Mass Shooting In San Bernardino, California

Unlike J, I believe the Supreme Court has grossly misread the Second Amendment and strongly favor restricting gun possession to law enforcement only. There is no individual right to possess a gun.

Discuss your views here.

< Hearing Held on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Motion for New Trial | Multiple Shooters Suspected in San Bernadino Killings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Registration, license & liability insurance (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Coral on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    I, too, favor restricting guns to law enforcement.

    If that is not possible, I'd like to see ban on sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and all handguns, with strict licensing, registration, and liability insurance requirements for those owning hunting weapons, along with annual inspections and renewals of licenses. Much the way automobile registration and licensing is handled in many states today.

    I Would Like to See... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:12:06 PM EST
    ...mandatory insurance, not just liability, full coverage on each weapon that follows the weapon unless it's sold legally.  If it comes up missing, you still pay for a set period, unless it's registered or found.

    Let the insurance market determine who is a responsible gun owner using real risk variables, like they do with auto insurance.

    I think once gun owners start bearing the real costs of ownership, they might act the way someone should act who owns a dangerous weapon.


    We (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    are, not so slowly, slipping into a dystopia. Where everything is negotiable except for "gun rights".

    Oh well.. (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    even dystopia is ultimately desireable for many on the right..

    It confirms their worldview and means that prophecy is being fulfilled.

    Which explains why they apparently  believe it sacrilege for "big goverment" to regulate anything, including guns and ammo.


    My views are your views (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:42:38 PM EST

    Can you imagine (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    if we reacted to terrorist attacks from "Islamic" terrorists as we do these mass shootings?

    Can't do anything about it....not an issue that should abridge constitutional rights....just a bunch of nuts.....

    We'll know soon enough. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    According to San Bernardino police, one of the three suspects in the attack is dead in a shootout with police officers and county sheriff's deputies, and the other two are in custody with one wounded. LINK.

    It is such a weird (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:13:57 PM EST
    type of shooting.   ISIS and al Qaeda kill themselves as part of the attack--which usually involved bombs.

    Nutcases are usually lone wolfs....usually, as Columbine and Oklahoma City involved  more than one perpetrator....

    But these guys actually tried to escape.


    ... their initial report, and are saying that one suspect is still at large. One has been killed, and one is wounded and may or may not be in custody. One police officer was apparently shot and wounded in the exchange of gunfire, but the injuries are not serious.

    One guy still out there? (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:25:59 PM EST
    This is pretty odd....

    It was initially reported that one of the suspects "rolled out" of the vehicle and was apprehended, and the remaining two opened fire on officers, who returned the fire, killing one of them and wounding the other, who's since been reported as "unresponsive." Apparently, that first suspect was not taken into custody, as was first noted.

    It's now being reported on KNBC-TV News that both the suspects who remained in the vehicle, one male and one female, are deceased. It's also being noted that the third suspect has finally been found, although the police have yet to confirm this. KNBC further reports that it was an anonymous tip that led authorities to a house in nearby Redlands, where the suspects were first located after the shooting.



    KNBC News is now reporting the name of ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    ... one of the suspects as Sayed Farouk. It was not clear whether he is one of the two deceased suspects, or the third suspect that's now in custody.

    I haven't turned the tele (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:06:33 PM EST
    On all day. Not sure I should now. We had a great vacation in Germany and Warsaw. Visited a family in Warsaw who have a little boy who has the same genetic syndrome as my son. There was an older brother the same age as Josh also who loves politics. They discussed politics, U.S. and Poland. Their whole family is very politically astute though.

    I am sad to tell the Bernie supporters that Polish hippies don't know who Bernie Sanders is :) they know Hillary though. And they were pretty astonished that political junkies in the U.S. know all about the plane crash that wiped out their government leaders. Sadly their right wing nut job who is deeply invested in "Russia did it" is now their minister of defense. As Putin gets freaky Russia starts to pivot right in some ways like the U.S.

    It was too much fun, I'm just not up to dealing with this shooting today. It's sort of horrifying in the light of our vacation celebrations. I'm so tired of it all.

    jondee, (and, sj) (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:44:34 PM EST
    The irrefutable, and, tragic truth,
    Is that politics in a "free market, capitalist, winner-take-all, system guarantees that the most ruthless, self-serving, and corrupt candidates will always win.

    As we've been lectured here, blaming voters, who just happen to have jobs, families to raise, and all the other responsibilities just to stay afloat is, simply, the default position for those who are complicit cogs, "apparatchiks" of this corrupt system.

    I will never forget the conversation I had with a great, great psychiatrist years ago while we were watching the Kennedy/Nixon TV debates. At the conclusion of the debates the Doctor turned to me, and, sighed, "the reason why I remain so utterly depressed, and, fatalistic, regarding the future of our 200 yearlong experiment in, "participatory Democracy," is that the very qualities that are required for candidates seeking higher offices of power to win are the very qualities that make them unfit to hold those offices."

    Of course, then comes the teeth-gnashing, inevitable, comeback, "So, what are you going to do about it?" My answer is simple: "accept reality. I don't know of any example in history where power was relinquished peacefully. I served my time in the military; I'm too old to re-up. I cast my hope with today's youngsters who realize the system they've been handed doesn't work.

    Hopefully, that idea will spread, and, coalesce around the fact that the answer for any real change will not come through the voting booth. In order to have a government that truly represents the hopes & aspirations of the citizenry, they will have to.................take it.

    Now why can't Obama ever (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:51:07 PM EST
    give a speech like that? Even once.

    But then I remember: he doesn't have the qualities required. And it wouldn't be expedient.


    Hard to imagine (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:14:37 AM EST
    A scenario worse for peace loving Muslims who want to just be left alone.  As DfromH said-

    who had worked as an environmental health specialist with the San Bernardino County Dept. of Health for the past five years. His co-workers said that he was married, he and his wife had a baby and appeared to be happy, and he had just returned to work from paternity leave. His department even threw a baby shower for him and his wife.

    How is this going to effect the way people see their Muslim coworkers?  I can't see anything good.  This, in a way, make it one of the most terrifying shooting events yet.   In spite of the above they now say it was clearly well planned.  They put some serious thought into this.  Dropping their child off saying they were going to the doctor knowing they would probably never see it again.

    The mind boggles.

    The foundation to (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    the killings is every bit as deadly as the guns deployed-- the motivation, likely, an ideolgic commitment to religious extremism.  And, this extremism is aided, abetted and implanted by a blending of religious and political agendas.

    The drone killing in Yemen of the American Muslim cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, was justified, in largest part, on his stochastic terrorism. A random and effective incitement to act out.

    It is with no less worry for creating actors of terror than in the dangerous pronouncements of candidates like Marco Rubio's "God's law trumps the US Constitution," or Fiorina's deceitful video "showing" the harvesting of baby parts, or Trump's "legitimizing" of torture.  Indeed, is Trump, in accord with his statement to "take out" the families of terrorists, going to advocate for the governmental murder of the San Bernardino terrorist's six month old baby, his mother, father and siblings?  If he doesn't there is likely someone out there who will be happy to pick up the challenge.


    Howdy (2.00 / 4) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:57:54 AM EST
    The killer left a Christmas party and went home, dressed in combat gear, got his wife who dressed the same, put on body amour, masks and returned and killed 14 and injured 14.

    Their weapons were two weapons described as "assault" rifles and two pistols.

    They also had pipe bombs which they had in the SUV but didn't use.

    They both were obviously prepared to do this.

    Call it what you like.

    It was obviously done by people who were radicals and followed the Islamic religion.

    That is the definition of a radical islamist.

    It was an act of terrorism.

    That should not boggle anyone's mind.

    What should boggle everyone's mind is watching the President want to talk about guns and the press afraid to call it what it is.

