CNN Says 'White Men' are the Biggest Terror Threat in US

[MDlaxfan76]

I think we should give em brains. In my family when you are born you get lax stick and a gun!!!

I was given a lacrosse stick at birth, was in the duck blind at age 6, a 20 gauge shotgun at age 12...brains we're still working on.

[Typical Lax Dad]

ABV, it's true, the POTUS did make/read this statement. But one doesn't usually give kudos to an american president for denouncing bigotry and a death as a direct result of this bigotry. In other words, saying, 'What happened is terrible' is far from landing on the moon. Alternatively, referring to the white supremacists as 'fine people', that is much more like landing on the moon. That line will go down in history not because the MSM is so anti-Trump. It's because it's so unusual... like landing on the moon. Saying bigotry is bad is not unusual. Trump is tagged a racist not because the MSM has a vendetta against him. Trump is labeled a racist because his words and actions are racist. And this label was justifiably given and justifiably maintained well before Trump was elected president.

Racists think he is racists is good enough for me.

You are now calling yourself a racist?

[youthathletics]

ABV, it's true, the POTUS did make/read this statement. But one doesn't usually give kudos to an american president for denouncing bigotry and a death as a direct result of this bigotry. In other words, saying, 'What happened is terrible' is far from landing on the moon. Alternatively, referring to the white supremacists as 'fine people', that is much more like landing on the moon. That line will go down in history not because the MSM is so anti-Trump. It's because it's so unusual... like landing on the moon. Saying bigotry is bad is not unusual. Trump is tagged a racist not because the MSM has a vendetta against him. Trump is labeled a racist because his words and actions are racist. And this label was justifiably given and justifiably maintained well before Trump was elected president.

Racists think he is racists is good enough for me.

You are now calling yourself a racist?

You said it, not me.

[Typical Lax Dad]

ABV, it's true, the POTUS did make/read this statement. But one doesn't usually give kudos to an american president for denouncing bigotry and a death as a direct result of this bigotry. In other words, saying, 'What happened is terrible' is far from landing on the moon. Alternatively, referring to the white supremacists as 'fine people', that is much more like landing on the moon. That line will go down in history not because the MSM is so anti-Trump. It's because it's so unusual... like landing on the moon. Saying bigotry is bad is not unusual. Trump is tagged a racist not because the MSM has a vendetta against him. Trump is labeled a racist because his words and actions are racist. And this label was justifiably given and justifiably maintained well before Trump was elected president.

Racists think he is racists is good enough for me.

You are now calling yourself a racist?

You said it, not me.

What is sad is how you misread the post. What you read is “if a person thinks he is racists, then that person is racist”.... almost clever enough to be funny but it missed the mark.... BTW, I didn’t say I believe Trump is racist. I said Racists believe he is racist. That’s good enough for me. You see how your clever turn of words missed the mark?

[youthathletics]

ABV, it's true, the POTUS did make/read this statement. But one doesn't usually give kudos to an american president for denouncing bigotry and a death as a direct result of this bigotry. In other words, saying, 'What happened is terrible' is far from landing on the moon. Alternatively, referring to the white supremacists as 'fine people', that is much more like landing on the moon. That line will go down in history not because the MSM is so anti-Trump. It's because it's so unusual... like landing on the moon. Saying bigotry is bad is not unusual. Trump is tagged a racist not because the MSM has a vendetta against him. Trump is labeled a racist because his words and actions are racist. And this label was justifiably given and justifiably maintained well before Trump was elected president.

Racists think he is racists is good enough for me.

You are now calling yourself a racist?

You said it, not me.

What is sad is how you misread the post. What you read is “if a person thinks he is racists, then that person is racist”.... almost clever enough to be funny but it missed the mark.... BTW, I didn’t say I believe Trump is racist. I said Racists believe he is racist. That’s good enough for me. You see how your clever turn of words missed the mark?

Have a pilsner....it was joking, even included the winky/sarcasm emoji.

