandered districts. And therein lies the problem.
We've allowed our political process to disproportionately favor a minority voice through a variety of barriers that structurally prevent equitable representation, not to mention the woeful lack of political participation at the most fundamental levels; decisions are made by those who show up. We need to stop complaining about what we've allowed to happen and start actively making those changes about which we seem so adept at proclaiming.
We've allowed our political process to disproportionately favor a minority voice through a variety of barriers that structurally prevent equitable representation, not to mention the woeful lack of political participation at the most fundamental levels; decisions are made by those who show up. We need to stop complaining about what we've allowed to happen and start actively making those changes about which we seem so adept at proclaiming.
Excellent article, with the final paragraph really bringing it home. Banning guns isn't the answer, but common sense laws that would weed out those who should not have guns is more than reasonable. It's so reasonable that you have to consider something else is at work here and I smell the NRA.
TY NYT for speaking up. Please people of the U.S. let us come together to be stronger than the gun lobby.
My family moved cross-country 9 months after 9/11 with a toddler, an infant and two cats. That flight was one for the record books. If you flew during that period, I am sure you can recall how a one-way ticket was viewed and we were searched 3 times. Well, my toddler was apparently "on the list'"(which was quite long in the days post-9/11), causing some delay. This was clearly an accident and it was rectified professionally and courteously and since I don't think that the government is plotting against its citizens, I chose to take it all in stride and accept that mistakes get made by good people and this is not a conspiracy to ruin lives. This fear about degrading the 2nd amendment and worry that we are on the doorstep of a government takeover is limiting our ability to rationally protect our families. That same same toddler is in high school now with his brother and we chat regularly about "Code Red" drills and what would they do if a shooter entered the school. The fact that we use the term 'shooter' all the time now is shocking. I will take gun control any day over the prospect of losing them to anyone with enough firepower and conviction to destroy lives.
The Times continue to focus on guns instead of the people who use them, in most cases legally or would be eligible to buy them under more restricted laws. France and Belgium had among the stricter gun laws in the world, but those laws did not prevent the Belgium jihadist from obtaining a AK-47 and attempt to murder dozens of traveler on the train. Those laws did nothing to prevent the jihadists from murdering 130 people in Paris using AK-47s. If all the “common sense” laws the Times preaches were adopted, murders and terrorists will still get guns.
Yes, isn't it interesting how these macho, gun-hugging, Republican officeholders in a country where their fellow citizens own 300 million guns which supposedly allows them to defend themselves, are now calling for the constitutionally incompetent nanny-state to protect us all from the security threat that 10,000 Syrian refugees will pose. "Cowardice" is far too generous a term.
1
More Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks by bombs and airplanes than by guns.
How can the gun lobby really be that strong? it is not a majority of the country, even many of NRA's own members agree with many of the provisions in the bill. If Republican are afraid of them, they have created the beast themselves by relying on financial support from a group who cares not at all for other human beings. It has been a mystery to me how they can bow to this alleged power and not call themselves employees of a small subset of the nation, bent on making sure we all have the power to kill each other. They want top be afraid, let them be afraid of the families of accidently killed children in home with guns, of people shot while sitting in their own yards, on their porches, at the playground. Clearly it's all about the money they get from the gun lobby. Not for one minute do I believe they have any real opinions or ethics at all or are capable of understanding the intent of the second amendment they claim to hold so dear.
1
A day after 14 people were killed in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, all four Republican presidential candidates in the US Senate – Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio – opposed a measure that would introduce tighter gun laws.
They are simply disgusting, cruel and callous people and have the blood of fourteen people on their hands.
They are simply disgusting, cruel and callous people and have the blood of fourteen people on their hands.
2
When will we have open carry in Congress, I wonder?
2
"every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."
You have got to be kidding me! Not providing guns and explosives to potential terrorists is bad??? What are the Republicans thinking?
You have got to be kidding me! Not providing guns and explosives to potential terrorists is bad??? What are the Republicans thinking?
Paul Ryan worries about "due process " in this case,but I've never seen any indication that he's concerned that the FBI ,without us getting due process,knows each time each of us uses that deadly weapon,the cell phone.Since it's out fear of NRA opposition to banning people on the terrorist watch list from having guns that keeps such a ban from passing, are the NRA leaders terrorists as well ?
The stockpiling of arms and ammunition by individuals and non-government organizations has nothing to do with maintaining a well regulated militia.
Is it possible that Republicans so strongly oppose rational gun laws because in doing so they are shielding efforts to arm a terrorist insurgency to take back what they think of as their country? Such conspiracies have festered throughout our history; i.e. the Business Plot that planned a coup d'état to overthrow FDR.
Is it possible that Republicans so strongly oppose rational gun laws because in doing so they are shielding efforts to arm a terrorist insurgency to take back what they think of as their country? Such conspiracies have festered throughout our history; i.e. the Business Plot that planned a coup d'état to overthrow FDR.
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
Tragically, the logic of this pronouncement by Martin Luther King would, in short order, be refuted by the reality of his own lynching.
King's hope was misplaced and his reasoning was circular: The resultant rule of law relied on by King presumed an adherence to the rule of law in the first instance.
Obama's Leftist gun-law "logic" suffers the same fatal flaw.
Tragically, the logic of this pronouncement by Martin Luther King would, in short order, be refuted by the reality of his own lynching.
King's hope was misplaced and his reasoning was circular: The resultant rule of law relied on by King presumed an adherence to the rule of law in the first instance.
Obama's Leftist gun-law "logic" suffers the same fatal flaw.
No matter how much tough talk, and how many lists people are put on, can anyone see the future being any different.
How can the belief in the 2nd amendment be reconciled with the right to life, we have a majority of citizens that believe that it can.
I guess if we had only to choose to buy guns then we would, (to follow the reasoning) would make guns harder to get.
How openly jaded we have become.
How can the belief in the 2nd amendment be reconciled with the right to life, we have a majority of citizens that believe that it can.
I guess if we had only to choose to buy guns then we would, (to follow the reasoning) would make guns harder to get.
How openly jaded we have become.
Can a questionnaire before sale of a gun be something like this?
1. Why do you want a gun? Drop down menu - hunting, sports etc.
2. How much ammunition do you need? 100 bullets - 1000 bullets to kill 2 bears in hunting season - red flag - denied
3. Is this the first gun or do you have others? more than one - why? red flag - denied
If he says hunting - hunting what or where - have u been to a forest - do you have a permit to hunt deer? Similar questions - and each answer has a point system. No hunting permit for deer- red flag - denied.
It seems so easy to implement and yet we don't.
1. Why do you want a gun? Drop down menu - hunting, sports etc.
2. How much ammunition do you need? 100 bullets - 1000 bullets to kill 2 bears in hunting season - red flag - denied
3. Is this the first gun or do you have others? more than one - why? red flag - denied
If he says hunting - hunting what or where - have u been to a forest - do you have a permit to hunt deer? Similar questions - and each answer has a point system. No hunting permit for deer- red flag - denied.
It seems so easy to implement and yet we don't.
The republican party doesn't need to declare war, they have been at war for several decades now.
At war with American ideals.
At war with common sense.
At war with America itself.
On the front page we see Paul Ryan declaring war on President Obama.
On front pages across this nation we need to see stories about the war republicans have declared and are waging on average Americans.
60% of US didn't know which party controlled Congress before the last election. That is the job of the 4th Estate. To give people the news. Not to give the lies of McConnell the same weight as facts or even opinion.
It is the job of the press to ask the question in that front page story on Ryan: "Why have you not begun the process of revising the tax code? Your party has controlled congress the last 5 years, why haven't you done anything? Anything?" It shouldn't be left up to the comments section to ask that.
Do your job New York Times and maybe NBC and others will follow and we can actually get America back. Back from the crime lords who have been busy destroying it the last several decades.
At war with American ideals.
At war with common sense.
At war with America itself.
On the front page we see Paul Ryan declaring war on President Obama.
On front pages across this nation we need to see stories about the war republicans have declared and are waging on average Americans.
60% of US didn't know which party controlled Congress before the last election. That is the job of the 4th Estate. To give people the news. Not to give the lies of McConnell the same weight as facts or even opinion.
It is the job of the press to ask the question in that front page story on Ryan: "Why have you not begun the process of revising the tax code? Your party has controlled congress the last 5 years, why haven't you done anything? Anything?" It shouldn't be left up to the comments section to ask that.
Do your job New York Times and maybe NBC and others will follow and we can actually get America back. Back from the crime lords who have been busy destroying it the last several decades.
5
The vote? As you'd expect...
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---45
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---54
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---45
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---54
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
No need to worry about being on a meaningless no-fly list ... plenty of opportunity to carry out terrorist mass shootings right here at home.
Wayne Robert LaPierre, Jr, head of an armed cult known as the NRA engaged in bitter battle with our hero Barack. The organization had infiltrated our government at the highest level buying congressmen and influencing legislation, undermining the will of the people. Barack Obama our meek mild mannered heroin has proven no match. In the last bloody battle between Barack and LaPierre, Barack dodged right then left, threw a jab and grabbed LaPierre and threw him against a concrete wall which crumbled around LaPierre. LaPierre emerged, apparently unscathed, presenting his own version of cryptonite, the 2nd amendment. Barack staggered back in obvious pain and made a hasty retreat to his ivory white marble abode to plot and plan a new scheme to thwart the evil LaPierre. Ninety-eight-percent of the people were behind Barack, they demanded reform and the defeat of LaPierra, yet Barack had found himself powerless in his quest. His normal allies in congress had become addicted to LaPierre's new and highly addictive potion LaDollaGreen.
Barack only had to look south to Mexico government to see the power of LaDollaGreen. LaPierre knew to control LaDollaGreen was to control congress, and thus the people. With LaDollaGreen the people's will would be undone and LaPierra kingdom come. Barack, confused and shaken, wondered how the highest court of the land could legalize LaDolla Green knowing its highly addictive qualities particularly to congress. Barack vowed to fight on.
Barack only had to look south to Mexico government to see the power of LaDollaGreen. LaPierre knew to control LaDollaGreen was to control congress, and thus the people. With LaDollaGreen the people's will would be undone and LaPierra kingdom come. Barack, confused and shaken, wondered how the highest court of the land could legalize LaDolla Green knowing its highly addictive qualities particularly to congress. Barack vowed to fight on.
The Grey Old Lady needs to end its abusive relationship with Uncle Sam and start listening to the wise wisdom of her old friend Lady Liberty.
I do not support the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but it is the law of the land. America aspires to be a nation of laws, not men. Therefore, it is of no interest whether George Bush or Barack Obama unilaterally wants to arbitrarily violate the due process of any American.
All Americans have a right to bear arms and all Americans have a right to interstate travel. These are constitutional rights. Americans do not have a constitutional right to international travel.
If the government wants to abridge these rights, then there must be both procedural and substantive due process afforded to all Americans. It's not that difficult a concept that is why Lady Justice is blindfolded because the rule of law equally applies to all Americans. We don't have a Caferteria Constituion where those in charge can pick and choose who is covered by the law.
I disagree with Paul Ryan on most occasions, but to say his argument for demanding due process is weak is very disturbing coming from the paper of record. What is weak is the intellectual honesty of this editorial.
When you conflate gun control, terrorism and constitutional rights you inadvertently fuel the paranoia of those on both the left and right who fear, justifiably at times, the expansive intrusion of their civil rights by the government.
I do not support the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but it is the law of the land. America aspires to be a nation of laws, not men. Therefore, it is of no interest whether George Bush or Barack Obama unilaterally wants to arbitrarily violate the due process of any American.
All Americans have a right to bear arms and all Americans have a right to interstate travel. These are constitutional rights. Americans do not have a constitutional right to international travel.
If the government wants to abridge these rights, then there must be both procedural and substantive due process afforded to all Americans. It's not that difficult a concept that is why Lady Justice is blindfolded because the rule of law equally applies to all Americans. We don't have a Caferteria Constituion where those in charge can pick and choose who is covered by the law.
I disagree with Paul Ryan on most occasions, but to say his argument for demanding due process is weak is very disturbing coming from the paper of record. What is weak is the intellectual honesty of this editorial.
When you conflate gun control, terrorism and constitutional rights you inadvertently fuel the paranoia of those on both the left and right who fear, justifiably at times, the expansive intrusion of their civil rights by the government.
As an African I am utterly bewildered by the way the United States responded with days, weeks, of alarm and hysteria over the limited threat of Ebola yet refuses to face the colossal and prevalent threat of guns and their misuse by a multitude of citizens.
1
I strongly disagree with the repeated claims that gun politics is complicated. It isn't - it is all about fear and money. Gun lobbies fund a concerted campign of fear, leading more people to think that guns are a good idea. And then they fund mindless, gullible politicians to stay in office and maintain the status quo. In any sane country, this level and frequency of gun related deaths would have pushed a consensus for change. Don't tell me it's difficult to get rid of most guns in private hands - if our leadership had the guts to make a change, they would legislate that it is illegal to own guns... repeal the 2nd Amendment to begin with - it has outlived it's usefulness and necessity. Once such laws are passed, I'd say that sending the parents/loved ones of relatives lost to gun violence around the nation to tell of their loss would encourage and shame gun owners into giving up their deadly weapons.
There is no defense for free ownership of guns - don't defend it with the alcohol and cigarettes arguments. A pack of Marlboro's can't take out and classroom full of kids. Stray bullets can kill far more efficiently than second hand smoke
Follow the example of sane nations like Australia. The current crip of GoP candidates remain shamelessly in the pockets of the fear and paranoia inducing lobbies.... we won't see a better America from any of them.
There is no defense for free ownership of guns - don't defend it with the alcohol and cigarettes arguments. A pack of Marlboro's can't take out and classroom full of kids. Stray bullets can kill far more efficiently than second hand smoke
Follow the example of sane nations like Australia. The current crip of GoP candidates remain shamelessly in the pockets of the fear and paranoia inducing lobbies.... we won't see a better America from any of them.
1
NYT neglected to praise Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and mention that Trump was the only one who backed the proposal to ban selling arms to suspected terrorists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-guns-...
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-guns-...
Wow. The craziness just does not end. Now President Obama is responsible for terrorism and mass shootings of any ilk. How low can these candidates go. Why should anyone be surprised, however. Self-serving positions, repetition of lies and distortions, self-aggrandizement--this is what the GOP candidates are about. Not one has any self-awareness, not one can take the high road and reconsider flawed ideology. Every one of them needs a muzzle.
Why is the 2nd amendment still sacred when approximately 35,000 Americans are killed by firearms annually?
There ya go. This is all you need to know about the Republican party. All platitudes.
The GOP are similar to ISIS and the Taliban, in that ideology trumps common sense.
1
We will get to a point, if we haven't already, when everyone will have a relative, friend, acquaintance, coworker, neighbor, etc. who dies in a mass shooting. Only when it hits close to home will the majority and legislators take gun control seriously. And it is inevitable that time will come.
This entire debate, every time another mass shooting occurs, is starting to become so unbelievably routine that it has become sickening. The day of the attack: 24 hour news coverage to watch what happened. The next day: prayers and tough talk against guns/mental health. Two days later: second amendment proponents start shouting and the conversation ends.
The Second Amendment's first portion, being armed for the purpose of a militia, has been so completely overshadowed that it hardly resembles itself in modern law. The Supreme Court that decided "shall not be infringed" trumped the "being for a well regulated milita" was from a different era, one in which internet and gun shows were not yet prevalent throughout the country, and mass production of such weapons was non-existant.
It's time for this to be moved through the courts to have this precedent be reevaluated. The Supreme Court once ruled "separate but equal," but that was clearly a mistake, and was eventually changed. This might be possible, but it will take some with extremely strong will power and very deep pockets. I don't know who is brave enough to take on the gun lobby, but I think it's someone that a large portion of this country will rally behind. Until that happens, it's just going to happen again and again. It's sickening.
The Second Amendment's first portion, being armed for the purpose of a militia, has been so completely overshadowed that it hardly resembles itself in modern law. The Supreme Court that decided "shall not be infringed" trumped the "being for a well regulated milita" was from a different era, one in which internet and gun shows were not yet prevalent throughout the country, and mass production of such weapons was non-existant.
It's time for this to be moved through the courts to have this precedent be reevaluated. The Supreme Court once ruled "separate but equal," but that was clearly a mistake, and was eventually changed. This might be possible, but it will take some with extremely strong will power and very deep pockets. I don't know who is brave enough to take on the gun lobby, but I think it's someone that a large portion of this country will rally behind. Until that happens, it's just going to happen again and again. It's sickening.
1
I agree 100% with "Rupp": "forbidding those on a terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms is OK with me. I have no problem requiring proficiency testing, or background checks, before purchase. After all, we test drivers, but there is no constitutional right to drive, and we fear revoking licenses of the elderly (evil AARP)."
I add: The gun lobby and those elected officials who represent the gun lobby so well, usually come to attention when money and taxes become an issue. What did San Bernadino cost local, state, and federal governments (tax payers), money wise (beyond the trauma and tragedy)? The parents of this married couple seem to have been aware that military grade weapons were kept in her home. Nancy Lanza and Laurel Harper purchased military style weapons for their sons who they knew had mental health challenges, and made these readily accessible at their homes. And Nancy Lanza made sure her son knew how to use military style weapons.
The law needs to allow the government (tax payers), and more direct victims, to take civil action against any sources or facilitators with respect to mass shootings. So I hope the New York Times will investigate and report on the financial cost to taxpayers so we can begin this dialogue.
I add: The gun lobby and those elected officials who represent the gun lobby so well, usually come to attention when money and taxes become an issue. What did San Bernadino cost local, state, and federal governments (tax payers), money wise (beyond the trauma and tragedy)? The parents of this married couple seem to have been aware that military grade weapons were kept in her home. Nancy Lanza and Laurel Harper purchased military style weapons for their sons who they knew had mental health challenges, and made these readily accessible at their homes. And Nancy Lanza made sure her son knew how to use military style weapons.
The law needs to allow the government (tax payers), and more direct victims, to take civil action against any sources or facilitators with respect to mass shootings. So I hope the New York Times will investigate and report on the financial cost to taxpayers so we can begin this dialogue.
So profits for gun companies are more important that human life. Glad there's Congress to remind us of America's priorities.
We elect these men and as such there is little we can really do but remove them from office which of course means that all the hand wringing has to be expressed at the polls or nothing except the body count will change.
The tears are real, the words are hollow.
The tears are real, the words are hollow.
If individuals inside the USA have committed allegiance to ISIS & firmly believe that in participating in jihad they're carrying out the will of Allah, it doesn't matter what laws are passed in Congress unless all weapons are banned entirely like Australia. Even then, individuals who have a cause will find a way to obtain them illegally on the black market, just like those who purchase illicit drugs from Mexico, Venezuela, West Africa, Colombia, Afghanistan & Eastern European countries. We have a war on drugs although have failed terribly at winning the scourge. Similarly, Europe has laws against guns although weapons are illegally smuggled in from Eastern Europe & the Mediterranean. What the US needs to do to control gun violence is to get a better grip on the root cause of violent behavior and acknowledge that we are indeed like the Roman Empire, an inherently violent country who secretly condones violence through our sale of advanced weapons across the globe as well as commitment by our political leaders to solving problems through the use of the military rather than the time consuming method of diplomacy & shared commitment to peace not only in our own country but abroad as well.
2
" while taking action that speaks volumes."
It's the opposite. Republicans take NO action. None. They are truly un-American. Shameful.
It's the opposite. Republicans take NO action. None. They are truly un-American. Shameful.
1
Well let's be honest with ourselves.
The republicans are not the only cowards when it comes to a discussion about terrorism. True, the editors rightly put the republican politicians on the spot wrt their craven obeisance to the NRA and right wing of the country. But that is only half of the issue.
The other half of the issue is what to do about Islamic terrorists.
As the "breaking news" about the female murderer of the San Bernardino clinic clearly indicates, the permissive policies that allow Arab Muslims into the country are a direct threat to our country's security.
Arab Islamic theocracies must be quarantined from civilized nations. Nobody in. Nobody out.
Draconian to be sure. But these are times that call for draconian measures before they become "normal."
The republicans are not the only cowards when it comes to a discussion about terrorism. True, the editors rightly put the republican politicians on the spot wrt their craven obeisance to the NRA and right wing of the country. But that is only half of the issue.
The other half of the issue is what to do about Islamic terrorists.
As the "breaking news" about the female murderer of the San Bernardino clinic clearly indicates, the permissive policies that allow Arab Muslims into the country are a direct threat to our country's security.
Arab Islamic theocracies must be quarantined from civilized nations. Nobody in. Nobody out.
Draconian to be sure. But these are times that call for draconian measures before they become "normal."
We all know what the cause is: Republican super-PACs, leading the charge with misleading negative advertising, so I think they ought to have a taste of their own medicine.
Someone should create an advertisement where a terrorist in a black SUV similar to the one in San Bernardino first prays to their god, then calls up their representative to thank them for letting people on the terrorist watch list to continue to buy guns, and then subsequently exits the SUV to begin shooting innocent people. The ad would fade to black as people scream and then displays the names of congressmen who opposed the measure. It would be on par with the Koch propaganda of late, and well-deserved.
Someone should create an advertisement where a terrorist in a black SUV similar to the one in San Bernardino first prays to their god, then calls up their representative to thank them for letting people on the terrorist watch list to continue to buy guns, and then subsequently exits the SUV to begin shooting innocent people. The ad would fade to black as people scream and then displays the names of congressmen who opposed the measure. It would be on par with the Koch propaganda of late, and well-deserved.
Unfortunately, and again, instead of giving us the full and real reason why this was voted down, you use it as a chance for ad hominem attacks on those whose politics you disagree with. IF, and I doubt it, this was a so called "clean bill" that only included what you have written, then I will not vote for anyone who called for its defeat. However, when democrats have voted down bills "for the military men and women", you waste no time ranting how the bill was "polluted" by pork or add ons that should not have been included. If you really want to inform us, you should have provided links to the bill that was voted down. Now carry on NYT!
Republican contenders are now yelling "war" because they know the word will rally the faithful to choose a leader who is a demagogue and who only needs to appear tough, but who may in fact lack courage and be uninformed. Real substance is not required. Remember that part of the reason for the Iraq War was to ensure George Bush's reelection as a wartime president.
Looks like ISIS and the like have succeeded, in large part because of our own proto-fascist right wing politicians, in turning our country in against itself.
Democrats on the whole are not falling for this, yet still I fear we won't be able to stop the right wing backlash against Muslims and other immigrants or the right wing obsession with guns.
Emotions like fear usually win out over cold rationality. Politicians know this. Is that why the Right continually pushes the guns that effectively keep us in a state of terror?
Looks like ISIS and the like have succeeded, in large part because of our own proto-fascist right wing politicians, in turning our country in against itself.
Democrats on the whole are not falling for this, yet still I fear we won't be able to stop the right wing backlash against Muslims and other immigrants or the right wing obsession with guns.
Emotions like fear usually win out over cold rationality. Politicians know this. Is that why the Right continually pushes the guns that effectively keep us in a state of terror?
“I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.” Paul Ryan
Also remember that people killed by these very same people, don't have a rights to appeal their sudden death.
Also remember that people killed by these very same people, don't have a rights to appeal their sudden death.
You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. The GOP has made their choice.
My proposal to start bending the U.S. gun-violence curve: let the free-market insurance industry go to work on America's deadly gun culture, and I suspect that you'd see an almost immediate overnight reduction in gun violence.
Start by requiring insurance for every gun now in existence and sold/traded/possessed in the future, and require insurance for each and every bullet (and/or bullet casing for those who load their own ammo) sold in America. Your insurance rates would be set by actuarial risk tables of likelihood for your guns and your bullets to participate in gun violence risk. Because insurance industry dollars (and profits) are on the table, they will bring to bear a great deal of actuarial risk experience to the calculations.
In this way, if your ability to inexpensively own and use firearms is always at risk of significant premium increases, theories of economically rational human behavior suggest that gun owners will become MUCH LESS CASUAL about safe storage and use of their guns. It also provides a gun victim or their family some level of compensation to assist the recovery process.
Naysayers will claim it's too complicated to track bullets. Nonsense: a laser inscription on each and every bullet casing produced is easily accomplished and easily tracked with additions to an already existing national gun-check database. Yes, the details will require hard work. But the only thing lacking right now is political will and people of good faith to do the hard work.
Start by requiring insurance for every gun now in existence and sold/traded/possessed in the future, and require insurance for each and every bullet (and/or bullet casing for those who load their own ammo) sold in America. Your insurance rates would be set by actuarial risk tables of likelihood for your guns and your bullets to participate in gun violence risk. Because insurance industry dollars (and profits) are on the table, they will bring to bear a great deal of actuarial risk experience to the calculations.
In this way, if your ability to inexpensively own and use firearms is always at risk of significant premium increases, theories of economically rational human behavior suggest that gun owners will become MUCH LESS CASUAL about safe storage and use of their guns. It also provides a gun victim or their family some level of compensation to assist the recovery process.
Naysayers will claim it's too complicated to track bullets. Nonsense: a laser inscription on each and every bullet casing produced is easily accomplished and easily tracked with additions to an already existing national gun-check database. Yes, the details will require hard work. But the only thing lacking right now is political will and people of good faith to do the hard work.
