Politics

[Doubleplay]

It looks as though Israel has preempted a softening of support by starting its ground operations

I do believe the genie is now well and truly out of the bottle

The world will divide along the fault lines of cultural, national and strategic interests

Those fissures will be seen within nation states as the great multicultural experiment rapidly unwinds

It will also be seen within NATO
(Erdogen)

This will rapidly depart from a humanitarian issue to a global strategic one

(I suspect that the Palestinians were the sacrificial lambs in a sophisticated strategic play by those nations now being collectively referred to as the ‘new axis of evil’)

Israel is an absolutely vital western ally in the Middle East and wider afield

If it falls, I suspect the west won’t be far behind

Just my views as a layman

I suspect we are in for an ‘interesting’ few weeks as the pieces on the chessboard move - revealing true allegiances and interests

Thoughts?

Even within the Israel there's a lot of opposition to the ground operations and Netanyahu himself.
It'll be just a proxy war as it's happening now and falling of the West is a far fetched idea and won't happen.
The only long term solution to this mess is having two states as accepted by UN and USA.

 

[Dogone]

@Weshteltonj, @375 Ruger Fan , well my friends, this was a long time ago, and it was a conquest, but it was never a genocide, as some claim.

Just walk down the street in Mexico, or any other city in Central or South America (except Buenos Aires), most of the people around you will be either full blooded indians or mixed blood.

Now, should we go into statistics and compare different countries ?

I don´t think so, let´s just live it here.

 

[PARA45]

My wife's BIL is the commander for the douche bag who did the killing, and he sent him to mental health. It also seems like this lunatic did not purchase the firearms, but his roommate purchased them for him. The roommate is on suicide watch because he feels responsible for what happened. This is obviously an ongoing investigation, and more details will come to light.

Coward killed himself, that is one less douche bag we have to worry about housing and feeding for life.

 

[John Wasmuth]

How many of the other rights under the bill of rights are we ok with “vetting, testing, infringing”? When only one of them says “shall not be infringed”?

 

[Hogpatrol]

Late news

 

[Wheels]

 

[mark-hunter]

I see some reasonable comments earlier, and I understand uncompromising attitude of the pro 2/a side .
So, what I think is that majority of mass shooters have either mental illness history, or a record of supremacist racist ideas posted on various social networks, third category of abusers are obviously various criminal profiles.

Simple psychological medical check that can be made in half an hour can vet out lunatics.
Good criminal record check, can vet the other two kinds.

If the line has to be drawn, it has to be done very carefully.

I will try to explain European system.
It is not good or perfect and is very restrictive - pain in the ass for legal gun owners, but in the same time it is not too bad. Explation follows.

AR15 as measuring stick, of the quality of the law:
Apart from USA, the question that I always ask myself, is the measuring stick of ar15.
If a country allows private ownership of ar15, then the laws of the country are at least acceptable in all reality.

(How many countries in the world allows ownership of ar15 or similar rifle? Not many)
Those countries are mainly: USA and most of EU countries. And few probably in South America, maybe even less in Africa. in Far east I am not aware of any country allowing ar15 type of guns.
So, this is maybe 10-15% of all the countries in the world
In most EU countries AR15 is legally obtainable.
Based on this, and since I am not yet moving to Arizona, Texas or Alaska (top states for gun owners as per guns and ammo magazine), i must say - most of EU gun laws or at least laws in my country I will say they acceptable trying to be realistic (conditional legal ownership of ar15). The worst countries for gun owners in Europe are probably Netherlands and UK (forget about ar15 there), best countries are now probably Austria and Czech Republic. Others are in between.

EU system and ar15:
So, European system has three levels to pass licensing, for all types of firearms

1. Reason to buy/own.
This means one of the following reasons that has to be adequately proven: 1) collection, 2) hunting, 3) sport shooting and 4) not in all EU countries self defense, with very limited CCW options.

Self defense is the hardest to prove, and if legally possible, this is mostly for active or retired LEO, active army personnel and vets, politicians, and persons in risky professions handling cash money and similar.

Generally speaking my opinion is that this part of licensing process can be removed. If person wants to buy any firearm for the reason of any kind, why would he not buy?

