Walmart CEO Calls for Congress to Debate Assault Weapons Ban

By Matt Townsend | August 16, 2019

  • August 16, 2019 at 11:54 am
    craig cornell says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 22
    Thumb down 29

    Fun Fact: Estimates are that at least 1/3 of all AR-15 weapons in public hands have no serial number. What does that mean? It means they were manufactured underground and sold illegally.

    Yeah. Let’s have that “assault weapons” ban. It failed abysmally after 10 years when passed by Clinton. There was no evidence after 10 years that it made one damn difference in reducing violent crime.

    And once banned, you know the criminals who make and sell underground AR-15s will jack up production and sell the guns at an even higher profit.

    (Meanwhile, it is never reported in the media that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters had no father in the home of the shooter. One estimate had it at 26 of the last 27 mass shooters. Whatever, that can’t be important.)

    But “let’s have a conversation” always begins and ends with WHITE SUPREMACY! As if people actually care about the dead when they talk about side issues that won’t solve anything. Sure they do.

    • August 16, 2019 at 5:56 pm
      Jon says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 13

      Oh Craig, haven’t you had enough of your BS being proven wrong? First off prove it, I don’t believe your statistics since generally you’re full of it. Second, if that many of these weapons are being used illegally then isn’t that further reason to ban and put strict guidelines on them such as actual automatic machineguns? Also, your father thing is speculation, you have offered no proof and once more, you’re full of it.

      Lastly, several of the shooters have been White Supremacists. I’m sorry, ignoring racism is still racism.

      • August 18, 2019 at 3:02 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 12

        Which shooters were actually White Supremacists? Please identify the ones who weren’t mentally ill and were killing people in order to support White Supremacy.

        And then list the left wing killers (HA! Vegas odds on you being fair and honest: zero.)

        Because in the land of reason and logic where you don’t live, killing people and ending up dead or in prison for life doesn’t seem to promote any cause at all.

        Have at it, Big Talker. Let’s see your list of both sides of killers for political reasons.

        • August 18, 2019 at 3:23 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 5

          Dylan Roof for one. For two, killing people and ending up dead or spending life in prison doesn’t promote any cause by your beliefs, seriously? You believe that? I mean, you believe what you want, but the vast majority of history would disagree with you. Lots of people have killed others knowingly to end up dead to try and promote a cause. This is why the idea of a “suicide bomber” exists. You’re nowhere near the side of reason or logic my dear Craig, yours is the side of fingers in ears, blatant lying and as observed often blatant racism. You specifically on that last part.

      • August 18, 2019 at 4:22 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        • August 18, 2019 at 5:16 pm
          Jon says:
          • August 18, 2019 at 6:06 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 11

            Snopes? Snopes! That totally discredited liberal BS mill that spends time “fact checking” satirical websites. You know, they “fact check” people who make up stuff to be funny. Which by definition is NOT TRUE!

            Hilarious! You trust them.

            P.S. Their story is just hilarious. They ignore the claims of the actual author and through presumption and guessing work their way through 7 suspicious “connections” to find that, yep, 7 of the mass shooters might have had a father in the home at some time BUT NOT NECESSARILY AT THE TIME THE KILLERS KILLED!

            I know thinking is not your strong suit, but even if they were trustworthy, 19 of 27 had no fathers in the home. Case Closed.

          • August 18, 2019 at 7:44 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 3

            Did the same sites that told you 26 out of 27 of the last killers were fatherless that you swore up and down was fact tell you snopes was totally discredited too? There aren’t many resources of legit information out there, but snopes has taken the stance of fighting your sides misinformation campaign. You’ve put yourself into a corner where there is no way for you to believe anything factual. You’re living in a delusion and the right wing has been feeding you exactly what you want to hear, so you don’t bother to use your own eyes. It’s sad, really.

          • August 18, 2019 at 7:47 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 4

            I wanted to separate out these posts in case one gets deleted, because you were proven wrong and it would be sad, except you’re so much at fault in your current situation I can’t even feel pity for you. You can deny the truth and convince yourself you can’t ever be wrong (everyone is wrong, everyone. Except you, right?) But go ahead and call it case closed, lol

          • August 19, 2019 at 1:44 pm
            companyman says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 0

            To be clear.. The article says 26 out of 27 were fatherless, but it is a misleading headline. It says that they did not have their biological father. I was raised by my stepdad from the time I was 5. He was as much as a father figure as anyone could have been, instilled right/wrong, and even gun safety although he was not my “biological father.” Based on that alone I will dismiss your argument about not having a father being a driving force for these shootings.

          • August 19, 2019 at 1:59 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 9

            For the slow readers in the bunch, Real Clear Politics is considered the new NY Times for intelligent liberals. RCP pushes from the left side of the equation but still starts from the journalists’ insistence on truth first.

            Snopes is a joke to thinking people, a biased liberal clown show that is a punch line for most people. (“Was it “fact checked” by Snopes?” usually gets a laugh from the intelligent crowd.)

