https://www.google.com/maps/@25.962769,119.6963728,810m/data=!3m1!1e3

THAT is the kewlest thing I have ever seen!!! :D

Michale

I prefer Floxx myself...

Anyone.. ANYONE but Bashir... :D

What about Dr Pulaski??? :D

Michale

Michale

Touche' :D

Michale

"Whatever helps you sleep at night.."

I find that a delta-wave inducer, prescribed by either Doctors McCoy, Crusher or Selar, usually helps. :-D

Ergo, the TBTF context is the ONLY thing that makes sense in the SCOTUS ruling..

Michale

Whatever helps you sleep at night..

In plain english, the court's ruling is thus"

Yea, in plain english, the law clearly states that the subsidies are only provided to those states who set up exchanges. But that would cause too big of a problem, so we're going to ignore plain english..

Their ruling IS logical under the TOO BIG TO FAIL concept..

I don't begrudge them that...

But it is beyond arguable that TBTF concept ruled the day...

Which simply proves what I have said all along..

The Left doesn't mind TBTF if it goes their way... Just like the Left doesn't mind Citizens United as long as they get their SUPER PACS too...

Michale

" Roberts wrote. "Petitioners plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any exchange created under the act."

In other words, given when it plainly says elsewhere in the same law, and what those Congressman involved at the time said that their intent actually was, on the written record, "state" meant government in "general" and not specifically "state" as in state government only.

That's a far cry from too big to fail.

So, contrary to the rantings of the Hysterical Left, the plain english reading of TrainWreckCare IS plain english....

But, the SCOTUS ruled that TrainWreckCare is too big to fail....

The irony is palpable...

Michale

The Hysterical Left's claim that the SCOTUS is in the bag for conservatives has been, once again, proven to be complete and utter felgercarp.....

Michale

The law is Too Big Too Fail....

A Pyrrhic victory, to be sure...

Michale

Life has little meaning anymore... :^(

Michale

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--21st Century Fox (NASDAQ: FOXA, FOX) today announced that Roger Ailes has signed a new multi-year contract with the Company to continue to serve as Chairman and CEO of Fox News and Fox Business Network, and Chairman of Fox Television Stations.

The announcement was made by Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch and James Murdoch, to whom Mr. Ailes will jointly report.

Looks like yer not going to be able to gloat about Fox News.. :D

Michale

Seems more like No Balls Obama :D

Michale

HA!!

12 Yr Old CJ Pearson has thrown down the gauntlet to President Obama...

Let's see if Obama has a pair... :D

Michale

I came across this comment of your back from Dec of 2013...

The TPP, the level of secrecy surrounding the negotiations as well as the fact that there are enormous sweetheart deals for corporations should be generating some news interest. The thing that for me elevates the TPP as a nom for most under reported is the seldom talked about elevation of transnational corporations to a status on par with sovereign nations. If the TPP gets to the done deal status Citizens United will look like nothing compared to what will happen when a corporation can haul a nation into court and sue them because they don't like a set of laws or regulations.

I was wondering what your thoughts are on the current TPP/TPA/TiSA are...

Michale

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/exclusive-ted-cruz-obamatrade-enmeshed-in-corrupt-backroom-dealings/

But this is a very good read...

Michale

Iranian Parliament Chants “Death to America” – Votes to Ban Nuclear Inspections (VIDEO)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/iranian-parliament-chants-death-to-america-votes-to-ban-nuclear-inspections-video/

Obama may get his ObamaTrade....

But it looks like he won't get his ObamaNukeDeal....

Michale

But what's actually happening is that people, both feeders to the gun culture and members of it, deliberately foster fear and paranoia within the gun community. Some do it for money and some do it because they, themselves, have drunk the kool-aide.

Marijuana fans like to operate as though their Marijuana and Marijuana culture just sit there by themselves, neither affected by nor affecting the rest of the country and the conditions thereof.

But what's actually happening is that people, both feeders to the Marijuana culture and members of it, deliberately foster fear and paranoia within the Marijuana community. Some do it for money and some do it because they, themselves, have drunk the kool-aide.

Yep... It still works...

The more arguments I hear, the more I am convinced that the marijuana issue is identical to the gun issue..

Both have their passionate defenders and equally passionate critics...

