As long as weapons of mass murder are available, and we have aspects of popular culture glorifying the individual taking violent action in response to perceived threats, mixed together with leaders who stoke distrust and hatred of others, we will continue to have such atrocities growing in frequency. “Rambo” mixed with NRA approved AR-15s, stoked by racist rhetoric from a president, is a very lethally toxic recipe for acts of domestic terrorism like what happened in El Paso. No domestic terrorism law can add much more than a small speed bump in such a culture.
1
First, it is vital to acknowledge that shooters come from both sides, left and right. The Dayton shooter supported Antifa and Elizabeth Warren, and was a member of the Socialist Rifle Association. Nothing will be accomplished until we have hoonest discussion (rather than Trump Hate discussion)
https://socialistra.org/resources/assets/SRA_BrandStyleGuide.pdf
Second, most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. One easy-to-pass law would be:
If you commit a crime with an illegal gun, you get automatic life in prison. If you kill somebody with an illegal gun, you get automatic death penalty.
Mass shootings have different motivations and involve mental illness, by definition. While a ban on assault weapons might decrease the number of victims, it won't stop a shooter from killing plenty with a pistol or hunting rifle. (I emphasize "might" because the are millions of assault weapons already out there, mostly in hands of normal law abiding owners).
1
28 years ago, I sat on a large flat rock in India, with an American acquaintance who had an air of mystery about him. He entered war zones, appeared and disappeared. We chatted in the late afternoon heat, and he said to me,"Do you know what will be the greatest world challenge in 25 years?" I said I had no idea. He said, "terrorism". I said, "what's that?"
Now I know. He hit it on the head. How he knew, I am not sure.
3
Would a domestic terrorism law change the behavior of people in regards to the politics of race or the culture of gun violence.
NO. Why ? The USA already has laws regarding homicide, Manslaughter that do not stem the tide.
It does not have medical and psychological assessment approval for owning a gun. You need a medical assessment approval for owning a car or truck or airplane or piloting a commercial jet liner or combat fighter as it has the potential to kill yourself and other people... But not a Gun... Why is that Congress ? Yes. The people want to know WHY IS THAT CONGRESS AND MR PRESIDENT !!
4
Pardon me, but it's the Guns -- the assault weapons that no civilian needs or should have.
7
A number of white supremacists are going to Ukraine to fight for the Ukrainian government against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine has right wing militias that are attracting international white supremacists. Ukraine also has a long history of antisemitism stretching back prior to WWII.
American Jihadists were prosecuted for going to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS. Can American white supremacists be prosecuted for joining and fighting with Ukrainian militias?
3
No need for more laws. Just find a special task with specific purpose to investigate and prosecute militias and groups of hate. Very simple. FBI have all the tools needed, they just need to be allocated to this task.
1
All the strenuous machinations seeking to avoid dealing with the real problem at the heart of mass shooting incidents threaten to fundamentally undermine our civil rights. The real problem is gun technology. All rapid fire weapons give violently inclined people the means to carry out their wishes. You can't shoot masses of people in a short time frame if you have to manually reload after each shot. We should allow background checked people to own single shot weapons. All semi-automatic should be bought back and banned. But we won't do that because the NRA has enough people convinced off their illogical slippery slope argument; any gun restriction opens the door to outright gun bans.
The second amendment defenders who want to push us into a "catch them before they act" regime know it won't work. We would have to create a bureau of thought crimes with extra-constitutional authorities. Besides that, whose radical thoughts are the bad radical thoughts? Fox News? Any move in that direction poses far more risk to constitutional rights than restricting the rules of guns allowed to float around pour society.
Let's ban semi-automatic guns.
6
Terrorism, surely, is no ordinary act of criminal wrongdoing. In fact, I’d argue that even exceptionally grave criminal threats do not rise to the level of suspecting terroristic intent.
I support this new legislation, whether or not its merely symbolic.
Law enforcement’s surveillance powers will grow exponentially in the coming years as technology advances and prices scale down inexorably.
Given that the courts have (mistakenly) understood constitutional privacy standards to be dependent upon the general knowledge of a certain use case, rather than upon fundamental historical commitments to privacy, its worth noting that such legislation may codify the pretext that investigating officers must bring to bear if they seek to ‘unmask’ or even access domestic databases that have only grown increasingly decentralized and all-encompassing among the police in recent years.
It follows the maxim that only upon the direct suspicion of terrorism shall an investigatory officer compromise the data of 300 million innocent civillians.
Awareness that the government may be watching chills expression and speech, running counter to the Framer’s intent when ratifying the Constitution. This is why the government must be forthcoming whenever it seeks to impute the 4th Amendment rights of any individual, tacit or express, at protests or on campus, having a specific and lawful authorization to play God and be omniscient — something that has yet to be defined in the federal statute.
3
It is inevitable that such a law will be passed, that government officials will abuse its execution, that politicians will praise themselves for their courage and insight, and that on balance society will not be the better for it. Pessimist or realist?
2
Very few use their blinkers (directional signals). Drivers are seldom cited. One cannot legislate common decency and respect. Nor can it be enforced. Therein lies the problem we face. You can pass all the laws, requirements, checks and balances, etc., that you think can stop attacks like this, but until respect for one's common man can be realized, felt, and believed, our world, our daily day, will be a frightening one. I sincerely apologize for having only an observation rather than a solution.
