And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Is that the same watch list that had Ted Kennedy on it at one point?

That was the DUI watch list.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

What exactly is wrong with these people?

I don't know that, at the core, R politicians are any different from D politicians. In the end, it's all about acquiring and maintaining power, and that mostly manifests itself in getting re-elected. They know that if they're perceived as "not giving an inch on guns to the liberals," that's much better for their re-election prospects than any reasonable compromise.

That said, I haven't read much about this particular bill. Any chance that the gun measures were included with something else that's unpalatable? Seems like a very smart political tactic right now would be to attach something unworkable to a seemingly-obvious gun bill to make the Republicans look bad.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Is that the same watch list that had Ted Kennedy on it at one point?

Heh. OK. So I just did a little looking, and it sounds like "terrorist watch list" is a scary-sounding term, but that lots of completely innocent people can end up on it without their knowledge. That's according to the ACLU--not exactly a bastion of conservative politics. So, yeah, this sounds like a smart move by the left to make the right look really bad. (Was the bill introduced in the last few days?)

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Any chance that the gun measures were included with something else that's unpalatable? Seems like a very smart political tactic right now would be to attach something unworkable to a seemingly-obvious gun bill to make the Republicans look bad.

If that was the case, it would seem that the Republicans would be mentioning that there was something unworkable in the bill. They could say for the Democrats to bring the bill back without the offending piece.

Feels like they are just pandering to their base and don't care how many dead Americans they have to walk over to do it.

[Ben E Lou]

OK, yeah. Added as amendments to existing measures in the last few days.

And yeah: if this "terrorist watch list" casts as wide a net as it appears, seems like denying people on it 2nd Amendment rights could have been declared unconstitutional. Imagine Lindsey Graham in the next R primary in SC trying to explain why he voted for an unconstitutional gun control measure.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

OK, yeah. Added as amendments to existing measures in the last few days.

And yeah: if this "terrorist watch list" casts as wide a net as it appears, seems like denying people on it 2nd Amendment rights could have been declared unconstitutional. Imagine Lindsey Graham in the next R primary in SC trying to explain why he voted for an unconstitutional gun control measure.

He voted for the Patriot act, which is a violation of privacy. I doubt he much cares about the Constitution, except where it helps him get re-elected.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

If that was the case, it would seem that the Republicans would be mentioning that there was something unworkable in the bill. They could say for the Democrats to bring the bill back without the offending piece.

I'll do some looking, but based on what I just read and posted about, it sounds like the "unworkable" part is the "terrorist watch list" itself. My first guess is that they are saying that, but that MSNBC wouldn't be the first source to report that explanation.

Feels like they are just pandering to their base and don't care how many dead Americans they have to walk over to do it.

And this comes as a surprise??????

To be 100% clear, I operate under the assumption that at LEAST 75% (probably more like 90-99%) of all politicians who make it to the national level in either party run pretty much every voting decision through the filter of "which way do I need to vote to best advance my political career?"

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

To be 100% clear, I operate under the assumption that at LEAST 75% (probably more like 90-99%) of all politicians who make it to the national level in either party run pretty much every voting decision through the filter of "which way do I need to vote to best advance my political career?"

I agree with this assessment. But it doesn't make it any less sad when this many Americans are being gunned down.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I agree with this assessment. But it doesn't make it any less sad when this many Americans are being gunned down.

I get what you're saying. That assessment is the backdrop for this section from post 93 in this thread:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

All that said, is it realistic in *practice* to think that anything will get through the House any time soon? I seriously doubt it. I strongly suspect that the "pro-gun" side has an near-unbreakable majority there right now. Of course, for political reasons nearly all (if not all) Republicans would vote against anything perceived as "bowing to the left." But there are also enough Democrats who represent rural and semi-rural areas that supporting anything too strict would be committing political suicide. (Heck, as far-left as Sanders is generally considered to be, he has the most "pro-gun" voting record of the Ds running from President.)

So, after just a few minutes of looking, I found this in the Washington Times. (Yes, a right-leaning newspaper.)

