'Murica! (238 Viewers)

[Seven]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-la...-mass-shootings-the-1506980448-htmlstory.html

I ask god to help me understand this insanity.

More than anything else I think America's biggest problem is that there is a business and political climate in which psychopaths absolutely thrive. It's what you get if you make capitalism the foundation of your society I guess. Look at this entire gun issue. There is no actual debate. We know gun control makes things safer. This is demonstrated everywhere around the globe. But there is a gun lobby that doesn't care. They poison the debate with falsehoods and lies. It doesn't matter to them that they are causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. That's what shocks me the most to be honest. How can you possibly justify that behaviour?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[JuveJay]

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2017/10/smith_wesson_stock_price_spikes_recedes.html

See, it's not all bad news.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there need to be a political motivation for this to be defined as terrorism?

 

[Seven]

I guess that would be correct.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

More than anything else I think America's biggest problem is that there is a business and political climate in which psychopaths absolutely thrive. It's what you get if you make capitalism the foundation of your society I guess. Look at this entire gun issue. There is no actual debate. We know gun control makes things safer. This is demonstrated everywhere around the globe. But there is a gun lobby that doesn't care. They poison the debate with falsehoods and lies. It doesn't matter to them that they are causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. That's what shocks me the most to be honest. How can you possibly justify that behaviour?

2nd ammendment is capitalism? For a lawyer your opinion on the matter is rather superficial.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I guess that would be correct.

Indeed, that's the dictionary definition, which is what I was going with.

A lot of people are upset that it's not being labelled as terrorism by the media because he's white. Then I saw this, so maybe they're right:

[FONT=&quot] NRS 202.4415  “Act of terrorism” defined.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 1.  “Act of terrorism” means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (2) Any natural resource or the environment.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2.  As used in this section, “coercion” does not include an act of civil disobedience.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Added to NRS by 2003, 2947)

​https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec4415[/FONT]

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there need to be a political motivation for this to be defined as terrorism?

How do you know it's not? Also when a deranged muslim does the same do we bother to see if he's crazy first then ask about the political message or the existence of the political message cancels the lunacy?

 

[Seven]

2nd ammendment is capitalism? For a lawyer your opinion on the matter is rather superficial.

Lol. You think this is about the 2nd amendment? There are definitely circumstances in which I'd want a gun myself in the US. I'm thinking of rural areas with dangerous wildlife for example. But having regulations and restrictions doesn't necessarily interfere that much with the 2nd amendment. The only reason I can think of why it is portrayed as such is money.

Indeed, that's the dictionary definition, which is what I was going with.

A lot of people are upset that it's not being labelled as terrorism by the media because he's white. Then I saw this, so maybe they're right:

[FONT="][B] NRS [/B][B]202.4415[/B][B]  [/B][B]“Act of terrorism” defined.[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="] 1.  “Act of terrorism” means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:[/FONT][FONT="] (a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="] (b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:[/FONT][FONT="] (1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="] (2) Any natural resource or the environment.[/FONT][FONT="] 2.  As used in this section, “coercion” does not include an act of civil disobedience.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="] (Added to NRS by 2003, 2947)

​https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec4415[/FONT]

Yeah.. I can understand the frustration, but it is what it is.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

How do you know it's not? Also when a deranged muslim does the same do we bother to see if he's crazy first then ask about the political message or the existence of the political message cancels the lunacy?

Not saying it's not. We don't know as yet, that's all

 

[GordoDeCentral]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-la...-mass-shootings-the-1506980448-htmlstory.html

I ask god to help me understand this insanity.

Crude and bad timing, but what he says is correct.

 

[Seven]

How do you know it's not? Also when a deranged muslim does the same do we bother to see if he's crazy first then ask about the political message or the existence of the political message cancels the lunacy?

It's definitely possible that it was a terrorist attack. Personally I think we're way too fast to label these things as terrorism. In fact, 90% of the time it's a lunatic, even if he's saying it's in the name of this or in the name of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Crude and bad timing, but what he says is correct.

Yes. What he's saying isn't wrong. But it's weird that your population apparently thinks it's okay for lunatics to have guns. Rights always interfere with and are restricted by other rights. That's how it works. The right to living peacefully restricts the right of lunatics to carry guns.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Not saying it's not. We don't know as yet, that's all

My point is the dictionary definition is lacking, id say terrorism is the indiscriminate killing of civilians to get national news coverage.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

My point is the dictionary definition is lacking, id say terrorism is the indiscriminate killing of civilians to get national news coverage.

To get national news coverage? Where'd that come from?

Anyway I just realised that it does fit the legal definition of an act of terrorism. So in that case, people are right to point out the media hypocrisy

 

[JuveJay]

Crude and bad timing, but what he says is correct.

With the best will in the world it would be hard for anyone to use 42 weapons in self defence. The 2nd amendment is horribly antiquated.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Lol. You think this is about the 2nd amendment? There are definitely circumstances in which I'd want a gun myself in the US. I'm thinking of rural areas with dangerous wildlife for example. But having regulations and restrictions doesn't necessarily interfere that much with the 2nd amendment. The only reason I can think of why it is portrayed as such is money.



Yeah.. I can understand the frustration, but it is what it is.

That's what i said as a lawyer, there has been much debate in both the militia part and the type of gun, interesting read if your have time.
This country lives by the constitution and the rule of law, any resolution has to reconcile the two, and it's pretty obvious it won't and never will.

 

[Seven]

With the best will in the world it would be hard for anyone to use 42 weapons in self defence. The 2nd amendment is horribly antiquated.

I love that the thing is an amendment but somehow perfect and cannot ever be changed.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

With the best will in the world it would be hard for anyone to use 42 weapons in self defence. The 2nd amendment is horribly antiquated.

I agree with you, but it's a fait accompli, it won't be changed, we just have to live with it.

 

[Seven]

That's what i said as a lawyer, there has been much debate in both the militia part and the type of gun, interesting read if your have time.
This country lives by the constitution and the rule of law, any resolution has to reconcile the two, and it's pretty obvious it won't and never will.

I have read a bit about it and the discussion is indeed complicated.

But there are an awful lot of arguments to be made against allowing private citizens to own a gun collection such as the one of this shooter.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with you, but it's a fait accompli, it won't be changed, we just have to live with it.

Why? Laws, even constitutions, change all the time.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I love that the thing is an amendment but somehow perfect and cannot ever be changed.

The bill of rights is sacrosanct in the US

- - - Updated - - -

To get national news coverage? Where'd that come from?

Anyway I just realised that it does fit the legal definition of an act of terrorism. So in that case, people are right to point out the media hypocrisy

If someone kills 20 people but no hears of it, is it terrorism?

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

The bill of rights is sacrosanct in the US

- - - Updated - - -



If someone kills 20 people but no hears of it, is it terrorism?

Idk man. There are different definitions. Nevada law says yes, the dictionary says no. I would go with no.