Both guns and marijuana save lives and take lives...

But, here's the thing...

Marijuana possession is not guaranteed by the US Constitution.. In the SECOND Amendment.. Not the 12th Amendment. Not the 14th Amendment... Not the 8th or the 4th Amendment..

The SECOND Amendment....

Right after Freedom of religion, Freedom of assembly, Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press, we have the Freedom to own guns...

Ya'all want to have Gun Control??

Fine... Have at it...

ALL you have to do is repeal the Second Amendment...

Good luck with that...

Michale

Is THAT what Roof was doing??

He was.... "expressing" himself!!???

You make it sound as innocent as a 4-yr old acting out...

So, the psycho killer is not to blame..

It's the gun culture that is to blame...

So, we might as well just turn the scumbag loose, because it's not his fault...

Let's run that by the people of South Carolina and see if they will salute that idea.. :^/

Reminds me of the time that lunatic shot up Senator Giffords get together..

The Hysterical Left got all up in arms blaming Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.. Only to discover that the scumbag shooter was a pot-head liberal...

FACT #1
Political ideology doesn't walk into a group and shoot people..

FACT #2
Guns don't walk into a group and shoot people..

If the Left really wants to have a productive discussion regarding the issue, they need to come to grip with the above facts...

But hay... If you REALLY want Americans to give up their guns, I am game..

Obama's protection detail should be the first Americans to disarm... :D

Lead by example.....

Michale

No realistic gun law proposed would have prevented the SC church shooting..

But someone with a CCW, a weapon and the training??

Virtually guaranteed it would have been stopped before the second death...

Michale

If anyone is fostering fear and paranoia, it's the anti-gun lobby...

"OH MY GODS, WE'LL ALL BE KILLED BY GUNS!!!!"

:D

The calm and objective analysis of the facts clearly show that guns SAVE lives...

Why else would we arm cops and soldiers??

Michale

But what's actually happening is that people, both feeders to the gun culture and members of it, deliberately foster fear and paranoia within the gun community. Some do it for money and some do it because they, themselves, have drunk the kool-aide.

First they scare and enrage gun people, then they arm them. Then, when violence occurs they use it sell more guns.

It's a perfect circle, with innocent Americans trapped between a bunch of paranoid scaredy-cats and wanna-be heroes who all picture themselves leaping into action and "taking out" the Dylann Roof's when they start to expressing themselves. They are blind to the fact that they created Dylann Roof.

sjfm.us/temp/vandenberg1.jpg

Okinawa has several military installations dotting the island and has a central MHA in the middle of the island. Makimanato Housing Area...

sjfm.us/temp/maki.jpg

Cut n Paste the links..

Michale

Look no further than New York's STOP AND FRISK...

During SnF, gun possession arrests sky rocketed and violent crime plummeted...

Of course, now that NY's new administration has eliminated SnF, the scumbags are back to carrying their guns and violent crimes are heading up at a brisk pace...

Michale

Any law, repeat.. ANY law... proposed by the anti-gun crowd, short of a complete ban on ALL guns (which everyone knows will NEVER happen) would not have prevented the S.C. church shooting..

Would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.

Would not have prevented the Columbine shooting...

Would not have prevented the Aurora theater shooting...

Ya'all remember the Star Trek episode A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR? Klingons were arming people of the village so that they could carry out a war against their neighbors, the people of the hills...

Kirk's decision to arm the people of the hills equally was met with resistance from McCoy... McCoy wanted to confiscate all the guns (sound familiar??) but conceded that they couldn't confiscate the knowledge to create them...

But Kirk's solution was the ONLY logical response to the problem...

No law in the universe will keep the bad guys from having guns...

So the ONLY logical solution is to allow the good guys to be as armed as the bad guys...

You want to see mass shootings go down??

You want to stop mass casualties before they start??

You want to SAVE lives??

CCWs, open carry and mandatory training..

Those are REAL solutions.. Solutions that are PROVEN successful...

An armed society is a polite and peaceful society...

Michale

Australia does not have a constitutional right to gun ownership..

And violent crime statistics were already going down in Australia when a partial ban was put in place.. The theory that the partial ban caused the lower crime rate is equivocal and debatable.

There are more accurate and applicable examples of gun bans right here in the USA.

