House committee passes resolution letting members pay for bulletproof vests with taxpayer dollars https://t.co/7Mo6LhbTrq pic.twitter.com/J0xPGg8qBk
— The Hill (@thehill) February 28, 2018
Going to be a good look if the House’s only action on guns this year is to protect themselves. https://t.co/clA5jBNrJ4
— Schooley (@Rschooley) March 1, 2018
National Security Pros,
It’s Time to Talk About Right-Wing Extremismhttps://t.co/Lw5ZKCLOEP
This wasn't an easy one to write, but one I felt important for our field… pic.twitter.com/gSjwfRP3Dl
— Peter W. Singer (@peterwsinger) March 1, 2018
Ask any of us who works in national security what to do about ISIS, and we’d have no problem pitching you ideas. Even if we lack expertise in the topic or don’t work directly on it, we’d still have opinions and thoughts, because we’ve been swimming in a sea of articles, op-eds, books, hearings, programs, and overall research and debate for years. But ask us about right-wing extremism, a violent ideology that’s killed more Americans than ISIS in the last decade, and most of us would pause — either because we were unaware of the problem or, worse, we were afraid to speak openly about it…
Over the last decade, individuals and groups fueled by this virulent ideology have committed 71 percent of the known politically or religiously inspired killings in our country — that is, 274 of the 387 Americans murdered by extremists. Reports now indicate it was part of the recent murder of 17 school children and teachers in Florida, just as it was part of mass shootings that have happened everywhere from California to Charleston. It has not just hit inside the US, but has struck many of our closest allies, both causing near-tragedies and horrible massacres. It is not a new threat; it has killed hundreds of Americans in past decades. But it is growing in power and influence, worrisomely being stoked by foreign nations like Russia that wish our nation harm. It is a clear, present, and proven danger to the United States. Yet we find it awkward to talk about.
There are many reasons why we have a hard time acknowledging the deadly threat from the cluster of groups that gather inside our country under the hateful flags of white nationalism, white supremacy, anti-government militia, and Neo-Nazism. One reason is to avoid appearing too partisan, a desire to be even-handed. There is irony in that we seek to avoid appearing biased, even when the threat espouses bias to the point of justifying hating and even killing their fellow Americans. So, after each episode of right-wing violence, we avoid talking about it, even to the point of reaching in the opposite direction. For instance, after these groups united to march on Charlottesville, culminating in the killing of a young woman, major U.S. papers ran more op-eds condemning the counter-protesters, who have yet to commit a mass killing, than those who committed the crime…
We also have to admit that we are quiet about right-wing extremist violence out of calculation. The cost-vs.-gain equations that shape our choices are simply different from other topics. Compare the professional benefits to the potential risks of publishing an article, creating a college course, writing a book or dissertation, organizing a conference, hosting a speech, creating a university or thinktank project, funding a foundation program, etc., on right-wing extremism. It is not just that there is no great profit in it. It is that every one of these endeavors would be far more difficult, and would likely create far more headaches for us and our bosses, than a similar project on pretty much any other topic in our field.
This isn’t to say there aren’t fantastic researchers on this topic; there are many, who have valuably shaped much of what we know about the issue. But we in the rest of the field must acknowledge that they’ve chosen a more professionally risky path than most of us, even though the very object of their study has killed more Americans over the last few years than essentially any other problem we are working on…
Stop me if this sounds familiar, but it’s almost like if we followed the facts, without fear or favor, we might reach some pretty obvious conclusions about what problems are real and which ones are just so much…BS.
– far-right/white nationalist extremism
– climate change
– gun violence
– wealth inequality
– health care coverage
The list goes on and on…
Nazis come in, Nazis go out. No one can explain it.
Tilda Swintons Bald Cap
Word of advice, don’t read the comments on Peter Singer’s article.
Say what you will, they have an ethos.
Remember when, back in the mists of time (i.e. about 6 or 7 years ago), the Justice Department was looking into right-wing extremist movements (no, not the GOP, though maybe they should have), and the professional screamers on the right threw a shit fit?
As with all inconvenient facts (RW extremism, climate change, banksters…..) the RWNJ logical argument is “lalala we can’t hear you….”
