San Bernardino Shooting

San Bernardino Shooting Investigated as "Act of Terrorism"

A perfect storm for the policy agendas of gun grabbers and Muslim bashers, of right-wing and left-wing statists.

|

The FBI confirms that it is investigating the San Bernardino shooting that left 14 dead and more than 40 injured as "an acto fo terrorism." From the Wash Post:

The Pakistani woman who teamed with her husband in the San Bernardino massacre that killed 14 people on Wednesday pledged her allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, the clearest indication yet that the mass shooting was an act of terrorism, according to two law enforcement officials.

The revelation brought a new focus to Tashfeen Malik, 27, the enigmatic woman who police say carried out the killing spree on Wednesday alongside her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, before they were both slain in a frenzied shootout with officers later that day.

Malik posted a statement on Facebook referring to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the militant group that says it has established a caliphate in Syria and Iraq.  A Facebook official confirmed the nature of the posting.

More here.

So how does that change things?

In many ways, it creates a perfect storm for right-wing and left-wing statist responses.

Liberals and others generally predisposed toward stringent gun control were already pressing for tighter and tighter restrictions on gun ownership and Second Amendment rights despite the fact that gun violence is at its lowest levels in 20 years—a period during which more and more states liberalized gun laws and individuals were given the ability to own and carry firearms at unprecedented rates.

Conservatives and those on the right had been calling for tighter and tighter controls on immigration generally—see Donald Trump's assessment of Mexicans for only the boldest articulation of xenophobia—and others, even including the libertarianish Republican Rand Paul, have called for a moratorium on refugees from majority-Muslim countries we're bombing and droning the hell out of.

Expect each side in this moment to go over the top in demanding all sorts of new and/or intensified powers to restrict your and my freedoms. That the new rules and procedures will do little or nothing to increase safety won't really be discussed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

188 responses to “San Bernardino Shooting Investigated as "Act of Terrorism"

  1. So, a compromise on gun laws that aren’t effective and immigration laws that aren’t effective?

      1. Liberty is the greatest threat to liberty.

        1. Liberty is the greatest threat to the statist conception of freedom.

          1. And vice-versa…

      2. “The only loser is liberty”

        Liberty is poor Milhouse on Whirly-Gig, spit hits him from every direction.

        (Sorry, been watching the Simpsons a lot lately)

      3. You think it’s bad now – this attack was the “Laurel and Hardy” version of the terrorist attack I’ve been predicting for 2-3 year years now.

        Teams of 3-4, armed with rifles, disperse to various cities around the country. At an appointed time and date, each drives to a school and, using rifles (not handguns) kills as many people as they can in 10 minutes. Note that Cho was able to kill 30 and wound something like 17 in just 9.5 minutes using handguns. Rifles have much longer effective ranges, far more deadly ballistics and equivalent rates of fire. A skilled shooter in a “gun free” zone could easily take out 100 people in 10 minutes (a rate of rife of just one round every 6 seconds).

        After 10 minutes, the team would jump back in their car, head for the next school and repeat the massacre. Repeat two more times.

      4. A single team could execute up 1600 people… and a dozen teams could kill more then 6 times as many people as died on 9/11. If only 50% effective, more than 9000 dead – and every parent afraid to let their child (of whatever age) out of their sight for a second – America would be refried.

        The government would say what it did after 9/11: “No one could have seen this coming” – despite the fact that best-selling author Tom Clancy wrote about an airplanes crashing into the Capitol building in not 1 – but 2 of his books.

        So why isn’t anything being done to guard against this eventuality?

        First off, such an attack would work in the government’s favor. You think 9/11 was used to justify unconstitutional encroachments on liberty? You ain’t seen NOTHIN yet! The push to disarm the victims will proceed like never before. A full-blown police state will materialize (like the “PATRIOT” act) overnight.

        Second, there’s only one really viable method of protecting so many targets – and that’s to EXPAND the rights of citizens to carry weapons. Every teacher, every administrator, every parent – would become a defacto guardian of the students – and students of sufficient age (18) would also be allowed to carry. Wayne LaPierre gets a bunch of stuff wrong – but when he says, “The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun” – he’s 100% correct. And the last thing the government wants is for people to behave responsibly – because then, who would need government?

