Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Thursday over the “systematic scrubbing of law enforcement and intelligence materials,” connecting the issue to the 2014 Fort Hood shooting and other attacks.
Cruz began by comparing the number of references to “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam” found in the 9/11 commission report to the number found in several of the Obama administration’s intelligence and counterterrorism materials.
“The word ‘jihad’ appears in that report 126 times, the world ‘Muslim’ appears in that report 145 times, the world ‘Islam’ appears in that report 322 times,” he said sternly. “And yet since that 9/11 commission report, different policies have come into effect. And as a matter of systematic policy, those terms are no longer allowed to be used in this administration.”
Johnson told Cruz repeatedly that he has no knowledge efforts to “purge” DHS material of references to radical Islam. The DHS chief went on to claim that conceding the Islamic State is connected to Islam only gives the terrorist group what it wants.
Cruz ultimately cut off Johnson to reclaim his speaking time.
“You’re entitled to give speeches other times,” Cruz said. “My question was if you were aware that the information has been scrubbed.”
Cruz also pushed back against Johnson’s assertion that removing references to radical Islam is merely a “semantic difference.”
“When you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur,” Cruz said.
The Texas senator suggested the Fort Hood shooting may have been one of those instances. When bluntly asked by Cruz if it was a “mistake” not to respond to the “red flags” in regards to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, Johnson accused Cruz of citing incorrect information.
“In one minute, I couldn’t begin to answer your question,” he said.
“Pick anything,” Cruz shot back. “Pick one thing, sir.”
“You’re assuming that the federal government in advance of the attack on Fort Hood saw all these different red flags. That’s not correct,” Johnson said.
That’s when Cruz got specific.
“Is it true or false that the Obama administration knew before the attack that Nidal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki?” Cruz asked.
“How are you defining the ‘Obama administration,’ sir?” Johnson said.
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Cruz responded.
“The entire Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can’t answer that question sitting here,” Johnson answered.
“The answer is ‘yes’ and it’s public record, sir,” Cruz retorted.
Cruz went on to cite “red flags” missed in the Boston bombings and San Bernardino attack.
@George Wells: I did answer your post on nuclear weapons you should go check on that.
You again ignore the comma in the second amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
militia and people.
Todays militia would be our police force, and a National guard, both regulated.
The peoples right, that is you and I.
This law prevents infringement of any type.
Not being fair to the POTUS he is sworn to protect the constitution, not at every opportunity attempt to pass more unconstitutional legislation.
It is my right to own any type of fire arm, it over-rides your fear of me having it.
If I commit a crime with that weapon, then my punishment should be as prescribed by the law.
The laws they are trying to pass right now, violate the second, fifth and fourteenth amendments. Some anonymous person puts me on a list revoking my right to bear arms without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law. I am unable to have a day in court and answer the charges?
The Republican version is worse it also takes rights away with no trial, just doesn’t mention the terrorist watch list.
I think your previous post mentioned Gates being able to afford a nuke, I replied better him than the Supreme leader who chants death to America or Kim who is nutz one an Obama legacy, the other Clinton, same lame line both times.
The Constitution was not written to limit us it was written to limit government.
Thats why Pols ignore it.
OK, Kitt. Yes, I DID miss your answer to “personal nuclear weaponry.” Maybe if you’d told me what post it was in, I could hjave found it, but no matter.
In your #51 you EXPLAIN that the Second Amendment has some comas that convince you that while the framers were uncomfortable about letting the nation’s own PROFESSIONAL military and police organizations use weaponry WITHOUT “regulation,” they were perfectly fine with letting their own often drunk, mentally unstable and completely un-vetted populace arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction.
That is certifiably mad!
Had the Founding Fathers had ANY idea that technology (something that essentially did not exist in the 1700’s) would give us weapons powerful enough to end life on Earth, they certainly would have devoted more than a coma to the very noble duty of preventing our self-destruction. But they didn’t because they didn’t.
