But they didn’t kill with bombs. They killed with guns. And they got what they deserved in return.
Re: #690
Executive Order 9066 was a useless infringement of civil liberties that harmed the war effort overall. Active participants in pro-Japanese-government organizations (about 4,000) had already been under watch. Many of them (and others in other pro-Axis organizations) had already been imprisoned (still rather questionable in terms of due process of the law). Pre-war studies about the loyalty of people of Japanese ancestry found no general threat among the Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans living in the US.
Executive Order 9066 excluded about 120,000 people, including 70,000 US citizens, from the western mainland (but not Hawaii), merely for being of Japanese ancestry. Those not able to move out of the exclusion area on their own were imprisoned.
Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate , such a policy seems tailor made as an attempt to exclude immigration from Latin America, including Mexico. Meanwhile, such countries as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Tunisia, and Lebanon have lower intentional homicide rates than the US, so they would presumably be favored under your scheme.
Is it that surprising?
I never said radicals were not bad. But good of you to admit that you think you are worse. Just bear in mind that, to the millions of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, Americans are the terrorists (and with good cause). Doesn’t mean I condone what Al Qaeda or ISIS do. I just think it’s rich of you to call out how horrible some countries are (with some merit, I grant you) and saying your country is ’ better’ when the US government is the world’s largest terrorist organization. Oh and this is per your definition of the word “Terrorism”(i.e advancing political ideas, even democracy, through war and fear is still considered terrorism).
Is my above statement not fair? Maybe, but so are your comments (that are clearly meant to get a rise out of me. Either that or you’re a xenophobe).
@InfinityMan, I like your post #743.
My wife and I are Jewish. For a time, she had a Muslim boss. The boss is a very nice guy. The boss is not going to shoot anybody. I have been in his house. I have been in his garage. There are no bombs.
The boss suffered from bigotry in this country because he was Muslim. Because he ran a business, we can calculate the loss at over $1 million.
I was not involved but I was watching. It is pretty sad. I don’t think episodes like this speak well about America. There seems to be this fantasy about America as a welcoming place, but there are a lot of bigots in America.
I worked on a team at Bank of America when I was 21. My boss was a Muslim from Syria. A team member asked my boss and me how we could work together? I was flabbergasted by this question. I didn’t know this was an issue. 
I responded, “Huh?” My boss looked at me and shrugged his shoulders. We got along great. This question was really about the person who asked the question. It wasn’t about me or my boss.
I was reading about guns. A survey said 48 percent of gun owners said the number one reason they own guns is protection. That percentage used to be in the 20’s. Hunting used to be the biggest reason, but no more. Why do so many people in America need protection? Protection from what?
UCB, actually, yes, it is surprising. Even people who don’t think things like the American genocides, internment camps, and the holocaust were bad things are usually smart enough not to actually say that to anyone other than like company. The opinion is reprehensible to most people.
Ignorance of history makes me sick to my stomach because we are repeating history and will continue to do so.
Is there any evidence that a significant number of civilians effectively protect themselves against a threat through the use of a gun that they own? Are there numbers?
I’m asking these questions seriously. I wouldn’t know where to look for the evidence. But this forum is full of smart people, and somebody else might know.
Tin hats, Marian. Tin hats. Keeps the martians from reading our thoughts. See, no martians are reading our thoughts so those tin hats must be necessary to protect us and they must work.
“No. But it seems to be the norm in America. Only it’s : Kill the Arabs. Kill the 'Muzzies. Kill the Blacks. Kill the Doctors (at abortion clinics). Kill the children at school. Kill the Latinos. Intern the Japs. Refuse entrance to the Jews. Kill the Churchgoers. Kill the toddlers. It goes on.”
Seriously? You think this is the norm?
" I never said radicals were not bad. But good of you to admit that you think you are worse. Just bear in mind that, to the millions of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, Americans are the terrorists (and with good cause). Doesn’t mean I condone what Al Qaeda or ISIS do. I just think it’s rich of you to call out how horrible some countries are (with some merit, I grant you) and saying your country is ’ better’ when the US government is the world’s largest terrorist organization. Oh and this is per your definition of the word “Terrorism”(i.e advancing political ideas, even democracy, through war and fear is still considered terrorism)."
You seem to absolutely detest this country. Are you an American? Is there anything that you love about this country? Or maybe that’s too much of a stretch. How about something that you like? Or if that’s too difficult to think of an answer to, how about something that you don’t hate? I’m serious, as from your posts, there seems to be nothing but contempt. Is there anything worthwhile about this place?
“I don’t need to defend, as I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe you could tell me what you believe is wrong with “Sharia law”.”
You see nothing wrong with Sharia law. I see a few things that are quite unappealing. In fact horrifying, disgusting, and downright cruel.
Sharia law is an all encompassing law that covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam’s Sharia law is the most intrusive and strict, especially against women.
According to Sharia law:
“Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death (only for those who are Muslims & only in a country where Islamic law is completely implemented).
Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death (not denying by non Muslims but criticizing only at a level where it causes mischief).
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
The punishment for adultery is stoning until death. This is only given if the person admits to it, there are four witnesses, the person does adultery again, and the person admits to doing it again.
A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative, except in matters of extreme importance (i.e. emergencies or life and death situations”
So you see nothing whatsoever wrong with Sharia law. Fascinating. It is eye opening to see this viewpoint. So people who have liked your posts, like @dstark, are you guys still liking em? 
@Marian - I believe there are statistics, and I will look for some to post, that show that a gun in the home is more likely to result in an accidental shooting than protection from an intruder.