        1. The only way I would be onboard such a drastic proposal would be if those who weild weaponds lose benefit of doubt for using it. It you kill someone, you better hope you don’t accidentally kill someone innocent or unarmed If we are going to for a free for all, I am actually not against that. But then you face the consequences when things go wrong instead of using the excuse “well i intended well” . And if you are going to let everyone arm themselves and carry guns in public without restrictions, then we should have no tolerance for mistakes. You can’t just say “Oh well, I THOUGHT my life was in danger”. No, you better be right when you fire that gun to kill. If we have a free for all, there is nothing stopping someone from murdering someone and using fear of life as an excuse. Imagine how much easier mafia hits can be.

  2. Acto fo terrorism, this is!

    1. Fo sho.

    2. Give Nick a break, he was typing hysterically!

      1. The quotes (” “) indicate that was the way the WAPO wrote it.

        1. Except I followed the link, and they didn’t have that typo…

          1. I totally expect them to admit the mistake.

    3. Domo erigato, Mister Roboto!

      1. Cogito ergo sum to you, buddy!

        1. That’s disgusting!

      2. d?mo arigat? misut? Rob?to
        mata au hi made
        d?mo arigat? misut? Rob?to
        himitsu wo shiritai!

  3. And over on the FB, the new meme is that “adults don’t let children touch a hot stove – they intervene – and we need to do the same with guns.” So who would intervene – “smart people with triple-digit IQ’s – the children have to be kept from the guns”.

    Well, good thing you pointed yourself out to me. You’ll be banned from the bunker when the shit hits the fan, future victim….

    PS The laugher is this guy definitely ain’t in the “three digit” class, so, he’s good with being ruled….what a maroon.

    1. Because clearly these two just happened upon two rifles, two sidearms, 12 pipe bombs, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. If only we’d been there to guide them away from mass murder!

    2. I’ve got a triple digit IQ (if it is still being normalized properly aprox. 50% of the population should have a triple digit IQ). Does this mean your friend has to do whatever I say?

    3. It’s always nice when statists come out and say we’re all children, and government is daddy.

      1. I think daddy is touching me inappropriately.

    4. And… is he saying that the bureaucrats who would determine who does and does not get a gun are “smart people with triple-digit IQs”? (ignoring that, as Illocust says, half of the population should have an IQ of 100+)

      1. yes

    5. So who would intervene – “smart people with triple-digit IQ’s

      This is the part that always cracks me up. You’re going to have Harvard faculty and NYT reporters go to rednecks’ houses and … ask politely for their guns?

      1. That would be something to see! A bunch of pajama boys stealing the guns of good ol’ boys

    6. Well, if you want your children to grow up able to feed themselves, you might consider teaching them how to use a stove. And if you don’t want them burning their little fingers, you might teach them that there are lots of things besides stoves that get hot. Like gun barrels when you’re target practicing.

      Somehow the “interveners” never think about education, always about “keeping from.”

    7. My parents let me touch a hot stove whenever I wanted to. Guess what? I don’t touch hot stoves today. I did the same with my daughters. Guess what? They don’t touch hot stoves (and two of them are great cooks).

      1. Ahhh… the cycle of abuse, little wonder you became the despicable monster you are today. Obviously, your daughters will hold their children’s hands to hot stoves, and so on.. so fourth. D.C.F notified! I will hashtag you into oblivion from my safespace, you cruel monster!

        #FeelTheBurn

        1. nice

    8. smart people with triple-digit IQ’s

      So…gun owners like myself?

      1. Nah bra, ur a gun owner so u don’t hav a tripple dijit IQ.

      2. So……by their way of thinking, I can walk into one of their faculty meetings and take full control of them? As they are my intellectual inferiors. Cool.

    9. “adults don’t let children touch a hot stove – they intervene – and we need to do the same with guns.”