This is a perfect example of exactly why Scalia’s brand of Constitutional Originalism is nonsense, never mind that the Constitution itself provides multiple means of effecting its own modification, PROVING that the Founders UNDERSTOOD that the document wouldn’t remain relevant indefinitely.
Comas or not, the Second Amendment AS YOU INTERPRET IT is obviously, at this point, a liability. What POSSIBLE good can come from carefully regulating a “militia” while “average” citizens pursue the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction unchecked? Will it make you feel better that when we blow ourselves to smithereens, at LEAST it wasn’t the dirty work of an “unregulated militia”,,,,,?
@George Wells: Dynamite was until not too long ago available at the hardware store, you had to be an adult to buy it.
If placed correctly you can blow a stump 40 or 50 feet in the air, so long fuse.
My sweetie remembers taking their assault weapons to school so he and his pals could squirrel hunt after. They were in their teens.
People have become so paranoid of explosives and guns its ridiculous.
Way back when there were a bunch of stumps that needed to be “blown up,” maybe having dynamite available at the hardware store made sense. Maybe it even made sense to put VARMINT RIFLES (not “assault weapons”) into the hands of children, though I’m not comfortable with letting them take them to school. You see, SCHOOL is full of CHILDREN (not varmints) and CHILDREN don’t yet possess adult senses of responsibility, no matter how well they parrot the lessons their parents have attempted to teach them. ANY venue (school, a drinking establishment (especially), the POST OFFICE, ANY government building in which may be found civil servants whom half of the public voted for and the other half DIDN’T, or ANY other place where there are enough people concentrated into such a small space that the discharge of a firearm is as likely as not to cause casualty, is NOT an appropriate place for guns to be. I just don’t buy the self-serving argument that if EVERYBODY was packing heat, then criminals would think twice about committing crimes. They’re CRIMINALS! If they had the capacity to think clearly, they wouldn’t be committing crimes in the first place.
You’re damned right that “people have become paranoid of explosives and guns.” That’s because “People” (usually INNOCENT people) are being killed on a daily basis BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO USE GUNS AND EXPLOSIVES. Gun sales are at record highs, but I don’t see gun violence tapering off… do YOU? Lots of the wacko’s who are doing the shooting are people who never should have been allowed to get their hands on guns in the first place. Republicans like to say that the solution isn’t MORE gun laws, just enforce the laws we already have… and then they cut the budgets of the enforcement agencies to make sure that the laws CANNOT be enforced. Great!
There has to be a better answer then to just let everyone keep shooting each other more and more the angrier they get, because if you haven’t noticed from this election cycle’s primary results, we’re in the middle of an anger crisis that is showing no signs of slowing down. In fact, it’s getting worse, and arming everybody to the teeth – AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO OWN WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION – isn’t a solution to anything but the population explosion.
When I went to high school, half the boys in the school had rifle racks in the back windows of their pick ups with “varmint” rifles hanging off them (of course, those “varmint” rifles could take down a 600-1000 pound elk (elk are really big varmints). Of course, that was when high schools still had gun/rifle clubs, before liberals decided it was dangerous and before there were such thing as mass shootings at schools because back then, schools were NOT gun-free zones (or, as any one with two grey cells bumping together calls them; target rich environments)
Not very well informed, are you (although that fact was established long, long ago)?
And it’s the Federal government that provides the money for your local police force? Surely, you’re not that poorly informed. Yes, there are some grants awarded to the P.D.s via the DoJ, but for the most part, your local taxes support your local P.D., not the federal government.
Tell me, George, what is the safest state in our Union? What are the gun laws in that state?
That’s rich. You now think that criminals are mentally impaired? No wonder you’re a liberal.
@George Wells: There are plenty of stumps to be blown up, I paid to have 60 stumps ground at my property, in a couple of years there will be 60 more as we cut the dead trees out of a poorly maintained few acres. The front 2 acres now look near park like.
Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
Go to any site that has gun statistics and you can find facts, FBI site.