Chicago... New York City.. Washington DC..

Michale

It's not an exact analogy because there are no legal legitimate uses for rape and murder..

To give you a better analogy, look at a gun control ban the way you would look at a marijuana "ban"...

Or, more accurately, making guns as illegal as marijuana used to be..

That is a more apt analogy...

There are those who want to ban marijuana utterly and unequivocally because, in their minds, it serves no useful purposes and actually harms and kills people..

They are like gun control advocates who want to ban guns utterly and unequivocally because, in their minds, guns serve no useful purposes and actually harms and kills people..

The same logic is in place for both examples..

Michale

I think it will be either Walker or Rubio.

I completely and unequivocally agree... :D

Michale

Military bases have housing areas for military personnel with spouses and families..

Some of the housing areas are even detached and separate from the base itself.

One of Vandenberg AFB's Housing Areas is across SR20 from the main gate of Vandenberg and has absolutely no access control at all..

Okinawa has several military installations dotting the island and has a central MHA in the middle of the island. Makimanato Housing Area...

Is an attack on a MHA a legitimate military target??

Short answer. Yes

Michale

John M (85): Yep. Intelligent gun conrol laws are not going to resolve everything or prevent 100% of gun deaths but in places like Austraila where it's been done effectively there has been a massive reducetion in suicides, a 100% reduction in mass killings and a large drop in gun-based homicides.

Lots of discussions going on today about this topic in several places. One point I want to emphasize: Dylann Roof killed those nine people because he believed a bunch of stuff that was simply false. He was a follower of a conservative website that went offline yesterday; the site listed falsified stories written to foster the idea that there's just constant assualts being perpetrated by black people on white victims. The site owner also closed down his twitter account.

A lot of people want to say Roof is mentally ill. They don't want to face up to the fact that there are a whole lot of liars out there -- FOX News is their spiritual home -- who fabricate information and spread it in order to generate anger, hate and fear. And some people will go the next step and engage in violence. It remains to be seen whether Roof is clinically anything. Maybe he is. Or maybe he's just someone who was encouraged by lies to hate several groups of people, (his manifesto is also filled with anti-semitic slurs) and he was encouraged by people who like the idea of violence, to perpetrate it. His behavior was calculated and deliberate. If he was delusional he certainly was equally functional.

Gun control will not fix that problem. Gun control addresses a symptom -- the underlying problems also must be addressed.

LizM [12] - I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here.

Heh. I just reread my comment #12 and I don't mind saying that it was hilarious! I'm still laughing - at it ... and at your response. Hehehehehehehe ...

Ah, seriously, though ... I was afraid you were going to bring up Biden's call to "Stand up, Chuck!" and Chuck is in a wheelchair and well, you know ... everybody and their brother always bring this one up whenever they are compelled to say something derogatory about my favourite pol and I just couldn't bear it so I didn't read any further.

That's all folks!

:-)

The added care needed to possess a gun in a all guns banned environment also means you are probably not showing your friends your gun or leaving it out on the table or in the night stand. So much less chance for kids to find and play with it. I think this is completely borne out in the crime, homicide, and accident statistics of all the first world industrialized counties that have banned or severely limited guns.

Now personally I think there can be only limited gun control in this country. It's too late, Elvis has left the building, the horse has left the stable, the genie is out of the bottle. We have too many guns and too deeply ingrained gun culture to get rid of or even significantly reduce guns at this point. Maybe gun control legislation could be enacted that might solve the problem in 50 to 100 years but to get rid of the guns in the USA in any short time frame would require basically taking the Constitution out and pissing on it then dousing it in gasoline and setting it on fire. Even if you somehow got rid of the second amendment...

Still think Jeb is going to be the GOP candidate?? :D

No, I don't. I never have. He is the one with the best chance to win the general election against Clinton. But I don't think he can get past the Republican primaries. He is way too moderate for them. I think it will be either Walker or Rubio.

Just remember, you heard it here first. :-D

Forgive my ignorance, but what are "Military housing areas"? What does that mean, exactly?

-CW

I would say that church arson, in and of itself is more akin to vandalism than anything else...

I mean, how many synagogues have been "attacked" and vandalized??

Michale

But, in the case of the OK bombing, I would say that the choice of weapons is the determining factor...