    Problem solving requires the problem first be accurately defined.

    If the blame is on radicalized Islamists (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    then the blame for the Planned Parenthood attack is on radicalized Christians.

    And then, as the point of problem-solving is to seek a solution, the next step is to ask yourself:  What are you going to do about you?


    Not bad (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 06:43:11 PM EST

    cause (someone) to become an advocate of radical political or social reform.
    "I'm trying to mobilize and radicalize the liberals"

    I'll give you SOME Christians if you will name me the organizations that are equivalent to ISIS, HAMAS, Hezabolah, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood...



    Jim (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 09:11:35 AM EST
    you support people who want to arm terrorists. If it had been another white male who committed a mass murder you would just have shrugged it off or made excuses like you always do.

    So you can whine about "radical Islamists" all you want but the truth is you've been supporting arming domestic terrorists for decades.


    As a personal favor (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    And a comment addressed to me, please don't feed him in this thread.  

    Sorry (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 09:22:10 AM EST
    Mostly lately I have been ignoring him. LOL.

    That was clearly a trolling comment (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 09:25:28 AM EST
    Give it a 1 and ignore it..  

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    This is in no way related to any of the other mass shootings and is just a mentally ill lone-wolf and there's nothing we could have done about it.

    Either that, or it's a brown person who hates us for our values.

    Honestly though, this building... they chose a place where people help the disabled for a living.  I guess it's no worse than a pre-school.

    Right on, Armando (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    The shooting was in a facility to help developmentally disabled people--most young.

    And, Donald Trump looks (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    increasingly like he will be the nominee....

    Reap what you sow, baby.

    oops, I thought this was an open thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    The voice of reason. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 03:23:36 PM EST

    Multiple shooters? (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:06:02 PM EST

    Reports are saying a holiday party of (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    county employees was the target.

    The really scary thing (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:08:23 PM EST
    For me living in the gun culture is how well the right has sold its version of this issue.   There is no grey for so many people.   No control of any kind can be allowed or even rationally discussed.

    An optimist by nature I am not optimistic about this issue.   I don't see a path to sanity.   While I agree with BTD any attempt to move to such a policy IMO will result literally in blood in the streets.    Any attempt to enforce such a thing would result in a thousand Wacos.  Ten thousand maybe.

    My prediction too (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    Not for Nothing... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:39:32 PM EST
    ...but we have major controls on the term used in the 2nd Amendment, 'arms'.  About the only arms we can own are guns, so the idea that the amendment hasn't been seriously restricted is absurd when you think about how many kinds or arms we cannot own.

    I would also argue that if you are going to narrow the 2nd amendment down to guns, fine, then let's start seriously regulating and taxing the F out of bullets.  If your gun is for protection, almost no cost, but if you have a fetish with firing a dangerous weapon, it will become a very expensive habit.  Use the funds for victims of gun violence.  That tax will match the payouts, if violence goes up, so does the tax.  You could even match the violence to the bullet type as not to penalize hunting/sport ammunition.

    IMO there are too many guns to regulate at this point, but bullets are finite, nor would they be hard to tax, there just aren't that many manufacturers.


    I was discussing this very thing (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:48:44 PM EST
    With a gun nut recently.   He told me there are already lots of people who make their own ammunition.   And if that kind of thing passed it would just mean more people would do it.

    Bullet shortage? No problem: Make your own


    Lots of serious shooters (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    roll their own so to speak.  Snipers especially load their own rounds based on the distance and environmental conditions they will be shooting in.  Same for many competition shooters who are looking for rounds with specs they are not able to buy.

    The thing is what I will call combat rounds that do the worst damage are bought while those looking for maximum accuracy will load their own.

    Another point is in say the past ten years there has been a dramatic increase in the cost of ammo which has resulted in an increase in the number of folks rolling their own.


    I know a guy who fired 90,000 rounds (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 01:30:52 AM EST
    through one barrel of one target rifle.  At that point he replaced the barrel.  That's when I heard the astonishing number.  He wouldn't hurt a soul but was as obsessed as any golfer.

    He recycled and reloaded his own.  His machines press out the used primers, press in fresh ones, reshape the neck and body of the used brass, measure and pour the charge of smokeless powder, and press in a fresh bullet.


    No One Makes Their Own Ammo (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 07:25:54 PM EST
    ... they assemble the various parts, and while you can buy new casings, it's considerably cheaper to reuse them, depending on the bullet, some are not reusable, like rimfire, which doesn't have a primer.  The casing, like a shotgun, is a one time use.

    My brother reloads his own, mostly for hunting to have better controls for more dialed in shooting, but a casing is only good for so many uses, it's brass and wears out.  You can't make the parts at home, maybe the lead bullet, but everything else has to be manufactured.

    I think if you ever loaded shells you would realize it is for a a select few, not your average gun owners cup of tea.  It's monotonous, somewhat dangerous with the gunpowder, and if you make bullets, lead fumes.

    In any case, you simply tax the casings, powder, or primer, they can not be made at home.  I would argue those would be far easier to regulate and tax as there is no way the 2nd A covers casings or primers.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    Your average gun owner would be involved in a mass killing spree.  

    And (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    I'm not saying it's not worth a try.   Just reporting what I was told when I brought it up to local gun owners.   I have learned that it's pretty common around here.  
    As for myself, I know zip about it.

    In All Fairness... (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    ...it's hard to imagine anything can be done for mass shootings.  I highly doubt the price of ammo is going make a difference for someone who wants to go out in a blaze of glory and there are way too many guns for someone not to be able to get one over time.

    Depressing thought (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 05:57:26 PM EST
    And probably true

    IMO there are too many guns to regulate (none / 0) (#44)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:53:06 PM EST

    Although the most industrious can always make their own bullets.

    It would entail confiscation of the guns already owned, which happened in Australia, to some degree.

    Australia's program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms.


    And it seems like "gun safety" (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    is the new term the politicians and the media are using, I guess because it is supposedly an easier sell?

    No amount of "gun safety" regulations are going to stop these killings. The guns are being used exactly as intended. Misfirings and accidental shootings are not what I am worried about today.


    Some people think the US has no gun controls.

    And what's rational about every phucking (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    Day in this country somebody with a gun shoots up innocent people?

    Uniersal background checks (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    and stringent mental health screening are perfectly rational under the circumstances in this country.

    And no more gangbangers loading up on guns at out-of-state gun shows.


    I think there is some point (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    where regulation of a right changes it into a privilege, but I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of people who really are the "wrong" kind.

    What about my right to not (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:37:47 PM EST
    Live in fear of the next shooter? What about MY right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Instead of this daily suffering, sorrow, horror

    "Your right?" (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:50:33 PM EST
    The answer is simple, MT; I'm surprised you didn't think of it first.

    Just get yourself a couple of billion dollars, and, you too, can buy yourself a Supreme Court which will "interpret" any law you want any way you want.



    The problem for me to understand (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by fishcamp on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 07:15:43 PM EST
    Is if we closed the gun show loophole, which should have been done eons ago, and enact all the other restrictions we have been talking about, they're will still be millions of guns out there.  If they take away the semi automatic weapons the nut cases will take the time to become sharpshooters.  Why a trio of shooters did this is hard to understand.  They planned it and did it.  Hopefully they don't come down my street, both for my sake and theirs.

    Starting somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 10:47:33 PM EST
    fishcamp: Your argument often becomes THE argument ... because, as you may be suggesting, every alley seems to show a dead-end. May I suggest, tho, that expectations and fixed goals may give us an avenue that could produce a bit of relief.  

