Representative Steve Scalise Shot in a "Deliberate Attack" at GOP Softball Practice

[Northstar]

I'm arguing that if the authorities have reason to believe that someone poses an imminent threat to the community, then they should protect the community,.

First off you'll have to define an "imminent threat" because that's an extremely broad phrase.

Secondly, the biggest problem is how do you make it so the government can't abuse the ability to remove people's rights based on mere suspicion?

 

[Parker]

But some people here think that the right of a terrorist to own a gun is more important than the rights of innocent civilians to live.

Please quote where someone has said this.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But some people here think that the right of a terrorist someone who has visited websites we don't like to own a gun is more important than the same as the right of innocent civilians to live own a gun.

FTFY in the interests of accuracy and combating fake news posting.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

FTFY in the interests of accuracy and combating fake news posting.

That's not even close to what I said, and you know it. Stop deliberately twisting my words.

 

[Imari]

But some people here think that the right of a terrorist to own a gun is more important than the rights of innocent civilians to live.

No, they don't, and you'll have a really hard time quoting someone saying that.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your rhetorical question that the government should be doing everything possible to protect it's citizens.

Wouldn't you want the government to do everything they can to protect you?

There are some things they should definitely do, some they definitely shouldn't, and many that are in the middle and should be discussed. Making blanket black and white statements about these things is for children who are unable to comprehend that any human society is far more complex. Placing your child in a bubble and preventing any interaction is not seen as a viable way to raise a child for a reason, and similarly a police state is not seen as a viable way to run a society.

Grow some nuance and stop reading "I think some people should be allowed to buy guns" as "I think the worst people should be allowed to buy guns".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Grow some nuance and stop reading "I think some people should be allowed to buy guns"

That's been my argument for some time now. If you're going to allow citizens the right to own guns, then it comes with the expectation that those citizens own their guns responsibly. If you do something irresponsible, why should you be allowed to continue to own a gun?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

double post, sorry

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Ain't nobody checking my browser history. And if I wanted to be a terrorist, I'd use an incognito browser anyway.

You can get around that, or they I should say.

That's been my argument for some time now. If you're going to allow citizens the right to own guns, then it comes with the expectation that those citizens own their guns responsibly. If you do something irresponsible, why should you be allowed to continue to own a gun?

Going to a jihadist website isn't irresponsible, hell I've read up on various terrorist and individual people from said groups out of interest, for education/school and just common knowledge for political debates. So much so that I guess I should be a red flag to any FFL dealer that would somehow be able to access my web browser history through a government database?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Going to a jihadist website isn't irresponsible

Read my post:

What do you do if someone have been visiting jihadi websites with increasing frequency and then goes out and buys a gun?

"With increasing frequency" is the operative term. Not once, not twice, but regularly.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Read my post:


"With increasing frequency" is the operative term. Not once, not twice, but regularly.

Read my post again, because I say I frequently look up stuff terror related, as I'm sure many people do when it's constantly thrown at us. Secondly what jihadist websites? It's as if there is some list of well known ones, and what about people who use jihadist leaning videos on youtube to get their fix...oh my goodness...

Youtube is a jihadist website, we're all in for it now eh PM?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just watched Trump's statement on the Scalise shooting... he doesn't mention terrorism once? Very odd.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's not even close to what I said, and you know it. Stop deliberately twisting my words.

You missed the point of the post. It's "fixed" to represent what I believe people around here would say vs. the nonsense you posted representing their supposed opinion. Since you choose to ignore my requests of proof for your assertions, something that other, less privileged people get banned from the site for, I'm reduced to comic relief to point out the lunacy in some of your postings.

 

[Tornado]

That's not even close to what I said, and you know it. Stop deliberately twisting my words.

For someone throwing a tantrum about being deliberately misrepresented (something I'm sure you reported, of course), I see that multiple people called on you to justify your words with a quote from someone in this thread that was even close to what you said and you didn't even acknowledge it.

 

[Liquid]

Just watched Trump's statement on the Scalise shooting... he doesn't mention terrorism once? Very odd.

Ban all travel from the United States.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Just watched Trump's statement on the Scalise shooting... he doesn't mention terrorism once? Very odd.