They are less powerful, but look nasty, people that want them are the same type that will buy an expensive car because of it looks despite the fact that all reports say its a lemon. They take them out when their buddies are over and they go to the range or back 40 and set up targets, or shoot milk jugs and watermelons.
They are a better weapon for womens self defense as the kick is minimal. Little girls can handle these weapons and have better control and aim than a shot gun that may kick like a mule.
It seems most the mass shootings happen in gun free zones because the criminals dont want the victims shooting back.
Its all politics, the ban on these when they are not an issue is all for show, it wont have an effect so then they will need to go after another class of gun and so on.
Its a liberal lie and you fell for it.
I take it that these so-called police reports think that the assault weapon used to kill Dallas cops is a “non-problem”?
And that the assault weapon used to kill 49 PULSE patrons was ALSO a “non-problem”?
How many mass-killings have been accomplished using a revolver INSTEAD of an “assault weapon”?
And just how many mass-killings are acceptable, anyway?
How about you, retire05? Do YOU like the idea of having nuclear weapons in the hands of the unruly public? Would THAT make you feel secure in YOUR home at night?
What made sense in the “Wild West” at one point DOESN’T make sense in congested urban cases where there are HUGE numbers of unemployed, angry, drunken and/or drug-addled people with no good reason to go on living and every reason (in their own minds) to take revenge on people better off then themselves. THOSE people haven’t done a blessed thing to EARN the right that you seem to think the Second Amendment gives them to arm themselves to the teeth. THEY don’t shoot squirrels, THEY SHOOT PEOPLE. Cops know this, and in many places they won’t even go into such areas when 911 is called. And YOU don’t want to restrict gun-shop owners from selling them more guns? My, my, my!
@George Wells: When you are willing to have a truthful conversation on weapons and the illegal use of them then reply to one of my posts.
Dont post the BS like in #56.
Who is really committing most of the murder by guns in this country, and why, what types of weapons are they using and are they legal holders?
Why is it the liberals think they can lie and take away peoples rights?
Back off the constitution, if you hate it it covers the entire USA perhaps you and the rest of your type should leave and make your Utopia elsewhere.
Weapons in the hands of any terrorist is a problem to the Police, as well as the general public.
Cute. As usual, you offer the caveat with the term “mass killings.” The answer to your question is not nearly as many as was killed using airplanes. Shall we now ban all air planes? And why does it matter if someone kills one, or fifty, at a time? Those people who were singularly murdered are just as dead.
FBI stats on murder by gun (including “mass” murders”)
Hand guns – 2007/7,398 2013/5783
Rifles – 2007/453 2013/285 (this would include your “assault”weapons)
Shotguns – 2007/457 2013/308
Other – 2007/116 2013/123
Knives – 2007/1,817 2013/1,490
Blunt Objects – 2007/647 2013/428 (includes clubs/hammers)
Hands/Fists – 2007/869 2013/687
More people were murdered using knives, hands, fists, clubs and hammers than were murdered by your hated “assault” weapons. As a matter of fact, more people were murdered by hands & fists than were murdered by long barrel guns.
How many deaths from HIV/AIDS is acceptable, George? Shouldn’t we prosecute those who knowing had AIDS and still had unprotected sex, transferring an incurable disease to others? The fact that we don’t, and never have, is a great miscarriage of justice for all those who, unwillingly, were infected.
Gee, George, are you worried about someone bringing in a multi-million dollar nuclear weapon to Target when you are shopping? I am more worried about Obama allowing the Iranians to obtain nuclear weapons that the Joe Blow on the streets of the U.S.
That argument would have merit if I had grown up in the “wild” West, but I didn’t and I attended an urban high school.
I see you still haven’t lost that nasty habit of yours putting words into other’s mouths. You really should work on that, George.
Still waiting on you to tell us what the safest state in the nation is and what kind of gun laws they have. Oh, that’s right; it doesn’t fit your argument so you’ll ignore that question.