          • August 19, 2019 at 4:31 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 3

            Lol are you really trying to claim an article you linked is a site for “intelligent liberals”? Except a quick internet search shows that’s incorrect. There is no piece of information I could ever show you to prove you wrong because you have taken the line in the Sand that you are never wrong. You are of course, and everyone here can see it, but man it’s fun to watch you try and come up with excuses for your abhorrent belief system.

        • August 20, 2019 at 7:16 pm
          lint says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Well if that isn’t a trustworthy site I don’t know what is!

  • August 16, 2019 at 2:38 pm
    retired risk manager says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    Craig: I agree with most of your post, except how the rifles were manufactured. They were not “manufactured underground” or “sold illegally”. A quick search will show that there are numerous sources for the separate parts of the rifle, and there is no license required for their private sale once assembled. This rifle is not that accurate, and most people do not put in the range time to become proficient.

    • August 16, 2019 at 2:59 pm
      craig cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 6

      Fair enough. But the same could be said for Bump stocks, and the Vegas killer was one of the worst of all time.

      • August 20, 2019 at 7:19 pm
        lint says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        closest I’ve ever seen to you accepting you are wrong.

        • August 22, 2019 at 7:19 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          Wrong. I have admitted mistakes before. But thanks for imagining you read every post of mine. A Fan!

          • August 23, 2019 at 10:44 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            LOL you can’t even be wrong about accepting being wrong. You are lying, above.

    • August 16, 2019 at 7:43 pm
      Allan says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 0

      Well you’re half right. Yes, you can buy the various components on the internet and many other places, but in order to purchase the Lower, which must have a serial number, then you must pass a background check. Without the lower all you have is a bunch of parts. As for unserialized lowers, yes you can buy them, they are referred to as “80% complete” or “80% lowers”. They are unfinished lowers that require additional drilling and milling. I purchased one and the steps to complete it are not easy, in fact, I’m pretty handy and I ruined mine. From my experience, if a guy has the knowledge & equipment to finish an 80% lower than he could build his own. The only thing that banning sporting rifles will do is make people become more proficient at manufacturing their own, or making those who can wealthy, and make criminals out of the law-abiding.

    • August 16, 2019 at 8:31 pm
      Allan says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 9

      BTW, “retired risk..” have you ever shot an AR-15, or any other firearm? The “rifle is not that accurate”? Just because it’s black and scary looking to liberals and the ignorant doesn’t make it any less accurate, or any more lethal, than any other type of firearm. It fires a very small, .223 caliber bullet that is very accurate, but is less lethal than 90% of other calibers. I would much rather be hit 3-4 times in soft tissue by a .223 round from an AR-15 than one time from my .30 caliber hunting rifle. Of course, heart or head and caliber doesn’t matter, but the same could be said for a knife, club, or car.. Don’t believe the media hype, the AR-15, sporting rifle is no more deadly than any other type of firearm and just because it may resemble the rifle used by the military doesn’t make it one. Before you parrot the rehtoric of media and liberals, go to the range and shoot different caliber rifles and you’ll know the line of bull society’s been fed.

      • August 17, 2019 at 7:49 am
        retired risk manager says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 2

        I have my expert marksmanship badge from basic training. And, I’m a certified police office. You also don’t understand the ballistic issues of the .223 round. When they hit, they start to tumble. Very damaging. Last time I shot for my handgun license, I shot 250 / 250. Two marines shooting with me were very quiet.

  • August 16, 2019 at 3:10 pm
    Texkraut says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 2

    Wow. The ignorance is rampant in that article. I’ll just leave it there.

  • August 16, 2019 at 8:13 pm
    Allan says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 6

    It’s a damn tragedy that there were two mass shootings recently and that 31 people lost their lives, but why is that more tragic than the 309 people killed, and thousands more injured, in 2019 on the streets of Chicago? Why does the Left believe banning sporting rifles, and implementing multitudes of new laws, will avert these tragedies? They have implemented law after law in Chicago, and other leftist cities, and the only thing it has done is taken firearms, and the ability to protect themselves, away from the law abiding. If libs stringently enforced existing laws, instead of just adding new ones, we might see a change. The reason for these shootings; since the 1960’s Liberals have removed absolute moral authority and individual accountability from society. Why are we surprised when the mentally deficient lash out when Liberals are telling them that all their problems are caused by someone else? When there is no individual accountability, and their problems are outside their control, & caused by someone else, then nutjobs will strike out, whether by gun, knife, bomb, or vehicle. The desperate and insane will strike out at those they’ve been told are the problem. The problem isn’t firearms, we actually have fewer guns per capita then pre-1960, the problem is we have a broken moral code.