This issue of having a "reason" to buy, brings problem to heirs, who do not have sport shooting or hunting license and need to inherit the guns from diseased. Usually they cannot inherit if they dont produce some evidence of their gun-needing status. And they will have limited time to sort out their papers, or sell guns while they are in police custody. Police will hold their guns in custody for about 6 months.
usually they will loose, 6 months is too short..

2. Medical check.
Yes it can vet out lunatics.

But the problem is that medical requirements grow without reason. (I wonder who is making these???)

For example, diabetes, eye sight, hearing etc.... all together in my country total 18 diagnosis, without psychological diagnosis, as they are separate. (and to me all these 18 DG's they are irrelevant for the purpose intended)
So medical check can/should be restricted to psychological diagnosis, exclusively.

If medical check is not passed, then authorities confiscate guns, or not give permit to buy.
This means, if a person and elderly gun owner has serious case of diabetes later in life, they will threat him as criminal and confiscate his property. (like diabetes is not problem enough?)

Each EU country handles details of confiscation differently.
In my country, after guns are confiscated for this reason the owner has the right to sell them within 6 months, otherwise he can disable them or give them to government without compensation. During this period of 6 months, guns are in police custody
Selling large collection of guns in 6 months period is impossible, or high value guns to sell will be near to impossible to sell for true value.

3. Criminal background check.
Whatever they do, is reasonable, no issue there.

So, in my view removing the condition "reason to own" would not affect anything in safety.
But having medical requirements thick as medical encyclopedia is true risk for gun owners. We all get older, and none of us is getting healthier. So risk of loosing the guns and property is there with such regulations.

Having REASONABLE medical check, based on psychological evaluation + criminal background check could raise security a bit.
But- Just a bit.

it would never prevent criminals to obtain guns illegally on the black market, but it would at least took away anti gun argument for strict gun laws, when weapon abused was purchased legally.

 

[steve white]

Even within the Israel there's a lot of opposition to the ground operations and Netanyahu himself.
It'll be just a proxy war as it's happening now and falling of the West is a far fetched idea and won't happen.
The only long term solution to this mess is having two states as accepted by UN and USA.

So you are pro PLO two state solution....Israel will then be so narrow, and perhaps Golan heights given up, that defense will be practically impossible. Israel's acceptance of such a plan would be literal suicide. Are you in favor of their fall? Of being "driven into the sea?"
I double Israel has much confidence in outside forces keeping the peace in such a scenario, since any lapse into anti-semitism would be a green light for their enemies to destroy them. I am not for the Islamic bullies who WILL keep their promise to annihilate Israel. They don't need that tiny piece of land.
Personally I feel so much more secure having you promise that the fall of the west is a far fetched idea.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Even within the Israel there's a lot of opposition to the ground operations and Netanyahu himself.
It'll be just a proxy war as it's happening now and falling of the West is a far fetched idea and won't happen.
The only long term solution to this mess is having two states as accepted by UN and USA.

The Palestinians were offered two states multiple times and turned it down. They want the total destruction of Israel and that isn't going to happen.

 

[Brent in Az]

The whole world is going effing nuts.

Iran is plotting. Russia is plotting. China is plotting. N. Korea is plotting.

U S has a President who probably can't even remember what day it is.

Only a matter of time before the madmen unleash the monster.

 

[ActionBob]

I see some reasonable comments earlier, and I understand uncompromising attitude of the pro 2/a side .
So, what I think is that majority of mass shooters have either mental illness history, or a record of supremacist racist ideas posted on various social networks, third category of abusers are obviously various criminal profiles.

Simple psychological medical check that can be made in half an hour can vet out lunatics.
Good criminal record check, can vet the other two kinds.

If the line has to be drawn, it has to be done very carefully.

I will try to explain European system.
It is not good or perfect and is very restrictive - pain in the ass for legal gun owners, but in the same time it is not too bad. Explation follows.

AR15 as measuring stick, of the quality of the law:
Apart from USA, the question that I always ask myself, is the measuring stick of ar15.
If a country allows private ownership of ar15, then the laws of the country are at least acceptable in all reality.