Ah… but kitt… “If only ONE life can be saved (wiping away a tear) Of course, that sentiment only applies to laws designed, not to address the known threats, to impede law abiding citizens from purchasing a weapon. Nor are leftists, like George, willing to address other threats to public safety that do not involve gun restrictions.
Liberals would rather see innocent people killed than put criminal illegal immigrants in jail
The GAO reports that over a period of 7 years, illegal immigrants committed 25,064 homicides. Yet, how hard do liberals fight to prevent any impediment to illegal immigration or, as shown above, even the most common-sensical proposals are rejected.
Now, my point is not illegal immigration here; it is that the left does not care about protecting lives (witness their support for terror groups like Black Lives Matter and New Black Panthers) but a myopic pursuit towards disarming the America public to make their implementation of their rejected agenda much more easily accomplished. Even George, a gay man, will accept the slaughter of 49 in a gay bar if it can be used to promote gun control and ignore the actual threat any REAL means to address it.
I wonder why you bother to make such a false statement.
Was it simply your way to once again lie about gay-related issues?
Go ahead and lie about gay details (what do those have to do with gun control, anyway?) instead of answering my question about whether or not ANY limits on the types on weaponry are appropriate in the civilian populace.
Since you REFUSE to place ANY limits, EVER, on weapons in civilian hands, I must conclude that you want no control whatsoever. That pretty much leads to chaos, no matter what justification you can find to legitimately shoot squirrels. With that mentality at PLAY, it is easy to conclude that the Second Amendment needs to be either revised or eliminated, as the proponents of gun ownership cannot accept rational limitations of any sort.
Go ahead and accept a reasonable limitation on gun ownership and use. If you can’t find one you can accept, and are not willing to advocate for such a reasonable limitation, no matter what it is, then I will concede that if this issue is simply, and irrationally all or nothing, I will concede all rights to gun ownership. The alternative is simply too dangerous to contemplate.
Are you not aware that there ARE limits and restrictions on purchasing, use, carrying and ownership of weapons? The fact that they are mostly ill-conceived, politically motivated theatrical props generated out of emotion and agenda is not the fault of the gun owner.
The fact that they don’t work is not the fault of the gun. The fact that they don’t work is not the fault of the legal gun owner. The fact that they don’t work is due to the failure to address them towards the likely threats. This SHOULD not be surprising to anyone, but you may find it surprising that criminals do not worry about background checks or waiting periods. “Gun Free Zones” are not a deterrent to crime… they are a lure. Blaming a gun for a racist mass killer blaming Dallas cops for a Minnesota shooting is not a sign of intelligence or insight into a problem; it is a sign of an agenda.
So, a gay bar has been specifically targeted by a radicalized Muslim seeking glory from ISIS and now gays are seeking to weaponize themselves. How about a law that bans anyone gay from purchasing a weapon. We KNOW some of them could be angry and vindictive… the rational thing to do would be to put every person that every posts gay activists comments on social media should be put on a no-buy list (let’s say I get to choose who goes on the list, but this is secret… no one really knows who gets to select or what the criteria actually is). After all, we don’t want open season on Muslims to be opened up and armed gays going out and massacring them out of blind hate.
Sound like a plan?
Link? And what was the sentence for giving someone an incurable disease for which there is no known cure, only treatment to reduce the associated symptoms?
I have never lied about gay-related issues, unlike you. I have provided more than enough history, history you seem painfully uninformed on, that shows gay related “issues” are nothing more than a political agenda to normalize what is not normal in the name of political correctness, a Marxist philosophy.
You want me to answer your questions, but you continually dodge the questions of others, including me. George, thy name is Hypocrite.
You are taking lying about another’s positions to a new level of absurdity. You want to mix in the possession of WMDs with firearms. You refuse to address the issue of Obama turning a blind eye to Iran getting nuclear weapons yet seem to worry that your neighbor will be able to buy one.