      Right. Which is why you’ll find that most gun owners keep their guns either on their person or locked up, so that they can be sure that the little ones aren’t messing with them. And every time I go to the range, I see several families there with their kids, teaching them that real guns are not the same as toy guns or video game guns.

      If these people really cared about gun safety, they’d start a charitable organization to buy gun safes and give them to those gun owners who don’t have them. But the concept of joining together with like-minded people to achieve something WITHOUT government force is utterly foreign to them.

    10. I taught my kids how to properly operate a hot stove

  4. “individuals were given the ability to own and carry firearms at unprecedented rates.”

    BZZZT! Individuals are not *given* rights.

    1. That’s crazy talk! They’d have to be….I dunno…”endowed by their creator” or something, if governments don’t GIVE them rights.

      1. You know who else was “endowed by his creator”…..

        1. Statue of David?

        2. Jon Hamm in a pair of jogging shorts?

        3. Frankenstein’s monster?

          1. That’s Fronkensteen’s monster to you.

            1. Either way he would have to have an enormous schwanzstucker.

              1. . . . That goes without saying.

        4. John Wayne Bobbitt?

        5. Well just to be obvious:

          Long Dong Silver. (With a name like that he must be Jewish).

          1. Well, his pre-porn name WAS Long Dong Silverstein.

        6. John Harvard?

          1. always one surprise in the bunch!

        7. This time it *wasn’t* Hitler, and here is the (possibly NSFW) reason.

        8. George Washington?

    2. Shut up and thank your benevolent masters!

    3. “BZZZT! Individuals are not *given* rights.”

      Spot on..

      “individuals were given the ability to own and carry firearms at unprecedented rates.”

      Really? I wonder what the “carry rate” was around, say.. 1890..

      1. We had rifles over our fireplace right into the 1970’s. Course, Pa Almanian didn’t keep ’em loaded, what with us chirrens runnin’ around…

  5. Thought this was old-news in the AM links. Anyone pretending it was supposed to be something ‘other than terrorism’ was doing so because of some intense political desire.*

    (and im sure the same accusation works in reverse = everyone ‘jumping to the conclusion’ was doing so because they *needs teh terrorists*. anyone in-between just taking note of the bloody-obvious gets tarred.)

    anyway

    OT = that story of the Alabama PD framing black suspects by planting-dope on them… may have problems

    1. How the hell did that story go viral? First look: Oh, Henry County Report is just some guy’s website. First paragraph: Guy in AL citing the SPLC — we’re dealing with a lefty loon. Not that he’s necessarily wrong, but he’s certainly a loon. Then the rest is just internal memo’s that don’t really say anything. And people were tweeting like it’s proof of a giant conspiracy.

      1. Your moniker is a story that went viral.

        1. 1) Whoa

          2) Only Mets fans believed it, because they desperately wanted it to be true …

      2. my own reaction was, “Shocker = Alabama has some racists”

        Meaning, the story confirmed what everyone already believes. Its a small thing to have them jump to believing “Anything racist” is true

  6. “In many ways, it creates a perfect storm for right-wing and left-wing statist responses.

    “Liberals and others generally predisposed toward stringent gun control were already pressing for tighter and tighter restrictions on gun ownership…”

    The leftists were already going to exploit any mass shooting. They’ll find a way to shoehorn in the terrorist angle (using the no fly list to ban guns), but I suspect they were actually hoping for (a) a lunatic or (b) a teabagger or prolifer as the murderer.

    They’re going to have a hard row to hoe explaining how they’re going to keep weapons out of the hands of committed terrorists.

    1. I believe the current plan is to ban “terrorists” on some list from getting guns (who could oppose that?) and then get an executive order making that list include everyone who now owns a gun (potential terrorist!).

    2. That’s why they need to ban guns. It’s the only way to be sure.

    3. well first yo need to ban anyone on your watch list, civil liberties be damned… then you need to expand the NSA’s power to look for reasons to put people on the list… (because these people never made it onto that watch list.) then you need to add everyone someone on the watch list ever says hello to… and on and on until everyone is on the list

      1. They don’t need a reason to put you on the list.

    4. The idiot lefties with whom I’m somehow friends on FB were going apeshit the day of the shooting with the pure certainty that this was another Christian Terrorist white male and when I called them on their bullshit, baseless projection they went full retard about how this was just happening every day and that no one is safe and we just need to DO SOMETHING and then quit talking to me.

