CDZ My Letter To The President

[Liminal]

I just e-mailed President Obama and posted on his Facebook page. Of course I don't expect any kind of response, but someone on his staff will categorize it for statistical purposes.

Dear Mr President
I am a life long Democrat, I voted for you twice, and have defended your actions even when I didn't completely agree them. But after hearing your knee jerk response the day of terrorist attack in California I seem to have reached my limit for bull shit. Rather than reassuring Americans that their government is working to keep them safe from foreign inspired terrorism, you decided to lecture them about gun control. When you suggested that everyone on the no fly list should be prohibited from buying guns I actually felt sick to my stomach, nauseated from the level of bull shit. Many people realize the no fly list is completely arbitrary with no recourse to appeal. Many celebrities and journalists are on that list. Are they potentially dangerous? Or did they simply make public statements critical of TSA? I think this is the last straw for me, so I've come to some decisions I thought you should know about. First: I am no longer a Democrat, I intend to register as an independent immediately. I already hated the Republicans, but now I despise the Democrats as well. Second: I've decided to join the NRA, just did that on line last night. I can think of no one but you, Mr President, who could have been more effective in persuading me to do so. Thank you for helping me make these decisions.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'd ask you the same question I asked in the other threads, to which no one seems to have an answer: What material difference would it have made to the outcome to have any POTUS state unequivocally "This was clearly a terrorist attack" before all the evidence was in?

I can think of several things, most of them under the umbrella of "Gotchas" (q.v. All Benghazi, All the Time) but not one would have saved any lives, brought anyone back from the dead, or affected the outcome for the shooters.

 

[Auld Phart]

It was the failure of Republicans to support McCain and Romney that forced me out of that party.

and no way was I, or will I, ever be a Democrat.

 

[Liminal]

I'd ask you the same question I asked in the other threads, to which no one seems to have an answer: What material difference would it have made to the outcome to have any POTUS state unequivocally "This was clearly a terrorist attack" before all the evidence was in?

I can think of several things, most of them under the umbrella of "Gotchas" (q.v. All Benghazi, All the Time) but not one would have saved any lives, brought anyone back from the dead, or affected the outcome for the shooters.

If there wasn't enough evidence why did he need to say anything? The President was lecturing the nation while the incident was still ongoing. Bizarre to watch in real time.

 

[gipper]

There is much in your OP that is disheartening.

Why would you defend any politician's actions you disagree with?

BO has been spouting BS for years now, but just now you finally realize it. WTF!!!

I find it terribly depressing that Americans think (or thought) as you do.

Politicians are SCUM...every last one of them, until they prove otherwise by their ACTIONS, not the fucking words.

 

[Liminal]

There is much in your OP that is disheartening.

Why would you defend any politician's actions you disagree with?

BO has been spouting BS for years now, but just now you finally realize it. WTF!!!

I find it terribly depressing that Americans think (or thought) as you do.

Politicians are SCUM...every last one of them, until they prove otherwise by their ACTIONS, not the fucking words.

There's much in your typical black and white, us vs them, right or wrong mentality that is very disheartening. It's that kind of superficial non thinking that allows cartoon characters like Trump to be taken seriously.

 

[gipper]

There is much in your OP that is disheartening.

Why would you defend any politician's actions you disagree with?

BO has been spouting BS for years now, but just now you finally realize it. WTF!!!

I find it terribly depressing that Americans think (or thought) as you do.

Politicians are SCUM...every last one of them, until they prove otherwise by their ACTIONS, not the fucking words.

There's much in your typical black and white, us vs them, right or wrong mentality that is very disheartening. It's that kind of superficial non thinking that allows cartoon characters like Trump to be taken seriously.

Geeze....what does Trump have to do with this topic?

Black and white??? What?

You are terribly confused.

 

[Arianrhod]

If there wasn't enough evidence why did he need to say anything? The President was lecturing the nation while the incident was still ongoing. Bizarre to watch in real time.