    Yes--even with closing the gun show loophole and with bettering registration screening requirements and with other accessories limitations, the guns out there now probably will remains out there.  And, I for one, do not favor anything that is or looks like confiscation.  OTOH, I have reason to think that controls in two areas (in addition to the foregoing) could be a start and would make a dent in this spiraling national tragedy of multiple almost-showcase shootings: (1) Reinstitute ban of assault-style weapons to civilians.  In taking up that challenge, the various groups of concerned citizens together with concerned legislators must loudly, plainly, & coherently make the positive case daily for the position that the Constitution never could have been said to allow for individuals to fashion themselves into personal militias and also stress the common sense argument made by the NYDaily News front page now that patriotism calls for all good men and women to declaim the outrageous slaughter of each other that we are seeing so many weeks of the year. (2) Pursue straightforward legislation against the profiteering gun manufacturers in the sense of expanding their liability in massive murders committed using named assault weapons.  In doing so, state over & over that the goal is not to pursue citizens and their right to possess and legitimately use guns; but, that the goal is to protect all citizens from those who would purvey military-style wares illegally in our country.  BTW, certain exceptions would be in effect for properly credentialed enforcement personnel. (Also: Altering guns already legally purchased into a non-conforming assault mode would be actionable.)

    The fact that legislation can never cure or totally remedy the gun violence problem in this country should not be viewed as a stopper.  Most legislation dealing with ingrained behavioral perceptions face similar challenges.  This may be tougher than most ... but, hey, think about how difficult, daunting, taking on any "morality" issue is ... e.g., think about Sen. Barry Goldwater saying during his 1964 run <as to the Civil Rights legislation> that "you cannot legislate morality."  It did prove difficult; in reality, it still is difficult; but, the country did enact civil rights legislation that changed most peoples' actions and views (not all, but most.)  Or changing 20th century patterns of smoking? Or educating a whole country about the effects of pollution and climate change?  Powerful education programs--top-notch salesmanship from the film & ad industry in support--have always helped when a country is serious.


    If...if...if we could start a social awakening (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    To counteract the gun obsession. I have never known so many people to just be gun nuts like they are right now. Out of their minds, just obsessed, like dogs staring at squirrels through the windows.. It takes them over utterly right now.

    A thousand Wacos.. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    well, it'd give those folks a ready-made community and a place to go..

    I swear this has got something to do with all the antibiotics and psych meds seeping into the groundwater..

    And no, I don't think it was a conspiracy.


    Confirmed: (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    14 Dead....

    14 Injured....

    Of course the paranoid-obsessive (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:20:10 PM EST
    2nd Amendement crowd with their "false flag" delusions are worried about confiscation; they're precisely the first ones who shouldn't to be allowed have guns -- and on some level they're probably aware of this..hence their increased paranoia.

    The problem: (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    You can have 10 people who want unfettered access to guns, and,

    A million who want reasonable regulations.

    And, the problem?

    The ten vote, while the million stay home, and complain.

    I blame the cowards in the Democratic Party who don't use every means at their disposal to galvanize, organize, and, educate the great majority of citizens who want rational laws.

    Just look at what one narcissistic, racist, blowhard (Trump) has been able to do when he's been handed a mic.

    Yet, our President, who has the biggest mic. in the world doesn't know how to use it, except,

    when it's election time.


    If Obama didn't finally grow a pair (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    and find his voice after Newtown, he was never going to.

    And he didn't.

    These mealy-mouthed careerist yuppies he surrounds himself with apparently told him it wasn't politically advisable.


    Look at the bright (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    side. Hillary has at least embraced the hatred she receives from the NRA.

    I Would Argue... (none / 0) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    ...that the gun lobby money plays a way bigger role than anything else.

    Pretty hard when the NRA acts against the desires of their own members, who after Newton, where fine with regulation.  I don't remember the numbers, but it was a strong majority.

    The NRA is in the top 10 most powerful lobby groups in Washington.  And of the top10, I would argue that only one lobby has manged to keep regulation almost nonexistent in their industry.


    Eventually, the decision of Nine (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 10:56:33 PM EST
    It is a good guess that the Supreme Court will have a major say as to any restrictions on gun manufacturers, lobbyists, money-guys that may be enacted at some indeterminate time in the future.  It also goes without saying--almost--that the President and the power of nomination will be a central matter.

    We are consumer nation consuming ourselves (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    The ultimate and logical conclusion of a society entirely based on the formula that 24/7/365 money is always more important that, more precious than, more vulnerable than, and more valued than human beings.

    Our failure, history will record, as utterly inexcusable considering the many benefits we continue to enjoy compared to the bulk of the world's (suffering) population.

    and you can equate money with guns here (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:03:10 PM EST
    interchangeable really. sadly.

    send (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    When people grow up being taught (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 05:26:14 PM EST
    the mythology that people in competition for scarce resources produces "meritocracy", then others become the competition first and human beings secondarily.

    Latest reports I know of (none / 0) (#37)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:31:02 PM EST
    say one of the shooters was at a holiday party for environmental health services.  He got upset, left, quickly returned with two other shooters dressed and armed for combat, quickly shot up the place, and left.  Five minutes later LEOs arrived and found no trace of perps.

    Couple of hours later there was a shoot out with the suspected escape vehicle and two suspects were killed or captured, one suspect is still being chased.

    Seems more like someone going postal more than terrorism.

    He got upset, left (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:49:21 PM EST
    and came back with two others armed with assault weapons and dressed in body armor?

    Why? Because someone wouldn't dance with him?

    That makes no sense whatsoever. This attack was more planned than that.


    True it makes no sense (none / 0) (#45)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    What I was pointing out that one of the shooters was attending (not clear if he was invited) the Christmas party being held by environmental health services, left, and shortly returned with two other shooters dressed and armed for combat, and opened fire.

    I did not address the question of motive.  But if true that one of the shooters was at the party, left and returned it is at least an important fact.


    The point (none / 0) (#47)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 07:00:51 PM EST
    of one of the shooters attending the party is that at least some folks at the party should be able to provide a description of that shooter.  In fact if the shooter was invited they may well know the shooters name and possibly address.

    ... did indeed leave the party, but that as of 6:00pm PST, police do not know yet if that was one of the people who subsequently shot up the room. One of the survivors from the party just told a KNBC reporter that he only saw two shooters enter the room before opening fire, so perhaps that third suspect was waiting in the getaway vehicle. But as Jeralyn often cautions, emotional trauma can sometimes render eyewitness accounts quite unreliable.

    What the police (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:08:20 PM EST
    said at the press conference is that a tip led them to the house in Redlands CA and that the police were watching the house and someone hopped in a car and started to drive away and the police pursued that person. I believe that person is in custody and they are not sure if he or she had anything to do with the shootings.

    Apparently, that "house" is a duplex ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:36:32 PM EST
    ... that has four units and has multiple tenants. Police are also saying that one of the suspects is named Sayed Farouk, and that another of the suspects is Farouk's brother. There are also reports that one pipe bomb and possibly two have been found on the Inland Regional Center property.

    This situation is so surreal and bizarre. We'll have to wait until all the details are finally untangled.



    UPDATE: The LA Times is reporting that ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 11:09:47 PM EST
    ... the Redlands duplex raided tonight by police and the FBI belongs to the Farook family, and that a person named Syed R. Farook was employed by the San Bernardino County Health Department as an environmental health specialist. (This is actually the correct spelling of the suspect's name, whereas I was going off earlier verbalized accounts in KNBC-TV.) This incident is starting to look like a workplace-related dispute that escalated into tragedy, and was not an act of international terrorism.

    pretty sure you're right (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 12:22:59 AM EST
    because the last time somebody pissed me off at a holiday party i flounced out, slipped into combat drag, built an IED & a couple of pipe bombs, talked 2 strangers on the street into putting on masks & body armor & coming back with me, & the 3 of us shot the joint up

    oh, & then the FBI raided my family's house

    #WorkplaceRelatedDispute - yep


    Syed Farook was a U.S. citizen ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 03:07:25 AM EST
    ... who had worked as an environmental health specialist with the San Bernardino County Dept. of Health for the past five years. His co-workers said that he was married, he and his wife had a baby and appeared to be happy, and he had just returned to work from paternity leave. His department even threw a baby shower for him and his wife.

