Why doesn't the US do something about mass shootings?

[truethat]

That was for the most part soldiers killing soldiers. Tell us how the US military is going to turn on the civilian population new or in the future.

Like I posted earlier. It's more about seeing the Government violating other rights RIGHT NOW than historical or theoretical future rights.

Read these

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


And then explain Guantanamo Bay as it was used when Bush was in office.

And also explain Rendition as it is going on RIGHT NOW

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...593aa0-5102-11e2-984e-f1de82a7c98a_story.html


https://www.hrw.org/guantanamo-trials

 

[truethat]

Let me see,

► Kent State, May 4, 1970 (National Guards shot and killed 4 student protesters)

► Executive Order 9066, Feb 1942 (the internment of ethnic Japanese American citizens.)

► Blair Mountain, September 1921 (the US Army and the West Virginia Police shot and killed 50-100 miners and their supporters)

► The Bonus Army Incident. July 1932 (the US army fired on a protest march by its own WWI veterans, killing 2 and wounding over 1000. IMO, this was the single most disgraceful use of American soldiers on own citizenry.

Then there is the Little Rock Nine 1954, where the US Army's 101st Airborne went up against the Arkansas NG, and the Rodney King Riots of 1992 that involved the California NG.

Do I need to continue?

Right there at the bolded we can do a full stop. Because that's the best example and it wasn't that long ago. It's usually dusted under the carpet.

Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City was a response to a perceived action like this with the Waco Siege.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

And to add another one, you can also see how the government acted during the McCarthy trials.

The Bill of Rights have been pressed to the wall and violated over and over again in this country. (Think even adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance) and it's been the system of Checks and Balances and the Supreme Court that have pulled our freedoms back out from under government attempts at tyranny over and over again.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Like I posted earlier. It's more about seeing the Government violating other rights RIGHT NOW than historical or theoretical future rights.

Read these

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

<for tidiness>

And then explain Guantanamo Bay as it was used when Bush was in office.

And also explain Rendition as it is going on RIGHT NOW

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...593aa0-5102-11e2-984e-f1de82a7c98a_story.html


https://www.hrw.org/guantanamo-trials

Gitmo and rendition were not used by American law enforcement on American citizens in CONUS. People subjected to them were picked up by CIA arrests and battlefield arrests of suspected terrorists operating in foreign countries. I'm not apologizing for them, I'm explaining how they do not violate constitutional rights of American citizens.

 

[truethat]

Gitmo and rendition were not used by American law enforcement on American citizens in CONUS. People subjected to them were picked up by CIA arrests and battlefield arrests of suspected terrorists operating in foreign countries. I'm not apologizing for them, I'm explaining how they do not violate constitutional rights of American citizens.

Oh I totally get the distinction. And as well, you can see the qualifier about times of war in the Amendment. But to many this a bold example if what the "government would do" if there were not protections in place.

 

[cullennz]

Let me see,

► Kent State, May 4, 1970 (National Guards shot and killed 4 student protesters)

► Executive Order 9066, Feb 1942 (the internment of ethnic Japanese American citizens.)

► Blair Mountain, September 1921 (the US Army and the West Virginia Police shot and killed 50-100 miners and their supporters)

► The Bonus Army Incident. July 1932 (the US army fired on a protest march by its own WWI veterans, killing 2 and wounding over 1000. IMO, this was the single most disgraceful use of American soldiers on own citizenry.

Then there is the Little Rock Nine 1954, where the US Army's 101st Airborne went up against the Arkansas NG, and the Rodney King Riots of 1992 that involved the California NG.

Do I need to continue?

A few more that aren't over 60-90 years old would be handy

 

[truethat]

A few more that aren't over 60-90 years old would be handy

Are you kidding? The Japanese Internment is a HUGE example. Again, it's not about what the government does. They whole point is that Bill of Rights prevents these things from happening. But even with the Bill of Rights they still happen. The point is, this is what the GOVERNMENT WOULD DO if there were not protections in place.


Have fun exploring youtube

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

 

[Ranb]

The military of the 70's and its leadership is not the nearly the same as today. I don't think the American military is going to be going around killing us.

 

[Planigale]

Gitmo and rendition were not used by American law enforcement on American citizens in CONUS. People subjected to them were picked up by CIA arrests and battlefield arrests of suspected terrorists operating in foreign countries. I'm not apologizing for them, I'm explaining how they do not violate constitutional rights of American citizens.