6
@LocalDog- There is no solution with 400 million guns.
1
This debating over nomenclature is meaningless posturing.
Murder is murder. The reasoning behind the act, other than self defense or defense of another, is not consequential.
9
@Austin Liberal i agree, murder is murder. Fix gun laws, making acting on hate harder. Work on social disapproval rather than validating the indefensible. Work on cultural norms that depict violence as the heroic solution to problems. . . These and other indirect influential actions will reduce the murders, the attacks, the hatred excused as free speech. Inciting violence against others is a crime, is it not? It is in most democracies. Prosecute it. Other nations do these things to good effect without destroying freedoms or rights.
The domestic terrorist is the capitalist economy which forces almost 1 % of all American citizens in jail at all times and creates the highest violent crime in the industrialized world by 8 times more than in Europe.
The mass shootings are just part of the culture of violence of the USA with the exceptional number of war weapons in American households.
Because , literally. survival is a war in within the USA . It is not a safe world. So people need the guns as symbolic means of protection.
6
Another law to say conspiracy and murder are illegal.
Give it a break. Spend the money helping people, not creating more bureaucracy.
5
Who cares if someone has huge arsenal of guns and ammunition? Other than the SLA and the Branch Davidians, I am hard pressed to name a situation where an arsenal was actually used by more than two people. You can only fire one rifle at a time no matter how many you have piled around you.
Moreover, this hysteria about domestic terrorism distracts from the only real problem in our country: semiautomatic firearms. Australia implemented a ban and buyback of all semiautomatic firearms and has not had a mass shooting since.
Dylann Roof, the shooter in Charleston, used a semiautomatic Glock and had eight 13-shot magazines. He fired seventy-four shots and killed nine people. If semiautomatic firearms were banned in this country, he would have only had a six-shot revolver. With such limited firepower, he may not even have attempted it.
Write your Senators and Congressman and tell them to ban semiautomatic firearms.
5
@NorthernVirginia
"If semiautomatic firearms were banned in this country, he would have only had a six-shot revolver."
So he kills 6 instead of 9.
2
"The right to life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness."
These rights belong to me and to you and to everyone in this country. Nowhere did our founding fathers list the freedom to kill anyone on the basis of their color, religion, or difference of political beliefs.
If I can't go to a movie theatre, or a mall, or a park, church, concert hall, political rally, because I am afraid I will be shot, then yes, I am a victim of terrorism. Just plain terrorism - doesn't matter if it's domestic or not.
And you can argue and split hairs until the cows come home, but allowing unfettered, unregulated access to firearms which are weapons of individual and mass destruction is condoning terrorism.
Do all of you people who object to laws that would regulate access, purchase, registration, training, locked storage, etc. of personal firearms think that the unfettered right to a murder weapon is of more value than the rights of the the American people to a life free of fear?
Live by the sword, die by the sword. These mass killing disasters will continue until we recognize and admit that we are all responsible and it is time to DO SOMETHING.
2
Talk about burying the lede. The guts of the story is in the final para. Entrapment operations targeted at white nationalists would result in locking up many of Trump's core supporters. The FBI is too scared to do this.
6
I can't reconcile a terrorist government that instills fear of weapons in the world and it's own nation with the idea of Domestic terror laws. How would that work?
The USA have the highest violent crime rate in the industrialized world by far , as well as the highest incarceration rate . By 8 times more than the European average for both.
Almost 1 % of all American citizens are in jail at all times.
A law against domestic terrorism is not going to change anything to that.
The mass shootings are just part of the inherent violence of the American culture . Same as guns in every household. The violence is everywhere.
50 times more risks to be killed in the US while being robbed than in Europe.
54 times !!!
5
I don't believe anything done under this administration will be used for the purpose we are told. I wouldn't trust them. And we know Trump and his cronies would use it simply to go after what they consider left leaning groups or racial minority groups.
Trump and the DOJ under him cannot be trusted.
8
@Mathias
And Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration with the full cooperation of the DOJ went Scott Free! Let us at least be honest and fair. As for a terrorism law, who would define what domestic terrorism is? Once in place, 'domestic terrorism' would be in the eye (and mind) of the beholder no matter which party was in the White House. I don't think we need another law, especially one that could infringe on assembly and free speech.
2
@Mathias Certainly you do have a point, but have you considered how future Republican Party Members, not enjoying diplomatic immunity, could be targeted under such legislation? Those State Party Representatives promoting the restrictive availability of government resources, effectively resulting in the those Americans less fortunate and typically of a different color than white from registering to vote in elections, could find themselves behind bars. In essence, the whole Party could be deemed a terrorist organization for not putting a stop to it—for being complacent. Of course the Democratic Party would erupt in joy over such a situation, but would they then, as the only remaining political party of significance bite their own hand when they transgress against truth? That doesn’t seem likely. I never met a Type-A personality willing to admit mistakes, especially if said personality is in power.
@old sarge We know this one. Isn't it called whataboutism?
1
If groups of militant frustrated people of color or groups of militant disgusted women started stockpiling weapons and ammo and talking trash online, we’d have a domestic terrorism law faster than you can say George Wallace.
15
I'd like to see the government devote 1/10 the amount we've spent battling "radical Islamic terrorism" all over the world right here, battling "white supremacist terrorism", or as you could instead call it, "radical 'Christian' terrorism".
