Japan T comments

Sorry for the loss of life but how can this happen?

"UK firearms policy is based on the fact that firearms are dangerous weapons and the State has a duty to protect the public from their misuse. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Firearms control in the UK is among the toughest in the world,"

@Madverts

If banning doesn't work, what is the benefit of banning them.. Empty gestures are just that, empty.

"There are 94 million Americans out of work Yes, most are children and old people." No, that is the number of peole in the US who are of working age and fit to do so but are no longer receiving unemployment benefits due to the expiration of those benefits.

"Sorry, not convincing. Clinton is not busted. Just like you thought all these years Obama would be arrested for his crimes in your imagination Clinton will never be. "

Again, thank you for informing me of my beliefs.

"You are just reading false news about her. She's very clean." The White House Press Sec. has said that the investigstion into her server is a criminal investigation. You are right, however, that she will not be prosecuted but that will be due to politics and not the law.

"The lack of protection from the law makes me feel naked. And I am greatly offended by your mocking of a very real and dangerous situation that effe ts not only myself but my family. Japan sounds like a ticking timebomb. Hurry! Discount tickets are going fast. Feel free to join the 94 million Americans out of work but at least you can reunite with your guns." I am so glad that the murder of my neighbor provides you with so much amusement. You are one sick puppy. Again, you make assumptions about my emotional attachment to my guns that are not based upon fact and are incorrect.

"she has voted to fund it while a senator. Yes, and it didn't work then. It would be built on sacred India ground." Yet Trump is crazy for demanding it but Clinton is not for funding it?

"I am am sure that many would jump at the chance to be employed manning the wall. Who is going to pay for this? And how many snipers (and their spotters) will need to be lined up along the entire 2000 mile wall so they can shoot anyone who jumps over (with their ladder)?"

Who said anything about snipers? And, this seems to be new information to you, we have a border patrol agency that already patrols the boarder. A wall and fence used with natural barriers and and beefed up boarder patrol would do wonders to stem the flood of illegals across our southern boarder. What to you propose to solve the illegal immigration problem?

Forget that last question. As you continue to assign beliefs to me that I do not have and continue to mock the murder/s of my neighbors abd not provide any facts to discuss, I am done with you.

@nishikat

The statements that Clinton's predecessors did the same have been debunked. The "procedure" she didn't follow is law. She broke the law. Here is a tweet on the topic from Snowden. "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President."

It was the H. Clinton campaign that started the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya durring her last attempt to secure the Democrat party nomination.

There are 94 million Americans out of work, I am am sure that many would jump at the chance to be employed manning the wall. If the Chinese can bulid a 13,000 mile long wall 2000 years ago, I am sure we could figure out a way to get a 2000 mile long one done today. Besides, Clinton herself has said on multiple occasions that there should be a physical barrier at our southern boarder and has also said that she has voted to fund it while a senator. In reality, it doesn't need to be a wall the whole distance. Razor wire and the like and natural barriers could be effectively used for much of the distance.

"The perp comes to my front door weekly to deliver the kairanban! The cops didn't arrest him?" Would he still be able to deliver the kairanban to my home if he had been?

"do NOT feel naked without my guns But a murderer comes to your door every week." The lack of protection from the law makes me feel naked. And I am greatly offended by your mocking of a very real and dangerous situation that effe ts not only myself but my family.

"If the nighclub attacker had attacked with a Milkor MGL grenade launcher no gun could have protected from that. ". He was engaged by police officers as he went in. If he stopped to try to fire a grenade into the club, police would have had more time to stop him.

"Or if he had driven up in a pickup truck with a M2 Browning machine gun mounted on back he could have picked off many many more from a safe distance.". Other armed citizens would have been able to take him out from flank or rear as he would have been exposed.

"Glock vs. Milkor MGL or Glock vs. AK 47. Really, those bar customers would have needed AK47s in order to have defeated that guy. " Only if the rest of the public would have been unarmed.

@Nemrut Dagi

"The 'right to bear arms' was enacted over 200yrs ago when firearms took 1 minute to load a single shot. It is woefully outdated and never intended for citizens to go on shooting sprees with military grade assault weapons."

So what? The 1st amendment was written when hand written notes had to be rewritten then hand delivered to the hand set printing press and then sent out on foot, horse back and cart. The third amendment was written at a time when an official of the government would have to be physically quartered in a citizen's home to have access to their personal conversations. Should these also be abolished? If you think so, start working on a Constitutional Convention.