This is exactly the (well one ) problem with the US bill of rights it applies to citizens. Other countries have the concept off human rights; the rights exist because of one's humanity.Historically in the UK it was being a subject - which strictly meant being subject to the crown's authority so did not make any assumptions about nationality or ethnicity.

Many of the Gitmo detainees are literally charged with bearing arms to resist the US government (in their own country), one would have thought they should be heroes of the US right for exerting their 4th? amendment rights. (Although because they are not citizens they do not have that right - which is of course why the Bill of rights did not protect the minority groups previously mentioned.)

Certainly the examples you give of internal use of american military force are sad. The formation of a militia to resist the US government in for instance the detention of ethnic Japanese would probably have made things worse, or the formation of a communist militia to resist McCarthy.

In British historical terms the US national (state) guards are what would be termed in the 18th century militia. Are they regarded as militia within the Bill of Rights in the US?

 

[cullennz]

This is exactly the (well one ) problem with the US bill of rights it applies to citizens. Other countries have the concept off human rights; the rights exist because of one's humanity.Historically in the UK it was being a subject - which strictly meant being subject to the crown's authority so did not make any assumptions about nationality or ethnicity.

Many of the Gitmo detainees are literally charged with bearing arms to resist the US government (in their own country), one would have thought they should be heroes of the US right for exerting their 4th? amendment rights. (Although because they are not citizens they do not have that right - which is of course why the Bill of rights did not protect the minority groups previously mentioned.)

Certainly the examples you give of internal use of american military force are sad. The formation of a militia to resist the US government in for instance the detention of ethnic Japanese would probably have made things worse, or the formation of a communist militia to resist McCarthy.

In British historical terms the US national (state) guards are what would be termed in the 18th century militia. Are they regarded as militia within the Bill of Rights in the US?

They seem to have forgotten the Geneva Convention

 

[Cylinder]

This is exactly the (well one ) problem with the US bill of rights it applies to citizens.

 

[TheAdversary]

I disagree. If good scientific, testable, and repeatable evidence of supernatural forces or entities was to emerge, eventually the vast majority academics
would come to terms with it. There certainly would be resistance at first, and there would likely be a small minority that would never be convinced,
but this happens with virtually every game-changing discovery and/or theory anyway.

Western society is largely dependent on the materialistic worldview. Education, law, healthcare are all running under the assumptions from neuroscience that
the mind is the brain. But more deeply, that religious salvation is incorrect. The entire tower would come crumbling down if evidence for the supernatural
became available. For example, this morning I read about a research that attempted to find a relation between DNA and depression. But if religious tenets
can be taken more seriously, the whole idea of depression changes. The religions of this world always had a concept for this : All existence is sorrow.
That's why they always promised salvation, heaven. The material world is the world of suffering. So if salvation doesn't exist, it makes sense to
attempt to 'cure' depression by therapy, medication or even altering DNA. But if salvation does exist, all of the materialistic solutions will immediately
be invalid and even harmful because they're effectively preventing said salvation because of the insistence on the materialistic pseudo-solution.
This deep anti-religious tendency of the West is also what makes so many cultures suspicious of it. And their blind arrogance that they have the correct
solution and that all religions are evil is what breeds hatred. That's the real reason for religious terrorism.
And as the materialistic worldview becomes more and more absurd, multiverse, computer simulations, magical computer programmers etc. it will at one point
surpass most religions in absurdity. The thread I started on materialism was also about showing that the fundamental oath of Islam is actually more evidence
based now than the materialistic pseudo-religious abominations. Allah is God and Mohammed is His Prophet. Since Mohammed actually did something extraordinary,
he conquered the whole Middle East in his lifetime and stabilized a society that lasted for a very long time and was very prosperous. If you compare that
to magical computer programmers of simulation theory ... Islam is _less_ absurd and _more_ evidence based. And what is the West doing? They're effectively
exterminating everyone who doesn't want to worship the Gods of Materialism. This is also why they're so hysterical about terrorism; Their thought
processes and ideas are less coherent than that of the terrorists. Which is why the terrorists will win.
To solve this problem, the problem of a fall back into barbarism basically, requires a religion that doesn't abandon the scientific method but allows
mankind's continued development. The solution that IS presents to the world is essentially correct except that it uses an outdated religion.
So, in short, there is technically already evidence for the supernatural that surpasses the materialistic equivalents in evidence. And what are those
Western academics doing? They're turning into hysterical frenzied cockroaches. Amen and Amen.