The absurdity of the the NRA controlling the Republicans and extreme right wing regarding enacting gun controls in this country bear some deeper analysis. On the surface it is said that it is the gun manufacturers that are behind the inflexibility of the NRA. It's supposed to be about the NRA protecting the profits of the manufacturers. Well, I now realize this is a mistaken analysis.
In my opinion, the NRA's driving logic is that they want the citizenry of the nation to be armed with guns so that if one day the central federal government becomes an oppressive police state that takes away individual freedoms, there will be enough well armed militias all around the country that the militias could take on the government and wrest control away from the oppressors. This belief system which is so deeply ingrained, the fear of losing American individual freedom, is what is driving the absurdity of what we see gong on in the political debate about gun controls.
In my opinion, the NRA's driving logic is that they want the citizenry of the nation to be armed with guns so that if one day the central federal government becomes an oppressive police state that takes away individual freedoms, there will be enough well armed militias all around the country that the militias could take on the government and wrest control away from the oppressors. This belief system which is so deeply ingrained, the fear of losing American individual freedom, is what is driving the absurdity of what we see gong on in the political debate about gun controls.
" Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham — all turned up to vote against these common-sense measures.."
How did "common Sense creep into the same sentence as the names mentioned?
Despite being foreign born, I have a keen love for my adopted land. Still I wonder if the drafter of The Constitution had known that some 200+ years after their efforts the "arms" they gave everyone the right to bear could fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Had they known, The second amendment would perhaps had the "except if you are a lunatic or a republican congress person" qualifier?
Just asking.
How did "common Sense creep into the same sentence as the names mentioned?
Despite being foreign born, I have a keen love for my adopted land. Still I wonder if the drafter of The Constitution had known that some 200+ years after their efforts the "arms" they gave everyone the right to bear could fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Had they known, The second amendment would perhaps had the "except if you are a lunatic or a republican congress person" qualifier?
Just asking.
If there is no gun control for the rest of us then there should be no gun control for the Congress or Supreme Court.
1
There must be a reason why a person is on a watch list or a no fly list or what ever. If they haven`t done a crime or haven`t been prosecuted then they should not be on the list. For them to be able to purchase a weapon and be on the list for good reason is insanity.
Politicians fiddle while our world burns. Blame each other, blame religion, blame global warming, blame anything, but get over it. We die in the wake of another well orchestrated and planned attack.
It's time to put aside partisan politics and care for the country that you represent. We don't care about blame - we want it fixed... RIGHT NOW!
It's time to put aside partisan politics and care for the country that you represent. We don't care about blame - we want it fixed... RIGHT NOW!
Prohibiting persons on a no-fly or terrorist watch list from buying guns should be a no brainer. Anyone wrongly listed would still have the right to prove a case for de-listing. However, it's not surprising that Senate Republicans including wannabe presidential candidates are beholden to the gun lobby; what's surprising are the people who vote these folks in again and again and again.
Obviously the Republicans in the Senate value keeping their jobs more than they value the lives of their fellow citizens.
Remember, if we take away our rights, the terrorists win ... except for guns, because that's not a real right.
The Congress - Cowards and Hypocrites!
I think putting Muslims in a database is a great idea. We can then sell them guns at a discount, which boosts the economy, is okay with the NRA and Congressional Republicans, demonstrates that we have no prejudices, and is a win-win for all sides involved. And, on every Federal and state holiday, we can offer them super discounts on gun purchases.
To make it even better for those concerned about lists, we won't even know who buys the guns or how many.
To make it even better for those concerned about lists, we won't even know who buys the guns or how many.
I presume Ryan wants to abolish the Terrorism Watch List altogether, because it deprives people of the right to fly without due process. If so, he is irresponsible for not backing legislation to do that. If not, he should have no due process objection to keeping people on the list from buying guns.
All indications from law enforcement at this point tell us Mr. Farook and Ms, Malik were operating a bomb factory at their home in Redlands, California.
Doesn't focusing on guns to the exclusion of all else prioritize the political agenda of the left?
There is a strong likelihood Mr. Farook decided to attack the Holiday party without detonating any bombs because he lost control of his emotions.
Possibly leaving us the esoteric question, was he a mentally ill terrorist? Wouldn't it have served the rational goal of Islamists bent on attacking the West to have detonated any number of bombs as well?
The New York Times Editorial Board appears to be leading the left's charge to hem and haw on the likelihood that the attackers were a sleeper cell of Islamist terrorists who simply lost their cool, and conducted a premature, which is to say incomplete, operational plan.
In the face of decades worth of evidence about the modus operandi of dedicated Islamist terrorists, why pretend there is a major question?
The better to promote governmental treatment of all Americans as potential terrorists?
Doesn't focusing on guns to the exclusion of all else prioritize the political agenda of the left?
There is a strong likelihood Mr. Farook decided to attack the Holiday party without detonating any bombs because he lost control of his emotions.
Possibly leaving us the esoteric question, was he a mentally ill terrorist? Wouldn't it have served the rational goal of Islamists bent on attacking the West to have detonated any number of bombs as well?
The New York Times Editorial Board appears to be leading the left's charge to hem and haw on the likelihood that the attackers were a sleeper cell of Islamist terrorists who simply lost their cool, and conducted a premature, which is to say incomplete, operational plan.
In the face of decades worth of evidence about the modus operandi of dedicated Islamist terrorists, why pretend there is a major question?
The better to promote governmental treatment of all Americans as potential terrorists?
Let the Republican congressmen and the supreme Court put their money where their mouths are and allow weapons into their places of business. If guns make school children safer, and nowhere should be a gun free zone, they shouldn't have a problem with concealed weapons being allowed where they work either. That's maybe what the democrats should push.
Speaker Ryan sounded very weak trying to rest on the Constitution. If the Founders were alive today they would be disgusted with the lock the arms manufacturers have on the Republicans. Does Congress have to suffer the losses from our nation being awash in guns to wake up and get real? Nothing seems to get to them. SHAME ON THEM!
If we are to keep guns away from the emotionally or mentally disturbed, perhaps we should begin with those who think that they are so important that they believe the government is coming to take their guns away. (It should be taking them away--for treatment.)
1
I’m a conservative and a registered Republican. It’s rare that I agree with an NYT editorial, but I completely concur with this one.
Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are right to score President Obama for his failure adequately to respond to – or even recognize – the threat of radical Islam. But how is it that none of them can muster the courage to support what the Times rightly calls “common-sense measures” to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of lone-wolf terrorists and the mentally deranged?
Even if it’s unrealistic to expect a politician to forswear any and all trimming to accommodate influential elements in his party, there are subjects on which voters should be unwilling to accept candidates who put politics above the public interest. National security is one; a willingness to do something to keep arms out of the hands of crazies is another.
Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are right to score President Obama for his failure adequately to respond to – or even recognize – the threat of radical Islam. But how is it that none of them can muster the courage to support what the Times rightly calls “common-sense measures” to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of lone-wolf terrorists and the mentally deranged?
Even if it’s unrealistic to expect a politician to forswear any and all trimming to accommodate influential elements in his party, there are subjects on which voters should be unwilling to accept candidates who put politics above the public interest. National security is one; a willingness to do something to keep arms out of the hands of crazies is another.
2
The Paris terrorist attack showed that sophisticated military grade weapons can be acquired by terrorist groups even if they are banned from a nation. There is a French ban on assault weapons, yet some French citizens got a hold of them to carry out their murderous plans.
The Paris terror attacks also revealed that the terrorists are embedding themselves in state organizations like the department of transportation etc. The husband of the terror-couple of San Bernardino was a state health department worker. We should be concerned about these emergent patterns in terrorism instead of simply focusing on restricting gun laws. We should have a national debate on how radical Islam is evolving in the West in order to be better prepared.
Indeed access to guns is a menace in the United States, but to get the conversation on Islamic terrorism and NRA fused is to get our wires crossed in futility.
Don't we need to focus more on the trajectories of Muslim-American citizenship in this day and age of Islamic terror, just as we did on the trajectories of American-Communists during the Cold War?
The Paris terror attacks also revealed that the terrorists are embedding themselves in state organizations like the department of transportation etc. The husband of the terror-couple of San Bernardino was a state health department worker. We should be concerned about these emergent patterns in terrorism instead of simply focusing on restricting gun laws. We should have a national debate on how radical Islam is evolving in the West in order to be better prepared.
Indeed access to guns is a menace in the United States, but to get the conversation on Islamic terrorism and NRA fused is to get our wires crossed in futility.
Don't we need to focus more on the trajectories of Muslim-American citizenship in this day and age of Islamic terror, just as we did on the trajectories of American-Communists during the Cold War?
There are, according to my reading, 170,000 people on the No Fly list. According to CBS Boston yesterday, Sen. Edward Kennedy was once on it. How can anyone, especially a legally tried president, deny 170,000 residents the rights of citizens to buy arms without due process.
These people have been accused. They have not been proven to be anything. Why would you think they can be disenfranchised arbitrarily?
These people have been accused. They have not been proven to be anything. Why would you think they can be disenfranchised arbitrarily?
Pretty sad. They vote against letting Syrian refugees in who have been fully vetted, but if someone on the terrorist watch list gets into the country by any means, it is ok to let them buy assault weapons. Personally, I think the gun laws need tightening far beyond prohibiting terrorists from buying assault weapons, but its almost laughable that the Republicans, including four candidates for President, saw fit to vote against the ban on sales to terrorists.
5
How about this: Obama needs to back a pro-gun law and then hold a press conference where he thanks the republicans by name for standing with him.
One of two things will happen: the republican electorate will turn on their representatives for standing with Obama or the republican lawmakers will pass an opposing law, which is what we want anyway.
One of two things will happen: the republican electorate will turn on their representatives for standing with Obama or the republican lawmakers will pass an opposing law, which is what we want anyway.
The absolute perfidy of our GOP presidential candidates is clearly revealed by their responses to the horrendous gunning down of innocents in San Bernadina yesterday. Cruz, Christie and Bush issued preposterous statements blaming the President, directly or indirectly, for the latest attack. I am so fed up with TV "journalists" giving these lying cowards the air time to spout more falsehoods and display their ignorance about climate change. This is political "correctness" at its worst.
4
America has become the Land of Oz, where "9/11 changes everything" is a pose rather than a calling; where the 9/11 first responders are still begging for Congressional votes to support their after-care, while politicians wrap themselves in the flag; where terror-risk suspects can stockpile assault guns, while being forced off planes for our protection; where fans support the troops with bumper stickers and applause, while the Pentagon pays their sports arenas to feign patriotism; where police mete out lethal punishment to black children and cigarette hustlers, while CEOs and lobbyists are revered for gaming the system.
3
This seems to be the day to highlight the cowards.
We're apparently terrified of terrorists (they win), but even more so of the NRA (they win too). N.R. Kleinfield in today's paper could tone it down. "..the wide expanse of America's population...engulfed in a collective fear..." it goes on and on about how terrified we must be. We really don't need to be highlighting the more neurotic and unbalanced responses to the latest violence. The people who are afraid of the terrorists (they will lean towards a police state which Trump will be happy to deliver) are much more dangerous than the terrorists. So let's just please back down from the fear-mongering. Kleinfield's piece in today's paper is unfortunate pandering to the hysterical and neurotic. This editorial helps a little. Get a grip America. If you want to be scared, think of climate change. Think of the GOP. Think of income inequity. Think of the NRA. Then be scared.
We're apparently terrified of terrorists (they win), but even more so of the NRA (they win too). N.R. Kleinfield in today's paper could tone it down. "..the wide expanse of America's population...engulfed in a collective fear..." it goes on and on about how terrified we must be. We really don't need to be highlighting the more neurotic and unbalanced responses to the latest violence. The people who are afraid of the terrorists (they will lean towards a police state which Trump will be happy to deliver) are much more dangerous than the terrorists. So let's just please back down from the fear-mongering. Kleinfield's piece in today's paper is unfortunate pandering to the hysterical and neurotic. This editorial helps a little. Get a grip America. If you want to be scared, think of climate change. Think of the GOP. Think of income inequity. Think of the NRA. Then be scared.
3
Actually, they broke so many existing laws and gun laws that it is fraud to suggest more laws (which typically ensnare law-abiding Americans) could do jack to alleviate the problem.
https://www.facebook.com/2MillionBikersDC/photos/a.569596159769901.10737...
https://www.facebook.com/2MillionBikersDC/photos/a.569596159769901.10737...
Well, once again the Times Editorial Board twists and turns attempting to uphold its favorite narratives ("workplace violence" and, "it was the guns, dummies").
First, anyone who thought workplace violence first needs to see a therapist because obviously they have some sort of cognitive issue that does not allow them to see reality clearly. When you have two shooters (or more as was originally reported) the odds of it being work place violence declines dramatically. And when you find out these were Muslims in attack uniforms (although hard to do through the Times) the odds decline again. Then when you find out they had weapons, lots of ammo and were making bombs and had been working on this for some time... work place violence becomes very unlikely.
As for the guns argument, of course it makes sense not to sell weapons of mass destruction down at your friendly convenience store. BUt AR-15s are legal in most states and many countries. Hunters use them. These weapons were attained legally. Now, you can argue whether or not these are good ideas, but the truth is, if you outlaw AR-15 type guns, bad guys will obtain them anyway. That's the hole in the stricter gun control arguments, bad guys don't care whether it's legal.
Law biding citizens don't become violent when in possession of a gun. So, for all the talk about gun control, someone explain how it will work. Who will we really stop from obtaining guns?
And repeat this. This was an act of Islamic Terrorism.
First, anyone who thought workplace violence first needs to see a therapist because obviously they have some sort of cognitive issue that does not allow them to see reality clearly. When you have two shooters (or more as was originally reported) the odds of it being work place violence declines dramatically. And when you find out these were Muslims in attack uniforms (although hard to do through the Times) the odds decline again. Then when you find out they had weapons, lots of ammo and were making bombs and had been working on this for some time... work place violence becomes very unlikely.
As for the guns argument, of course it makes sense not to sell weapons of mass destruction down at your friendly convenience store. BUt AR-15s are legal in most states and many countries. Hunters use them. These weapons were attained legally. Now, you can argue whether or not these are good ideas, but the truth is, if you outlaw AR-15 type guns, bad guys will obtain them anyway. That's the hole in the stricter gun control arguments, bad guys don't care whether it's legal.
Law biding citizens don't become violent when in possession of a gun. So, for all the talk about gun control, someone explain how it will work. Who will we really stop from obtaining guns?
And repeat this. This was an act of Islamic Terrorism.
1
Guns are their religion. It's as simple as that. Guns are an absolute good to them, so therefore any restriction on guns would be a kind of blasphemy against their God.
4
The watch-lists are a nightmare of unaccountable and arbitrary punishment and surveillance. The various government agencies have strongly resisted even admitting that people are on one of the lists, let alone letting them easily challenge that placement. To quote the government's leaked placement guidelines: "irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary." Adding even more penalties and punishments to be meted out by some DHS bureaucrat's unverifiable and systematically unverified hunch makes a bad system worse. (My original critique of the NYTimes OpEd in which I first saw the watch-list gun restriction proposed is at http://www.eavesdropperinstitute.com
1
Not
Real
Americans
Real
Americans
1
Why do most Republicans hate this country so much? I just do not understand it.
They hate immigrants, which is one of the few truly exceptional things about the the US. We are a heterogeneous nation of immigrants. It is our strength. They hate the idea that all men are created equal. If you are not white, Anglo Saxon and Protestant you cannot be a "real" American. They hate religious freedom and actually believe the Founders wanted this to be a "Christian" nation - even though Founders specifically stated the opposite.
Republicans seem to hate everything about this country. What they seem to want is an autocratic theocracy of their own making. It's a more than a little frightening.
They hate immigrants, which is one of the few truly exceptional things about the the US. We are a heterogeneous nation of immigrants. It is our strength. They hate the idea that all men are created equal. If you are not white, Anglo Saxon and Protestant you cannot be a "real" American. They hate religious freedom and actually believe the Founders wanted this to be a "Christian" nation - even though Founders specifically stated the opposite.
Republicans seem to hate everything about this country. What they seem to want is an autocratic theocracy of their own making. It's a more than a little frightening.
2
I don`t see the need for anyone to own an assault rifle as they are not used for hunting or target shooting but are used in the military and law enforcement. These weapons should be completely banned no matter how they are so called, "made compliant."
4
If the incident at Newtown where 26 innocent people were slaughtered, and of the 26, 20 of them were children, did not spur these hypocritical cowards to pass a single piece of new gun control legislation, why would any rational thinking person think another incident would have any effect on the process?
Aside from not selling weapons to individuals on the no fly list, I do not understand why any citizen needs to own an assault weapon capable of firing over 10 rounds per second.
I am a parent and grandparent and I am extremely apprehensive about the world they will be inheriting. We are regressing not progressing.
Aside from not selling weapons to individuals on the no fly list, I do not understand why any citizen needs to own an assault weapon capable of firing over 10 rounds per second.
I am a parent and grandparent and I am extremely apprehensive about the world they will be inheriting. We are regressing not progressing.
2
Both parties are doing their level best to appear to be tone deaf. Republican tools of the NRA defeat a common sense measure to prevent easy access to guns by people on terrorist watch lists. Meanwhile, Democrat Representative Dan Beyer of Virginia, referring to the massacre of 14 Americans in San Bernadino referred to it this way while speaking of his efforts to get members of Congress to visit mosques today, “Yesterday does make it a little harder,” Mr. Beyer said in an interview on Thursday. “It’s just another unfortunate data point. So, I think it’s more necessary than ever to go talk to the people who have nothing to do with that.”
It is just about as hard to believe that a member of Congress would refer to the massacre of 14 Americans as "an unfortunate data point" as it is to understand why the "tough on terrorism" Republicans would vote down a baby-step to keep semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of those in the country most likely to be terrorists.
This puts me in mind of what George Bernard Shaw said about democracy. "Democracy is a system of government that ensures we are governed no better than we deserve."
It is just about as hard to believe that a member of Congress would refer to the massacre of 14 Americans as "an unfortunate data point" as it is to understand why the "tough on terrorism" Republicans would vote down a baby-step to keep semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of those in the country most likely to be terrorists.
This puts me in mind of what George Bernard Shaw said about democracy. "Democracy is a system of government that ensures we are governed no better than we deserve."
2
I am a NYer, presently visiting a western "red state," where the manufacture and ownership of guns is viewed differently from my own belief system. Walk into any convenience store here, magazines featuring huge weapons (sorry, I don't know the names, but they are not the kind of hunting rifles used by Daniel Boone, although I don't believe the big game hunted has changed all that dramatically) are on every newsstand, at eye level for children (the kinds of things, in my mind, we remove from the developing minds of children…not so here!); Sunday ads for weapons (same style used in CA) stuck into newspapers along with Christmas ads. There is an understanding, amidst all the 10 Commandments billboards also present here year-round, that this is not only OK, but the America they want and will fight for…guns for everyone under the Christmas tree. I try to reconcile what is around me right now with what happened a few hundred miles west in CA, and am unable. I fear that until everyone suffers from these atrocious criminal acts, in the same way as the victims and families have suffered, no hearts and minds surrounding me at this moment will change. The innocents at a holiday gathering in California were not protected by security, as are the puffed-up members of our Congress who pontificate on protecting Constitutional rights of suspected terrorists. It terrifies me to realize, we are not "United" at all on perhaps the most important issues of our time.
2
I only read to the 3rd paragraph and I already read enough. The Republicans who voted against the bill are ANTI-AMERICA!! They are your ENEMY. There is absolutely no justification for voting against this bill To some, the way I labeled those Republicans may sound incendiary, but look at their behavior for what it is - cowardice that translates into inaction, which translates into more mass shootings. You just have to wonder what these UN-AMERICAN Republicans would think if THEIR spouse or children was shot full of holes by a native born American terrorist. They would change their tune faster than you can blink.
1
The insanity of this vote by Republican senators can be proven even by a single example: the Kouachi brothers, who were responsible for the attacks in Paris, were on U.S. terrorist watch lists, including the no-fly list.
These same Kouachi brothers would have been allowed to buy guns and explosives in this country.
Enough of the insanity. These Republican politicians, the NRA, ALEC and the Kochs all have blood on their hands. Again.
These same Kouachi brothers would have been allowed to buy guns and explosives in this country.
Enough of the insanity. These Republican politicians, the NRA, ALEC and the Kochs all have blood on their hands. Again.
3
If every member of Congress turned down NRA money, they would not only be on equal footing, they would also be free. It's a win-win.
1
This article represents at least the second editorial about the San Bernardino tragedy that directly places blame on Republican lawmakers. Maybe this is fair- but maybe not. Either way, it isn't helping a polarized country, so I'll show some restraint. OUR country needs to fix this problem now, and pointing the figure at one particular party isn't helping the country's needs. This is the need that should be prioritized.
The GOPers continue to serve two masters--the NRA, which shills for the Weapons and Ammo Industy, and their own political aspirations. Perhaps it takes a psychopath to run in the Republican Party.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
"Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it"
Camus
Camus
3
Our legislators seem, indeed, to be cowards.
But, WE voted for them.
I think it's NOW our responsibility to vote them out.
While we're looking around for alternates, I think it's equally our responsibility to "vet" them just as seriously as I used to do prior to making an equine purchase.
But, WE voted for them.
I think it's NOW our responsibility to vote them out.
While we're looking around for alternates, I think it's equally our responsibility to "vet" them just as seriously as I used to do prior to making an equine purchase.
2
I saw the interview with Paul Ryan--he couched everything in terms of "due process"--that is, we can't prevent someone from getting a gun if they are on the do not fly list because there are some mistakes on the list. He didn't put it in terms of the second amendment right to a gun, he acted like he was just protecting the due process rights of the poor guys mistakenly on the list. So, to protect maybe 1,000 people's rights to buy a gun today (never mind that they could solve the mistake and then buy a gun), we continue to let hundreds of innocent people die. That's a strange calculation.
Well I would like Mr. Ryan to address the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Seems to me that that right is so fundamental that it ought to outweigh the second amendment right to blow your neighbor away.
And today the Republican are outraged because the President hasn't labelled the San Bernardino attack as terrorism. Funny--don't recall any of them calling the Planned Parenthood attack terrorism. And their outrage about a label seems designed to avoid the discussion of how these two people bought assault weapons legally. Once again, these guys argue semantics over reality.
Well I would like Mr. Ryan to address the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Seems to me that that right is so fundamental that it ought to outweigh the second amendment right to blow your neighbor away.
And today the Republican are outraged because the President hasn't labelled the San Bernardino attack as terrorism. Funny--don't recall any of them calling the Planned Parenthood attack terrorism. And their outrage about a label seems designed to avoid the discussion of how these two people bought assault weapons legally. Once again, these guys argue semantics over reality.
6
I am lost for words to describe my feelings; this is a new low for the Republican party. They are exploiting fear in the hope that Americans turn to more guns for self protection. A nation with every citizen packing heat, looking over their shoulder in fear that the guy next to them has a bigger arsenal; an arms race that keeps the gun manufactures making ever more profits and continually increasing their contributions to the GOP. What a horrible vision for our country.
5
Any legislator who voted against these common sense proposals should be labeled for what they truly are: Soft on terrorism. They refuse to ensure the safety of Americans, irrationally. They should be thrown out of office.
4
I wish one of the moderators at the next Republican debate would take this article with them and ask each of them the question the article is referring to.
But we know what will happen. Marco Rubio will say something about terrorism that will draw a roar from the crowd which will immediately allow him to pivot and change the subject. And of course the moderators will let him get away with it.
That is why I firmly believe there should be no audience at the debates. For what? It's a distraction. The very same people at the debates can watch it on tv and cheer for the guy who says what they want to hear at home.
And for both parties the same.
But we know what will happen. Marco Rubio will say something about terrorism that will draw a roar from the crowd which will immediately allow him to pivot and change the subject. And of course the moderators will let him get away with it.
That is why I firmly believe there should be no audience at the debates. For what? It's a distraction. The very same people at the debates can watch it on tv and cheer for the guy who says what they want to hear at home.
And for both parties the same.
1
"Suspected" - As in not found guilty of anything and having full rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
First, the NY Times Editorial Board wants to close Guantanamo because it infringes on their rights based on suspicions, now, they want the US to deny people their rights for a suspicion.
I like how you interpret the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean to fit your agenda.
First, the NY Times Editorial Board wants to close Guantanamo because it infringes on their rights based on suspicions, now, they want the US to deny people their rights for a suspicion.
I like how you interpret the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean to fit your agenda.
1
With a leadership that is so willing to honer the wishes of their funding, which translates to obeying Wayne LaPiere and his radical, violence promoting non-profit called the NRA. These are not representatives, they are power drunk addicts who ignore common sense, at the great cost of their constituents to get their fix.
2
Typical garbage from the politically correct, elitist progressives. The sort of attitude that lead neighbors of the San Bernardino terrorists to not report their activities because they didn't want to seem racially insensitive. Common sense would flag individuals who travel to countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. for extended periods of time ... but, oh no, that's "racial profiling" so the solution -- let's take away everyone's guns.
You're all so smug, indoctrinated and intellectually deficient!
You're all so smug, indoctrinated and intellectually deficient!