  • August 16, 2019 at 9:23 pm
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    Allen, your opinions are entertaining but facts might be more appropriate.
    While it is true that the number of firearms deaths in Chicago is horrendous, you conveniently ignore the fact that the City of Chicago recognized the problems and took positive efforts to minimize the number of handguns on the streets of Chicago. While the number of shootings were still unacceptable, the growth rate of the murders was controlled. Then, the NRA and their well financed legions of lawyers decided that Chicago needed more guns on the streets and successfully advocated in bith Heller and McDonald that everybody should be free to carry a handgun in the windy city. The resulting carnage was predictible. If you must offer blame, please remember the spelling of NRA, and not the civic minded leaders of Chicago.

    • August 17, 2019 at 4:36 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Mexico has only one gun shop, in Mexico City. Tijuana may now have the highest murder rate of any city in the World.

      Apparently, even when an entire country makes guns hard to get, criminals find a way.
      Which kind of makes this gun control discussion in our country pretty stupid.

      • August 17, 2019 at 10:10 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Yeah it’s not like we’re one of the richest countries in the world in comparison, our GDP is nearly twenty times theirs and we more than have the resources to do what they tried to, but you know, keep comparing the two. You support caging children, sorry I don’t trust your judgement old man.

  • August 16, 2019 at 10:21 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 8

    WalMart is advocating what? Well, they ain’t gettin’ no more of my MAGA money, that’s for darn tootin’! C’mon, honey, we’re going to miss the rally where our president is going to fat shame people.

  • August 16, 2019 at 10:25 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    Allan wrote, “Just because it’s black and scary looking…”

    Uhhh, Treyvon Martin, anyone? My Independent mind says black and scary looking doesn’t seem to be a problem for Liberals.

    • August 17, 2019 at 7:55 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Very interesting post. Novel. Clever. Actually quite funny.

  • August 18, 2019 at 3:44 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 11

    Vegas wins again. Hilarious how lefties never realize they lose the argument when they avoid the argument.

    (You mommy wants you to come upstairs now.)

    • August 18, 2019 at 5:31 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 5

      Really? Because you just got proven wrong a few posts up. It’s almost 2:30 isn’t it your dinner time? I know you’re tired, it’s showing old man. :)

      • August 19, 2019 at 5:31 pm
        helpingout says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        UW did not get banned from this site as I saw UW posting under his own name again. (If you are referencing someone else rather than retiredUW let me know because then I could be wrong, took a break from comments for a bit due to the silly nature this site has become with Craig and Polar making it about politics).

        The age thing is not always so true. With age also comes a sense of superiority about most things. This is typically not always the case because as times goes on our industry evolves with new risks, and I find that most older people within the industry have a hard time dealing with the changes and how the coverage has changed. There are some studies that show that age can have an adverse affect on leadership on the organization because they are unwilling to change their attitudes toward the newer generations.

        I will say that from my experience Craig is one that falls into that category, now you Bob, I love to debate you because I think you have some pretty good points from time to time, but my biggest thing is that for some age brought wisdom, but for others it only brought a false superiority complex.

      • August 19, 2019 at 6:21 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        I’m not UW, Bob. I’m glad you can’t tell one of us liberals from the other, further shows the skill set you’re working with. That’s fine though, it only slightly hurts my feelings after the wailing I’ve given you on these boards this weekend. I get that you would rather forget being proven wrong over and over, no biggie.

  • August 19, 2019 at 8:46 am
    Yup says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    What is the right side’s stance on reducing mass shootings and domestic terror?

    • August 19, 2019 at 9:39 am
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 4

      Even more guns in the hands of everybody, because in their minds guns in the hands of teachers and everyday people will help stop these mass killers and domestic terrorists. Yeah, there’s no common sense.

      • August 19, 2019 at 5:27 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 5

        There is only one real group of domestic terrorists committing violence as a group, and that’s ANTIFA.

        The word use matters. Combatting “domestic terrorists” who are loners, and go crazy, is not as big as a risk or issues as stopping groups.

        I might add, the closest thing we have to a domestic terrorist group presently is ANTIFA.

        • August 19, 2019 at 6:06 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 3

          Lol you’re a joke. Aren’t you getting tired of being proven wrong? You keep saying you don’t have time for this after I shut you down enough and you keep coming back. You really couldn’t wait to turn this about ANTIFA, which is way off subject and more another figure you can throw all of your problems into instead of admitting you have some deep seated mental issues. TLDR; save it for group, no one cares about your lies.

        • August 22, 2019 at 3:34 pm
          Ha! says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          I remember when ANTIFA first started in the US – historic day.. June 6th 1944..

    • August 19, 2019 at 1:19 pm
      Mmmm Hmmm says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 2

      The “right” side’s stance is that if a few good kids gotta die, then that is the cost of freedom. Freedom isn’t free.

      • August 19, 2019 at 5:25 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 3

        That is not the mentality of the right.

        • August 19, 2019 at 6:08 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 7

          Denial does not mean facts. You literally do this “nuh-uh” garbage every time you don’t like something. This is absolutely the right stance. Your side has decided no amount of dead children is worth trying something else if it risks our profits. No surprise for the side that freely cages children.

