Putting “shrapnel” into tabacco tins is not making bombs until you add, or at least attempt to acquire, something that will actually explode. I have mason jars full of random nails and screws, does that make me a bomb maker? I fancied myself a novelist when I was 11 or 12 and wrote several “murder mysteries” where all the characters were people I knew, primarily classmates, and the ones I didn’t like were generally the victims. Should I have been charged with attempted assault? Does it make a difference that I was always the hero “detective” instead of the killer?
I can’t disagree more. Let’s say the guy’s name was Ahemed. And lets say Ahemed is from Pakistan and he is a self professed Jihadist. Then he gets caught with bomb making material. Also in his possession is a LIST WITH YOUR Daughter’s name on it. would you still consider him a “disturbed Kid’? or would you call him a Terrorist?
Let me remind you all that white men ( especially white men from Alabama) have a well documented history of terrorism and violence against blacks . You don’t need to watch Django to remind you of that!
Some of you here excusing this son of a bitch’s behavoir is just down right shameful and disgusting. You think he is just a disturbed kid? He had a fing list for god sake and bomb making material( shrapnel)!
This bastard should get hanged.
Chances are that if the kid’s parents play their cards well, they could even sue for damages. In the U.S. criminal law, the concept of Attempted crime requires a physical action directed towards the intended victim, and there are also no grounds for Conspiracy: there’s no one-man conspiracy to commit a crime in the U.S as it requires two or more persons. The kid would need at least another little nutjob to establish the legal concept of conspiracy.
Still it’s good they brought to light this mofo.
So your argument is that he isn’t a disturbed kid; he’s just white??
It’s pretty common for teenagers to have lists of people they hate and would like to see dead. And although it’s great for selling newstime, it’s pretty uncommon, statistically, that they actually go and kill them. And lots of teenagers experiment with bombs and gunpowder and such. I liked to blow things up as a kid too, but I didn’t want to kill people.
If the kid really intended to do this, yes, he’s scum and needs to be taken down, but this evidence is just circumstantial. And if you arrested every kid with a “I wish these people would die” list and something in their posession or on their computer which is potentially lethal, you’d have 1000’s of times more kids arrested than actually do anything, and the vast majority of them would just be dreaming.
I’m not saying it isn’t bad to hate people, and it looks like he had it in for blacks and gays (which I didn’t realize until I read the article), which is disgusting. But you gotta have firmer evidence than this to start arresting and prosecuting, or pretty soon just start arresting people just because they don’t brush their teeth the right way in the morning.
There are hordes of AK47-owning people in the Middle East who say “death to USA” on a regular basis. However, it’s not an act of terrorism or war unless they actually do something.
Anyway, no one disagrees that the kid is messed up. When I enact my supreme dictatorship over the USA, there is a good chance I will round up people who I think are douche bags and imprison them. This guy would probably make this list, as well as Westboro Baptist Church, modern KKK, and other people like that.
Unfortunately, ohai-topia is still at least a few years in the making. In the mean time, US law gives people certain protections from prosecution for unproved crimes. Unfortunately, douchebags also fall under this protection.
is this your attempt to redicule my argument? or you cant relate to the fear of white supremacist?
Your parallel with Ahmed is an attempt to argue that fearing a potential white supremicist is equivalent to how white people or jews might feel about a potential jihadist (or a member of the Nazi party).
But the thing is that with a jihadist or a Nazi, they actually have to do something threatening before we can act against them. Where is the line that separates arrestable from non-arrestable. It’s got to be something concrete, and meaningful, and not just based on “that looks scary, let’s take him out.” Otherwise, you start imprisoning people for thought crimes, or pushing people onto subway tracks because they are Sikh, and are clearly conspiring with Al Qaida because you think a turban is the same as a keffiyeh.
As long as there is a line, and it’s clear, concrete, and well known, and a useful distinguisher of who is going to commit terror and who isn’t, I’m ok with it. In fact, I think that this case highlights the need to develop and clarify that line. Maybe the kid has crossed it, and then I’d be ok with it, but then let’s be very clear about where the line is. But right now it just looks like “gee, that’s kinda scary, let’s fry him.”
A mental health approach will catch and have these people more closely observed than a policing approach. And it is probably more appropriate for the grey area where behavior is disturbing but not yet illegal. I don’t have a problem with peopel being monitored and investigated if they are potentially dangerous, but something has to be pretty imminent if you are going to run in and arrest them.
I don’t arrest everything that seems threatening. That’s why I am against “driving while black” arrests too.
My point exactly…so in your mind “driving while black” seems threatening. No wonder you dont get it.
Ok, I’m just going to take a breather here.
It’s the starting point for a philosophical libertarian debate on the right to bear arms. Amazingly there are actually a vocal contigent of anarcho-libertarians that believe the right to bear arms entitles citizens to own nuclear weapons. I don’t fall into that category.
So you have to ask why. Simple right? No one should be allowed to own something that’s sole purpose to to kill a massive amount of people so easily. Ok, so let’s also cross off biological and chemical weapons as well. Most rational people can agree the average joe doesn’t need those either. Or probably ICBMs, fully operational fighter jets or Appache helicopters are out too.
All of those fail the sniff test because people say, “come on, seriously? Who needs an ICBM?” Eventually though, it gets mirky. Right now that point happens right around assault rifles. Are they used for hunting? No. Are they optimal for home defense? No. Are they around solely to kill the maximum number of people in the most efficient way possible? Check.
So, as rational people that still hold liberty dear, why do we need assault rifles? What exactly is the downside to attempting to remove them from circulation? Guys like Turd - and myself - will argue it’s a slippery slope when others decide what you should and should not be allowed to own. This is where idealism and realism collide. I fall on the side of banning assault rifles.
