Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Foxnews.com front page headline/story:

Uh is that wrong? I'm not up on the latest news, but it looks like terrorists to me.

If the killings had a political motive than its terrorism. If they didn't then it's just good old fashioned mass murder. Being muslim is not a political motive. But contacts with other radical muslim groups certainly raises red flags.

The Guns From the San Bernardino Shooting Were Legal Thanks to the NRA

The weapons used in San Bernardino are only legal in the U.S. because the NRA cowed Congress into watching the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expire

By Tim Dickinson December 3, 2015


There is much we don't know about the San Bernardino massacre.

But we have learned something about the arsenal deployed to kill at least 14 and injure more than 20 others.

The San Bernardino authorities have revealed that the alleged assailants — Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27 — were killed in a police shootout in possession of two .223-caliber assault rifles, and nearly 1,400 rounds of ammunition. They also carried semiautomatic handguns.

The assault weapons were purchased legally. But these tactical arms are only legal in the United States because of the efforts of the NRA — which cowed congress into watching the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expire under president George W. Bush.

Military-bred weapons have since become commonplace.

DPMS Panther Arms, which, according to police, manufactured one of the assault weapons found in the assailants' rented SUV, has closed its store temporarily. It had been offering $200 cash back as part of a "Black Friday Bonus Savings" promotion.

DPMS's parent company is the Freedom Group, which also owns Bushmaster, the brand of assault weapon wielded by Adam Lanza in the Newtown massacre. At the bottom of its online store, DPMS links to the websites of the NRA, the NRA-ILA (the group's lobbying arm) and the Friends of NRA.

The Smith & Wesson rifle police say they recovered in San Berardino is from the company's popular M&P line; M&P is short for "military and police." In 2012, Smith & Wesson was inaugurated into the NRA's Golden Ring of Freedom — "reserved for those who have given gifts of cash or assets to the NRA totaling one million dollars or more."

There is increasing speculation that the San Bernardino assailants could have been linked to international terrorists. But under U.S. gun laws, even ties to jihadists — sufficient to land an American on the FBI's terror watch list — do not prevent the purchase of guns, including military- and police- style assault rifles.

The Government Accountability Office has reported that "membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law."

From 2004 to 2014, according to the GAO, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorism watch list successfully purchased guns — at a success rate of greater than 90 percent. The NRA has lobbied against legislation that would close this loophole by calling it "sponsored by gun control extremists."

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Foxnews.com front page headline/story:

Uh is that wrong? I'm not up on the latest news, but it looks like terrorists to me.

If the killings had a political motive than its terrorism. If they didn't then it's just good old fashioned mass murder. Being muslim is not a political motive. But contacts with other radical muslim groups certainly raises red flags.

How come you didn't apply this same wait-and-see attitude to the Planned Parenthood shootings?

Two reasons:

1--the targeting of a planned parenthood clinic makes it reasonable to draw certain initial assumptions, especially in the recent political climate. But fair enough if a news outlet doesn't do that. It's probably responsible, and my initial comments were preemptive frustration about how I expected coverage to go based on how it has worked in the past.


2--There is a long and established history of not calling acts like that terrorism. And the NY times article that you linked, for instance, actually went through that history struggling for euphemistic ways to discuss the history of ideological violence committed against abortion providers by christian fundamentalist murderers as anything other than domestic terrorism.

To be clear, if/when those links are discovered in the San Bernadino case I, like liberals everywhere, will be perfectly comfortable calling this terrorism. No liberal taken seriously (that I am aware of) has issues calling islamic terrorism terrorism. There is resistance to tarring all muslims with the same brush, and a frustration the double standard used towards right wing domestic terrorism (of the christian and anti-government variety) in this country--ESPECIALLY when you factor in how much more of a threat it is to people's lives and security than islamic terrorism (in the United States)

I hate them equally.

As do I. Actually that's probably not true. I'm more afraid of the right wing extremists so I probably hate them more. I don't feel good about either though

I hate everybody.

No, you don't.

How was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban different from California's? I thought they were roughly comparable and California's is still in force.

Doesn't mean shit if you can just drive to Arizona.

I just want the grenade launcher from Predator. Ban the rest.

I cannot fathom how little time the people who become gun aficionados must spend getting sucked off.

Can you kill that which never truly lives?

BurtReynolds wrote:I just want the grenade launcher from Predator. Ban the rest.

If youre going to poach weaponry from Predator you have to go with active camo in my opinion.

The Daily News isn't letting this one go.

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I just want the grenade launcher from Predator. Ban the rest.

If youre going to poach weaponry from Predator you have to go with active camo in my opinion.

I'll probably take the minigun in case I need to mow the lawn.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Doesn't mean shit if you can just drive to Arizona.

Is that what happened? All I heard is that the weapons were legally purchased. You can't even submit to a background check in a state that you aren't a resident in, and while private party purchases are possible, an exchange of IDs seems pretty normal for a responsible seller. In the latter case, the sale still wouldn't be legal for the purchaser.

Also, there are a number of 'agriculture ' checkpoints on main routes across the California border. They are probably not just looking for agricultural goods.

Lastly, I have no reason to believe that the base weapons are illegal to purchase in CA. To be legal in CA, semi automatic rifles cannot have both a pistol grip and detachable magazines (and/or other prohibited features). You can posses any of these basic plastic and metal components but certain installed configurations are kosher and some are not*. I don't know if it's a misdemeanor or a felony, but the wrong bit of plastic or aluminium here makes it legal or no.

As I alluded to before, I am under the impression that the Federal ban referred to proscribed features (like the CA equivalent) and also possibly proscribed brands/ manufacturers. This achieves little as there is very little functional difference between a rifle with a pistol grip and one without. As all the other possible components of a weapon beyond the serial number containing component (in this case, the lower receiver) are not restricted, one can easily buy a legal gun and reconfigure it in a minute to an illegal one.

I'd add that it's generally silly to make pieces of plastic and metal restricted, but if you want to redefine the ATF's definition of a firearm and somehow make it coherent, go ahead.

Current firearm law is rather complicated, which is probably what tends to happen when you try to define and restrict rather basic machines. I don't know if there's a way around it, but it doesn't help to pretend the definitions are simpler than they are, or that the practical implications for policy can be waved away.

all of you either rely too much on the gov't or think that guns could somehow take out a tank, or a jet.


here's the deal...

say the US bans "the gun"

that would require a gov't agency, with certain authority over who has guns. not only would this agency take all the guns, but it would be the only ones with the power to have guns.

so we would end up with a gov't that can not only do whatever the fuck it wants, you'd be giving up your rights to it. Remember there is a gun for every man, woman and child in the US....



when it comes to school and workplace shootings...ask yourself-who benefits from it?

Government doesn't know about my bunkers, so they aren't getting anything of mine.

oh wait, uh, just kidding, I don't have bunkers, government.