1
The editors are right to call the GOP's response to the San Bernardino massacre what it is: cowardice. However, we should also recognize that the Republican parroting of the NRA's positions represents something that conservatives themselves have long complained about: political correctness. In the NRA-dominated culture that has won nearly every fight over gun control, it is an unforgivable sin to support any restriction whatsoever on the purchase of firearms and ammunition. The NRA would have us living in a land of "anyone, any gun, anytime - no questions asked." Sure, Congress could pass a law barring people on a terror watch list from buying firearms, but that would offend the tender sensitivities of Mr. LaPierre and his minions. These massacres rarely happen anywhere outside the US, but we can't lift a finger to stop them because the common sense that governs gun legislation in other nations is politically incorrect in America.
2
This is a distraction from the real issue: that President Obama is failing to keep Americans safe from terrorism.
California has extremely strict gun laws, and all of those failed to stop these murderers.
In addition, President Obama has scaled back surveillance programs that would have identified these radicals and stopped this terror plot.
The Editorial Board is chasing after their proposed solution while ignoring the facts that:
1) their proposal wouldn't have stopped this, or other, murders,
2) they support the dismantling of surveillance that would have stopped them.
In other words, this Editorial is 100% wrong on the facts. But I guess it's more important to protect democrats than to protect the American people...
California has extremely strict gun laws, and all of those failed to stop these murderers.
In addition, President Obama has scaled back surveillance programs that would have identified these radicals and stopped this terror plot.
The Editorial Board is chasing after their proposed solution while ignoring the facts that:
1) their proposal wouldn't have stopped this, or other, murders,
2) they support the dismantling of surveillance that would have stopped them.
In other words, this Editorial is 100% wrong on the facts. But I guess it's more important to protect democrats than to protect the American people...
1
"Thou shalt not kill," intoned the candidate at the prayer breakfast. Those assembled raised their hands to the sky. "Amen!"
At the early afternoon rally, the candidate brought the crowd to ecstasy with "God gave us the right to own guns, only God can take them away."
In the limo, on the way to meet with those who really mattered, the candidate rubbed both palms together and smiled. "Follow the money. Follow the money."
At the early afternoon rally, the candidate brought the crowd to ecstasy with "God gave us the right to own guns, only God can take them away."
In the limo, on the way to meet with those who really mattered, the candidate rubbed both palms together and smiled. "Follow the money. Follow the money."
2
There are 700,000 names on the terrorist watch list. That's up from 47,000 when Bush left office. A person is placed on that list based on "reasonable suspicion", the criteria for which are vague.
This makes for a great soundbite: "Terrorist son the list shouldn't get guns!" All it does, however, is highlight what a poorly constructed list it is. No gun owner in his right mind would agree to such a list being used to deny him his rights.
This makes for a great soundbite: "Terrorist son the list shouldn't get guns!" All it does, however, is highlight what a poorly constructed list it is. No gun owner in his right mind would agree to such a list being used to deny him his rights.
What do you expect from the Republican clown car of presidential candidates or the Republican wimps in the US Senate that will NOT stand up to the NRA? They are chicken hawk cowards!
3
If your state has a senator who voted against this you might call them up and ask them why they support arming terrorists.
3
Let the American people know that the NRA-controlled Republican majority explicitly supported arming known terrorists by preventing their names from being placed on the FBI gun watch list. They have also prevented expanding the list to keep weapons from the documented insane. The next time (now nearly on a weekly basis) a cop or a child gets gunned down by one of these NRA-protected groups, remember that the NRA leadership and its obedient Congressional minions are open to being "accessories before the fact" of murder. Congress is immunized from such a major criminal charge, but the NRA is not. It's time to act and show Americans that the law means something. That's the job of DoJ but it too is afraid. Meanwhile, the NRA is making a mockery, not a talisman, of the 2nd Amendment, which needs to explicitly include known terrorists and court-ordered pyschotics in the definition of the Founding Fathers' "militia."
1
Not until a large majority of Americans, including members of Congress, have lost a loved one to one of these senseless mass shootings will we even begin to get serious about the gun problem in America. In the mean time, the body count will just keep rising.
2
There isn't a sane person in the United States who, after hearing the shooters name and a brief description of the attack, thought this was a situation of workplace violence. The narrative of this president and the NYT is the only reason that this ridiculousness would ever be uttered - never mind the lead paragraph of an editorial that doesn't attempt to be politically neutral in any way. George Orwell is rolling over in his grave as politicized narratives about right wing terrorists being more dangerous than muslim radicals are being spun on left wing websites. Who you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?
1
The editorial states: "Mr. Ryan’s Senate colleagues demonstrated that they are more worried about the possibility that someone might be turned away from a gun shop than shielding the public against violent criminals."
These people are nothing but shameless cowards, and utterly beneath contempt. How nice for Paul Ryan and the other bought and paid for NRA sock puppets in Congress to mouth platitudes about being "tough on terrorism" and offer cynical, empty "prayers" for the innocent people slaughtered by NRA-enabled domestic terrorists, all the while working in a place in which guns aren't allowed and which provides 24-hour high-level security protection, available to them even when they're not at their so-called "job." What rank, lily-livered hypocrites.
These people are nothing but shameless cowards, and utterly beneath contempt. How nice for Paul Ryan and the other bought and paid for NRA sock puppets in Congress to mouth platitudes about being "tough on terrorism" and offer cynical, empty "prayers" for the innocent people slaughtered by NRA-enabled domestic terrorists, all the while working in a place in which guns aren't allowed and which provides 24-hour high-level security protection, available to them even when they're not at their so-called "job." What rank, lily-livered hypocrites.
1
On the issue of gun control, our Republican leaders act as fundamentalists, in that their actions are based on a literal interpretation of the second amendment. The same who criticize the President for failing to properly verbalize the roots of jihadist terrorism are themselves a living example of the folly and danger of fundamentalism.
3
Our congressional leaders need to get up off their knees and do something about gun violence.Offering prayers but failing to act make their prayers ring hollow http://envisioningtheamericandream.com/2015/12/04/gun-violence-prayer-is...
4
You need a license to drive a car, own a dog, practice medicine, psychology, law, or be a hairdresser or tattooer. For many professions there are ongoing continuing education requirements you must meet to keep your license. Cars have legislated safety features and emissions requirements. Lots of states have helmet laws for motorcyclists. So why can't the type and number of guns and the amount of ammunition people are able to buy be regulated and limited? Not to mention imposing stringent and really expensive licensing requirements. Once again the Republican party demonstrates it has absolutely no regard for the welfare and safety of the American people and only cares about being re-elected with buckets of dirty, blood-soaked money from the gun lobby. Disgusting, shameful, and consistent with GOP values.
5
.....Political correctness just killed 14 Americans.
Fearful of being labelled "racist' -whatever that means- the Redland neighbour of the Muslim terrorist failed to call the cops , when she saw four Middle eastern men acting strangely , receiving large box deliveries and working lat into the night in the garage .
The Feds missed this cell.
Forewarned by an alert neighbour ( we are not talking Stasi here for crying out loud) fourteen American lives could have been saved.
It is time to dump political correctness and use common sense and speak plainly.
Mosques should be monitored by the cops -there is nothing wrong with so-called 'Profiling' -its the Middle Eastern Muslims who are the terrorists, no-one else.
Perhaps if your precious East side liberal establishments get blown up, you NY liberals will finally get a clue .
Fearful of being labelled "racist' -whatever that means- the Redland neighbour of the Muslim terrorist failed to call the cops , when she saw four Middle eastern men acting strangely , receiving large box deliveries and working lat into the night in the garage .
The Feds missed this cell.
Forewarned by an alert neighbour ( we are not talking Stasi here for crying out loud) fourteen American lives could have been saved.
It is time to dump political correctness and use common sense and speak plainly.
Mosques should be monitored by the cops -there is nothing wrong with so-called 'Profiling' -its the Middle Eastern Muslims who are the terrorists, no-one else.
Perhaps if your precious East side liberal establishments get blown up, you NY liberals will finally get a clue .
2
If you weren't sure before, then here is proof that the current Republican party is hurting America. People of good conscious within the party need to end the madness. This is just insane.
4
Yes, people have due process. That's why several prominent Republicans loudly champion torture, indefinite detention without charge or trial, mass surveillance without a warrant, and the forced registration and tracking of religious minorities: because people have due process.
We should also not take advantage of tragedy to purely for political gain. That's why many Republicans responded to a terrorist attack in a foreign land by demonizing a religious minority and excoriating refugees fleeing a devastating war: because nobody should use an atrocity to score cheap political points.
Thank you to so many Republican leaders who are setting such a fine civic example for the rest of us to follow.
We should also not take advantage of tragedy to purely for political gain. That's why many Republicans responded to a terrorist attack in a foreign land by demonizing a religious minority and excoriating refugees fleeing a devastating war: because nobody should use an atrocity to score cheap political points.
Thank you to so many Republican leaders who are setting such a fine civic example for the rest of us to follow.
If Republicans can so blithely attack Planned Parenthood, why can't Democrats go after the NRA? Time for a Bernie style "revolution"!
2
Its strange that Paul Ryan doesn't want the government "to arbitrarily put them on a list" when that's what Republicans do every election cycle to dissuade potential democratic voters who are minorities. The blood of every American is on the hands of these fools, both Democrat and Republican alike, that refuse to deal with this issue. I, and many others are sick and tired of hearing the same old song over and over from gun owners and their Congressional lapdogs that these mass murders have nothing to do with gun ownership. Get rid of all the guns as far as I'm concerned. I've never owned one, never needed one and don't gauge my patriotism or safety by how much firepower I'm packing.
1
Republican Senators refuse to pass this common-sense legislation for a simple reason: the terrorists' ability to buy guns in the US suits their agenda of maintaining power by keeping the American populous in a constant state of fear. Mass murder, while objectionable on moral grounds, strengthen the hand of the right in many ways. Voters want protection from these evils. They want politicians who talk about rounding up the bad guys, putting people in camps, waterboarding suspects, etc.
In short, it's in the best interest for Republicans for the carnage to continue.
In short, it's in the best interest for Republicans for the carnage to continue.
4
Why don't you put it in terms that the Republican cowards and chicken hawks would use: "Senator Cruz and the rest of this Republican allies voted for legislation to arm terrorists in the United States so they could mass-murder people in San Bernardino all over this country, even in his home state."
John
John
If Jeb Bush thinks this was an act of terror, what does he call what we did to Iraq...for no reason? Get a grip Jeb!
This is grandstanding at its worst in DC. The timing of this bill is only meant to make Republicans look bad and distract from this terrorist event. It's standing on the bodies of 14 people to score political points and it's revolting. Sadly my expectations are so low I am only disappointed not surprised.
Anyone can land on a "no fly" list and theoretically that list could be millions of people and whomever our police/FBI do not like. Furthermore there is no Due Process for someone on the list. They are guilty of something hence on the list. I had a co-worker who had the same name as someone on the list and he had to go to the airport 2 hours earlier than everyone else because he knew it would take that long to explain he was someone else.
Anyone can land on a "no fly" list and theoretically that list could be millions of people and whomever our police/FBI do not like. Furthermore there is no Due Process for someone on the list. They are guilty of something hence on the list. I had a co-worker who had the same name as someone on the list and he had to go to the airport 2 hours earlier than everyone else because he knew it would take that long to explain he was someone else.
If you're on the FBI terrorist watch list and can't get on a plane, the least of your problems should be that you can't buy a gun. No due process? The solution should be to challenge your name on the list, not automatically be allowed to buy an assault weapon. It's just sheer stupidity that a potential terrorist could buy an assault weapon and be able to go to an airport where they would be prohibited from boarding a plane. And that's what Rubio, Cruz, Paul and Graham feel makes sense to them.
None of these Republican candidates are worth a tinker's-dam and it's obvious that they are slaves in the thrall of the NRA and don't give a hoot about the safety of ordinary Americans. But, of course, let's repeal Obamacare and cut funding for treating the mentally ill. Trouble is the average terrorist is not mentally ill by any diagnostic criteria, though the thought processes of Rubio, et al might qualify.
None of these Republican candidates are worth a tinker's-dam and it's obvious that they are slaves in the thrall of the NRA and don't give a hoot about the safety of ordinary Americans. But, of course, let's repeal Obamacare and cut funding for treating the mentally ill. Trouble is the average terrorist is not mentally ill by any diagnostic criteria, though the thought processes of Rubio, et al might qualify.
The degree of irresponsibility is beyond belief.
1
I have a question: Why can't Pres. Obama issue an executive order banning the sale of guns to people on the terrorist watch list or on the no-fly list?
1
It is inconceivable that any sane person would vote against a measure to deny gun purchases to potential terrorists. Clearly those members of Congress who did so are simply out of touch with the reality of terrorism. They have access to all the FBI reports, intelligence estimates, and the like. But they clearly don't have a clue when it comes to the cold, hard reality.
Our political system, once a democracy, is clearly broken when the insane are running the asylum.
Our political system, once a democracy, is clearly broken when the insane are running the asylum.
This is no longer the day of muskets. Our forefathers could not have foreseen the day of multiple shootings by AK-47s and the like. Muskets shot once and had to be re-loaded. The Republicans rely on their donations by the NRS too much. We no longer belong to the NRA. We consider them now to be just as much a terrorist group.
1
The problem is that legislation like that enables a "thought police" state. Now liberals would like that, it would be so convenient to censure anyone with a differing opinion but the definition of "terrorist" here would quickly encompass everyone that owns a gun.
Real nice that "liberals" now think it's OK to deny civil rights to people who haven't even been charged with a crime, let along convicted of anything, all because some union-protected bureaucrat put their names on an opaque "government watch list" with tens of thousands of names on it, most of them perfectly innocent, with zero accountability, and which provides no mechanism to challenge one's inclusion on it.
Progressives are literally leading us down the road to fascism, and acting all smug as they do so. Shame on you people.
Progressives are literally leading us down the road to fascism, and acting all smug as they do so. Shame on you people.
1
The American public needs to put their money where there mouth is. If they want gun restrictions, they need to vote in candidates who will do that in the next election. You need to vote in this country for democracy to work. Vote out the people who are against sensible gun restrictions. Otherwise, the public is just as complicit as Republicans (and anyone else who votes against sensible gun restrictions) with the slaughter in this country.
Unfortunately, even if democrats take control back, we're left with a substantial portion of our populace who have already absorbed intense Islamophobia and a total lack of any sense of moderation. Evidently Republicans hate government, yet they'll do anything to retain control....of the very government they'd use to put all of us at risk of war. Odd that they cherish ONLY the 2nd amendment of the constitution, not all of it. Especially not the part that guarantees the right to vote, which would allow true representation of the American people's wishes re gun access.
Do we really need more legislation? What is the president doing, besides talking? Bush was deaf to warnings of 911. He then covered up the role of his Saudi friends, exposed in detail in 29 pages of the Joint Commission Report, a coverup which Obama has continued. The FBI, which is under the direction of the president, does not have a good track record, and fell down on the job in Boston. Nonetheless, it should be deployed into full action in concert with local police forces. We have the resources to prevent a Paris style attack, and these mass killings, they just need to be mobilized.
Common sense dictates that anyone on the no-fly list should be denied access to weapons. The same goes for those that has been treated for mental illness. These names should be maintained on a national high-risk database. However, like all things in this divided country, even though this is common sense, there needs to be a quid pro quo. I suggest a nation-wide concealed carry permit law so Americans can once again defend themselves against domestic terrorism and other types of mass killings. Yesterday, the NY Times reported that a mass killing averaged one every day in this country over the past year. We need to be allowed to carry a weapon rather than die defenseless. I would rather die knowing that I may have saved other’s lives because I was armed. If perpetrators knew that people were carrying, it could, in and of itself, be a deterrent. There would need to be mandatory training and certification programs. My wife and I are not gun enthusiasts, have never owned guns or supported guns for our 60+ years. Unfortunately, the risk is now too great not to acquire and be trained in safe gun ownership and usage for our protection. Finally, new gun regulations are not likely to address most of mass killings. With 3.5 million guns in circulation, it is way too easy to obtain guns illegally. Those bent on killing as many innocents as possible are not going to be deterred by guns laws.
There are 750,000 people on that list. Let the government ban guns and there will be 75,000,000 people on that list.
The inability of the Rebuplican congress to deal with an issue that speaks of our times to the detriment of the country is deplorable. The leadership simply lacks the political will, of not governance in basic form, to address domestic terror in parallel with international terrorism. It is evident that the special interests in this country enable our elected officials to disregard their oath for opportunistic, political gain.
Watching Trump et al twisting the argument for their own opportunistic ambitions blindly going forward with rhetoric that is not only an insult to the institution to the executive branch is shameful. Hate speech. And then there is Paul Ryan. A more unprepared and poor choice for Speaker of the House who will not allow the interests of the country to interfere with his parochial, familal desires, ibeyond the pale. His adolescent approach to solving problems "we" face, Repulblican and Democrat, is to speak out that his "party" needs an entire packet of positions against the current Democratic leadership. To me, he appears like a child, a man with little imagination to address our ideals. Governance is not even in the vocabulary of our Republican Party.
A proper metaphors would be McCarthyIsm. The climate of anti-Obama messaging is so predictable. What happened to supporting the office of "our" president when the call for bipartisan action is required. Edward Murrow is turning over in his grave.
Is this what American Exceptionalism is?
Watching Trump et al twisting the argument for their own opportunistic ambitions blindly going forward with rhetoric that is not only an insult to the institution to the executive branch is shameful. Hate speech. And then there is Paul Ryan. A more unprepared and poor choice for Speaker of the House who will not allow the interests of the country to interfere with his parochial, familal desires, ibeyond the pale. His adolescent approach to solving problems "we" face, Repulblican and Democrat, is to speak out that his "party" needs an entire packet of positions against the current Democratic leadership. To me, he appears like a child, a man with little imagination to address our ideals. Governance is not even in the vocabulary of our Republican Party.
A proper metaphors would be McCarthyIsm. The climate of anti-Obama messaging is so predictable. What happened to supporting the office of "our" president when the call for bipartisan action is required. Edward Murrow is turning over in his grave.
Is this what American Exceptionalism is?
Wow. The lack of intellectual thought in this article is astounding. First, is the Times editorial board saying that individuals should not be given individual rights and govt should be able to stick someone on a list depriving them of civil rights without due process? Really? In this case, national security is at risk, so I am inclined to look the other way if that did happen, but morally that is wrong.
More important, every Republican quote the editorial board uses is spot on, absolutely correct.
What this shows is not total bias on the part of the editorial board, just pure, shocking ignorance.
More important, every Republican quote the editorial board uses is spot on, absolutely correct.
What this shows is not total bias on the part of the editorial board, just pure, shocking ignorance.
Were these people on any terrorist watchlist?
To the contrary. The woman was "vetted" by our secure immigration process.
To the contrary. The woman was "vetted" by our secure immigration process.
The Republicans who block this legislation are cowards, and hypocrites. Totally Disgusting and mindboggling.
1
In every House and Senate race in 2016 in which a Republican incumbent is running for re-election, the Democratic ads should all say "Rep. X" or "Sen. Y" voted to arm terrorists so they can gun down innocent citizens in America."
Let's see, Republican governors and legislatures have been placing limits and restrictions on voting to address the largely non-existent problem of voter fraud. Yet, when the very real dangers posed by the plethora of weapons, especially the assault weapons that are so plentiful in the US, somehow our Constitutional freedoms make any solutions a threat to our liberties. The right to vote is a far better guarantee that we will retain our civil rights than our right to bear arms. The GOP's elected officials are reducing our real power in favor of semblance of rights and empowerment.
it's time to call a spade a spade. There are too many guns in the US, period. It doesn't matter who bought them, when, or how. There is no purpose in a civil society for a civilian to be in possession of an assault weapon of any kind.
1
A disgrace pure and simple. The Republicans aren't even paying close attention any more. If a law says no to guns, the GOP reflexively assumes it's a liberal one and votes "no" out of hand. When the Congress won't take rational steps to protect the nation's people, we have reached an impasse at which we need to replace or simply bypass the Congress and push the most responsible state leaders to make these choices.
1
Your article left out information about how one gets a spot on a terrorist watch list. The answer is: that is a government secret. How do you get off? You don't. Should we endorse a system in which people are denied a constitutional right by the government for secret reasons and where no due process exists?
People in this country have to quit panicking about terrorist acts and striking out at our fellow citizens' rights.
By the way, when a person on a watch list buys a gun legally, federal agents are apprised of that fact. If they are not allowed to buy guns legally, they will buy them illegally and no one will know. I know it's disappointing, but regulations just won't stop mass murder.
Want to stop violence? Tell your elected officials to quit killing innocent people around the world and writing it off as "collateral damage". In case you haven't noticed, America is a violent, militaristic nation--it should not surprise us that there have been so many violent, military-like killings within our borders. The predisposition to violence needs to be fixed, starting with our own government.
People in this country have to quit panicking about terrorist acts and striking out at our fellow citizens' rights.
By the way, when a person on a watch list buys a gun legally, federal agents are apprised of that fact. If they are not allowed to buy guns legally, they will buy them illegally and no one will know. I know it's disappointing, but regulations just won't stop mass murder.
Want to stop violence? Tell your elected officials to quit killing innocent people around the world and writing it off as "collateral damage". In case you haven't noticed, America is a violent, militaristic nation--it should not surprise us that there have been so many violent, military-like killings within our borders. The predisposition to violence needs to be fixed, starting with our own government.
1
Senator Edward Kennedy was at one time on the no fly list.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html This one example illustrates the problem with using a government list to prevent a person from exercising their 2nd amendment right. I wonder how many on the NYT editorial board would want to use a supplementary federal government list to determine who can vote, another constitutional right.
What becomes so blazingly clear when mass shootings like this occur is that the anti-gun crowd (including the NYT Editorial Board) really wants to do is take away every gun from every law-abiding gun owner.
Just look at today's digital front page! How many "gun" stories can you count?
Look, I'm a gun owner and shooter, well trained by the US Army in gun safety. I fully support background checks for all gun sales, closing the gun show loophole and registration of all firearms, and I refuse to join the NRA.
BUT, I gotta admit at times like these that my NRA-member fellow shooters appear correct: They fear that all this talk of moderate and sensible reform is just the camel's nose sliding under the tent and what the anti-gunners REALLY want is complete prohibition.
Face it, NYT Editorial Board, you guys are just as zealous in your own way as Wayne LaPierre is in his. You need to cool you jets if you want credibility and support from us moderate gun owners.
Just look at today's digital front page! How many "gun" stories can you count?
Look, I'm a gun owner and shooter, well trained by the US Army in gun safety. I fully support background checks for all gun sales, closing the gun show loophole and registration of all firearms, and I refuse to join the NRA.
BUT, I gotta admit at times like these that my NRA-member fellow shooters appear correct: They fear that all this talk of moderate and sensible reform is just the camel's nose sliding under the tent and what the anti-gunners REALLY want is complete prohibition.
Face it, NYT Editorial Board, you guys are just as zealous in your own way as Wayne LaPierre is in his. You need to cool you jets if you want credibility and support from us moderate gun owners.
It's going to be an ugly election. an uglier election.
GOP candidates blame President Obama for mass killings while allowing people on the F.B.I's terrorist watchlist to buy assault rifles and semiautomatic pistols.
Does this position make any sense? Hardly seems possible that the GOP candidates can make this argument with a straight face. You are on the no-fly list, but feel free to buy assault rifles. Seriously?
The majority of gun owners and, yes, NRA members, are in favor of reasonable gun regulations. The NRA will not budge from its inflexible no-regulation position. It's way past time for the American people to put GOP legislators under withering pressure to change course. The ship we are currently on is just lurching from one disaster to another.
GOP's solution: Blame the President. Where are the serious proposals that will reverse this tragic pattern? The inaction is shameful, disheartening and the American people are being put in clear and present danger. Outrageous.
Does this position make any sense? Hardly seems possible that the GOP candidates can make this argument with a straight face. You are on the no-fly list, but feel free to buy assault rifles. Seriously?
The majority of gun owners and, yes, NRA members, are in favor of reasonable gun regulations. The NRA will not budge from its inflexible no-regulation position. It's way past time for the American people to put GOP legislators under withering pressure to change course. The ship we are currently on is just lurching from one disaster to another.
GOP's solution: Blame the President. Where are the serious proposals that will reverse this tragic pattern? The inaction is shameful, disheartening and the American people are being put in clear and present danger. Outrageous.
So, I guess you could say that the NRA supports Isis.
Ironically, this appeared in today's paper in a related piece about the victims:
Robert Adams, 40, another co-worker and victim... recently posted a quote from Albert Einstein to his profile: “The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
Robert Adams, 40, another co-worker and victim... recently posted a quote from Albert Einstein to his profile: “The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
1
This vote is insane. In fact it is antithetical to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was to provide for an armed militia to protect the fledgling nation for foreign adversaries. Now the Senate votes to put the guns into hands of the adversaries. That makes no sense what so ever!
These terrorists, and that is what they were, would have killed people with whatever weapons were available if guns were not available. Attempts to make this an argument about guns is a great disservice to the American public because it detracts from the real threat we face. Furthermore, as others have noted none of the existing proposals for gun restrictions and background checks would have prevented this tragedy or most of the other shootings. I'm all for solutions that work but these simply don't. Lastly, those that want to deny due process and leave constitutional rights up to bureaucrats should think twice, you may just get what you ask for.
The same night as Senate Republicans voted against closing the gun show and internet sale loophole and prohibiting those on TSA's no fly list from purchasing guns, these very same Republicans voted to defund Planned Parenthood which they claim to hate because they [Congressional Republicans] are pro-life. A little bit of moral inconsistently there.
