We are all aware of the emphasis on banning certain firearms which is simply a continuing effort by the anti gunners. Using the current "crisis" they are suggesting that since guns are a common denominator then guns should be banned.
That is a Constitutional issue - but not the only one involved. There is another and it's very much part and parcel of the Sudden Jihad shooter's profile - the internet, and specifically, pro-extremist web sites.
It's a very frequent part of what drives these shooters to do what they do.
Therefore in your calls or communication ask why these websites are being allowed to be accessed in the US. If they are a demonstrated threat to soliciting shooters - then ban them. Take them down. Screen them. Deny access.
Google has done that for the Chinese government, right?
Yes, there are 1st Amendment issues - there are 2d Amendment issues being thrown under the bus, too. The point is to make it a point and raise public consciousness that we aren't doing anything about it.
Ask why non citizen religious leaders aren't being denied visas, too. Present the issue as part of a BALANCED solution and press for why one Constitutional Amendment has to take the brunt of the loss when the abuse of others are equally culpable.
We are engaged in a war of words and allowing the spotlight to rest on just gun control is too focused. We need to spread the light to include what other Rights we should be restricting, too - which makes it an argument about Constitutional Rights in general, not just the third rail of gun rights alone.
Of course few will support restricting the 1st Amendment - but raising the issue diverts from the agenda, and highlights a failure in the overall Security strategy.
These shooters have predominantly viewed extremist websites FIRST - the guns came later. What should we be banning?
Posted here because not guns, activism. Raise the question.
That is a Constitutional issue - but not the only one involved. There is another and it's very much part and parcel of the Sudden Jihad shooter's profile - the internet, and specifically, pro-extremist web sites.
It's a very frequent part of what drives these shooters to do what they do.
Therefore in your calls or communication ask why these websites are being allowed to be accessed in the US. If they are a demonstrated threat to soliciting shooters - then ban them. Take them down. Screen them. Deny access.
Google has done that for the Chinese government, right?
Yes, there are 1st Amendment issues - there are 2d Amendment issues being thrown under the bus, too. The point is to make it a point and raise public consciousness that we aren't doing anything about it.
Ask why non citizen religious leaders aren't being denied visas, too. Present the issue as part of a BALANCED solution and press for why one Constitutional Amendment has to take the brunt of the loss when the abuse of others are equally culpable.
We are engaged in a war of words and allowing the spotlight to rest on just gun control is too focused. We need to spread the light to include what other Rights we should be restricting, too - which makes it an argument about Constitutional Rights in general, not just the third rail of gun rights alone.
Of course few will support restricting the 1st Amendment - but raising the issue diverts from the agenda, and highlights a failure in the overall Security strategy.
These shooters have predominantly viewed extremist websites FIRST - the guns came later. What should we be banning?
Posted here because not guns, activism. Raise the question.