I do not think everyone should be able to own a firearm; those convicted of a felony, and I think that any crime committed with the use of firearm should be sent to jail for a long, long time. But criminals don’t give a hairy rat’s a$$ about your gun “control.” You really think the MS-13 gangbanger is going to go thru a background check? Gun control laws only affect those that are law abiding, not those who are not.
I’m sure you would support the eradication of the 2nd Amendment, George. But please, tell us, exactly how would you then keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element? Simple answer, you wouldn’t, any more than the government can keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element under current restrictive laws.
Shall we outlaw planes, that killed almost 3,000 in one day? How about motor vehicles? Hammers? Make it illegal for anyone to make a fist? Register everyone’s feet? Ban all knives?
One thing is for sure; no one can every accuse you lefties of being logical.
It is very sweet that you trust a bunch of would-be cowboys to go about their daily lives with loaded guns at the tips of their fingers, hoping that although they frequently engage in drunken brawls at their favorite watering hole, they will ALWAYS know better than to ask their blue steel piece to settle an argument that they might otherwise lose.
I don’t trust them like that, and I CERTAINLY don’t trust certain chronically incarcerated inner-city demographics who are taught from infancy that the police are their enemy, that laws are made to be broken and that violence DOES settle every score.
I do not accept that the citizenry – whether Texas squirrel-boys or the crack-addled, looking-for-trouble, inner-city unemployed – have a right to arm themselves with fire-power that is superior to what our professional law enforcement and military personnel are equipped with. To grant them the right to so arm themselves is to abdicate all responsibility for the organized maintenance of civil order.
IF a right to possess and carry such superior firepower exists, it is unacceptable and should be withdrawn. We are already finding it prohibitively expensive to provide sufficient body armor (particularly such that protects the wearer from high-powered armaments) to our combat infantry and police, and neither are there adequate funds available to purchase and train everyone in the use of ever-increasingly more powerful military-grade weaponry in an arms race with criminals that is made possible only by the NRA’s refusal to accept even the slightest limitations on what guns and accessories are made available to the general public.
The military does reasonable due-diligence by running periodic psych evaluations on personnel tasked with lethal responsibilities, and still there are fatal mistakes. It is no wonder that a public that does NOT have the benefit of either similar screening OR mandatory training ends up wrongfully killing over and over and over again. I don’t think that the right to off a few squirrels is worth so many murdered innocents. I’m fed up with it, and I will concentrate my financial and political support to bring and end to it by whatever means is necessary, up to and including revision of the Second Amendment.
@George Wells: While you are at undoing the 2nd try looking at death by regulation lets undo a few government death sentences. Cafe standards, CAFE standards led to “2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year. The higher the standards the more death I guess thats why Democrats keeps upping it, a fake tear rolls down a cheek if just 1 life…. Much more death and carnage than caused by long rifles.
What do YOU propose, that drivers buy Army surplus Sherman Tanks to drive safely? The Government’s CAFE incentives to increase gas mileage were INTENDED to encourage auto makers to make more fuel-efficient cars. The KEY to that is found in the treasury of confiscated patents bought up and buried by the oil companies who appreciated that more efficient cars would drive gasoline consumption – and correspondingly gasoline PRICES – down. Some of those innovations HAVE now been utilized, and they contribute MORE to the increased fuel economy than lighter (and cheaper) auto construction.
But why don’t I focus on “deaths” caused by this CAFE program? Well, for starters, the CALCULATION of “how many deaths are “caused” by it” is entirely political. Even YOUR numbers are dwarfed by gun violence deaths:
…so I could simply say that I prefer to concentrate on the BIGGEST problems before tackling the smaller ones, But that’s beside the point, isn’t it?
There is no possible way that individual traffic deaths can be analytically or quantitatively determined to be “caused” by a specific car component specification. The only REAL cause-and-effect relationship you can find is that people who object to the program tend to inflate the estimates of how many deaths are caused by plastic bumpers and fenders. Brilliant!