If McVeigh had chosen to arm himself with assault rifles and handguns, would it be an act of terrorism??

I don't think so.. It would be more of a case of someone going "Postal" as Moderate above postulated...

Michale

Happy?

"Ecstatic..."
-Jafar, ALADDIN

:D

Now, if the Obama administration could show an ounce of your integrity..... :D

Michale

Attacking a barracks OF SOLDIERS....

Soldiers in the field or in the rear echelon are legitimate military targets...

Again, if you want to muddy the waters... What about Military Housing Areas?? :D

So I worked out my own personal definition, and I try to stick to it. You may disagree on individual cases, but I think I try to apply it consistently.

I would be the LAST person to accuse you of inconsistency... Even though I may have done it once or twice in our association.. :D

As I said, I think we agree on this subject (in general) more than we disagree.

Agreed... I have to say that my case against labeling the SC church shooting as terrorism is not nearly as strong as I would like...

There is a logical and rational argument to be made that the SC church shooting is akin to the OK bombing...

Michale

-CW

OK, I wrote that last comment before I saw your [75]. McVeigh, see previous comment.

Boston Marathon bombers, yes, terrorists. I'll even go one further and call them Islamic terrorists.

Happy?

-CW

No, I wouldn't. You're a military man, so you know the concept of what is and what is not considered a valid military target. See my IRA example.

Anyone shooting cops or soldiers with a manifesto is not a terrorist. He may be a murderer or a war criminal or a guerrilla or several other things (none of them good), but I personally wouldn't call him a terrorist.

The ones where it gets tough to define (using my definition) are things like the OK City bombing. It was a federal building, but most of the people in it weren't actual federal agents (ie. federal "police" or "military"). Also, there was a terrible toll among civilians who were also in the building (like the day care center victims).

So I'd have to say that McVeigh was a terrorist. However, the bombers in Beirut were not, for attacking a barracks.

I do agree that odious terms shouldn't be watered down, and have had heated discussions with lefties on the issue (not the term terrorism, but others such as sexism, etc.).

Oh, wait, breaking news --

I'm listening to ABC's "This Week With Whoever Is Sitting In For George Stephanoupoulis" and just heard Rick Santorum clearly state that he would define this shooting as terrorism.

Don't agree with Rick on much, but have to say his answer was clear and unequivocal. Well done, Rick!

-- OK, sorry for the interruption.

As I was saying, terms should mean things (Horton the Elephant: "I say what I mean and I mean what I say"), and terms for evil should mean evil.

So I worked out my own personal definition, and I try to stick to it. You may disagree on individual cases, but I think I try to apply it consistently.

As I said, I think we agree on this subject (in general) more than we disagree.

-CW

I actually read that after I responded..

I was on record as stating that the Fort Hood attack wasn't terrorism because it was a legitimate military target...

As such, it simply cannot be defined as terrorism...

What is your definition of terrorism? I'm not trying to attack you for it, I'm just interested to know. I think you've posted a definition in the past, and I'd just like to clarify how you split the hairs.

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian/non-combatant persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."

The only evidence we have of Roof's "agenda" is his own words and his own rantings....

The Colorado Theater shooter dressed up as Batman... I don't think we can take the rantings of obvious psychopaths at face value....

Now, if you want to muddy the waters, bring up Timothy McVeigh or the Boston Marathon bombers... :D

Michale

{{swwooooonnnn}} Yer our hero.... :D

Michale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_arson#History_of_Church_Arson

Church arson continued to be a problem in the South in the early 1990s among African American churches with the culprits generally being young, white males with racism as their driving force

Congress actually passed a law about it in 1996.

Ongoing.

But again, what's your terrorism definition?

-CW

Seems we agree on most of this. I also don't call Sandy Hook or the CO theater shooting terrorism. Not 100% sure about Columbine, did they leave any manifesto giving reasons for what they did? Were they political reasons? I don't know the answer, and don't feel like revisiting it. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call Columbine terrorism.

As for Ft. Hood, why wouldn't you call it terrorism? Same reason that I gave, or a different one?

What is your definition of terrorism? I'm not trying to attack you for it, I'm just interested to know. I think you've posted a definition in the past, and I'd just like to clarify how you split the hairs.