    According to survivors, for some reason Farook got visibly upset during this morning's gathering / party and left abruptly. Now, I don't know what makes people snap like that, any more than you apparently know what's going on here yourself.

    (Authorities are now saying that there were likely only two shooters and not three, as was first reported. That third person who was reported as having been arrested may have just been some poor schmuck who was in the wrong place at the wrong time when police caught up with the two suspects, and who panicked and ran at the first shots in the street.)

    While there was undoubtedly some degree of prior planning, if Farook was so interested in committing an act of international terrorism, then why did he specifically return to the party at the Inland Regional Center's auditorium to deliberately target his SBDOH co-workers, before leaving the scene and returning to his home in Redlands? There were hundreds of people in that building, so why not take them out, too?

    He didn't. His intent was focused almost entirely on his co-workers. He and his wife arrived, methodically gunned them down and then quickly departed before the police arrived. Terrorists are usually not so discriminating when it comes to their victims.

    And that's why, given the information presently at hand, I believe that this tragedy was likely work-related. Further, the shooting was facilitated and rendered possible and even inevitable by the suspects' easy access to very potent weaponry; the .223-caliber DPMS Model A15 and Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifles found in their possession at the time they were killed had been purchased by Farook legally.

    Regardless, the truth will out soon enough. Aloha.


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 05:18:43 AM EST
    Strapped Go Pro's on to film the carnage.

    The dead are just as dead, and the (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 07:47:25 AM EST
    wounded are just as wounded, regardless of whether this fits into the category of "international terrorism."

    It's still the easy access to guns of all kinds that facilitated the carnage.

    We can compile a long list of reasons behind all the violence and killing, but it doesn't change the fact that there are too many guns and too many of them are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

    How many of us traveled to work or school this morning and pondered the idea that something like this could happen to us - that we could start our day like we do every other day, only to have our lives threatened or taken from us by someone who decided using a weapon was the only way to solve whatever problem he or she had?

    And what is the response to yet another bloody event?  We pray, we send condolences, we cry, we have our moment of silence, we flail about trying to make sense of something that will never make sense.  And from some quarters, we are reminded that at least one of the weapons in this shooting was purchased legally.  We latch onto the Middle Eastern name of the shooters.  Oh, but "citizen with a right to own guns."  That's it - that's all we do.  

    We look everywhere, root around for clues and signs, say that if someone wants to kill, it doesn't matter what the weapon was - if it wasn't a gun, it could have been a knife or a bomb.  Oh, okay, I feel better now.  Some people make the argument that if we all had guns, we'd never need to use them - kind of a mutual assured destruction kind of thing - as if carrying a weapon means no one's emotions will ever get the better of them, that mental illness will go away, that people will be smarter and calmer for it.

    And tomorrow we will just go back to "normal."

    Maybe we just want to be the country of death and destruction; we don't want to make health care a right in this country, but we want to make sure that everyone who wants to own a weapon can get one.  That's a right, but health care isn't.  

    That's insane.


    Unfortunately health care (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:14:13 AM EST
    isn't in the constitution.

    And if someone had a weapon inside the building fewer would have died.

    This attack by what is radical islamists, and yes that what they were, proves again that the police can only clean up the mess and try to punish the killers.


    You support (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:48:27 AM EST
    arming terrorists Jim. If this doesn't make the NRA and their enablers shake in their boots I don't know what will. Two mass murders or terrorist attacks in one week whichever you want to call them.

    And rounding up Muslims like you want to do will do nothing to stop the terrorism from white males.


    Don't count on it (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    Check the Times link I just out in the other thread.   There has been more than one a day for this entire year.

    First of all, it has not been established (none / 0) (#112)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 10:17:09 AM EST
    that this was the work of "radical Islamists," as much as you want that to be the case.

    Second, I'm aware that there is no constitution-specific right to health care; my point was that we need to decide what kind of country we want to have and what kind of people we want to be - and a nation that provides more support and protection for the right of people to own weapons than it does for their ability to access health care - including and perhaps especially, mental health care - has its priorities severely out of whack.

    Finally, there is so much more that can be done besides just picking up the bodies; the problem is that you and many others would rather keep the country well-stocked with body bags than bring even a modicum of sanity to this situation.


    Jim's a little conflicted.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 12:46:07 PM EST
    he wants to do something about violent extremists, yet he worships at the alter of Pamela Geller who egged on Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, and he apparently still wants something to be done about the baby-part "harvesters".

    they were rifles! Not handguns. (none / 0) (#48)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    Unless you want to ban all 300 million guns in the USA and somehow search the whole country, banning rifles is a no go.  Funny how people who are sure that the war on drugs is a failure are sure the government can have prohibition of guns and run a war on guns.  
    You can let the marketplace decide by setting increased penalties for gun possession, making use of guns in a crime a vast increaser in penalty (as in hate crimes) and restarting stop and frisk.  If people know that that if they are caught illegally possessing a gun they will go to prison then carrying will decrease.
    Insurance/"driver's licenses" for guns are silly--crooks don't sign up for insurance or licenses.

    Crooks Don't Walk Into Gun Shops... (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 07:47:31 PM EST
    ...and buy guns either, all those illegal guns were once legal, sold to a 'responsible' gun owner.  

    Maybe if we kept track and licensed all the 'responsible' owners and their guns, the crooks wouldn't find it so GD easy to get one.

    Not sure why responsible owners keep pushing back against regulation, I am one, I will license my weapon, no problem.  In a world filled with criminals, most laws impedes the people who don't break the law, but that is how you curb whatever it is you are trying to curb.

    The inference that you don't enact laws because criminals don't follow them is beyond ubsurd.

    The do nothing mentality ain't working either, maybe, like the war on drugs, it's time to do something different and see what happens.  It sure as hell can't get worse on either front.


    Scott, you make a good point, but (none / 0) (#78)
    by fishcamp on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:39:28 PM EST
    After WWll my father and five uncles brought about one hundred guns home from the war.  I still have three of them and they are German and Belgiun.  They are not the wild and spacey looking assault weapons of today but they work just fine.  If my family members brought all those guns home, how many others did as well?  Suddenly everybody wanted guns.  You could walk into a GI Joes and buy guns and walk out the door with no paperwork.  The amassing of guns started and now continues with assault weapons and crazed people buying them.  We definitely need to change, but I don't know how we are going to do it.

    OK... But How Many Crimes... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    ...in America are committed using WWII weapons.

    These two used assault rifles, which they would not have had access to if the right had not thwarted every attempt to extend the assault rifle ban.  No assault riles manufactured after 1994 would be legal in the US.  

    Those guns would not have existed, and sure they probably would have used a different weapon, but as your uncles would probably tell you, some guns work better at killing people than others.

    The military doesn't use assault rifles because they aren't effective at killing human beings.

    I am with you, something needs to be done, but as I mentioned somewhere else, there is no short term solution, it's going to take a generation to reduce the number of guns in circulation, but not doing anything is the the worse possible option IMO.


    Scott, I understand the rifles were purchased (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 06:29:06 PM EST
    legally. If that is true then they were not capable of automatic fire so they were not "assault" weapons.

    And actually the good ole US Navy told me that some weapons kill better than others.

    (Actually I figured that out myself at around age 7 when I discovered by Red Rider BB gun was better at killing black birds than my sling shot.)

    And no, there is no short term solution but we shouldn't be discussing gun control when the context is radical islamist killing Americans.


    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    I figured this was where you would go with the conversation. Killing a few people at the Planned Parenthood clinic is okay but darn if some dark skinned person kills people it's the end of the world or a racist gunning down people in at church just a shrug.