At a guess, it's because any POTUS would be expected to say something in the wake of a shooting of this magnitude, regardless of the motive.

It seems to me (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), that it's about protocol. Regardless of who the POTUS is during an incident of this kind where there are multiple violent deaths of Americans on American soil, he'd be expected to make a statement.

As for what you perceive as a "lecture," I can't speak to that. Obama's tone has always been dry (I've never understood those who claim he's a "brilliant speaker"; I've never found him to be so), and I'm guessing that rather than resorting to platitudes about "prayers for the victims," he chose to say something more concrete.

But addressing the public per se, IMO, is expected. Maybe someone can show me where another POTUS failed to do this, because I only recall one incident and I don't want to start a firestorm in here.

 

[Liminal]

There is much in your OP that is disheartening.

Why would you defend any politician's actions you disagree with?

BO has been spouting BS for years now, but just now you finally realize it. WTF!!!

I find it terribly depressing that Americans think (or thought) as you do.

Politicians are SCUM...every last one of them, until they prove otherwise by their ACTIONS, not the fucking words.

There's much in your typical black and white, us vs them, right or wrong mentality that is very disheartening. It's that kind of superficial non thinking that allows cartoon characters like Trump to be taken seriously.

Geeze....what does Trump have to do with this topic?

Black and white??? What?

You are terribly confused.

I'm merely pointing out that you don't have anything of any relevance to contribute.

 

[gipper]

There is much in your OP that is disheartening.

Why would you defend any politician's actions you disagree with?

BO has been spouting BS for years now, but just now you finally realize it. WTF!!!

I find it terribly depressing that Americans think (or thought) as you do.

Politicians are SCUM...every last one of them, until they prove otherwise by their ACTIONS, not the fucking words.

There's much in your typical black and white, us vs them, right or wrong mentality that is very disheartening. It's that kind of superficial non thinking that allows cartoon characters like Trump to be taken seriously.

Geeze....what does Trump have to do with this topic?

Black and white??? What?

You are terribly confused.

I'm merely pointing out that you don't have anything of any relevance to contribute.

You aren't very bright are you?

 

[Liminal]

If there wasn't enough evidence why did he need to say anything? The President was lecturing the nation while the incident was still ongoing. Bizarre to watch in real time.

At a guess, it's because any POTUS would be expected to say something in the wake of a shooting of this magnitude, regardless of the motive.

It seems to me (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), that it's about protocol. Regardless of who the POTUS is during an incident of this kind where there are multiple violent deaths of Americans on American soil, he'd be expected to make a statement.

As for what you perceive as a "lecture," I can't speak to that. Obama's tone has always been dry (I've never understood those who claim he's a "brilliant speaker"; I've never found him to be so), and I'm guessing that rather than resorting to platitudes about "prayers for the victims," he chose to say something more concrete.

But addressing the public per se, IMO, is expected. Maybe someone can show me where another POTUS failed to do this, because I only recall one incident and I don't want to start a firestorm in here.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave his lecture about gun control before anyone really knew what had happened. So he just naturally went to his corner and knee jerked the approved narrative.

 

[Liminal]

There is much in your OP that is disheartening.

Why would you defend any politician's actions you disagree with?

BO has been spouting BS for years now, but just now you finally realize it. WTF!!!

I find it terribly depressing that Americans think (or thought) as you do.

Politicians are SCUM...every last one of them, until they prove otherwise by their ACTIONS, not the fucking words.

There's much in your typical black and white, us vs them, right or wrong mentality that is very disheartening. It's that kind of superficial non thinking that allows cartoon characters like Trump to be taken seriously.

Geeze....what does Trump have to do with this topic?

Black and white??? What?

You are terribly confused.

I'm merely pointing out that you don't have anything of any relevance to contribute.

You aren't very bright are you?

There's no such thing as a Libertarian/Anarchist. Therefore you don't exist. That's how the President deals with existential threats too.