[Typical Lax Dad]

ABV, it's true, the POTUS did make/read this statement. But one doesn't usually give kudos to an american president for denouncing bigotry and a death as a direct result of this bigotry. In other words, saying, 'What happened is terrible' is far from landing on the moon. Alternatively, referring to the white supremacists as 'fine people', that is much more like landing on the moon. That line will go down in history not because the MSM is so anti-Trump. It's because it's so unusual... like landing on the moon. Saying bigotry is bad is not unusual. Trump is tagged a racist not because the MSM has a vendetta against him. Trump is labeled a racist because his words and actions are racist. And this label was justifiably given and justifiably maintained well before Trump was elected president.

Racists think he is racists is good enough for me.

You are now calling yourself a racist?

You said it, not me.

What is sad is how you misread the post. What you read is “if a person thinks he is racists, then that person is racist”.... almost clever enough to be funny but it missed the mark.... BTW, I didn’t say I believe Trump is racist. I said Racists believe he is racist. That’s good enough for me. You see how your clever turn of words missed the mark?

Have a pilsner....it was joking, even included the winky/sarcasm emoji.

Missed it. But I will have a Sunny Ridge by Jack’s Abbey. I will raise a glass to you.

[youthathletics]

Cheers!

[youthathletics]

Shooter from Trumpland/Hillbilly Elegy Land.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/dayto ... e-updates/

I am reading he was a supporter of Elizabeth Warren and against guns. Seems odd that other media outlets are not also reporting this, even with documentation from his Twitter Timeline. This article shows some of his posts.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Cheers!

Bottoms up! https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/26520/112883/

[Typical Lax Dad]

Shooter from Trumpland/Hillbilly Elegy Land.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/dayto ... e-updates/

I am reading he was a supporter of Elizabeth Warren and against guns. Seems odd that other media outlets are not also reporting this, even with documentation from his Twitter Timeline. This article shows some of his posts.

He was ill. Like Sayoc down in Florida and this kid in El Paso. I am waiting to hear what happened. I believe he shot his sister and her boyfriend first and the rest followed. Too early to tell the motivation. Right now there is a persistent rumor but I chalk it up to narrow mindedness in that city. Waiting to hear what the boyfriend says as he may survive. Supposedly he suggested they all go down together. From a hayseed small town. My roommate at hoops camp in Pittsburgh was from that town....a dispatcher for a tow truck service now. It’s a different way of life out there.

[old salt]

Andy McCarthy on the challenges in detecting potential white supremacist terrorists, how those challenges can be overcome, & the conundrum it represents for the left.

...even MDLF76 might find something in it to agree with, if he stoops to read a FNC contributor in a far right blog like NRO.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ ... amendment/

[Typical Lax Dad]

How does one manage in England. All the bad guys have guns and the citizens are defenseless. Violent crime must be rampant.

[ABV 8.3%]

ABV, it's true, the POTUS did make/read this statement. But one doesn't usually give kudos to an american president for denouncing bigotry and a death as a direct result of this bigotry. In other words, saying, 'What happened is terrible' is far from landing on the moon. Alternatively, referring to the white supremacists as 'fine people', that is much more like landing on the moon. That line will go down in history not because the MSM is so anti-Trump. It's because it's so unusual... like landing on the moon. Saying bigotry is bad is not unusual. Trump is tagged a racist not because the MSM has a vendetta against him. Trump is labeled a racist because his words and actions are racist. And this label was justifiably given and justifiably maintained well before Trump was elected president.

But, this isn't the clip the MSM keeps showing, over and over, is it? (narrative much )

Yup, that's another one; another Trump can't even die right, excuses for..

" what....you want us to give praise to a president that acts like a PRESIDENT " ?

NO. We want you to stop saying he NEVER said (bashed klan, etc) in the statement, which you called true.

It's almost as if they WANT donald to win

Also, what part of Trumps , " both sides acted........hugely badly,." is, ummm, wrong?

[CU77]

Andy McCarthy on the challenges in detecting potential white supremacist terrorists, how those challenges can be overcome, & the conundrum it represents for the left.

...even MDLF76 might find something in it to agree with, if he stoops to read a FNC contributor in a far right blog like NRO.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ ... amendment/

About what I expected: a mix of lies about the left, vacuous blather, and absolutely zero new action items.