    You have been supporting a party that has been encouraging mass murder due to its alliance with the NRA. Two mass murders this week we can lay at their feet because of their pushing guns. Maybe these people bought guns because they were afraid the gubmint was going to take them away too.

    BTW two of them were straw purchases and your idiot house leader said that he doesn't think people on the terrorist watch list should be restricted from owning guns.

    So as long as you support the NRA, you support arming mass murderers.


    I guess to some people (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 06:45:11 PM EST
    radical christians killing Americans is acceptable.

    in any way, 'cuz if he did - by your logic - he and all Obama supporters would therefor support all the civilian drone killings in the ME, police killing civilians in the USA, etc., etc., and all the other horrific things related to the US that have happened under Obama's watch.

    Oops, 14 people got killed in Riverside yesterday under Obama's watch, so, yeah...

    Sorry to step in, but sometimes such asinine things are said on this site that I just can't not respond.

    You get it, right?

    Probably not...


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    the civilians that are killed in the ME are on Obama's head just like they are for any president. If you want to be president you have to take the heat.

    If you support policies like the NRA does that encourage terrorists to get a hold of guns I think you have responsibility when the fruits of your policies allow mass murderers to get guns.


    in the ME are on everyone's head who supports Obama and/or his presidency.

    One more try: you get it now, right?


    Exactly who was nominated (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 06:42:35 PM EST
    to determine for everyone else what the "context" of the present discussion should be?

    The aspect of the easy availability of weapons in the U.S is just as valid a discussion topic as radical Islam.


    et al (1.00 / 4) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 06:55:18 PM EST
    GA, please quit lying. I have never condoned killing and you know it.

    And what proof do you have that they were "straw purchases?"
    "The guns used during the San Bernardino shooting were purchased legally in the United States, an ATF spokesman said, as authorities continue to piece together the events of the Wednesday morning massacre."

    Don't look at the picture it will scare you.

    And I see that you can't connect the fact that it is two non NRA members who did the killing.

    jondee - To repeat, the first step in problem solving is properly defining the problem.


    Jim You are the Liar (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 07:47:54 PM EST
    I have never condoned killing and you know it.

    Every single person here knows you have, fairly routinely, including, but not limited to killing kids used as shields.


    They're not kids, they're human shields.. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:07:02 PM EST
    things..ciphers..soft targets..

    Like Trump says, kill their families. In the name of conservative family values..


    You didn't mean to but you are (1.00 / 2) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 11:30:49 PM EST
    partly right. You just missed the motive.

    They are human shields put in place by Hamas and/or Hezbollah so that when Israel attacks weapon storage and rocket launch sites people like you and Scott can go.. "Oh! Look! The evil Jews are refusing to let us kill them without fighting back! They must have learned something from what the Nazis did!"


    You Lied... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    ...plain and simple, the rest is fluff, but that is pretty much your MO, lie, deny the lie with another lie, then deflect by putting words on the person that calls you out.

    You are a liar, if calling me a Nazi or Hezbollah sympathizer makes you feel better got for it, doesn't change the fact that you lied.  You have condoned the killing of children and continue to do so.

    I know Nazis and brown people, blah, blah, blah...


    That was meant to be satire, shoe.. (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:29:21 PM EST
    a parody of the mentality of the Jims of the world.

    Apologies, jondee (none / 0) (#149)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    I clicked too fast. It was meant to be a "5." It's been corrected.

    You really don't understand the (1.00 / 3) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 11:24:51 PM EST
    difference in someone killed during a war as an act of defense and some killed by a terrorist, do you?

    Look, I don't mind your hatred of Israel. They are use to it from the loooney Left. But your display of ignorance over such basic things is breath taking.


    Well you'll excuse me if I look elsewhere (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 07:16:34 PM EST
    other than your quarter for a proper, reliable definition of the problem.

    Good point, fishcamp (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:36:27 AM EST
    My father brought home a Japanese rifle, knife and flag. Another uncle brought home a pistol.

    These were later sold/traded for various weapons. I think the rifle  was traded for a 12 gauge pump.

    At age 9 I was given a bolt action 410 shotgun. At age 12 a single shot 22, which I still have. At 14 I purchased a used 30-30 cal single shot rifle.I have owned various shot guns since then. I currently have a 20 gauge pump short barrel (legal length) for home defense.

    I have a friend who shoots muzzle loaders and skeet. He also has a couple of revolvers.

    How do we change??

    We change society. We start teaching respect and love. We either legalize dope or completely outlaw it. We provide job training. We have a minimum wage that supports people and keeps them away from crime.

    Those would be a start and wouldn't break our Constitution and institute a constitutional crisis.


    Police confirmed that the rifles used ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    ... in the assault were assault-style weapons.

    Sigh... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:21:33 PM EST
    Fancy that

    I think a country in which (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:25:09 PM EST
    any yahoo, with a little finagling, can procure an assault rifle, should be considered a "soft target".

    What is an assault rifle? (none / 0) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    There's another misleading term in circulation in USA, the infamous "Assault weapon". This has no technical or tactical definition whatsoever, but is used as a label to mark whatever weapon is not liked by certain US politicians in an attempt to make this weapon to look "evil" and to ban it from civilian sales and ownership. In tactical sense, almost any weapon, from stone or wooden club through flintlock pistol to modern semi- or even full-automatic rifle can be used as weapon of assault, as well as "weapon of defense", "weapon of sport shooting or hunting" etc.

    Uh..now you're going off the deep end (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    and lapsing into wild-swinging NRA-speak.

    The definition of what is considered an assault weapon is much more narrow and restricted than "whatever weapon is not liked by certain politicians and you know it. Or should know it.


    Please (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:59:41 PM EST
    Define it for me.

    Seriously, is there a actual definition of what is a assault rifle, or is it a term used to describe scary guns?

    Does it include single shot?, semi automatic,

    Magazine capacity.

    I just see the term thrown around, and I think there is no actual legal definition of assault rifle.


    Why are you having such a hard time? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:06:26 PM EST
    I just did a quick image search and came up with a dozen-odd weapons that look remarkably alike, as opposed to your "any weapon politicians are scared of"..

    AK-47s, M-16s, AR-15s..

    Quit being a shill for one minute and try having a little honest intellectual curiosity.


    Looking for a definition? You could start here (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 10:17:54 PM EST
    Have to disagree (none / 0) (#67)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:06:19 PM EST
    Legislatures have a very poor record of writing laws that define assault rifles.  I can recall Pelosi being embarrassed when modern SKs were not included in the House's bill but older WWII vintage weapons were.  Any reasonable person would agree the SKs were much more deadly than the older weapons.

    Just as an aside mafia hit mens weapon of choice is a .22, something that would most likely be the last weapon to have it's ownership restricted.


    Mafia hit men aren't (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:08:52 PM EST
    the one's going berserk and gunning down random people in public places.

    Oh, please! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:33:48 PM EST
    ragebot: "Just as an aside mafia hit mens weapon of choice is a .22, something that would most likely be the last weapon to have it's ownership restricted."

    How would you know the preferred weapon of mafia hit men? What did they do, answer a Gallup survey? Both you and Trevor sound like you're regurgitating whatever nonsense you've heard from Fox News about guns.



    Actually, Donald, he sounds like you. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 01:47:17 AM EST
    He remembered an urban legend or did a little research and wrote it up.  You do it all the time.

    The .22 story is an old one.  The .22 has enough energy to penetrate the skull but not enough left afterward to get through the other side, so it ricochets around inside and makes a mess.

    So the story goes.  Or went.  I don't know any "hit men" or if they even exist today in the form of our stereotypes.  "Nines" are what seize today's headlines.


