ChrisWeigant.com

What About All The Others In The White House Without Permanent Security Clearances?

[ Posted Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 – 17:55 PST ]

Donald Trump's White House is, once again, making a bad news story worse by the day. That's quite an accomplishment this time around, since the bad news story was pretty bad to begin with -- the White House having to fire two accused wife-beaters in the same week. But all the missteps and lies told since then have only served to make things much worse, to the point where the entire White House security clearance process itself is now under a microscope. This raises all kinds of questions that Trump really should have tried to avoid, such as why his son-in-law still only has a temporary security clearance, and indeed how many other White House staffers haven't been cleared yet. But if you take a wider view, as many are now beginning to do, you'd have to conclude that any president influences his entire administration, or (to put it more colorfully) the fish rots from the head.

The sad fact at the heart of this ongoing scandal is that Donald Trump himself most likely couldn't pass a security check. If the voters hadn't put him in office, he would probably not be able to get a job in someone else's administration, for multiple reasons. Trump refuses to release his tax returns, indicating there are things contained within that would (at the very least) embarrass him. Trump has been accused by over a dozen women of sexual misconduct, and his lawyer paid a porn star $130,000 in hush money right before the election. His ex-wife accused him of marital rape in divorce proceedings. Trump has lied under oath several times, in various court cases. Trump's business dealings with Russian mobsters and other unsavory characters worldwide would be a goldmine of possible blackmail. And that's before we even consider what Vladimir Putin might be holding over Trump's head. Any one of these might normally disqualify someone from getting a security clearance to handle classified information in the White House, for anyone not actually elected president. With Trump setting all these examples, it is really no wonder that he wouldn't really care what peccadilloes people who work for him might have hiding in their past. They're just following his lead, really.

The White House has been changing the story on the resignation of Rob Porter on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis, over the past week. John Kelly and Sarah Huckabee Sanders have both been caught in lies, most notably in congressional testimony yesterday that the F.B.I. had informed the White House several times over the course of the past year what Porter's security clearance problems consisted of. The emerging timeline shows that the White House knew full well what the problem was, but refused to act in any way. Porter, a man in one of the most sensitive jobs in Washington, was allowed to continue doing his work and handling the nation's top secrets. It was only when the media dug the story out that he was forced to resign.

That's all pretty damning, especially when you consider the crime itself instead of all the coverup. Spousal abuse is taken seriously these days, as it should be. And, again, Porter was only one of two people who had to resign in the same week over such allegations. Meaning it wasn't some aberration, it seems actually to have been policy that wife-beating wasn't a disqualification for working in the Trump White House. That's pretty shocking, folks.

John Kelly is supposed to be in charge of the White House staff. It's right there in his job title, in fact: "chief of staff." This means he either decided to look the other way over the allegations, or he didn't bother to ask why the man responsible for controlling the paper and information flow into the Oval Office couldn't get a permanent security clearance. Either Kelly was complicit, or he was incompetent. There's no other way to see it, really. Kelly seems so far to be getting the worst of the criticism, from both outside the administration and from within the White House. One unnamed White House official told the Washington Post that Kelly was "a big fat liar," and then got even more specific: "To put it in terms the general would understand, his handling of the Porter scandal amounts to dereliction of duty."

A different White House aide texted a Washington Post reporter that the testimony from the head of the F.B.I. that they had indeed reported the problem to the White House was "a killer." The story continues:

When asked if Kelly could have been more transparent or truthful, that official wrote, "In this White House, it's simply not in our DNA. Truthful and transparent is great, but we don't even have a coherent strategy to obfuscate."

In other words, we're incompetent to even attempt a coverup. Not exactly a vote of confidence, and that's coming from within the White House. With the official White House storyline changing every time it is proven false, Kelly seems to be emerging as the source of much of the false narrative. Trump is said to be considering his replacement, but that's been said before about various high-ranking officials who are still in their jobs (Jeff Sessions, most notably).

Stepping back from Kelly and the changing White House explanations, people are now beginning to wonder about all those other White House staffers who have not been fully cleared for a permanent security clearance. A memo just surfaced that shows that last November the White House declared it was no longer going to issue new interim security clearances, but that anyone who was already working with a temporary clearance could continue until the process had been completed. No explanation for the change in policy was given at the time, which raises the question of why the policy had to be changed. Was it because there were so many people handling classified information with temporary clearances that someone began to get worried?

The big questions that are also now getting lots of attention are how many people working in the White House still have only temporary security clearances, and (in each case), why? Why can't Jared Kushner get cleared? There are lots and lots of possible reasons, so which of them is blocking his clearance? He's supposed to be in charge of all sorts of sensitive issues in Trump's White House (Middle East peace being just one), so what in his background might be holding his clearance up? Is he susceptible to some form of blackmail? Over what issue, precisely? Both the media and members of Congress are now asking these questions. And Kushner's not alone -- there are reportedly a whole bunch of White House staffers in the same boat.

It has been thirteen months since Trump took office. The transition adds on another couple of months. In all that time, why hasn't everyone's security clearance process ended? There are three possible conclusions to this process. Either someone is deemed worthy of a permanent security clearance, or there are problems. If there are problems, it is fully within the president's power to go ahead and grant a permanent security clearance anyway. So why hasn't he done so for all these people? The third possibility is that someone (like the chief of staff) determines that the problems in an employee's security clearance are so major that they constitute a security risk and that the person needs to either be fired or possibly assigned to non-security work. John Kelly could do so at any time for those whose process has not completed, and yet in the case of Porter, Kelly refused to do so until the problem was splashed across the front pages. It has been over a year now. That's really time enough for such decisions to already have been made. Trump should either overrule the F.B.I. and grant permanent security clearances, or Kelly should fire those who can't pass. Leaving them in the limbo of only having temporary clearance should no longer be seen as acceptable, especially after the Porter fiasco.

At this point, the public deserves to know how many people work in the Trump White House have skeletons in their closets, and also precisely what those skeletons are. The public constitutionally has to accept a president who couldn't pass a security clearance on his own, because that's the way elections work in this country. But we certainly don't have to accept unelected White House staff handling the nation's secrets who are in personal danger of being blackmailed, that's for sure. Even if that means the president's son-in-law has to go back to whatever he did before working in the Trump White House. Trump and Kelly might have avoided all of these questions if they hadn't mishandled the Porter case so badly, but that's water under the bridge now. By blowing it up in the media (and on Capitol Hill) with their constant misrepresentations, they have now opened themselves up to much wider questions about everyone in the Trump White House -- questions that now demand answers.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

118 Comments on “What About All The Others In The White House Without Permanent Security Clearances?”

  1. [1] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I totally agree with you that the temporary clearances need to either be made permanent by executive fiat, or be cancelled and the people reassigned to non-secure duties.

    But I don't expect that any of that will happen. Why not? "We don't have to! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

    Excellent point, by the way, that the president himself couldn't get clearance if he weren't, in fact, the elected president. But again, the chorus of the fates - or the flacks in the reigning GOP - chants: "Ha! Ha! Ha! Suckers!"

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: Kushner - Kushner has a serious debt problem and my understanding is big debit is considered a major hindrance to getting security clearance. Kushner apparently provided personal guarantees to his debt on his 666 white elephant in Manhattan. I guess the theory is people under big debt pressure may take bribes (in one form or another). Plus Kushner's been/being sued for nasty real estate practices. He's also been selling visas to wealthy Chinese people. He's a blackmail and bribery risk.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Great article, CW; that about sums it up.