(How many countries in the world allows ownership of ar15 or similar rifle? Not many)
Those countries are mainly: USA and most of EU countries. And few probably in South America, maybe even less in Africa. in Far east I am not aware of any country allowing ar15 type of guns.
So, this is maybe 10-15% of all the countries in the world
In most EU countries AR15 is legally obtainable.
Based on this, and since I am not yet moving to Arizona, Texas or Alaska (top states for gun owners as per guns and ammo magazine), i must say - most of EU gun laws or at least laws in my country I will say they acceptable trying to be realistic (conditional legal ownership of ar15). The worst countries for gun owners in Europe are probably Netherlands and UK (forget about ar15 there), best countries are now probably Austria and Czech Republic. Others are in between.

EU system and ar15:
So, European system has three levels to pass licensing, for all types of firearms

1. Reason to buy/own.
This means one of the following reasons that has to be adequately proven: 1) collection, 2) hunting, 3) sport shooting and 4) not in all EU countries self defense, with very limited CCW options.

Self defense is the hardest to prove, and if legally possible, this is mostly for active or retired LEO, active army personnel and vets, politicians, and persons in risky professions handling cash money and similar.

Generally speaking my opinion is that this part of licensing process can be removed. If person wants to buy any firearm for the reason of any kind, why would he not buy?

This issue of having a "reason" to buy, brings problem to heirs, who do not have sport shooting or hunting license and need to inherit the guns from diseased. Usually they cannot inherit if they dont produce some evidence of their gun-needing status. And they will have limited time to sort out their papers, or sell guns while they are in police custody. Police will hold their guns in custody for about 6 months.
usually they will loose, 6 months is too short..

2. Medical check.
Yes it can vet out lunatics.

But the problem is that medical requirements grow without reason. (I wonder who is making these???)

For example, diabetes, eye sight, hearing etc.... all together in my country total 18 diagnosis, without psychological diagnosis, as they are separate. (and to me all these 18 DG's they are irrelevant for the purpose intended)
So medical check can/should be restricted to psychological diagnosis, exclusively.

If medical check is not passed, then authorities confiscate guns, or not give permit to buy.
This means, if a person and elderly gun owner has serious case of diabetes later in life, they will threat him as criminal and confiscate his property. (like diabetes is not problem enough?)

Each EU country handles details of confiscation differently.
In my country, after guns are confiscated for this reason the owner has the right to sell them within 6 months, otherwise he can disable them or give them to government without compensation. During this period of 6 months, guns are in police custody
Selling large collection of guns in 6 months period is impossible, or high value guns to sell will be near to impossible to sell for true value.

3. Criminal background check.
Whatever they do, is reasonable, no issue there.

So, in my view removing the condition "reason to own" would not affect anything in safety.
But having medical requirements thick as medical encyclopedia is true risk for gun owners. We all get older, and none of us is getting healthier. So risk of loosing the guns and property is there with such regulations.

Having REASONABLE medical check, based on psychological evaluation + criminal background check could raise security a bit.
But- Just a bit.

it would never prevent criminals to obtain guns illegally on the black market, but it would at least took away anti gun argument for strict gun laws, when weapon abused was purchased legally.

That will not pass the test of "shall not be infringed".

As far as I know, the USA is the only country in the World where it's citizens are guaranteed by their Constitution that their Inalienable right to gun ownership shall not be infringed.

 

[mark-hunter]

That will not pass the test of "shall not be infringed".

As far as I know, the USA is the only country in the World where it's citizens are guaranteed by their Constitution that their Inalienable right to gun ownership shall not be infringed.

This is possibly true.
Not only that, most of us legal gun owners in Europe and other places in the world, respect America for this freedom, and speak of America as example in the world on civil rights.

The problem however remains. How to prevent psychos and criminals getting their hands on guns?

 

[WAB]

This is possibly true.
Not only that, most of us legal gun owners in Europe and other places in the world, respect America for this freedom, and speak of America as example in the world on civil rights.

The problem however remains. How to prevent psychos and criminals getting their hands on guns?