 

[imawhosure]

There is much in your OP that is disheartening.

Why would you defend any politician's actions you disagree with?

BO has been spouting BS for years now, but just now you finally realize it. WTF!!!

I find it terribly depressing that Americans think (or thought) as you do.

Politicians are SCUM...every last one of them, until they prove otherwise by their ACTIONS, not the fucking words.

There's much in your typical black and white, us vs them, right or wrong mentality that is very disheartening. It's that kind of superficial non thinking that allows cartoon characters like Trump to be taken seriously.

Geeze....what does Trump have to do with this topic?

Black and white??? What?

You are terribly confused.

I'm merely pointing out that you don't have anything of any relevance to contribute.

You aren't very bright are you?

There's no such thing as a Libertarian/Anarchist. Therefore you don't exist. That's how the President deals with existential threats too.

Lim, I felt the same way about GW, which is why I became independent also. On 9/11 I was so glad we had him. By the 1st year of his 2nd term, I realized what he really was.

Sometimes good people who are Presidents get bad advice from their advisors, and end up becoming something they are not. I believe that is what happened to Jimmy Carter. It also happened to Bush 1.

But Obama is known for not listening and doing what he wants. The reaction he is getting from many on the left, he has brought upon himself.

 

[Arianrhod]

If there wasn't enough evidence why did he need to say anything? The President was lecturing the nation while the incident was still ongoing. Bizarre to watch in real time.

At a guess, it's because any POTUS would be expected to say something in the wake of a shooting of this magnitude, regardless of the motive.

It seems to me (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), that it's about protocol. Regardless of who the POTUS is during an incident of this kind where there are multiple violent deaths of Americans on American soil, he'd be expected to make a statement.

As for what you perceive as a "lecture," I can't speak to that. Obama's tone has always been dry (I've never understood those who claim he's a "brilliant speaker"; I've never found him to be so), and I'm guessing that rather than resorting to platitudes about "prayers for the victims," he chose to say something more concrete.

But addressing the public per se, IMO, is expected. Maybe someone can show me where another POTUS failed to do this, because I only recall one incident and I don't want to start a firestorm in here.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave his lecture about gun control before anyone really knew what had happened. So he just naturally went to his corner and knee jerked the approved narrative.

Admittedly I don't hang on his every word the way some here do, so I did miss it because I was following the story itself.

But I'm also remembering the incidents of vigilantes beating up "anyone who looks Arab," including Sikhs, and torching their businesses following 9/11.

Given how many people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo since January '09 under the spurious "Obama's gonna take our guns!!!!" and the likes of Trump urging people to spy on their neighbors and report "anything suspicious" following his pronouncements that immigrants were "rapists and murderers," it might have been a cautionary note to prevent people from vigilantism or just plain getting in the way of the police and the FBI (like those asshole "journalists" who broke into the suspects' apartment).

This is yet another instance of guns in the wrong hands that gunlubbers have been trying to obscure by calling it other things.

Before the shooters could be identified, and even after, before their motive could be determined, and even after, the one constant in this event is that the guns used should not have been in the hands of those two people.

I haven't read every thread on the topic, so maybe there is some idiot out there arguing about knives and cars and spoons or, in this instance, "Well, they coulda just blown everybody up," and that last may be true, but it's obvious their goal was to survive the attack, not to be killed by the police, and I may be wrong, but I believe it's a tad bit harder to come by the makings of a suicide vest than the ease with which these guns were obtained.

So it still comes back to guns in the wrong hands, and what the rest of us, as Americans, can do about that.

 

[Liminal]

If there wasn't enough evidence why did he need to say anything? The President was lecturing the nation while the incident was still ongoing. Bizarre to watch in real time.

At a guess, it's because any POTUS would be expected to say something in the wake of a shooting of this magnitude, regardless of the motive.