    Both the media and members of Congress are now asking these questions.

    Many members of Congress have been broaching these security issues multiple times directly with White House counsel, Don McGahn, so the "we were unaware" fabrication simply does not apply.

    https://tinyurl.com/ycmp7lvy

    Kushner has updated his disclosure statement multiple times to account for previously undisclosed meetings with several Russians including the Kremlin-linked lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian banker of Vnesheconombank, referred to as a "bank" even though it more resembles a slush fund of Vladimir Putin, among others. Kushner has also been fined multiple times for failure to timely update his financial disclosure forms as required by law.

    A group of 20 House Democrats wrote a letter dated July 19 to then FBI acting director Andrew McCabe asking for the review of Ivanka Trump's security clearance, saying: "We are concerned that Ivanka Trump may have engaged in similar deception," to husband Jared Kushner and discussing the fact that disclosure laws require declaration of foreign contacts by the clearance holder's spouse and siblings, which would necessitate the disclosure of meetings by Kushner, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump.

    continued...

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    Fast Forward and Trey Gowdy has written correspondence to the FBI, General Kelly, and others requesting information no later than February 28 regarding the security clearance of the wife beater, among other things so this national security issue within the White House isn't going away anytime soon.

    https://tinyurl.com/ycd4a9gn

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump refuses to release his tax returns, indicating there are things contained within that would (at the very least) embarrass him.

    Odumbo refused to release his school records, indicating there are things contained within that would (at the very least) embarrass him.

    That is as factual a statement as yours is...

    But no one had a problem with Odumbo back then....

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    Let's face reality... 95% of the things ya'all are so hysterical about didn't warrant even a mention in the Odumbo Administration...

    Ya really need to pace yerself or yer gonna be a basket case well before President Trump starts his second term.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Excellent point, by the way, that the president himself couldn't get clearance if he weren't, in fact, the elected president.

    And neither could Hillary Clinton..

    What's yer point??

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A dispassionate alien observer of USA culture over the last decade might report:

    "After the children are sacrificed at their schools, the Nation responds with ritual prayers."

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    A dispassionate alien observer of USA culture over the last decade might report:

    "Dispassionate" ppfffftttttt

  9. [9] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It occurs to me to wonder if perhaps it's time to update the criteria upon which 'National Security Clearances' are issued.

    I've not bothered to investigate what the current criteria actually are, but I'm inferring from the current insanity spewing from the white house on the subject, that 'vulnerability to blackmail' must be awfully high on the list, and that included under that catch-all, must be such 'mortal sins' as marital infidelity, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, general hornyness, fondness for alcohol, and gawdonlyknows what else, all of which in the modern world are so ubiquitous as to render 100% of males and likely a substantial % of females, ineligible for political office!

    Perhaps it's time to recognize that as society lowers its standards, there's very little left for people (especially male people) to be blackmailed over!

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    The problem is that "standards" are all based on ideology...

    Compare the attitudes the Left and Right had towards sex vis a vis Clinton/Lewinsky and Trump/Daniels...

    Compare the attitides from the Left and Right on The Patriot Act under Bush and under Obama...

    You can't keep things straight without a play bill...

    The *ONLY* standard is ideological..

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    [7] TS: Yep.

  12. [12] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    Let's face reality... 95% of the things you were so hysterical about during the Obama Administration doesn't warrant even a mention in the Trump Administration...

    Cuts both ways. We all may be hypocrites to some degree but in the realm of hypocrisy, as ye who is without sin may throw the first stone, you would be at the end of the line and given only gravel...

    And neither could Hillary Clinton..

    Interestingly enough, that is patently not true. As of last summer she still had her state department security clearances. It was a minor scandal among right wing rags that might have been noticed if Trump didn't have few major ones every week. She may still have them, nothing coming up on them being revoked...

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    And neither could Hillary Clinton..

    Interestingly enough, that is patently not true. As of last summer she still had her state department security clearances.

    BB: Stop confusing Michale with reality. It sets him off on a demented parade of bold cut/paste comments that clutter up the feed.

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another 17 kids dead. Thanks NRA.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interestingly enough, that is patently not true. As of last summer she still had her state department security clearances.

    And if we were talking about HAVING a security clearance, as opposed to GETTING a security clearance, you would have an argument...

    But we're not, so you don't...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Off topic, but OK.....

    Another 17 kids dead. Thanks NRA.

    Another 17 kids dead...

    Thanx Dumbocrat Party...

    Do you know what the SINGLE most prevalent common denominator is in a mass murder event, Neil??

    Of course you don't...

    That's why yer sad...

  17. [17] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    <i.And if we were talking about HAVING a security clearance, as opposed to GETTING a security clearance, you would have an argument...

    Them's some might fine hairs your splitting...

    But we're not, so you don't...

    So, do you have these quips hotkeyyed or do you actually type them out long form?

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If there is another country out there that is a Superpower and has the exact dynamics and parameters in play as the US has, then we can learn from their experiences..

    It is just that kind of typical American arrogance that holds America back as a nation. Americans have quite a lot to learn from other countries on a number of issues.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Them's some might fine hairs your splitting...

    And yet, factually accurate...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is just that kind of typical American arrogance that holds America back as a nation.

    Hardly... It's that typical American arrogance that MAKES America the only remaining superpower..

    "Arrogant!!?? OF COURSE I'm arrogant!!! I've EARNED it!!!"
    -Q

    :D

    Americans have quite a lot to learn from other countries on a number of issues.

    Says all those other countries.. :D

    Borne of jealousy and envy... Nothing more.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Paula wrote:

    [14] neilm: Mueller's gang and/or the FBI are looking at NRA and Russian money -- money which appears to have found its way to Blotus' campaign, as well as to other GOP candidates.

    One of many links: "FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump" http://www.heraldsun.com/news/nation-world/national/article195231599.html

    Blotus takes Putin's orders. Does the NRA?

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Them's some might fine hairs your splitting...

    And let's face reality...

    If Odumbo wasn't POTUS and there to protect Hillary, her security clearances would have been yanked faster than a Clinton disbarment hearing....

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's actually borne of a love for American or, more specifically, a love for the promise of America and a wish to see it be the best that it can be.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blotus takes Putin's orders. Does the NRA?

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh my gods, that is SO frakin' rich!!

    *NOW* the Russians control the NRA....

    Tell me... Were the Russians controlling the NRA when Odumbo told Putin that he could be more flexible for Putin if Putin only helped Odumbo win the election???

    My gods, Paula.. You actually BELIEVE this clap trap, don't you??

    Time to call your shrink for a follow-up exam.... Yer in kooky-dooks land...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, since we dragged the recent school shooting into this commentary (bet I get blamed for that!! :D ) let me say...

    Liz, you were dead on ballz accurate...

    ANY gun control discussion/debate *MUST* start with the 2nd Amendment...

    Until such time as THAT issue is addressed by the hysterical anti-gun nuts, ANY other conversation is a non-starter from the word GUNS ARE EVIL...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually borne of a love for American or, more specifically, a love for the promise of America and a wish to see it be the best that it can be.

    But only if that "promise" is ideological acceptable...

    Many Trump supporters have a love for the "promise" of America...

    But you would disagree with them, am I right??

    It all boils down to ideology...