    And Mr.Natural (none / 0) (#113)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    .22 and .45 caliber guns have the muzzle velocity that enables them to use silencers more effectively  than most other pistols.  It has something to do with breaking the sound barrier just as the bullet leaves the barrel, but before it enters the silencer.  Possibly Shooter or jim can better explain this phenomena since they were in the Armed Forces.  MT could probably get a good explanation from her husband.

    Actually he is correct (none / 0) (#114)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    I have a .22 Ruger that is (or was) a common execution handgun for "hit men". The .22 has a low velocity. Makes a small hole, less prone to pass through a body. The bullet usually enters a body then bounces around inside, without exiting. Thus, a favored "hit" weapon. For close up use.

    Plus a .22 is Fairly Quiet... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    ...without a silencer.

    But who cares not too many folks have to worry about a professional hit man taking them out.

    They also uses knives, garrote wire, and poison, but that has nothing to do with anything related to this thread.


    Ragebot... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    ...I would agree, somethings are hard to define, but that is why their are libraries of laws, we do the best what we can, and when in doubt, the courts can determine any discrepancies.

    But we had a good working definition with the caveat that weapons deemed as assault weapons, but not meeting the criteria, could be added by name.

    It worked and stood-up to court challenges.

    Not being able to define something precisely is not a valid reason for not writing laws related to it.  If that was the case, half the constitution wouldn't exist, and certainly the 2A wouldn't because the right to bear arms is without a doubt, imprecise as they get.  Maybe not at the time it was written, but in a time where there are, literally, thousands of different types of arms, guns being one kind, it wasn't even realized that the term would eventually need defining to, more or less, mean one type, guns.

    I think we can all agree that the founding fathers did not think people should have a right to possess nuclear arms, but they certainly didn't mention it, so it's a good thing we have legislators and judiciaries to define/interpret what they could not.

    So if something were to change, like a manufacture coming out with something never seen before, legislators or the judiciary could decide if that weapon is an assault weapon.  And if need be, adjustments to the original law can be made to match technology or changing public opinion.

    Not doing anything because it's hard to define is the worse possible solution in practically any situation.

    Right now because they are legal, it would be very easy to define, if the manufacture calls it an assault weapon, it's an assault weapon.


    For Heaven's sake, Trevor, ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    ... most people here are pretty knowledgeable, and the last thing anyone needs right now is a lecture from you about what does and does not constitute assault weaponry. "Long guns" and "assault-style weapons" are the terms that the San Bernardino Police Dept. spokeswoman used today to describe the weaponry used in the attack.

    This "no one really knows what any assault (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:30:10 PM EST
    weapon is" is the squid ink the NRA and Gun Owners of America squirt into the water after one of these incidents.

    Amazing how the police know what an assault weapon is, but the NRA and errand boys like Trevor have such a hard time figuring it out.


    Basically (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    You are confirming "Assault Weapon " is not defined...not legally

    It is a generic term for a scary looking weapon

    Semi automatic rifles can be "hunting rifles"

    So semi automatic does not define assault weapon,

    I do not know, and am legitimately asking if anyone does know.

    I am gathering it should be based on magazine capacity and barrel size, or length.  A shorter length barrel, less accurate for hunting.


    Take it up with the San Bernardino police (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:48:15 PM EST
    they don't seem to be as confused as you are..

    I do know that what is generally called an assault weapon can, with fairly minor modifications, fire almost as rapidly as some machine guns and no semi-automatic hunting rifle can.


    Lol (none / 0) (#82)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:53:49 PM EST
    A answer from anyone would be nice, San Bernandino police or otherwise.

    I just tend to think that people use it when it is a scary looking weapon.

    It seems to be a generic term without any solid basis

    Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.


    It's (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    a generic term used to describe semi automatic rifles that were designed to be used as combat weapons. Ak-47s and AR-15s were born and bred as weapons of war, unsuited for any purpose except to rapidly and reliably spray lead at an enemy. Thus the term assault rifle to those weapons and knockoffs.                              

    um, no, not semi-auto. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    Combat weapons are generally fully auto. Machine guns, iow...

    The semi-auto-only AR15 is the civilian (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 10:43:11 PM EST
    version of the military M16, which generally can be switched between fully-auto or semi-auto by moving a lever on the gun.

    Officials said the two assault rifles (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 02:05:24 PM EST
    Officials said the two assault rifles were variants of the AR-15, the semiautomatic version of the military M-16 rifle; one was made by DPMS Panther Arms, and the other was a Smith & Wesson M&P model, a designation meaning military and police. The senior law enforcement official said one handgun was made by Llama, and the other by Smith and Wesson.

    California is among a handful of states that ban the sale or possession of many assault weapons, including the most common models, but there are exceptions in the law, and it is not clear whether the suspects' guns were prohibited. It was not known where and how the suspects obtained their weapons, which might have been sold originally in other states, and might have gone through multiple owners. Overall, California has the strictest gun laws in the nation, according to the most recent report card by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

    IIRC (none / 0) (#122)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    the LEOs said the pistols were registered to one of the shooters and legally bought by him but the LEOs were unsure of how the shooter got the long guns.

    What is true is CA has restrictions on high capacity magazines, which are defined as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.  Problem with this is almost all modern magazines are larger than this.  Both the small arms probably have magazines holding over 15 rounds.


    the 2nd amendment somewhat missing (none / 0) (#63)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 08:36:51 PM EST
    There are 2 questions to be considered:

    1) what did those who wrote the 2nd amendment and ratified intend and believe and understand it to mean;


    2) In the absence of a restricting amendment, what is the best policy for a state or city or gov to pursue on the matter of guns or is there such a best policy?

    The scotus ruled in Heller that the right to bear arms was an individual right not restricted or limited to those serving in a local militia and that the right includes having a handgun for self-defense in the home.  Not long afterwards, it clarified that this right includes within it at least some public carry in some way, under some circumstances.

    BTD says he thinks that the scotus got it wrong.  Does he/you think they got it wrong about the original intent of the writers of the 2nd amendment, or that they have given the US a bad policy restriction by trying to go by original intent?

    I have read most of the decision in Heller.  (I have actually read all of the majority decision and not read much of the dissents.)  I believe the decision is sound, though the decision is one on the intent of the writers and ratifiers of the 2nd amendment, and not a question as to what is the best policy for the gov.

    If you/he wish to disagree with the majority opinion, then, is there one of the dissents you believe has the correct analysis in whole or in part?

    I don't think the scotus decisions are morally infallible or infallible in terms of rightly deciding the intent of the original writers or infallible in a variety of several other ways.  So at times I entertain the idea that some decision of theirs is wrong  . . . but they pretty clearly got this one, Heller, right . . .

    I actually like the idea of people being able to disagree with the scotus decisions and state their reasons why . . . though here, I have not read anyone's reasons as to why they believe Heller was wrongly ruled.  Or, do all of you think that Heller was rightly ruled, but that nevertheless, society is better off with the gov keeping handguns away from various sections of the public who are not felons and not DV convicts?

    Problem with Heller (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:16:23 PM EST
    is in theory Heller is sound, but in practice there are problems.

    Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics knows that the largest single group of gun deaths are self inflicted.  After that petty street crime often related to gang disputes over drug territory is next.  We have all seen the claim, which is true, that most weekends in Chicago are more deadly than the so called mass killings; which seem to get all the headlines.

    I have seen several polls about how many folks thinking first amendment rights should be restricted, same goes for the second amendment.

    I ascribe this to many folks thinking the courts should be more in tune with popular opinion instead of following the Constitution.


    The constitution is nothing like (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:21:28 PM EST
    cut and dried; it's subject to interpretation and always has been subject to interpretation.