Gun bans for terrorist watch list rejected in Senate as part of Obamacare repeal bill - Washington Times

Key quote from the article

"Though it would not become law — President Obama is poised to veto the underlying bill — Democrats wanted to put senators on record in the wake of yet another mass shooting Wednesday that killed 14 people in California."

The "underlying bill" mentioned above isn't exactly something the Dems want:

The amendment to the Republican-authored budget bill was part of a long series of proposed changes to the fast-track budget bill, which guts the Affordable Care Act and defunds Planned Parenthood because of its abortion practices.

So, the amendment that the Democrats proposed to "keep the people safe" was never designed actually do anything. It was just smart politics at a time when the country's sensitivities are heightened to guns, designed to make the other side look bad in the public eye.

We don't have just 55 Senators just "pandering to their base and don't care how many dead Americans they have to walk over to do it." We have ~100.

[Easy Mac]

Am I the only one that found it odd the media were allowed in the apartment 2 days after the attack? Something seems really off.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Am I the only one that found it odd the media were allowed in the apartment 2 days after the attack? Something seems really off.

Obama wanted to make sure the evidence was destroyed. At least that's what the wingnuts are saying.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

We don't have just 55 Senators just "pandering to their base and don't care how many dead Americans they have to walk over to do it." We have ~100.

I actually agree here too. But, the Republicans actually need to do a better job of getting their message across. I keep hearing about mental health from them (which is fair enough if they see that as the issue with mass shootings), yet I've seen absolutely nothing from them in the way of actual solutions, or even studies.

They could also offer a clean bill with just the restrictions the Democrats asked for. Then they are placing the ball squarely in their court.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by stevew

Obama wanted to make sure the evidence was destroyed. At least that's what the wingnuts are saying.

I think someone waved some cash in front of the landlord's face when they realized how incompetent the San Bernadino investigators were.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Who is on the terror watch list?

potential terrorists who might be stopped before they can get weapons? I think the article talked about an appeal for those few who legitimately want to buy a gun.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I actually agree here too. But, the Republicans actually need to do a better job of getting their message across. I keep hearing about mental health from them (which is fair enough if they see that as the issue with mass shootings), yet I've seen absolutely nothing from them in the way of actual solutions, or even studies.

They could also offer a clean bill with just the restrictions the Democrats asked for. Then they are placing the ball squarely in their court.

Yeah but the article talks about how they blocked another bill that would have dealt with at least some of those with mental health issues. so they can't even agree to do something about it when they had the chance to do something.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

OK, yeah. Added as amendments to existing measures in the last few days.

And yeah: if this "terrorist watch list" casts as wide a net as it appears, seems like denying people on it 2nd Amendment rights could have been declared unconstitutional. Imagine Lindsey Graham in the next R primary in SC trying to explain why he voted for an unconstitutional gun control measure.

No, no, no, no. It is ONE side who does this. ONE side who puts pork in bills, panders to their base and acts like douche bags. ONE side who make or block horrible laws because it protects their base.

I hate all of this so much. People are dead and rather than talk to each other, this entire group of douche bags wants to yell GOTHYA at the other party. UGH.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There you go again.

JPhillips pointed out that the President had put forth a solution and it was rebuffed. That's absolutely not the same thing as not trying. To be clear, the same thing as not trying would be if the President did not put forth a solution.

Which leads us to:

The President put forth a compromise solution in order to start negotiations/dialogue (sound familiar? it's the story of the entire Obama administration), only to be shut down (sound familiar? it's the story of the entire Obama administration).

On this issue and many others, Democrats are not the intractable ones. Having said that, I admire the tenacity with which you stick to your worldview.

You might have missed the multiple posts where I said we'd need new legislators and a new dynamic in government generally to make progress in these areas. I don't think it's impossible to change those dynamics over time.

I love when people question how effective gun control measures might be, they get yelled at for having "blood on their hands" and for wanting to "do nothing." But when I offer actual blueprints about how legislation can actually be passed and has been passed, I'm shot down and told that's pointless too. So what the hell do you want? Are these mass shootings just an opportunity for you to peach and criticize people you don't like? And why am I your target here? Even though I posed the most detailed and realistic possibility for actual gun control (I'd love to hear yours, I guess it would have to bypass congress somehow?), I'm still your biggest target just because I dared to criticize some dems. That shows where your real priorities are, and I know you're not alone.