      If only I’d known about this awesome power to shut them the fuck up earlier.

      Since the names of the shooters were released and the focus shifted to the Islamic terror angle they’ve gone remarkably silent on the shooters and have gone back to full on “common sense gun laws” derp and how the “gun culture” is just a bunch of crazy shooters in waiting. Goat-fucking Mohamed on a trampoline, but they’re a bunch of tiresome fucksticks.

  7. So, libertarian moment, yes?

    1. Brilliant.

  8. Sometimes it seems like people think the policy prescriptions are inevitable, so we have to control the facts.

    If global warming is real, then we have to defer to whatever Obama wants to do.

    If the attack in San Bernardino was terrorism, then we have to ban guns and invade Syria.

    I refuse to operate under the assumption that all of our decisions are made for us if we capitulate and recognize the facts.

    Yeah, I think global warming is a problem–and I don’t want any of what Obama wants to do about it.

    Yeah, the attack in San Bernardino was terrorism, but we don’t have to ban guns and we don’t have to invade Syria.

    1. Sometimes it seems like people think the policy prescriptions are inevitable, so we have to control the facts.

      Doing nothing is literally not an option with the modern political class.

      Not an option.

      So you’re going to get policy prescriptions.

      1. See my comment below about the viability of gun control as a response to a terrorist attack.

        Only people in progressive strongholds and people in the media imagine that’s politically viable.

        When the Republicans overreached with the War on Terror, it was after it had worked for a long time. Since when has gun control won anybody an election outside of a progressive stronghold?

        I think there are a whole lotta people out there who imagine that media bias somehow accurately reflects public opinion. They better check with their local pollsters before they go off half-cocked.

        1. The gun-control frothing, as far as i see it, is for “Motivation”. Turnout-generating rhetoric, not policy-proposals.

          they’re already quickly pivoted to simply demonizing GOP for “Allowing” guns rather than making gun control the central plank of Hillary’s campaign.

        2. They truly believe that NRA lobbying efforts are the only thing keeping Congress from passing stricter gun control legislation. The NRA is the equivalent of the Koch’s on this issue.

          It’s interesting how there always has to be some bogey man pulling the levers behind the scenes in the eyes of some people. Do they just not understand emergent phenomena?

          1. It’s truly bizarre. It’s like they think the NRA is just brainwashing people into buying all these guns that they don’t even want. To them, it’s inconceivable that people enjoy owning guns and that when they hear politicians ranting about banning and/or confiscating them, they join political organizations dedicated to protecting their rights.

        3. Do you know who else was half-cocked?

      2. So you’re going to get policy prescriptions.

        I don’t think anything will get through Congress that has an actual effect on either guns or immigration. Possibly, states or cities will try more restrictions, but other than Obama and his pen (EO) nothings gonna happen.

        1. If all the states and cities effectively repeal the 2nd amendment, it’s effectively repealed. Even if it only happens in blue states, those people in blue enclaves are denied their 2nd amendment rights.

          1. Well, Ken just pointed out that fewer and fewer states are controlled by Dems. Most blue cities already have very restrictive gun laws. Few or no new laws at the state or city level will be passed because they already exist.

            1. Here’s a chart for anyone who’s interested.

              http://tinyurl.com/pkuf8my

              If the trend continues, the Republicans may be in position to start thinking about Constitutional amendments.

              Historically, you’d think this is about as popular as the Republicans are likely to get before the worm turns. Only it’s odd because watching television or popular news sites, you’d think the Republicans were in decline.

              Also, in the past, party politicians have been wise enough at this point not to shoot themselves in the foot with controversial and unpopular proposals in an election year. I read that Democratic senators proposed gun control legislation yesterday. The Democrat candidates running against those Republican senators from the Midwest must be screaming bloody murder.