[old salt]

Andy McCarthy on the challenges in detecting potential white supremacist terrorists, how those challenges can be overcome, & the conundrum it represents for the left.

...even MDLF76 might find something in it to agree with, if he stoops to read a FNC contributor in a far right blog like NRO.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ ... amendment/

About what I expected: a mix of lies about the left, vacuous blather, and absolutely zero new action items.

.. ...the objective, open minded response I expected. This might help :

...there are aggressive investigative measures that can be taken to identify, profile, and monitor white supremacists who are potential assassins — measures that would be effective and consistent with the Constitution. Alas, they involve methods of intelligence-based policing — of trying to prevent attacks rather than contenting ourselves with post-atrocity prosecutions — that the Left has spent more than two decades undermining.

There was an exception: violence attributable to terrorist organizations. If an individual could be tied to an officially recognized foreign terrorist organization — for example, al-Qaeda or ISIS — police could investigate aggressively. Surveillance could be stepped up, social media could be monitored, assets could be seized, all with the objective of preventing attacks.

There is an important consequence of this false distinction between formal entities and the underlying ideology. We have gotten very good since 9/11 at thwarting attacks plotted by officially recognized terrorist organizations; yet we are not nearly as adept at detecting preparations and preventing attacks by unaffiliated jihadists — young men who are inspired more than operationally directed by outfits like al-Qaeda, and who are galvanized by the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam they consume on the Internet and in mosques known to be sympathetic to this ideology.

We could be better at picking out the “lone wolves” before they strike. Police, however, have been trained to ignore the inevitability that anti-American ideology will trigger some adherents to commit mass-murder attacks. The legal illiteracy drummed into our agents is that because noxious ideas are constitutionally protected, they must be disregarded for investigative purposes. If the law-enforcement agents target radical mosques for surveillance on the premise that they are drivers of this ideology, the Left says the authorities are conducting racist, xenophobic dragnets. Ditto such commonsense steps as increasing police and informant presence in communities known to be sympathetic to sharia supremacism.

Obviously, white supremacism can also instigate violence and create combustible situations in which violence is likely. Like sharia supremacism, though, its ideas are constitutionally protected, regardless of how offensive and dangerous they are. White supremacism is in disrepute on the Left in a way sharia supremacism is not, so more proactive policing would be tolerated. Yet there are steep challenges for investigators.

First, there are geometrically more white people than Muslims in America. And there is no broadly influential white-supremacist ideology that promotes violence. To be clear, I am not saying there are no cult ideologies that preach racial violence (nor that such ideologies are limited to Caucasian cults). I am simply saying that none of these eccentric creeds is as academically rooted, religiously powerful, and widely accepted as sharia supremacism. To the contrary, white supremacism is explicitly reviled by the majority white mainstream of American (and Western) societies in a way that sharia supremacism is not by mainstream Islam. Islamic reformers take their lives in their hands; by contrast, college professors who blame white supremacism for everything from poverty to bad weather are a dime a dozen.

So the percentage of white supremacists in the overall population is minute and diffuse. Of course, even a tiny percentage of a vast population can be — indeed, it is — a significant problem. The point in law-enforcement terms, though, is that it can be harder to pick out potential white-supremacist murderers. They are widely scattered needles in a vast haystack.

Furthermore, and this is key, white supremacists do not form up in large, highly competent organizations like al-Qaeda. As explained above, it is on such organizations that our investigators concentrate. Their recruiting and fundraising channels are an intelligence gold mine. Furthermore, their formal structures make it easier for prosecutors to bring conspiracy and material-support prosecutions that interrupt preparation before plots can mature into attacks.

White supremacists and the ragtag groups and sites to which they gravitate are not so readily mapped by investigators. To find and monitor white supremacists who are potential terrorists and mass murderers, we must use, and use more intensively, the very police tactics that the Left has spent a generation distorting as counterproductive overkill that shreds the Constitution and causes more violence.