And yes, I don't know how many Dems are really flexible on this and actually willing to compromise. Meaning both dems in power and those who post their views here. Some of that is based on the views expressed in this thread, like yours. I never said Obama didn't try and wasn't willing to compromise. I don't think he was particularly savvy on this issue early on, which helped lead to massive gun sale increases, but I think he's starting to get it talking about no-fly lists and stuff, but it's too late for him now. But the no-fly thing (again, it's just an example, it alone wouldn't be enough, and the list would need to be tightened up), is kind of the equivalent of the 90s compromise point of limiting habeas rights to get things done. (Which I don't believe a lot of Dems would be in favor of today). You need to start somewhere. Which ironically, is what liberals say when people point out how ineffective modest gun control measures would be. The fact that I get shot down too when I say the same thing shows that a lot dems are not as interested in getting deals done as you think. It's all about playing politics and being right, and shootings are just opportunities to play that game. And I'm sure this stuff sparks political donations to campaigns, so these mass shootings are a real opportunity.

Edit: But, let's just assume for fun that you'd be willing to compromise. How far would you be willing to go? How important is this? Would you be willing to further restrict federal review of criminal cases? Expand the NSA? Allow the DOJ to prosecute more murders so we could executive more people more quickly, even when the murders take place in states which have banned the death penalty (I think that'd be constitutional in most instances today because just about everything is considered a part of "interstate commerce" now)? All for increasing gun purchase waiting list times or closing the gun show loophole? That stuff would be about as huge as all the concessions Clinton made. What are you willing to do in the name of scaling back rights that YOU value?

Every political discussion here, but especially the ones about guns, seem to start with the template of Dems are perfect and flexible, and everyone else is blame for everything bad that happens. If you stray from that template at all, and dare to criticize a democrat, everything gets derailed and THAT becomes the issue.

Respecting others' viewpoints and values on this or any other issue, is absolutely essential to finding common ground. But especially this one where the values are SO different. Many liberals are really good at acknowledging and respecting those values (I mentioned Clinton and Carter a couple of times), but I really don't know how prominent that is these days. If this thread is any indication, it's not. Here you have blood on your hands if you have the wrong opinion. In other words, you either have the right opinion already, or you're part of the problem and your values are invalid.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

potential terrorists who might be stopped before they can get weapons? I think the article talked about an appeal for those few who legitimately want to buy a gun.

And who puts them on that list? Is it even public knowledge? Can terrorists or potential terrorists go through the gun buying process to see if they are denied or not (and thus know if the FBI is keeping an eye on them)?

[Grammaticus]

From the title of the thread to 90% of the discussion,it has nothing to do with the cause of the incident. Talk about being lost.

[Dutch]

Thread title should include "terrorism" now that we know this was politically and religiously motivated.

Co-workers said Farook was reserved. They said he had grown his beard out in recent months – often a sign among Muslims of heightened religious devotion. He also had gotten into several heated arguments with a co-worker, Nicholas Thalasinos, about Islam. Thalasinos reportedly questioned whether Farook’s faith was truly a “religion of peace.” He was one of the 14 killed in Wednesday’s attack.

San Bernardino gunman reportedly contacted foreign terror organizations | Fox News

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I don't know that, at the core, R politicians are any different from D politicians. In the end, it's all about acquiring and maintaining power, and that mostly manifests itself in getting re-elected. They know that if they're perceived as "not giving an inch on guns to the liberals," that's much better for their re-election prospects than any reasonable compromise.

That said, I haven't read much about this particular bill. Any chance that the gun measures were included with something else that's unpalatable? Seems like a very smart political tactic right now would be to attach something unworkable to a seemingly-obvious gun bill to make the Republicans look bad.

It's a shame we can't have political items where people show a real understanding like this, and we end up discussing the issues themselves.

As long as we have a deeply partisan media and elections are decided by 10-second sound bytes and most people tune in only long enough to have their own biases stroked, it's not going to change.