Meanwhile, there have been a couple of letters in our local paper starting to advocate for more gun regulation. This is huge in my little blood-red community. But then, inevitably, we get the response that includes these nuggets of wisdom:
Plus the requisite ranting that the Heller decision meant that no guns anywhere can be regulated at any time because “Shall Not Be Infringed”.
The derp is strong with this one. Any thoughts on a response? ; )
@Tilda Swintons Bald Cap: too late. Rise of the Third Reich & Confederate Flag had a baby and he commented repeatedly on that post.
I’m going to need a Silkwood shower.
A goodly portion of our white men cannot wait to start shooting the rest of us.
If you put it in overalls, you can poop anywhere.
@Miss Bianca: Yeah – that very same amendment that includes “shall not be infringed” also includes “well-regulated militia” – does the derp-author have any thoughts on how to reconcile that?
Maybe ask the author why citizens aren’t allowed to buy dynamite at 7-11? Or rent a tank for the weekend at Hertz?
Maybe ask the author if firearms back in colonial days were anywhere comparable to those in modern times, and if it’s a good idea for anyone – clean record, clean background check or not – to have that kind of killing power available at hand?
I’d think that someone would have pointed out that the vote for funding for vests will look bad in TV ads, but apparently not.
James E. Powell
@Tilda Swintons Bald Cap:
Because you said that, I had to go there. Fascination with the abomination.
I remember back before 2016 I’d read stuff like that and think, nothing to worry about, they’re completely crazy but there aren’t that may people like them, surely not enough to do damage.
Major Major Major Major
Today I finally saw a tweet thread blaming school shootings on neoliberalism, courtesy of a retweet from Jamelle Bouie.
No, I’m not linking to it.
Some good news, about a military wife I posted about a couple of threads back:
Guess an article in the Military Times talking about why your immigration policy is stupid has some effects, but what about all the other people who are being damaged? Dreamers. anyone?
@Tilda Swintons Bald Cap:
Wait…you mean like this:
Yeah…that’s it…man I wish I could turn my brain all. the. way. off. like that and just chill with being nuts through and through. Wow.
Burn his house down?
@Jeffro: Oh! Yes, derp-author has those points covered, never fear! See, because Heller defines ‘militia’ as ‘comprising all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” then something something, and (also, too) saying that we should be holding society to the standard of firearm available at the time the Second Amendment was drafted would be like saying that the First Amendment should only apply to printing presses of that time” so SUCK IT, LIBTARD!
Oh god, they’re co-opting “woke” in their rants, too:
Of course, as you know, Heller doesn’t say anything at all like that. Scalia wrote for the majority and said:
The majority was wrong in effectively ignoring the well-regulated militia preface, but they did not say that the 2nd Amendment was unlimited in Heller.
HTH. Good luck.
Uh, WTF is he talking about? Oklahoma City?
Keyboard Kommandos fortified by beer and bar combination.
The real mass shooters are (usually) sneakier because they don’t wanna’ be stopped.
Major Major Major Major
I have a feeling this sentence will stick with me.
@Miss Bianca: Ok. Ask him how he’d feel if it was his kid who got his internal organs pulped by an AR-15…ask him the dynamite question…ask him if the founders would really be okay with all 18-year-olds prancing around with the equivalent of 100 muskets available to folks with no training, no mental health test, not even an eye exam…
Or maybe just ask him what he’s so terrified of? “Dude…violent crime has been on the downswing for 30 years now…what is it exactly that you’re wetting the bed about?”
@Mnemosyne: I was hoping someone here could tell *me*!
I don’t care. If I see it in any other context than describing the ending of a sleep period, I want to rip out what little hair i have left. An abomination upon the language.
And what is the purpose of the well-regulated militia? Constitution sez –
Article I, Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power…
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II, Section 2
1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of…the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…
I’d love to hear the nuts address the “suppress insurrections” function.
ETA: Also the “execute the laws” bit
Once you realize that guys like this believe (contrary to the actual facts) that most crimes are committed by Black and brown people, that’s how they get to the Democrats commit more crimes, hur-hur. Democrat = non-whites.
Back in the late ’80’s and ’90’s, I used to travel to southern Washington State and Oregon to steelhead fish. Always’s hooked up with a local or a guide, because there were no shortage of RWNJ’s who’s property was “ranged” by 5.76, and places in canyon country, where, like in Afghanistan, Lybia, Iraq, etc, you are advised not to step off the road to pee.