If you don’t like plastic bumpers and fenders, have your state legislate bumper and fender standards that exceed Federal standards, much like California’s emission standards exceed the Federal ones. Or have them legislate tougher crash-test specifications IN YOUR STATE, and watch how fast YOUR car costs go up. You might be surprised to find out just how much money it will cost YOU and the rest of YOUR state to help save a precious few of those (maybe) lost lives. YOU can pay for more metal in YOUR car while the rest of us drive cheaper, more fuel-economic and slightly less crash-friendly cars. I’m all for a choice.
(Of course, the next state over may decide to NOT let you drive your gas-guzzling smog-belching tank on THEIR roads, and YOUR state might retaliate by refusing to let THEIR citizens drive THEIR death-traps into YOUR state.
Me? I’d prefer to NOT start a civil war over auto safely OR fuel economy)
Now if you REALLY want to lower automobile deaths, require that cars be fitted with governors that cut off the engine when a cell phone begins transmitting within the car, and also when the car exceeds the speed limit. Finally, LOWER speed limits back to a maximum of 55. (Higher speeds equal more deaths.) I support THESE measures that are PROVEN to lower automobile fatalities.
@George Wells: Cafe was began in the Carter admin to make America free of foreign oil, historically you are wrong again, no shock to me. Long guns the ones you want banned kill less than 250 people per year, if its all guns you are after, you come get mine first, do it yourself, I will even make it lighter for you by unloading it first.
Double the gas mileage double the death, keep doubling down on failed policies. Public safety be damned liberals have an agenda to carry out.
A tank would be cool but hard to find a good parking spot at the mall.
Why must you always fly off to unicorn fear land , 2nd amendment = personal nukes Loosen CAFE = tanks you can never have an honest sane conversation.
I asked you where you draw the line, remember?
At what point do personal armaments become unforgivably excessive and intolerably dangerous?
That was a reasonable question, not a “unicorn-land” fear.
I THOUGHT that we were having a “sane conversation,” and my question was part of it.
The only answer I got was that if Bill Gates wanted to buy nuclear weapons for his own personal use, the Second Amendment certainly DIDN’T have any objection to that.
THAT’S where this discussion went off the sanity grid.
The guns I want to ban are not just the squirrel guns y’all like your boys to take to school. Let your kids shoot themselves up in a fit of testosterone madness, I’m not likely to cross their paths. On the other hand, I live in the congested East, in a city that has entirely too many of the demographic I mentioned and that you ignored AND that is a major portion of the gun related violence that we are ALL falling victim to NOW. Not back when Injuns were on the warpath, not when Lions and Tigers and Bears were prowling around our tents at night, or whatever. The necessity of REMOVING guns from the hands of people who would do violent mischief with them surely MUST be evident to YOU (assuming you watch the news EVERY DAY and witness for yourself the tragic toll guns are taking in our society TODAY) and yet you steadfastly REFUSE to address this need. WHO, exactly, is living in “unicorn land”?
I don’t know how real the chance of a rouge government ever becoming established that the citizens of America were going to need their personal weapons to use in armed revolt, but I don’t believe that the public was EVER in a position to actually overthrow a government that was unwilling to step aside. That idea, however appealing to our sense of “independence,” was nothing but a widely dispersed myth.
I DO acknowledge that there is a deterrent value to an armed citizenry with regards to the discretion of armed criminals, but the overwhelming volume of gun fatalities are not the result of self-defensive actions of law-abiding citizens. They are crimes of violence, and they are accidents, as MY statistics proved. THESE are the guns that must be removed.
Yes, it WOULD be a “Unicorn-Land” proposition to seek them out and confiscate them. THAT isn’t practical. What IS practical is the cessation of the manufacture and importation of assault weapons, and sufficient restriction on the purchase, possession and use of all other firearms. Finally, with sufficient legal justification, law enforcement could BEGIN to restrict the volume of weapons available to criminals. At this point, their hands are tied.