          • August 20, 2019 at 4:53 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            You cannot speak for the mentality of the right, while saying that they can’t speak of that for themselves. That is not the mentality of the right, and the onus is on you to prove it.

            My side is not arguing for dead children. They did not freely cage children, I already went over this.

          • August 20, 2019 at 5:36 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            Yet you claim to be able to, while denying that you’re partisan on other parts of the board? Your lies are showing, Bob. You can deny over and over, it’s what your side is good at, but common sense and pragmatism will win out. You’re not as naive as you’d like us to believe, you’re calculated in the misinformation and lies that you spread. Your political party has done exactly it’s job, which is to make the rich richer, no matter the cost. Dead children are absolutely that cost here, and to deny so is silly and cowardly.

            And yes, your side has and continues to support caging children. Whatever else we may make of each others’ arguments, history will remember you and your ilk for the monsters you are. Keep arguing for semantics though. LOL

          • August 20, 2019 at 6:35 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            “We on the left hate the dead kids, and want to stop this. ”

            We on the right rather.

            This is insane. Whoever told you the world is big business racist republicans is holding you back.

            You can fight the big bad all you want, and include me in it, but it will never help your cause, because moderates like me fled this last election straight to Trump, you ignoramus. And that’s on you, I already once said, if I decide I don’t like Trump, I’m still not voting left, and that is on those here who debate like you.

            The risk here is education causes more of you. Education can cure racism, but it can’t cure people like you, it makes you MORE extreme. I told everyone here, the minute I see the left accept the right as different as opposed to evil, I will vote left, and I even said what tax plan and who would cause it. This is insane. Drop your bloody crusade bud.

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:06 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Not sure why that one went away, but either way now you’re arguing against education? It’s pretty on-message for you republicans so I guess it makes sense. You don’t want people to be educated because then they’d realize the lies you tell, makes sense, still sad.

          • August 22, 2019 at 3:37 pm
            Ha! says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Most recent statistic – 60% of Republicans are against Colleges or other higher education institutions… if you can educate racism out of people, the right is openly against education..

    • August 19, 2019 at 5:25 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 5

      Domestic terrorism is a word that was invented in order to play identity politics.

      The word terrorism should be limited to terrorist groups, as part of a organizations. You cannot really do much about crazy individuals. Funding that, and then trying to cross lines by flagging mental health can create an authoritarian government. You tell me your solution for it that doesn’t risk the individual and government over reach. I’ll wait for a clear plan from a democrat.

      I might add, in no scenario should we fund domestic terrorism research as they word it more than foreign or vanilla. All acts are “terror” in nature, when they are violent, playing social justice to make “domestic” terrorism is nothing more than politics, and is potentially harmful to stopping violent “groups” which is why we use the word terrorism. It isn’t a word meant to say severity of crimes. We don’t need to equalize the words domestic terrorism as the left is doing, we need to use the word terrorism for what it is for.

      Otherwise, you might well have a crime that is designed to “make terror” result in harsher punishments, which is patently absurd. If someone murders what they were thinking shouldn’t affect the punishment.

      You on the left are so delusional in practicality on this issue it is insane.

      • August 19, 2019 at 5:36 pm
        helpingout says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 1

        Bob,
        The definition of terrorism is: “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”

        There have been people who are US citizens that purposefully used violence and intimidation against civilians that were directed for political aims. I think you could debate that some people did not have a political aim, but when one posts a manifesto and/or targets a group of people, I would chalk that up to political aim.

        Would you still disagree with the use of domestic terrorism? If so, is it the political aim that is holding you back, or that you consider terrorism to come from only from sources outside of the US?

        If it is the last one, I would have to disagree with you in general.

        • August 19, 2019 at 9:32 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          Oh! Helpingout my response wasn’t to you, my mistake!

          • August 20, 2019 at 11:54 am
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            No worries.

            Hope you have a great day today Jon!

          • August 21, 2019 at 10:28 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Wow, and they got rid of Bob’s message instead of mine. You know he’s mad lol

          • August 21, 2019 at 10:29 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            (In case it’s not clear, my original “awwwww” response was to a post of Bob’s that was deleted, not helpingout)

          • August 21, 2019 at 2:16 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            Let me be clear you brat, I don’t support tyranny. And you’re just proving the left is it.

            I didn’t get shut down at all, you did 2016, they voted orange man, and you’re why.

          • August 22, 2019 at 9:47 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Really? I think flawedlogic, Let Me Help and I have all shut you down pretty good lol

        • August 20, 2019 at 6:40 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          “The definition of terrorism is: “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims””


          There have been people who are US citizens that purposefully used violence and intimidation against civilians that were directed for political aims. I think you could debate that some people did not have a political aim, but when one posts a manifesto and/or targets a group of people, I would chalk that up to political aim. ”
          This is not the government definition, and your definition is harmful. You want social justice in your definition, and to include say mass shooters with an agenda. The issue here is in that they aren’t part of a group attempting violence, they were one crazy who claimed to be part of the group and the group said NO. This is your method to shut down conservative groups, who are not terrorist organizations.