How come there is never any mention of the murderer's religion when it is not Islam? Where are the news stories full of mention of these accused murderers religions? I sure haven't seen any mention of it on Fox "News", when they never fail to mention the religion of any "radical Islamic terrorist"...
The First Amendment is not a license to unrestrained hate speech, and as clever as our esteemed Congress people are, they can surely find a balance that allows addressing the kind of incitement, hate-speech, and demagoguery that brings these weak-minded or bitter and frustrated individuals to exceed all bounds of civilization.
The US successfully diminished the power of the KKK once, it is time to refocus our efforts again, before these "radical white supremacist terrorist" organizations destroy our society for their own perverted goals.
6
In a system that already, unfortunately, necessitates the need for a million laws and million lawyers more allopathic measures are not needed. But what is needed is an overhaul of government! For the negative expressions of any system, especially those of culture, have their genesis in the general regulations of government.
This is a dangerous political game being played without any consideration for the unseen 'referee'! Because everything that we currently do not like within our national environment exists not because of flaws inherent to human design but to regulations the seek unapproved ends by unapproved means.
1
More laws? There are too many laws and not enough justice already. The more good and decent a society is the fewer laws it needs.
5
Huff Post--- “Americans who said they previously didn’t know there wasn’t a federal crime of domestic terrorism, said that should change: 83 % said there should be a federal criminal statute against domestic terrorism."
It’s a sign of how distorted our politics are that even though 94% of citizens want gun background checks and most want bans on assault weapons, we don’t have these laws. A no brainer in most countries, but not here.
Most citizens want to control the donations to elections from the NRA high profit makers of instruments of death. But our democracy is not responsive to the public will or public safety.
The GOP , while talking all the time about American Freedoms, has blocked and censored govt research into national patterns and causes of gun violence, that takes so many lives.
Politicians distract from the very white nationalism and racism that many of them promote. The president has set the uncivilized tone, and the party that holds our Senate has kept quiet.
Right now, CNN has a special, America Under Assault, The Gun Crisis. The crawl on the screen keeps showing on and on , the many locations of our public massacres, and # of dead and injured. To see this compiled is truly stunning.
How many elections, if ever, will it take to start resetting our political norms, and to represent the interests of citizens?
4
List domestic terrorist organizations.
Planning genocide privately or on social media is not free speech - it is planning 1st degree murder.
A mental illness warrant can be issued to arrest anyone planning to hurt themselves or others. Anyone can request one ($50 in Texas) Use it..
The first amendment was meant to protect our freedom to speak out against the government; not the freedom to plan the murder of innocent people.
5
@Samuel Tyuluman
It seems that in many of these shooting spree cases, there is no shortage of warning signs that the person is either disturbed or so obsessed with a violent ideology that they should not be allowed firearms until they are treated and demonstrate a reasonable level of functioning.
These tragic episodes make me wonder what giving every angry young male a thousand dollars a month in perpetuity with no strings attached might lead to.
@Alan They'd buy more guns and ammunition - They need to be arrested - not payed off..
The various forms of organzied crime meet this definition of terrorism.
Perhaps the laws targeting those groups could be used to target these terrorists whose "groups" are often found on various internet sites.
Far more people in total are shot one or two at a time, and neither terrorism laws nor red flag laws will limit those murders.
1
@Dan Ari The Saudis have it right - eye for an eye. No long dragged out trials - some doubt in evidence is OK, AS LONG AS prosecutors do not mess with the evidence.
Red tags are red herrings. They do nothing to control and regulate guns.
2
Our gun safety laws are the weakest of any modern nation, thus Americans are put in more danger. The gun lobby NRA has the power to grade politicians, and give or deny campaign money.
Now social media platforms can act as catalysts for hate, combined with easy guns for all. What a deadly combination we tolerate.
NYT editorial--- "American law enforcement needs to target white nationalists with the same zeal that they have targeted radical Islamic terrorists."
Former FBI Dir McCabe on CNN says the FBI has a full tool kit to track and investigate international terrorists acting for a foreign power---more than it does for domestic terrorism. Says we need a Domestic Terrorism Act in this country.
W. Post: "FBI Dir. Wray says FBI has recorded about 100 domestic terrorism arrests in 2019 and many investigations involve white supremacy."
The high profit gun lobby has tried to mold public opinion to accept guns for all. And to pretend that sensible gun laws for safety are big govt interfering in 'freedoms'.
So, people who are anti easy guns for all and anti big money control of politics have not been given much voice in our media and politics. This has acted to suppress the range of views we need.
Let's get all views out there--including the majority who want strong gun restrictions, regulation of social meda platforms, and limits on mega donors in elections.
1
A domestic terrorism law will be a crucial, even as a work in progress, to start to reset our norms and standards.
Sensible, real, strict new gun laws must go along with this, to further reset our norms of what is tolerable in our society.
And with this, we must stop the NRA from financing candidates and 'calling the shots' in our politics. Start reform of campaign finance for strong limits on private donations, to apply across the board.
Majorities of voters and many politicians want to reverse the 2010 Citizens United decision that equated any limits put on donations by corporate and wealthy donors as anti 1st Amendment Free Speech.
This effectively muffled the voice of average citizens on politics, who can't compete with the rich, and amplified the voice of high profit corporations--gun makers, big insurance/ drug makers, etc.