Terrorism (obviously) means different things to different people. The SC case, to me, perfectly fits the definition. It might not have, absent his manifesto (or it would have been a harder call, at the very least), but when the killer explains his reasoning, then it seems pretty obvious to me.

Were southern lynchings terrorism? To me, that's another obvious call: of course they were. The intent was to terrorize the black population of the South. By violence and murder.

-CW

chrisweigant.com Feb 2010

Incidentally I think Michale's spot on with the "ongoing and systematic" aspect. That's why things like going postal or school shootings were never considered terrorism, even though they still involved civilian targets.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/02/18/attacking-the-i-r-s/#comment-7699

I rest my case.. :D

Where is the "ongoing and systematic attacks"??

A black church hasn't been attacked in over 50 years...

Using your reasoning, I can make the case that it was an example of terrorism against christians...

Michale

Mea culpa.

-CW

So, if a black man shoots a bunch of cops, while expressing a "manifesto", you would label that terrorism??

Michale

That's a very subjective definition... Anytime you get into issues of legality....

A question for you: do you call the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist? I seem to recall you doing exactly that.

Actually, I specifically stated at the time that the Fort Hood shooter was NOT a terrorist....

Albeit for different reasons...

So where do you split those hairs?

Tell ya what...

When the Obama administration starts labeling Islamic terrorists, I'll reconsider my definition..

This was a single shooter with delusions of grandeur...

It's no more "terrorism" than the Columbine massacre, the Sandy Hook massacre or the Colorado theater massacre...

Michale

Comments not posting? I'll check the spam log, and try to resurrect anyone's who got filtered. Sorry for the delay...

-CW

No, no, it's the column that'll be on vacation, not Congress!

Heh.

-CW

The column will be in Hawai'i, drinking Mai Tais.

Heh. Yeah, this column wishes....

No, I'm kidding... the column will not be on vacation, merely hiatus. The author (who just LOVES the "editorial 'we'" as well as personificating columns) will be hanging out with old school friends (that's "friends from my old school," not "friends who are fans of retro stuff") and going to a concert or two. Friday is the only day I'll have to hang out, so rather than trying to cobble together a sub-par FTP, I decided to just blow it off altogether.

:-)

Call it a "belated 350th week anniversary party," if you will, for the column.

-CW

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Trump says idiotic things, and will continue to do so -- that's really the only point I was trying to make. I wasn't making any other larger point, I swear, even about Trump.

Does that help to clarify? I'm sure I'll be highlighting other inane things people like Trump (and Carson, and likely others) say out on the campaign trail.

-CW

Oh, actually, (iii) fits as well. He assassinated a state senator. Please add that to my thoughts above.

-CW

Here's how the FBI defines it:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

* Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
* Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
* Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

How does this not fit? See (i) in that second item.

A question for you: do you call the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist? I seem to recall you doing exactly that.

My definition of terrorism is violence against civilians to instill terror in the populace, for political reasons. So, for a very different reason, the Ft. Hood shooter was not a terrorist. If he had shot up a town square, that would have been, but his targets were military.

This may sound like splitting hairs, but that is the subject: how to split hairs when defining terrorism.

Take the Provisional IRA. When they attacked and killed police in Northern Ireland, that was guerrilla warfare (and perhaps a war crime). But when they started bombing shoppers in London, that was terrorism. They crossed a big line, in other words, by shifting tactics.

So was the Charleston shooter a terrorist? Yes, he was. He wanted to terrify the black population. He wanted to spark off a race war. That is political, as odious as it is. So he used violence, committed crimes, and intended to further his political aims by terrorizing (and killing) black people.

So, like I said, that's my definition -- one where I split some hairs in what actions I label terrorism. I try to be consistent -- in other words, I apply the definition to the action, without regard to their actual beliefs. If a black man shot up a white church and left a manifesto about his hatred for all whites, I would call that terrorism as well. Consistent application means content-neutral in what I do (and do not) call terrorism.

So where do you split those hairs?

-CW

Has anyone loaded up and used Windows 10???

I haven't even messed with Win 8 except under a VERY limited basis...

But, knowing the Microsoft Curse, I decided to take Windows 10 for a test drive..

VERY impressed... The machine I am on at work would be considered a low-to-mid range machine by today's standards. And it's handling Win10 like a champ...