              But what do the Democrats in Congress care? They’ve gotta throw something to their donors and constituencies back home. They better hope the Republicans don’t let that legislation get to the floor. But if I were the Republican in charge, I’d let ’em have a vote on it. We might see the Senate get so Republican you can hardly believe it. And if there’s a Republican president come January of 2017? The Republicans might be able to amend the Constitution–especially considering the support they have in the states.

              The Republicans need 34 states to ratify an Amendment, and they already have 30.

              1. I think a lot of people dislike the Republican party brand at the national level, but not for all the same reasons. It’s not likely everyone who complains about the national Republican party wants to vote Democrat.

                At the state level the Republican brand is evidently better, but the brand also varies from state to state. Christie isn’t going to get elected in Mississippi.

                It’s a complicated country.

              2. Depending on the amendment, there may already be 34 or more states to vote for it now.

                KY for example may be split, but if rural KY democrats are anything like rural Illinois Democrats, they would need no prodding for an affirmative vote on say an ironclad update to the 2nd.

              3. What would the amendment be? “Resolved: That the 2nd Amendment really does protect individual firearm ownership.” ? A resolution forbidding states, counties, or cities from passing any laws that infringe on individual ownership?

                1. How ’bout a balanced budget amendment?

                2. We could amend the Constitution to prohibit unions from representing public employees.

                3. “What would the amendment be?”

                  This is the Republican Party we’re talking about. It would almost certainly be something extremely stupid and anti-liberty that would create a massive public opinion backlash and hand Congress and the White House back to the Dems.

              4. Then maybe we can finally get an amendment prohibiting the practice of Marxism.

          2. Some states and cities already do deny their citizens 2nd amendment rights. With little likelihood that it will change any time soon.

          3. Assuming that anyone would comply with such an ambitious law. NY/Connecticut were hardly stellar examples of civil compliance with the comparatively meager SAFE act and AW registry.. and certainly nothing the proglidytes could hang their hats on..

            1. While I certainly find it heartening when people disobey black-letter laws which infringe on our basic rights, hoping when we next spin the cylinder of democracy that it lands on an empty chamber doesn’t ease my tendency to be looking over my shoulder.

              1. hoping when we next spin the cylinder of democracy that it lands on an empty chamber

                Stolen.

    2. We don’t have to do fuck-all. The criminals were brought to justice. System worked. Everybody pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

        1. I stayed glued to my computer and amused myself by making half witty comments.

  9. On gun control, if the Democrats manage to get a vote on the floor for a gun control measure, I suspect it will hurt them even more than they’re hurting now. All the Republican senators from the Midwest that are up for reelection in 2016 are praying that the Democrats will give them a chance to vote against gun control. Do the Democrats not realize that if it weren’t for Obama being in the White House, they’d be almost completely irrelevant everywhere outside of a few progressives strongholds? There haven’t been so few Democrat controlled legislatures in the states (11) since before Reagan was President. If the Democrats go big on gun control, that number may actually decrease.

    1. It’s weird how the party that looked to be set for life is suddenly near irrelevant. Both the media and colleges have gone farther and farther left, but the voting public and government are heading in the opposite direction.

      I’m going to blame the internet. Never before has the media had so little power on what people see and hear. It’s also allowed people to sequester themselves in echo chambers. The left due to their mainstream media acceptance don’t realize when they’ve slipped into one of these echo chambers, and those inside lose most of their ability to communicate and convince those outside. It’s just a theory though.

      1. I think it’s symptomatic of a change in their mission.

        A lot of journalists have come to imagine that it’s their job to tell Plato’s noble lies.

        The reason it’s treasonous to question global warming is because they believe the world would be a better place if everyone believed that was a problem–regardless of whether it’s true.

        It’s the same thing with guns. If they think the world would be less violent without them, then any statistics that suggest otherwise are unwelcome.

        I suspect they’re reluctant to call the attack in San Bernardino terrorism because they think that would make war there inevitable. I’m sure they think the world would be a better place if the American people did not believe that the attack in San Beranrdino was terrorist.