It seems to me (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), that it's about protocol. Regardless of who the POTUS is during an incident of this kind where there are multiple violent deaths of Americans on American soil, he'd be expected to make a statement.

As for what you perceive as a "lecture," I can't speak to that. Obama's tone has always been dry (I've never understood those who claim he's a "brilliant speaker"; I've never found him to be so), and I'm guessing that rather than resorting to platitudes about "prayers for the victims," he chose to say something more concrete.

But addressing the public per se, IMO, is expected. Maybe someone can show me where another POTUS failed to do this, because I only recall one incident and I don't want to start a firestorm in here.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave his lecture about gun control before anyone really knew what had happened. So he just naturally went to his corner and knee jerked the approved narrative.

Admittedly I don't hang on his every word the way some here do, so I did miss it because I was following the story itself.

But I'm also remembering the incidents of vigilantes beating up "anyone who looks Arab," including Sikhs, and torching their businesses following 9/11.

Given how many people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo since January '09 under the spurious "Obama's gonna take our guns!!!!" and the likes of Trump urging people to spy on their neighbors and report "anything suspicious" following his pronouncements that immigrants were "rapists and murderers," it might have been a cautionary note to prevent people from vigilantism or just plain getting in the way of the police and the FBI (like those asshole "journalists" who broke into the suspects' apartment).

This is yet another instance of guns in the wrong hands that gunlubbers have been trying to obscure by calling it other things.

Before the shooters could be identified, and even after, before their motive could be determined, and even after, the one constant in this event is that the guns used should not have been in the hands of those two people.

I haven't read every thread on the topic, so maybe there is some idiot out there arguing about knives and cars and spoons or, in this instance, "Well, they coulda just blown everybody up," and that last may be true, but it's obvious their goal was to survive the attack, not to be killed by the police, and I may be wrong, but I believe it's a tad bit harder to come by the makings of a suicide vest than the ease with which these guns were obtained.

So it still comes back to guns in the wrong hands, and what the rest of us, as Americans, can do about that.

No, there's actually nothing you can do about that. Just as soon as you make something illegal and unobtainable, an illegal underground market will move in to fill the need. How hard is it to get cocaine and heroin now? More gun control might inhibit a few random nuts and that's all. Meanwhile the slaughter will continue because there are already hundreds of millions of guns in private ownership. So what happens after the next mass shooting? More gun control would be the logical solution then......wouldn't it. And then more control every time there's another emotional outcry after one of these incidents. And so on. Where does that end?

 

[Arianrhod]

If there wasn't enough evidence why did he need to say anything? The President was lecturing the nation while the incident was still ongoing. Bizarre to watch in real time.

At a guess, it's because any POTUS would be expected to say something in the wake of a shooting of this magnitude, regardless of the motive.

It seems to me (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), that it's about protocol. Regardless of who the POTUS is during an incident of this kind where there are multiple violent deaths of Americans on American soil, he'd be expected to make a statement.

As for what you perceive as a "lecture," I can't speak to that. Obama's tone has always been dry (I've never understood those who claim he's a "brilliant speaker"; I've never found him to be so), and I'm guessing that rather than resorting to platitudes about "prayers for the victims," he chose to say something more concrete.

But addressing the public per se, IMO, is expected. Maybe someone can show me where another POTUS failed to do this, because I only recall one incident and I don't want to start a firestorm in here.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave his lecture about gun control before anyone really knew what had happened. So he just naturally went to his corner and knee jerked the approved narrative.

Admittedly I don't hang on his every word the way some here do, so I did miss it because I was following the story itself.

But I'm also remembering the incidents of vigilantes beating up "anyone who looks Arab," including Sikhs, and torching their businesses following 9/11.

Given how many people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo since January '09 under the spurious "Obama's gonna take our guns!!!!" and the likes of Trump urging people to spy on their neighbors and report "anything suspicious" following his pronouncements that immigrants were "rapists and murderers," it might have been a cautionary note to prevent people from vigilantism or just plain getting in the way of the police and the FBI (like those asshole "journalists" who broke into the suspects' apartment).