My father is a lifetime NRA member, and their magazine always has a column devoted to people who successfully used a gun in their home or at their small business to fend off an intruder/thief. What it lacks is a matching column to illustrate the incidents where child finds gun and shoots self or another child, or where someone is handling a gun and shoots self, etc.
From an anecdotal standpoint, I see accidental shooting stories in the Wa Post pretty much every day. I’m sure the hard statistics will not be difficult to locate.
http://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
This is what I was afraid of. Using a gun for protection requires the gun to be readily available. But storing a gun safely in your home requires NOT having it readily available. There’s a fundamental incompatibility here.
People with carry permits might be the exception.
I’m going to comment on this from personal experience. I grew up in a home with guns. My father was a bit of a collector and he bought into the myth that he could successfully defend us with his guns. He kept them unloaded as we were kids. My father was in lousy physical shape. The idea that he would hear someone breaking in, race up the stairs to their bedroom, get his revolver out, get the bullets out, load the gun, and successfully confront the would-be burglar - who was probably younger and faster - I don’t buy it. As a teen, I would say my friends all knew there were plenty of guns at our house. Looking back - I think there was more risk in having the guns than in not having them.
Nothing ever happened - good or bad. But there are no guns at my house.
This is a good question. And it brings up another issue I’ve been wondering about.
Sometimes people say that restricting gun purchases in the future won’t make any difference, because we already have so many guns in the US that anyone who wants one could get one easily illegally.
I’m wondering if that’s true. And I’m wondering about someone now, trying to get a gun. Let’s think about supply and demand.
Let’s think of 17-year-old Spike, in Chicago. Spike went to terrible schools, and can’t really read that well, but that’s not a hindrance to his future profession of armed robbery. Spike wants to get the tools to pursue his new career, and he has a mind to get a business-like handgun. So he steals some money, and buys a shiny new gun from the straw buyer, an enterprising businessman who imports guns to his neighborhood in bulk and sells them at retail to young and up-and-coming criminals like our boy Spike.
But why doesn’t Spike purchase his weapon from the allegedly widely available selection of black market used guns? Surely used guns are cheaper than new, and young people just starting off in their career have an eye for a bargain. If it’s so easy to buy a used, oh excuse me, pre-owned, gun, why doesn’t Spike do it? And if it’s hard to get a used gun, at least harder than it is to currently to get a new gun, then if we made it more difficult to get a new gun, wouldn’t we have just made it more difficult in general for Spike to get a gun? Which is a good thing?
Just because there are a lot of guns around right now doesn’t mean that Spike would have ready access to a used one if he couldn’t buy a new one. Removing new guns from the marketplace wouldn’t by itself change the criminals’ demand for guns, so we would expect guns to cost more and to be in shorter supply. Maybe they wouldn’t be in enough shorter supply that it would make a difference, but right now a lot of new guns get sold to criminals. My back-of-the-envelope guess is that it would make a difference.
@Marian - to your question on people with carry permits:
What would happen if we allowed a non partisan group to scientifically study gun violence in the US so that we had some real and unbiased statistics? Apparently, the NRA does not want that question answered.
http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7
jRe: insurance. I think most homeowner’s insurance policies would cover the accidental discharge of a firearm in the home causing injury. But I’m not sure. I just filled out our yearly questionnaire for the homeowner’s policy. It asks about the pool, but not about firearms.
No insurance policy covers intentional acts whether with a gun or a car.
So I’m not sure what sort of insurance @LasMa is referring to. As with all insurance, those who have no assets to protect (ie criminals who use guns) have no need for insurance. Those injured or killed by criminals can always sue the criminal or his estate, but usually criminals have no money to make suing worthwhile. And if there were a law requiring a person to carry gun injury insurance (or whatever you’d call it), just like car insurance, the poor wouldn’t carry it no matter that it would be the law.
THIS is what makes me angriest.
Tashfeen Malik, the 29-year-old female shooter in the deadly San Bernardino rampage, was a onetime “modern girl” who became religious during college and then began posting extremist messages on Facebook after arriving in the U.S., a family member in Pakistan told the Los Angeles Times.
This is the latest from the LA Times. And this really makes me angry. The article doesn’t say exactly what those extremist messages were. Were they explicit threats? Did they talk about jihad? I don’t believe for a minute that the mother in law who lived with them didn’t know something was up.
Friends don’t let friends commit murder. If you see something, say something.
The proposed gun laws won’t do anything to stop these killings. But vigilant communities, families, friends who have the balls to report this stuff to police, can stop it.
It’s a complex problem without one simple solution. Yes - people should report to authorities if/when they have knowledge of someone making threats or someone stockpiling weapons. Absolutely.
No gun laws would have prevented these terrorists from implementing a plan that they were hell-bent on implementing. But stricter gun laws would have made their weaponry acquisition process harder, and inevitably would have made them leave more traces of their activity - it would have been easier to pick up. How about rationing? Can’t get more than $300 out of an ATM… Can’t get more than a certain amount of ammo per purchase. And purchases need to be traceable and linked to a national database, so the next time you swipe your gun owner card, the machine will say “sorry, your purchasing limit has been met”. We limit purchases of Sudafed and certain agricultural chemicals… We also limit who can purchase certain chemicals. If my company places an order for a huge amount of certain compounds, we recieve a request for an expanation of what and why are we trying to do with the chemicals - signed by the PI in charge. Why not ammo? Need to shoot a herd of deer? Put it in writing. Make it traceable. Regulation of private business is not a problem… same can be done with guns/ammo.