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do Trump supporters think that they can learn anything from other countries?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do Trump supporters think that they can learn anything from other countries?

    I am sure some do.... I know, I do...

    But the question is, do YOU think that Trump supporters think they can learn anything from other countries??

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the question of what we can or can't learn from other countries is a moot point, as you yourself point out..

    No other country on the planet has a United States Constitution...

    And that Constitution grants us with inalienable rights...

    When it comes to gun ownership, there can be no argument or debate or "learning" until such time as the 2nd Amendment is repealed or modified...

    This is the reality whether it's liked or not...

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.adl.org/blog/florida-white-supremacist-group-admits-ties-to-alleged-parkland-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz

    A spokesperson for the white supremacist group Republic of Florida (ROF) told the Anti-Defamation League on Thursday, February 15, that Nikolas Cruz, the man charged with the previous day’s deadly shooting spree at a Parkland, Florida, high school, was associated with his group.

    The article goes on to explain the shooter's involvement. Summary: they taught him everything and then end by saying "but we didn't want him to go shooting up a school!"

    Gee, unintended consequences suck, don't they?

  31. [31] 
    Paula wrote:

    The group Cruz was part of should be held liable - should be accessories - something.

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    The gun nuts have caused another massacre in this country.

    They desperately try to hide behind tired old arguments.

    But it is simple.

    The NRA bought a lot of politicians.

    Those politicians ensured that the NRAs products were widely available with no effective restrictions.

    The NRA then equated guns with freedom and propagated an extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment and brainwashed the sheep.

    We end up with dead kids.

    I don't expect the politicians to do anything.

    I don't expect the sheep to do anything except bleat about "freedom" and "the 2nd amendment".

    I do expect the decent people of America to do something. Ask everybody who represents you what they intend to do to stop more school killings. Ask them why they think that America is the only nation that has monthly school shootings. Ask them if they take NRA money and why.

    They will not like being asked. And they might come to the conclusion that the NRA money is toxic.

    This might put pressure on the gun manufacturers (Remington went bankrupt last week).

    This might decrease the funding for the NRA.

    Waiting for gun nuts to come to their senses is pointless - just look at some of the comments on this thread.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    And, once again, you ignore the FACTS and go with hysterical non-sequitor rants..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    The group Cruz was part of should be held liable - should be accessories - something.

    James Hodgkison was part of the Democrat Party...

    Democrat Party should be "accessories"... Maybe a purse or a nice bracelet... :^/

    Seek help, Paula.. Soon...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the 20 years prior to the Port Arthur shooting in Australia that beget the Australian gun ban do you know how many people were killed in mass murder events??

    75....

    In the 20 years after Australia initiated it's gun ban, do you know how many people were killed in mass murder events??

    74....

    The *FACTS* clearly show that, in Australia, a gun ban had absolutely **NO EFFECT** on mass murder events..

    You hysterical anti-gun nuts need to realize that GUNS are not the catalyst for mass murder events..

    PEOPLE are...

    But you Dumbocrats simply use these tragedies to push your unpopular anti-gun agenda...

    Like DH said, you don't really mind the problem as long as you can exploit the problem for political gain.

    Now how SICK is THAT!??

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    And that Constitution grants us with inalienable rights...

    The first word is "Life".

    It is before "Liberty and the Pursuit of Freedom".

    Where are the inalienable rights of the kids in the Florida school?

    Oh, yeah, their lives are less important than your extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    Own it.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Own it.

    Sorry, that's not how facts work..

    Yer Dumbocrats have shot down mental health legislation time and time again because of their social justice mentality...

    It's the Dumbocrat Party who is responsible for the deaths in Parkland FL much more so than those who cherish our US Constitution..

    Own it, Neil.. It's all on you...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where are the inalienable rights of the kids in the Florida school?

    You tell me.. By killing any and all mental health legislation, your Dumbocrats deprived those kids of their lives...

    Why would your Dumbocrats do that, Neil???

    Maybe you should take a step away from the keyboard and cool off..

    You are hysterical...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, Neil.. It was your vaunted FBI who dropped the ball..

    They knew in Sep of 17 that this scumbag was planning to shoot up a school..

    But they were too busy chasing the phantom Russian Collusion boogeyman to pay attention to mundane boring things like SAVING AMERICAN LIVES...

    So, your Dumbocrats obsession with the bullshit Russian Collusion fantasy killed those kids in Parkland, FL..

    Now matter HOW you want to slice it, you and your Dumbocrats OWN that school massacre....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, all of the afore from Neil and myself is nothing but ideological bent bullshit...

    Mine was to prove a point.. Neil's was sincere and he actually BELIEVES it..

    The fact is, there is only ONE PERSON responsible for the deaths of those kids and teachers at Parkland, FL..

    And that's the scumbag shooter himself...

    I think it's just sad and pathetic that Dumbocrats like to use those deaths to further their pathetic, unpopular and ultimately IRRELEVANT agenda...

    One could almost believe that Dumbocrats WANT shootings like this so that they can push their agenda....

    Almost....

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    [32] neilm: Yep.

  42. [42] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Like almost all kids of my generation who were born and raised in the Rocky Mtns, when there were only half as many people in the country, shooting sports played a major role in my life. The first money I ever earned bought my first .22 cal. rifle, and by the time the ever-increasing steepness of those mountains caused me to have to give up hunting, I had a firearm specifically adapted to the pursuit of everything that walked, paddled or flew in my part of the world, 17 in total if I recall correctly, but not a single one suitable for mass shooting of people.

    At some point in that time (early 60's I think), there began to appear on the market a bunch of military-style firearms, which caused some alarm, and generated political pressure to have them outlawed. I didn't actually give a damn, they seemed to me totally worthless for hunting, but I wrote a letter (email hadn't even been invented) to Sen. Frank Church, and encouraged him to support the ban rather than risk seeing legitimate guns banned. He (or more likely some flunky assistant) responded that while he wholeheartedly agreed with the ban, that he couldn't support it because such would amount to "political suicide" in Idaho. The rest is history.

    Today, all the companies that manufactured legitimate firearms for hunters (Browning, Winchester, Remington, Ruger, etc.) are either gone or teetering on the brink.
    The only guns being sold are the ones that aren't good for anything BUT mass killings of people. Combining that with an ever-increasing number of mental nut cases, and here we now are.

  43. [43] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki-

    Current gun economics are complex. From my understanding a whole bunch small, specialized gun manufactures have come up while, for many reasons, the old guard has declined. Remington, for example, was bought out by Cerberus Capital Management along with Marlin and a few other brands. Cerberus cut corners to maximize profits and the quality of the guns went way down. The other factor that is going on is gun sales are down across the board because Trump is in office. There was a huge spike in sales because Hillary was going to "take everyone's guns away". That fear is over and because the gun nuts stocked up last year, gun sales are down massively this year. So manufacturers that geared up for increased production are hurting now. Colt had to file for bankruptcy because they lost their military contract due to reliability issues. Also many of the European and Israeli brands are finding better penetration in the US market. I have not been in to guns for a couple of decades but my understanding, from my uncle who is an avid duck hunter, is there are plenty of high quality hunting arms available but you would probably not recognize some of the brands and be shocked by the sticker price...

  44. [44] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    BB

    My Browning 12ga O/U goose gun cost me $500 back in the mid 60's. I sold it 20 yrs ago for $1200, brobaly cost you $4000 these days.