If anyone is waiting to make the jump, Windows 10 seems like a winner...

We now return to regularly scheduled mayhem... :D

Michale

It's not very pretty...

http://offgridsurvival.com/wp-content/themes/church_10/images/2013/04/turninguns.jpg

Michale

It just struck me that you may very much like a blog that I comment at from time to time. It's called Matters of Principle and it's authored by former Senator Gary Hart.

Senator Hart just posted today about his forthcoming book, The Republic of Conscience. Which is also right up your alley.

This comment won't seem to post when I provide a link so, if you're interested, just google Matters of Principle ...

It just struck me that you may very much like a blog that I comment at from time to time. It's called Matters of Principle and it's authored by former Senator Gary Hart.

Senator Hart just posted today about his forthcoming book, The Republic of Conscience. Which is also right up your alley.

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=1177

It just struck me ... I sometimes comment at another blog called Matters of Principle authored by former Senator Gary Hart that I'm sure you would love. Senator Hart just posted today about his new book, The Republic of Conscience. Which is right up your alley.

We're really spoiled here at CW.com but MoP is a worthwhile site even if it does take forever sometimes for comments to pass through the incredibly slow ... er ... selective moderation system. Which, evidently, is handled by the author, himself!

Anyway, here is the link to Senator Hart's latest post ...

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=1177

I comment now and again at one other blog called Matters of Principle. The author is former Senator Gary Hart and I think you would be very interested in reading and posting there.

Today, Senator Hart announced his newest book, The Republic of Conscience. Which is also right up your alley.

We're spoiled here at CW.com but this is a worthwhile site even if you have to wait forever for your posts to pass through the moderation process there which is, evidently, handled solely by the very busy author, himself!

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=1177

Paula, quit looking at me like that!! :D

Michale

No one is advocating unrestricted gun proliferation..

Common sense gun laws aren't a problem for anyone...

But things like National Registry is NOT common sense and it wouldn't do a thing to stop mass shootings...

The best thing to stop mass shootings is to make sure they never get started...

And CCWs and training will do that. Guaranteed

Michale

The knee-jerk reaction we see from the Left every time a mass shooting happens is identical to the knee-jerk reaction that the Left accused the Right of in the aftermath of 9/11..

One coin...

Two sides...

Michale

Even if you multiple the 1 scumbag by a factor of 100,000 that is still a small percentage of the US population...

We have eliminated institutionalized racism. That is cause for celebration...

Eliminating racism entirely is a pipe dream. An impossibility...

You might as well try to eliminate hurt feelings or mean thoughts..

It can't be done unless one advocates lobotomizing everyone who has a mean thought...

Michale

Yes, the oountry needs to face up to the afermath of the civil war, just as it needs to face up to a lot of things. While it's doing that common-sense gun control can only help.

But the blood-soaked adherents of unrestricted gun proliferation will continue to insist that their cowardice and credulity rule.

According to the FBI and other agencies, this guy is hardly alone in his warped thinking.

Have all parts of America come to terms with slavery and the end of the Civil War? Or, do you think that is not a question worthy of examination?

One scumbag racist does not validate that theory...

Michale

Michale

Which is that it is quite apparent that America still has not come to terms with its history of slavery and the end of the Civil War.

Of course, every massacre is a case for gun control and for addressing America's unique gun culture. But, in this white supremacist-inspired massacre, there are other equally critical issues that should not be ignored.

That's like saying every car accident fatality is a case for getting rid of cars...

Personally, I think that every mass shooting is a case for more CCWs.. It's a proven fact that there are less fatalities when the citzenry is armed...

Trying to parse them any other way is simply an avoidance of responsibility and an acceptance that gun manufacturer profits trump American lives and safety and peace of mind.

The problem is you are only interested in YOUR peace of mind and don't care about the peace of mind brought about by being armed and trained...

Those people have as much right to THEIR peace of mind as you do to yours...

I am betting that the family members of those killed in the SC church wish that they had had MY kind of peace mind rather than yours...

Michale

There is a history on National Registry...

It's not very pretty...

Spending our lives cowering in fear and arming everyone is stupid and dangerous.

I can say from experience that spending one's lives cowering in fear and DISarming everyone is a lot more stupid and a LOT more dangerous..

