Domestic Right Wing Terrorists!

[Teatownclown]

The Sikh community around the country has seen an increase in bias attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, with its members often confused for Muslims. The Sikh religion does not have its roots in the Middle East but in Punjab, on the Indian subcontinent. Many faithful grow their beards long and, in keeping with their faith, wear turbans.

In April, Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York and co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Indian and Indian Americans, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. urging that data be collected on hate crimes committed against Sikh-Americans.

In the last year alone, Mr. Crowley said in the letter, two Sikh men in Sacramento were killed, a Sikh temple in Michigan was vandalized and a Sikh man was beaten in New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/shooting-reported-at-temple-in-wisconsin.html?_r=2&hp

If this doesn't say a mouthful. American's are sub human. Our government is inept.

[Red Arrow]

Something other than saving America by destroying it's freedoms.
...and a lot less theater.

So, like the rest of us, you know what you don't want but don't have something else to propose as a replacement.

[cynical]

They say that the first step is recognizing that there is a problem. I think most Americans agree that there is a problem but profoundly disagree about what the problem is. Some say it's too many guns, some say it's too few guns, some say it's too much rage, some say the filthy liberals have removed God from the classroom, while the Tulsa World commenters believe we have too many Brown People. Where do you start? Meanwhile, we see popular culture promoting a paranoid vision of the National Security State provoking arguments about which brand of smart phone is hardest for Big Brother to crack. Read Corey Doctorow's Little Brother. Porn scanners in airports, anyone?

So, like the rest of us, you know what you don't want but don't have something else to propose as a replacement.

[Teatownclown]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/06/642541/anti-sikh-violence/

Reports: Sikh Temple Shooter Was A White Supremacist, Part Of Growing Trend Of Anti-Sikh Violence

Several reports out this morning indicate that Wade Michael Page, the army veteran who is suspected of killing six and injuring three at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, WI, over the weekend, was a white supremacist and a "skinhead." According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Page — who was killed in a firefight with police — even played in a white-power band that had ties to neo-Nazis.
Though police have not yet named a motive in the attack, all but one of those shot were Sikh adherents. The other was a police officer.
Should law enforcement confirm Page's ties to white supremacy, and if that proves to be the motive of the attack, it will fit with a growing trend in this country. Hate groups — groups that expressly advocate against a religion, race, or sexual orientation — have been on the rise in the United States, rising steadily since 2000.
And the targeting of Sikhs is not new either. Often, the hate crimes against Sikhs originate out of misdirected Islamophobia: Sikh men can most easily be identified by their long beards and turbans, which they wear according to religious doctrine. Assailants will mistake these men for Muslims. According to a report by Reuters, Sikh groups have seen huge spikes in hate crimes since September 11th, 2001, right at the same time when anti-Muslim sentiment in the country began to grow rapidly.
In April of this year, over 90 members of Congress signed onto a letter (PDF) asking Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller to closely monitor what they called a "growing concern" of hate crimes against Sikh people:
"Numerous reports have documented how those practicing the Sikh religion are often targeted for hate violence because of their religiously-mandated turbans — i.e. because of their Sikh identity, regardless of whether the attacker understands the victim to be Sikh or not," the said lawmakers, led by U.S. Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat.
Though it is the fifth largest religion in the world, Sikhism is a small religious minority in the United States — there are roughly 500,000 observers of the religion, which originated in the Punjab area of South Asia, in the US. There has only been one Sikh member of Congress — Dalip Singh Saund, who represented Southern California in the late 1950s and early 60s.

[erfalf]

Something other than saving America by destroying it's freedoms.
...and a lot less theater.

Freedoms that are protected in the constitution of the United States. Anytime we have gun issues, taking peoples guns away or making them harder to get always seems to be the answer for this right that the Federal Government is unable to take away, period (those pesky bill of rights).

However, if any issues with voter fraud come about, we cannot impede people in the slightest in order that that it is as easy as possible to do something that is not protected in the constitution one little bit.

[AquaMan]

Freedoms that are protected in the constitution of the United States. Anytime we have gun issues, taking peoples guns away or making them harder to get always seems to be the answer for this right that the Federal Government is unable to take away, period (those pesky bill of rights).

However, if any issues with voter fraud come about, we cannot impede people in the slightest in order that that it is as easy as possible to do something that is not protected in the constitution one little bit.