This is yet another instance of guns in the wrong hands that gunlubbers have been trying to obscure by calling it other things.

Before the shooters could be identified, and even after, before their motive could be determined, and even after, the one constant in this event is that the guns used should not have been in the hands of those two people.

I haven't read every thread on the topic, so maybe there is some idiot out there arguing about knives and cars and spoons or, in this instance, "Well, they coulda just blown everybody up," and that last may be true, but it's obvious their goal was to survive the attack, not to be killed by the police, and I may be wrong, but I believe it's a tad bit harder to come by the makings of a suicide vest than the ease with which these guns were obtained.

So it still comes back to guns in the wrong hands, and what the rest of us, as Americans, can do about that.

No, there's actually nothing you can do about that. Just as soon as you make something illegal and unobtainable, an illegal underground market will move in to fill the need. How hard is it to get cocaine and heroin now? More gun control might inhibit a few random nuts and that's all. Meanwhile the slaughter will continue because there are already hundreds of millions of guns in private ownership. So what happens after the next mass shooting? More gun control would be the logical solution then......wouldn't it. And then more control every time there's another emotional outcry after one of these incidents. And so on. Where does that end?

I see it as a matter of evolving societal norms, and they can evolve forward or backward or, more often than not, two steps forward, one step back.

If you look at the history of the NRA, which began as an organization for hunters and target-shooters and has transmogrified into what it is today, you'll see an interesting object lesson in human behavior.

It's not the only one, but it's the one that's pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Liminal]

If there wasn't enough evidence why did he need to say anything? The President was lecturing the nation while the incident was still ongoing. Bizarre to watch in real time.

At a guess, it's because any POTUS would be expected to say something in the wake of a shooting of this magnitude, regardless of the motive.

It seems to me (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), that it's about protocol. Regardless of who the POTUS is during an incident of this kind where there are multiple violent deaths of Americans on American soil, he'd be expected to make a statement.

As for what you perceive as a "lecture," I can't speak to that. Obama's tone has always been dry (I've never understood those who claim he's a "brilliant speaker"; I've never found him to be so), and I'm guessing that rather than resorting to platitudes about "prayers for the victims," he chose to say something more concrete.

But addressing the public per se, IMO, is expected. Maybe someone can show me where another POTUS failed to do this, because I only recall one incident and I don't want to start a firestorm in here.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave his lecture about gun control before anyone really knew what had happened. So he just naturally went to his corner and knee jerked the approved narrative.

Admittedly I don't hang on his every word the way some here do, so I did miss it because I was following the story itself.

But I'm also remembering the incidents of vigilantes beating up "anyone who looks Arab," including Sikhs, and torching their businesses following 9/11.

Given how many people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo since January '09 under the spurious "Obama's gonna take our guns!!!!" and the likes of Trump urging people to spy on their neighbors and report "anything suspicious" following his pronouncements that immigrants were "rapists and murderers," it might have been a cautionary note to prevent people from vigilantism or just plain getting in the way of the police and the FBI (like those asshole "journalists" who broke into the suspects' apartment).

This is yet another instance of guns in the wrong hands that gunlubbers have been trying to obscure by calling it other things.

Before the shooters could be identified, and even after, before their motive could be determined, and even after, the one constant in this event is that the guns used should not have been in the hands of those two people.

I haven't read every thread on the topic, so maybe there is some idiot out there arguing about knives and cars and spoons or, in this instance, "Well, they coulda just blown everybody up," and that last may be true, but it's obvious their goal was to survive the attack, not to be killed by the police, and I may be wrong, but I believe it's a tad bit harder to come by the makings of a suicide vest than the ease with which these guns were obtained.

So it still comes back to guns in the wrong hands, and what the rest of us, as Americans, can do about that.