          “Would you still disagree with the use of domestic terrorism? If so, is it the political aim that is holding you back, or that you consider terrorism to come from only from sources outside of the US?”

          The word terrorism should only be used when an active group commits violence, whose goal itself is violence. Expanding that will make tyrants able to call political grandstanding violence itself, and shut down groups. I’m not talking just conservatives, and this is how it starts.

          “If it is the last one, I would have to disagree with you in general.”

          I already made my point. Domestic terrorism doesn’t need a category. If it was part of a group it would be terrorism. The phrase domestic is trying to widen the next to things which are not.

          If there was a white group, who had a mantra saying they would hang black men, and someone was a member, I would be ok with EXECUTING the person triggering the clause of terrorism to allow the exception.

          That isn’t domestic terrorism, it’s terrorism.

        • August 20, 2019 at 6:54 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

          Wikipedia actually touches on my concern in the entry.

          “There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon and legally binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged”

          My concern is when terrorism gets split up, and then, we start to apply it to non violent groups, but rather potentially violent ideologies. There is a sharp difference.

          People who have manifestos for example could be a part of MTGOW, a harmless group. What happens if we then state he was a domestic MTGOW inspired terrorist, and then we put funding to investigate “domestic terrorism” including MTGOW groups, which have never directly been advocating for violence? We waste money, we then shut down groups unfairly, (and this could happen to the left as well) and possibly try to regulate individuals.

          The point of combatting terrorism as opposed to just unlawful or violent behavior, is that the group commits and wants to commit, violence against others as a group. The point is not to start saying who might have done something because of violent “ideologies” perpetrated by ideals of various groups.

          I am really very tired of this Helping. This idiot above would support what I’m talking about, FOR CERTAIN. And that is my problem. There is a large portion of the left who is just BEGGING to do this over reach, and you REFUSE to shut them down.

          • August 20, 2019 at 10:24 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            LOL no one wants to read your blog Bob why do you insist on forcing it on people here? Aside from the whole trying to tell me what my opinion is, I just don’t care and I doubt anyone else does. Weren’t you the one yelling at me about staying on topic? Nice try, Bub.

          • August 21, 2019 at 9:26 am
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            The biggest issue with your overall grouping Bob is that you only want to label groups as terrorist organizations, and I think you are then overgeneralizing. While there are groups who are terrorists, what about a normal group with one person who has extreme views and then uses violence? In that scenario, the person is a domestic terrorist, but the group is not as there was one person who did the atrocity, and does not share the overarching goal of the organization which could be peaceful.

            The other issue is that I agree with Jon on your laminating Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, and the only one? White supremacy groups I would argue are a bigger threat, have more influential wealth, and use intimidation way more frequently than other organizations, but many people turn a blind eye and chalk it up to one extremist. If you use it in that logic for the one white supremacy individual within a group, but you won’t do the same to antifa then you are missing groups like the KKK, which is still alive today and uses these tactics in the south. .

            You say you are tired of my helping, but didn’t you call Jon boy for his debating tactics? Shouldn’t the same be applied to you now?

          • August 21, 2019 at 2:26 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            “The biggest issue with your overall grouping Bob is that you only want to label groups as terrorist organizations, and I think you are then overgeneralizing”

            That’s not an over generalization. That’s what fighting terrorism is about. If you start to claim an invidiual was doing terror, all violent murderers are about terror. Trying to classify why doesn’t matter. Only with a group with a goal does it become something you should target to fight the cells and the group recruitment.

            “While there are groups who are terrorists, what about a normal group with one person who has extreme views and then uses violence?”

            Bingo. You clearly want to call ideologies who do not assert violence as being violent because of one person who was a member of it. There is no what if. We will not target these groups or ideologies will be attributed to violence, in a LEGAL sense, and government funding to shut them down. Not ok.

            ” In that scenario, the person is a domestic terrorist, but the group is not as there was one person who did the atrocity, and does not share the overarching goal of the organization which could be peaceful. ”

            Yes, what’s your point? Then we only focus on the one person, and no, he’s not a domestic terrorist, he’s a violent loon.

            “The other issue is that I agree with Jon on your laminating Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, and the only one?”

            They are the primary, and they are otherwise ignored. I focus on the biggest problems.

            “White supremacy groups I would argue are a bigger threat,”

            List to me one white supremacist group, or cell, by name, who has said their goal is violence, or one group that has committed a violent act. Just one. ANTIFA did hundreds of attacks in 2019, and shut down school debates. They show up everywhere and violence is in the mission manual. White supremacist groups did less than 10, do you know how I know? The news would have been all over it. Unlike with ANTIFA.

            “have more influential wealth, and use intimidation way more frequently than other organizations”

            Name these people. The ones with wealth supporting them. Nonsense.

            ,” but many people turn a blind eye and chalk it up to one extremist.”