ESPECIALLY for the ones who are being disarmed...

Michale

This particular shooting is not a good case to hang a gun control hat on...

Like the Sandy Hook shooting, nothing could have been done to prevent this scumbag from acquiring a gun...

But had someone in the church been armed, the massacre could have been prevented..

Michale

Separately, we need to get down to business re; this economy, so that people have a living wage, retirement security and educational opportunities. Crime has been dropping for years, we can do still better by giving people something else to do with their energy. We also need real programs for ex-offenders and a variety of changes so that people who have been in prison have some way to live when they're out. Otherwise they are put in impossible situations and it's no surprise they end up returning to crime.

Spending our lives cowering in fear and arming everyone is stupid and dangerous. It is a descent into barbarism -- we should be better than that, and people who want us to opt for more violence should be ashamed of themselves. But they never are because that's how they get their dough.

That is a VERY logical and rational argument...

Now, apply that same logic to guns in general...

If you can't keep guns from EVERYONE then the weaker ones (the unarmed law-abiding people) are victimized by the ones who are armed because they don't obey the law anyways..

It's the EXACT same argument..

Besides, you don't have a problem with guns...

You don't mind if cops are armed.. You don't mind if Obama's security detail is armed..

You have a problem with untrained people having guns...

Guess what.. I do to..

That's why there are LAWS that stipulate training...

That is why if someone had had a CCW and a weapon at that SC church, it's likely that Roof would have been dropped before he fired a single shot...

Do gun bans solve everything? No. Can they help? Most assuredly.

You said it yourself. A gun ban must be universal ("nation wide")...

If it's not, it will do more harm than good... It will disarm the citzenry and leave them at the mercy of armed criminals who, BY DEFINITION, are going to ignore the laws anyways...

Michale

Actually solving the underlying problems would take a good deal more. You have to get to the root of the fear people have. You hae to get to the root of the broken economy where citizens are struggling, angry and unable to get ahead. We have a toxic combination right now of a dying middle-class and an industry that profits from fear.

We are being held hostage in this country by gun manufacturers and all the toadies that do their water carrying. Innocent people get mown down by lunatices who have been ARMED as a result of NRA sponsored politcial activity. Lunatics are motivated by ideas spread by the NRA and the rightwing machine. The rightwing is, collectively, like a bootlegger who walks into an AA meeting and starts handing out bottles of whisky.

Re: gun contorl lawas -- have to be nation-wide. When done by individual states, other states with weaker laws victimize the rest. Cannot be a state by state response.

Ergo, this will leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of armed criminals...

Am I the only one here who sees that???

Gun bans don't work.. It's that simple...

Michale

They had a VOLUNTARY buy-back program...

No one in the US would be against such a program...

Michale

Not according to what you quoted...

Nothing about racism in what you quoted...

This is fact...

LOL! I couldn't have said it better myself. Republicans will do all kinds of idiotic mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that racism exists even when the terrorist explains himself.

No one, except you, is claiming that racism doesn't exist..

It's obvious it DOES exist...

So, what exactly is your point??

Ahhhhhh You have no point...

Color me shocked.. :D

Michale

Look at NYC which has a VERY strict gun ban..

Ditto for Chicago...

And yet, you claim gun bans actually makes violent crime go down...

Michale

But, apparently, with the anti-gun nuts, saving lives is not the goal..

Pushing a hysterical and irrational agenda is the goal...

Michale

LOL! Erickson was talking about the racist terror attack in SC. Once again, work on that reading comprehension bot.

"What does racism have to do with Bruce Jenner pretending he is a woman?"

LOL! I couldn't have said it better myself. Republicans will do all kinds of idiotic mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that racism exists even when the terrorist explains himself. Thanks for confirming that on a regular basis.

I haven't heard his views on this latest NRA-sponsored killing but all he needs to do to be complete is pretend this was anti-Christian killing rather than an attempt, as the killer put it, to start a race war.

Sorry, you did mention it! As soon as you mentioned Trump I stopped reading ... :)

Yea.. THAT is about as logical as blaming the pastor...

If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem, period.

Blaming every one but the perpetrator is part of the problem...

Every one of you that opposes rational, reasonable gun-control measures participates in each of these atrocities.