Our Constitution was used against our democracy, safety and well being, including the distortion of the 2nd amendment resulting in American deaths.
These crucial topics should have been prominently discussed in our media. The bodies of American dead and injured pile up.
We have plenty of laws. Multiple counts of homicide or murder should lead successfully to the appropriate punishment for any perpetrator of any mass or hate inspired crime. Enough with more laws. They are at best symbolic and offer nothing more than is already available.
It’s the guns. Nothing more. The access. The proliferation. The ready availability. The incessant mantra of the NRA and the collective psyche of our culture wrapped in some inane mythology of the west and the false equivalency of guns with individual liberty. I profoundly doubt the framers intended the second amendment to lead to citizens being permitted to carry bazookas.
Unless we are prepared to adopt a European approach to restricting speech, which is likely to conflict with our rights to unfettered free speech (except to falsely report a fire in a crowded theater) we are likely stuck where we are.
People like to assume that the democrats would resolve this issue and sharply curtail the availability of guns but they won’t. While there is so much money flowing to the congress, republicans and democrats, from PACs and special interests, nothing will change.
Our system is so deeply corrupt and our politicians so knee deep in corporate money that they will never have the collective political will to act for for the public welfare.
How many slaughters, mass and individual, do we have to endure? It’s not just the mass shootings. It’s the day in, day out homicides as well.
3
Ban the internet. These shootings are, indirectly, a product of the internet. They started after the internet. There have always been guns and hatred. What's changed? Now there's the internet, which fuels rage.
3
I recommend the Times's own recent opinion pie by Ali Soufan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/opinion/white-supremacy-terrorism.html
We already have a domestic terrorism law. It's called the Espionage Act of 1917, and in the past it has been energetically used to censor political speech, primarily leftist political speech.
2
Domestic terrorism today is enabled by social media to aid conspirators and by lethal weapons, far more lethal than nooses used for lynchings in the past. What stepped the KKK is unlikely to work today. Ideally, we should be working "left of boom," to stop things before the boom. This would involve gun control and laws that make conspiracies more vulnerable before those conspiracies make their booms. Laws that provide more opportunities to incarcerate after the booms (right of boom) are welcome, but are of lower priority. They will have far less effect on saving lives than acting to the left of boom
It concerns me deeply that a domestic terrorism law is being considered before comprehensive federal gun laws. I don’t own a gun and I do believe that citizens have a right to be armed but that’s another argument. The idea that the government could monitor our lives more than they already do is scary. Exiting terrorist laws have already been used against legitimate citizens who were protesting their local water district. Imagine the misuse and overreach of law enforcement if they could perform searches without a warrant or surveillance of citizens without due process? It’s already happening with license plate readers for example. We truly live in a time where personal liberties are under serious attack.
9
If the law would be to strike fear in those that are planing a terrorist activity then it would be a waste of time and if it's meant to give law enforcement extra tools then we would have to wait and see what the law says.
Plenty of laws already on the books to address this. Last thing we need is another feel good law, that erodes civil rights and accomplishes nothing. We line up and get searched everywhere. The patriot act is anything but patriotic. Let’s face it the terrorists have already won Our society more closely resembles totalitarian regimes then the ideals America was founded on
7
Hannah Arendt would agree. Read the Origins of Totalitarianism. Its a hard book to find nowadays, but its out there. Name it, Share it, and Educate others on it.
1
Lot of spin. Treat them like we did the black panthers. Done.
1
What a relief to go back to just normal shootings from these days of mass shootings. This American obsession with size.
1
I had no idea domestic terrorism wasn't a federal crime. Why wouldn't be it be a federal crime??
4
@Nathan Why *would* it be a federal crime, if it does not cross state or national borders, does not involve federal property, and does not involve the functioning of the federal government? Most things are not within federal jurisdiction.
3
Once the government defines terrorism domestically, they are constrained within such terms in crafting law enforcement doctrine — no more, no less, than what the threat warrants. if domestic terrorism is left ill-defined, law enforcement can continue unfettered in the acquisition of greater militarized/technological domination capabilities. Terrorism is a trump card and they’re only going to play it when the status quo is fully enshrined — like now. They have your faces.
2
Look at all these liberals salivating at the thought of an Orwellian dystopia where all white male conservatives are sent to concentration camps, uh woops, "re-education centers" and forcibly indoctrinated into liberal groupthink. Doubleplus good, eh comrades? Then the only racists, bigots and misandrists left will be them - and all of America's minorities. But that's ok, they're allowed to be that, just white men aren't permitted.
3
@Sparky
Huh? Where did this come from? I don't think anyone is advocating the kind of treatment you seem to think threatens you.
But the perpetrators of these terrorist shootings are all white men. It's not about politics. It's about killing people because they look different or think different or have a different religion from you. And the person who is the worst at stoking/inciting white supremacy which is leading to this terrorist/murderous behavior is our white male President.
Why should he/they be allowed to get away with murdering so many people? Who made him God?
1
The Patriot Act and other measures against international terrorism are hardly the model of success to be following, using enhanced interrogation, 'rendition,' entrapment, suspension of due process, ethnic profiling, secret FISA courts, and massive (including domestic) signal surveillance. Murder is a crime in every state--it can be prosecuted. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about mass gun ownership--either interpret it sensibly or repeal it.
