Well, which is it: Does the US have a Gun Problem or a Terrorist Problem?

[jgiffin]

Identifying the problem is the first step in finding a solution. I'm referring, of course, to incidents like the recent shootings in San Bernardino. Politicians, the media, moneyed interests, and activists are all, as we speak, trying to frame the issue: is it a gun problem or a terrorism problem?

If the problem is identified as guns, then democrats (largely) may finally implement the gun control they've long sought. You hear this in Obama's call for "reasonable" measures "we all agree" are overdue. It's shaving the 2nd Amendment by prohibiting those on no-fly lists and other compendiums of suspects from obtaining weapons. (Of course, these lists are unilaterally compiled by the executive branch and generally not subject to due process. Moreover, if those on the lists are so clearly dangerous, why hasn't the justice department either prosecuted or cleared them?).

If, on the other hand, this is a problem of terrorism, then the right (mostly) may perpetuate the deployment of US troops overseas and the subversion of privacy rights domestically. You hear this in Fox News' chastisement of those who voted to stop the bulk collection of data under the "USA Freedom Act." (Seriously, Orwell did no better with the Ministries of Peace, Love, Plenty, and Truth). It's embedded in the hawkish right's clarion call to "put boots on the ground" in Syria, Iraq, and Binky-knows-where-else.

So, with apologies to David Coverdale, here we go again. Both sides of the two-party system use a legitimate problem to force "solutions" they've had at the ready for years. The middle-grounds they proffer contain no solutions - only means to solidify their control and further subjugate the populace.

The only true solutions lies outside the extant system, at the extremes: we must either (1) fully engage in a complete and total war on islam or (2) retreat into defensive isolationism with all that it entails.

[BikerDude]

Wll speaking specifically to the "gun issue"...
Until we have a political climate where fixing problems is actually the core agenda rather than "winning" we can't see any progress on things like this.
I'm a gun owner with a long history in the "shooting sports".
I reload my own ammo and while I don't shoot as much as I once did I'd call myself a "gun person".
That said I find the NRA and Wayne LaPier to be border line paranoid psychotic.
And at the very least a hindrance to any sensible gun legislation. Which I do think is possible and desirable.
As a serious supporter of gun rights I'm disgusted.
Where is the leadership on this issue?
Why does the NRA refuse to  be a constructive part of a solution?
As far as I can see the strategy is to dig in and fight any type of even the most sensible legislation.
For instance closing the gun show loophole.
Or background checks or the known problem with staw purchasers (where a 2n'd party buys guns in order to turn around and sell them to people who can't legally own guns).
As a gun owner, all of these issue piss me off and I would hope that the NRA would be active in providing a compromise solution on how to fix them while protecting our rights. Nope.
And don't get me started on guys like Ted Nugent.
He'll point out that the places with the most restrictive gun laws have the biggest problems with gun violence as though that's has some point to it. I mean C'mon a child would see how Ludicrous this is.
Guess what, the places with the most restrictive parking laws have the biggest problem with illegal parking.
That's why they have the fucking laws!
And guess what would happen if you just did away with parking laws.
You'd have people parking all over the fucking place and blocking traffic. Do parking laws "solve" parking problems?
Of course not. But nobody in the right mind would suggest that doing away with the laws will improve things.

The bottom line is that the NRA and it's many spokes people are betraying "REAL" gun owners by not providing leadership and becoming a constructive part of some real solution rather than playing these ridiculous games.
The more of these incidents happen the more people who would not really take any position on gun laws become inclined toward restrictions. Unless both sides find a way to achieve some progress the pressure behind the damn grows and eventually we law abiding gun owners will be the ones who pay. Because of these fucks down at the league office.

To your last point I don't accept that the only choices are total war or Islam or Isolationism.
But then I don't think that we can simply choose a path that will quickly solve the problem of Terrorism.
I think the problems with Terrorism will eventually be "fixed" but I don't think it's going to be completely a military or economic or education but a slow penetration of better ideas over generations. In the mean time I'm thinking the special forces will be busy. We used to burn witches in America. Although the last couple decades challenge the notion we have been moving away from that sort of thing. (Sarah Palin et al being the exception of course)

The middle grounds they prefer? Ha?
Are we watching the same movie?
Middle grounds?
All I see is extremes. Polarization. Zero compromise.
In this instance I think a middle ground is the right choice.
Fight radical groups without rolling in huge numbers of ground forces and radicalizing huge populations.
It's going to be a long slow slog.
The other way just doesn't work IMO. Isis is essentially the insurgency from Iraq.
And Al Qaeda was born in Afghanistan etc etc on and on.
You can burn down a house and it will solve a mouse problem but it's a pretty dumb idea.
Better to put out traps and keep your mouse problem under control.
Eventually you don't seen any mice any more. Once in a blue moon your find a turd under the sink.


