Domestic Terrorists are getting Guns

So, in the context of this thread - will you disarm a proportion of your society?

 

Yes. The criminals. When we catch them breaking the law.

 

No, provided that they are not felons or have any mental illnesses. I don't think it's just to deny someone access to firearms purely on the grounds of ideology--be it liberals or conservatives.

 

But that is not the underlying theme of many of the responses

 

If some conservatives want to restrict liberals' access to arms purely because of the ideology they hold, then I am against this. However, I am powerless to do anything about what other people believe or advocate.

 

But certainly you can agree that they are a bunch of nuts.

Ban liberals form owning guns?!?! Is that seriously where this thread went? LOL!!! What a bunch of scared little people.

 

Oh? Because when you said this, it appeared like you were explaining their motivations

But I don't doubt that this is really their motivation. White progressive elites throw out their propaganda and talking points, and minorities swallow it without even smelling it first. It's actually a pretty sick relationship.

Yes, progressives call these "good neighborhoods".

Sure I don't.

What's funny is I'm not even a Christian. There you go talking about (*)(*)(*)(*) that you obviously have no knowledge of whatsoever. Ever try and troll Muslims this way, or are you more tolerant and respectful of them?

 

No such claim has ever been made on the part of myself. Rather it is a matter of clarification being sought whenever someone speaks of right wing terrorists using firearms for the purpose of committing violence, but who refuse to cite examples of such occurring. Where were these demonstrations of violence when Barack Obama was elected president of the united states not just once, but twice? Where were the demonstrations of violence whenever Barack Obama chose to engage in behavior that was deemed as a violation of the united states constitution, and its separations of powers clause?

If a claim is going to be made, there must be citations of proof to demonstrate that is indeed accurate.

Again, no such claim to the contrary has been made. Rather it is a request for available statistics to show who is responsible for what amount of firearm-related violence in the united states. The FBI has reported that as much as eighty percent of all such incidents are carried out by known criminals, or those who have ties to known criminal organizations. This is in addition to offense such as drug trafficking, and even human trafficking.

Being armed in and of itself is not what is at issue. Political affiliation makes no difference in the discussion. What those firearms are being used for, is what is at issue. And according to the citation of the opening post, there is an advocacy for procuring firearms for the explicit purpose of engaging in acts of violence, such as riots and sabotage.

Acts of violence carried out by protestors, rioters, anarchists, whatever they wish to classify themselves as, have been witnessed since it was announced that Donald Trump was elected president of the united states, and these acts have not stopped since. Destruction of private and public property, arson, random assault, effort at shutting down city infrastructure, etc. it has all been witnessed and documented as occurring, meaning that those responsible are not opposed to random and unprovoked violent acts against others. If they are now advocating for the acquisition of firearms for the purpose of spreading whatever message they are seeking to convey, that is a further call for deadly violence against others.

 

There is no demonization being demonstrated. It is not an act demonizing to report on the violence being demonstrated by those who identify themselves as liberals. If they choose to assault someone for no reason other than wearing a Donald Trump shirt, then they are demonizing themselves.

Pray tell where? By whom?

Was this absent during the presidency of Barack Obama, when those who affiliated with liberal democrats were constantly claiming that any criticizing of the president of the united states was motivated exclusively by racism?

 

I believe this fits the definition of terrorism, does it not?

Excellent points made, Xen.

 

Pray tell what are you talking about, and where is your citation of such? What is the so-called "radical right-wing terrorism" that Donald Trump has removed from the terrorist watch list?

 

This doesn't surprise me one bit. I grew up in the 1960's and 70's when Left-wing terrorism were at it's zenith. Weather Underground and extremist elements of the Students for a Democratic Society.

Weather Underground's preferred method was setting bombs with callous disregard for anyone getting hurt.

Obama and Bill Ayers: Together from the Beginning

Frightening isn't it.

 

I going to have the above put on my toilet paper so I can give it the honor it deserves. What a load of crap.

 

And yet the highest firearm mortality is in the "red" states

 

The reference to Chicago deals with violent crime. Apples.
For your map to mean anything in that context, you have to back out the suicides - else, oranges.
Do that and get back to us.

 

Crap source, they include suicides. Folks who would have just taken a handful of pills and washed it down with a bottle of JD, if they didn't have a gun to make it quick.



Very different looking map.

 

Indeed. Gun control cannot have an effect on the suicide rates of people that already have a gun; gun control cannot prevent someone who is legally able to own a gun from getting one.

Surprise. Not
15 lowest murder rates per state per 100k population; red indicates restrictive gun laws.

New Hampshire (33) 0.6
Hawaii (15) 0.7
South Dakota (46) 0.7
North Dakota (3 0.8
Iowa (19) 0.9
Maine (23) 0.9
Vermont (50) 0.9
Utah (49) 1.2
Idaho (16) 1.2
Minnesota (27) 1.3
Wyoming (56) 1.4
Massachusetts (25) 1.5
Oregon (41) 1.5
Montana (30) 1.6
Rhode Island (44) 1.7

 

Bad people want to live too. When folks are disarmed, they are easy prey to rob with even a knife or the threat of a gun. When they don't know who is armed and who isn't, they tend to act more law abiding lest they end up like T-Bones Martin.