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    7

    "After the children are sacrificed at their schools, the Nation responds with ritual prayers."

    Yes, sir... and tweets.

  46. [46] 
    Paula wrote:

    [45] Kick: Yes, sir... and tweets.

    And really lame arguments and excuses.

  47. [47] 
    Paula wrote:

    CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin watches mother of dead child rage against impotent lawmakers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9aKFGVp1wM

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    THINK ABOUT THIS

    A guy goes into a public school and kills 17 people in a mass shooting and injures as many. What does the GOP say?

    Depends on the guy.

    If he's a certain type guy, they'd immediately be talking about spending billions to do something about it. If he's a certain other type guy, they'd say we don't need to rush to judgment until all the facts are in.

  49. [49] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Then there are those that immediately blame it on video games...

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    46

    And really lame arguments and excuses.

    Yes... like the false equivalency nonsense. Assuming the statistics Michale posted regarding mass murders in Australia are factually accurate, they conveniently omit the 35 gunned down in the Port Arthur massacre in an effort to prove the "equivalency." Additionally, still assuming those statistics showing equivalent number of murders are accurate, the population of Australia has increased exponentially by multiple millions during that same time period while the numbers of murders did not.

    Of course, it's this type of "equivalency" nonsense from the right-wing propaganda machine that keep the sheeple uninformed and the GOP in Congress doing nothing.

    I don't believe in a weapons ban, but I also don't believe people need guns created for no other purpose than to kill multiple people in seconds in order to protect themselves and hunt.

    Anyone interested in documented statistics regarding firearm deaths and the ban on rapid-fire firearms in Australia:

    https://tinyurl.com/ycc9raer

    Question: What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?

    Findings: In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mueller Time

    Gates is flipping. What does Gates have to offer, you ask? Gates likely has irrefutable proof of a quid pro quo regarding the RNC platform change.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9foeb86

    If Gates flips, the noose tightens.

  52. [52] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [3] -

    Thanks for the kind words!

    Now it seems there are over 100 people working in the WH without permanent clearances, and something like three dozen of them have been waiting since Trump was sworn in. Something is certainly fishy with that...

    Michale [5] -

    Apples and oranges. Obama DID release his tax returns. Trump didn't. Them's the facts, Jack.

    M [6] -

    Except, you know, for her security clearance she got for SecState...

    C. R. Stucki [9] -

    As I understand it, security clearances look for three main things: blackmailability (if that's even a word); criminal record; and general dishonesty (history of getting fired for reason, getting sued successfully for bad dealings, etc.).

    But in your list you forgot a big one: drug use. This is actually getting somewhat better -- admitting past marijuana use used to be an automatic disaqualifier, but these rules are much more flexible now -- as a direct result of just what you lay out: not being able to get good candidates that are that pure. Especially in the computer programmer/hacker realm.

    So standards do change, with the times, albeit slowly...

    Come to think of it, this bolsters Trump's case -- he couldn't be blackmailed for the stuff that was already out there in the media, after all. Blackmail is the threat of revealing something, but when it's alreay front-page news, it loses it's blackmail value, right?

    Heh.

    BashiBazouk [12] -

    Let's face reality... 95% of the things you were so hysterical about during the Obama Administration doesn't warrant even a mention in the Trump Administration...

    Thanks for telling Michale this, it saved me the trouble!

    :-)

    I have fun picturing Michale reacting to the past two weeks of security clearance fiasco... under either President Obama or President Hillary. "Apoplectic" wouldn't even begin to describe it!

    Heh.

    neilm [13] -

    Heh.

    LizM [18] -

    I wholeheartedly agree. Starting with Olympics coverage (sigh...).

    Michale [25] -

    I hesitate to do this, but...

    OK, let's start with the Second Amendment. Right now, SCOTUS has interpreted it one particular way. Granted.

    But in the future, a different SCOTUS might rule: "The phrase 'a well-regulated militia' obviously applies in the modern world to the National Guard. Therefore, we rule that any citizen has the unalienable right to join the National Guard in their state. By doing so, they will be able to keep -- in a state armory -- and bear arms in support of their country, as the Second Amendment intended. But private ownership of guns is nowhere protected by the Second Amendment, so any restrictions whatsoever upon gun ownership are fully constitutional."

    It's all in interpretation, in other words...

    OK, more in a moment...

    -CW

  53. [53] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [37] -

    Mental health legislation? Are you kidding me?

    Let's see... Ronald Reagan threw all the mentally ill out of long-term facilities and created the "crazy homeless problem" in the 1980s (and until the present day...). Republicans have voted against every federal dollar spent on any health care, much less mental health care, for the past 30 years or so, while Dems have fought for such dollars.

    Oh, and the only gun legislation Trump has signed was one that ended an Obama regulation that people who weren't competent to balance their own checkbook shouldn't be allowed to buy or own guns. So on the "mental health and guns" thing, Trump and the GOP have been leading the way towards "crazy people deserve more guns, what could possibly go wrong with that?" front.

    In other words: BZZZTTT!!!

    Thanks for playing...

    I mean, seriously, name me ONE piece of mental health legislation Democrats were against. Especially one converging mental health with gun ownership. I dare you.

    C. R. Stucki [42] -

    Those are fascinating facts. But what caught my eye was: you wrote to Frank Church? The "Church Committee" Frank Church? My esteem for you just went up...

    :-)

    BashiBazouk [43] (and C. R. Stucki) -

    OK, how many of the hunting brand guns are foreign and how many are still American brands? I'm just curious, because you seem to be describing a trend here...

    C. R. Stucki [44] -

    $500 in the mid-60s was a significant chunk of change. I mean, even a great car back then would only set you back a couple of thousand.

    Kick [48] -

    Excellent point! Best comment I've read yet anywhere... just had to say that...

    -CW

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Apples and oranges. Obama DID release his tax returns. Trump didn't. Them's the facts, Jack.

    And it's not a relevant fact because the issue is TRANSPARENCY...

    You want to see Trump's tax returns. *I* wanted to see Obama's school records..

    MY desire is just as legitimate as yours..

    Except, you know, for her security clearance she got for SecState...

    The point is, she could not get that security clearance NOW, unless she was POTUS....

    But in the future, a different SCOTUS might rule: "The phrase 'a well-regulated militia' obviously applies in the modern world to the National Guard. Therefore, we rule that any citizen has the unalienable right to join the National Guard in their state. By doing so, they will be able to keep -- in a state armory -- and bear arms in support of their country, as the Second Amendment intended. But private ownership of guns is nowhere protected by the Second Amendment, so any restrictions whatsoever upon gun ownership are fully constitutional."

    It's all in interpretation, in other words...

    Only because it has been interpreted in a manner you don't like...

    If it HAD been interpreted as YOU would like it to be interpreted, then you would be making MY argument...

    No?? :D

    It truly does work both ways..

    I mean, seriously, name me ONE piece of mental health legislation Democrats were against.

    And then what?? Will it change your mind? Change your argument???

    Especially one converging mental health with gun ownership. I dare you.

    THAT'S the point.. ALL mental health issues SHOULD converge with gun ownership!!

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The article goes on to explain the shooter's involvement. Summary: they taught him everything and then end by saying "but we didn't want him to go shooting up a school!"

    Gee, unintended consequences suck, don't they?

    Nope.. Fake News...