You had cops confused in Dallas, watching 20 or 30 different people openly carrying assault rifles, all running in different directions when the shooter began firing. Cops couldn’t tell WHO or how many were shooting, and their initial assessment was way wrong. One of these times, one of those open-carry nuts will see the actual shooter in action and will crouch down and draw a bead on HIM, and then another one of them will see THAT and do the same thing, and before you know it, one of them will pull the trigger and you’ll have 5 dead cops and 25 dead open-carry enthusiasts. I pray GOD that then, FINALLY, we’ll get up the courage to stand up to the NRA and say “Enough is enough.”
That’s a prediction.
Not “unicorn-land” stuff.
It almost happened this time.
Read the police reports.
@George Wells: It was you that originally mentioned Gates, I just happen to think he would be a better person to trust with a red button than the Supreme leader.
Normal people just want guns for fun, sport and self defense and hunting. Do you know any normal people?
So you live in a dangerous violent area of the country, which party historically governs that congested hell hole? How many crimes are committed there with military style weapons? How many murders were committed with long rifles?
Chicago has very strict gun laws it doesn’t seem any of those laws work because lawful people are not committing the crimes. DC also has a crime problem and the murders by gun there are not done by people who would care what gun laws were passed. All a new law would be accomplished is make a lawful peaceful person a criminal. Suddenly they own an illegal weapon, will the government give everyone several thousand dollars for their expensive guns?
Tell me what laws would have prevented these mass shootings other than the repeal of the second amendment.
As far as the open carry persons, I was only aware of 1 black man that was carrying and old fashioned rifle. He was gone before the trouble started and when he found out he was a suspect turned himself in.
Where some white guys showed up to some of these protests with their long guns no looting or burning or shooting happened. I am sure that was simply a coincidence.
You have not posted any links to your statistics, are they from Mother Jones site, Vox, media matters?
No, I propose you reduce the level of absurdity you seem to resort to.
Responding to the rest of your post #64 is a waste of time. It is nothing but a bunch of blatherings about things you seem to know nothing about, filled with insulting stereotypical comments lobbed at others. Squirrel-boys? The only squirrel boy I know is you.
Odd, that. It seems that when kids were going to school with long barrels hung on the rifle racks mounted to the back windows of their pick-ups, there were NO school shootings. All that changed when liberals got involved thinking they were going to save the kids. Remember, with you liberals, it’s all about the children.
The operative word being “intended”. The pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions.
11.208 deaths by homicide fails to state how many of those deaths were by a firearm. So let me give you some stats (that I already provided once) that are more accurate than what ever website you gleaned that from:
2013 – Murder by ALL firearms – 8, 454
Here’s some more stats for you, Georgie: the rate of murder by gun has decreased from 10,129 in 2007 to 8454 in 2013, the last year the FBI has posted stats. That, in spite of the highly increased gun ownership in the last 9 years. How do you explain that, George? Oh, wait, you can’t.
The federal mandates speed limit of 55 mph was enacted in 1974. It was lifted in 1995. In 1974 there were 45,196 traffic fatalities. In 1995, when the 55 mph restriction was lifted, there were 41,817 traffic fatalities. So, you’re going to say “See, it worked” except for one problem; in 2014 there were 32,675 traffic fatalities, 12,521 less than in 1974, although our population has increased by 100,000,000 people. (source: U.S. Census) So your claim that lower speed limits lower the traffic fatality rate is just as bogus as everything else you claim.
You want to abolish the Second Amendment. Well, what about the “violent mischief” that creates deaths from motor vehicles? In 2013, 8,454 people were murdered with a firearm. The same year, 32,719 people died in auto accidents. That is almost four times the amount of the murder by firearm rate. Why are you not promoting the abolition of all motor vehicles?
Ah, Great Britain and King George ring a bell?
Get your facts, and your stats, correct, George. You’re only making a fool of yourself.
One other thing; it’s not Injun, you bigoted queer squirell-boy.