The only "blood" on hands in this case is on the hands of those who teach the Salafist ideal that led to the mindset that this sort of attack brings someone closer to whatever deities they hold faith with.

[cuervo72]

Should we have a thread for any shooting deaths? You know, to keep things clean.

7-year-old dead, mother in serious condition after Taylor Sportsplex shooting | MLive.com

Community reacts after Waffle House waitress shot and killed - WLOX.com - The News for South Mississippi

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So all the Republicans say they want to do something with gun control. But can't even say yes to what sounds like reasonable restrictions:

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC

I lean toward gun rights in my general thinking, but I don't find any rational reasons in that article for why those gun control measures should not have been approved. Did anyone from the GOP Senate say why they voted against those?

[Chief Rum]

I see this has been somewhat addressed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That was the DUI watch list.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Heh. OK. So I just did a little looking, and it sounds like "terrorist watch list" is a scary-sounding term, but that lots of completely innocent people can end up on it without their knowledge.

I can't tell if you guys thought I was kidding or not, but: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug19.html

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Feels like they are just pandering to their base and don't care how many dead Americans they have to walk over to do it.

Or alternatively, they don't think those measures will do much good. They may very well be doing as you say, but I would think it's unfair(and uncivil) to presume such.

Edit: excellent post by Molson there IMO. Especially considering I'm on the side of people who think this should be a big priority, but that we're doing what was called earlier in the thread treating the symptoms and not the disease.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I can't tell if you guys thought I was kidding or not, but: Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List (washingtonpost.com)

I wasn't aware of that prior to yesterday, but I did run across it when I was looking to read more about the "Terrorist Watch List." To be clear, before yesterday, when I heard that term, I had assumed it was a relatively small list of radicalized Muslims, far-right Idaho neo-Nazi types, and far-left potential ecoterrorist types--fringe people who've never actually done anything to get arrested but who were considered dangerous. It turns out it's a list that both the NRA and ACLU have spoken out against as well as members of Congress from both parties (when it suits their own purpose of the moment, of course.) It sounds like Kennedy got on it just because another Edward Kennedy was considered to be a threat. Awesome.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Or alternatively, they don't think those measures will do much good. They may very well be doing as you say, but I would think it's unfair(and uncivil) to presume such.

Edit: excellent post by Molson there IMO. Especially considering I'm on the side of people who think this should be a big priority, but that we're doing what was called earlier in the thread treating the symptoms and not the disease.

Things like Ted Cruz donning olive flannel and blaming shootings on gun-free zones while holding a rally at a gun store doesn't come across as looking for a solution. It comes across as pandering.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Things like Ted Cruz donning olive flannel and blaming shootings on gun-free zones while holding a rally at a gun store doesn't come across as looking for a solution. It comes across as pandering.

Just like everything Obama and Clinton do is silly pandering. They just line up with your ideology.

[cuervo72]

The ideology that voted for Romney, McCain, Bush, Bush, and Perot?

[Grammaticus]

Ideology does not fit perfectly in a D or R bucket and they all pander for votes.

Also, I hear you on the voting history. Maybe you align with Cruz and just don't like that style.

[molson]

If gun control legislation is impossible, as a couple of people in this thread seem to think, Obama is definitely pandering every time he talks about this. If the goal isn't legislation, it's just general Dem-boosting grandstanding.

I don't think that's true though, I think change is possible over time.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The ideology that voted for Romney, McCain, Bush, Bush, and Perot?

Well, somebody is a master of the slow-roll.

[cuervo72]

I mean, Obama tried to set aside 10M for CDC research into gun deaths a couple of years ago. Each time budgeting came up, the CDC received $0. That leads me to infer that the party line is: we don't want research done. And certainly not by a biased government entity. The sentiment is basically "bah, all that's bullshit; gun deaths are already going down, and it's because we have more guns!" Same thing goes for climate change. All the research is biased and is part of the liberal agenda. I'm just tiring of the "what, me worry?" attitude that seems convinced that it already has all of the facts it needs (or will blame mental illness, with no interest in actually addressing mental illness).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I mean, Obama tried to set aside 10M for CDC research into gun deaths a couple of years ago. Each time budgeting came up, the CDC received $0. That leads me to infer that the party line is: we don't want research done. And certainly not by a biased government entity. The sentiment is basically "bah, all that's bullshit; gun deaths are already going down, and it's because we have more guns!" Same thing goes for climate change. All the research is biased and is part of the liberal agenda. I'm just tiring of the "what, me worry?" attitude that seems convinced that it already has all of the facts it needs (or will blame mental illness, with no interest in actually addressing mental illness).

