White House Shooting Was On A 'Mission From God'

[nmbluesky]

A man clad in black who was obsessed with President Barack Obama pulled his car within view of the White House at night and fired shots from an assault rifle, cracking a window of the first family's living quarters while the president was away, authorities said about their still-developing investigation.
Ortega is from Idaho Falls, Idaho, and was reported missing Oct. 31 by his family. A message left for Ortega's mother Wednesday at an Idaho Falls restaurant where she works was not returned. Phone listings for family members in the city were disconnected. Ortega has an arrest record in three states but has not been linked to any radical organizations, U.S. Park Police have said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/ortega-hernandez-obama-white-house_n_1099015.html

[atreides1]

1. Mission from God, huh?

Well maybe God should have told him that POTUS was going to be out of town!

[Pirate Smile]

2. He was on TV, on an aircraft carrier, off the coast of California, watching a basketball game at the

time. It wasn't exactly a secret.



http://l.yimg.com/iu/api/res/1.2/p0e90zWP6WQPmVPgUQu.Fg--/YXBwaWQ9eXZpZGVvO2NyPTA7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcA--/

[RC]

4. We have so many aircraft carriers that we are turning the extras into sports stadiums.

[Pirate Smile]

7. It was on Veterans Day & it was the first time it has ever been done.

Plus, taxpayers didn't pay for it.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/10/carrier-carl-vinson-sailors-ready-for-basketball/

[surrealAmerican]

8. This is completely off topic, but ...

... that top photo is amazing!

[Pirate Smile]

9. I know. It is kinda awsome.

This was a good excuse to post it. :)

[hamsterjill]

5. Hilarious reponse!

Thanks for my morning laugh!

[catbyte]

3. Sorry, loser, Jake & Elwood were on the only legit "Mission from God"

[VWolf]

6. "Don't you blaspheme in this restaurant!"

</Aretha>

[AlinPA]

10. Four republicans claim God told them to run for president. This is getting

complicated.

[and-justice-for-all]

11. Imagine that..nt

[ellisonz]

12. I hope Malia and Sasha were nowhere near it...

Time to reinstate an even stronger assault weapons ban.

[krispos42]

13. I doubt it.

"Assault weapon" definition is arbitrary, determined from a list of cosmetic features on a semi-automatic rifle (in this case).

Assuming this rifle was an "assault weapon" under the 1993 ban, taking off the bayonet-mounting lug, pistol grip, or flash suppressor would not have done anything to keep this man from shooting at the White House.

For that matter... your average bolt-action deer rifle is significantly more powerful (and accurate) than an AK-47ish rifle.

[ellisonz]

14. That's why I said even stronger...

A guy with a hunting rifle isn't going to get off 30 rounds in less than 2 minutes at rushing Secret Service agents. Anybody who thinks people ought to have these types of weapons should join the army and quite militarizing the neighborhood block. The Old West had better firearm restrictions. Disgusting. :puke:

[krispos42]

15. You might be surprised how fast some of those bolt-actions fire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZlF5wY_EYM

That rifle holds 10 rounds in the magazine, so each fired 20 aimed shots in 60 seconds or less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3mlHdr8s3I


This guy shoots ten rounds in about 40 seconds, reloading once (the gun holds 5 rounds).



The first rifle's muzzle energy is about 50% more than the AK-47ish rifle, the second is nearly double.





And lets not even get into lever-actions.



However, I do give you kudos for saying you simply want to ban semi-automatics outright. Many people hide this by taking about only "assault rifles", which is just a smokescreen of arbitrary-ness.

[ellisonz]

16. Those are trained professionals in a controlled environment...

I mean really - how long are we going to let this madness go on. If Fast and Furious prove anything it's how absurdly easy it is for anyone wanting to get a legal or illegal weapon to get their hands on weapons. I also think you ought to be annually cleared by your local police or sheriff's department to possess a weapon and that there ought to be a limited on the number of weapons you can own and on similar restrictions on the purchasing of ammunition.

I think people ought to read the whole damn thing and not just "the right of the people."

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So long as you are able to possess some legitimate use weapons your right has not been infringed according to an accurate reading of the Second Amendment.

[krispos42]

17. I think they're just recreational shooters.

Nobody's used a bolt-action rifle for regular military service since the 1950's.


I would note that your boldface section would not fly if you substituted, say, the 1st Amendment.

:shrug:

You're already cleared by the FBI to purchase a gun from a dealer, and you're cleared by your state police (except in a handful) to carry concealed in public.

:shrug: :shrug: I suppose you could enhance the first part to be cleared by the FBI on the transfer of any firearm, but it hasn't been done yet, probably because it's a pain in the ass. It's not a bad idea, in theory, but it hasn't been done yet. I've actually had ideas on this issue that I've posted in the Gungeon.

As to ownership limits, it's probably a pretty useless idea simply because a person can generally only use one gun at a time, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.