    Local law enforcement: No ties between militia and Florida high school shooter
    http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/02/15/florida-school-shooting-suspect-nikolas-cruz-member-white-nationalist-militia-tallahassee-leader-say/341751002/

    FACTS....

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously, name me ONE piece of mental health legislation Democrats were against.

    There are many.. Here's the most recent...

    Why Mental Health Bill Isn't Moving
    https://www.rollcall.com/news/why-mental-health-bill-isnt-moving-in-congress

    Democrats are afraid of stigmatizing mentally ill and afraid of making the connection between mentally ill and violence..

    So, they don't support mentally ill legislation...

    For Democrats it's ALL about social justice. And they are going to push their agenda no matter HOW many kids are gunned down by psychos....

    As I said above, what's the ONE common denominator when it comes to mass murder events??

    It's not guns..

    It's mentally ill people..

    So, you can address guns like Australia did.. Maybe the murders will go down, maybe not.. They didn't in Australia... At least not in an significant way...

    OR...

    Or you can forget the partisan agenda and address the ROOT CAUSE of these mass murder events..

    The mentally ill...

    But Democrats don't want to do that because of social justice...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK people, today is ya'all's lucky day...

    I am going to grant ya'all the power to enact gun laws..

    **POOF**

    Ya'all have the power to enact ANY gun law you want and it will INSTANTLY become the law of the land...

    BUT.... There are requirements...

    1. The new law MUST be able to prevent or help prevent crowd based mass shootings..

    2. The new law MUST be in keeping with the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution..

    Now, go... You have the power.. Make a new gun law.....

    ....

    ......

    ........

    No new gun laws??? Why is that???

    Because you CAN'T make a law that fits reality in this case..

    Class dismissed...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and the only gun legislation Trump has signed was one that ended an Obama regulation that people who weren't competent to balance their own checkbook shouldn't be allowed to buy or own guns.

    So, you suck at math and now the US Constitution doesn't apply to you???

    OK, Fine...

    If you are so incompetent that you can't balance your own checkbook, then you can't own a gun...

    You also can't vote or can't exercise your freedom of speech....

    Is that **REALLY** the road you want to travel down??

    Owning a gun is as much of a constitutional right as voting or speaking freely...

    You want to curtail ONE constitutional right, then you MUST be willing to curtail ALL constitutional rights...

    Or, you can just admit that it's all nothing but a partisan agenda at work...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facts show that the scumbag shooter arrived at the high school in an Uber..

    If we ban Ubers, then these scumbag shooters can't get to the places to perform the dastardly deed...

    OH MY GODS!!! WE MUST BAN UBERS!!!! WHY WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

    {/sarcasm}

    That is EXACTLY what ya'all's reasoning is...

    I hope ya'all can be objective enough to see the fallacy of such reasoning..

    But I won't hold my breath...

  60. [60] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-52, your response to resident comments sophist M -25

    Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "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."

    It is no accident that the 2nd amendment begins with the phrase "A well-regulated militia" It is also no accident that the gun lobbyists and their attendant retinue of judicial,political and media whores routinely cover half the law in editorial whiteout.

    Your analysis is worth repeating.

    "The phrase 'a well-regulated militia' obviously applies in the modern world to the National Guard. Therefore, we rule that any citizen has the unalienable right to join the National Guard in their state. By doing so, they will be able to keep -- in a state armory -- and bear arms in support of their country, as the Second Amendment intended. But private ownership of guns is nowhere protected by the Second Amendment, so any restrictions whatsoever upon gun ownership are fully constitutional."

    Where most commentators of ALL STRIPES falter, you have dragged "A well regulated Militia" out of the Memory Hole and into the discussion.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    It doesn't matter what you think the 2nd Amendment says, Stig..

    It doesn't matter what The Grand Poobah (may peace be upon him) thinks the 2nd Amendment says...

    It doesn't even matter what *I* think the 2nd Amendment says..

    The ONLY *FACT* that matters is what the SCOTUS thinks the 2nd Amendment says..

    And the SCOTUS has ruled that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the ruling passage of the 2nd Amendment...

    So, repeal the 2nd or quit whining...

    It's really that simple....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    If your analysis was the accurate one than the 2nd would read:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Now, you and I both know that the 2nd DOESN'T say that..

    It says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    The well-regulated militia part simply explains WHY the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

    But, regardless of this FACT......

    It doesn't matter what you or I think.. It only matters what the SCOTUS rules..

    And the SCOTUS has ruled.. It's the law of the land.. Deal with it...

  63. [63] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michael (and the Supremes) have clearly won this battle, but I think there's hope to be found here, at least for people of good will, to mostly solve the problem.

    The key to at least starting to get past the intolerable situation we're now dealing with will be found not in "restricting the right" to bear arms, but rather in restricting the TYPE of arms that will be allowed.
    It should help that we already HAVE some restrictions on the type, (presumably no Browning-style WWII type machine guns, etc.)

    It was a colossal mistake to ever permit the so-called "assault type" weapons, worthless for hunting, and the solution is to figure out a way to rectify that, which will not be simple because there are now millions of 'em out there.

    The only solution is to eliminate the ones already in existence, and forbid new ones. It will inevitably eventually happen, one way or another, because people will inevitably no longer be willing to tolerate what we've now got going on.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:
  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:
  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly!!

    What kind of SICK SICK person would attack a man who has just lost his daughter, SOLELY because of his politics!!????

    NeverTrumpers... Scumbags of the universe....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Michael (and the Supremes) have clearly won this battle, but I think there's hope to be found here, at least for people of good will, to mostly solve the problem.

    Yes and maybe... :D

    It was a colossal mistake to ever permit the so-called "assault type" weapons,

    There is no such thing as an "assault" weapon, type or otherwise..

    It's a media construct that has little to do with reality...

    Since you are, with a couple exceptions, the ONLY one here who can be rational about things, allow me to illustrate via the Socratic method..

    In your opinion, what constitutes an "assault" weapon??

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a media construct that has little to do with reality...

    It's a media/political construct that has little to do with reality...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    at least for people of good will, to mostly solve the problem.

    Comment #57 above give you the opportunity to do just that...

    Have at it.. :D

  70. [70] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If you want to kick the gun industry in the gut, do absolutely nothing, as counter-intuitive as that is. When gun nuts feel safe, they sit on their guns, if they don't they buy guns. The arms industry is not going to go away but we could see quite some contraction if the current levels of gun sales are maintained. Don't stir the pot, keep the gun enthusiasts and those they influence nice and comfy...

    Otherwise, personally I think the 2nd amendment does buy this country something. We are uninvadable. Even if we drop the military to pre-WWI levels, we would give generals that thought to invade nightmares. Think Afghanistan, but instead of arms pouring in to arm particular groups, every man woman and child having a gun and most importantly, the ammunition to use it. That may not a valuable trait in the modern world. But along with the third amendment, it's something I would be very hesitant to get rid of. We live in a fragile world that could and probably will go to shit in the future. Those two amendments might turn out to be valuable.

    On the other hand, I think the first half of the 2nd amendment could be used to help the problem. Institute a militia. Anyone who owns a gun must register with the militia. They must go through gun safety courses and a heavily watered down version of basic training. They must submit a list of all guns owned on a reoccurring basis so the militia can determine which owned guns would be most appropriate for a primary and if available a secondary weapon. Those guns would have to be inspected regularly to make sure they were safe, clean and battle ready. All militia members are required to meet at least yearly for the aforementioned weapon inspection and continued training, as well as shooting contests, and other more fun activities. "A well regulated Militia" is a huge blanket that a very wide array of regulation can be imposed and still be constitutional, but there has to be an actual militia for it to work.