4
In the last war on terror it led to full searches for anyone getting on an airplane. In this new domestic one I can envision the same for anyone climbing into a pickup truck instead. I may want to consider getting rid of mine.
5
There have been two Red Scares in US history, one around the time of the Russian Revolution and one at the beginning of the Cold War. Both were designed to weed out Communist sympathizers. And both targeted people who had left-leaning beliefs but nothing more.
With Trump, the animus against right wingers is growing. A MAGA hat is enough to raise suspicions of racism. A MAGA hat and far right beliefs is enough to raise suspicions of white nationalism. And applying the terrorism label to white nationalists could be enough to encourage aggressive Trump haters to single out far right extremists the way Joe McCarthy singled out supposed Communist sympathizers.
The terrorism label is incendiary. And it has already been widely used to attack our civil rights. We do not need a second Patriot Act to criminalize white nationalism. What has resulted in unfair treatment of the left can result in unfair treatment of the right. A law to target white nationalists is a threat to First Amendment rights. You don’t have to like them. But you have to let them have their say.
5
@michjas
No. Letting them have their say is costing innocent lives. They need to pay for what they say. Enough.
3
Pay for what they say? I thought free speech was a founding principle of America? That’s just ridiculous.
3
@michjas, I don't see any difference between International terrorists. Why should we give different treatment for groups of white nationalists here in the US. They are just like ISIS. Massacre is a massacre. Here or elsewhere. This is hypocrisy.
3
Are we going to be extremely hypocrites, given the rights for groups or racist individuals, white supremacists, a freedom to continue with barbarism and terrorism killing innocent civilians, than what ? Where is my rights to go out with my family and friends, peacefully socializing without being worry about terrorists massacring many people they want in public places, because an amendment say they are free to be in group? or they are free to have guns? Wrong. If the goal of some groups see destruction, massacre, racism, or terrorize the population, they don't deserve any freedom for this reason.
1
Ever ready 1984. Is that really want you want America to be. To be like China where everyone is watched all the time and you have no freedom. But hey man you have your safety so that’s a win. The reason we have the second amendment in America is to protect ourselves from the government. Our founding fathers knew the dangers of government overreach and that’s why they included the right to bear arms in the constitution. I’m sorry but a hunting rifle was not what the constitution was meant to protect.
3
Why is there a domestic terror law and one for foreigners who commit terrorist acts here in the US? If a rose by any other name is still a rose then terrorism by any other name is still terrorism, whether committed by foreigners here or born-and-bred Americans. Were the folks who blew up the Murrah Building in OKC any less terrorists than those who tried to blow up the WTC towers back in 1993 and who did on 9/11? No, unless we choose to look at them in terms of their nationalities, names, complexion and the means by which they accomplished their dastardly objectives. There should be one set of laws governing acts of terrorism commmitted against Americans, regardles of who the perps are, foreigners or born-and-bred Americans. At the end of the day, it's about going after folks who don't share your particular worldview, who don't look like you, don't think like you or who you feel has wronged you in some manner and you do that through acts of violence that's meant to instil fear and dread in a populace. We've seen that in Gilroy, CA, El Paso, TX and in Dayton, OH in a span of 8 days. In all of the aforementioned cities and cases, the terrorist perps were born-and-bred Americans, Caucasian males. Not Arabs, not brown-skinned folks from Central America or Mexico. Yet, we have one set of laws for American terrorists and one for foreign terrorists.
2
Having a Domestic Terrorism Law that included the death penalty would definitely help in sending a message to people. I do believe that it would have to be coupled with other laws, like a 10 day background check, and all guns have to be legally transferred with the proper paperwork, including guns that are stolen. It would be a start.
1
Including guns that are stolen? How would you do that? Stolen guns are usually off the radar. Someone would have to be stupid to try to sell a stolen gun, legally through a dealer. Enlighten me if there is something I'm missing here.
3
@BorisRoberts It would be required of the person who list the gun to file the proper paperwork. It would be like your vehicle. If you sell it , trade it, or if it's stolen there's paperwork.
1
If Americans does not except that we have to change laws to combat domestic terrorism, more massacre will happen. Only guns laws will not be sufficient., We always had problems with white suprematists. The FBI has a complete database about their activities. We need to save our citizens from massacres. If we invaded the Middle East to take down terrorism, now is here, and has no difference, and obviously we need to act fast. We can not be so hypocrites. Since 2016 the US has experienced four shootings that made it in the top ten worst in US history.
Could be good if all terrorists are treated equally. Antifa, white supremacists, neo Nazis, NBPP, Muslim extremists, and left wing radical terrorists. Doxing should also be considered terrorism so journalists & Castro could be prosecuted as well. Using government agencies to intimidate political foes should be added as well, like Obama used the IRS to harass conservative groups. What goes around comes around.
5
Domestic Terrorist-in-Chief: Trump. White sheets, Brown Shirts, and Red MAGA Hats. Even without those articles, they self identify the moment they speak. Or yell.
4
Much as it’s presented here as a “Catch 22” dilemma, there are ways to stop criminal behavior and punish criminals. To be sure, the likes of AG Bill Barr’s best friend, Jonathan Turley and/or Alan Dershowitz and others too august to name will come up with some clever excuse.
If like shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected under the First Amendment, neither should be inciting Jihad based on racist or anti religious attacks to begin with. It’s not like we’re talking about the “10 Commandments”.