Reasonable and rational gun control measures are already in place...

As you can obviously see, they don't help...

But the solution of the anti-gun nuts is to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them to be victimized by scumbags who won't obey ANY laws....

Yea..

THAT is logical... :^/

Michale

It's interesting that you don't mention anything about what motivated this massacre. Normally, I'd say that doesn't matter.

But, this is one case, I think, where the motive largely overshadows the method and, if guns were not so readily available to white supremacists then other equally lethal methods would undoubtedly be used.

In other words, perhaps this is the wrong case to be focusing on gun control if it takes anything away from the focus being squarely on the issue of whether or not the American Civil War ever ended and what can and should be done about that.

To NRA and every anti-gun-control coward: this massacre is down to you. You guys are the reason. You guys bear the blame. You will do everything you can to point the blame anywhere but at yourselves but it is you. When Dylann Roof loaded that gun and shot those people your hands were with him in spirit. Every one of you that promotes gun proliferation shares in the bloodshed when it happens. Every one of you that opposes rational, reasonable gun-control measures participates in each of these atrocities. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem, period.

Meanwhile, as Sam Sedar put it, Donald Trump is actually the perfect repub candidate -- he embodies everything they cherish. He's rich (inherited wealth which he's reduced through bad busines practices), he reduces all problems to simplistic, bombastic aggression; he's uninformed; he likes bullies (admires Putin); he treats people as objects to be thrown away and he pays people to show up at his rallies because it's all about surface rather than depth or reality.

I haven't heard his views on this latest NRA-sponsored killing but all he needs to do to be complete is pretend this was anti-christian killing rather than an attempt, as the killer put it, to start a race war. That and strap a nice big phallic gun on his back. Then he'd have the full hand. We'll see.

Members of Congress need to study the issues, address constituents, stay current about the state of public opinion on issues they're dealing with, and negotiate one-to-one with other members. None of that is best done in the chambers. If they're in the chambers longer than it takes to cast a vote, they're not doing their job.

. . . or racism from phony Christian persecution complex.

What does racism have to do with Bruce Jenner pretending he is a woman??

You prove the point I made in #10 perfectly, JFC...

Everything is about racism.. Even a white guy pretending he is a woman..

It's ALL racism!!!

No wonder the Hysterical Left is looking for a new slur to fling..

Michale

"IT'S A MAD HOUSE!!!!! A MAAAADD HOUSE!!!!"
-Charleton Heston, PLANET OF THE APES

:D

Michale

Waaaa????

Did I miss something??

Michale

Facts and statistics bear this out...

I know that Political Correctness has a hard time with reality..

But, here we are...

An armed society is a polite society...

Michale

So, the column is going on vacation. Is it going to visit one of Club Med web sites? I can picture it in a conga line, tilting back a steady stream of rum based drinks, snorkeling through schools of virtual fish. On the other hand, the column is only 9 years old, so maybe it's going to Disney World? Or camp? I bet it's summer camp. Did you label all its stuff?

Bottom line: the monkeys are going to be running the monkey house. Ook! Another roller coaster week. You may want to pick up a pressure washer at your local home improvement center....a couple of cans of Febreze too.

I agree it's reprehensible and ludicrous to blame a victim in this manner simply for a political agenda..

Much as it is reprehensible and ludicrous to blame an inanimate object in this manner simply for a political agenda..

Having said that, it is an undeniable fact that, if the pastor had allowed Conceal Carry, it IS very likely that he and many others would be alive today...

Matthew J. Murray shot and killed two people in a church parking lot in Colorado Springs. 100+ victims were spread out before Murray as he began his rampage..

A rampage that was cut short by a woman with a concealed weapon and the training to use it...

Blaming the victim is ridiculous...

Acknowledging that the outcome could have been vastly different if the pastor had allowed concealed carry is not...

Michale

. . . or racism from phony Christian persecution complex.

It looks to me as if nobody has stopped him from conversing about his religious delusions or his desire to label other people as “crazy”. Of course, the GOP solution to our “crazy” problem is to let those individuals wander the streets or to sell them guns so they can shoot whoever it is that they hate for whatever reason. You know, a free market solution. Healthcare is a privilege, so the “crazy” people should go unmedicated if they can’t find a job with health insurance.