    For instance, what did the framers have in mind when they purposefully used the words "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment?

    hermeneutics (none / 0) (#74)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    The constitution is like other important and similar documents

    the constitution says or has many things that are clear and there are other things that are subject to dispute.

    a person who reads the koran will almost always agree that it says that there is no God but Allah, but some of them do not agree about the proper meaning or application of jihad.

    a well regulated militia . . . well . . . without having reviewed any of the contemporaneous materials, I would guess that it means one that has meetings and trains and has officers and discipline, rather than a posse gathered together for a single event . . .

    But that does not matter to the intent of the 2nd, because, the majority opinion clearly shows that the phrase that a militia is necessary to the safety of a free state is merely one possible example, out of several, of why "the people" have the right to bear arms.

    Have you read the opinion, if I may ask?


    ... and then ratified by the states and adopted in 1791, when the United States was a relatively poor and primarily rural nation of 3.5 million people deeply suspicious of centralized authority and reluctant to maintain a standing army, and whose biggest city, Philadelphia, had only 103,000 residents. (That number constitutes 79% of present-day Pasadena, CA's population.) Individuals and communities throughout the country in the late 18th century were thus compelled to rely upon only themselves and each other for their own protection.

    Further, it's very clear from both Federalist Paper No. 46 and subsequent debates in the Commonwealth of Virginia prior to that state's ratification of the Constitution that the Second Amendment's author, James Madison, properly defined the function of a "well regulated militia" to be an instrument of government, and not of individual will outside of government authority:

    "I should conclude, from abstracted reasoning, that they were ill founded I should think that, if there were any object which the general government ought to command, it would be the direction of the national forces. And as the force which lies in militia is most safe, the direction of that part ought to be submitted to, in order to render another force unnecessary. The power objected to is necessary, because it is to be employed for national purposes. It is necessary to be given to every government. This is not opinion, but fact. The highest authority may be given, that the want of such authority in the government protracted the late war, and prolonged its calamities.


    "The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia, so as to render them capable of defending the country against external invasions and internal insurrections. But it is urged that abuses may happen. How is it possible to answer objections against the possibility of abuses? It must strike every logical reasoner, that these cannot be entirely provided against. I really thought that the objection in the militia was at an end.  Was there ever a constitution, in which if authority was vested, it must not have been executed by force, if resisted?  Was it not in the contemplation of this state, when contemptuous proceedings were expected, to recur to something of this kind? How is it possible to have a more proper resource than this? That the laws of every country ought to be executed, cannot be denied. That force must be used if necessary, cannot be denied. Can any government be established, that will answer any put, pose whatever, unless force be provided for executing its laws? The Constitution does not say that a standing army shall be called out to execute the laws. Is not this a more proper way?


    "The honorable gentleman says that it is a government of force. If he means military force, the clause under consideration proves the contrary. There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty.  A government leaving it to a man to do his duty or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all." (Emphasis is mine.)
    - "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution" (Volume 3, pages 413-415)

    Fast forward 220 years to the 2010 U.S. census, where we find that our population is now 308 million, of whom only 19.3% live in rural areas. To give that comparison some real perspective, the current population of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area alone (18.4 million) is over five times that of the entire country back in 1790, when Madison addressed Virginia commonwealth convention delegates then debating the matter of the Constitution's ratification.

    The Second Amendment is a constitutional anachronism that reflects needs and conditions in the United States as it existed 228 years ago, which is quite obviously a long-bygone era. Therefore, it should either be:

    (a) Correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and the states to properly reflect the primarily urbanized (80%) country in which we live, so as to effectively provide for the public safety and not undermine it; or

    (b) Relegated to the same legal dustbin as Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which once allowed that "[t]hree-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives."



    Somewhat true, not relevant (none / 0) (#94)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 01:53:49 AM EST
    Have you read the decision in Heller?

    The SCOTUS decision is not just a "decision" but an analysis.  The "analysis" of the SCOTUS includes whether or not the well-regulated militia is to be considered the only purpose of the people's right to bear arms or merely an illustrative and important one of several.

    If having a well-regulated militia is one of several purposes, is one of the other purposes in view that of personal self-defense when threatened or attacked?

    Like you say, in 1787, people had to rely upon themselves almost exclusively for protection . . . and they did so by bearing arms, either as a sole person or in groups of various sizes.

    You are a lawyer; I am not.  You supposedly have been a part of drafting legislation; I have not. . . .

    However, anyone can read the Heller decision and then realize that your information, even if true, does not meet or change the analysis of Heller.

    Shall I quote the Heller decision for you in the relevant paragraph or paragraphs, so you can admit that your "information" does not "meet" or "answer" the analysis of the Heller decision?

    Now, you might claim that our society is so different than we should not be governed by the original intent of the writers of the 2nd amendment, because we have 911 and cell phones and police can arrive, sometimes, in some situations, in less than 10 minutes, in major metropolitan areas, when they hear there is a life-threatening situation.  You could claim that  . . . and that we should and morally "can" disregard the 2nd amendment.

    there is the website opencarry.org and that site has a forum for each of the states in which various people share personal stories or thoughts or anecdotes.  There is more than one person who believes that by carrying, he or she was protected from having a personal item such as a camera being stolen.  A few months ago, an armed Uber driver used his handgun to fire upon and defend himself or others from a maniac gunman.  

    Uber Bans Guns After Driver Uses One to Stop Attempted Mass Shooting

    You seem to be suggesting that the 2nd am does not protect the right or desire of the Uber driver or myself or others to have a handgun or that it should not or we should simply disregard what it meant to the founders.  

    Maybe you live in a house with a large yard and a fence and a security system. . .   Maybe you live in a place like Bill Gates but a little smaller  and you expect the rest of us to die when attacked because police are usually at least 5 minutes away . . . and that assumes "you" or "I" can call them while not being stabbed or shot.  Correct?

    It is not what the founders expected of "us."

    Also, you seem to forget that armed African Americans protected a variety of the peaceful "civil rights leaders" from a variety of attacks.

    Back in Alabama in 1960, your idea of blacks surviving when protesting is only to call on Washington . . . when many of them had served in the armed forces and morally could and should and did protect those about to be or while being attacked.

    You think that the blacks should have laid down their weapons and let the white police and KKK kill them all?



    in the south (none / 0) (#95)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 02:08:21 AM EST
    True or false for Donald . . .

    In the south in the 1960s . . .

    1. the membership in the KKK and the police forces of many cities was significantly overlapping;

    2. in a number of major metropolitan police forces, there were few or no African Americans on the force;

    3. policeman, individually or in groups and/or together with other Klan members, killed and terrorized and brutalized black civil rights protestors;

    4. All armed American blacks who had handguns or rifles should have turned them in to the local police and not used them to defend unarmed protestors or outwardly pacifist civil rights leaders.

    5. It would have been just peachy for the police and KKK to have killed more of the black protestors in the 60s, or at least, burned their homes when the blacks were sleeping inside of them.

    And since when has James Madison's stated original intent regarding the Second Amendment's application "not relevant" to a discussion about the Second Amendment?

    You've definitely got a few screws loose.


    ok, lets try . . . (none / 0) (#99)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 06:54:29 AM EST
    You decline to answer . . .  

    whether or not, during the civil rights protest era of the 1950s and 1960s, those peaceful and law-abiding armed African Americans should have turned in their guns--or otherwise refrained from using them as they in fact did--to protect civil rights protestors or other AAs or other similarly situated protestors, white or black, who were being terrorized, brutalized or threatened by police, whites or the KKK or all three?

    You decline to answer?  

    You are unaware that at least some armed AAs, not part of the police, did so protect a variety of persons?

    Law school does not instill in you any sense of morality and so, you cannot answer what was right and wrong?  Only people who have been to Bible college can answer such questions?  

    As for you, who cares if more AAs who were peacefully protesting or asleep in their homes were killed?