Commercial Internet has to be regulated as well; right now it’s a fee-for-all.
1
An effective domestic terrorism law would result in the arrest of Donald Trump for fomenting violence, each and every time he leads the bellowing, threatening mob at his ‘rallies.’ His sanctimonious, monotone reading from a teleprompter cannot eclipse or erase the damage he has done and continues to do with his politics of seething resentment, anger and hate.
12
Oh man. The main thing for me is to avoid any crowded situations. It's too late to consider security at any event when we're the most armed nation on earth. I mean, you can say let's evaluate the mental health of every gun buyer, or you can question how much time that every gun buyer has spent playing violent video games, but the guns are already out there. Enormous amounts of guns designed to kill the most humans that can be killed within the limits of the law. They are not going away. Everybody is already armed for mass murder.
Everybody, just duck and cover. Don't go to the mall, and don't go to theaters. Look around wherever you go. Don't go to parks. Stay in your homes.
4
In other words, the domestic terrorists have won, Incontinental.
That's why we need strict gun control...so Americans can go about their daily lives instead of putting up with a national shooting gallery.
4
@Incontinental
I agree. I also work to stay away from white males. (I am Asian) Not easy, but that is the goal.
4
@Socrates
Unfortunately, yes. If you don't pass as a white person, do not go out in public. Keep a low profile. Even if you are white, be cautious. The domestic terrorists have indeed won, with a little help from the Republican party.
Even if laws are changed to prevent mass murder weapons from sale, it's way too late. They are already in the hands of those who may use them.
2
What this means in practice is that mass shooters would no longer face the death penalty. A very odd approach to this. After Trump leaves office, the next Democrat will ban the federal death penalty again. Federal law trumps state law, so this can only have the effect of giving more lenient sentences (easy federal prison time) instead of harder state prison time and/or the state death penalty to the worst of America's criminals.
Sounds like a big waste of time and a distraction from the gun control, mental healthcare, and restrictions on media violence that are needed.
1
@Observer: I wouldn't be so cocksure about a Democratic POTUS and the issue of capital punishment. I'll admit, while I have no proof that tbe next Democratic POTUS won't strike down the deatg penalty, you have no proof he/she will.
History doesn't always repeat itself, and in the wake of these terrible times, what may have been then, may very well not be, now.
States should also pass domestic terrorism laws, because the Republicans at the federal level wouldn’t enforce against those groups that are, in effect, the paramilitary arms of their party.
2
Murder is already a crime.
2
@GUSTAV Does the 2nd Amendment, in your opinion, extent to personal ownership of WMDs? Why or why not, if murder is crime enough?
Yes the second amendment was included in the bill of rights so that the people could protect themselves from the government. That’s what it was for period. Hunting rifles do not protect you from the government. If Pres Trump or Pres whoever decided tomorrow that he or she was taking over and the military backed them then unarmed citizens have zero recourse.
1
The USA Patriot Act covers domestic terrorism.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
Domestic Terrorism Laws already exist in the Patriot Act. They only need pretext to be more gradually activated. That pretext is under active operation. There is a problem in mutuality however; that is, terror can emanate from the State as much as or more than from the civil population; indeed that is a far more profound risk, or rather clear and present danger.
2
Giving up rights for security doesn't work. Cowards never feel secure. Cowards and permanent adolescents are the actual problem.
5
@Rod
IF you are talking about giving up guns, it works in every other country in the world.
1
I support reducing immigration into the United States. Will I wind up on the FBI’s “white supremacist watch list’ if I dare to exercise my right as a citizen to advocate that position?
13
@Phil Cafaro
If you support “ selective immigration “ as in from white dominant countries, you should be on a watch list.
We all have learnt to read between the lines.
4
@Surya
And to read what we want to see there, too.
1
By design, the weapon of choice in these mass shootings has been high capacity and sometimes modified to shoot at a maximum rate per second in order to create mass destruction.
It can and should be viewed in the same light as the Oklahoma bombing.
If it quacks, just saying.
5
Terrorism is terrorism no matter who commits the outrageous crime, and furthermore isn’t “hate” the motivating factor for all crimes when people are intentionally killed?
The nuances to add racial and ethnical identifiers to the act of terrorism is more a political tool than a law enforcement tool to combat and prosecute such a crime.
Any terroristic act, mass murder or attempt of should be treated as a crime against humanity and subject to federal statutes.
The recent mass shooting in Brooklyn last weekend should also be treated as an act of terrorism, but how would most politicians and the general public react if this crime was labeled and in the headlines as “black nationalism” or “black terrorism”?
There would be an outrage faster than a New York minute.
So there should be outrage concerning all types of threats and terrorism but adding labels to such crimes is polarizing, can have unintentional consequences and adds little value unless your on the campaign trail.
4
@MDCooks8 if Americans call all terrorists from other nations very clear, why they can't do here? What is the difference? NONE. Actually the US we were the first one to label ”terrorism”.
Terrorism is a political act. The victims are just leverage against the government of the state, but the terrorists must have a strong and large base of support to operate and not to get caught. When the people reject them, they don't last long. The short term goal is to find and neutralize the people doing the violence. The endgame is when their base of support turns against them.
Trump is appealing to the base of white nationalist terrorists. They are among his supporters. Attacking him or them just makes them feel more justified in supporting him and re-enforces their sense of grievance and righteousness. Convincing them that they are part of this country and benefit from it's diversity and so no longer feel threatened by it is likely the key to undoing this mess.