 

[jgiffin]

As far as I can see the strategy is to dig in and fight any type of even the most sensible legislation.
For instance closing the gun show loophole.
Or background checks or the known problem with staw purchasers (where a 2n'd party buys guns in order to turn around and sell them to people who can't legally own guns).

These suggestions are intertwined and problematic. The "gun show loophole" is a just a pejorative term liberals use instead of the right for citizens to freely sell arms among themselves. There is no magic dust which obviates the requirement for arms dealers to conduct background checks at gun shows - they still have to. But I don't have to run a background check before selling my brother a gun - whether at a gun show or not. Straw purchases are already illegal. I guess we can make them more illegaler if it gives someone a warm and fuzzy. I suspect those who do it will still do it.

All of this, however, gets at the more nefarious point. Gun control advocates recognize, as a practical matter, they can't get the total ban they want so they're aiming at an interim goal: direct federal distribution of firearms, think of ABC stores in some states. Everything they're proposing goes that way (see, e.g., watchlist bans). If they control, directly, who does and doesn't get weapons, and also prohibit private exchanges, then that's pretty close to a total ban.

[jgiffin]

To your last point I don't accept that the only choices are total war or Islam or Isolationism.
But then I don't think that we can simply choose a path that will quickly solve the problem of Terrorism.
I think the problems with Terrorism will eventually be "fixed" but I don't think it's going to be completely a military or economic or education but a slow penetration of better ideas over generations. In the mean time I'm thinking the special forces will be busy. We used to burn witches in America. Although the last couple decades challenge the notion we have been moving away from that sort of thing. (Sarah Palin et al being the exception of course)

They aren't the "only choices" but they're the only ones likely to upset the status quo of just accepting that, every so often, a god-tinged lunatic will kill significant numbers of innocent Americans on American soil for religious and ideological reasons. And, if current trends keep, we will actively facilitate the tragedy by allowing larger numbers of them to come here while continuing to infuriate them by occupying their lands and attempting to stage their affairs.

There is no rational basis to suspect an imminent sea-change in the muslim world view. It's critical to understand that "extreme" muslims are just those who put into action what the majority of the rest concede is the infallible word of god. They know the koran better than the "moderates." By the terms of the debate, they're right. Add to that the subsidization of wahhabi, salafi, ikhwan, tahrir, and other radical sects by Saudi Arabia, Iran, ohhhhh and those lovely palestinians.

I'd love to believe I'm missing something. That there is an optimistic future for islam to modernize within the next, say, 100 years. I sincerely cannot see it. And no one has pointed it out, either.

[BikerDude]

To your last point I don't accept that the only choices are total war or Islam or Isolationism.
But then I don't think that we can simply choose a path that will quickly solve the problem of Terrorism.
I think the problems with Terrorism will eventually be "fixed" but I don't think it's going to be completely a military or economic or education but a slow penetration of better ideas over generations. In the mean time I'm thinking the special forces will be busy. We used to burn witches in America. Although the last couple decades challenge the notion we have been moving away from that sort of thing. (Sarah Palin et al being the exception of course)

They aren't the "only choices" but they're the only ones likely to upset the status quo of just accepting that, every so often, a god-tinged lunatic will kill significant numbers of innocent Americans on American soil for religious and ideological reasons. And, if current trends keep, we will actively facilitate the tragedy by allowing larger numbers of them to come here while continuing to infuriate them by occupying their lands and attempting to stage their affairs.

There is no rational basis to suspect an imminent sea-change in the muslim world view. It's critical to understand that "extreme" muslims are just those who put into action what the majority of the rest concede is the infallible word of god. They know the koran better than the "moderates." By the terms of the debate, they're right. Add to that the subsidization of wahhabi, salafi, ikhwan, tahrir, and other radical sects by Saudi Arabia, Iran, ohhhhh and those lovely palestinians.

I'd love to believe I'm missing something. That there is an optimistic future for islam to modernize within the next, say, 100 years. I sincerely cannot see it. And no one has pointed it out, either.