Last night's votes were an example of the power and corrosive influence of money on our political system. The gun lobby pays for these guys' votes, those behind organizations that are fighting for sane gun laws, just don't have the money to buy enough Congressmen and Senators.
Last night's votes were an example of the power and corrosive influence of money on our political system. The gun lobby pays for these guys' votes, those behind organizations that are fighting for sane gun laws, just don't have the money to buy enough Congressmen and Senators.
Wow. What the Republican Presidential candidates are offering up as excuses takes the cake in irresponsible government behavior. Their actions, or rather their inaction, puts our lives at risk. How can they argue that the main reason for supporting conceal carry laws is because it makes us safer, then refuse to pass this common sense law that would make it illegal for a suspected terrorist to buy a weapon, endangering our lives? How can they support a law that prevents these same people from flying on planes, yet allow them to buy guns? And then they argue that this is Obama's fault because of HIS lack of action. Ow! It's so stupidly insane it hurts.
People, we have to keep this fact in our heads. This crazy, dangerous dynamic exists because of our campaign finance laws. Money trumps everything else in our election system, including how a Senator or Congressman votes on proposed legislation. Most Americans don't hear about the votes cast in Congress, but almost all Americans see the tv ads that a candidate runs. Point being, until we do something about how our elected officials pay for their political campaigns, until we take away the leverage power that industries hold over the heads of our politicians, there's little we can do about this madness.
One last point to those of you who support Hillary Clinton. Yes, Hillary holds positions that are tough on guns. But she hasn't mentioned squat about campaign finance reform. Demand it from her, or don't give her your support.
People, we have to keep this fact in our heads. This crazy, dangerous dynamic exists because of our campaign finance laws. Money trumps everything else in our election system, including how a Senator or Congressman votes on proposed legislation. Most Americans don't hear about the votes cast in Congress, but almost all Americans see the tv ads that a candidate runs. Point being, until we do something about how our elected officials pay for their political campaigns, until we take away the leverage power that industries hold over the heads of our politicians, there's little we can do about this madness.
One last point to those of you who support Hillary Clinton. Yes, Hillary holds positions that are tough on guns. But she hasn't mentioned squat about campaign finance reform. Demand it from her, or don't give her your support.
1
This behavior is borderline treason in my opinion. At least dereliction of duty. It is truly shocking.
Every time Trump makes a statement filled with innuendo, but no proof, it reminds me of Joe McCarthy. I was not even born when he began, so I have just read about his tactics over the years. Trump speaks just to his 'red meat' base; he is not changing anyone's mind.
And Cruz is a piece of work: He is in the 'blame Obama for everything' mode. 'This President...' seems to come out of his mouth every day.
And Cruz is a piece of work: He is in the 'blame Obama for everything' mode. 'This President...' seems to come out of his mouth every day.
maybe those in Congress who don't want the laws changed, are afraid they themselves wouldn't qualify for gun ownership.....now there is a dangerous crowd if there ever was one - even without the guns
1
Over 90% of Americans support rational gun control such as background checks.
Over 80% of Americans support campaign finance reform and are against Citizen United.
Yet neither of these measures get any traction in Congress.
Need anymore proof that our Congress is brought and sold by monied interest?
Oh and another thing, our police system is in sore need of reform - we have to move away from ticket and arrest quotas and promoting officers based on that while allowing the blue wall to cover up corruption:
http://henrycountyreport.com/blog/2015/12/01/leaked-documents-reveal-dot...
Over 80% of Americans support campaign finance reform and are against Citizen United.
Yet neither of these measures get any traction in Congress.
Need anymore proof that our Congress is brought and sold by monied interest?
Oh and another thing, our police system is in sore need of reform - we have to move away from ticket and arrest quotas and promoting officers based on that while allowing the blue wall to cover up corruption:
http://henrycountyreport.com/blog/2015/12/01/leaked-documents-reveal-dot...
Time to move on. No Congress or legislature is going to pass meaningful gun regulations. But what would have happened if instead of a mass shooting the couple who launched the attack in San Bernardino had had a fire in their home? Businesses that handle even tiny amounts of lethal materials are required to inform local officials, maintain appropriate safeguards against exposure by the public and first responders, why shouldn't those hoarding vast quantities of ammunition and arsenals be required to do the same as a matter of public health and safety? No need to involve Congress or the NRA; local and for that matter national regulations are already on the books. Can't they be enforced in new and imaginative ways?
When I was a young teenager many years ago, a gun saved my life when 4 grown men tried to break in to my home while my parents were out for dinner. I was home alone babysitting my 9 year old brother. I own guns and respect them. My sons were taught them same. We follow the law. Folks that would kill 14 people do not follow the law regarding murder. They will not follow the law regarding guns. What seems to get lost in this discussion is that guns are one tool in the tool box for killing people. There are hundreds more. In San Bernardino the killers had a dozen or so pipe bombs. Is there a move to ban pipe coming down the road. The tools are the tools. It is who choses to use them in an illegal manner that we need to address. We need a change, but outlawing guns, knives, pipes, autos, fire, or anything else that can be used to kill someone does not seem practical to me. We outlawed all sorts of drugs from crack to heroin, and they are still widely dispersed on our streets.
I would like to have a legal expert way in on whether or not this proposed gun buying ban is actually constitutional? The "due-process" clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees due process before someone would be deprived of property. I would think that if this proposal would become law, that it would take about two minutes to be taken to court to be challenged. But, I guess that doesn't matter to some.
At face, it would appear that Republicans are fighting for their constitutional right to bear arms. I would submit that what is driving their blood thirst, ironically, is their contempt for our democracy. Their fear, as inconceivable as it is, is that without easy access to guns they will not be able to protect themselves from our government when "that day" shall come. Mass shootings in America merely feeds their paranoia and consequent need to protect themselves from our government.
If you think about it you will realize that this was yet another stupid feel-good measure that would have hamstrung honest people while having no effect on evil-doers.
Free Speech, protected by the 1st Amendment, has allowed for the 24/7 hate spewing from talk radio, TV, etc for a couple of decades now, almost background noise to some, but to others, the only thing they listen to.
Our lobbying laws permit access to our elected officials who in turn always appear to vote with their wallets instead of their minds
The country is now divided, split, and may never come together to solve these issues like unrestricted access to weapons...I understand the us vs the GOV thing, but for the 5-10 percent of the general population who may be somewhat unstable...its a possible death sentence for the rest of us
Our lobbying laws permit access to our elected officials who in turn always appear to vote with their wallets instead of their minds
The country is now divided, split, and may never come together to solve these issues like unrestricted access to weapons...I understand the us vs the GOV thing, but for the 5-10 percent of the general population who may be somewhat unstable...its a possible death sentence for the rest of us
1
The GOP is afraid they'll further erode their voter base. Unlike the 60's, most terrorists these days are staunchly conservative.
If the bill were re-introduced with a provision to kill Obamacare, would Republicans still vote no?
1
The real reason is if they agree how will they keep THEIR own "lone wolf" terrorists armed with weapons that can shoot up schools, theaters, health clinics , black churches etc? If the law was specific to just MUSLIMS I bet they'd be for it. Ask, Donald or Ben I'd wager that's what they'd want and say it.
I agree, guns don't kill, people kill.
Guns just make them more lethal.
Simple enough for you GOP?
Guns just make them more lethal.
Simple enough for you GOP?
3
Not that it changes the outcome but, Republican Senators John McCain and Olympia Snow also voted for this bill. Democrat Heidi Heitkamp voted with the Republicans.
1
The Republicans are all bought and paid for by the NRA, and so are too many Democrats. They are cowards and complicit in the murder of countless innocents. It is beyond frustrating to see how weak, stupid and ineffective our national legislature has become.
1
I understand the guns used here were legally purchased, but most shootings still come from stolen weapons. If I thought repealing the Second Amendment would stop all of this killing, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, people who don't care much what the law says will always get their guns.
There are other stronger measures to prevent domestic terrorism that need to be considered. For example, following September 11, 2001, John Ashcroft testified to the need for more information sharing between the FBI and the CIA.
With regard to other incidents, such as the recent one at that abortion clinic, we need some very careful measures to screen out the next homicidal maniac. For every thousand or so dysfunctional people out there, who suffer a few failed marriages and maybe a skirmish with the law, one will be the next mass murderer. It's too bad we don't have a branch of psychiatry working for the Federal and state governments specially trained to identify that one.
There are other stronger measures to prevent domestic terrorism that need to be considered. For example, following September 11, 2001, John Ashcroft testified to the need for more information sharing between the FBI and the CIA.
With regard to other incidents, such as the recent one at that abortion clinic, we need some very careful measures to screen out the next homicidal maniac. For every thousand or so dysfunctional people out there, who suffer a few failed marriages and maybe a skirmish with the law, one will be the next mass murderer. It's too bad we don't have a branch of psychiatry working for the Federal and state governments specially trained to identify that one.
The Republican Party is owned by the NRA which in turn is owned by gun and ammo manufacturers. Each time a "terrorist" incident occurs and the general public starts "looking over its shoulder" gun and ammunition sales increase.
Is it any wonder then why Republican senators and the NRA don't want to prevent gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list? Just say'in.
Is it any wonder then why Republican senators and the NRA don't want to prevent gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list? Just say'in.
OK, Repubs, if this legislation is not the right way to go, what is? What are you working on?
I submit that you are prostitutes, providing paid-for gratification to the NRA
I submit that you are prostitutes, providing paid-for gratification to the NRA
1
I'm no friend of the gun lobby or NRA, and think stringent gun control is the most important policy change we need today from Congress. It's shameful that Congress talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. I'm a classic Rockefeller Republican, but after this month's events will vote for Democrats across the board in every election until the Republicans work up the courage to wean themselves from the NRA.
That said, I'm wondering if the FBI's terrorist watch list is, under current law, confidential, i.e., does someone on the list know that he or she is on the list. If it is confidential, prohibiting people on the list from buying guns would entail a policy decision to make the list public. That in turn could lead to all sorts of consequences, the most important being that potential terrorists would know they're being watched. (It also would likely create a whole new practice area for lawyers suing to get their clients off the list, etc.)
The news reports indicate that at least some weapons this pathetic Islamic couple used in San Bernardino were bought legally. This is an outrage.
Regardless of whether the FBI list needs to be kept secret, Congress could still enact some very tough gun laws, yet fails repeatedly to do so. Enough.
That said, I'm wondering if the FBI's terrorist watch list is, under current law, confidential, i.e., does someone on the list know that he or she is on the list. If it is confidential, prohibiting people on the list from buying guns would entail a policy decision to make the list public. That in turn could lead to all sorts of consequences, the most important being that potential terrorists would know they're being watched. (It also would likely create a whole new practice area for lawyers suing to get their clients off the list, etc.)
The news reports indicate that at least some weapons this pathetic Islamic couple used in San Bernardino were bought legally. This is an outrage.
Regardless of whether the FBI list needs to be kept secret, Congress could still enact some very tough gun laws, yet fails repeatedly to do so. Enough.
1
Courage is in very small amounts these days...their silence is deafening.
But the NRA's money will keep them silent.
But the NRA's money will keep them silent.
1
Mass shootings: would that include law enforcement killing unarmed blacks; the military killing unarmed foreign civilians ("collateral damage") or government selling hundreds of thousands of assault rifles, RPGs, land mines and chemical weapons to "insurgents" that then kill women, children, the elderly and those deemed an enemy with no due process? Otherwise, today's front-page NYT is a case study in thematic public relations manipulation. Four stories nested together: line-up photos of the purported deceased (representing every age, sex and color) tied to Jewish-Christian heritage; a story on the conveniently deceased suspects and their allegiance to Muslim sects announced, of course, through social media; a blown-up picture and story of stockpiled guns in Australia (a gun confiscation act by executive order under pretext); an implication of impropriety and veiled threat by defining the suspects as living behind a "facade suburban normality" (could that be you, America?) and a photo-op of show and tell of the suspect's purported guns and ammunition (all on the "hot list" gun confiscation advocates) with implications as to executive order action in the face of legitimate congressional deliberation. All tied together naturally, under the memetic of "terrorism." America is under assault, and it isn't from guns.
1
President Obama should have said that he's completely against this bill and he'd veto it...then it would have passed...
1
Republican members of Congress won't do anything about guns until Congress itself becomes a target.
3
They are cowards and traitors to our country! Nothing more. Every Congreessmen that voted against this must be exposed as the NRA puppets they are!! Expose everyone of them!! It's time to take sanity back.
1
Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you truly believe that you can keep guns away from suspected terrorists, then I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you.
The issue of mass killings and terrorism goes so much deeper than just gun control. You've got mental illness, conflicted religious beliefs, anti-abortion activists, terrorists, and people who are just plain going nuts in this crazy world we have created for ourselves.
And for those who believe that God can't fix this problem, who do you think all of those individuals, in the midst of being fired upon and shot in recent mass attacks, were crying out to in the end? Republicans? Demorcrats? No...GOD!!! I for one will place all of my faith in Him, because no one on the face of the earth, Republican or Democrat, has shown me that they are capable of fixing this problem. With God, all things are possible.
The issue of mass killings and terrorism goes so much deeper than just gun control. You've got mental illness, conflicted religious beliefs, anti-abortion activists, terrorists, and people who are just plain going nuts in this crazy world we have created for ourselves.
And for those who believe that God can't fix this problem, who do you think all of those individuals, in the midst of being fired upon and shot in recent mass attacks, were crying out to in the end? Republicans? Demorcrats? No...GOD!!! I for one will place all of my faith in Him, because no one on the face of the earth, Republican or Democrat, has shown me that they are capable of fixing this problem. With God, all things are possible.
The NRA usually gets what it pays for - case in point.
Okay, last time: The NRA is not, I repeat not, about gun ownership or the antiquated 2nd Amendment.
The NRA is about gun sales...PERIOD.
The NRA doesn't care who buys the guns that kill Americans neither, apparently, does the GOTP.
The NRA is about gun sales...PERIOD.
The NRA doesn't care who buys the guns that kill Americans neither, apparently, does the GOTP.
Heck with it I just joined the NRA. It is becoming increasing clear that "progressives" want to take away my freedoms our bill of rights. I want to belong to an organization that protects my freedom.
so making a no-fly list double as a no-gun list is an infringement of rights? every single day, republican politicians sink to even lower depths of illogical fanaticism. is there a bottom? what does it look like?
3
The 5th Amendment Due Process right to oppose being on a Terror Watch-list? The Exigent Circumstances Watch List impacts many fundamental Constitutional rights, like the right to freely travel and freely associate without undue government surveillance. That we exempt the 2nd amendment, while violating the 1st and 4th, letting the most angry people arm themselves, but not get together and argue!
5
No gun can be bought unless the would-be purchaser first visits any shock-trauma unit to witness the damage a gun, any gun, can do to.
5
So when it comes to their so-called "war on terror," Republican senators are willing to give the NSA unbridled access to our telephone records, but then have serious reservations about offending the NRA by acquiescing to background checks that might prevent likely terrorists from acquiring deadly weapons?
8
I not am amazed since it is obvious that Republicans voters and the GOP candidates live in a coddled alternate reality.
7
Darkness at Noon by Arthur Keostler seems to sum up the future of the United States of the southern part of North America. Please leave us alone in the north, don't drag us down into the pit of exceptionalism and manifest destiny!
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Citizens of the world fear a Republican President from the clown car. If your world is based on the magic of the marketplace, your fools. As is so obvious.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Citizens of the world fear a Republican President from the clown car. If your world is based on the magic of the marketplace, your fools. As is so obvious.
7
The republicans are absolutely nuts. People die from guns on a daily basis and all they do is blame Obama and vote to repeal the ACA. Why does anybody vote for the fools? They are ruining my country.
12
Boy, talk about how politics can get in the way of good common sense laws. Guns should be hard to own, at least as hard as getting a driver's license. They're dangerous! I cannot see the logic in not voting for this bill. Benefit of the doubt to the republicans -- okay, maybe someone is incorrectly on the list and is denied access to firearms. But maybe a bad guy is also denied access to firearms and lives are saved. So, how does public safety not trump (no pun) the possibility that someone is denied such firearm access? If we stop one threat at the expense of mistakenly denying someone access is that still not a win in the cost-benefit analysis? Does not safety or life matter the most? Our country was founded on liberties, and that is so important, but this loophole does seem like one that we should close, for the greater good (safety), and if there really are concerns about list inaccuracy (I doubt that this is frequent occurrence though, so benefit of the doubt no removed), then let's fix the list making. I think Americans would feel a little safer if we enacted some common sense regulations.
2
No one has ever proven that any restrictive gun laws prevent any violence. We saw from Paris that restrictive national gun laws don't prevent terrorists from obtaining even military weapons. President Obama's call for more gun laws before an investigation was even started shows that it was all of his politics with his hate for gun owners. In CA with its highly restrictive gun laws including universal background checks and an assault weapons ban the police have already said that the terrorists obtained their guns legally. Lets look at reality. Adults need to be able to make their own decision if they want to protect themselves and families by owning and carrying guns. It is proven that terrorists and other mass murderers avoid locations where there may be armed civilians.
1
The reason they voted no is because the Democrats believe that all Republicans are terrorists. Just ask Hillary. Ask Harry Reid. Then only Democrats would have guns. Sheesh.
For nearly 300 years Americans have found peace of mind in the second amendment. Now it's suddenly a menace. Something's fishy there. I can understand the Senators' reluctance to go along with this attack on a core freedom, that has helped keep our country free.
2
The only thong which stops a bad guy with a gun is to allow terrorists to buy guns... Legally.
2
The same officials who claim people could be on a watch list unfairly, so we shouldn't deny them the right to buy guns, are willing to disenfranchise thousands to eliminate a tiny number who may have committed voting fraud.
8
"I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”
It's interesting how our govt. officials just randomly put innocent people on terrorist watch lists, according to the House Speaker. But when it comes to vetting Syrian refugees, we should assume they're all terrorists. Does this guy have any idea how government works? He's leading 1/2 of the Legislative branch. His party obviously doesn't care about keeping the country safe. It just wants to score political points and--for some deranged reason--to stay on the NRA's good side.
It's interesting how our govt. officials just randomly put innocent people on terrorist watch lists, according to the House Speaker. But when it comes to vetting Syrian refugees, we should assume they're all terrorists. Does this guy have any idea how government works? He's leading 1/2 of the Legislative branch. His party obviously doesn't care about keeping the country safe. It just wants to score political points and--for some deranged reason--to stay on the NRA's good side.
13
The article "How Often Do You Think About Shootings?" shows just how the NRA and its lackeys are ruining public life and public trust. We are citizens of The United States--we're supposed to be in this together--but guns are atomizing and isolating us from each other. We don't want to view our neighbors and co-workers with suspicion. We don't want our social life spoiled. We don't want to live like this!
So--please publish a list of all politicians on both sides of the aisle who take money from the NRA, and how much, and for how long. We need to expose them to the light of day, put pressure on them to renounce their ties to the NRA and return the money in a well-publicized way or vote them out--to make it shameful to be supported by the NRA.
And we desperately need a well-known figure to lead a campaign to take our country back--to organize a march on Washington, to call news conferences, to counter the lies, to be the voice for what is obviously a vast groundswell of support for change.
So--please publish a list of all politicians on both sides of the aisle who take money from the NRA, and how much, and for how long. We need to expose them to the light of day, put pressure on them to renounce their ties to the NRA and return the money in a well-publicized way or vote them out--to make it shameful to be supported by the NRA.
And we desperately need a well-known figure to lead a campaign to take our country back--to organize a march on Washington, to call news conferences, to counter the lies, to be the voice for what is obviously a vast groundswell of support for change.
17
Of course, passing such sensible legislation would acknowledge some people are knowable, potential threats and others are not. Such acknowledgement gets in the way of demonizing all Muslims. It's easier to suggest all are threats. The Republican candidates are willing to round up all Muslims and register them and send back all illegal immigrants, but not pass this bill.
Their refusal transcends gun rights: we are dealing with something quite ugly, ugly to the core.
Their refusal transcends gun rights: we are dealing with something quite ugly, ugly to the core.
10
I gather from Republican pols that we're at risk from ISIS fighters coming into the country. They are going to want arms and small arms are readily available. But news videos from the Middle East indicate they favor large machine guns and other heavy weapons mounted on 4WD pick-ups and sales of such arms in the US are restricted. Why won't the Republican Congress change that? Clearly the second amendment is being violated. We can't let over regulation prevent our gun manufacturers from creating jobs.
5
Just because the two shooters in San Bernardino were not on the "no fly list" does not mean that we do not need this legislation. We NEED this legislation and so much more to curb the gun culture in this country. This has become a genuine crisis and no one seems to be doing a darned thing about it.
9
Bravo, Mark Kirk!
Heather
Heather
4
I hope the electorate wakes up and sees the the Republicons' vacuous position on gun control as a threat to their safety. Maybe the Dems will win House , Senate and the Presidency next year.
8
It's hard to believe that grown men in a supposedly civilized society would willingly choose to use deceit and sophistry and lying to avoid any attempt to help keep their own citizens from harm. Just who are the criminals?
9
I saw Marco Rubio on CBS this morning contort himself to respond to his vote against implementing what most Americans view as common sense gun control measures. Personally, I don't think even if they were passed that they go far enough. But what was most telling to me was that Rubio placed the blame on the vote that rescinded the CIA/DHS/FBI ability to monitor all electronic communications - the metadata contained in all of our phone calls and text messages - as the reason why we as a country will not be able to combat domestic terrorism. His disdain for the Fourth Amendment stands in stark contrast to his unflinching characterization of the Second Amendment as a fundamental right of all Americans. No reasonable person can suggest that collecting data on ALL Americans is somehow intrinsically more acceptable than scrutinizing those individuals who make a conscious decision to purchase a weapon that can be used to murder civilians and law enforcement personnel. Based on everything that we hear coming out of the mouths of the Republican candidates, it is clear that they are not reasonable people. Put such people in positions of power - especially the presidency - will only serve to weaken us all.
11
Republicans are right about nothing, that right Zero
6
I don't see why nobody seems to be articulating what is crystal clear. It can't be avoided:our elected Republican representatives and Republican candidates for the most powerful position in the world are aiding and abetting terrorism.
14
The fear mongerers who populate and pollute America will never be beaten until all Americans wake up to the fact that their country, because of its next-to-no-laws against gun carrying is an embarrassment and the laughingstock of the world. It's called the home of the brave because, let's face it, one needs to be brave to live here, given its mindless attitude towards guns. That said, I'm counting the days (few) until another lunatic armed to the teeth with easily acquired weaponry takes to the streets and kills people knowing full well that he or she will be able to do so thanks to the cowardice of politicians who have bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association and hide behind all of the Constitution guff. Wake up, America. The world thinks your a total fool.
8
The GOP isn't grand anymore. Their members live in a dream world of their own making. They criticize the President for not being as tough on terror as they think he should. When it comes to taking a logical step in the US to control terrorists they vote against a very logical law. Are they worried the NRA will withdraw its support for these poor excuses of lawmakers? They remind me of Charlton Heston, when he already had very advanced Alzheimers, standing up and being prompted to repeat that slogan "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." Does this really include people who are suspected of terrorism? Is it too much for the Republicans to actually think or have they all lost their minds? Some of those are running for president.
7
At this point I see no reason to continue discussing this issue. It is obvious that nothing in this country is ever going to change regarding the (almost daily) massacres by gun. The Republicans apparently like it this way. They want tough guy street cred for their imaginary war on terror while they roll over for the NRA allowing gun sales to terrorists. ISIS and Al Qaeda are good for business after all. Keep that hate and fear coming! The GOP want a country that no longer accepts immigrants because they want to keep us safe? Sorry but I can't take your hysterical anti-Muslim rhetoric seriously if you support selling guns to the very same people you demonize.
And what of the gutless Democrats who perpetually fail allowing this to happen over and over again? I will vote for no representative that does not promise to strengthen gun control in the United States. Consider yourself on notice Madame Secretary. You talk a good game. Let's see what you've got! Sorry Bernie I like you but that means you too. I am done even taking this "democracy" seriously until we start taking steps to prevent our citizens from being mowed down in the street by radical fanatics and mentally ill people carrying the very latest in military grade weaponry.
Give me a break. Enough!
And what of the gutless Democrats who perpetually fail allowing this to happen over and over again? I will vote for no representative that does not promise to strengthen gun control in the United States. Consider yourself on notice Madame Secretary. You talk a good game. Let's see what you've got! Sorry Bernie I like you but that means you too. I am done even taking this "democracy" seriously until we start taking steps to prevent our citizens from being mowed down in the street by radical fanatics and mentally ill people carrying the very latest in military grade weaponry.
Give me a break. Enough!
17
First, the good Senator from CA needs to review how well the State gun laws have worked, not to mention the other regulatory framework around which explosive devices are regulated there.
Secondly, the Senator should review how the SCOTUS have granted foreign nationals, immigrants, and even enemy combatants, rights under the U.S. Constitutional.
Thirdly, the good Senator needs to review the regulatory framework surrounding the DOS's K-1 visa program, and make public all of the required documentation that surrounds the application. And then question the DOS about how they have been unable to enforce the visa programs under the Congressional legislative mandate?