As hard as it is, we as a country have to include everyone, including those who reject us but still want to be part of this country.
1
Get rid of racist Trump first. Everything else is easy after that.
5
Imagine how many trumped-up "conspiracy to commit terrorism" charges the feds will be able to cook up with this law.
First, every demonstration that results in clashes with police will be classed as terrorism - violent attempts to intimidate to achieve political change.
Then, even planning a demonstration (which might result in struggles with police) will be charged as conspiracy to commit terrorism. Effectively, civil disobedience could be prosecuted as terrorism.
Think about it: this law will be in the hands of Trump. Or, if you prefer, some day in the hands of the likes of Bill DeBlasio.
18
Federal law enforcement is critical especially when state and local police departments have been infiltrated by white supremacists or are secretly supportive of them.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement
2
A weapon of mass destruction in foreign hands is enough of a driver to obtain near unanimous support to go to war. But merely asking for intelligent regulation of a weapon of mass destruction in domestic hands can’t muster 50% of Congress to say aye. This is not what our forefathers intended.
Intelligent regulation is actually as simple as some of the proposed options on the table. Licensing and insurance for assault weapons should be implemented at the same time as a government buyback program. Your home shotgun doesn’t need to be on this list (and you shouldn’t need a license for that either) but for any bump stocks, assault rifles and extended clips you do. Make it federally mandated and treat them like controlled substances.
As we’ve seen with health care, if you want to make something unobtainable, let the insurance companies determine your risk. With penalties for sellers and buyers and insurance companies shelling out for loss of life, trust me, we’d see a precipitous drop in these types of incidents.
1
To repeat what I said earlier this week, there is already an agency in place to battle terrorism which has a domestic genesis. It's the Department of Homeland Security(DHS).
DHS was created in 2002, in part, ”to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism.” Why must the wheel constantly be reinvented in order to get things rolling?
4
@Dunn Arceneaux
It depends on which administration is executing the laws. Trump has attacked all the intelligence agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security in its efforts to combat domestic terrorism.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/politics/white-house-domestic-terrorism/index.html
1
Do very little in a country with too many guns and the exercise of irresponsible freedom...
Our civil liberties are one of the defining features that make this country great. I rank freedom of speech and a strong independent judiciary at the top of the list of those liberties, but the list is long. We are being materially threatened but angry men with access to dangerous weapons. All of the proposals being seriously offered by our political classes are either ineffective, or would only harm those liberties we claim to hold so dear. Background checks won't predict future behavior, red flag laws will at a minimum infringe on our freedom of speech, and any serious expansion of anti-terrorism laws risks all of our civil liberties.
The only thing that makes sense is to ban assault weapons. Across the board, it is the fairest way to keep the most people safe. Our Constitution does not guarantee the right to have any gun, anywhere, any time.
I know exactly what sort of frothing and foaming will greet this proposal, but people, this is our future, and it must be faced.
4
Associating with terrorist, expressing intentions to participate or support terrorist acts should be enough reason to be investigated. Amassing material such as weapons for the expressed purpose of committing an attack, is something that terrorist organizations and those affiliated will do. It's clearly one of the acts needed in order to do terrorism.
Mass murderers do the same thing, without terrorist motives. In that case, the probable cause to investigate would have to be an intention to harm people without political motives.
Having a bunch of guns may be just the result of an interest in guns, hunting, target shooting, memorabilia, and collecting. So the fourth amendment could be an obstacle without some evidence that the individual has intentions to do harm to others for whatever reason.
1
It’s feel-good nonsense. Why should it be more wrong to kill one person as opposed to another anyway? Some congresswoman said right after the attacks, “We’re going to investigate him for hate crime charges”, and I thought, well gee, that’ll teach him!!!
The last thing we need is symbolic gestures.
4
NO WAY! The Domestic Terror is living in the White House.
1
What’s lacking in the NYT’s and other media coverage of these events is basic background information and definitions.
What is domestic terrorism?
What is white supremacy?
Are these buzzwords intended to inflame rather than inform the discussion? I believe so.
Rather like “assault weapons” or “military-style weapons.” Anyone who knows the least bit about weapons would never use such vague and misleading terms. However, these words sound dangerous and scary, so the media keep using them in headlines and stories as click-bait.
Since 2016, and even before, the NYT has been the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, doing everything possible to denigrate Donald Trump and his associates and his supporters, and to make it appear as if Trump is somehow responsible for everything wrong and bad in the world and nothing that is good or positive.
Whatever happened to fair and balanced reporting?
5
The El Paso white nationalist mass murder has terrified many Latinos across the country, while the apparently random choice of victims in the Dayton shooting has upset the country, but not caused terror among any specific group. Terrorism is use of violence with the intent of suppressing a vulnerable group—that’s not symbolic. Outlawing not only the violence, but making plans, accumulating material, and conspiring to commit violence against a targeted group, would help law enforcement ensure our safety, and reassure vulnerable communities. The Birmingham church bombing that killed four girls in 1963, the 2012 Wisconsin murder of 4 Sikhs by a white supremacist, and the 2016 conspiracy to bomb a Somali community in Kansas were domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism should include violence against gay and transgender people, and women, where there is clear and convincing evidence of not only hate but an attempt to politically intimidate. There are already laws distinguishing between a general threat and assault, but a domestic terrorism law should be even more specific, defining the difference between hateful political ideas and terrorist action, and general prejudice and hatred and intent to coerce. A domestic terrorism law would pressure Homeland Security to spend less time and resources caging children, and more on protecting the American people.