            Because it is. They don’t turn a blind eye, it was one extremist. And you otherwise want to drag everyone in the mud.

            ” If you use it in that logic for the one white supremacy individual within a group, but you won’t do the same to antifa then you are missing groups like the KKK, which is still alive today and uses these tactics in the south. . ”

            Nope. I don’t miss the KKK, they would still be pursued under domestic terrorism. KKK is indeed a group with a modus operandi. I do use the same logic for ANTIFA, by the way. ANTIFA openly calls for violence, and they should be a terrorist group. If you have one example of a white supremist group NOT being labeled one, we can talk. But right now, Gavin Mcginnis’s proud boys were labeled a violent group, even after a bottle was thrown at them and they overreacted, 15 years jail, because they considered it a group action and violence, domestic terrorism in other words. Can you give one example of ANTIFA members getting 15 years jail because they were part of a violent group? Domestic terrorism targets white groups.

            “You say you are tired of my helping, but didn’t you call Jon boy for his debating tactics? Shouldn’t the same be applied to you now?”

            No. When he harasses me and calls me boy eventually I will react. ALL his posts are antagonizing, and this proves my point. You are bloody blind if you don’t see him as a person who isn’t harassing all here. Forget you. Really, that was a snark refusal of seeing anything on your side. A while ago I said I might vote Biden. To hell with that Helping, and to hell with you. If you won’t stop people like that, I’m not joining up buddy.

          • August 21, 2019 at 2:33 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            “Nope. I don’t miss the KKK, they would still be pursued under domestic terrorism”

            Rather, under my view of domestic terrorism. You are aware that I already said, this would be vanilla terrorism. Not domestic, vanilla.

            I already said I oppose domestic violence expansion due many reasons explained above, and that any acts in the states done by a violent group, should all fall under terrorism. I even said it’s vanilla terrorism.

            I said words matter on how the government defines it, and they do.

            Jon wants the wording for social justice, and so does a huge chunk of the left. They have not at all thought of the practicality, and when I say my concerns, they openly say that I am just trying to make sure right wing groups get off the hook. Unlike me, they don’t have a reason to have that concern. I list groups that got in trouble and far harsher sentences who shouldn’t. He wants those groups, he wants those punishments, and it’s because he is a crusader. You abet him at your own risk. You should know very well, I am NOT a crusader. I only debate with insults when debated with by someone with a complete attitude problem. And like it or not, the moment you told me I was similar to Jon, you became that, by the way. It is very clear in his recent posts to me and my replies to him that I have been more on topic and more reasonable. True or false?

            We won’t be talking any further until that question is answered. And if it’s no, you’re far too absorbed into party allegiance for this conversation to go anywhere, so I’m asking you to end it, and I know you unlike Jon will, and so will I.

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:08 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Man, once again no one cares about your blog, Bob. Keep arguing to justify white supremacists and children in cages, we’ll keep shutting it down.

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:12 pm
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Bob,

            You just called him brat above, diminishing all of your points you are making. It is only showing that when an issue arises that bothers you, you also resort to these tactics you just indicated you were against.

            I think we have different issues with domestic terrorism, and how to label them. I think you are over generalizing, and chalking it up again to loons rather than the definition of what terrorism is.

            You also indicated that the KKK should be in the same grouping as Antifa by your standards. The wealth is literally the KKK. They have vast wealth, and have committed numerous atrocities.

            It was not a stark refusal of failing to see what is happening on my sides. Did I say that I agree with his tactics? No I even said that I enjoyed debating you sometimes, but that ends when you resort to your attempts to demean someones age (it is demeaning to use boy or anything associated with a child to an adult). It was intentional and you refused to admit it. No matter how you look at it Bob, you have issues when pressed with someone who uses tactic that are unprofessional, and you yourself turn into someone who is unprofessional.

            Unless you change your ways, have a good day Bob.

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:44 pm
            flawedlogic says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Helping: Bob, I enjoy debating you from time to time, but Craig and Polar are ruining this site, why do you not call them out?
            Jon: Calls bob name, after bob calls Jon name on another thread
            Bob: Calls Jon boy, and debates helping resonably
            Helping: definition of terrorims
            Bob: Doesn’t fit my mold of terrorism so it is wrong
            Helping: KKK is as a bad group as ANTIFA
            Bob: they used to be bad, now they aren’t
            Helping: no, and why are you resorting to name calling when you just had an issue with it, and you are doing it multiple times and you are being demeaning
            Bob: he called me it first, now good day since you are pointing out where I am being hypocritical

            Bob: but wait, I have one more thing too.

            Good luck Bob, keep being a hypocrite and saying you aren’t because you cannot take the heat you are dishing out.

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:47 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            “LOL You’re DONE but you had to post another page-long comment two minutes later? And I like how you whine about me “degrading” you even though you long ago started it. Not my fault you can’t keep up, gramps! :D”

            Yes, I did have to. I’m 34, not gramps. This is one of the reasons I called him Boy by the way.