This is what unregulated and vetted immigration diversity has brought to our shores - radical Islamic terrorism.
Now question the good Senator about WHY? she supports the Administration's open-door policy for immigration.
Three things are for sure - the events in SOCAL were never bordering on "workplace violence" and a perceived gathering of "infidels" can draw deadly results when targeted by radical Islamic terrorists. And more restrictive "gun laws" are not a solution.
Secondly, the Senator should review how the SCOTUS have granted foreign nationals, immigrants, and even enemy combatants, rights under the U.S. Constitutional.
Thirdly, the good Senator needs to review the regulatory framework surrounding the DOS's K-1 visa program, and make public all of the required documentation that surrounds the application. And then question the DOS about how they have been unable to enforce the visa programs under the Congressional legislative mandate?
This is what unregulated and vetted immigration diversity has brought to our shores - radical Islamic terrorism.
Now question the good Senator about WHY? she supports the Administration's open-door policy for immigration.
Three things are for sure - the events in SOCAL were never bordering on "workplace violence" and a perceived gathering of "infidels" can draw deadly results when targeted by radical Islamic terrorists. And more restrictive "gun laws" are not a solution.
2
These Republcan politicians get off easy with journalists who do not ask tough questions. Ryan and his no fly list: what about bringing Carole Coleman to interview these hacks like she did when she got W. on the hot seat in 2004. She did not wear gloves and was no friend with W.
6
I think the right not to be shot by a fellow citizen trumps the current interpretation of the Second Amendment.
17
There are two things that are needed for a gun to work: the gun and the ammunition. Limiting guns may be hopeless in this current world. So why don't we focus on the bullets? The Second Amendment doesn't say a single thing about the right to own bullets.
At $20 per bullet would there have been this level of ammunition?
At $20 per bullet would there have been this level of ammunition?
10
Inclusion on the No Fly list is an arbitrary process with people on the list not knowing they are on it until they attempt to fly. In this country we do not take away a person's constitutional right to anything without adjudication by a court. These people have been convicted of nothing just accused based on what at times is the flimsiest of evidence.
If they people are suspected of something then lets investigate and bring charges against them. If guilty then then as felons they ill lose their right to own a firearm.
Everyone has a right to due process.
If they people are suspected of something then lets investigate and bring charges against them. If guilty then then as felons they ill lose their right to own a firearm.
Everyone has a right to due process.
3
Please tell me how we keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists when: 1) we have a gun for every man woman & child in America; 2) terrorists are quintessential criminals, so how will laws keep guns out of their hands?; and 3) the terrorist threat consists of a state of mind (set of violent intentions) that the perpetrators will make every effort to conceal. Show me the set of screening criteria that would have prevented the shooters from buying the guns or the bomb material?
1
Republicans need to keep terror alive, to rule. They see it as a useful tool. It keeps everyone not questioning anything else. They are on the side of bigots, thieves and murderers. The evidence is clear. They are the religious extremists in our society.
14
This country is more diligent recalling bad hamburger meat then it is harnessing guns and bullets. This past summer there was a shortage of .22 caliber ammo that had the sporting goods stores advertising boldly that it was back in stock like Tickle Me Elmos. Movie posters tout some sort of firearm as an attraction. The power to take a life with the flick of a finger is an abomination that should never have been invented.
6
Gun control is the wrong answer because California has the most stringent gun control nationally. oboma, Clinton and the democrats did not want to fight the war on terror ever since 9-11, now finally despite all the objections by oboma and his ilk, the terrorists have come to America to stay. There is no doubt about it anymore.<br/> So, what should be done. First , America needs some new laws, a national right to concealed carry law so folks can defend themselves when the islamofacits show up, secondly, a national self defense law so folks who do use a weapon during a public firefight are not prosecuted by crackpot left wing prosecutors , a beefed up intelligence service, closure of immigration by muslims world wide until such time they recant the killing of unbelievers in the quran. If none of the above is effective, then as a last resort, all the muslims need to be relocated into isolation and re education camps in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska so they can not commit crimes or acts of terror.<br/><br/>Finally Vote for NO democrats in 2016.
3
The Republicans allow suspected terrorists on no-fly lists to purchase firearms, but make it illegal for good citizens such as marijuana users to own guns.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, and later amendments, prohibits certain United States citizens from owning firearms. Persons with medical marijuana cards in states that allow medical marijuana use can not legally purchase or own firearms, and anyone who uses marijuana is also prohibited from purchasing a gun regardless of whether their state has legalized marijuana.
The Gun Control act was passed after the murders of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King, to prohibit the mail-order sale of firearms. Yet Republicans now refuse to ban the sale of firearms over the internet or take other logical and reasonable measures to curb gun violence. Hypocrisy rules.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, and later amendments, prohibits certain United States citizens from owning firearms. Persons with medical marijuana cards in states that allow medical marijuana use can not legally purchase or own firearms, and anyone who uses marijuana is also prohibited from purchasing a gun regardless of whether their state has legalized marijuana.
The Gun Control act was passed after the murders of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King, to prohibit the mail-order sale of firearms. Yet Republicans now refuse to ban the sale of firearms over the internet or take other logical and reasonable measures to curb gun violence. Hypocrisy rules.
4
Perhaps it's time to start scoring votes. We should hold politicians accountable for craven support of one narrow constituency over the public good.
All that blather about being tough on terror, but when it comes to making it harder for terrorists to get guns here, we get double talk. Why? Clearly, politicians are afraid of the gun lobby and are unable to legislate on behalf of their non-NRA constituents.
There are a lot of people in the US would like to see sensible regulations such as this one become law. It's an outrage that craven politicians are not held accountable for obstructing the will of the people.
All that blather about being tough on terror, but when it comes to making it harder for terrorists to get guns here, we get double talk. Why? Clearly, politicians are afraid of the gun lobby and are unable to legislate on behalf of their non-NRA constituents.
There are a lot of people in the US would like to see sensible regulations such as this one become law. It's an outrage that craven politicians are not held accountable for obstructing the will of the people.
5
Yes, rename GOP to GHP--the Grandly Hypocritical Party. Their supporters don't seem to notice nor to care--I don't know which is worse.
4
I think the cowardly vote was by the Democrats. The gun control proposal was an amendment to a bill repealing Obamacare. Did the Democrats really expect that to pass? They should be glad the Republicans did them a favor and voted against the amendment. Otherwise they would have to vote either against the gun control proposal or in favor of repealing Obamacare.
Pure theater and nothing else.
Pure theater and nothing else.
4
The so-called pro-life party refuses to keep weapons away from the hand of potential terrorists and enhancing the safety of the American public. When will the mainstream media start calling the GOP on their bluff and denouncing their anti-life stance and hypocrisy.
8
"But when a mass shooting at home calls attention to laws that put guns into the hands of suspected terrorists, they ask for a moment of silence, while taking action that speaks volumes."
This editioral, barley 3 weeks after a terrorist attack killed 140 people in a city where gun ownership is completely outlawed speaks volumes...volumes of delusion.
This editioral, barley 3 weeks after a terrorist attack killed 140 people in a city where gun ownership is completely outlawed speaks volumes...volumes of delusion.
1
The key word here is SUSPECTED terrorists. These are not people who have been convicted of crimes or even necessarily people who have been indicted or formally charged. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms. You can't deprive people of rights based merely on the suspicion of committing a crime.
4
Why should any civilized society tolerate the possession and proliferation of implements whose ONLY purpose is the sure and efficient slaughter of human beings?
18
Was Rubio present for the vote? Was he yeah or nay?
1
You better watch what you wish for. If Republicans win the next presidential election and continue to dominate the other branches of government, they could change their collective mind and support this bill -- after passing legislation declaring the Democratic Party a terrorist organization. Farfetched? Who would have thought that a reality television star would be the leading candidate of a major political party a year ahead of a presidential election?
I believe that if the 2nd amendment is a federally guaranteed right then it should be up to the federal government to decide regulations regarding it's administration. This issue along with voting rights should be uniform nationally. The way cities and states piecemeal these regulations with multiple loopholes is why we are in the mess that makes the rest of the civilized world wonder what the heck we are doing.
Hey Editors: if people hate enough to want to slaughter dozens of innocents, which is illegal, do you really think that mere laws would stop them from getting assault rifles. Paris' strict laws didn't stop them there.
"Islamic terrorism". There, that wasn't that hard, was it?
"Islamic terrorism". There, that wasn't that hard, was it?
1
“… two .223-caliber assault rifles and two 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistols, and hundreds of rounds, all purchased legally.”
I respectfully submit this correction. The couple were in possession of thousands of rounds of the two calibers, plus other sundry explosives. This fact underscores the necessity to enact overarching, national gun laws, akin to the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. Also needed is a compliant networked tracking system to make law enforcement agencies aware of especially those who buy the same caliber bullets in large quantities, possibly from different suppliers.
“…every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watch list from purchasing guns or explosives.” … “…hundreds of suspected terrorists on the watch list bought guns.”
This is not patriotism. This is mass psychosis. Republicans are textbook examples of it.
“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the terror watch list measure.”
Senator Feinstein provided an understatement that needs “pop song” repetition. It is also another salient reason to overturn, or otherwise negate the horrifically regressive Citizens United decision.
I respectfully submit this correction. The couple were in possession of thousands of rounds of the two calibers, plus other sundry explosives. This fact underscores the necessity to enact overarching, national gun laws, akin to the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. Also needed is a compliant networked tracking system to make law enforcement agencies aware of especially those who buy the same caliber bullets in large quantities, possibly from different suppliers.
“…every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watch list from purchasing guns or explosives.” … “…hundreds of suspected terrorists on the watch list bought guns.”
This is not patriotism. This is mass psychosis. Republicans are textbook examples of it.
“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the terror watch list measure.”
Senator Feinstein provided an understatement that needs “pop song” repetition. It is also another salient reason to overturn, or otherwise negate the horrifically regressive Citizens United decision.
2
The GOP (and too many Dems) are bought and paid for by the NRA. But the NRA (IMHO) are missing a big opportunity. They control the strings so well right now I'm surprised we haven't seen legislation requiring every citizen to be armed at all times. In fact, one that is really a mystery is why the NRA doesn't insist on each and every member of congress and the senate be armed at all times.
5
The republicans wrongly think we can solve the terrorism problem with the solutions used during WWII except there is no Adolf Hitler, no Germany, no Berlin and no soldiers wearing the same uniforms.
2
Since there seems to be no reasonable way to prevent people from having access to weapons designed solely to murder large numbers of human beings in short periods of time, the answer is to remove weapons designed solely to murder large numbers of human beings in short periods of time from legal sale, period. People's right to have a jolly good time firing their semi-automatics down at the range does not trump other people's right to live.
Of course the NRA will scream about that: their reason for existence is to make money off this carnage; more carnage, more money, same as it ever was. Be afraid, be very afraid, buy more guns... which will make more people both dead and afraid... lather, rinse, repeat.
Barring the eminently reasonable solution of not having these types of weapons in the hands of anyone who is not well regulated, tightly control the sale of ammunition. These mass murderers somehow wind up with thousands of rounds, and the magazines to deliver them quickly, and no one lifts an eyebrow? (Well, no one in the Republican party.)
Of course the NRA will scream about that: their reason for existence is to make money off this carnage; more carnage, more money, same as it ever was. Be afraid, be very afraid, buy more guns... which will make more people both dead and afraid... lather, rinse, repeat.
Barring the eminently reasonable solution of not having these types of weapons in the hands of anyone who is not well regulated, tightly control the sale of ammunition. These mass murderers somehow wind up with thousands of rounds, and the magazines to deliver them quickly, and no one lifts an eyebrow? (Well, no one in the Republican party.)
3
The ACLU is against using the so-called terrorist list for this purpose. One million names estimated on that list, many (maybe hundreds of thousands) that have NOTHING to do with terrorism. The NYT does itself no good by painting this as a "Congress fears the NRA" story. See e.g. https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/03/obama-calls-for-stronger-background-chec . An excerpt:
"Universal background checks would only compound this injustice by improving enforcement of rules that arbitrarily deprive people of the right to armed self-defense. Yet instead of reconsidering the absurdly broad excuses for taking away people's Second Amendment rights, Obama and Kristof want to expand them. 'We have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes,' Obama told CBS News, 'but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm, and there's nothing that we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed.' . . .
"One man's loophole is another man's due process. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimates that the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist includes more than 1 million names. The ACLU describes the list as a 'virtually standardless' dragnet that 'ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling.' Although the list is supposedly limited to people 'reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity,' something like two-fifths have 'no recognized terrorist group affiliation.'"
"Universal background checks would only compound this injustice by improving enforcement of rules that arbitrarily deprive people of the right to armed self-defense. Yet instead of reconsidering the absurdly broad excuses for taking away people's Second Amendment rights, Obama and Kristof want to expand them. 'We have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes,' Obama told CBS News, 'but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm, and there's nothing that we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed.' . . .
"One man's loophole is another man's due process. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimates that the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist includes more than 1 million names. The ACLU describes the list as a 'virtually standardless' dragnet that 'ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling.' Although the list is supposedly limited to people 'reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity,' something like two-fifths have 'no recognized terrorist group affiliation.'"
1
Gun violence in this society is functionally human sacrifice to the powerful and influential NRA gun cult. We must oppose it forcefully lest we by our passivity condone it.
4
This is what is wrong with the gun debate, editorial writers days after a horrific mass shooting telling us that closing the gun show loophole or not letting people on the no fly list buy guns will solve the problem or even begin to solve the problem. It is nonsense and everyone knows it. Close the Gun show loophole to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but don’t expect to stop mass shootings and the no fly list idea is sound bite policy; it sounds good but is useless.
Liberals have to be honest about what will actually stop these horrific incidents and try to convince Americans to give up their guns. We have to ban military assault weapons and automatic rifles and handguns, we have to ban guns easily converted, we have to make them illegal to own, and we have to confiscate them. Everything the gun lobby says liberals want to do, we have to do, and they should make this argument to the American people.
What Liberals are doing now is pandering to the already converted and lying to the people who aren’t, along with a heavy dose of what liberals to best denigrating, demonizing, and complaining about the other side. If you want to end mass shooting you have to go after the guns the shooters use, the ones that are only useful for blowing away cardboard targets at ranges and large numbers of human beings everywhere else.
I can understand Democratic politicians not wanting to fall on this third rail, but the editorial writers of the New York Times ought to have more guts.
Liberals have to be honest about what will actually stop these horrific incidents and try to convince Americans to give up their guns. We have to ban military assault weapons and automatic rifles and handguns, we have to ban guns easily converted, we have to make them illegal to own, and we have to confiscate them. Everything the gun lobby says liberals want to do, we have to do, and they should make this argument to the American people.
What Liberals are doing now is pandering to the already converted and lying to the people who aren’t, along with a heavy dose of what liberals to best denigrating, demonizing, and complaining about the other side. If you want to end mass shooting you have to go after the guns the shooters use, the ones that are only useful for blowing away cardboard targets at ranges and large numbers of human beings everywhere else.
I can understand Democratic politicians not wanting to fall on this third rail, but the editorial writers of the New York Times ought to have more guts.
1
This list is unconstitutional, as is all gun control. This list would place unsuspecting people on it with zero notification and zero appeals. It would be at the whim of the state. It's just as unreliable as the no-fly list (which should just include folks traveling to places like Saudi Arabia).
2
As Republicans have been thwarting responsible gun control legislation, nationwide, since the 1960's, I can only conclude that the Republican Party
is a true American Terrorist Organization.
Let us hope that San Bernardino is the beginning of the end for the Republican Party in America.
is a true American Terrorist Organization.
Let us hope that San Bernardino is the beginning of the end for the Republican Party in America.
7
We all love our family and friends. But politicians who don't curb the dangerous gun situation in America, don't love widely enough. We need to teach how to care widely. Life's fundamental purpose is to learn to love greatly.
2
How can any politician, Republican or Democrat, claim to be fighting a war on terrorism while voting against prohibiting anyone on the terror watch list from obtaining their own arsenal? Basically, opponents of this bill are saying it's OK for U.S. weapons manufacturers to arm our enemies in the war on terror. Americans fear terrorists while our politicians engage in useless rhetoric and accusations against each other and do nothing but sit on their hands.
6
"Money makes the Senate go 'round, the House go 'round, the world go 'round".
Gussied up lyrics from "Cabaret".
And, my friends and countrymen, THAT'S what it's all about.
Our government is not for sale anymore, it's already been bought and the minions that have been purchased WILL do what they are told if they want to keep the money coming in.
Remember, our Senators, Congressmen and President have the greatest protection the taxpayers can pay for; the rest of us, well, just do as the NRA says and buy more guns and ammo! Then, if you're paranoid enough, just as Yossarian did in "Catch 22", walk around backwards so nobody can sneak up on you. I'm surprised Mr. Ryan hasn't offered this as a "solution".
Gussied up lyrics from "Cabaret".
And, my friends and countrymen, THAT'S what it's all about.
Our government is not for sale anymore, it's already been bought and the minions that have been purchased WILL do what they are told if they want to keep the money coming in.
Remember, our Senators, Congressmen and President have the greatest protection the taxpayers can pay for; the rest of us, well, just do as the NRA says and buy more guns and ammo! Then, if you're paranoid enough, just as Yossarian did in "Catch 22", walk around backwards so nobody can sneak up on you. I'm surprised Mr. Ryan hasn't offered this as a "solution".
3
Obviously the only way to fix this problem is to allow concealed weapons into congress. I'm sure that would do wonders for "protecting" our spineless congressmen. Of course, the actual result - a killing spree in congress - would solve the problem, one way or another.
4
I am sick and tired of the fear-mongering under the guise of patronizing concern as evidenced by the Republican presidential candidates. I am even more distressed at a populace that believes them. I am about ready to get on a plane, fly to Paris and stand at Place de la République or the Bataclan, where at least the French have the sang-froid to go about their daily lives without caving into the constant harping on fear.
4
Ah, the usual knee-jerk politicization of an issue by the NYT Ed Board as they condemn their "real enemy" (i.e., the GOP, not Islamic Extremism), and provide red meat for their blindly partisan followers.
In the GOP's defense, as goes "tough talk", at least they are able to form and pronounce the words "Radical Islamic Terrorism", while the Democrats are terrified of their own tongues.
In the GOP's defense, as goes "tough talk", at least they are able to form and pronounce the words "Radical Islamic Terrorism", while the Democrats are terrified of their own tongues.
"...we are at a time of war..." This is consistent with Wayne LaPierre: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” Apparently we should declare war on ourselves and arm ourselves to the teeth ... and whoever is left standing wins.
1
Controlling the free flow of automatic firearms in interstate commerce--a task that Congress must fulfill right now--is not a matter of due process, nor is it barred by the Second Amendment. The suggestion that it is should be offensive to all Americans, who should remember such specious arguments on Election Day. Anyone aggrieved by tighter controls on gun traffic may request a due-process review by way of a hearing and may seek judicial review of an adverse determination. The Framers who gave us the Constitution never envisioned the kind of firearm-based savagery that we have witnessed in recent years. And the "right to bear arms" never meant any arms, no matter how lethal. Let the members of the Congress and the Senate pass tough new laws--after all, that's their job--and leave it to the Supreme Court to decide whether the new laws pass Constitutional muster. Presidential candidates ill-serve the people by pontificating about what the Constitution permits and forbids. That's a matter for the courts.
2
On the same day as the San Bernardino shooting a lone gunman shot four people in Savannah Georgia. One person died. No mention of it on the news.
The whole that Alice fell down is a shallow pit compared to the gigantic worm hole we are slipping into.
But wait - our prayers and thoughts are with you.
The whole that Alice fell down is a shallow pit compared to the gigantic worm hole we are slipping into.
But wait - our prayers and thoughts are with you.
14
Dear Americans, aren't you tired of this? I am, and I don't even live in your country anymore.
6
Surely it is more important in a democracy to protect all citizens from danger. It seems preposterous to me for the U.S. to allow self-job-protecting Republicans to prevent the passing of laws to protect Americans from potential murders by removing the tools of their trade: guns.
This creates a perpetual uneasiness that American citizens must live with. It makes them perpetual captives of fear. This is not freedom.
This creates a perpetual uneasiness that American citizens must live with. It makes them perpetual captives of fear. This is not freedom.
4
They say inflation is low but those Senate votes don't come cheap! How much did the NRA pay our representatives for their vote ensuring people on the terrorist watch list could legally buy guns in the USA?
Senator Tom Cotton $2,581,794
Senator Tom Tillis - $2,459,881
Senator Corey Gardner - $1,544,783
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - $922,000
Senator Blunt - $755,816
Senator Rob Portman - $596,489
Senator Pat Roberts - $322,453
Senator Jeff Flake - $321,709
Senator David Perdue - $279,173
Senator Joni Ernst - $259,402
Senator Orin Hatch - $97,848
Senator Capito $94,261
Senator John Thune - $92,202
Senator Sasse - $82,827
Senator Rounds - $82,040
Senator Ted Cruz - $65,300
Senator Chuck Grassley - $55,592
Senator Steve Daines - $35,810
Senator Burr - $32,792
Dean Heller - $27,887
Senator Boozman - $24,618
And the list goes on. For a complete list of our "democracy at work" follow igorvolsky@igorvolsky on Twitter.
Senator Tom Cotton $2,581,794
Senator Tom Tillis - $2,459,881
Senator Corey Gardner - $1,544,783
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - $922,000
Senator Blunt - $755,816
Senator Rob Portman - $596,489
Senator Pat Roberts - $322,453
Senator Jeff Flake - $321,709
Senator David Perdue - $279,173
Senator Joni Ernst - $259,402
Senator Orin Hatch - $97,848
Senator Capito $94,261
Senator John Thune - $92,202
Senator Sasse - $82,827
Senator Rounds - $82,040
Senator Ted Cruz - $65,300
Senator Chuck Grassley - $55,592
Senator Steve Daines - $35,810
Senator Burr - $32,792
Dean Heller - $27,887
Senator Boozman - $24,618
And the list goes on. For a complete list of our "democracy at work" follow igorvolsky@igorvolsky on Twitter.
6
How come we don't allow suspected terrorists to get on airplanes, but for some reason it's OK for them to buy deadly weapons?? This is insane and has nothing at all to do with gun rights or the second amendment. Last I checked there's nothing in the constitution that guarantees the right to kill dozens of Americans if you decide to become an terrorist.
2
If as Cruz and other Republicans claim we are at war with ISIS and Alquaeda etc which in essence we are then why can't they take the necessary actions to make it as difficult as possible for people to get the guns and ammunition they need for their heinous acts.
Denying the right to those on the no fly list is a no brainer and those who voted against this put Americans at risk.
The pathetic reasoning about the no fly list is not accurate is pathetic.
If there are errors they can be fixed ,the lives of those slaughtered in San Bernadino cannot.
In addition we need to know how these people got assault weapons and all that ammunition ,it is mind boggling and whatever loophole allows them to do so we must close it.
We sent Senators , Representatives to Congress to keep us safe to ensure we have basic rights such as health care that does not bankrupt ,the individual and the State.
However most of our Senators , Representatives ignore their oath to the American people and act in blind obedience to the lobbyist and big money
Our democracy has been sacrificed on the Altar of Citizens United
Denying the right to those on the no fly list is a no brainer and those who voted against this put Americans at risk.
The pathetic reasoning about the no fly list is not accurate is pathetic.
If there are errors they can be fixed ,the lives of those slaughtered in San Bernadino cannot.
In addition we need to know how these people got assault weapons and all that ammunition ,it is mind boggling and whatever loophole allows them to do so we must close it.
We sent Senators , Representatives to Congress to keep us safe to ensure we have basic rights such as health care that does not bankrupt ,the individual and the State.
However most of our Senators , Representatives ignore their oath to the American people and act in blind obedience to the lobbyist and big money
Our democracy has been sacrificed on the Altar of Citizens United
1
By not publishing what opponents of this measure are saying, you have once again published a biased Republican hit piece. And, as is so common among opponents of protecting our second amendment freedoms, you fail to show how this particular measure would have stopped the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The answer is that it would not have stopped it in any way. Since you connected these two issues in your piece I thought it was fair to have brought that up for you and your readers.
When the democrats controlled the White House and all of congress, how many bills did they pass to create consistent background checks?
None.
So why is this solely a republican issue? Why isn't it an elected politician issue?
Just wouldn't fit the NYT/Liberal narrative.
Folks - you must decide, is it the narratives or the murders that you care more about.
None.
So why is this solely a republican issue? Why isn't it an elected politician issue?
Just wouldn't fit the NYT/Liberal narrative.
Folks - you must decide, is it the narratives or the murders that you care more about.
1
Let's make a deal. Americans will accept limits on their explicit 2nd amendment rights, supported by 233 years of jurisprudence, if left wingers will accept analogous limits on the made up rights of abortion and gay marriage. Deal?
1
As usual, the Republicans excell at their chest-pounding; their "boo-yah" mentality; and their continuing to blame, or at the very least, find fault with Obama and the Democrats for anything and everything that doesn't fit their narrative on terrorism.
At the same time, those same Republicans fail glaringly at actually DOING anything to help at least stem this tide.
In other words, the GOP can "talk the talk," but can't "walk the walk."
....And Democrats are seen as "feckless?"
At the same time, those same Republicans fail glaringly at actually DOING anything to help at least stem this tide.
In other words, the GOP can "talk the talk," but can't "walk the walk."