[ellisonz]

18. Still they're seasoned...

1. That's not true - the grammatical structure of the sentence is different:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While terminal marks (i.e., full stops, exclamation marks, and question marks) mark the end of a sentence, the comma, semicolon and colon are normally sentence internal, making them secondary boundary marks. Semicolons are intermediate in strength between terminal marks and commas; their strength is equal to that of the colon.<4>
Constraints

When a semicolon marks the right boundary of a constituent (e.g., a clause or a phrase), the left boundary is marked by punctuation of equal or greater strength.
When two or more semicolons are used within a single construction, all constituents are at the same level, unlike commas which can separate, for example, subordinate clauses from main clauses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon

In the First Amendment there are 3 main clauses all of equal importance: religion, civil discourse, and communal. In the Second Amendment, there is one superior clause and one subordinate clause: weapons in society, and individual privilege. Anybody who's studied 18th century American colonial political philosophy can tell you that the writing style of that period was extremely heavy on the use of grammar to separate and relate and order logical thoughts.

For example, take this excerpt from a 20-year-old Benjamin Franklin's "A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain. London: Printed in the Year MDCCXXV (1725). (Yale University Library):

V. If He is all-powerful, there can be nothing either existing or acting in the Universe against or without his Consent; and what He consents to must be good, because He is good; therefore Evil doth not exist.

Unde Malum? has been long a Question, and many of the Learned have perplex’d themselves and Readers to little Purpose in Answer to it. That there are both Things and Actions to which we give the Name of Evil, is not here deny’d, as Pain, Sickness, Want, Theft, Murder, &c. but that these and the like are not in reality Evils, Ills, or Defects in the Order of the Universe, is demonstrated in the next Section, as well as by this and the following Proposition. Indeed, to suppose any Thing to exist or be done, contrary to the Will of the Almighty, is to suppose him not almighty; or that Something (the Cause of Evil) is more mighty than the Almighty; an Inconsistence that I think no One will defend: And to deny any Thing or Action, which he consents to the existence of, to be good, is entirely to destroy his two Attributes of Wisdom and Goodness.

There is nothing done in the Universe, say the Philosophers, but what God either does, or permits to be done. This, as He is Almighty, is certainly true: But what need of this Distinction between doing and permitting? Why, first they take it for granted that many Things in the Universe exist in such a Manner as is not for the best, and that many Actions are done which ought not to be done, or would be better undone; these Things or Actions they cannot ascribe to God as His, because they have already attributed to Him infinite Wisdom and Goodness; Here then is the Use of the Word Permit; He permits them to be done, say they. But we will reason thus: If God permits an Action to be done, it is because he wants either Power or Inclination to hinder it; in saying he wants Power, we deny Him to be almighty; and if we say He wants Inclination or Will, it must be, either because He is not Good, or the Action is not evil, (for all Evil is contrary to the Essence of infinite Goodness.) The former is inconsistent with his before-given Attribute of Goodness, therefore the latter must be true.

It will be said, perhaps, that God permits evil Actions to be done, for wise Ends and Purposes. But this Objection destroys itself; for whatever an infinitely good God hath wise Ends in suffering to be, must be good, is thereby made good, and cannot be otherwise.

http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp

Do you see the variation in grammar and how it relates to the ordering of the argument? People in the 18th Century wrote in sentence forms that are radically different from how we write today, which is more free-flowing and less dependent on the use of such punctuation marks.

2. I would rather have local jurisdictions which are much more attuned to the individual case doing such screening initial screening than the FBI - although local officials should certainly have access to a national database. I mean, you don't get cleared by the FBI to have a drivers license, which gives one right to use what the courts judge to be a deadly weapon. Why should firearms be different?

3. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine, Seung-Hui Cho at Virgina Tech, Scott Evans Dekraai in Seal Beach recently all had multiple weapons. If Jared Lee Loughner had a second weapon he would have killed many more too. As Loughner demonstrates, easy access to multiple firearms allows one to continue the spree without the immediate interruption of re-loading. Such a restriction would reduce proliferation while preserving the right to bear arms and making for a safer society.

[krispos42]

19. I see the variation in grammar

I think the issue is that in the First, there are 3 related sections (or topics), each with several parts to it, so it needs to be structurally different.

But I'm not a grammar nazi, although I do have the comic:



:D


2. Well, states can have higher standards than the standard FBI check (called NICS). For example, California requires also a state check, and a waiting period. Minnesota requires a separate permit to buy a semi-automatic firearm, which can take up to a week to be issued. And so on.

3. Yeah, they had two each. That guy in Norway that shot and killed 69 men, woman, and children had 2 guns as well. If you are not seriously saying we should be limited to one gun per person, then the argument that you're trying to stop a mass shooting really isn't working.

Besides, even though it seems that mass shootings are becoming more common, this is occurring at the same time the homicide rate continues to drop; currently we're at levels not seen since the Kennedy Administration.

I created this chart from DoJ data; mass killings have historically been only a tiny fraction of homicide incidents.



As you can see, regardless of the actual number of homicides a year, about 95% of murders had one victim and 4% two victims; 3 or more victims were only in about 1% of incidents.

This data only goes to 2005, before the economic crisis seems to have made "kill the family then yourself" multiple homicides more common, so it may be higher by now. I can't say for sure.

Keep in mind that the US homicide rate was about 9 per 100,000people/year from the mid-70's to 1992, then fell to about 6. by 2000 and has been dropping steadily since; it's now at 5.5 or so.

[ellisonz]

20. Big problem with the states can do it argument.

People cross state lines. What we need is coordination. National homicide rates have little to do with lax regulation and localized crime. The murder rate is higher in Compton than in Beverly Hills. Remember Jared Lee Loughner was turned down at one Walmart trying to buy ammunition but was just able to drive to another and make his purchase.

The gun-nuttery is just so wrong.