            Literally at the crux of his argument is that I am racist, immoral, and cage children. Yeah, I shouldn’t be mad at all.

            I can keep up, you can’t.

          • August 21, 2019 at 9:08 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Seriously though flawedlogic got you so good LOL

      • August 19, 2019 at 6:10 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 6

        This is very on message for you. You don’t like the definition of terror because a ton of right-wing psychos fit it? Change the definition of Terror! That’s not how the world works. Your level of denial is sad. But please, quote me with more “this is not true” statements, they really show how many pieces you’re playing without.

        • August 20, 2019 at 6:36 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          No, that is not at all what I said. It is because terrorist organizations can be stopped, and individuals who spread terror, are not part of groups. The reason we fund terrorist events more than others is that they are groups, who are openly at war, and have to be kept track of.

          • August 20, 2019 at 8:17 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 5

            Right, like antifa, not the many white supremacists/neo Nazi groups supported by your president. Keep trying to misdirect you goober.

          • August 21, 2019 at 2:44 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            I am doing no such thing.

            End your crusade dude.

          • August 21, 2019 at 2:51 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            “My concern is when terrorism gets split up, and then, we start to apply it to non violent groups, but rather potentially violent ideologies. There is a sharp difference.”

            I’ve already said my concern.

            I’ve also said the KKK would be vanilla terrorism. So I do hold VIOLENT white supremacist groups accountable.

            What I will NOT do, is start to shut down groups who “supposedly” hold violent beliefs, and what I mean is rather than an ideology which says “we must punch fascists”

            Says “We need to build the wall” and then that is considered racist in intent, and then they shut down the group or call someone who went crazy about immigration and wall building, part of the “build the wall” group, and all supporters of building a wall are then called violent, and they are shut down publicly and punished.

            I don’t see why this is a problem with you and Helping. Helping, help me out here for God’s sakes. Pun intended. I’m being a bit facetious.

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:09 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            “bob says:
            LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            Thumb up 0Thumb down 0
            I am doing no such thing.

            End your crusade dude.”

            This is incorrect. You made a post about the dangers of ANTIFA what, three days ago? But keep pretending they’re the problem while ignoring the danger you allow to continue. You should be ashamed of yourself :D

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:31 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            “This is incorrect. You made a post about the dangers of ANTIFA what, three days ago? But keep pretending they’re the problem while ignoring the danger you allow to continue. You should be ashamed of yourself :D”

            You ignore ANTIFA, I don’t ignore white supremacy.

            End your crusade.

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:39 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Lol, it’s because the right’s attack on antifa is clear misdirection to try and divert from the actual issues, mostly caused and supported by the right. You keep living that sheep-life bro, we see you for the dirtbags you are. Be best lol

          • August 21, 2019 at 3:48 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “Lol, it’s because the right’s attack on antifa is clear misdirection to try and divert from the actual issues, mostly caused and supported by the right. You keep living that sheep-life bro, we see you for the dirtbags you are. Be best lol”

            Justify all you want, you ignore one side I don’t.

            I included KKK into terrorist groups, you won’t include ANTIFA. I am not a dirtbag.

          • August 21, 2019 at 5:17 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Stating that one is ignored and is a problem is not the same as equating.

            I still condemn white supremacists, you still won’t condemn ANTIFA.

          • August 22, 2019 at 10:05 am
            Come On says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            How many mass shootings have members of Antifa perpetrated? I thought it was zero. Is it more than zero?

            Also, can we please stop trying to differentiate between KKK/Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists? They are all racist pieces of garbage and I don’t really care which racist organization they belong to. They think I look the same as everyone else like me, why should I care what they call themselves.

          • August 22, 2019 at 2:07 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            And that guys name was Eric Clanton.

            I could go all day.

          • August 22, 2019 at 3:35 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            You mean the guy who committed assault? Doesn’t sound like a shooting/driving a car into a crowded place to me bub. Nice try though gramps.

          • August 26, 2019 at 2:32 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “You mean the guy who committed assault? Doesn’t sound like a shooting/driving a car into a crowded place to me bub. Nice try though gramps.”

            I listed the guy who chased the Charlottesville driver with an assault rifle and said his goal was go get attacked and start a civil war, it just got deleted. My point with Eric Clanton was the double standard and one to one ANTIFA gets off the hook.

            Also, regarding shootings: Ohio says hello, the fire bombs in Tacoma say hello for the immigrant facility which was attacked, your guy just did a bad job of it. That was in the last month. 2 of them.

            Yes, your side is violent and yes they do want a civil war. They are a bigger threat and are involved in our schools, like red neck revolt.

  • August 20, 2019 at 3:17 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Dont know where the CEO has been for the past decade or so, but they have been debating this for some time.Whats come of the debate? Thoughts and prayers.

    Simple solution to the debate, give the cops the same advantage as the bad guys have. Cops go running towards Auto weapon fire when all t

    How about they start to debate on evening the odds.;;

  • August 22, 2019 at 9:09 am
    Yup says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    I made a post asking one questions: “What is the right side’s stance on reducing mass shootings and domestic terror?”