....And Democrats are seen as "feckless?"
2
What a shock! Hypocritical and cowardly Republicans. Who'd a thunk it? They are nothing less than conspirators in the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed by gun violence. They failed to act when children were killed in Newtown. They failed to act when a member of Congress was shot. Maybe they'll act when Republican members of Congress are shot? Yeah, right. Frauds, every single one of them.
5
The fact that Paul Ryan, one of the most articulate and impressive of all Republican leaders, would say, in effect, that it is preferable to allow potential terrorists on the no-fly list to buy guns with no background check, than to deprive someone who was mistakenly placed on the list from buying guns without a background check, shows that the gun lobby has him in a corrupting choke-hold. On the upside, however, it reinforces my long-held belief that the best way for the Republicans to determine if someone is really able to wholeheartedly support their programs, is to administer a simple logic test. Anyone who passes would clearly not be able to support the Republican platform -- especially regarding gun-control.
2
I myself would like to see a total ban on individuals owning assault weapons, and would like to see that no one can own more than one handgun and one rifle (neither of which is repeat firing). This could satisfy the second amendment but increase safety.
But I would also like to see a total ban on the abortion of healthy fetuses once a heart beat is detected. That would still leave a window for choice and would accommodate pregnancies caused by rape or incest.
But Republicans will block the first suggestion and liberals will block the second.
Killing will continue.
But I would also like to see a total ban on the abortion of healthy fetuses once a heart beat is detected. That would still leave a window for choice and would accommodate pregnancies caused by rape or incest.
But Republicans will block the first suggestion and liberals will block the second.
Killing will continue.
1
Paul Ryan, issued his party’s weak defense of arming potential terrorism suspects on Thursday morning: “I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”
And if the two San Bernardino shooters had been on the terrorist watch list? What would Paul Ryan be saying now?
And if the two San Bernardino shooters had been on the terrorist watch list? What would Paul Ryan be saying now?
3
Is the GOP 'With us, or against us?'
Each day that goes by seems as though they are against us. After what happened this week, this action by Congress is unconscionable.
Each day that goes by seems as though they are against us. After what happened this week, this action by Congress is unconscionable.
5
I'm strongly in favor of gun control, and would rather prohibit civilians from owning guns at all. But given that we unfortunately let people buy guns, I am against taking away that right from someone only because they ended up in some secret "watchlist" without any kind of due process.
1
If you're on the FBI terrorist watch list and can't get on a plane, the least of your problems should be that you can't buy a gun. No due process? The solution is to challenge your name on the list, not automatically be allowed to buy an assault weapon. It's just sheer stupidity that a potential terrorist could buy an assault weapon then go to an airport where they would be prohibited from boarding a plane. And that's what Rubio, Cruz, Paul and Graham feel makes sense to them.
None of these Republican candidates are worth a tinker's-dam and it's obvious that they are slaves in the thrall of the NRA and don't give a hoot about the safety of ordinary Americans. But, of course, let's repeal Obamacare and cut funding for treating the mentally ill. Trouble is the average terrorist is not mentally ill by any diagnostic criteria, though the thought processes of Rubio, et al might qualify.
None of these Republican candidates are worth a tinker's-dam and it's obvious that they are slaves in the thrall of the NRA and don't give a hoot about the safety of ordinary Americans. But, of course, let's repeal Obamacare and cut funding for treating the mentally ill. Trouble is the average terrorist is not mentally ill by any diagnostic criteria, though the thought processes of Rubio, et al might qualify.
11
At the time of the attack, the Dan Bernadino killers had 2 assault rifles, 2 handguns, 1,600 rounds of ammunition on them. They also were wearing bullet proof vests, capable to stopping high velocity bullets. When police searched their home, they found 4,500 rounds of ammunition and 12 bombs. There is no justification for such weaponry. To be able to purchase it LEGALLY makes no sense whatsoever. To make matters worse, the Republican led Senate has defeated a bill that would have made it impossible for individuals on the security watch list to be able to purchase weapons legally. If this is not the height of stupidity, it is a close second.
12
“The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Einstein.
This was posted on one of the San Bernardino victim's Facebook page. Shame on Republicans and a curse on the NRA -- you have all of this and all future blood on YOUR hands!
This was posted on one of the San Bernardino victim's Facebook page. Shame on Republicans and a curse on the NRA -- you have all of this and all future blood on YOUR hands!
5
Homicides with guns are at their lowest levels since the 1950's. Gun violence is half of what it was in 1993. This mirrors Australia's decline despite that fact that we have more guns than ever and they banned them. So clearly, more guns DO NOT mean more gun deaths.
Mass shootings make for sensational headlines, but we have done a spectacular job of reducing gun deaths in this country.
Let's not go half-cocked and encourage policy changes that do not solve the problem and/or are not workable. Let's actually solve the problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massiv...
Mass shootings make for sensational headlines, but we have done a spectacular job of reducing gun deaths in this country.
Let's not go half-cocked and encourage policy changes that do not solve the problem and/or are not workable. Let's actually solve the problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massiv...
3
Here is a short quote from the Economist about terrorist and Mr. Hollande's visit:
"AS AN expression of solidarity with America’s oldest, currently bruised, ally, Barack Obama’s words of welcome to his French counterpart on November 24th might sound a bit cloying. “We love France for your spirit and your culture, your joie de vivre,” he told François Hollande. “Since the attacks, Americans have recalled their own visits to Paris, visiting the Eiffel Tower or walking along the Seine.” “Oh là là!” Mr Hollande might have been forgiven for muttering. He had come to Washington to persuade Mr Obama to lead a more aggressive campaign against his country’s scourge, Islamic State (IS), not to be garlanded with onions."
Will the NY Times scold Mr. Obama for taking such a tepid stance on ISIS? Will pigs fly? It is easier to scold Republicans, even though it is not clear that gun control will actually solve the problem of terrorism - it did not in Paris.
"AS AN expression of solidarity with America’s oldest, currently bruised, ally, Barack Obama’s words of welcome to his French counterpart on November 24th might sound a bit cloying. “We love France for your spirit and your culture, your joie de vivre,” he told François Hollande. “Since the attacks, Americans have recalled their own visits to Paris, visiting the Eiffel Tower or walking along the Seine.” “Oh là là!” Mr Hollande might have been forgiven for muttering. He had come to Washington to persuade Mr Obama to lead a more aggressive campaign against his country’s scourge, Islamic State (IS), not to be garlanded with onions."
Will the NY Times scold Mr. Obama for taking such a tepid stance on ISIS? Will pigs fly? It is easier to scold Republicans, even though it is not clear that gun control will actually solve the problem of terrorism - it did not in Paris.
4
Gun control obviously does reduce the problem in France far below what it would be if US gun policies were the rule there.
2
Though just spineless NRA supplicants, rugged individualists, as these men fancy themselves, cannot conceive of the common good and will not change their minds until they are affected personally. Even one of their own, Gabby Giffords, being shot, wasn't enough to sway them; it will have to be a close family member - if then.
4
I submitted a comment earlier about Governor Christie and the Sandy Hook shootings and now I realize wrong state. It happened in Connecticut not New Jersey. I should have checked before I made the comment. But unfortunately the shootings are becoming so common it's hard to keep track of where they actually occur.
1
It is a sad state of affairs that our Congress is more beholding to the NRA than the people who elected them. The GOP care more about financial support from gun lobbyists than the safety of their constituents. Of course, it's easy for them~ they are well protected themselves. There is little chance of someone walking into their office buildings/chambers with concealed weapons. 22 states have passed laws allowing concealed-carry weapons (Ohio is now joining the group), but 18 of those states do not allow concealed weapons in their state senate chambers. What ever happened to the idea that our government is "of the people, by the people and for the people". These politicians were not elected to "pray" for us, but to do our business; however, their business is staying in office at any cost such as taking money from the NRA and turning a blind eye to mass murders that happen almost daily. I can't believe this is the United States of America.
2
"We're at war! We're at war! The enemy is not just at the gates but even among us! We must keep them out, because we're at WAR with them....
But it's okay if they buy scores of guns and ammunition."
Classic Republican non-logic. Unbelievable. The fire is burning at our gates and even among us, but we MUST allow ALL to have continued unfettered access to gasoline, nitroglycerin and napalm.
But it's okay if they buy scores of guns and ammunition."
Classic Republican non-logic. Unbelievable. The fire is burning at our gates and even among us, but we MUST allow ALL to have continued unfettered access to gasoline, nitroglycerin and napalm.
1
Insanity. These senators want to bar 3 year old immigrant girls from the country for fear they are dangerous terrorists, but open their arms and say buy any weapons you like to kill Americans to any domestic or other terrorist who is in the country. This despite two incidents inside a week where without high capacity ammunition and semiautomatic weapons or assault weapons, the carnage wouldn't have happened.
I have written both my senators to protest this vote. There was a mass shooting a couple of blocks from where I work in Savannah the other day. Yet all Republicans care about is the NRA.
Strange how there is no problem with making a constitutional right to vote require all kinds of extra paperwork and proof, but terrorist suspects can walk into any gun shop and buy anything their little hearts desire.
I really wish the Department of Justice would prosecute the gun dealers and the gun lobby for providing "material support and resources" for terrorism.
The carnage continues. Republican politicians and candidates, along with the NRA and other gun manufacturers lobbyists wade through blood to grab their money.
I have written both my senators to protest this vote. There was a mass shooting a couple of blocks from where I work in Savannah the other day. Yet all Republicans care about is the NRA.
Strange how there is no problem with making a constitutional right to vote require all kinds of extra paperwork and proof, but terrorist suspects can walk into any gun shop and buy anything their little hearts desire.
I really wish the Department of Justice would prosecute the gun dealers and the gun lobby for providing "material support and resources" for terrorism.
The carnage continues. Republican politicians and candidates, along with the NRA and other gun manufacturers lobbyists wade through blood to grab their money.
4
It would be helpful if the NYT included a click-through so that we could all easily see how our own senators voted on these measures.
3
You can look it up at www.votesmart.org.
1
To all the 2nd Amendment troglodytes:
You pose an existential threat to me, I don't care about these "rights". I want to make sure you can't kill me just because you feel like it.
You pose an existential threat to me, I don't care about these "rights". I want to make sure you can't kill me just because you feel like it.
7
Chuck Mella, Your post suggests you have a very low opinion of your fellow man. Do you have any idea what self government is? Do you believe in it? If you do it sounds like you may have an idea for it that restricts the rights of those whom you do not approve of.
The only thing that is changeable in the issue of violence with or without weapons is the PEOPLE involved.
People can change and be changed you are never going to end crime by trying to ban or restrict some physical object. Didn't Prohibition teach us this? In fact wasn't it Prohibition that made public mass shooting violence with guns so "common"?
The issue is People and the ignorance and other deficiencies in their development into adulthood.
The "Age of Reason" was a big deal for real reasons.
The only thing that is changeable in the issue of violence with or without weapons is the PEOPLE involved.
People can change and be changed you are never going to end crime by trying to ban or restrict some physical object. Didn't Prohibition teach us this? In fact wasn't it Prohibition that made public mass shooting violence with guns so "common"?
The issue is People and the ignorance and other deficiencies in their development into adulthood.
The "Age of Reason" was a big deal for real reasons.
2
What is next? Maybe there should be a loan program to help those on the watch list buy their arsenals. "Do you need a tank, an IBM missile? Well, we have special financing just for you." I am so ashamed of our legislators.
2
I wonder if those dozen pipe bombs and the toy car remote detonators were illegal...?
1
Someone recently opined that America's failure to legislatively respond to the slaughter of children at Newtown means that the gun debate is essentially over. We have a new normal in which American's shrug their shoulders at mass killing...unless its done by someone with a foreign sounding name. I hope not.
1
Requiring background checks for any firearm purchase is a no-brainer. Anyone voting against such a measure should be recognized and called out as a stooge of the NRA and the gun lobby.
Prohibiting those who are placed on the terror watch list, however, should not happen, because the process by which people are placed on that list is beyond the public's view. Hence, a person could be placed on it and never know, and equally important would be deprived of due process in the exercise of a fundamental individual right protected by the Second Amendment (at least as explicated by the Supreme Court in Heller v. D.C.). That is unacceptable.
Perhaps we should simply restrict firearm ownership to those who have honorably served in the military (or are serving at the time). That would at least try to square with the Second Amendment, and provide at least some level of assurance that the person has been trained on safe firearm use to at least some degree.
Prohibiting those who are placed on the terror watch list, however, should not happen, because the process by which people are placed on that list is beyond the public's view. Hence, a person could be placed on it and never know, and equally important would be deprived of due process in the exercise of a fundamental individual right protected by the Second Amendment (at least as explicated by the Supreme Court in Heller v. D.C.). That is unacceptable.
Perhaps we should simply restrict firearm ownership to those who have honorably served in the military (or are serving at the time). That would at least try to square with the Second Amendment, and provide at least some level of assurance that the person has been trained on safe firearm use to at least some degree.
1
“I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.” - House Speaker Paul Ryan
Really? Then why do we even have a no-fly watch list?
The excuses grow thinner and thinner.
Really? Then why do we even have a no-fly watch list?
The excuses grow thinner and thinner.
1
did you know you can be put on the no-fly list without any reason why? Did you also know that there is no legal recourse to have yourself removed from the no-fly list? So, President Obama could declare today that all Americans are on the no-fly list; would you consider that a good idea? Would you eliminate a specific right for 320 million Americans because one person decided it should be that way?
Republicans are people who live in a well insulated house, but they leave the windows and doors open. Then they complain that it is too cold inside, the insulation doesn't work, and they blame the builder. They are cowards, they have no morals and they are all liars. This blood is on their hands. Period.
3
don't hold back, tell us what you really think of approximately 150 million Americans.
The Large White Rat and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Large White Rat took the toothpick out of its mouth, and addressed her in a patronizing, matter-of-fact voice: "Why, isn't it obvious? The answer is more guns."
"The answer to what?," asked Alice.
"Why, the answer to your question," said the Large White Rat.
"But I haven't asked a question," said Alice.
"Well, when you do," said the Large White Rat, "that will be the answer."
"The answer to what?," asked Alice.
"Why, the answer to your question," said the Large White Rat.
"But I haven't asked a question," said Alice.
"Well, when you do," said the Large White Rat, "that will be the answer."
5
If you think republicans serve the American People, think again.
3
If 85% of the American people want stricter gun regulations, then why can't the people vote on a referendum? Take the powers out of the politicians' hands who refuse to do anything to protect us from guns anyway, and let the majority of the people have their say.
1
Please publish the names of the Senators that stopped this bill.
1
The GOP doesn't give a damn about the people who died and were maimed in these massacres.....they won't do anything until someone someday takes out one of their family members or friends in massacres like these. Then we'll all see how quick these hypocritical clowns will change their tunes....case in point - James Brady - who was gravely injured during the attempt to assassinate President Reagan. Brady changed his tune about guns and gun laws after what happened to him.
2
"While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."
Aren't Republican voters across America paying attention? Why do they let their representatives get away with this?
Despite the grandstanding rhetoric demonizing Islam, you're more likely to be shot by a Christian, by your neighbor, by a co-worker. And that's a uniquely American problem. Our domestic gun violence dwarfs the number of deaths from terrorist attacks. Yet they put all their effort into exploiting that threat and none into our own problem. This year, for the first time, gun related deaths are expected to exceed automobile deaths. We make constant progress to reduce automobile deaths through technical innovation yet safety features on hand guns such as 'smart guns' are blocked by the NRA's representatives.
Research into gun violence is stifled by congress while we adhere religiously to an amendment adopted in 1791.
Chris Christie believes that "we are in the midst of the next world war" yet he is vetoed a gun control bill in New Jersey. He doesn't care about violence in his own streets. These politicians let nothing stand in the way of advancing their own career. We pay a terrible price for their personal ambitions.
Aren't Republican voters across America paying attention? Why do they let their representatives get away with this?
Despite the grandstanding rhetoric demonizing Islam, you're more likely to be shot by a Christian, by your neighbor, by a co-worker. And that's a uniquely American problem. Our domestic gun violence dwarfs the number of deaths from terrorist attacks. Yet they put all their effort into exploiting that threat and none into our own problem. This year, for the first time, gun related deaths are expected to exceed automobile deaths. We make constant progress to reduce automobile deaths through technical innovation yet safety features on hand guns such as 'smart guns' are blocked by the NRA's representatives.
Research into gun violence is stifled by congress while we adhere religiously to an amendment adopted in 1791.
Chris Christie believes that "we are in the midst of the next world war" yet he is vetoed a gun control bill in New Jersey. He doesn't care about violence in his own streets. These politicians let nothing stand in the way of advancing their own career. We pay a terrible price for their personal ambitions.
2
To quote that political wit George W. Bush, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
The GOP is clearly with the terrorists, domestic and foreign.
The GOP is clearly with the terrorists, domestic and foreign.
3
We are doomed by the idiocy of people on the left and right who cling to positions based on static world views steeped in ideology. Of course we need gun regulation and this bill is a no brainier, certainly not a solution, but a start. Insofar as immigration, visas, profiling are concerned there too it is obvious that strong measures need to be enacted. The bill being introduced in the Senate by Flake of AZ that prevents anyone who has traveled through certain countries From entry into the US for a period of time would have been an appropriate companion piece to the gun bill.
Can someone please tell me why many of the Republicans are still fighting the ACA and not acting on gun control issues?!! And please, can someone tell Trump, Cruz,and Christie to stop using scare tactics to try and win the nomination. I want to do their best to keep this country safe not someone who scares the country.
1
My version of "I want to take my country back" is to replace all those cowardly politicians who are in bed with the NRA and gun lobby with ones who can protect us from guns. Take us back to when our politicians actually did something to protect the public with saner guns laws as when assault rifles were banned.
5
You should not be denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right because your name has been put on a list. Denial of a protected right without due process is unthinkable, or it is too me. The murder rate is lower now than when the AWB was in place 1994-2004. Nothing short of complete confiscation of all guns will have a major impact. Let's have that debate.
3
If ever the "people" got to the streets, refused to pay their taxes, boycotts on stores that sold guns & ammunition, and stopped voting for state representatives that took a "no stand" on gun violence research....this could move the country in a direction closer to legislation to prevent these guns from being sold legally. Only when our government's security is challenged will this ever change.
1
And why the use now of the term "long gun" instead of
"assault rifle" to describe what the killers were carrying?
What's that all about?
"assault rifle" to describe what the killers were carrying?
What's that all about?
2
If you can deny a Constitutional right without due process , which is what the Times is advocating, why end at the half measure of canceling out the Second Amendment rights of suspected terrorists? Why not simply arrest and imprison these suspects. Since you have already rejected the principle of due process this can be done without bringing charges and not bothering with an unnecessary trial. If we are really going to fight terrorism, let's do this.
4
And while we're at it, we can automatically fine and jail anyone suspected by IRS algorithms of incorrectly completing tax returns. No need for the expensive and time-consuming audits to give the suspects the opportunity to prove they're innocent. I'm sure we can find many such examples where government suspicion alone could be used to more efficiently weed out bad apples. Or at least suspected bad apples.
Perhaps taking a page from the antiabortion groups, we need to demonstrate loudly and in great numbers outside the gun stores where these weapons of great domestic destruction are sold. Until "we the people" truly demonstrate that "we get it"---gun availability abets gun violence--politicians will continue to treat us as dimwits--allowing folks who have ties to extremists and who visit the birth land of ISIS, buy guns...but not allow them to fly in airplanes.
3
The two mass murder suspects were shot and killed by the police. That sounds like war to me. I guess the Republicans want the police to kill the murderers
before they murder somebody?
before they murder somebody?
4
When in the name of consistency will one of these GOP representatives, so protective of our second-amendment rights, introduce legislation to allow concealed weapons in the gallery of the House and Senate chambers? And, yes, again in the name of consistency, this right should be granted to those on terror watchlists.
6
Force the issue. Democrats must introduce a bill to allow open carry of loaded assault rifles in the halls of Congress and at all GOP gatherings.
As with health insurance, the craven, hypocritical Gun Trolls remove protection from everyone except themselves.
As with health insurance, the craven, hypocritical Gun Trolls remove protection from everyone except themselves.
10
Any time you ask a Republican politician about expanding gun control measures, he/she immediately changes the subject to mental health sufferers- and yet no interviewer ever seems to ask them what they intend to do about the mental health situation. Don't mental health patients have constitutional rights, too? Perhaps we all need to question the mental health of any Republican who denies that the easy accessibility of guns is the direct cause of the nation's ever-accelerating scourge of gun violence.
4
If our "leaders" reject sensible gun control after the mass murder of elementary school children in their classes, how can we expect them to EVER get a grip on this problem? We can't. We will continue to see mass murders for all kinds of reasons - political terrorism (and not just radical Muslim terrorism), workplace anger, acting out because you hate your mother, and whatever. We will see them because we happily put the weapons that make them possible into the hands of the people who kill. Our children are inheriting a country where the flak jacket and helmet will be part of their everyday wardrobe. We are one sick, sick society.
2
I think what we are witnessing bears more resemblance to the dark ages than it does to WW3. Attacks that started as either lone wolves redressing perceived aggrievances and terrorists advancing some twisted political agenda have expanded to be more characteristic of lawlessness and an effort to settle any number of issues through violence. Motives aren't clear because they are varied and don't fit neatly into boxes.
The US in my opinion is a putocracy and not a democracy and is a non functioning one at that. As a result, it is completely incapable of protecting its population in the wake of this violence. The hypocrisy of politicians is evident to all and is undermining the legitimacy of the government. In such a situation, it makes sense for people to turn inward and seek to protect themselves.
It is not so hard to see how this could lead to feudalism where lots people with guns are paid by others to protect them from the lawless marauders on the loose. I think we are seeing pressure that could lead to the collapse of western civilisation that has existed since the renaissance and reversion to the dark ages and a collapse of trade and other co-operation upon which our ways of life depend. If you think this is far fetched, look at the fences going up in the Balkans or to the ME and NA where governments have collapsed. Indeed, ISIS is really nothing more than a feudal overlord.
The US in my opinion is a putocracy and not a democracy and is a non functioning one at that. As a result, it is completely incapable of protecting its population in the wake of this violence. The hypocrisy of politicians is evident to all and is undermining the legitimacy of the government. In such a situation, it makes sense for people to turn inward and seek to protect themselves.
It is not so hard to see how this could lead to feudalism where lots people with guns are paid by others to protect them from the lawless marauders on the loose. I think we are seeing pressure that could lead to the collapse of western civilisation that has existed since the renaissance and reversion to the dark ages and a collapse of trade and other co-operation upon which our ways of life depend. If you think this is far fetched, look at the fences going up in the Balkans or to the ME and NA where governments have collapsed. Indeed, ISIS is really nothing more than a feudal overlord.
1
You have ignored the facts.
This particular carnage occurred in California. California has an "assault weapon" ban. The guns that they used cannot be both legal and "assault weapons," in California. One or the other, please?
Next, the "no fly" list has all sorts of people on it, for all sorts of reasons. You cannot get off the list, once on it. They give you a "redress number" to use, rather than removing you from the list, if you are able to show them you have been inluded by mistake. But you don't get removed from the "list."
If the no fly list was maintained and accurate it would be bizarre to sell a gun to an included person. Maybe they should actually be locked up!
But, the list is a joke.
This particular carnage occurred in California. California has an "assault weapon" ban. The guns that they used cannot be both legal and "assault weapons," in California. One or the other, please?
Next, the "no fly" list has all sorts of people on it, for all sorts of reasons. You cannot get off the list, once on it. They give you a "redress number" to use, rather than removing you from the list, if you are able to show them you have been inluded by mistake. But you don't get removed from the "list."
If the no fly list was maintained and accurate it would be bizarre to sell a gun to an included person. Maybe they should actually be locked up!
But, the list is a joke.
3
Cowards to the core. First they want to point racist, bigoted fingers. Then they refuse to take obvious, meaningful steps to remedy some of the problem. Then they blame the President. It has become a Republican routine.
The blood of the victims is on the hands of Ryan, Graham, Rubio, and all the others who voted to keep weapons in the hands of terrorists on our soil.
The blood of the victims is on the hands of Ryan, Graham, Rubio, and all the others who voted to keep weapons in the hands of terrorists on our soil.
4
On a brighter note: Just another few of those massacres with legally purchased guns and the Republican party will be eviscerated at the polls. My friends and most people I talk to had enough.
Having a high NRA score should be the end of any campaign.
Having a high NRA score should be the end of any campaign.
5
No where does it say that people have a right to buy assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition. It is a misreading of the constitution to assume they do. If it was truly a right you would not be able to say you can't bring your gun with you wherever you go in the USA. We tell people, no you can't bring your gun on the plane, or into the court house etc. so we can certainly tell them you don't have a right to buy these weapons of mass destruction.
3
Everyone in this country has the right to purchase a product that is deemed legal to sell. Whether it be soap, toothpaste, or 1000's of rounds of ammunition. Just because you don't think that anyone should do that, doesn't mean its unconstitutional to do so.
“I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.” Mr. Ryan.
Where's due process when people are arbitrarily being included on the "don't-fly" list?
Where's due process when people are arbitrarily being included on the "don't-fly" list?
5
And how about those people who are "arbitrarily" murdered by home-grown assassins? Where's their due process?