Now, you couldn’t pay me to cross the Border.
B-b-b-black p-p-p-p-people. Aaaaiiiieeeeee
@Major Major Major Major: Well, if “libertarians” believe that all ‘taxation is theft’ (and they most certainly do) then it’s not a big stretch for them to draw stupid and false comparisons between a street mugging and the duly elected representative government of a locality/state/country setting a tax rate that its citizens have to pay for the services they’re receiving.
I always ask “libertarian” friends: how is it theft, if we’re all making each other pay? They never have a good answer beyond how they didn’t vote for a particular tax, tax rate, government program, etc. Well, it doesn’t work like that in the fucking real world. I get it – you don’t like paying taxes, “libertarians” – but instead of being morons or pretending like you’ve discovered some super-secret parallel between ‘normal government’ and ‘street robbery’, how about you get off your couches and try to win the argument? Because in the meantime you’re doing the lazy thing by siding with Koch-heads and racists.
Yeah, those comments are a freaking cesspool. If someone is decrying nazis and you get mad because you think he’s talking about you, you are probably a nazi and should be shunned from polite society.
There was some jackass on Facebook who was quoting George Washington’s words about the people defending themselves from the government to me.
I gave him a link about the Whiskey Rebellion and asked him what he believed more, Washington’s words or his actions.
@efgoldman: Oh, I know…but make them spell it out.
“Let’s hear it, gun nuts: what exactly terrifies you so much that you need crazy unlimited access to guns of all kinds? Who’s coming for you? How’s that going to work, if it’s just you and your two trigger fingers against a horde of MS-13 gangbangers/squad of jack-booted ATF agents/mob of ‘Antifa’/whatever?”
They should fucking deal with their fears or racism or anxiety issues or whatever: the rest of us would like to get on with a civil society.
@Mnemosyne: Just so! Makes it perfectly clear what the Framers intended.
ETA: Tho’ the words seem perfectly clear as they stand.
@Mnemosyne: Yup. It’s a good fight to have – get the actual info out there. No wonder they’re afraid of Singer’s article and the actual facts about who’s doing what in this country.
@Major Major Major Major:
Jamelle Bouie? I am disappoint. I had considered him one of the less-bad writers at Slate.
Major Major Major Major
@Amir Khalid: me too! Their worst right now is Osita Nwenavu.
@gbbalto: Well, the insurrections that the authors of the 2nd Amendment were worried about were slave insurrections, because everything wrong with this country goes back to its original sin. It’s too bad that the Reconstruction Congresses didn’t fix the 2nd Amendment after that “problem” was no longer an issue.
I came across this line elsewhere a little while ago, and I thought it was surprising from an originalist. It means that what’s protected is a moving target, depending on what’s common at a given time in history. It also implies, though Scalia doesn’t bother with the implication, that the first wave of semi-automatic rifles sold to civilians could well have been prohibited, if legislators had had proper foresight, and run into no problems with the Constitution. That could be done right now, for instance, with 3D-printed gun parts–not in common use, not protected.
@sdhays: That is not specified in the Constitution as written. If someone claims to be a strict constructionist, they are not entitled to ignore the exact wording. As Mnem noted, the Feds shut down a white insurrection almost immediately after the Constitution went into effect – long before Nat Turner’s rebellion.
ETA: Not saying that you are a strict constructionist
Suggest he rediscover his capacity for empathy. That’s what all these guys lack: any sort of compassion or humanity.
@sdhays: Also Indians. They wanted to be able to shoot a lot of Indians. Americans have a longstanding fear of how one day the people they’ve been oppressing might get fed up. That’s why they want to have guns, so that when that happens they can take a few of Those People down with them.
@Jeffro: Suitcase nukes.
“Originalism” is just an obnoxious term for “the Founding Fathers would have agreed with MEEEEEE!!!1!1!!!”. It’s gussied up intellectual nonsense.
I’d bet it’s 9/11, gallon being a (clumsy) metaphor.