How about free speech? You shouldn’t be able to punish people based on why they say or believe. Assault is assault. It’s not a worse crime if I hate you.
Edit: First time of the New Year, but I’m in near complete agreement with bchad on this one. Mental health is the issue. Gun control is a symptom. Stop the crazies and we could have all the fun toys we want. Take away all the fun toys and the crazies will just find another way. That said, I’m all about treating symptoms until we can find a cure. Just don’t want to lose sight on what’s important here.
Not that I necessarily disagree with anything, but it’s not always possible to cure certain things. Maybe there is no cure for mental illness and 0.01% of people will be crazy no matter what. In which case, we don’t have much choice but to treat the symptoms indefinitely.
Stormy, this is the last warning on the f bombs. I just deleted your last post because I didn’t want to waste my time filtering it. Pull it together. Also, Bchad’s making some good points, but you’re clearly too much in a mindless tizzy to be rational.
Columbine occured while the federal assault weapons ban was still in place. Connecticut occured despite having a statewide assault weapons ban. This guy just decided to make bombs. So not sure how effective the “treatment of symptoms” would be.
No one banned hate speach. They banned hate crimes. Unless you’re considering hate crimes to be free speach (which is what defending hate crimes with the first ammendment implies)?
Anyhow, none of that refutes any of what I said.
False. I’ve used “assault weapons” to hunt in some states.
False again? What the hell else would be more optimal? I mean, it depends on the circumstance, but if you tell me someone’s in the house with an intent to do harm and I have a choice, I’m going AR ten times out of ten. You could argue shotty, but that depends on the individual and layout of the house.
[/quote]
Have you ever even shot one, or are you one of the large majority of people who are describing and labeling things they’ve never even touched?
This argument is entirely wrong. They are ruled out because they play NO role in personal defense and are either A) Offensive weapons or B) Only effective against military forces or large civilian populations.
Furthermore, your understanding of the second ammendment is flawed, which contributes to your faulty train of logic. Read BChad’s quote from the other thread where he posts the verbatim second amendment text referencing militais to maintain independence from the state. The reason nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and ICBMs are further ruled out is because they are not even sanctioned for milita control and acquisition by international bodies. Take it up with NATO. But your failure to recognize the true purpose of the 2nd ammendment and what it explicitely states pervades the rest of your faulty reasoning against assault weapons. The ammendment woudln’t be worth the paper it is written on without the right to own those rifles.
You reference the vague concept of the constitution a lot for someone who appears to have never read it or maintain any familiarity with the contents. You do know it’s an actual document right?
BS - You make it sound like you’re going to be set up in your living room, AR in hand just waiting for the intruder. I’m willing to bet that in the majority of home invasions across the US, the home-owner is unable to even get into the same room where he keeps his firearm.
Regarding the ban of the weapons used at Columbine/Newtown, of course there are exceptions, but isn’t it obvious that if you make it more difficult for people to obtain weapons, the likelihood of these tragedies will decrease? I get it that people can make bombs, obtain weapons illegally, or find many other methods of inflicting pain/murdering, etc., but limiting the availability of weapons is low hanging fruit in my opinion.
Our house growing up had guns stashed in about 5 different rooms, the master bedroom had two pistols (closet / nightstand), a shotty (closet) and and uzi (under bed), two pistols in the master study and then a ton of junk in the basement.
My current apartment, I have a baretta with 3 in the clip (to protect the springs) in my nightstand.
I get excedingly frustrated with people who are clearly from non-firearm owning households making innaccurate statements. In rural areas like where I grew up, policeman are 20 minutes away. We don’t have cops on every corner, although we also don’t have urban crime rates like those in NYC where guns are “banned”. Our situation is different, and we got sick of people telling us it’s the same while our taxes support their urban police forces (often with state funding components) and security blankets.
I don’t know if sacrificing constitutional rights (that does provide home defense and does provide deterrant to government abuse) because of one nutjob is really an “obvious” course of action. Furthermore, the first and most notorious mass shootings occured under the federal ban, the connecticut one occured under a state AR ban, and overall, firearm deaths fell every year following the LIFTING of the federal assault weapons ban. So no, I don’t think that is an obvious conclusion, or an effective one.
What I would support are individual states passing their own legislation which is something that IS within their power. I don’t understand why people have to complain about it on a federal level. It would be a simple thing to to pass strict gun laws in many states, and I think that people should have the laws they want. Ban all guns in CT, NY, and MA for all I care, but let people in more rural states like WV and KY still have their way as well.
@BS re: hate crimes: I didn’t say they’re protected by free speech. I’m saying we don’t need extra laws to punish people for what they were thinking while they were committing a crime. If you want to dole out punishment based on the negative effects on society, good luck with that. By your rationale killing a homeless person would be akin to a parking ticket. Or, perhaps we’re already going that way by not going after HSBC for laundering the drug cartels’ money because of the negative effects on the economy? No, I’d rather we just make actions illegal and leave it at that.
You make it sound like I’m just making this stance up. Just Google free speech vs hate crimes. You’ll see it’s not much of an issue these days…much more of a 2005-2008 topic, but the debate was intense. Hell, even the ACLU was against hate crime legislation for fear it would impede on free speech until the law was broadened.
Re: gun control: Look, if you want to go all militia on me and say we still need guns to keep the King of England out of our backyards that’s fine. I actually wasn’t arguing the constitutionality of ICBM’s or assault rifles. I was arguing that the pure libertarian - and far right gun nut - mentality is flawed. At some point you need to use common sense and stop blindly adhering to this culture of firearm worship. Hanguns? Fine. Shotguns? Cool. Hunting rifles? Go get 'em. Assault rifles that can hold dozens (sometimes hundreds) of rounds that can demolish a concrete wall from a couple thousand yards away? Why?