Mr Ryan says "...some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.” But it is OK for some "arbitrary" government list to say these people cannot fly. Why is one safer than the other?
2
It's not about the safety issue. It's about there being a constitutional right to bear arms. There's no constitutional right to boarding an airplane.
What he means to say is that the FBI and counter-terrorist officials put them on a list due to certain security issues.
Our so called leaders clearly will do or say anything for a dollar. That or they are outright idiots lacking both a conscious and common sense. Remember their ignorance relies on our ignorance and there seem to be plenty of ignorance to go around. Ask yourself, who has to get killed to bring change? This country stopped being a force for good a long time ago and there doesn't seem to be any going back as greed and nepotistic ignorance are destroying humanity with our own ignorance as it's primary weapon. Ask yourselves why do we continue to elect morons and thieves? Or do we elect the morons and thieves because we share their ignorance and values? One way or an other we are to blame for electing and then tolerating these ignoramuses. At this point one must wonder who is the real ignoramus?
2
Please list who voted for and against so that people can call their representative. This is news and should be reported to people.
3
My fellow Americans: Can we please put the adults back in charge come next November? We have had to suffer the petty childishness of the Republican leadership for long enough. For once, sane and responsible heads need to prevail.
4
I am as concerned about the number of unthinking gullible voters in this country as I am about the politicians they elect. Don't they realize that they are being mocked by these pols, manipulated by the fear and hate they spew? These politicians know their followers don't understand the difference between a kitchen table budget and a sound budget for the wealthiest nation on earth. Nor, apparently, do they understand that absolutely no argument can be made that any civilian in this country has a right to own assault weapons. Consequently, they continue to lead their voters around by the nose, and the followers never seem to realize that their politicians are are not dealing from their hearts; rather they are dealing from the pockets of K Street.
2
When Americans are sick and tired enough of all the killing then they will vote to fire all these gun mongers. However,who knows when that will happen considering voter apathy and disengagement. Maybe a nation wide strike like in Chi-Raq would do the trick? Senate votes on gun control always seem to happen after some massacre but perhaps that's the case because we have so many massacres in this country. What a slap in the face to all those murdered and maimed. Leave it to Trump to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist; sick, quite pathetic really.
3
"I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”
Sure, there is a principle of respecting due process. But, having due process apply to the purchase of guns, but not the boarding of an airplane is not a principled position.
Sure, there is a principle of respecting due process. But, having due process apply to the purchase of guns, but not the boarding of an airplane is not a principled position.
1
There is no constitutional right to board an airplane.
The NRA and the jihadists are after the same thing--to put Americans in a state of permanent fear. The NRA says the solution is to arm us all to the teeth and prepared for shootouts, but the mass murderers will always be better armed, and in body armor, and the chaos will never end. This is also what the jihadists want. Nothing will change until we get weapons of war out of America permanently and thoroughly. It won't be easy but until we do the jihadists will succeed, with the aid of the NRA.
5
The NRA literally profits greatly from the massacres, and Wayne LaPierre and the other executives personally make $8 million each year in their salaries and benefits.
Talk about blood money - that of the NRA, and that of the Republican politicians who take the blood money.
Talk about blood money - that of the NRA, and that of the Republican politicians who take the blood money.
Interesting that when the mass murderer is white, Republicans are quick to say, "The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens."
Well, so are the vast majority of Muslims - but don't hold your breath waiting to hear Republicans say it.
Well, so are the vast majority of Muslims - but don't hold your breath waiting to hear Republicans say it.
8
What a thoroughly despicable stance for the editorial board to take in defense of the worst kind of legislative pandering. Congress failed to pass a law restricting the constitutional rights of citizens convicted of no crime and we're somehow supposed to think this is an outrage? Perhaps gun control would have a better chance of popular acceptance if it weren't as transparently abusive and confiscatory as supporters like the Times are pushing for it to be.
1
It is an outrage. I can see that all the NRA and Koch trolls are out today, but even 71% of the NRA's members support barring weapons to people on the terrorist watch list.
The two Parisian terrorists who just massacred all those people were on the terrorist watch list, for example. Fine to let them have weapons if they made their way to this country?
Insanity multiplied.
The two Parisian terrorists who just massacred all those people were on the terrorist watch list, for example. Fine to let them have weapons if they made their way to this country?
Insanity multiplied.
Come November 8, 2016, the American people should remind these Senators who they REALLY work for.
It is high time to publicize the roll call vote on these amendments, which is available on thomas.gov, and to RETIRE as many of the Republicans who voted "no" who are running for office as possible. That should be about 23 of them. Then do that again in 2018.
It is high time to publicize the roll call vote on these amendments, which is available on thomas.gov, and to RETIRE as many of the Republicans who voted "no" who are running for office as possible. That should be about 23 of them. Then do that again in 2018.
5
This vote is not an accident. The Republican Party has clearly and repeatedly expressed its hatred for democracy and the legislative process. With this vote they intend to show how pointless, useless, and absurd the entire legislative process has become. This is not about the usual fear mongering and appeals to racism and xenophobia; this is another deliberate step away from democracy and towards authoritarianism. It doesn't have to end with Herr Trump but the signposts are pointing towards fascism.
8
Wouldn't it be fascism, and authoritarianism to take a constitutionally protected right to due-process away from someone.
I don't understand the thinking of those who say that the solution to gun violence is to make sure that more people are armed. Do they not see that if someone starts firing and kills someone it will not save a life if someone else pulls their gun? It's already too late.
I am nostalgic for the days when if people were angry they yelled or at worst hauled off and punched the other guy. Now with guns readily at hand a brief loss of temper leads to tragedy.
I am nostalgic for the days when if people were angry they yelled or at worst hauled off and punched the other guy. Now with guns readily at hand a brief loss of temper leads to tragedy.
1
It is no stretch to think that a majority our elected national representatives think guns are more important than people. That some contested second amendment right trumps research into the problem, trumps any sort of attempt to minimize damage by added regulation. That protecting the massive profits of gun manufacturers is more important than trying to save lives. That the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
The majority of our elected representatives appear committed to putting more and more guns into the hands of fewer and fewer people (yes, that is what happens: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-chart-12 and http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america ).
The majority of our elected representatives appear committed to putting more and more guns into the hands of fewer and fewer people (yes, that is what happens: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-chart-12 and http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america ).
1
Cowardly? More like corrupt. The GOP is the property of the NRA.
3
Shoot a Republican Congress person and see how fast they act.
3
Sadly, that happened, but Paul Ryan and the others don't care about those killed at a corner event when Gabby Giffords was shot, as well as a child and several others.
No consciences, no hearts, no empathy, no sanity -- just money from the NRA matters to these Republican senatorial monsters.
No consciences, no hearts, no empathy, no sanity -- just money from the NRA matters to these Republican senatorial monsters.
In response to the logic of the writer from Weston, would she agree that a ban on assault rifles could have limited the bloodshed in San Bernadino, if not stopped it completely?
1
AA,
There already is a ban on "assault weapons" in California.
These AR15's look like an M16 because it sells more of them. People like to have Army stuff which is why Army surplus stores exist. It is not an M16 and operates in the same way as rifles without pistol grip or handle on top.
"Assault weapon" is an invented phrase that causes listeners ignorant of guns and too trusting of the speaker to imagine something that is not real.
All weapons are designed to kill. Most modern rifles are semi automatic. There is no difference but what they look like. Any gun can be used to "assault" anything.
There already is a ban on "assault weapons" in California.
These AR15's look like an M16 because it sells more of them. People like to have Army stuff which is why Army surplus stores exist. It is not an M16 and operates in the same way as rifles without pistol grip or handle on top.
"Assault weapon" is an invented phrase that causes listeners ignorant of guns and too trusting of the speaker to imagine something that is not real.
All weapons are designed to kill. Most modern rifles are semi automatic. There is no difference but what they look like. Any gun can be used to "assault" anything.
The fear expressed by your readers in todays's article "Fear in the Air" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/fear-in-the-air-americans-look-over...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) needs to be transformed to anger and redirected toward the Republican leadership and Wayne LaPierre. Not until then will we see meaningful legislative action.
3
The spineless comments from Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Ryan and Bush are simply proof positive that none of the Republican candidates have any business in the White House. The complete sellout to the NRA and the gun lobby eliminates their consideration as, not just as presidential candidates, but as members of Congress.
They don't deserve to walk on the White House lawn, let alone sit in the Oval Office.
They don't deserve to walk on the White House lawn, let alone sit in the Oval Office.
3
The Republicans will use any means necessary to avoid action on gun control.
A few points:
- The fact is even if the President had used the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism," the victims would still be dead. They were killed by guns purchased in the U.S. from licensed gun dealers, such as "Annie’s Get Your Gun."
- Jeb Bush, who said after the Oregon shooting, "Look stuff happens, there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do," thought the "right thing to do" after the California shooting is to talk about "the brutal savagery of Islamic terrorism" and whine about the president and the former secretary of state?
- If we are "at war" now as a result of the California shooting, why were we not "at war" after the Newtown masscare, or the Colorado shootings or the myriad others? Incidentally, who are we at war with? Only with our own Muslim citizens but NOT with non-Muslim citizens who commit massacres or with the gun lobby?
- What, if anything, would the GOP candidates have done to prevent the sort of massacre, invariably carried out with guns, that seems to be taking place with increasing regularity? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.
A few points:
- The fact is even if the President had used the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism," the victims would still be dead. They were killed by guns purchased in the U.S. from licensed gun dealers, such as "Annie’s Get Your Gun."
- Jeb Bush, who said after the Oregon shooting, "Look stuff happens, there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do," thought the "right thing to do" after the California shooting is to talk about "the brutal savagery of Islamic terrorism" and whine about the president and the former secretary of state?
- If we are "at war" now as a result of the California shooting, why were we not "at war" after the Newtown masscare, or the Colorado shootings or the myriad others? Incidentally, who are we at war with? Only with our own Muslim citizens but NOT with non-Muslim citizens who commit massacres or with the gun lobby?
- What, if anything, would the GOP candidates have done to prevent the sort of massacre, invariably carried out with guns, that seems to be taking place with increasing regularity? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.
5
Banning suspected terrorists from owning guns is unconstitutional. Since when do we want our government taking away constitutional rights via suspicion of illegal thought or activity? Perhaps we should ban Democrats from voting.
Have you seen the hoops they make American voters jump through these days, especially minority voters, students and the elderly? Birth certificates, several documents, photographs, going to offices far away and often closed, etc.
Yet people who are on the FBI's terrorist watch list, put there by counter-terrorism officials for serious reasons (including the two terrorist brothers in Paris), should have additional rights basically.
Insanity.
Yet people who are on the FBI's terrorist watch list, put there by counter-terrorism officials for serious reasons (including the two terrorist brothers in Paris), should have additional rights basically.
Insanity.
Every time a republican politician utters the "thoughts and prayers go out to the families" every time a tragedy like this occurs they should be forced to pay a fine big time. Such hypocrites as I have never seen. How do they wake up in the morning and look at themselves in the mirror? I just don't get it, and sadly they don't either and never will.
3
NRA so concerned that any exclusion to gun access will be a precedent for wider controls that via their Congressional accomplices they are trying to defend the utterly indefensible.
4
How is it that we allow the people we pay well to represent us to get away with this? Every person who voted this way should be heckled and harassed every time he or she appears in public. I'm talking the grocery store here! If they are too cowardly to appear in public, we should demand answers from them at every stop light and gas station! Someone please create an app to track these people for us. Is there picketing in front of their homes? Why not? If that is illegal, I know from my work as a clinic escort that it's perfectly legal to harass those seeking health care. Let's find out when and where these people see their doctors. Everyone has to leave the house sometime. Do they have kids in college? Let's (gently and respectfully, the kids have done nothing wrong - my own went to high school with Trump's boys, and they were nice kids) ask there kids, "what the heck?" There's nothing like pressure at home. Treason, which is what this is, should not be without a price!
1
I must clarify that only adult children should be asked about their parents' actions, however vile. Minor children are sacrosanct.
Disgusting, isn't it?
1
The issue is Islamist terrorism not gun control. This article is nothing less then a dishonest and propagandistic attempt to give Obama, Hillary and Democrats cover for their incompetence, dishonesty, pandering and disgusting politicization of this issue. Started while some of the victims were still bleeding out and the dead lay where they fell. All that is missing is claims of a YouTube video. The watch list is rife with errors, notorious for improperly placing and keeping innocent people on it while letting suspects through and as the rest of the government, incompetently run.
The Democrats first responses to every issue are blame someone else even though they are in charge, raise taxes and spend more and impose greater limits on the freedom of law abiding citizens while ignoring the real culprits and issues.
The Democrats first responses to every issue are blame someone else even though they are in charge, raise taxes and spend more and impose greater limits on the freedom of law abiding citizens while ignoring the real culprits and issues.
1
Maxine, do you have any idea how many incidents of mass shootings in this country actually involved Islamist terrorists? It might be worth your while to look into it.
The GOP has been driven absolutely totally insane by Barack Obama. They need to go--locally and nationally--until some credible Conservative coalition can replace them. This is not a political party anymore, it has become a conduit for old white people's rage and fears and is the most destructive and negative force in politics I have seen in my lifetime.
5
Pipe bombs are illegal. They are not protected by the Bill of Rights. The bad guys had them, too. Hmmm . . . illegal/had them - - how can that be?
Do we really want to respond to a tragedy with a kneejerk reaction that affects a valid American right and, quite obviously, would not change matters for the bad guys?
Do we really want to respond to a tragedy with a kneejerk reaction that affects a valid American right and, quite obviously, would not change matters for the bad guys?
1
A pipe bomb is something that is made by the user; it is not a commercially available product. I'm willing to bet that these shooters would not have been able to build their own assault rifles. And if these kinds of guns were illegal, they would difficult or impossible to obtain. Pistols flow through the system much more easily than the larger and more powerful weapons.
Then there's the issue of ownership of these killing machines being a "valid American right" in the first place, which is lunacy.
Then there's the issue of ownership of these killing machines being a "valid American right" in the first place, which is lunacy.
Christie vetoes a NJ bill to put teeth into mental health restrictions on gun purchased...and his GOP upholds it. Fie!
3
I actually used to be a Republican many years ago. I don't know what you would call the group of cowards that now claim that mantle. What kind of legislator would ever vote against a law that would keep guns out of the hands of known terrorists and people who are mentally ill? They become twisted contortionists when they are forced to explain their position. They will do or say anything not to offend or stop their cash flow from the NRA. If the people don't vote these bought-and-paid-for NRA puppets out of office, they are going to do irreversible damage to this country.
4
So, brilliant NYTimes editorial author, answer this, how do you explain Paris when France is practically a gun-free zone? Are you going to eliminate the HomeDepot loophole and ban the unregistered sale of pipe and common household materials?
The only reasonable answer is to outlaw gun-free zones on public property and force private property owners to provide security and insurance against deadly attacks if it establishes a gun-free zone.
The only reasonable answer is to outlaw gun-free zones on public property and force private property owners to provide security and insurance against deadly attacks if it establishes a gun-free zone.
Well done opinion piece--and I agree.
1
Hey NRA (and those on their payroll in congress)...even on the battlefield a good guy with a gun can't always stop a bad guy with a gun. How about we don't give the bad guys guns?
I know there's not always a clear line between good and bad and a terrorism watch list seems like a good place to start. And if you need a background check to teach Sunday School (insurance often requires it) then surely those who purchase a deadly weapon need one as well.
I know there's not always a clear line between good and bad and a terrorism watch list seems like a good place to start. And if you need a background check to teach Sunday School (insurance often requires it) then surely those who purchase a deadly weapon need one as well.
2
It's not the Republicans fault. Or NRA's. It's the American peoples' fault - for voting for politicians who support the laws bolstering the NRA's agenda.
4
We need to try starting with another bill that would allow the Centers for Disease Control to study gun violence epidemiologically. Those beholden to the NRA won't even allow that kind of study--much less restrict terrorists from buying guns.
Just say it clearly: the NRA and its Republican supporters are supporting anti-American terrorists of all stripes.
Just say it clearly: the NRA and its Republican supporters are supporting anti-American terrorists of all stripes.
1
The problem with the terrorist watch/no fly lists is that there is insufficient evidence to charge people of a crime. Another is that there are many examples of people who are on the list who should not be. So fix the list! Give those folks an avenue of redress. Then ban them temporarily, at least, from purchasing guns. We have limits on free speech (you can't yell fire in a crowded place). Why can't there be reasonable limits on gun ownership? Abortion is legal and some say a right. We limit that! We have limits for driving cars! There is a way to do this. Gun owners need to be leading the quest for solutions, not just allowing the NRA to dictate policy. Every gun purchase should require a background check. Those who sell guns without a completed background check in hand should have automatic prison sentences. There should be a waiting period to obtain the gun. Assault weapons and large clips should be banned. You don't have a right to other military type weapons! You have to have an eye test before you get a driver's license and in some places you have to have an ultra-sound before you can have an abortion. How about a mental health exam before you can purchase a gun? None of these measures is going to eliminate gun violence or mass murders or terrorist attacks. There are plenty of those things that could have been avoided had measures like these & others been in place. Either you care more about people or you care more about getting reelected. Give the boot to the latter!
Not soon forgotten, remembered all to well the incident whereby some AK's were purchased by 2 Paki's (that may have been turned away upon scrutiny) who promptly went to CIA HQ and sprayed the guard booth. They managed to scoot and were eventually extradited from Pakistan and tried here.........
Strict gun control laws are needed but President Obama's legacy is a lack of leadership and alienation of those who disagree with him.
Where is his "tough" plan in combatting terrorism?
The strong armed passage of Obamacare without any bipartisan support coupled with his open disrespect for Republicans has poisoned the opportunity for bipartisan solutions.
Why worry about "climate change" in the midst of the threat to civilization from terrorists and the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
When Americans desperately need to be unified,Obama has been the most divisive President in modern history.
Where is his "tough" plan in combatting terrorism?
The strong armed passage of Obamacare without any bipartisan support coupled with his open disrespect for Republicans has poisoned the opportunity for bipartisan solutions.
Why worry about "climate change" in the midst of the threat to civilization from terrorists and the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
When Americans desperately need to be unified,Obama has been the most divisive President in modern history.
jck,
Putting the word "strict" in a sentence does not make the subject "more" than what it is to begin with.
It is a sad fact that no gun laws would prevent any of the mass murders by gun we have seen in our whole history as a nation.
Why does everyone keep turning away from the only part of the equation that can be changed? People.
Putting the word "strict" in a sentence does not make the subject "more" than what it is to begin with.
It is a sad fact that no gun laws would prevent any of the mass murders by gun we have seen in our whole history as a nation.
Why does everyone keep turning away from the only part of the equation that can be changed? People.
I'll support the legislation given 3 conditions:
1 - There's a TRANSPARENT and PUBLIC process for getting off the idiotic "terrorism watch list"
2 - The list and reasoning for inclusion on same MUST be available to ANYONE on the list
3 - The inclusion must be EXPLICITLY renewed after some time limit - I'd say 1 year - has expired.
So, I'm in - are you?
1 - There's a TRANSPARENT and PUBLIC process for getting off the idiotic "terrorism watch list"
2 - The list and reasoning for inclusion on same MUST be available to ANYONE on the list
3 - The inclusion must be EXPLICITLY renewed after some time limit - I'd say 1 year - has expired.
So, I'm in - are you?
1
So, among the Rights our military is sacrificing their lives for, as Republicans keep reminding us, are the rights of terrorist to purchase guns.
Just checking...
Just checking...
The NRA has won. America's most nefarious domestic terrorist organization has successfully fomented so much fear among the American population and surpassed ISIS, Al Quada, and The Taliban in the methods of fear-mongering. The only difference is the motivation found in their bible - The Book of Profits. Recently re-written by their wholly owned legislative publishing house - The US Congress, a despicable collective of cowards that put their own pockets and special interest profits before the safety and value of American lives, we can see the results on the bottom line - record gun sales and record numbers (16,000) of babies, kids, teens, women, and men) slaughtered annually by their products. Selling to terrorists can only further line their pockets and America and Americans be damned.
We need to have a more prominent--front page-display of these votes Perhaps showing red, bloody hands holding an assault weapons. Yes, I'm angry, fed-up, and outraged. The Republicans, to my mind, have blood on their hands. But, it's not sorely the responsibility of the media to inform us. The Democrat Party needs to unite behind these common-sense gun regulations and act, like their Republican counterparts, with a unified, persistent, and loud voice. Until that happens we'll have more back-page editorial hand-wringing; strident comments like mine; more massacres and little political action.
1
If all you do is continue to add amendment to amendment to amendment to a bill that never gets passed because nobody can agree on everything, why not just create one simple bill and vote on it. Don't attach gun control amendments with healthcare, it'll never get passed
I suspect the only change in gun control will have to come with amending the 2nd amendment, and i do not expect to see that anytime soon.
In 1968, while in eighth grade I learned to fear for the safety of our leaders when Martin and Robert were shot and killed in Memphis and Los Angeles.
As a father I learned to fear for the safety of my children when twenty years later, Laurie Dann ran into a grade school shooting second graders injuring two and killing another. I also watched a generation of children getting shot by gangs and drive by shootings and learned of children getting innocently shot as bullets ripped through a window killing a child in the safety of her own home.
Today, as the father of a daughter expectant with our first grandchild, I learned that every member of the GOP in the United States Senate, except one who was in high school with Laurie Dann, voted against protecting that yet to be born child my daughter will bring into this world.
Senator Kirk, while I disagree with your party on virtually every issue, I applaud your common sense on your vote to protect my yet to be born grandchild. You haven't forgotten Nicholas Corwin, that young second grader who died from the gun bought and owned and shot by your former classmate that was receiving professional psychiatric care at the time of the shooting.
My hope for our future grandchildren is we end the campaign fundraising that gives cover to the politicians bought and owned by Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. The GOP has no conscience.
As a father I learned to fear for the safety of my children when twenty years later, Laurie Dann ran into a grade school shooting second graders injuring two and killing another. I also watched a generation of children getting shot by gangs and drive by shootings and learned of children getting innocently shot as bullets ripped through a window killing a child in the safety of her own home.
Today, as the father of a daughter expectant with our first grandchild, I learned that every member of the GOP in the United States Senate, except one who was in high school with Laurie Dann, voted against protecting that yet to be born child my daughter will bring into this world.
Senator Kirk, while I disagree with your party on virtually every issue, I applaud your common sense on your vote to protect my yet to be born grandchild. You haven't forgotten Nicholas Corwin, that young second grader who died from the gun bought and owned and shot by your former classmate that was receiving professional psychiatric care at the time of the shooting.
My hope for our future grandchildren is we end the campaign fundraising that gives cover to the politicians bought and owned by Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. The GOP has no conscience.
5
This editorial combines discussion of two issues, which should be separated. I will focus on the terrorism watch list/gun ban issue.
I encourage commenters here, including the Editorial Board, to read the proposed legislation. One doesn't get on the list by conviction or contested hearing, but by sole designation of the Attorney General. This lack of formality may explain why the list has grown to 700,000 people. It's possible to petition for removal from the list, which must be undertaken within 60 days of learning that one is on it. At that hearing, the Government may rely on undisclosed evidence to justify its determination, and while a court may look at that evidence it is specifically forbidden from considering it. This is the extent of "due process" afforded here, and should be an unacceptable standard for significant deprivations. And in case you're asking, that is so whether we are talking about the ability to fly, the right to have your phones untapped, and the right to purchase a firearm.
The hypocrisy on both sides of this debate is regrettably familiar. Republicans normally embrace security and intelligence measures. Democrats - or at least, Progressives - have been skeptical of the Government's claimed need to constrain liberties for security. The deciding factor on each side is the level of support for the right in question. Because the NYT doesn't like guns in the first place, the proposed measure is, obviously, a "common-sense" measure.
I encourage commenters here, including the Editorial Board, to read the proposed legislation. One doesn't get on the list by conviction or contested hearing, but by sole designation of the Attorney General. This lack of formality may explain why the list has grown to 700,000 people. It's possible to petition for removal from the list, which must be undertaken within 60 days of learning that one is on it. At that hearing, the Government may rely on undisclosed evidence to justify its determination, and while a court may look at that evidence it is specifically forbidden from considering it. This is the extent of "due process" afforded here, and should be an unacceptable standard for significant deprivations. And in case you're asking, that is so whether we are talking about the ability to fly, the right to have your phones untapped, and the right to purchase a firearm.
The hypocrisy on both sides of this debate is regrettably familiar. Republicans normally embrace security and intelligence measures. Democrats - or at least, Progressives - have been skeptical of the Government's claimed need to constrain liberties for security. The deciding factor on each side is the level of support for the right in question. Because the NYT doesn't like guns in the first place, the proposed measure is, obviously, a "common-sense" measure.
The Republican party clearly cares more about keeping their NRA paymasters happy than protecting the American people, yet somehow it is all Obama's fault. [eye roll]
The Republicans voted against the bill because it is known that the terrorist, no fly list has proven to be rife with errors. So, is it better to approve the bill, which by the way would not have stopped the San Bernadino shooting, knowing many people will be unfairly penalized because of the chance someone on the terrorist list would somehow try to buy a gun legally?
First, the editorial board should be ashamed of itself posing this issue as connected with the shooting in California without evidence that the suspects were actually on the FBI watch list. If these people were on the list, then this conversation is on point, otherwise it is a red herring.
