Colorado Springs Shooting

[Brock Beauchamp]

Enough sniping at one another.

[Squirrel]

 

Oh I wouldn't say both sides.

 

 

I was trying to be ... fair? Unbiased? (Even though I'm not really)

[TheLeviathan]

 

I was trying to be ... fair? Unbiased? (Even though I'm not really)

 

Oh I know...I don't mind being the bad guy and saying it.  It isn't both sides, it's the damn NRA.

[stringer bell]

 

There is quite a difference. People were never given the right to own slaves in the constitution, well the 2nd amendment is quite clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

The history of the Second Amendment isn't as cut and dried as that. It wasn't until very recently (historically speaking) that the Supreme Court defined the Amendment as the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. I still don't believe that is the correct interpretation.

[Hrbowski]

 

The history of the Second Amendment isn't as cut and dried as that. It wasn't until very recently (historically speaking) that the Supreme Court defined the Amendment as the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. I still don't believe that is the correct interpretation.

So what is your definition? Just a Militia?

[stringer bell]

My interpretation and that of every court until 2001 was that the "right" is a collective right and not an individual right.

[PseudoSABR]

 

So what is your definition? Just a Militia?

The Court's reading is that the 2nd amendment is a guarantee to self-defense by fire arms.  So hand-gun restrictions (in DC and Chigaco) were held as unconstitutional. But barring automatic weapons, or extended magazines, or limitations on number of weapons wouldn't violate the fundamental right to self-defense by fire arm.

 

 The 2nd amendment isn't what's holding up reform, it's gun-advocates and the NRA's inability to comprise AT ALL.

[TheLeviathan]

Evidence appears to be pointing more at terrorism.

[DaveW]

 

Evidence appears to be pointing more at terrorism.

It's an interesting case, it appears they were "motivated" by ISIS, but ISIS as a whole never had anything to do with it. Looks to be a couple of crazy people who got lured in by a message etc and took it upon thereselves to go kill a bunch of people.

While terrorism by be a case, I find it odd they shot up where the guy worked, there has to be some other "factors" that lead them to this.

 

Either way, they shouldn't have been able to get AR-15's so easily IMO

[DaveW]

also FYI

 

So far, officials have speculated that Farook's apparent radicalization may have been part of the reason. Part of it may have stemmed from workplace tensions. But they have declined to label this a terrorist attack.

"It would be irresponsible and premature for me to call this terrorism," FBI official David Bowdich said Thursday. "The FBI defines terrorism very specifically, and that is the big question for us: What is the motivation for this?"

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

The history of the Second Amendment isn't as cut and dried as that. It wasn't until very recently (historically speaking) that the Supreme Court defined the Amendment as the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. I still don't believe that is the correct interpretation.

2001. 210 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

[TheLeviathan]

It's certainly an odd case of terrorism if indeed it is.  I was just posting what a lot of people were reporting about the story this morning.

[Squirrel]

It's certainly an odd case of terrorism if indeed it is. I was just posting what a lot of people were reporting about the story this morning.

One article I read ... and I admit to not having read much today ... said the FBI weren't yet calling it that as they have a very specific definition of when it's terrorism. Have they now said such?

[DaveW]

It's certainly an odd case of terrorism if indeed it is. I was just posting what a lot of people were reporting about the story this morning.

I tend to think all mass shooters are domestic terrorists, I think they fall into this bucket, Isis hasn't claimed responsibility and everything appears to this be a lone wolves scenario. Whether it's because you can't get laid, hate your classmates or because you have a perverse interpretation of a religion, it's all the same bull**** in my mind.

 

Sounds like this dude was normal until he met his wife in Saudi Arabia, and she might have "converted him" to this line of thinking, which brings up a huge issue in my mind, the Saudis are "allies" but very very very shady/suspect to say the least in general IMO (when it comes to the government)

[Willihammer]

Don't give the majority of the country the right to squash that law then. They have done it before in terms of DUI law (legal limits etc)

Right, MADD outlobbied the alcohol industry to get those laws passed, that's how the system works. There are several anti-gun groups out there for people who are passionate about this. It does not require a culture change, just members & dollars.

[TheLeviathan]

 

One article I read ... and I admit to not having read much today ... said the FBI weren't yet calling it that as they have a very specific definition of when it's terrorism. Have they now said such?

 

The FBI definition, as I understand it, has a political component that they aren't sure exists in this case.  That's my understanding as to why there is hesitation to call it terrorism.

[PseudoSABR]

I think it's clear there's mixed motives here, with both terrorist tactics and our laughable gun laws enabling such purposes. 

[Craig Arko]

More data.

 

http://www.upworthy.com/instead-of-arguing-about-guns-on-twitter-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-laid-out-the-numbers?g=5

[PseudoSABR]

More data.

 

http://www.upworthy.com/instead-of-arguing-about-guns-on-twitter-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-laid-out-the-numbers?g=5

3,400: Americans who died by Terrorism since 2001

3,400: Americans who died by household Firearms since five weeks ago.

[mikecgrimes]

As much a I'm on the come on this is terrorism side of things politically, I find it odd that you go kill your own coworkers.  Even terrorist tend to like the people they interact with.  Also if the wife was on board why not kill at two locations?  Seems like they jumped in to this before they could be properly recruitied and trained.  I'm not really any more scared then I was before this.  That being said the effort to avoid the word terrorism might not be the only effort going on to make this look like something it's not.  After the attempt to blaim Benghazi on a video it's hard to be confident in any information.

[PseudoSABR]

 

As much a I'm on the come on this is terrorism side of things politically, I find it odd that you go kill your own coworkers.  Even terrorist tend to like the people they interact with.  Also if the wife was on board why not kill at two locations?  Seems like they jumped in to this before they could be properly recruitied and trained.  I'm not really any more scared then I was before this.  That being said the effort to avoid the word terrorism might not be the only effort going on to make this look like something it's not.  After the attempt to blaim Benghazi on a video it's hard to be confident in any information.

It's weird.  My guess is they were training/in-the-loop for other acts, and something happened that motivated the dude to target his work holiday party.   

[TheLeviathan]

It's weird.  My guess is they were training/in-the-loop for other acts, and something happened that motivated the dude to target his work holiday party.

 

To me this seems like the most plausible explanation.

[stringer bell]

Could the wife have been a "plant"? We know she was originally from Pakistan and living in Saudi Arabia and that she was a pharmacist, but that's about it. Is it possible that she was the member of an extremist Muslim organization and assigned to "turn" this guy?

 

The other factor that just doesn't fit is that they had an infant child. IMHO, no mother in her right mind would bring a child into the world and less than a year later commit these types of acts knowing full well she would be dead in a few days.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

The other factor that just doesn't fit is that they had an infant child. IMHO, no mother in her right mind would bring a child into the world and less than a year later commit these types of acts knowing full well she would be dead in a few days.

The thing is, with a lot of this extremist type thinking (or any "cult" in general) people aren't thinking rationally, for all we know, they did this to save their child.