  71. [71] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Re "Assault" terminology. Of course, it's pretty much an arbitrary description, but so would any possible alternative be. I'd go with such descriptors as 'short' (by shoulder-firing standards), 'small calibre', rapid-fire', 'military oriented', 'high-capacity', etc. Whatever we come up with, it would just have to be an 'agreed-upon' type of definition.

    Any gun person an easily differentiate military from civilian/sporting. It would kinda be like paraphrasing that old 'pornography' thing, "We don't know how to define it, but we all know it when we see it".

    Re "New Law" 1) No assault-type/military oriented long guns. 2) Max 4 round capacity for center-fire long guns. 3) Long-guns must be engineered to fire backwards when pointed at a human target.

    (OK, that last one might not be feasible, but great idea.)

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    60

    It is no accident that the 2nd amendment begins with the phrase "A well-regulated militia" It is also no accident that the gun lobbyists and their attendant retinue of judicial,political and media whores routinely cover half the law in editorial whiteout.

    It is also no accident that the "whores" routinely cover a partial ruling of the Supreme Court in "editorial whiteout" {well done, TS} as well, obscuring the fact that the Supreme Court also ruled that the "right to keep and bear arms" is subject to regulation, such as:
    * limits on the rights of the mentally ill and felons
    * concealed weapons prohibitions
    * laws imposing conditions on commercial sales
    * laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations
    * prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    The Supreme Court in their decision also stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment, and anyone that tries to convince anyone else otherwise is either ignorant or obfuscating. :)

  73. [73] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Chris-

    OK, how many of the hunting brand guns are foreign and how many are still American brands? I'm just curious, because you seem to be describing a trend here...

    It's more market penetration of all guns. All the foreign brands, much like cars, have always been here but they are more popular now. Glock being the prime example. As far as hunting goes, I have only an anecdotal example: My uncle shoots almost exclusively Beretta shotguns where he used to shoot more american brands.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any gun person an easily differentiate military from civilian/sporting. It would kinda be like paraphrasing that old 'pornography' thing, "We don't know how to define it, but we all know it when we see it".

    So basically, if it LOOKS military, it's an assault rifle?? :D

    Sorry, I was going for humor.. :D

    Epic fail, yes I know.

    But, you raise the exact point I am making..

    ALL guns can be "assault" guns...

    Re "New Law" 1) No assault-type/military oriented long guns.

    If you can't define it, you can't make a law against it.. It's a rule, I think.. :D

    2) Max 4 round capacity for center-fire long guns.

    Completely irrelevant..

    And very easy to prove...

    Let's you and I hook up at a range.. You have a rifle with 2 20 round magazines and I have the exact same rifle with 10 4 round clips...

    At the word FIRE, we start firing...

    I would be done with my firing and in the club house enjoying a beer before you were halfway thru your second mag...

    And anyone with a modicum of training, even self training, could get close to such a feat...

    Mag capacity is a placebo law.. a WIBN law.. Gives one the satisfaction of having done SOMETHING, but has absolutely no impact on reality...

    3) Long-guns must be engineered to fire backwards when pointed at a human target.

    Oooooo A "smart" bullet.. Yea, it's feasible.. Have the bullet infused with an AI that can detect when the bullet is being fired for nefarious and/or illegal reasons.. I like it..

    But we're not there yet...

    What do you think about LawGiver SMART handguns that are DNA encoded??? We actually have that now...

    Regardless, the central point remains..

    Any law that CAN be passed under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment HAS been passed...

    There's nothing left in the cupboard as far as gun laws are concerned..

    So, what's left??

    Mental Health laws...

  75. [75] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    ALL guns can be "assault" guns...

    I have trouble imagining a single shot break action or clipless bolt action gun being used as an "assault" gun...

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you think about LawGiver SMART handguns that are DNA encoded???

    Ya know, the Lawgiver?? The gun from that AWESOME Sly Stallone movie JUDGE DREDD....

    Michale runs and hides before the Grand Poobah can bitch-slap him silly..

    :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have trouble imagining a single shot break action or clipless bolt action gun being used as an "assault" gun...

    Really??

    If you shoot at someone with it or hit someone over the head with it, what's the charge??

    ASSAULT :D

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gotcha ;D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:
  80. [80] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    You think gun law solutions not feasible, mental-health laws would be infinitely more unrealistic as far as eliminating mass murder.

    Anyway, if broad-based mental-health laws got enacted, we wouldn't have anybody to argue politics with. Our Dem/Lib buddies would all be institutionalized!

  81. [81] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Looks like the FBI dropped the ball...

    Do we really want to live in a world where law enforcement can easily find and investigate the author of a single forum comment?

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    You think gun law solutions not feasible, mental-health laws would be infinitely more unrealistic as far as eliminating mass murder.

    I do...

    You want to stop school shootings specifically? Arm the teachers..

    You want to stop mass murder incidents in general??

    Create a convergence of mental health databases with gun own/carry applications..

    I have carried since I was 17 years old... Almost 40 years...

    I know from personal experience that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...

    Going after the tools of the 'trade' won't do anything but force the determined to seek other tools...

    It's only by going after the PERSON can there be a reasonable chance of success in stopping these atrocities from happening...

  83. [83] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Anyway, if broad-based mental-health laws got enacted, we wouldn't have anybody to argue politics with. Our Dem/Lib buddies would all be institutionalized!

    What a frighteningly moronic thing to say. You need to get out more and interact with people from a wider variety of view points...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do we really want to live in a world where law enforcement can easily find and investigate the author of a single forum comment?

    We already live in that world, sunshine...

    You make a post in this forum about causing harm to a certain chief executive and you can bet the FBI will be at your door within the hour...

    You can also bet if this scumbag had made a comment about having PROOF that President Trump colluded with the Russians, the FBI would have been at his door within a few minutes...

    It's a brave new world, sunshine.. :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyway, if broad-based mental-health laws got enacted, we wouldn't have anybody to argue politics with. Our Dem/Lib buddies would all be institutionalized!

    Heh Troo dat... :D

  86. [86] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    We already live in that world, sunshine...

    No we don't.

    You make a post in this forum about causing harm to a certain chief executive and you can bet the FBI will be at your door within the hour...

    If one takes the proper precautions, it would take enough time, money, manpower, and subpoena's to find the author of a single post that the authorities are unlikely to even try, and certainly not "within the hour".

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    We already live in that world, sunshine...

    No we don't.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night..

    If one takes the proper precautions, it would take enough time, money, manpower, and subpoena's to find the author of a single post that the authorities are unlikely to even try, and certainly not "within the hour".

    Yea, tell yourself that you can go up against the might of the NSA and prevail.. :D

    Whatever you have to do to make it thru your day :D

  88. [88] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yea, tell yourself that you can go up against the might of the NSA and prevail.. :D

    You need to watch fewer movies and learn more tech...and probably a bit of history as well starting with Bletchley Park...

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS...

    On another forum I have been debating a guy who proposes these new gun laws..

    1. A national registry

    2. Mag Cap limitation

    3. Ban on Bump Stocks

    And in return for these, Democrats agree to 50-State reciprocity on all Conceal/Carry permits...

    What's yer thoughts on that??