There's also the Dickey Amendment that prevents CDC funding of gun violence.

[AlexB]

These two stories from over the weekend here in the UK make me thankful that I live in a country where guns are the exception. One terrorism relate, one mental health related.

Leytonstone tube stabbing a terrorist incident

Man stabbed to death in Abingdon Poundland store - BBC News

I totally get that we don't have wild carnivorous animals, and that we were never a frontier country where guns were the norm, so this is not a comment that this is how the US should be like the UK with guns as I understand that it's culturally different...

However, I am thankful that as guns are not easily obtainable, one guy inspired by IS, and one person with mental health issues both carried out attacks in densely populated areas using the weapon that is easily available (a knife) and Between them killed one person (which may rise to two by some accounts)

I don't know what the answer is to your gun problems/debates, or even if there is one, but the difference between the San Bernadino attack and Leytonstone Tube station attack in particular stood out for me.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

donning olive flannel and blaming shootings on gun-free zones while holding a rally at a gun store

Describing a Christmas flannel shirt as militaristic olive green might literally be a war on Christmas.

[JPhillips]

This is a little surprising to me:

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. As is their custom, the justices gave no reason for turning down the appeal in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, No. 15-133, which comes at a time when the national debate on gun control has been reignited by terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights.

The ordinance, enacted in 2013, banned some weapons by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s. More generally, it prohibited possession of what it called assault weapons, defining them as semiautomatic guns that can accept large-capacity magazines and have features like a grip for the nontrigger hand. Large-capacity magazines, the ordinance said, are those that can accept more than 10 rounds.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, in Scalia's decision on the Heller case, he indicated that individual right to bear arms didn't mean that restrictions couldn't be placed on those rights (as we have restrictions on our 1st Amendment rights). It appears that Scalia and Thomas believe those allowable restrictions to be far more limited than the rest of the majority (it requires 4 Justices to approve a case from the Circuit Courts.. seems like this challenge only got the two).

[JPhillips]

Not getting four is what surprised me. Out of Roberts, Alito and Kennedy I would have thought two wouldn't be difficult.

It won't matter, but given that the Constitution says what the Supremes say it says, this should put to rest the argument that an assault rifle ban is unconstitutional.

[ISiddiqui]

I think that Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy agree on the individual right, but also agree that banning 'assault weapons' and large capacity magazines falls into the exemptions that were fine. Remember Heller was about 'self-defense' - Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy may be fine with striking down a handgun ban, but not so much for guns that generally wouldn't be used for self-defense purposes.

[Dutch]

I am good with shotguns for home defense. I'm good with requiring a conceal carry permit for handguns. I'm good with rifles for hunting. That's about as "liberal" as I would go.

[albionmoonlight]

Sometimes a justice will refuse to grant cert on a case even if he thinks that the case is wrongly decided by the circuit court.

It may be that he just does not feel like the issue is worth the Court's limited time/attention at that point. Or it may be that he wants to wait for the circuit courts to develop the law more. Or he may want to wait for a different fact pattern that raises one of his pet issues that he'd like to address in the case.

Basically, refusing to grant review is a decent sign that a justice is OK with the result below. But it is by no means a iron-clad sign. Lots of factors are at play.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Yeah this weekend I happened to watch the video of the UK terrorist stabber getting tazed, and then immediately saw the video of the bank robber in the US wielding a razor, who was shot and killed by police:

Armed Bank Robbery Suspect Shot, Killed in Miami Had Escaped From Half-Way House, Police Say - ABC News


Any gun control vs/ no gun control debate should start with the viewing of those 2 videos back-to-back.