Shadowesque post. Are you trying to say that the Federal Government tries to take away gun rights but is willing to let just anyone vote without reservation? If so, then no, that doesn't seem accurate. The only limitation on guns I remember being passed in my lifetime was the Brady law during Reagan's time. No one has much bothered with it since then. The few who tried to introduce some sanity during Clinton's era were summarily politically executed by the NRA.

Voting fraud doesn't really exist. There are probably more stolen, unregistered, illegal, carnage producing guns right here in River City than there were fraudulent voters across the nation during the last decade.

You almost never hear of mass murder using voter fraud. Unless you swallow internet poo.

[Hoss]

Shadowesque post. Are you trying to say that the Federal Government tries to take away gun rights but is willing to let just anyone vote without reservation? If so, then no, that doesn't seem accurate. The only limitation on guns I remember being passed in my lifetime was the Brady law during Reagan's time. No one has much bothered with it since then. The few who tried to introduce some sanity during Clinton's era were summarily politically executed by the NRA.

Voting fraud doesn't really exist. There are probably more stolen, unregistered, illegal, carnage producing guns right here in River City than there were fraudulent voters across the nation during the last decade.

You almost never hear of mass murder using voter fraud. Unless you swallow internet poo.

Snap.

[Red Arrow]

There are probably more stolen, unregistered, illegal, carnage producing guns right here in River City than there were fraudulent voters across the nation during the last decade.

We will never know because no one had to show an ID.

[TulsaRufnex]

We will never know because no one had to show an ID.

OMG.  Yeah, we'll also NEVER know who won Florida in 2000 because the Supreme Court didn't allow a recount...
I believe that VOTING is a basic human right.  And that it's a separate issue from reasonable and logical gun control laws that could save lives if enacted.

Owning a gun should be considered a priviledge, and the act of stockpiling weapons that can only be used for mass murder of people should be outlawed.
I already know a crazy person in the Tulsa area who's a "survivalist" and has a stockpile of weapons about 30 miles east of town.

[Red Arrow]

And that it's a separate issue from reasonable and logical gun control laws that could save lives if enacted.

I was addressing the "probably" in Aqua Man's post.

Why don't you turn this person east of Tulsa in to the ATF?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Again....this is sick. A sick society and a sick Nation.

More restrictive gun laws would not have helped...just remember that. Nothing...literally nothing will change anything about guns in this country.

The fact that shootings like this are becoming so routine that occasionally the media has to choose which one to cover is irrelevant as well.

Guess someone should have told that Chinese guy that he must use a gun to kill 9 people....

Mass murder knows no gun/knife/car/hammer/bomb boundaries.


http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html

[AquaMan]

We will never know because no one had to show an ID.

I was careful to use the word "probably" because no one knows just how many illegal weapons are passed around, hoarded, sawed off, stolen etc. any more than we know how many fraudulent voters exist. However, we do have arrest records, crime stats, and caches of stolen weapons recovered that give us some idea (even though they may not have been purchased with ID's Red) of the scope of both problems.

Voter fraud is microscopic compared to illegal weapons. If we are knowingly not prosecuting cases of voter fraud then ...why? Could it be that voter fraud is hardly worth the expense of investigation and prosecution?

[heironymouspasparagus]

There are probably more stolen, unregistered, illegal, carnage producing guns right here in River City than there were fraudulent voters across the nation during the last decade.

Many of which are likely owned by the ATF and waiting for a place to let them "walk".

[Red Arrow]

I was careful to use the word "probably" because no one knows just how many illegal weapons are passed around, hoarded, sawed off, stolen etc. any more than we know how many fraudulent voters exist.

A good use of the word "probably".

[Ed W]

I can't claim to have a solution to the problem of gun violence.  It's an especially intractable one because it lies at the intersection of both constitutional rights and privacy.  If we believe that the Second Amendment gives each of us the right to keep and bear arms, and we ignore the first part of that badly constructed sentence (something we can and have argued previously), then the only way to prevent some of these violent crimes is to have government surveillance of all our communications and government access to our medical, financial, and employment records.  That's far too intrusive, i think, and it's very unlikely that anyone in our government would propose to do that.

So we have two immutable positions, one that says our Second Amendment rights will not change, and another that says our right to privacy is equally sacrosanct.  Meanwhile, as we're stuck between these two rocks, people will die.

Frankly, I'm at a loss here.  That's the problem as I see it, yet I cannot see any way to overcome it that doesn't involve a re-interpretation of the Second Amendment or giving up any pretense to privacy.