@gbbalto: Another big part of the reason why there are all these kludgy things in the Constitution like “the militia” is that they were trying hard not to have a national army because they thought national armies became tools of domestic tyranny. Yet have you ever heard a conservative say that America shouldn’t have a permanent army because the Founding Fathers didn’t want one?
Gin & Tonic
The government, here in the US in the year of our Lord 2018, can put a Hellfire missile straight down my chimney and vaporize my house before I can reach for my hypothetical gun. What, precisely, do these douchebags think they will do with a discount AR-15?
@debbie: Nah, it’s McVeigh, and the dude is half-remembering that his bomb was a mix of fuel oil and fertilizer and, to be dismissive, converting it into “a gallon of gas.”
@Gin & Tonic: WOLVERINES!
@Gin & Tonic:
Play at being men.
@Gin & Tonic:
Let me know when you think it’s coming. i want to make sure I’m outside the blast radius.
@Mnemosyne: wouldn’t that be 20,000 gallons of jet fuel and four airplanes?
“Largest mass killing” isn’t Oklahoma City, though.
@Gin & Tonic:
That’s why I don’t travel south. 35% of Y’all are either nutz, or with nutz.
@FlipYrWhig: has to. Because in response we didn’t bar the sale of gasoline. But we did start to lock down sales of fertilizers.
And added chemical markers to help trace it.
James Madison figured out he had been wrong about the standing army thing when the British marched in on his watch and burned Washington DC virtually unopposed.
@Mnemosyne: Gallon of gas presumably ties back to where he’s talking about more chldren being caused by car accidents — he’s just skating damned fast past what an actual mass killing is.
@FlipYrWhig: Also in Article I:
1: The Congress shall have Power
2: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
I am not an expert by a long shot but I understand that American military performance in the Revolution (and later in the War of 1812) was greatly impeded by militiamen who were not trained to remain in line to face the fire of disciplined British regulars, and that it became crystal clear that the U.S. needed regular troops to hope to win battles.
I have a hazy memory that the 2-year provision may have been to address the concern that you mention.
@FlipYrWhig: Haha I challenged one with that last week, and he shut up.
And it wasn’t gas, it was diesel.
There was a hell of a lot more than 1 gallon of gasoline involved in 9/11, though. And jet fuel isn’t gasoline.
I seriously have no clue what the dude is referring to, but it looks like it’s one of those shorthand things the right wing comes up with and then expects everyone else to understand. Not that we ever do anything like that in these here parts, of course. ?
“well regulated militia”
Maybe, but it’s an even stupider argument because there are a LOT of laws about car safety and child seat safety that are being constantly updated and strengthened. Car accident deaths are continuing to go down every year thanks to safety regulations. So is he arguing that we should stop requiring child car seats because they don’t prevent 100 percent of child deaths in car accidents?
So confused, and my brain already hurts from this migraine. ?
@Mnemosyne: Well, it will hurt even more if you’re looking for sophisticated and logical argumentation on this subject. I fully expect it to be along the lines of well, more people are killed by cars so guns are no problem. Do not point out that more people are killed by domestic right-wing terrorists than Islamic foreign ones Because That’s Totally Different! So we’re back to more head pain.
I think what these guys need are good debates with people who don’t share their opinions or outlook. Maybe get some distance from their echo chambers and see where their philosophies don’t hold up. No guns permitted, of course.
There’s no constitutional amendment about vehicles. That’s been the problem right along, even granted that Scalia made up shit.
Hahahaha; you never heard of “epistemic closure?”
Cesspool is the word.
Where the fuck do they get this stuff?
These people are itching to shoot other people, and they are looking for an excuse to do it.
IIRC, that’s no longer true — gun deaths have surpassed automobile deaths in some states, and they’re on track to be fewer nationwide I think as soon as this year.
I’ve noticed that they’ve started splitting that hair and saying, Well, more children are killed in car accidents than are murdered with guns. Which is true — most childhood gun deaths are accidents, not homicides. But, again, we actually take steps to prevent children’s deaths in car accidents, but not gun accidents.
I tried donating to Lamb but was informed that my e-mail address “does not seem to be valid.” I cannot seem to contact his campaign any other way. I wonder how many $ he has failed to raise by using vile thwartware. I am unhappy.
@Jeffro: Libertarians: people whose emotional development stopped at age 8 when their mom made them eat their broccoli.