 

[cullennz]

Western society is largely dependent on the materialistic worldview. Education, law, healthcare are all running under the assumptions from neuroscience that
the mind is the brain. But more deeply, that religious salvation is incorrect. The entire tower would come crumbling down if evidence for the supernatural
became available. For example, this morning I read about a research that attempted to find a relation between DNA and depression. But if religious tenets
can be taken more seriously, the whole idea of depression changes. The religions of this world always had a concept for this : All existence is sorrow.
That's why they always promised salvation, heaven. The material world is the world of suffering. So if salvation doesn't exist, it makes sense to
attempt to 'cure' depression by therapy, medication or even altering DNA. But if salvation does exist, all of the materialistic solutions will immediately
be invalid and even harmful because they're effectively preventing said salvation because of the insistence on the materialistic pseudo-solution.
This deep anti-religious tendency of the West is also what makes so many cultures suspicious of it. And their blind arrogance that they have the correct
solution and that all religions are evil is what breeds hatred. That's the real reason for religious terrorism.
And as the materialistic worldview becomes more and more absurd, multiverse, computer simulations, magical computer programmers etc. it will at one point
surpass most religions in absurdity. The thread I started on materialism was also about showing that the fundamental oath of Islam is actually more evidence
based now than the materialistic pseudo-religious abominations. Allah is God and Mohammed is His Prophet. Since Mohammed actually did something extraordinary,
he conquered the whole Middle East in his lifetime and stabilized a society that lasted for a very long time and was very prosperous. If you compare that
to magical computer programmers of simulation theory ... Islam is _less_ absurd and _more_ evidence based. And what is the West doing? They're effectively
exterminating everyone who doesn't want to worship the Gods of Materialism. This is also why they're so hysterical about terrorism; Their thought
processes and ideas are less coherent than that of the terrorists. Which is why the terrorists will win.
To solve this problem, the problem of a fall back into barbarism basically, requires a religion that doesn't abandon the scientific method but allows
mankind's continued development. The solution that IS presents to the world is essentially correct except that it uses an outdated religion.
So, in short, there is technically already evidence for the supernatural that surpasses the materialistic equivalents in evidence. And what are those
Western academics doing? They're turning into hysterical frenzied cockroaches. Amen and Amen.

That's awesome, but the vast majority of the US mass shootings are just done by Americans

Why not try to stop that bit first?

Considering last year more toddlers shot Americans than religious terrorists

 

[truethat]

This is exactly the (well one ) problem with the US bill of rights it applies to citizens. Other countries have the concept off human rights; the rights exist because of one's humanity.Historically in the UK it was being a subject - which strictly meant being subject to the crown's authority so did not make any assumptions about nationality or ethnicity.

Many of the Gitmo detainees are literally charged with bearing arms to resist the US government (in their own country), one would have thought they should be heroes of the US right for exerting their 4th? amendment rights. (Although because they are not citizens they do not have that right - which is of course why the Bill of rights did not protect the minority groups previously mentioned.)

Certainly the examples you give of internal use of american military force are sad. The formation of a militia to resist the US government in for instance the detention of ethnic Japanese would probably have made things worse, or the formation of a communist militia to resist McCarthy.

In British historical terms the US national (state) guards are what would be termed in the 18th century militia. Are they regarded as militia within the Bill of Rights in the US?

This is such a good point. I hope everyone reads this twice.

And if you stop and think about it for a second, this mindset is why some of us look at Trump supporters and can't understand why they are talking about immigrants like they are not PEOPLE.


They exist in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance.


ETA/ Don't want to forget this point, so I'm adding it here.

A good way to think of it is this. How does the rest of the world view the American government? Do they view them as moral, reasonable, and peaceful? The way the rest of the world views America is probably based on the fact that the "Bill of Rights" don't really apply to them. There's a distinction in how citizens are protected. So why is it so hard to understand why Americans, who look at the same government you do, would be suspicious of our government the same way and want those protects to be untouchable.

 

[arthwollipot]

The military of the 70's and its leadership is not the nearly the same as today. I don't think the American military is going to be going around killing us.

It's going to be the Cliven Bundys among you who are going to start the shooting.

 

[Cylinder]

This is such a good point. I hope everyone reads this twice.