  90. [90] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale [89]

    I really only have ONE thought on the whole gawdam problem - we've gotta bring an end to the mass murders committed by crazy people. There's no sense in me offering specifics/details that only deal with the problem by nibbling around the edges.

    I don't like the idea of national registry, I don't think legitimate long-guns even have any need for detachable magazines, regardless of capacity, I don't think bump-stocks should even exist, and don't worry about concealed carry folks, they're NOT the ones committing mass murders.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really only have ONE thought on the whole gawdam problem - we've gotta bring an end to the mass murders committed by crazy people.

    And, as you state the problem, the solution becomes abundantly clear..

    ADDRESS THE CRAZY PEOPLE...

    I don't like the idea of national registry,

    I don't mind it because there already is a national registry...

    ATF Form 4473...

    I don't think bump-stocks should even exist,

    I pray to non-existent gods every night, thanking them that the Vegas scumbag shooter used bump stocks...

    If he hadn't, the casualty rate would have been quadrupled....

    they're NOT the ones committing mass murders.

    That is not factually accurate...

    Of the approx 163 guns that were present/used in Crowd Based Mass Shootings, almost one hundred of them were handguns...

    You see, that's my point about "assault" rifles... Put you and me in a holodeck with Ferengi and I can take down as many Ferengi with my Glocks that you can with an AR15...

    Or give me a really souped up 4x4 car and I can do WAY more damage with that than you can with 2 AR15s with 50 round mags and bump stocks...

    The choice of TOOL is meaningless..

    The *ONLY* way to competently address the issue with ANY hope of success is to address the CRAZY PERSON and not the tool he or she chooses...

    THAT is the entire point of all my comments..

  92. [92] 
    John M wrote:

    [82] Michale

    "You want to stop school shootings specifically? Arm the teachers.."

    BULLSHIT. How many school boards can't hire or retain enough qualified teachers now because they won't pay or can't afford to pay a high enough salary? You want to add to the financial burden on top of that by requiring school districts to pay for a gun and training teachers in their use as well, really??? Good luck with that!

    "You want to stop mass murder incidents in general??

    Create a convergence of mental health databases with gun own/carry applications.."

    MORE BULLSHIT. Trump just REPEALED an OBAMA regulation that would kept more guns out of more people with mental health issues.

    "I know from personal experience that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun..."

    ALSO BULLSHIT. The school had a resource officer with a gun in school. He did NOT prevent CRUZ from killing 17 people. A good guy with a gun is a macho fantasy MYTH. It's part of the toxic masculinity bullshit regarding gun ownership that is causing this mess in the first place. You are NOT Matt Dillon or Dirty Harry, and never will be. Hollywood is NOT real life.

  93. [93] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    ADDRESS THE CRAZY PEOPLE...

    The problem is: how do you determine who is crazy? Most of the "postal" style workplace shooters were fairly normal until they snapped. This recent shooting it seems everyone knew the guy was off but that is not always the case...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    BULLSHIT. How many school boards can't hire or retain enough qualified teachers now because they won't pay or can't afford to pay a high enough salary? You want to add to the financial burden on top of that by requiring school districts to pay for a gun and training teachers in their use as well, really??? Good luck with that!

    I didn't address the economic issues.

    *MY* only concern was saving children's lives..

    I am not surprised that you put economics over that..

    MORE BULLSHIT. Trump just REPEALED an OBAMA regulation that would kept more guns out of more people with mental health issues.

    You mean "mental health issues" like not being able to balance their check book!???

    **THAT** is what you call "mental health issues"???

    It was FAST AND FURIOUS-lite.. An end run around the 2nd Amendment...

    Even the ACLU joined President Trump in getting rid of that travesty and obvious Odumbo ploy to restrict gun ownership...

    ALSO BULLSHIT. The school had a resource officer with a gun in school. He did NOT prevent CRUZ from killing 17 people. A good guy with a gun is a macho fantasy MYTH. It's part of the toxic masculinity bullshit regarding gun ownership that is causing this mess in the first place. You are NOT Matt Dillon or Dirty Harry, and never will be. Hollywood is NOT real life.

    And you are being hysterical and hate-filled... Economics over children's lives?? Really???

    You are not in a position to have a rational debate right now.. Take a step away from your keyboard and calm down..

    Come back when you can be rational..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    This recent shooting it seems everyone knew the guy was off but that is not always the case...

    It rarely is NOT the case...

    CHARLESTON MASSACRE: MENTAL ILLNESS COMMON THREAD FOR MASS SHOOTINGS
    http://www.newsweek.com/charleston-massacre-mental-illness-common-thread-mass-shootings-344789

    I get it.. Democrats really DON'T want address mass shootings because it gives them a political woody every time a bunch of people are killed by a psycho with a gun..

    I get it... Democrats would rather exploit the problem than fix it...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hollywood is NOT real life.

    July 18 1984...

    Don't you dare try and tell me what is and isn't real life, son..

    You piddle around as a keyboard warrior and I was out there facing these issues IN REAL LIFE..

    How many Crowd Based Mass Shootings have YOU been part of??

    So, frak off and die and don't you dare lecture me on what is and is not real life..

    You don't have the experience to do so...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    A good guy with a gun is a macho fantasy MYTH.

    FBI report shows importance of armed citizens in stopping mass murder sprees
    https://www.naturalnews.com/047378_murder_sprees_armed_citizens_FBI_report.html

    And yet, HUNDREDS of innocent people have been saved due to that "macho fantasy"...

    Of course, you don't care about those lives being saved because it TOTALLY DESTROYS your bullshit and hysterical anti-gun narrative...

    Now I am going to take my own advice and step away from the keyboard for a few.. Your kind makes me physically ill...

  98. [98] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michael [91]

    Yeah, the crazy people are the problem, but they're a helluva lot tougher to deal with than the tools they're using.

    Problem is, crazy ain't against the law. You can only deal with the crazies AFTER all the other people are dead, and then, it's too late!

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for the FBI, the hits just keep on coming...

    We now come to learn that not only was the FBI notified in Sep of 2017 that the Parkland scumbag shooter expressed an intent to shoot up a school..

    NOW it's been learned that the FBI got a specific tip about the person with full info on how to find him a month ago...

    I guess the FBI was too consumed with chasing phantom Russian Collusion than to be concerned about actually saving innocent people's lives...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,
    Thank you for a spot of sanity here in the People's Republic Of Weigantia...

    Yeah, the crazy people are the problem, but they're a helluva lot tougher to deal with than the tools they're using.

    Troo.. Absolutely troo...

    So, let's take steps to make sure those crazy people CAN'T GET those tools, eh??

    Com'on!!! You and I!! Let's do it!!

    Problem is, crazy ain't against the law. You can only deal with the crazies AFTER all the other people are dead, and then, it's too late!

    And owning a gun isn't against the law either.. Matter of fact, it's the anti-thesis of "against the law".. It's enshrined as a Constitutional right..

    So, if it's a choice between mental health laws and laws on a Constitutional Right...

    Well, I think the choice is clear...

    Especially since it can be proven beyond ANY doubt that guns are not the problem...

    HOw???

    I am glad you asked..

    If you have a problem with an armed crazy, what's the first thing you do..

    You call a person with a gun to come help you...

    If guns are truly the problem, then YOU would be crazy to call a person that has ANOTHER gun, right??

    Ergo, GUNS aren't the problem...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    If guns are truly the problem, then YOU would be crazy to call a person that has ANOTHER gun, right??