        1. I don’t think the lie is quite as noble as avoiding war in Syria. Obama already tried to get involved in that once already, remember the pictures of gassed kids? I think their purpose here is no more than having a terrorist attack on American soil makes Obama look bad, or possibly because of the refugee issue.

          1. remember the pictures of gassed kids?

            I think there’s very good reason to believe that he indirectly caused those kids to get gassed when he made a promise to give the rebels an air force if the regime could only be plausibly blamed for gassing civilians. Consider that there were no gas attacks before or since, and this gas attack seems to have been strategically pointless for Assad to carry out, in fact it would be strategic suicide were he to carry it out and Obama were to live up to his threat.

            I don’t think it’s too cynical to assume that Obama’s terrorists freedom fighters did this with or without his knowledge and staged it to look like Assad.

        2. terrorist = Religious War

      2. both sides have been stuck in those echo chambers. always funny when you get in an argument with one of them, and they suddenly realize that their go to red herring is only relevant if the person they are talking to agrees with every single part of the other platform (example, abortion and gun control… welfare state and immigration.. etc.)

        1. Oh yes, echo chambers exist for every platform and belief (including Nazis). I was just thinking that the left might be more prone to them than other beliefs due to most journalists being a part of those chambers.

    2. I have been assured that the reason there are so few state legislatures under Democrat control is because the Republicans were able to gerrymander voting districts to horrendous extremes, even in states where the Democrats were ostensibly in charge.

      Yup yup…

      1. Just tell them the truth… the reason Repubs can “gerrymander” those districts is the “majority-minority” mandate in the Voting Rights Act.

  10. By “act of terrorism” they mean Religious War.

  11. This is the perfect crisitunity to demand the government support the Constitutional right to keep and arm bears by issuing everybody a voucher for a free bear and a free machine gun. Sure, it’s an extremist view but I would be willing to compromise by just settling for everybody who wants a gun can have a gun and everybody that doesn’t want a gun doesn’t have to have a gun and we’ll just leave the bears out of it. Surely that’s a reasonable, common-sense compromise, right?

    1. and a free machine gun

      What do the Swiss issue?

      1. Chocolate bars?

        1. I prefer batons kirsch

          You can order me some here: http://www.lindt.ch/swf/eng/pr…..geschenke/

        1. Ahh.. the STurmGewehr 90. Magnificent.

        2. I used to hang out on that site. It is awesome.

        3. How is the K-31 not on that list?

          1. Ah, I see it got a brief mention…it deserved better.

      2. Army knives.

    2. And remember, if the state isn’t paying for it, it’s the same as banning it, so those guns better be provided free o’ charge.

    3. Can I get my machine gun mounted on my bear, with a saddle for riding behind it? That would totes make Putin jelly!

  12. I’m thinking it might be time to shop for the .357 lever gun I’ve always wanted. Any opinions on them? I like the Henry .22lr lever action. Is the .357 similar?

      1. They have in 357 as well

        http://www.taylorsfirearms.com…..askan.html

        1. Not a take down but guessing cheaper than the Taylor

          http://www.marlinfirearms.com/…../1894c.asp

    1. I have an imi .45 uzi carbine I’m pretty fond of

      1. Plasma rifle. In the 40 watt range.

        1. Just what you see, pal.

    2. I have a win 94ae in cal .357/.38. A fine camp rifle, and as quiet as a .22 when loaded with .38 specials. I wouldn’t get rid of it.

      1. Sweet. I been thinking about a s&w 686 357 wheel gun

        1. A fine choice indeed. One of the preferred revolvers of state troopers for years, before 9mm madness set in.

        2. Seven beans in the wheel (with the “+” version). My carry piece is a 2 1/2″ 686+. Love it.

    3. I like my Henry a lot. Even more accurate than my Marlins (which I like even more cause they’re not so heavy). I’m planning to buy another….well, was planning to.

    4. I’ve always wanted one of these:

      http://www.winchesterguns.com/…..mid=534094

      16″ barrel. They stopped making them, and they’re not as easy to find as they used to be. Used to be $470 retail. They’ve gone up in price.

      You’ll may be lucky to find one in good condition for less a $1,000.