Lotta in's an out.
By all accounts the leadership of these groups are indeed informed by radical islam while they don't hesitate to recruit disenfranchised young people who haven't even read the Koran. Which is not at all uncommon.
So the problem is both radical islam and a lot of other things.
This is not to defend the lunacy that is part of islam or christianity or mormanism or Donald Trump (ism).
Personally I'm a bit impervious to courses of action that paint with such a wide brush.
Life experience has taught me. I've known people from Iran and other places that we associate with "radical islam". I've had the  real "holy shit I've been lied to" moment.
And even today most of Iran does not resemble the islamic leadership or the stereotype that we accept. They adore western culture. I know first hand.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/apr/17/tehran-the-secret-party-town
It's there. It's common. Most people want to move into the 21'st century. I've known lots of them. How else do you account for the United Arab Emerates?
Ever been to Dubai? I recommend it. It's a hell of a fucking party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq9VcEFXwME
The country is predominantly Muslim. In fact islam is the official religion of the UAE. But they are fucking rich as Croesus. They party harder than all fuck out.
I agree that we shouldn't sugar coat the lunacy of Islam. But we shouldn't sugar coat the lunacy of Christianity either just because things here aren't horrible enough to make most Christians actually show their fucking stipes.
Suppose the big revolution comes here. (not gonna happen) But suppose we see the nuts really do it. Do you see things moving toward more Freedom? (Even though they use the fucking word constantly)
How likely is it that we'd see an increase in free speech?
Would there be laws against homosexuality? Would woman be empowered?
Would universities be a place for the free exchange of ideas?
Guaranteed things here would look more like the mideast afterwords.
The reality is that our crazies are just like their crazies. We just use a different equally crazy set of books. And generally speaking people aren't desperate enough to get behind these fucking pieces of shit. 

Yes these places will need to drag Islam along like a club foot in order to get there just like we had to with Christianity which gave us slavery and witch trials and homophobia and on and on. There is absolutely nothing fundamentally worse in the Koran than in the craziest parts of the bible. Both are fucking ridiculous. But in the end reason does win out. Unless the whole place is dragged into hopelessness and desperation. To assume anything different for people in the mideast is inescapably racist. We did it (sort of) and they can and will also. We can help by fighting radical islam and by not sugar coating the ideas that motivate it. The last thing we need to do if we are serious about really seeing change is to continue to make these places a playground for the crazies with guns by bombing them into the stone age. Do that and guess who ends up running things. And the longer that goes on the more radical Muslim's there are. Just like our shitholes spit out our version of asswipes.

IMO the real problem is Moderates. People who don't buy the whole shit pie.
Who instead engage in gymnastics to wring some form of a religion out of this garbage. They know better. Get rid of them and we can have societies that paint these religions as ridiculous. And if it breaks Grandma's heart then fuck her.
As nice as she seems she's probably an ignorant racist piece of shit when you really get into parsing her beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc3HiKQDPCQ
The big issue is the incongruence of these stone age ideas still having traction in modern societies.

Is islam a problem. Yeah a big one.
Is the complexion of even moderate islam a problem. Yup a big one.
But run a poll of American Christians about whether Jesus is returning to judge all of us. It should be %100 yes. Let's be kind and say 95%.
According to Christianity everyone who is not Christian will "be judged".
And somewhere in the neighborhood of half (if those polls are right) say it will be soon.
Big fucking problem for sure.
Should we carpet bomb Mississippi?

The quote that I'm fond of which came from my good friend in Iran is "everybody has crazy people but in the mideast they are in charge".

But I find the idea that "if we kill more of them then they will stop being pissed" to be ... well I don't need to explain the lunacy of that idea.

[jgiffin]

I don't disagree with much of that, BikerDude. You'll not find me making excuses for christianity, denying its sins, or voting for its evangelical pimps. But we are left with a practical problem: what to do about an easily discernable population of religious zealots, rapidly increasing both in number and armaments, more than willing to put their beliefs into action by murdering scores of Americans who are, by any standard, utterly innocent of any crime or gripe which the murderer is purportedly acting against?

You say islam will eventually modernize itself. Fine. I see no evidence it will happen soon, but perhaps. What shall we do in the interim? Your post suggests we must simply suffer the fatal consequences of absurd islamic beliefs. I would prefer, instead, to keep muslims off American soil. Why not? Contrary to recent reports, they have no right of immigration. The provision "there shall be no religious test" in the Constitution refers to qualifications for office, not entry into the country (someone should tell Ben Carson).  In fact, properly construed, non-citizens have no Constitutional rights. You'll find arguments on that point. They're wrong. If they weren't, then parts of the Civil War Amendments would have been unnecessary - no one wants to go down that road. You may also recall that Jimmy Carter shut down immigration from Iran and kicked out thousands of Iranian students here on visas during the hostage crisis.

By pointing that out, I don't mean to conflate nationality (Iran) with religion (islam), just as I don't think you conflated race (people in the mideast) and religion (islam) in your post. Rather, it just crystalizes the sovereign nature of immigration control and the propriety of keeping out potential adversaries. Now, many other people ARE conflating race with religion when discussing this issue. I've read numerous articles decrying the "racism" inherent in Trump's proposal. Fuck me. Haven't we been through this enough with the jews? Islam, like judaism, is a religion and not a race. (Again, I get that you were making a point about the races predominant in the middle east, a la Kipling's white-man's burden, not the religions of the area).