No, there's actually nothing you can do about that. Just as soon as you make something illegal and unobtainable, an illegal underground market will move in to fill the need. How hard is it to get cocaine and heroin now? More gun control might inhibit a few random nuts and that's all. Meanwhile the slaughter will continue because there are already hundreds of millions of guns in private ownership. So what happens after the next mass shooting? More gun control would be the logical solution then......wouldn't it. And then more control every time there's another emotional outcry after one of these incidents. And so on. Where does that end?

I see it as a matter of evolving societal norms, and they can evolve forward or backward or, more often than not, two steps forward, one step back.

If you look at the history of the NRA, which began as an organization for hunters and target-shooters and has transmogrified into what it is today, you'll see an interesting object lesson in human behavior.

It's not the only one, but it's the one that's pertinent to this discussion.

Yes, we should all be on our guard about the NRA and the gun industry in this country. Did you know that the total profits from all gun and ammunition sales to the public amounted to about $13 billion last year. That sounds like almost enough money to buy one of Hilary Clinton's Wall St buddies a new swimming pool.

 

[Arianrhod]

At a guess, it's because any POTUS would be expected to say something in the wake of a shooting of this magnitude, regardless of the motive.

It seems to me (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), that it's about protocol. Regardless of who the POTUS is during an incident of this kind where there are multiple violent deaths of Americans on American soil, he'd be expected to make a statement.

As for what you perceive as a "lecture," I can't speak to that. Obama's tone has always been dry (I've never understood those who claim he's a "brilliant speaker"; I've never found him to be so), and I'm guessing that rather than resorting to platitudes about "prayers for the victims," he chose to say something more concrete.

But addressing the public per se, IMO, is expected. Maybe someone can show me where another POTUS failed to do this, because I only recall one incident and I don't want to start a firestorm in here.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave his lecture about gun control before anyone really knew what had happened. So he just naturally went to his corner and knee jerked the approved narrative.

Admittedly I don't hang on his every word the way some here do, so I did miss it because I was following the story itself.

But I'm also remembering the incidents of vigilantes beating up "anyone who looks Arab," including Sikhs, and torching their businesses following 9/11.

Given how many people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo since January '09 under the spurious "Obama's gonna take our guns!!!!" and the likes of Trump urging people to spy on their neighbors and report "anything suspicious" following his pronouncements that immigrants were "rapists and murderers," it might have been a cautionary note to prevent people from vigilantism or just plain getting in the way of the police and the FBI (like those asshole "journalists" who broke into the suspects' apartment).

This is yet another instance of guns in the wrong hands that gunlubbers have been trying to obscure by calling it other things.

Before the shooters could be identified, and even after, before their motive could be determined, and even after, the one constant in this event is that the guns used should not have been in the hands of those two people.

I haven't read every thread on the topic, so maybe there is some idiot out there arguing about knives and cars and spoons or, in this instance, "Well, they coulda just blown everybody up," and that last may be true, but it's obvious their goal was to survive the attack, not to be killed by the police, and I may be wrong, but I believe it's a tad bit harder to come by the makings of a suicide vest than the ease with which these guns were obtained.

So it still comes back to guns in the wrong hands, and what the rest of us, as Americans, can do about that.

No, there's actually nothing you can do about that. Just as soon as you make something illegal and unobtainable, an illegal underground market will move in to fill the need. How hard is it to get cocaine and heroin now? More gun control might inhibit a few random nuts and that's all. Meanwhile the slaughter will continue because there are already hundreds of millions of guns in private ownership. So what happens after the next mass shooting? More gun control would be the logical solution then......wouldn't it. And then more control every time there's another emotional outcry after one of these incidents. And so on. Where does that end?

I see it as a matter of evolving societal norms, and they can evolve forward or backward or, more often than not, two steps forward, one step back.

If you look at the history of the NRA, which began as an organization for hunters and target-shooters and has transmogrified into what it is today, you'll see an interesting object lesson in human behavior.