Second, has anyone here bothered to consider if this might even pass constitutional muster? Let's think about this for a moment. The base-level notion is that you want Congress to pass a bill that deprives a person of a constitutionally-protected right, because the executive branch of the government think that he or she is more likely to commit a crime. You may not like the right, but depriving heretofore law abiding people of that right is not constitutional.
Third, this bill that failed was not simply about people on the terrorist watch list. As you note in the article, it would have screened out sales to the mentally ill. Despite the popularity of this notion in the press, this is a terrible idea. If anyone who is deemed mentally ill looses access to firearms, how many folks for whom access to firearms is important do you think will seek mental health diagnosis and treatment? We need a more robust mental health system in the country, not a link between mental health status and the right to own a firearm.
Second, has anyone here bothered to consider if this might even pass constitutional muster? Let's think about this for a moment. The base-level notion is that you want Congress to pass a bill that deprives a person of a constitutionally-protected right, because the executive branch of the government think that he or she is more likely to commit a crime. You may not like the right, but depriving heretofore law abiding people of that right is not constitutional.
Third, this bill that failed was not simply about people on the terrorist watch list. As you note in the article, it would have screened out sales to the mentally ill. Despite the popularity of this notion in the press, this is a terrible idea. If anyone who is deemed mentally ill looses access to firearms, how many folks for whom access to firearms is important do you think will seek mental health diagnosis and treatment? We need a more robust mental health system in the country, not a link between mental health status and the right to own a firearm.
1
I really think in their own craven way, the like and support violence and terrorism ... it gives them good cause to yell and scream and play tough, since actual legislation and negotiation is utterly impossible. Bunch of neanderthals really ... a good portion anyway. This is what corruption, power and money does. Pretty boy Ryan is a stooge to the conservative highest bidders, and so are the minions that follow.
I don't think you will have to dig far to find the Times editorial board condemning the watch list for arbitrarily and inaccurately limiting citizens mobility and rights. As I recall the Times is against surveillance, profiling, restricted boarders and emigration policies... But when it comes to gun rights, that's another matter.
Looks like the 2A zealots have a real predicament now.
Protect the rights of God fearing "normal" Americans to have any guns of any type in any amount with any quantity of ammo. And maintain loopholes so that felons, criminals and nuts can acquire the same weapons without detection. Absolutely, until you pry the gun out of my cold fingers.
Now we can add Muslim terrorists to the list of 2A/NRA supporters.
It was only a matter of time until they exploited our insane gun culture.
Well, now your unregulated "freedom" to secretly built an arsenal is also theirs. You better buy more guns.
Protect the rights of God fearing "normal" Americans to have any guns of any type in any amount with any quantity of ammo. And maintain loopholes so that felons, criminals and nuts can acquire the same weapons without detection. Absolutely, until you pry the gun out of my cold fingers.
Now we can add Muslim terrorists to the list of 2A/NRA supporters.
It was only a matter of time until they exploited our insane gun culture.
Well, now your unregulated "freedom" to secretly built an arsenal is also theirs. You better buy more guns.
Let's have a list published of all congressmen who benefit from NRA or other gun lobby contributions.
1
Did we allow German Fascists or its allies Japan in our country during WWII? It seems to me that some are leading Americans to believe that to reduce terrorism, we need to reduce guns. Why do some want to regulate guns while letting terrorists the can live here as refugees? It seems we believe any lie about cause and effect as long as long as our government gets us emotionally involved. Is guns the cause of terrorism?
The enemy is not guns, but people whoes ideology is to commit acts of terrorism. We know that some of these Muslims, we let in, will attack our country from within? We are suppose to be at war with terrorism. Our government should not let potential terrorists into our county or to stay here.
All of America should be all in in... keeping terrorists all out of America. We need a government and leaders that will commit 100% to keeping Islamic terrorists all out. Instead our government has been training, so called insurgents, ISIS and Taliban terrorists to build bombs to use against people in Russia ns and Syria and then allowing them into America, so they can build bombs here in relatively safety to use against Americans.
The enemy is not guns, but people whoes ideology is to commit acts of terrorism. We know that some of these Muslims, we let in, will attack our country from within? We are suppose to be at war with terrorism. Our government should not let potential terrorists into our county or to stay here.
All of America should be all in in... keeping terrorists all out of America. We need a government and leaders that will commit 100% to keeping Islamic terrorists all out. Instead our government has been training, so called insurgents, ISIS and Taliban terrorists to build bombs to use against people in Russia ns and Syria and then allowing them into America, so they can build bombs here in relatively safety to use against Americans.
2
When somebody claims that their republican senator is a "moderate," you can look at their votes, point to them, and say "Republican."
Are congressional Republicans really as sociopathic as they vote?
Voting against sensible gun laws and healthcare strike me as anti-social behavior. What do they hope to gain by this? It would seem to me that Mr. & Mrs. Average America would realize how much these anti-social actions effect them in such a negative way.
Who could possibly be against better health care for themselves and their family and friends?
Who could possibly be against feeling safe in a crowd of people or workplace because there are fewer AR15's and stricter laws as to ownership and availability?
What makes people vote against their own best interest?
Voting against sensible gun laws and healthcare strike me as anti-social behavior. What do they hope to gain by this? It would seem to me that Mr. & Mrs. Average America would realize how much these anti-social actions effect them in such a negative way.
Who could possibly be against better health care for themselves and their family and friends?
Who could possibly be against feeling safe in a crowd of people or workplace because there are fewer AR15's and stricter laws as to ownership and availability?
What makes people vote against their own best interest?
Republican behavior remains incomprehensible, by allowing the irrestricted acquisition of weapons by suspected terrorists (the one's on the no-fly list). Cowards and hypocrites. Akin to political prostitutes, selling themselves to the highest bidder, the N.R.A./gun lobby. How unrepresentative can they get?
I do not understand the point this editorial is making: California has some of the strictest, if not the strictest, gun control laws in the country. So more gun control is not the issue here, it is clearly that the perpetrators were able to purchase weapons and rounds illegally, plan and carry out attacks. Blaming republicans for the San Bernardino attack does not make any sense, if anything it proves them right.
The second item that makes no sense to me is the attempt to draw a correlation between fighting global terrorism and gun laws. Again, terrorists acquire their weapons illegally. Gun control laws, as necessary as they are, do not protect against terror attacks.
The second item that makes no sense to me is the attempt to draw a correlation between fighting global terrorism and gun laws. Again, terrorists acquire their weapons illegally. Gun control laws, as necessary as they are, do not protect against terror attacks.
This kind of polarization expressed by a fanatical leftist news machine is incredibly damaging to the US culture. It would be nice to see the NYTs try to help instead of grinding the axe. Do people really think that these two terrorists could not have obtained guns if the legal option wasn't available? Did they obtain the pipe bomb material legally, did they obtain their attitude legally?
Answer this question if you don't mind: Should people on the terrorist watch list be allowed to purchase guns? That is the essence of the outrage.
How in the world do we allow people on the 'Suspected Terrorist Watchlist' and on the 'Convicted Felons and Mentally Unstable' list to buy firearms? We're worried that officials will just willy-nilly put people on the lists and deny them their Amendment rights? I'm sorry, but if you're put on the FBI's or the CIA's watchlist, you must have done something terribly wrong. Normal everyday citizens do not find themselves on this list; and if you do, then you really shouldn't own a gun in the first place. I'm sick of reading what the politicians decide to do (or rather what not to do) when these obscene shootings/acts of violence happen over-and-over again. How in the world do you blame our President for not doing anything; when repeatedly, it is the Congress that doesn't allow anything to happen! No wonder he's exasperated; I am too!
1
I think most Americans are for serious gun control Legislation, like the one discussed in this editorial.
But they are also for more serious efforts to defeat ISIS and Al Queda - and other Islamic exteremist groups, and for more serious efforts to prevent them from entering this country.
Where are the political candidates who want both?
But they are also for more serious efforts to defeat ISIS and Al Queda - and other Islamic exteremist groups, and for more serious efforts to prevent them from entering this country.
Where are the political candidates who want both?
The Republicans would like to accuse the President of not being serious about terrorism, of failing to protect us. They lose all credibility when they then refuse to take any steps to prevent Islamic terrorists from simply walking into a gun store and walking away with an arsenal.
The only concern Paul Ryan has for falsely accused Americans of terrorism is not that they can't board a plane but that they can't purchase a gun.
Hypocrisy.
The only concern Paul Ryan has for falsely accused Americans of terrorism is not that they can't board a plane but that they can't purchase a gun.
Hypocrisy.
1
Anyone who believes that the killers in San Bernardino, CA or Paris, France respect and obey gun laws is delusional...to include the current President of the United States.
If the Republicans feel that you can't "arbitrarily" label someone as a potential terrorist for the watch list, then how is it OK to arbitrarily label all Syrian immigrants as potential terrorists? If they want to be the tough party that talks of being in the "midst of the next world war", then they should just quit with the hypocrisy.
1
Have you no sense of decency, Senate Republicans?
7
Members of the GOP can spin their votes any way they'd like, but the fact remains that these ideologues in Congress are a threat to the safety of each and every American. They do not want refugees from unspeakable terror to enter the country, but they will not restrict the right of those on the terrorist watch list to buy guns. This goes to a bankruptcy of character on the part of the GOP that cannot be explained.
2
Perhaps the first step would be not to invite terrorists to enter our country.
1
Interesting when the President castigates the Patriot Act for its violation of due process and search and seizure, the NYT is all on board with upholding the Bill of Rights and celebrated the end to Data Mining. But when Democrats demand the subversion of due process either in being put on a "Watch List," or circumventing the 2nd amendment, the NYT becomes their bully pulpit. At this point it is very boring and so obviously hypocritical. Either the Bill of Rights is important or it is not. NYT choose a side, either the Bill of Rights matters or it does not. But remember that First Amendment, Right to a Free Press, is part of that package.
"Tough Talk and a Cowardly Vote on Terrorism"
The NYT refused to publish the Danish satirical cartoons of Muhammad for fear of violence and misguided PC "sensitivity" issues. In failing to publish with the same boldness with which it once published the "Pentagon Papers," it handed Islamic fascism a victory.
The NYT again refused to allow its readership to view the Charlie Hebdo cartoons which Islamic fascists used as justification for a mass slaughter of journalists and satirists in Paris last January. In censoring itself, the Times then explained that it was literally in fear for the lives of its correspondents everywhere, thus handing Islamic fascism another victory against one of the West's most hard-fought and cherished values: freedom of the press.
The NYT now finds itself on the same side, or sympathetic to, the real growing ideological danger on American campuses, interestingly aligned with Islamic fascism's call for "limits" to free speech in the West, which seek to intimidate and silence those at colleges who offend by offering ideas which differ from the self-appointed Robespierres at our taxpayer supported higher learning institutions.
The NYT's actions in defense of the First Amendment have been "cowardly." It has no moral authority credibility to lecture on the scope of the Second Amendment.
The NYT refused to publish the Danish satirical cartoons of Muhammad for fear of violence and misguided PC "sensitivity" issues. In failing to publish with the same boldness with which it once published the "Pentagon Papers," it handed Islamic fascism a victory.
The NYT again refused to allow its readership to view the Charlie Hebdo cartoons which Islamic fascists used as justification for a mass slaughter of journalists and satirists in Paris last January. In censoring itself, the Times then explained that it was literally in fear for the lives of its correspondents everywhere, thus handing Islamic fascism another victory against one of the West's most hard-fought and cherished values: freedom of the press.
The NYT now finds itself on the same side, or sympathetic to, the real growing ideological danger on American campuses, interestingly aligned with Islamic fascism's call for "limits" to free speech in the West, which seek to intimidate and silence those at colleges who offend by offering ideas which differ from the self-appointed Robespierres at our taxpayer supported higher learning institutions.
The NYT's actions in defense of the First Amendment have been "cowardly." It has no moral authority credibility to lecture on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Ever play the game of "Twister"? Only, no one is laughing at this party: it's all about winning, and it's only taking place because so many Americans hate our President (and I wonder why) and so many people are dying because of gunfire when all they have to say is "NO" to guns.
Finally, common sense gun legislation is put to a vote in Congress and the GOP licks the boots of the NRA again. Republicans are another form of terrorism.
I am a liberal and a Democrat. I support gun control. I think that Heller v. District of Columbia (which held that there is a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the ability to form a well-regulated militia) was probably wrongly decided.
However, the law the New York Times editorial board is supporting is blatantly unconstitutional. The so-called Terrorist Watchlist affords absolutely no Due Process to the people who are on it. It is broader than the no-fly list. You cannot know if you are on it. Even if you could know if you were on it, there is no procedure for you to request to be removed. (You can request to be removed from the no-fly list, mind you, but only after being harassed at the airport so much that you realize something is up. Even then, you are not necessarily removed from the larger Terrorist Watchlist.) You can be placed on the Terrorist Watchlist if there is "a reasonable suspicion" that there is a "reasonable suspicion" that you are a terrorist. This is far less than the standard for getting a warrant, which, by the way, is not required to place you on the Terrorist Watchlist. There is zero accountability.
Like it or not, the ability to purchase a gun to use in the home for self-defense is a constitutional right. What the New York Times is advocating for, then, is a law that denies someone a constitutional right based on an secret, unconstitutional list. Even for supporters of gun control legislation, this is dangerous precedent indeed.
However, the law the New York Times editorial board is supporting is blatantly unconstitutional. The so-called Terrorist Watchlist affords absolutely no Due Process to the people who are on it. It is broader than the no-fly list. You cannot know if you are on it. Even if you could know if you were on it, there is no procedure for you to request to be removed. (You can request to be removed from the no-fly list, mind you, but only after being harassed at the airport so much that you realize something is up. Even then, you are not necessarily removed from the larger Terrorist Watchlist.) You can be placed on the Terrorist Watchlist if there is "a reasonable suspicion" that there is a "reasonable suspicion" that you are a terrorist. This is far less than the standard for getting a warrant, which, by the way, is not required to place you on the Terrorist Watchlist. There is zero accountability.
Like it or not, the ability to purchase a gun to use in the home for self-defense is a constitutional right. What the New York Times is advocating for, then, is a law that denies someone a constitutional right based on an secret, unconstitutional list. Even for supporters of gun control legislation, this is dangerous precedent indeed.
1
I would love to go back and look at the Editorials written by this Newspaper when the renewal of the Patriot Act was up for vote. If I remember correctly, they had a lot of issue with the unconstitutional nature of many provisions of the Act and how it went against Due Process.
I can understand the wishy-washy attitude of our Republican legislators with their useless comments on the events in California, which to them is a liberal-leaning Democratic state. But I wonder what their answers will be when a tragic mass-shooting happens in one of their conservative, 2nd Amendment leaning, right-wing states? What will their answers be then? I have always said that laws don't get changed unless something terrible happens to a legislator's family or close friend, due to firearms or drunken driving. Then the screaming starts from the unlikely people. Shameful and tragic, no?
Why should anyone in the executive branch be able to put a citizen on a list and suspend their rights? That's ridiculous. If someone is that dangerous, arrest them, charge them and take them to trial. I know that the NYT and many commenters do not like the 2nd Amendment but the concept of the government, absent due process, suspending someone's constitutional rights (just in case of course) is chilling.
Most don't care about the due-process of this...they just want to complain about the NRA and Republicans, because that allows them to place blame on them.
The government would like the ability to revoke rights guaranteed by the Constitution by simply adding names to a list? And many are OK with that? Without even knowing how names are added to the list, and what oversight exists to prevent abuse? Maybe the terrorists have already won?
Like it or not, the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to guarantee the right to bear arms. The government cannot simply create lists to get around the Constitution. Doing so won’t stem the tide of gun violence, but it will serve to weaken the no-fly lists. The last thing we need is for the no fly list to be weakened by the threat of lawsuits that will inevitably come as soon as law abiding citizens are denied their Constitutional rights because their name, without due process, was added to it.
Blaming guns for violence, and not the people who use them, is what’s weak. Instead of tackling the root causes of violence…the truly tough issues…many politicians and voters would prefer to take the easy way out. If we do that enough, these “brave leaders” will take our country so far astray from the principles of freedom that there won’t be much left for which to fight.
Like it or not, the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to guarantee the right to bear arms. The government cannot simply create lists to get around the Constitution. Doing so won’t stem the tide of gun violence, but it will serve to weaken the no-fly lists. The last thing we need is for the no fly list to be weakened by the threat of lawsuits that will inevitably come as soon as law abiding citizens are denied their Constitutional rights because their name, without due process, was added to it.
Blaming guns for violence, and not the people who use them, is what’s weak. Instead of tackling the root causes of violence…the truly tough issues…many politicians and voters would prefer to take the easy way out. If we do that enough, these “brave leaders” will take our country so far astray from the principles of freedom that there won’t be much left for which to fight.
1
The very people criticizing the President for being week on terrorism vote against a bill that would prevent people on our nations terrorist watch list from legally purchasing firearms. What an unbelievably callow and hypocritical act. We have these people on a no fly list, but not on a no weapons purchase list?! Does that make sense to anyone?
I'm a gun owner. I support the right of Americans to own guns (like it or not its in the Constitution), but this is insanity. Gun control laws dont have to prevent all crimes to be worth while. Anti-murder laws dont prevent all murders, but we have them. If background checks, national data bases, closing the gun control loophole, keeping people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons legally save only one life a year they be worth the small little inconvenience for gun purchasers. That we allow NRA induced paranoia about gun control to cost even one American life a year is a disgrace. We are better than this.
I'm a gun owner. I support the right of Americans to own guns (like it or not its in the Constitution), but this is insanity. Gun control laws dont have to prevent all crimes to be worth while. Anti-murder laws dont prevent all murders, but we have them. If background checks, national data bases, closing the gun control loophole, keeping people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons legally save only one life a year they be worth the small little inconvenience for gun purchasers. That we allow NRA induced paranoia about gun control to cost even one American life a year is a disgrace. We are better than this.
5
One quick thought first--I heard on the morning news that a sheriff in Ulster County in Upstate NY is urging local residents to start carrying guns if they have them. Even local law enforcement officials are throwing in the towel against the nonstop wave of gun violence.
It's no secret that the Republican controlled House and Senate have a warped sense of priorities. Republicans in both houses are congratulating themselves on having taking a decisive vote to protect Americans from the twin dangers posed by Obama Care and Planned Parenthood. Yes, for the umpteenth time the Republican Senate voted AYE overwhelmingly to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obama Care. Naturally, they continued to toe the Republican party line by voting NAY to even the mildest suggestion that maybe there should be stricter background checks for purchasing firearms. Sleep tight America--you may not be able to get any healthcare but you can stockpile all the weapons of mass destruction you want, no questions asked.
It's no secret that the Republican controlled House and Senate have a warped sense of priorities. Republicans in both houses are congratulating themselves on having taking a decisive vote to protect Americans from the twin dangers posed by Obama Care and Planned Parenthood. Yes, for the umpteenth time the Republican Senate voted AYE overwhelmingly to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obama Care. Naturally, they continued to toe the Republican party line by voting NAY to even the mildest suggestion that maybe there should be stricter background checks for purchasing firearms. Sleep tight America--you may not be able to get any healthcare but you can stockpile all the weapons of mass destruction you want, no questions asked.
5
Why does this remind me of another time in history when people turned their heads to the reality of the day?
2
Blood on their hands, complicit Republicans --- Shameful and without shame. These people work in probably some of the most secure and protected buildings in the country, surrounded by an entire, heavily armed police force. But clearly, because they refuse to approve measures that potentially could make the rest of us safer, their lives are more important than your lives or those of your children.
5
LOL. "Make the rest of us safer". Good one. Like any gun law will make us any safer... but the opposite.
Looks like the GOP and other complicit politicians have a massive case of doublethink here. How can they claim to care and pray for victims of gun violence on the one hand and not actually take action about it on the other? This whole inaction reeks of hypocrisy, honestly.
2
Am I afraid of becoming a victim of gun violence? Yes, somewhat. But I'm more fearful of having Republicans anywhere in national government today. The long-term mortality consequences of their truly bizarre and corrupt actions "terrify" me. Step 1 in any process to heal our country's horrific violence problem is certainly to banish Republicans from American government.
1
I don't understand. None of this legislation prevents a citizen from lawfully purchasing a firearm. All that was being suggested is "hey, you know the people we don't let on planes because they are on the terror watch list, we would like to curb their ability to buy a gun." The other legislation says, if you want to buy a gun, we want to mandate that someone isn't mentally ill or has a criminal record before doing so. But no, sadly the solution being proposed is to bring back the wild west, except if you look historically, not at John Wayne movies, that didn't really work out so well for them either.
1
The new Speaker of the House sure has a strange concept of what does and doesn't constitute government intrusion into the lives of American citizens. No way can your name on a terrorist watch list prevent you from buying a gun, but if you're a woman, watch out. We've got your number and your body belongs to us.
2
Nice try by the editorial board but isn't it convenient that while it espouses the value of this legislation following this atrocity in San Bernadino, it fails to reference the fact that neither of the perpetrators were on any terrorist watch list. In other words the legislation would not have prevented this attack. For many who own guns the fear is we have a President and many others who's agenda, sometimes hidden and sometimes not, is to disarm the country. And the big lie is to blame the resistance to that on the NRA. The fact is the majority of Americans, who vote both Republican and Democrat want to keep their right to gun ownership.
I find it a real demonstration of the American public's lack of ability to concentrate when a home grown terrorist engages in a shootout in Colorado one week, and the next week everybody is yelling that Islamic terrorists are really the problem. And one of these California shooters was an American citizen born here. News flash. It is obvious that every one of these mass killers has some crazy idea of why they want to kill a bunch of people and the common denominator is that they have a gun. We all know that Paul Ryan is an empty suit so no surprise here that he cringes and says that he's going to work on mental health. So the bodies pile up while the ideological "warriors" rage on. And Donald Trump is again revolting.
2
Why don't these gun-loving cowards permit gun carry in Congress? I get it: its okay for the rest of us to be shot in "guns as the national religion and pastime" America, but their behinds are too precious.
5
I wish there was a chance that at least assault weapons would be banned but we have to work with the system we have. To that end forget background checks. It isn't in the gun sellers interest to uncover reasons for them to not sell you their merchandise. Instead require proof of an insurance policy for all gun owners BEFORE they purchase a gun and mandate the coverage be updated before each additional gun is purchased. The insurance companies will make well sure that the people they are covering are fit to own them, and have the staff (both actuarial and investigative) to weight risk and price policies accordingly. They can do medical/mental health background checks and in home inspections to ensure weapons are properly secured. Additionally it would discourage heavily people from buying guns for other people if they know they are on the hook since their name would be on the policy. This kind of law would allow politicians to vote for gun safety without voting against guns.
2
There is outrage everywhere. Editorials, reader comments, politicians, we have all gone to our corners and yet nothing will change. This is a country that is consumed with hate and totally lacking in any type of responsible leadership. The best we can hope for is to pray we don't get caught in the crossfire the next time some lunatic for whatever reason decides to unload an automatic weapon into a crowd of people.
3
Reading this article just made me sick. Paul Ryan doesn't want some government official arbitrarily putting someone on a list? Don't we already have a list of terrorists? Listen to the Republicans. They want to put millions of mentally ill individuals who pose no risk, on their politically sanctioned list. But arming terrorists? Hey. That's OK.
2
The Republican Party, funded and sponsored by the NRA and a small group of highly profitable gun and bullet manufacturers, has essentially extended 2nd Amendment gun freedom to all ISIS members that happen to be here - either of the homegrown variety or of the traveling variety from a foreign country that have just stepped off an airplane here for a 'sightseeing' and 'sharpshooting' vacation.
If you were confused about what sedition and treason looks like, look at the Republican Party aiding abetting ISIS via American gun 'free-dumb'.
The Republican strategy for American protection of the homeland and basic public safety - the first and most fundamental function of government - is essentially to continue to systematically increase America's current population of 300 million guns to 400 million, then 500 million and 600 million....until we're all perfectly safe in the cozy warmth of a 2nd Amendment national shooting gallery and daily bloodbath of gun violence.
Come get your guns, ISIS --- enjoy our great American gun show loophole....it's open hunting season on American civilians.
If you were confused about what sedition and treason looks like, look at the Republican Party aiding abetting ISIS via American gun 'free-dumb'.
The Republican strategy for American protection of the homeland and basic public safety - the first and most fundamental function of government - is essentially to continue to systematically increase America's current population of 300 million guns to 400 million, then 500 million and 600 million....until we're all perfectly safe in the cozy warmth of a 2nd Amendment national shooting gallery and daily bloodbath of gun violence.
Come get your guns, ISIS --- enjoy our great American gun show loophole....it's open hunting season on American civilians.
32
Is there anyone else who finds it ironic that Governor Christie says that if a terrorist attack can happen at a center for people with disabilities then we should know that no place in America is safe when the massacre at Sandy Hook New Jersey took place on his watch? I figured out then that no place in America with safe. Was Governor Christie sleeping on the job? He didn't figure out then that no place in America was safe from mass shootings? What difference does it make the motivation of the killer.
1
Why does any private citizen have the right to buy assault weapons? Perhaps the second amendment misinterpreters could explain how that was the "original intent" of the Constitution.
1
My, my. The poor soul who has to clean those Capitol Hill restrooms. Can you imagine the mess these cowards make washing off all that bloodshed?