I haven’t seen this mentioned (but I’m only skimming) but it was reported earlier that the “wife” (?) is here on a fiance visa.
^^^^ can’t decide or can’t admit ?
And I think the victims and their families wouldn’t have difficulty calling it what it is
Yes it would be a start but one that I am not entirely sure we should undertake. I know many responsible gun owners; people who have no time for the NRA’s nonsense. And, how would additional gun ownership restrictions have stopped this married couple? Neither had a felony conviction or a history of mental health problems.
“Who has said the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to have bombs?”
What weapons are illegal in the US? Is a vinegar and baking soda bomb illegal?
http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/bomb-making-is-illegal.html
Why are fireworks legal to possess and use in some states, if they are bombs?
And honestly, it’s a misdemeanor in CA depending on the situation:
http://www.shouselaw.com/destructive-device.html
And possessing several ounces of pot is a misdemeanor too.
The American home-grown islamic terrorists seem particularly pathetic. It’s like they’re ambivalent about the martyrdom aspect of it. They would prefer to continue their relatively comfortable American lifestyles. ** Islamic terrorist-lite.**
The Tsarnaev brothers also didn’t intend to die. I guess they wanted to go home to a warm bed and XBox games. Not being willing to die really cut their potential impact as terrorists.
@busdriver11 had some reasonable suggestions about guns, things like getting rid of the private sale provisions without background checks, things like having accountability for the guns you own, things like having legal restrictions on the refire rate and magazine size, would help, there is no doubt about that. Requiring gun owners show proof of taking a gun safety course would be nice and holding gun owner liable if the weapons are not properly secured is another nice feature. It won’t stop everything, but it almost assuredly would help cut down incidents like this, both done with legal and illegal guns.
Why would it cut down illegal gun crimes? What people who claim if you limit legal guns criminals would still have them totally ignore, deliberately, is that the loose nature of legal gun sales feeds the black market, and it is not trivial. Right now, someone in Georgia or Arkansas can legally buy guns, fill up the trunk of his car, drive to someplace with restrictive gun laws like NYC, Chicago, now LA, and sell the guns in the black market. If the gun gets traced back to them, nothing can be done to them, they can say “oh, I lost that gun” or “Oh, I sold it to someone, I forget his name, Joe something”, or “Oh, must have been stolen”, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to them. There is no requirement in more than a few states that lost or stolen guns have to be reported; meanwhile, in all 50 states, if you own a car and it is used in commission of a crime, and you don’t report it missing or stolen, you will be assumed to be an accomplice to the crime. If we had rational laws where gun ownership had real responsibilty attached to it, the way we do with car ownership, rather than being something too many see as a right to buy like fishing tackle, it would cut down the flow of weapons into the black market, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. If a rifle like an AR15 was not legally available to the shooter (they were purchased before Californian banned them and tightened buying rules), the shooter may still have struck, but wouldn’t have killed and wounded as many and the cops certainly would not have faced the hail of gunfire they did from the guy and probably his wife having AR15’s.
Nothing will prevent all incidents like this, but there is a role for rationlizing gun ownership and having uniform rules. Opponents would have a hard time arguing that the federal government doesn’t have the right to regulate gun ownership rules, it already makes certain classes of weapons, like fully automatic weapons, or things like RPG’s and stinger missles and such, either heavily regulated or totally illegal for civilians to own them, and weapons are inherently an interstate issue, all they have to bring up is the number of guns pulled from the streets of NYC and Chicago that comes from other states. Not going to happen, the gun manufacturers and their marketing arm, the NRA, has too much money to spread around, but it would help.
Consider this possibility: Perhaps these two people were involved with a group that was planning an act that we would all recognize as a terrorist act – something that would require the large amount of ammunition and explosives stored at their home. But they were also unstable people who were easily tempted. And when something unpleasant happened at the guy’s job, they decided to take advantage of some of the stuff stored on their property to go on a vendetta of their own.
This would explain why the FBI is investigating now. Perhaps the terrorist act is still being planned by the others in the group – it’s just been delayed a bit because a lot of the firepower has been confiscated or used.
It seems to me that several posters got a taste of what it feels like to have their religion put under the spotlight and called “violent”, and didn’t like it one bit.
Not so nice being on the other side of the barrel, is it?
I agree with several of the posters that the mother must have been lacking in basic human compassion or - at the very least - incredibly stupid to have joined in a venture like this when she has a baby at home.
Point in case: America has a gun problem. Anyone on either side of the gun debate should see that. Mass shootings that outnumber the days of the year are not normal, teenagers and young adults shooting their classmates is not normal, and ‘ordinary citizens’ buying and stocking guns and ammunition when they have no intention of hunting animals is * not ]* normal.
Many of the politicians in Congress have degrees from the same eight colleges that thousands of students on this website are trying to get into. Most have graduate degrees. None are stupid (in the most basic meaning). While all the suggestions made on this - and other - threads regarding gun regulation are useful, I am sure that those same politicians can come up with something ten times more effective (and do not infringe on anybody’s Second Amendment rights) and put it into place very quickly if they wished. So what is stopping them?
Here’s to hoping that no more mass shootings happen this year. I’ve unfortunately grown numb to this sort of tragedy , and I suspect most of you have as well.
What Marian says is looking more plausible. It’s a floor wax AND a dessert topping-- in the hybrid theory, the San Bernardino killers were jihadists planning a big terrorist attack, but then they got mad and started shooting co-workers in a snit. Which might mean, horribly, that the death of 14 people in this workplace assault prevented the death of even more people in a planned terrorist attack.
I would have said she was lacking in basic human compassion when she killed 14 people, regardless of whether she had a baby at home. And why single out the mother? Didn’t the father also leave a baby at home?
Hey, at least they arranged for someone to take care of the baby.
That’s because it’s ALWAYS the mother who gets singled out for being a bad parent for not being there 24/7 for their kids. A cynical lol, women can’t even be cold-blooded terrorists and not get criticized for being a bad mother.
I, personally, only need 4,799 guns to feel secure. Otherwise, I am not safe.
This guy, on the other hand, needs 5,000. If 5,000 guns aren’t going to make you feel secure, you really should talk to a psychiatrist. And don’t commit crimes…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hoard-nearly-5-000-guns-shows-ease-200547133.html
You’re asking a lot. We’ve got almost a month to go.
Cardinal Fang, are you going to start challenging Hunt for wittiest poster?
One of my kid’s friends was one of the law enforcement officers guarding the streets of San Bernardino yesterday.
He was creating real safe spaces for the citizens of that community while real bullets flew in the streets. He’s just a couple of years out of college. Contrast with the pampered privileged campus babies who need safe spaces from such horrors as Halloween costumes, the word ‘master’ and any mention of Woodrow Wilson.
^^^ Oh, please. There are plenty of posts for that.
You’re right. I was planning to write “parents” but I got up and came back to the computer. No excuse though, and I apologize.
I think maybe it has to do with how the mother is the one who actually carries the babies for 9 months and has to go through all the horrible side effects and then years of no sleep. It kind of creates a special connection. But I agree, the blame should not be laid on the mother’s shoulder alone; if anything, her and her husband share the full blame.
The contrast of young people of roughly the same age struck me. I don’t think the point has been made before: the insignificance of what upset the college students compared to real threats.
" Oh, please. There are plenty of posts for that. "
I can only speak for myself, but I would find it really helpful if comments that try to silence opposing opinions weren’t smacked down …believe it or not , some of us find comfort in knowing that we aren’t alone in our thoughts on what is happening in our country, in this world.