    5. I have a Rossi M92 in .357/.38.

      You’ll find some bad reviews of Rossi products out there, but this thing has performed pretty well for me. The only problem was this weird situation where a round from the magazine somehow ended up under the shell lifter. It only happened twice, and I don’t know how exactly it occurred.

      The gun could also use some hand-finishing and “slicking up” of the internal parts. I’d like to get in there with a really fine stone and smooth things over, but I took it completely apart once and it was a two-hour job (lever actions aren’t really meant to be taken completely apart on a regular basis). I’ll get around to it one of these days.

      But it’s still surprisingly accurate for an inexpensive pistol-caliber carbine, and it’s just fun as hell to shoot. There are certainly better leverguns out there if you have the money, but I wasn’t going to be reaching for my lever action in any life-or-death situations, so I didn’t want to spend a fortune.

  13. I have never seen so many people so happy that fourteen innocent people are dead.

    1. Every cloud has a silver lining?

      1. And the lining drips delicious blood.

      2. And the lining drips delicious blood.

        1. TREE RATS!!!

    2. There is the effort to make sure that the next two guilty die sooner. Seems like a good idea.

    3. Maybe they should atart piling them up on the white house lawn.

    4. As we laugh at the morons who wish to continue their stupidity?

  14. On the question of ground troops in Syria, I bet ground troops are a lot more popular when you ask the American public if they want to use them to fight ISIS than they are if you ask Americans if they want to commit ground troops in Syria. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a majority of Americans favored the former and a majority of Americans opposed the latter.

    Regardless, the case against committing ground troops in Syria in response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino is an easy one to make. We can certainly oppose foolishly committing ground troops in Syria regardless of a terrorist attack in San Bernardino. I’m sure there needs to be a response–I’m not talking about doing nothing.

    But that response doesn’t absolutely need to entail sending our ground troops in to fight among Assad, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and ISIS, too–which is what we would be doing.

    1. “Regardless, the case against committing ground troops in Syria in response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino is an easy one to make”

      You are late to the party, because Obama was re-defining what “boots” mean just yesterday, and it wasn’t in reaction to any ‘terrism’ which obviously hasn’t happened… it was just part of his vaguely defined strategy which is VERY CLEAR no matter how arbitrary and purposeless it may initially appear.

      “O’Donnell asked Obama if he was going back on his word by authorizing an expansion of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria with the deployment of what the Pentagon calls a “specialized expeditionary targeting force.” The president earnestly replied, “You know, when I said no boots on the ground, I think the American people understood generally that we’re not going to do an Iraq-style invasion of Iraq or Syria with battalions that are moving across the desert.””

      Of course, there is absolutely no reason that Obama made this announcement on a day when all the news media were 100% obsessed with this GUNS ARE KILLING AMERICA story and had no time for any minor changes in foreign policy postures.

      1. The problem with boots on the ground is that once an American dies there, leaving unless the place is as free as America is insanely difficult–because everyone will point at you for leaving and say, “You let Americans die in vain”. And it doesn’t matter if you’re the President that ordered troops there in the first place. It just matters that you’re the President that wants to leave after Americans died. You sold American lives short. Shame on you.

        How many Obama sends obviously isn’t the issue. It’s how many die, and the crucial number we want is

        1. It cut off half my comment!

          Did somebody make a donation to shorten the length of my posts?!

          The crucial number we want is less than one.

          There was a lot more to this comment about how we’re still in the Philippines (since 1898), but I guess the gerbils aren’t havin’ it.

      2. The first 50,000 boots don’t count

  15. Hello. Just hanging out here — it’s the equivalent of a nice, hot shower for me. I’ve been at the Guardian (U.S. edition) and the pro gun law editorials there are head shaking, to be kind. Ugh.

  16. Terrorism? TERRORISM?

    I’m stunned and shocked at the same time.

    /stoically stares into Reason camera.

    1. The only thing we have to fear IS…..derp itself….

  17. Think Ima head to the range tomorrow and post on the Facebook some more GoPro vids of me shooting my guns. At least I’m entertained.