**Edit to add: the reason is so people come to terms with the truth that guns in America is a cultural thing. Beyond the shooting-coyotes-on-the-ranch culture, beyond the let-me-hunt-like-pappy-did culture, there is also a we-shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later culture, and maybe perhaps even we-value-the-lives-of-the-wayward-souls-a-little-bit-less culture.

There are two issues that bother me about this tangent of the discussion. Issues you're touching upon here and seem to understand.

1) We talk a lot about respecting cultural differences in America. If we truly embrace the concept that we can create an America that brings people together and benefits from everyone's strengths, we shouldn't be so quick to ridicule the culture of those we disagree with on gun rights.

Some posts here have mocked the southern drawl in ways that we wouldn't tolerate if they were used to mock other speech differences.

One of the reasons I really love and respect my wife, even though we have significant political differences, is that she never makes a point by mocking others. We can never move forward in a discussion unless we listen and understand why something is important to someone else.

2) We also talk a lot about using "excessive" force in response to a crime. That even though Michael Brown, for example, had committed a strong-arm robbery and had physically engaged a police officer, shooting him several times was a disproportionate response.

But I don't think we spend enough time talking about the effect of crime on people and their families. That when someone chooses to commit a crime, even if that person isn't necessarily violent like Brown was, what do we want from police - or what do we encourage in response from others?

I don't know the answer here. I feel we don't respect that crimes have victims and we spend more time worrying about the wayward souls than those they've harmed.

One thing that struck me yesterday was reading about an incident in Queens in 1991. A 79-year-old woman was at a shopping mall when a 16-year-old boy grabbed her purse. When she resisted, he knocked her down and beat her quite badly (she had several broken ribs and severe facial bruising). Her name was Mary Trump. Her son is now running for president. I wonder how much of Donald Trump's bluster on the issue of crime stems from the pain this attack must have caused his family.

[ISiddiqui]

Though if we are going to talk about Trump's parents, one could point out that Fred Trump, Donald's father, was arrested in 1927 as part of a KKK riot against the Queens police, and that the US DOJ Civil Rights Department found out that Fred Trump absolutely refused to rent to blacks and had to sue him for equal opportunity in renting. I wonder how much of Donald Trump's racist bluster on the issue of race comes from his father's racism and bigotry.

[Dutch]

IRT: Jim

Probably a lot. Experience affects us all. My mother was mugged by a purse snatcher in Atlanta...she refused to yield and was drug down the 'street' (the mugger was in the passenger seat of a car in a parking garage) and she was ended up with lacerations on her face, shoulder, arms and legs (she's pretty tough though)...and the criminals didn't give a shit...I don't really have much sympathy for people, no matter how poor they are...if they disrespect people that badly. That scenario was ingrained into my mind at and early age and still plays today into my belief that karma is a bitch (when criminals 'get theirs'). Even criminals should ultimately be responsible, not just citizens that have respectable jobs. I have yet to see a dude like Michael Brown get shot up while studying for a test in the library...just because he was (name your race/gender/religion/culture that cops apparently hate).

So yeah, I'd buy that.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I have yet to see a dude like Michael Brown get shot up while studying for a test in the library...just because he was (name your race/gender/religion/culture that cops apparently hate).

So we've solved it. Brown people are safe as long as they're always at the library!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So we've solved it. Brown people are safe as long as they're always at the library!

Well, that solves the problem for some people, but not everyone:

The Dartmouth Review » Eyes Wide Open at the Protest

Seriously, though. I know I invoked Brown, which carries its own emotional subtext, but is the point that you lose a certain expectation of safety when you choose to commit a crime completely irrelevant?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So we've solved it. Brown people are safe as long as they're always at the library!

Come to the library, it improves circulation!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Well, that solves the problem for some people, but not everyone:

The Dartmouth Review » Eyes Wide Open at the Protest

Seriously, though. I know I invoked Brown, which carries its own emotional subtext, but is the point that you lose a certain expectation of safety when you choose to commit a crime completely irrelevant?

I really want to know how the Dartmouth protesters haven't been thrown out of school yet.