    Literally generated a string of 40 comments with zero real answers – not even a sniff of anything constructive. No suggestions, nothing.. unbelievable. Literally can’t construct an opinion of how to reduce gun violence.

    • August 22, 2019 at 9:30 am
      helpingout says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      I am not on the right, I am an independent, but I will give my own idea on gun safety.
      1. Universal background checks, that is in every single state. with no discrepancy for what they check for
      2. Cool, now you passed the background check, now go take a class on how to properly store and use your weapon safely.
      3. Cool now you passed, you can now own a handgun for personal protection, or a hunting rifle.
      4. Okay, you want to own something that is not on the list above, my apologizes, but civilians should not have these weapons, but you can go to a shooting range and try these weapons out for fun, but you will have to take one more safety class so we know you and those around you will be safe.
      5. People who have more than one instance of domestic violence should not be able to own a gun, they are more likely to use those later and could potentially harm their partner, and any children within the household
      6. Red Flag laws should be implemented with a court order, but one should be able to take those to court and have a judge decide what is in the best interest of the public
      7. My only last point is to have gun shows follow the same rules for selling weapons to individuals as the store, and any person failing to follow these rules should have fine for the first few times, followed by more stringent oversight for future failures.

      Would you say the above is reasonable?

      And damn Flawed, great job pointing that out for Bob!

      • August 22, 2019 at 11:17 am
        Yup says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Helpingout,

        I completely agree with outlines similar to that.

      • August 22, 2019 at 7:27 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 3

        I would say it does nothing to address the problem.

        People who kill usually developed into killers, they weren’t born that way. Most of the mass shooters passed background checks. What are you checking for anyway? If a mass shooter didn’t spend time in a mental hospital or was declared a danger to himself or others recently, background checks are worthless for this issue. And nearly all of the mass killers would still get the guns.

        Red Flag laws sound fine, even to me. But the devil is in the details. Exactly WHAT would justify taking away guns from someone? A single comment on the internet? Two comments?
        A “mental health” evaluation? Talk to experts in mental health about how tough it is to determine if someone is about to commit suicide, let alone mass murder.

        So we end up with lots of new laws for law-abiding gun owners. And continue with mass shootings.

        This is a MUCH tougher problem than people are willing to admit. You could order a gun from Montgomery Wards or J.C. Penney in the 1950s and have it delivered to you home. But we had only ONE mass shooting in the 1950s, according to the FBI. Every decade since, the mass shootings have gone up.

        It’s the killer, not the gun.

        • August 22, 2019 at 9:53 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Yes, the level of gun violence in the U.S. is unprecedented for a developed nation, that means it needs entirely different tactics, Your side has controlled the conversation on guns entirely and this is the result. It’s pure stupidity to keep going as we have been. All your side says is it’s not working let’s keep doing this. No.

          To quote the brilliant young Parkland survivors: They must recognize that gun violence has many faces in our communities, from rural suicides to intimate partner violence to urban youth violence to violence driven by white supremacist ideologies. And they must commit to holding an unpatriotic gun lobby and gun industry accountable not just for weakening our nation’s gun laws, but also for illegal behavior in self-dealing that offends and contradicts America’s vast majority of responsible gun owners.

          But please, give me more BS about how the Parkland kids are actors or liberal plants or that we just need to give EVERYONE a gun. Your argument has fallen apart, it doesn’t work anymore. Gun violence is a lot bigger than mass murderers, it’s everywhere in our country and your archaic non-response to it doesn’t fly anymore.

        • August 23, 2019 at 9:38 am
          helpingout says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Craig,

          If anyone on the internet threatens to kill someone with a gun, I think it should warrant a red flag law. People should realize that even joking about these things is unacceptable. we shouldn’t be threatening harm onto others, and if they have a gun, I am sorry, but that person who made the threat needs to go to jail, and even in FL threatening a mass shooting is a felony, as it should be.

          The biggest issue I see is that people don’t want to give up their toy guns that are not for hunting or protection that are just fun to shoot. I am all for the 2nd amendment, and people owning a gun for protection and hunting, but more than that is where I draw the line.

          I even offered a different outlook on it for those fun guns that you can go to a shooting range, with extra training as those handle very differently than a handgun or hunting rifle.

          Also, most of the guns in mass shootings have been legally obtained. the worst one in history went to NV so he could get a gun that is illegal in CA. Also gun shows have very laxed restrictions on buying guns, why should we not strengthen that to how stores operate?

          Also guns evolve, similar to our industry and they become more deadly with time. When the second amendment was written we had muskets that could only shoot one bullet inaccurately before one had to reload. Now we have a whole plethora of different guns.

          Craig, if you disagree with what I said above, can you outline a plan to help curb these atrocities? I thought my above plan was reasonable, and it gave could give us better trained civilians that can help when faced with a bad guy with a gun, as you always like to say.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*