This does not mean we have to write new criminal laws. We have a full arsenal. The federal statutes that target racketeering activity, which has a very broad definition, can be employed against any “association in fact.” We also have very elastic federal laws targeting violent gang activity and other conspiracies. There are no domestic groups, no matter how small and disorganized, that we cannot surveil, aggressively investigate, and prosecute under existing law if they are linked to violence and preparations for violence. Current law allows us to do all the intelligence gathering that is necessary ...

What is required, however, is the will to do a full-court press. White supremacists tend to strike as loners, not as operatives of an organization; but there are social-media communities and other meeting places to which they gravitate. We have to set aside the reluctance to monitor the resulting communications and associations for intelligence purposes.

If a person is a white supremacist, that implies a hostility to our societal order and sympathy for racist brutality. To cite the obvious example, the online message board 8chan, on which the El Paso white-supremacist terrorist posted his manifesto, often lionizes Dylann Roof, the infamous white supremacist who carried out the Charleston church massacre. No, being a white supremacist and associating with white supremacists are not, by themselves, grounds for prosecution; but they are constitutionally sufficient grounds for police suspicion. They warrant investigation. It has always been permissible to use beliefs, associations, and speech for evidentiary purposes in criminal investigations. This is not criminalizing constitutionally protected ideas; it is investigating to prevent the violent crimes to which aggressively hateful ideas are known to lead.

The First Amendment protects a person’s right to believe in white supremacism, to be a white supremacist, to associate with other white supremacists, and to discuss their repulsive beliefs. Yet, the Constitution does not require police — or the rest of us — to blind ourselves to the nexus between ideology and violence.

...will more PC targets, like white male supremacists, allow NSA's Stellar Winds to blow again ? The ACLU's reaction will be interesting.

[CU77]

I read it all the way through before you posted it. And, like I said: there are no action items.

What happens after the suspected bad guys are "investigated"? You going to arrest them before they make an actual, specific threat? (None of the three recent terrorists made such a threat.) On what basis?

So, what, exactly, is the plan???

[old salt]

I read it all the way through before you posted it. And, like I said: there are no action items.

What happens after the suspected bad guys are "investigated"? You going to arrest them before they make an actual, specific threat? (None of the three recent terrorists made such a threat.) On what basis?

So, what, exactly, is the plan???

Identify the potential lone wolf, then act under your state's red flag law

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editori ... story.html

The new law allowed a judge, at the request of a mentally troubled person’s close relatives or law enforcement officers, to order firearms be removed immediately. The judge would then hold a hearing within 21 days to give the subject an opportunity to prove the order was unnecessary or, conversely, to extend the firearm ban for up to a year. It was a smart law that has become the template for similar state “red flag” laws around the nation.

Several bills now before the Legislature in Sacramento aim to improve on that law.

Mine & other states red flag laws.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/08/ ... ent-trump/

Maryland is among the states that have a “red-flag law,” which allows authorities to take guns from people who may pose a threat to themselves or others.

-- More Than 100 Weapons, 35,000 Rounds Of Ammunition Confiscated Under Maryland’s Red Flag Law In PG County In Last Year
-- First Month Of Red Flag Law Draws 114 Requests For Removing Guns
-- Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun

The law took effect Oct. 1, 2018. That month, there were 114 requests to restrict firearms access, and 36 of them were granted.

Maryland is among 15 states that have a “red flag law,” — including Connecticut, California, Washington, Oregon, Florida, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Colorado, Nevada, Hawaii and DC.

An Extreme Risk Protection Orders may be applied against any individual who presents an “immediate and present” danger. The order requires the individual to then surrender all firearms in his or her possession and allows local law enforcement to seize the weapons from someone experiencing a mental crisis, be mentally ill or in distress. It also allows authorities to take the weapons to keep the person from hurting themselves or others.

[CU77]

Great. We'll see if Republicans actually pass those laws (which McCarthy didn't mention, much less endorse.) Almost every state that currently has a red-flag law is run by Democrats. And California has one of the strongest, passed after the mass shooting that occurred one mile from my workplace. Will the Red states follow???