Why? Because it showed that he actually listened to his intelligence briefings on the situation? Why, because it showed that Trump knew when to keep politics out of an active investigation? Or perhaps it wasn't an act of terror to begin with?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Or perhaps it wasn't an act of terror to begin with?

The quoted words of the gunman seem to make it a political issue.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The quoted words of the gunman seem to make it a political issue.

You seriously take the words of a deranged mad man over the fact that this is still an active investigation? Keep in mind that to him, this past election was a sham because Bernie Sanders is not president, or at the very least, was the Democrat nominee, so he had nothing to lose here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You seriously take the words of a deranged mad man over the fact that this is still an active investigation? Keep in mind that to him, this past election was a sham because Bernie Sanders is not president, or at the very least, was the Democrat nominee, so he had nothing to lose here.

I'm holding him to the same standard that we hold all terrorists to in O&CE. We're close to "lone wolf" at this rate.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm holding him to the same standard that we hold all terrorists to in O&CE. We're close to "lone wolf" at this rate.

But there is no evidence of radicalization. You are completely off tangent here.

 

[Liquid]

But there is no evidence of radicalization. You are completely off tangent here.

Do all terrorists have to be radicalised? I just thought they had to be :censored:s.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm holding him to the same standard that we hold all terrorists to in O&CE. We're close to "lone wolf" at this rate.

I think we'd have to say at this point, given the information at hand, that he's a terrorist by the classic definition. His targets were political and he shot them because they didn't agree with his own political leanings. Of course he might also be classified as an assassin with multiple targets but I suppose he could be both at the same time.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I think we'd have to say at this point, given the information at hand, that he's a terrorist by the classic definition.

You mean by the Unibomber standard? I can concede the point if that is the case.

 

[Dotini]

Was he a member of ANTIFA?

 

[Johnnypenso]

You mean by the Unibomber standard? I can concede the point if that is the case.

Not sure what the Unibomber standard is but just going by the classical definition of a terrorist. From what I can gather so far, he hated Republicans, wanted Bernie to win, and was likely trying strike fear in the hearts of all Republicans.

 

[prousonhairy]

Not sure what the Unibomber standard is but just going by the classical definition of a terrorist. From what I can gather so far, he hated Republicans, wanted Bernie to win, and was likely trying strike fear in the hearts of all Republicans.

His foster daughter comitted suicide by fire, lets not leave that interesting fact out.

Good thing this guy couldn't aim worth a crap, it could of been a lot worst.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Not sure what the Unibomber standard is but just going by the classical definition of a terrorist. From what I can gather so far, he hated Republicans, wanted Bernie to win, and was likely trying strike fear in the hearts of all Republicans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

 

[TenEightyOne]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

That's a page of reference about the Unabomber but I don't see a reference to the "Unibomber (sic) Standard"? My recollection is that he fits the classical definition of a terrorist (as referred to by @Johnnypenso) so perhaps it would just be easier for you to explain what you mean?

 

[Sanji Himura]

That's a page of reference about the Unabomber but I don't see a reference to the "Unibomber (sic) Standard"? My recollection is that he fits the classical definition of a terrorist (as referred to by @Johnnypenso) so perhaps it would just be easier for you to explain what you mean?

I was comparing the two in their motivations (political), not necessarily their Modus Operandi.

 

[huskeR32]

Great quote. Mind if I remember that for the end of the year awards?

Praising a quote about personal responsibility less than eight hours after concocting a way to blame this shooting on MSNBC/the liberal media.

 

[Danoff]

I think we'd have to say at this point, given the information at hand, that he's a terrorist by the classic definition. His targets were political and he shot them because they didn't agree with his own political leanings. Of course he might also be classified as an assassin with multiple targets but I suppose he could be both at the same time.

I'm not on board with this definition of terrorism. In fact, an act of violence against politicians is pretty far off of terrorism, since it's not going to strike fear into the general public that they might be the next targets. Hitting political or military targets is an act of violence, an act of rebellion, an act of treason... but terrorism?

Merriam-Webster has it about right: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. If I squint, I can see it if we're supposed to think this act was to terrorize other political figures into taking some action. The classic application of the word terrorism is for civilians, but I think that the broader definition above (which would include political figures) is suitable. I guess it comes down to whether striking fear into politicians was his aim.