Actually, it's just kind of extrapolating ignorance.

The Bill of Rights -- as anyone who was paying attention in US Government class can tell you -- does not only apply to US citizens.

None of the Guantanamo detainees are "literally charged with bearing arms to resist the US government." They are literally charged with offenses such as providing material support for terrorism, murder, conspiracy, piracy, et al -- crimes which exist in most every jurisdiction worldwide and in international law.

Of course, while we were rounding up Japanese from potential invasion areas, the British had already largely completed arresting, relocating or interning German nationals living in proximity to their invasion beaches. Also interned or at least arrested were those foolish enough to speak out about it as well as most anyone who continued participating in the various organized fascist parties in Britain.

 

[truethat]

Actually, it's just kind of extrapolating ignorance.

The Bill of Rights -- as anyone who was paying attention in US Government class can tell you -- does not only apply to US citizens.

None of the Guantanamo detainees are "literally charged with bearing arms to resist the US government." They are literally charged with offenses such as providing material support for terrorism, murder, conspiracy, piracy, et al -- crimes which exist in most every jurisdiction worldwide and in international law.

Of course, while we were rounding up Japanese from potential invasion areas, the British had already largely completed arresting, relocating or interning German nationals living in proximity to their invasion beaches. Also interned or at least arrested were those foolish enough to speak out about it as well as most anyone who continued participating in the various organized fascist parties in Britain.

A. You are correct, that's why I talked about cognitive dissonance but I can see why it being used that way would seem like I was saying it only applied to citizens. Sorry about that.


B. As to the bit of about the British, what the heck does how another country behaves have to do with our own country?

Do you walk around justifying the death penalty by saying "While everyone's criticizing US----ISIS is executing people by beheading them, so we're just doing the same thing."

"They did it tooooooo" is what I call "The Pee Wee Herman Defense" "I know you are, but what am I!!!"

If they did it too and they were also WRONG what the hell difference does it make?

It was WRONG and it was an example of Government Tyranny stripping people of their rights, taking their property away and violating the Bill of Rights.

The point is, the US Government has plenty of evidence that they would do this type of thing.

What the British did is irrelevant.

 

[Cylinder]

As to the bit of about the British, what the heck does how another country behaves have to do with our own country?

If the argument, as it seems to be presented, that one act is outside the norm or unusual then it does become necessary to examine what behavioral norms exist, right?

Both acts were justified by the exigency of the threat as presented at the time and both acts, with the benefit of hindsight, were unnecessary.

 

[truethat]

If the argument, as it seems to be presented, that one act is outside the norm or unusual then it does become necessary to examine what behavioral norms exist, right?

Both acts were justified by the exigency of the threat as presented at the time and both acts, with the benefit of hindsight, were unnecessary.

A form of tyranny.

FTFY

 

[Polaris]

Actually, it's just kind of extrapolating ignorance.

The Bill of Rights -- as anyone who was paying attention in US Government class can tell you -- does not only apply to US citizens.

None of the Guantanamo detainees are "literally charged with bearing arms to resist the US government." They are literally charged with offenses such as providing material support for terrorism, murder, conspiracy, piracy, et al -- crimes which exist in most every jurisdiction worldwide and in international law.

Of course, while we were rounding up Japanese from potential invasion areas, the British had already largely completed arresting, relocating or interning German nationals living in proximity to their invasion beaches. Also interned or at least arrested were those foolish enough to speak out about it as well as most anyone who continued participating in the various organized fascist parties in Britain.

The Japanese rounded up in the US were American citizens. Unless the Germans rounded up in Britain were British subjects of German descent, rather than German citizens who just happened to be in Britain, the comparison fails.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In British historical terms the US national (state) guards are what would be termed in the 18th century militia. Are they regarded as militia within the Bill of Rights in the US?

No. There are states that still have a separate uniformed state militia in addition to Federally funded but effectively State-owned Army and Air Force. Those militias are 100% owned, payed for and equipped by the state with no Federal funding, equipment or support.

The National Guard would be more correctly compared to the national armies of individual nations in Europe, if the EU had a standing Army in addition to EU-funded small national armies. National Guard wear the US flag on the uniform but POTUS has to write the governor a letter formally requesting deployment of the state troops on a federal mission. Technically the governor could refuse, at which point that state would lose all National Guard funding and probably highway money. But the governor could say no.