@kitt & Retire05:
I find it VERY curious that, when asked in plain English, you BOTH refuse to suggest a legal limit to the firepower of weaponry allowable under the provisions of the Second Amendment.
It is a simple enough question, is it not?
Why, then, do you BOTH choose to obfuscate and insult INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION?
Do you simply, brainlessly, HAVE no opinion?
Can’t you THINK of an answer that ISN’T ridiculous?
I can’t help but wonder what Jesus would think of a culture that willfully sells liquor, drugs and guns to people who have nothing to live for.
Do you think He’d shrug and say “$hit happens”?
I think that if He took issue with money changers, he’d SURELY have a problem with gun manufacturers whose products flow freely into the hands of criminals, and I think He’d say that the people who facilitated that flow of harmful material were accessories to the crimes that were committed by those criminal hands.
If you’re not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.
@George Wells: Do you have comment on this?
KJV Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
A weapon more important than a coat to Jesus? Was he advising his followers to go out and kill, or to be ready to defend themselves, perhaps the very sight of a sword would deter attackers. His followers the crazy 12 some of them were armed George
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s …
This was a shot to the head it cut off the ear of one of those that came to arrest Jesus.
So George your invoking the name of Jesus to we who know the bible was a complete fail in your argument.
A free and law abiding citizen should own any arms that make that citizen feel comfortable that they are armed, few of us can obtain uranium to build a bomb as Hillary made sure it went to Putin.
As our government places this population in the path of danger we can only depend on ourselves for protection.
Can anyone find out if its true that there is an Obama executive order that Muslim refugees can become citizens without taking a pledge of allegiance to this country? 1 million have come to this country since he took office.
So the answer to your question as I have previously posted is no limit, no infringement on the Second Amendment as the founders wrote it without alterations.
What would the founders think, I believe they would wonder why we havent thrown off the shackles of this leviathan if we had access to such arms what a bunch of pantywaists.
I only pray that your view in this matter remains in the minority.
@George Wells: The minority of 250 million people murdered by their Governments shortly after being disarmed?
Read the Second Amendment. Your desired restrictions can be found there.
Why do you falsely accuse others of the very thing you are guilty of?
What a pathetic hypocrite you are, George. You have, on numerous occasions, slandered Christianity and its followers along with slandering the Bible. Now you want to resort to the tactic of trying to put others on a “Christianity” guilt trip? Do you have no conscience?
Show me in the Bible where Christ chastised the metal smith who hammered the swords or the winemaker who harvested the grapes for his wine. Constantly, Christ spoke of personal responsibility, and did not blame the inanimate object for the failures of men’s character. You are so indoctrinated into the liberal belief that you have no responsibility for the outcome of your own actions that you try to blame inanimate objects for what is clearly the actions of others.
You are a pathetic man who has nothing but a pathetic retort.
I thank you for calling my attention to a point of ignorance on my part. I had absolutely no idea that there was ANY public interest or support of private ownership of weapons of mass destruction in this country. Mention of the fact that such support exists is curiously absent in the media’s reporting of the gun control issue, and as it would SEEM to weigh heavily on the question of the temperament – if not the sanity – of gun freedom advocates, I wonder why it isn’t a topic of discussion.
Obviously, we are much further apart in our views of what the Second Amendment guarantees – comas notwithstanding – then I had hoped. As “gun control” is also off-topic on this thread, I see no point in pursuing this issue further.
@George Wells: I dont have a lifetime to point out all your liberal ignorances George ol boy, but I know I dont have he talent to change your twisted progressive heart. We just want the government to stay within the confines of the constitution. You brought weapons of mass destruction into the conversation I dont know of a soul that would want a bomb of any type. In your weird unicorn fear world your imagination runs rampant. You love to read between the lines things only evil progressives could think of. How sad you must be that Netanyahu was re-elected in spite of this admins 400 grand US tax dollars poured into negative political ads illegally, through the State Dept.
Thank goodness Cruz defended gun rights before the Supreme court and won, Clinton hates that case lol.