After reading that evil/insanity, I lament that the Neutron Bomb for Stupid was never developed.
ETA: Although Obama — whom I blame, of course — could have solved a lot of problems by getting on Primetime TV and saying “Please DO NOT drink antifreeze, it will poison you! The same goes for sulfuric acid and drain cleaner!” and so forth.
There has to be a way to use anything but truth, facts and logic. Because the people that argue against gun control, or any of the myriad of crap the RWNJs rail about do not believe in facts, truth, or logic. As soon as you say crime is down, the government is lying to you, that controlling guns will reduce deaths, it’s all liberal bullshit, etc, etc, etc…….
“Largest mass killing” isn’t Oklahoma City, though
McVeigh killed 168.
The Tulsa pogrom of 1921 (usually called a “race riot”) killed about twice that many, left 10,000 black people homeless. Over 6000 were arrested.
Much of the white community was complicit.
IIRC, Ayn Rand said she developed her philosophy around the age of 5 or 6 when her mother tricked her into giving her favorite toy away.
It was a pretty asshole move on her mother’s part, so I’m pretty sure it was not the only example of bad parenting in that household, but it was the one Rand talked about.
Grover Norquist also talks about how his dad’s borderline abusive indoctrination turned him into a libertarian, so I think there’s a lot of bad parenting at the root of this stuff.
B) Their asses
@Mnemosyne: Speaking of parsing statistics and missing the forest for the trees… NPR (via WBUR):
– 37,600 deaths (including 22,000 suicides)
– 31,200 injuries
Truth, facts and logic are complete liberal constructs.
This is snark right?
We spend a week every summer camping with my right wing BIL and no amount of good debate has ever swayed him an inch. And we have actual thoughtful debates that are generally free from excessive alcohol and profanity (at least on my part). Last year by day three he hit me with a “well you just have all the answers don’t you” and I said no but I do study the issues and noted that he might fare better if he tried it sometime… I paid for that one with my wife but it was worth it because he didn’t run his pie hole for the rest of the trip.
Yep. Opiods are a “crisis.” Guns are, Meh, whatcha gonna do?
First showed up in the 9/11 threads on forums.
Monday, Same poster :Talking point A
Tuesday, Same poster: Talking point B
Wednesday, Same poster: Talking point C
Following Monday, Same poster, Talking point A,
I more often see that right wingers do not expect everyone else to know it, and then can act smug in the face of your ignorance. I have seen much of that lately with gun lovers accusing people of being ignorant because someone doesn’t know the super special definition of an “assault” rifle.
Where do they *RWNJ” get their fact-free ideas and talking points? They are members of a cult — Fox “news” comes up with the false facts and packages them into neat sound bites that the gullible cultists can repeat.
“I heard it on FOX” so it is true.”I’ve heard this from the FOX cult members for a few years. FOX has taken over for the religious cults — and adds to the Nut Jobs — Prosperity religious cults or the mega-churches with countless satellite churches.
Religious cults and gun worship are so American.
Many of the current RWNJ cult churches evolved from homegrown cults in WA state. Then there are the Mormon sub-sub cults. There is a whole research field that studies Religiosity — plus the study of cults and communication.
Trump has made it acceptable for the cults to show their faces — plus the cults can grow membership. It is vital that we expose these cults and talk about their racist and sexist roots.
The Russians= trolls, and bots are making use of the cults and using the cults to make war on American ideals and morals.
“We are at war. “
never read the comments. holy shit. I looked through the comments section on that article. there were a few voices of sanity, but for the most part it was a fucking cesspool.
Jake the antisoshul soshulist
Actually I have. Interesting nut, until he went Full Metal Trump and Infowars.
I think he wanted to go back to property owning white male voters.
He got deeply offended when Obama said the Constitution was a “flawed document.
200 gallons of AMFO (fertilezer/diesel)
950 gallons of ANNM (fertilizer/nitromethane)
Set up (badly) in a shaped charge configuration for maximum boom. With a bunch of acetylene canisters to add a some fire.
I know fluid volume is hard to estimate, but you’ve got to figure anyone who calls this a “gallon of gas” is being a bit obtuse. Or maybe, they are a lying sack of crap who will say absolutely anything. You decide!