Get serious about mental health treatment and enforcing the laws already in place.

 

[Brent in Az]

It turns out that the shooter was found deceased inside of a semi truck box trailer that was in a parking area of a local recycling business.
Law enforcement had swept and cleared the area earlier, but missed some trailers in an overflow parking area.

 

[Brent in Az]

My wife's BIL is the commander for the douche bag who did the killing, and he sent him to mental health. It also seems like this lunatic did not purchase the firearms, but his roommate purchased them for him. The roommate is on suicide watch because he feels responsible for what happened. This is obviously an ongoing investigation, and more details will come to light.

Coward killed himself, that is one less douche bag we have to worry about housing and feeding for life.

I wonder if the roommate will face straw purchase charges?

 

[steve white]

This is possibly true.
Not only that, most of us legal gun owners in Europe and other places in the world, respect America for this freedom, and speak of America as example in the world on civil rights.

The problem however remains. How to prevent psychos and criminals getting their hands on guns?

What about this perspective...there are massively more incidents of lawful gunowners defending themselves or preventing crime from occurring/progressing than incidents of mass shootings. Who cries out for the victims?
Not to mention that all dictators disarm the people--THAT is the larger purpose of SA

 

[Doug3006]

Even within the Israel there's a lot of opposition to the ground operations and Netanyahu himself.
It'll be just a proxy war as it's happening now and falling of the West is a far fetched idea and won't happen.
The only long term solution to this mess is having two states as accepted by UN and USA.

If the Palestinian state is run by any of the usual suspect (I.e., Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood) then a 2-state solution will continue to be unworkable and unstable. Israel has never had a partner in peace. When the other side wants nothing less than to kill each and every one of you, what’s there to negotiate?

Perhaps another nation in the area could set up an administrative state in Gaza, but who would want it? Egypt hates the Palestinians. Left their own devices, Egypt would probably like to invade and annihilate Hamas as much as Israel does. Jordan has enough Palestinian refugees in its own country, and is probably not looking to get involved with any more! Of course, Iran would love nothing better than to have administrative control over Gaza, for nefarious reasons, but Israel would never go for that.

So I think Gaza will remain what it is. An open air prison. Forever.

 

[ActionBob]

This is possibly true.
Not only that, most of us legal gun owners in Europe and other places in the world, respect America for this freedom, and speak of America as example in the world on civil rights.

The problem however remains. How to prevent psychos and criminals getting their hands on guns?

What @WAB said.

In fact Maine has Yellow Flag Law. I've heard it reported two different ways that the yellow flag differs from a red flag law. First report I heard was that a doctor or at least a health professional must report someone and then a judge can order guns to be confiscated. The second way i heard it reported was that only law enforcement could initiate a confiscation.

In any case, Maine clearly had a law on the books to prevent this from happening. However it looks like everybody thought that somebody else was doing the the job that it turns out nobody did....

 

[Doubleplay]

The Palestinians were offered two states multiple times and turned it down. They want the total destruction of Israel and that isn't going to happen.

You are misinformed. Both sides agreed and then rejected two state solution multiple times.
Here is the chronological order of it if anybody cares to read:

Two-state solution | Meaning, Map, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, & Borders | Britannica

The two-state solution is a proposed framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing two states for two peoples: Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people.

www.britannica.com

 

[Hogpatrol]

You are misinformed. Both sides agreed and then rejected two state solution multiple times.
Here is the chronological order of it if anybody cares to read:

Two-state solution | Meaning, Map, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, & Borders | Britannica

The two-state solution is a proposed framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing two states for two peoples: Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people.

www.britannica.com

Misinformed? Maybe.

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

• In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
• In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
• In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
• The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
• The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
• In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
• In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
• In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.

The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”

The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. “They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders.” The Palestinians, Morris says, also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the Palestinian refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion fund that would be collected from international donors to compensate them.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was “a great man.” Clinton responded, “The hell I am. I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict with Israel was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations—that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say “yes” to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Anyone that is against Israel should satisfy themselves as why this may have been?

I believe, when it comes to the Palestinians, as David Crosby has it: "They Want It All"