Meanwhile, if you want to read what real experts have to say (as opposed to right-wing bloviators), try this:

https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-c ... 8-6-19.pdf

Recommendations for Legislation and Government Agencies
• Pass legislation to increase the availability of threat assessment training at the local, state, tribal and national levels.
• Develop a payment methodology for threat assessment and management.
• Promote expansion of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) model because these clinics are required to provide extensive crisis response capability, and the CCBHC prospective payment model can support the development and operation of threat assessment teams.
• Enact state red flag or extreme-risk protection orders that allow the temporary removal of guns from individuals who are known to pose a high risk of harming others or themselves in the near future.
• Fully implement the existing federal background check requirement for firearms purchases.

[old salt]

Great. We'll see if Republicans actually pass those laws (which McCarthy didn't mention, much less endorse.) Almost every state that currently has a red-flag law is run by Democrats. And California has one of the strongest, passed after the mass shooting that occurred one mile from my workplace. Will the Red states follow???

Meanwhile, if you want to read what real experts have to say (as opposed to right-wing bloviators), try this:

https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-c ... 8-6-19.pdf

Recommendations for Legislation and Government Agencies
• Pass legislation to increase the availability of threat assessment training at the local, state, tribal and national levels.
• Develop a payment methodology for threat assessment and management.
• Promote expansion of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) model because these clinics are required to provide extensive crisis response capability, and the CCBHC prospective payment model can support the development and operation of threat assessment teams.
• Enact state red flag or extreme-risk protection orders that allow the temporary removal of guns from individuals who are known to pose a high risk of harming others or themselves in the near future.
• Fully implement the existing federal background check requirement for firearms purchases.

Just more detail about how to implement what McCarthy & I advocated.
Same thing in substance. You're just disagreeing to be disagreeable.

To implement it, will have to overcome the same ACLU obstructionism as in targeting Muslim extremists.
As McCarthy points out -- white supremacists are more PC, less sympathetic targets.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/do ... -work.html

On Monday, President Donald Trump spoke about the shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, and offered several ways we might prevent mass shootings, almost none of them involving gun control. Along with calling for improved mental health services and less violence in video games, the president also suggested that social media companies and “red flag laws” could help to stop mass shooters before they have a chance to act. Red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection order laws, allow judges to temporarily prohibit a potentially dangerous individual from possessing firearms.

“I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as social media companies, to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike,” Trump said, adding later on, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws.”

Social media companies could conceivably work within this existing extreme risk protection order system, flagging posts for courts and police to consider. Whether it’s a good idea to have the companies play a role in the temporary gun revocation process, though—and have the encouragement of the federal government to analyze more and more user content for potential policing—is a different question.

...as a bonus, you help these troubled white men before they harm themselves or others. A lot easier than banning & confiscating guns & ammo.

[runrussellrun]

Great. We'll see if Republicans actually pass those laws (which McCarthy didn't mention, much less endorse.) Almost every state that currently has a red-flag law is run by Democrats. And California has one of the strongest, passed after the mass shooting that occurred one mile from my workplace. Will the Red states follow???

Meanwhile, if you want to read what real experts have to say (as opposed to right-wing bloviators), try this:

https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-c ... 8-6-19.pdf

Recommendations for Legislation and Government Agencies
• Pass legislation to increase the availability of threat assessment training at the local, state, tribal and national levels. YES, duplicate CDL truck license process, minus the drug test.
• Develop a payment methodology for threat assessment and management. CREDIT CHECK ???
• Promote expansion of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) model because these clinics are required to provide extensive crisis response capability, and the CCBHC prospective payment model can support the development and operation of threat assessment teams.
• Enact state red flag or extreme-risk protection orders that allow the temporary removal of guns from individuals who are known to pose a high risk of harming others or themselves in the near future. This is a sticky wicket power grab and bad for so many reasons mentioned before. Not in favor. Remove the INDIVIDUAL.
• Fully implement the existing federal background check requirement for firearms purchases . the crazy AirForce nutbag! and how many officers got court martialed for not making sure his name was entered onto the naughtly Fbi database? They are fully implemented. But, we're too busy playing candycrush or on pornhub to DO OUR JOBS