2
Any law enacted regarding "domestic terrorism" should include a provision that makes it illegal to advocate for illegal immigration.
3
We can and MUST address this issue. The interpretation of our forefather’s muskets no longer applies. Gather a summit with all the cunningly “brilliant” legal minds in this country and hash out a legal remedy !
Symbolic all right; symbolic of how deeply our government hates and despises its own citizens.
8
@Cloudy
Yes, if by "our government" you mean the Trump administration, I would agree. On the other hand , I am not aware that Timothy McVeigh or the El Paso and Dayton shooters were part of the government. If anything, McVeigh at least seemed to hate the federal government and those who worked for it.
With police already scrambling police radio, which SWAT teams, armed with military style weapons, etc.; once has to wonder how much power will be ceded to the FBI, and local police to thwart domestic terrorism. Also, how much power will they have. It would be very easy to detain anyone who is suspected of taking actions against persons or the state. In addition, what is defined as "domestic terrorism"?
We have seen, through history, what happens when more civil rights are given up fro the good of the state. It will be very easy fro politicians to go after anyone, or any entity (including news organizations) and charge they are aiding and abetting domestic terrorism.
The Patriot act proved one thing that it already ceded a great deal of power to the president and government entities. It has also been abused by each administration, since its passage. If no safeguards are put in place; how the government responds to domestic terrorism could also be abused.
Just think of all those immigrants in detention centers under the umbrella of Homeland Security. And, just think how many more people could end up in internment camps, because someone in Washington decided what they think domestic terrorism is, at a moment in time.
14
@Nick Metrowsky
In spite of NYTimes headlines about "immigrants', those in detention broke into the country without going through standard immigration procedures. I was an immigrant, quite some time ago, and I know the process well. They are not "immigrants."
Those who enter without authorization are, in federal law, "illegal aliens." 8 USC 1325. The "internment camps" are detention facilities for such, prior to their deportation, fully authorized by law many decades ago.
1
Whether a domestic terrorism law is more than symbolic or not we do need to devote more federal resources, primarily intelligence gathering, to neutralizing any and all political groups disposed to violence. Setting the FBI loose, as we have in the past, against Communists, the KKK, as well as various left and right wing groups, has had mixed results but the severity of the problem, as the El Paso incident shows, requires a hard and immediate response.
3
The first thing to do is re-powered education, public education.
It would be great to see the NRA and its staff prosecuted as domestic terrorists for fomenting random unregulated violence to aggressive males with limited coping skills.
They've worked hard - with the Guns Over People party - to ensure that nearly 40,000 Americans die every year by gun shot....compare that to Japan that has about 10 deaths every year by gun shot.
There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before; nearly two-thirds were suicides.
Let people show a little effort if they want to kill themselves or other people.
Guns make terrorism really, really easy....thanks to the National terroRist Association (NRA).
No sane civilization allows such a waterfall of guns in its country.
Prosecute the NRA, America's most significant terrorist organization and the GOP's best friend.
47
The real fight is at the grass roots level in each state. 20 states to date have taken up overturning the misleading 2010 SCOTUS "Citizens United" ruling AKA corporate personhood and money as free speech. Until we stop the pipeline of unlimited money to lobbyists from corporate power, our public representation will be kept at bay. Nothing changes until we follow the money trail and fix it. Visit: movetoamend.org If you are not part of this already, now is the time to learn about it. If your state is already in - help another state join.
4
A domestic terrorism law would authorize the large scale monitoring of American citizens by the federal authorities, like the FBI or the NSA, now considered illegal.
7
All this talk about domestic terrorism and hate crimes is a distraction from the real issue: there are too many guns in the United States. We need to reduce access to firearms.
The Supreme Court's Heller decision made it clear that reasonable regulation of firearms would pass constitutional muster. Let's get to work on that.
The 18th Amendment, which imposed Prohibition, forbade "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States ... for beverage purposes." It did not prohibit the purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol. Why can't we have sensible laws to regulate the manufacture, sale or transportation of firearms, which would not "infringe" on the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
28
"under a federal law that bars “weapons of mass destruction,”
This is poorly defined.
When 'mass shootings' are defined as gun murders involving 3 or more victims, then by definition a gun that holds 3 or more bullets becomes a weapon of mass destruction.
That includes all revolvers.
I would rather go with the Supreme Court definition of pornography: 'Difficult to describe, but I know it when I see it.'
3
Honest question: would red flag laws or mandatory background checks have prevented the El Paso and Dayton shooters from acquiring the weapons they used? I'm wondering about the effectiveness of these approaches.
19
@Steve No in both cases. Not for background checks, because they weren't felons, nor had involuntary committments, nor domestic violence convictions; not for red flag laws, because nobody close to them was even alarmed to the point of wanting to alert authorities as far as anybody can tell.
@Steve The problem is it's hard to tell when something is working until you get statistics. Here in California 180 or so people have been blocked from purchasing bullets due to background checks.
The open carry laws that permit milatary auto weapons to be carried thru the mall is the problem. @Steve
1