It's not the only one, but it's the one that's pertinent to this discussion.

Yes, we should all be on our guard about the NRA and the gun industry in this country. Did you know that the total profits from all gun and ammunition sales to the public amounted to about $13 billion last year. That sounds like almost enough money to buy one of Hilary Clinton's Wall St buddies a new swimming pool.

I'm less concerned with profits (though profits fed by fear are discouraging) than with influence. The NRA doesn't own quite as many Congresscritters as Wall Street or the oil companies or Big Pharma, but it's close.

 

[Liminal]

Perhaps you missed it. He gave his lecture about gun control before anyone really knew what had happened. So he just naturally went to his corner and knee jerked the approved narrative.

Admittedly I don't hang on his every word the way some here do, so I did miss it because I was following the story itself.

But I'm also remembering the incidents of vigilantes beating up "anyone who looks Arab," including Sikhs, and torching their businesses following 9/11.

Given how many people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo since January '09 under the spurious "Obama's gonna take our guns!!!!" and the likes of Trump urging people to spy on their neighbors and report "anything suspicious" following his pronouncements that immigrants were "rapists and murderers," it might have been a cautionary note to prevent people from vigilantism or just plain getting in the way of the police and the FBI (like those asshole "journalists" who broke into the suspects' apartment).

This is yet another instance of guns in the wrong hands that gunlubbers have been trying to obscure by calling it other things.

Before the shooters could be identified, and even after, before their motive could be determined, and even after, the one constant in this event is that the guns used should not have been in the hands of those two people.

I haven't read every thread on the topic, so maybe there is some idiot out there arguing about knives and cars and spoons or, in this instance, "Well, they coulda just blown everybody up," and that last may be true, but it's obvious their goal was to survive the attack, not to be killed by the police, and I may be wrong, but I believe it's a tad bit harder to come by the makings of a suicide vest than the ease with which these guns were obtained.

So it still comes back to guns in the wrong hands, and what the rest of us, as Americans, can do about that.

No, there's actually nothing you can do about that. Just as soon as you make something illegal and unobtainable, an illegal underground market will move in to fill the need. How hard is it to get cocaine and heroin now? More gun control might inhibit a few random nuts and that's all. Meanwhile the slaughter will continue because there are already hundreds of millions of guns in private ownership. So what happens after the next mass shooting? More gun control would be the logical solution then......wouldn't it. And then more control every time there's another emotional outcry after one of these incidents. And so on. Where does that end?

I see it as a matter of evolving societal norms, and they can evolve forward or backward or, more often than not, two steps forward, one step back.

If you look at the history of the NRA, which began as an organization for hunters and target-shooters and has transmogrified into what it is today, you'll see an interesting object lesson in human behavior.

It's not the only one, but it's the one that's pertinent to this discussion.

Yes, we should all be on our guard about the NRA and the gun industry in this country. Did you know that the total profits from all gun and ammunition sales to the public amounted to about $13 billion last year. That sounds like almost enough money to buy one of Hilary Clinton's Wall St buddies a new swimming pool.

I'm less concerned with profits (though profits fed by fear are discouraging) than with influence. The NRA doesn't own quite as many Congresscritters as Wall Street or the oil companies or Big Pharma, but it's close.

No, you're simply incorrect about that. It's nowhere near to being on the same scale. The NRA delivers lot's of votes, not lots of money......as the Democrats found out after the assault weapons ban.

 

[Liminal]

Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses -- from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas -- disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda’s leadership.

Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009, in Chattanooga earlier this year, and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.

For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies -- including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom -- have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.

Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations -- to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries -- and with our Muslim communities here at home -- to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process -- and timeline -- to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL -- a group that threatens us all.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill.

Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.

The strategy that we are using now -- airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.

Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.

My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity -- that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges -- whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks -- by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.



I received this e-mail this morning. Probably just a coincidence.