    Ergo, GUNS aren't the problem...

    How many crowd based mass shootings do you hear about in a Police Station?? Or a National Guard Armory??

    Obviously the presence or prevelance of guns is NOT a determining factor...

    I can tell you what IS a determining factor..

    Gun Free Zones...

    With one or two exceptions, ALL Crowd Based Mass Shootings have taken place in gun free zones...

    Obviously the logical inference is that if we get rid of gun free zones, the number of Crowd Based Mass Shootings will go down...

    Here's another interesting stat for you..

    In Crowd Based Mass Shootings where no one in the crowd was armed, the average casualty rate is ll...

    In Crowd Based Mass Shootings where one or more of the crowd was armed?? The average casualty rate is 4...

    Once again, the FACTS clearly indicate that it's a myth that a good guy with a gun is a myth...

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    If you have a problem with an armed crazy, what's the first thing you do..

    You call a person with a gun to come help you...

    If guns are truly the problem, then YOU would be crazy to call a person that has ANOTHER gun, right??

    Ergo, GUNS aren't the problem...

    Professional firefighters also fight fires by setting other fires, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that the fire isn't "truly the problem." :)

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Professional firefighters also fight fires by setting other fires, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that the fire isn't "truly the problem." :)

    In that regard fire, like a gun, is a tool...

    Thank you for proving my point...

  104. [104] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Guns are the problem. You arm everyone and you might lessen mass shootings a bit, but the lives saved would be a drop in the bucket compared to the additional deaths due to non-mass shootings and suicides. Mass shootings garner headlines but it's the average of 37 people who also died that day due to gun violence, and the next day, and yesterday, and today and tomorrow and the day after. Triple that if you include suicides. That is the problem. Statistically you are the greatest threat to yourself with a gun, followed by a family member or friend, followed by an acquaintance or business associate. Way, way down the list is being shot by a random person...

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Guns are the problem. You arm everyone and you might lessen mass shootings a bit, but the lives saved would be a drop in the bucket compared to the additional deaths due to non-mass shootings and suicides.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    We know that restrictive gun laws don't work.. Chicago, Baltimore, DC...

    So, why not give the mental health angle a try...

    Why are you so against preventing the psychos from getting guns???

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news...

    DOJ indicts 13 Russians for election meddling, says no Americans were 'knowing participants'
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/16/13-russian-nationals-indicted-for-interfering-in-us-elections.html

    Looks like Mueller just exonerated President Trump.. :D

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    103

    In that regard fire, like a gun, is a tool...

    Thank you for proving my point...

    I didn't prove your point. You said you could prove guns weren't "truly the problem." Some weapons are "truly the problem" and require a professional with a bigger weapon. If some nutcase attacked me with a BB gun, I'd knock his fool ass to the ground.

    I think a good start in solving the "gun problem" would be to admit that it's not an either/or proposition. Guns as well as people are indeed part of the problem. :)

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    . If some nutcase attacked me with a BB gun, I'd knock his fool ass to the ground.

    And that has WHAT to do with guns???

    I think a good start in solving the "gun problem" would be to admit that it's not an either/or proposition. Guns as well as people are indeed part of the problem. :)

    And the gun problem part has been addressed by sensible gun laws...

    There are no facts to support the claim that MORE gun laws will "fix" the problem..

    There is PLENTY of anecdotal and common sense evidence to support the claim that keeping guns out of crazy people's hands will go a long way towards preventing crowd based mass shootings...

    We have tried restrictive gun laws.. Didn't work..

    Why are you so afraid to try mental health laws??

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    106

    Looks like Mueller just exonerated President Trump.. :D

    Looks like Donald Trump lied about Russia being a hoax, and looks like a few indictments does not an entire investigation make.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :)

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :)

    In this case, it is.. :D

    Between Trump's exoneration and the great economy AND Americans getting bonuses and bigger paychecks....

    Looks like the mid-terms are gonna be pretty rosy for President Trump and the GOP.. :D

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facts from today's indictment..

    NO AMERICANS WERE KNOWING PARTICIPANTS...

    Russians worked FOR and AGAINST the Trump Campaign...

    The outcome of the election was NOT ALTERED IN ANY WAY....

    Oh people, people, people.. Did you set your sites sooo high, only to see them crash and burn....

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    108

    And the gun problem part has been addressed by sensible gun laws...

    Your opinion.

    There are no facts to support the claim that MORE gun laws will "fix" the problem..

    Your opinion.

    There is PLENTY of anecdotal and common sense evidence to support the claim that keeping guns out of crazy people's hands will go a long way towards preventing crowd based mass shootings...

    So you're saying guns are part of the problem.

    We have tried restrictive gun laws.. Didn't work..

    Your opinion.

    Why are you so afraid to try mental health laws??

    When did you stop beating your wife? :)

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Indictments... I said it before, and I'll say it again... more coming.

    Pay attention, people. You might learn something. :)

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you're saying guns are part of the problem.

    Crazies who want to mass murder people are the problem. With or without guns..

    When did you stop beating your wife? :)

    AND AGAIN with the attacks on family.. :^/

    Good bye...

  115. [115] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Only to math deficient knuckle draggers who refuse to look up the statistics...

    So, why not give the mental health angle a try...

    Why are you so against preventing the psychos from getting guns???

    It's an and problem not an either/or. Mental health services will not alone fix this problem...

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    114

    Crazies who want to mass murder people are the problem. With or without guns..

    Ah, but "crazies" without AR-15s and similar "military-style" weapons have a whole lot harder time accomplishing mass murder, regardless of whether or not they desire.

    AND AGAIN with the attacks on family.. :^/

    Awwww, come on, snowflake. How is asking you about beating your wife an attack on your family? It quite obviously is NOT; it's a very common example of a loaded question.

    See CW's Friday Talking Points [471], paragraph 1:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/02/09/ftp471/#more-15093

    This is exactly the utter nonsensical garbage you constantly employ, e.g. your question: "Why are you so afraid to try mental health laws??"

    No one here is likely afraid to try mental health laws, but why are you afraid to try removing military grade weapons from the hands of the majority of citizens? Or we could go with your "mental health laws" and let everybody have a tank. I'm up for it. Anyone here mind me owning a fully functional M1 with a really excellent gun? Hope not. ;)

  117. [117] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Facts from today's indictment..

    NO AMERICANS WERE KNOWING PARTICIPANTS...

    Russians worked FOR and AGAINST the Trump Campaign...

    The outcome of the election was NOT ALTERED IN ANY WAY....

    Oh people, people, people.. Did you set your sites sooo high, only to see them crash and burn....

    As usual not quite.... for those interested in honest to god real un-adulterated facts. Here is the indictment.

    https://tinyurl.com/y8cubzv9

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris (in response to Michale),

    But in the future, a different SCOTUS might rule: "The phrase 'a well-regulated militia' obviously applies in the modern world to the National Guard. Therefore, we rule that any citizen has the unalienable right to join the National Guard in their state. By doing so, they will be able to keep -- in a state armory -- and bear arms in support of their country, as the Second Amendment intended. But private ownership of guns is nowhere protected by the Second Amendment, so any restrictions whatsoever upon gun ownership are fully constitutional."

    It's all in interpretation, in other words...

    That is the most sense I've read on this particular aspect of this issue in a very, very long time!

Comments for this article are closed.