    This is a bit like asking whether or not it was good that Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Chiune Sigura helped Jews escape Germany and you decline to answer whether or not it was good or bad.  You don't know, apparently.


        1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

    (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

    Petitioners and today's dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the
    right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11-12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
    with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2-4

    apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris A General Treatise on Statutes 268-269 (P. Potter ed.
    1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42-45 (2d ed. 1874).3 "`It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy
    often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.
    '" page 4.

    The next several pages of the decision add additional proof and evidence that this is the proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment . . .  that the right of the people to bear arms is broader than what is accomplished merely in militia service and existence.

    Do you agree or disagree with this:

     "`It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy
    often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.
    '" page 4


    the klan part of the police . . . (none / 0) (#139)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    I think (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    He wins on word count

    No small feat (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 07:42:07 PM EST
    If that's not blog-clogging, I don't (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    know what is...

    I imagine we're going to be stuck with him until it's thong weather in Seattle again.



    Just what the world needs.. (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    another fifty year old wandering around looking like he's trying to smuggle grapes into the country.

    if (none / 0) (#152)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 08:10:58 AM EST
    If you folks wish to claim that the Heller decision was wrong,

    then, at least quote and/or interact with its ideas.  The Heller decision claims that the "prefatory clause" does not limit the "operative clause."  That is either true or false.  If true, you can establish all you want about the "militia" and there is still an individual right to bear arms.


    Donald from Hawaii not only declines to interact with a chief claim of Heller, but he alo says he wants to know what the KKK has to do with the 2nd amendment . . .  and it is a plain fact known to anyone who checks that AAs in the civil rights era at times used weapons in defense and protection of peaceful protestors and civil rights protestors and other AAs being threatened or tortured, including those considered pacifists. . . and that white police departments were at times filled with the Klan and often did nothing to prosecute or invite Klan terror.

    He is legally wrong and refuses to examine the Heller idea . . . and when it comes to the civil rights protests of the 50s and 60s, he would give a green light to Klan and police slaughter of people for riding a bus or taking a walk with others.


    re the Heller decision (none / 0) (#153)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 08:18:06 AM EST
    Here we have a whole thread on the topic of Heller . . .

    and it appears that I am the only one to quote from the decision anything longer than 5 words. . . .

    In a forum of legal discussion with a bunch of posters who are  lawyers . . .

    Yeah, I am blog-clogging in part because I have quoted a paragraph from Heller . . . and because I quote the encyclopedia of Alabama about the Klan . . .

    If you folks would quote from and interact with Heller, I'd do slightly less "blog-clogging . . ."


    Or maybe...you could just take the (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 08:53:44 AM EST
    hint and realize that no one wants to discuss this with you - not because they don't have opinions or thoughts on Heller, but because trying to discuss anything with you is like going down the rabbit hole.

    And because we can't trust you not to try to lure people to the creepy corner where you can feed your need for titillation and attention.

    Get a clue.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    I forgot the lesson I learned from an earlier engagement with him. I'll certainly remember it henceforth. Speaking as a former Seattle resident, while that city has long harbored more than its share of eccentric characters, this clown's a certifiable whackjob.

    A properly operating militia? (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:34:11 PM EST
    With a diet high in fibre? (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:35:57 PM EST
    See, now that's a funny. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 02, 2015 at 09:53:36 PM EST
    What I have recently noticed (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    Lots of what has been speculated on/posted yesterday is wrong.

    There were several claims that the two shooters were what I will call dressed for combat.  I have seen several pix of a body beside the rented Ford SUV that was to be returned to the rental agency on the day of the shooting.  The person on the ground was wearing what looked like short pants.  The LEOs in the news conference have confirmed the shooters were wearing what are called load bearing vests.  These vests are basically a vest with lots of pockets to hold things like additional ammo.  They were not bullet proof vests.  Also looked like a bare arms and no head cover.  Hardly what I would call combat clothing.  Also have to wonder about the rental car timing and if the shooter(s) owned a car.

    Seems like the LEOs caught a break when they went to the house and noticed the rental car and started following it leading to the fire fight.  The house thing is interesting (I know it is really a condo in a multi residence building)in that the LEOs at the press conference are sorta wishy washy about the shooters not really living there but using the place as a bomb making factory.  There are unconfirmed reports that neighbors saw what were described as Middle Eastern men taking large box in and out of the house.  The local LEOs are saying the FBI is in charge of investigating what the house was and who visited there.

    While there has been some discussion of loading your own ammo I have seen no indication the shooters did that.  However there was, according to my best guess, a couple of thousand dollars of ammo at the house.  Also a significant investment in tools and stuff to make pipe bombs.  In addition to trips to Pakistan.  Point is while I feel like I am fairly well off there is no way I would spend that much money on that kinda stuff, and I suspect even most "right wing wacko gun nuts" would be in the same boat.

    Conventional wisdom is in a criminal investigation two things that need to be done are construct a time line and follow the money.  I will be interested in seeing the FBI time line and the forensic analysis of the shooters financial position.

    The police (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    were reporting that they had body gear on. Of course, though so much of the time it takes a few days to get the facts sorted out.

    As if the shooting was not bad enough (none / 0) (#124)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    Entitlements (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    "This is one of those stories that's hard for us to hear," said Alison Hermance, director of communications at WildCare in San Rafael. "It's a situation the squirrel has no doubt been fed by people and has been encouraged to get close to people. When he doesn't get what he wants -- he attacks."

    That was amazing.  I'm still laughing.


    Right (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 04:40:31 PM EST
    you shouldn't feed them because they just get fat and lazy and want to sit around watching Judge shows all day..

    My first guess would the squirrel sustained some sort of head injury. I've seen them fall out of trees and survive getting thwacked by cars..


    While rabies in squirrels (none / 0) (#128)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    is relatively rare, rabies would be my first thought about the cause of the squirrel's aggression.

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 03, 2015 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    It's been going on for weeks.   They don't last long with rabies do they.   It wasn't mentioned by any of the animal controll people.

    Sounds like a psycho squirrel.


    They all have different personalities though (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 08:24:56 AM EST
    Like dogs...cats, animals we know better. My grandmother, never a big animal person, saved a nest of baby squirrels when their mother was hit by a car.

    I came to visit, and they would come right up to her. The gentlest one would place him palm on your palm, their feet and pads are velvet soft. The bossy sibling though, he'd stand outside the screen door demanding breakfast, now damn it.  He got worse and worse, eventually breaking into the house. And then once in the house he would become terrified and claustrophobic leaping on everyone and clawing them :( Don't feed the squirrels :)


    Years ago (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    When I lived in a multi story apt building in St Louis I made friends with a squirrel who lived in a tree outside my window.  He didn't like being touched but he/she? Was very friendly.   He would visit every day.    I even made a doggie door like squirrelly window and a little nest where he could come in on cold nights and not have the run of the house.
    One day he just stopped coming.   I tried not to speculate why.

    Dr Carson (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    Easy to see how Carson could confuse (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 09:17:19 AM EST
    Hamas and Hummus. They both begin with the letter "H".They both are found in the Middle East. Who hasn't made the same mistake?

    It's a pita (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    that he can't tell the difference.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    In my case at least Hummus poses the danger of a poison gas attack.

    Fortunately the dogs don't mind.


    And speaking of the Second Amendment, ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 04, 2015 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    ... (Sigh!) Merry Christmas from Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas).

    (That darling little 5-year-old boy in the center of the photo is Michele's grandson Jake, who's packing Grandma's Walther P22.)

    It is my earnest hope that one of these days, what happens in Vegas will finally stay in Vegas courtesy of a coalition of still-sane and newly wised-up district voters, and not be sent back to Carson City for another term of crazy and unhinged.

    Oh, wait, maybe we won't have to worry about that. She's currently considering a run for Congress.

    Oy caramba.