    Also – noting who needs an NRA membership for Christmas. Only $35, and I’ve found they make GREAT stocking stuffers for my Proggie friends! lulz ensure for the next year.

  18. So is it now ok for me to state that this attack was religiously motivated?

    1. As long as you explain the technical details of your muslim-roundup and registration program so we can all weigh the merits.

      1. If I were pro-internment–which, of course, I am not–I’d do it like a sting operation. Tell all the internees to be that they’ve won a free cruise.

        1. Why don’t we just tell them that they’ve won free healthcare?

          1. free room & board

  19. “an acto fo terrorism.” From the Wash Post:

    Is this a ‘No Country For Old Men’ reference, friendo?

    1. Well, since the ACA rulings have clearly established that the federal government can mandate the purchase of goods and services, and since the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the government’s infringement of the right to bear arms, why not simply mandate that everyone has to be armed all of the time?

      On a somewhat related note, the GOP is a state or two away from being able to call and control a constitutional convention. I strongly urge the left to find moderation in a hurry, unless they want to find out the true meaning of Christmas.

      1. Well look who decided to show up.

        1. I’m not quite dead yet.

          1. It’s good to see you back. I don’t care what BakedPenguin says.

            1. You can’t trust him right now. The Urkobold is making him handle PR for the Trump campaign–which, of course, is being totally run by the Ur Troll.

    2. It’s more like.. “Cup o’ Pizza?”

        1. That too..

          *opens a bag of lorna doones*

  20. Our intrepid FBI: First in War, First in Peace, Last in Terrorism (but barely ahead of PMSNBC).
    Of course, they were relying on the DHS to identify terrorist in our midst, but they gave “Bonnie” a clean bill of health.

  21. “Perfect storm”? Maybe we can “think outside the box” after a “wake-up call” and define our “mission statement” to…
    Aw, the hell with it.

    1. That would be “problematic.”

      Those are all “tired cliches.”

    2. Or…..come up with……. “A plan so crazy, it just might work!”

  22. Every muslim is not a terrorist but all terrorists turn out to be muslims. There is no guilt by association so why are they putting so much effort into finding an association with know terrorist groups? Every muslim may well be viewed as a terrorist in waiting. Terrorists need not be official card carrying members of any of the dozens of terrorist groups before they go on a killing spree, all they need to is to be a muslim.

    1. This is exactly what the zionist-controlled press wants you to think to prod us into another war with Iran andSyria. One by one the Middle East is fragmenting. Divide and conquer is the method with Israel behind the scenes, orchestrating.

  23. For some strange reason (ha) I feel as though Lynch, Feinswine and Pelosi are privately jumping for joy. Yay, a perfect storm that’ll let us grab the guns.

  24. Another Israeli-prodded false flag to soften us up for war with Iran and Syria? Their “attack” just doesn’t make sense. Were they programmed by the Criminal Interlopers and Assassins Agency, or even MOSSAD?

    Take another look at Sandy Hoax……

  25. Did they cause terror? Yes. So it IS terrorism, then. There’s really nothing to “decide”. I hate all this labeling and BS that comes along with stuff like this. And the idea that something is only terrorism if it is linked to a non-US force is ridiculous.

    1. Yeah, I couldn’t believe Fox News said it wasn’t determined whether or not this was a terrorist attack. I could of shot them.

  26. lol gimme a break, people taking this terrorist BS way to seriously. Dude was a flippin whacko, period.

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

  27. Poor poor unReason Magazine…. It is harder to bash the Jews when the Jews’ enemies — the Muslims — and the Libertarian’s heroes are murdering with such orgiastic abandon. How did the murders happen and why did they happen? Was it the weather? Was it jooish finance and secret messages from the joo media via our boob tubes? Let’s see… the Muslims do not commit terrorism, but we joos lied about the holocaust. Isn’t that correct you holocaust denying party animals? We should not legalize drugs because you libertarians had your minds eaten out because of your use of them. Your antisemitism and apologies for Muslim terror prove that.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

    Nicky should go back to editing “Suck Magazine”

  28. In what way is a moratorium on Muslim refugees an infringement on American liberties?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.