@Nishikat

"Do you lock your door at night? Yes, but all you need is a ladder. Trump's wall is a joke. 10B$ wall? Just get a 10 dollar ladder. Old tech invented centuries ago will make Trump's wall useless." Funds have been allocated to build a wall at the southern boarder long ago. It just has not been built yet. If walls and fences don't work, why is there one around the White House? I guess the Berlin wall was a joke too? In fact, most of what Trump has proposed to fight the invasion of illegals has actually been done before. President Eisenhower's policies agains illegal aliens caused millions to self deport. President Carter expelled ALL Iranians during the Iranian hostage crisis. Trump's proposals are neither extreme nor even unique. In fact, I just watched two videos of H. Clinton saying that see supports and voted to fund building physical barriers at the birder with Mexico and that she beleives we must secure our boarders.

If walls are useless then why this. "Security at the Sports Complex during the Democratic National Convention next month will include “no-scale fencing” to enclose the Wells Fargo Center and Xfinity Live!, the Secret Service special agent in charge said in an interview Thursday."?

"How many murders have you witnessed in Japan? Just that one?" WTF!?! Is one NOT ENOUGH for you!?!? Right next door to my house! You are insane. The perp comes to my front door weekly to deliver the kairanban! He killed his grandmother a month after his aunt died under the exact same circumstances! Police didn't protect the grandmother but they will my family!?!? You are way out in la la land.

"Came for a short stay and now I am pretty much stuck here. You must feel naked without your guns." You have nothing to base that statement upon. I do NOT feel naked without my guns and you are very wrong to suggest so. I DO, however, sometimes feel naked knowing that I am not protected by the rule of law.

"Have you read any of the documents released by the State Dept have you seen any handcuffs on her. When I see that i will be convinced. I am not convinced from what you said.". You have an unhealthy trust in the Justice system and a lack of independent thought. All you have to do is a little research into the laws pertaining to the handling of gov. info and the storage of the same and read what the State Dept. has released and it is as clear as the sun after a rain that laws have been broken. But you have no interest, so you will allow yourself to be misled by your prefered sources of misinformation.

Home Defense aganst any intruder How about Japan? Yes, it is insane that people here do not have he right to defend themselves in their own homes here. But it is because they have not earned that right. When a home is invaded, there are only two options, die or kill. In Japan, most die. Killing the intruder gets the home defender arrested in Japan. If my home is invaded, I will choose prison over my family's deaths. Americans have earned the right to protect themselves in their homes, though this right too has long been under assault.

"What do you think of metal storm technology in a handgun?" I have no idea what it is but unless it improves accuracy and or ease of use, I don't see the point.

"Do you always carry when you enter the USA? " No, but I would if I felt I needed to. Then you would have died in that Orlando nighclub."

Upon what do you base that false conjecture upon?

And yes, the only way to protect yourself if you are a situation like the Orlando attack, is to have a firearm. There is no other way. Wishing guns away does not make them go away.

@nishikat "Depends upon the state. yes, or no, should 16-year olds be allowed to conceal carry. It's a simple question." And it is a simple answer. If the citizens of a state say "yes", then in that state, yes. If the citizens of another state say "no", then in that state, no. "they are denied the ability to defend themselves Do you always carry when you enter the USA? " No, but I would if I felt I needed to. For example, when we bought our house in Japan, we had to hand carry ¥1,000,000 in cash for the deposit to the realtor's office in an area we were not at all familiar with. An area that was a lot more run down and darker than any I had ever seen before or since. I would have liked very much to have been packing under those circumstances. But again, you are missing the point. Having the right to do so does not mean that we must exercise that right. Having a right means that I can exercise the right whenever I choose. Not having the right means that I can not choose to do so. But regardless, the only legal way to change it is through a Constitutional Convention. If you feel stongly enough about it, get to work.

"Clinton is a criminal No, she's not and you can't prove it. I bet you can't make a convincing argument or prove it. " Have you read any of the documents released by the State Dept. relating to her server. The server was illegal. Using personal email for government work is illegal, and she did just that. Many of her emails on her private server have not been released by the State Dept. because they are classified, a big time major crime.

" Do you actually believe in Trump's wall?" Do you lock your door at night?

"Nishikat Machine guns are a bit harder to handle No, very easy to handle. No, there are mini guns that are portable enough. Wrong" Have you ever fired a machine gun? A lot less easy to keep the muzzle on target than a semi auto. I do not have a lot of experience with machine guns, but do have a bit with firearms in general. Depends a lot in what you are loading, but I often find that the muzzels of heavier guns do not rise as far off target as with lighter guns. And yes, some machine guns may be portsble, but as the fire more bullets you need to carry more bullets. Bullets ain't light. If you were to read battle histories, you will often find passages concerning ammo depletion in battle. Often quite early in the fight, a unit finds itself not only pinned down but low on ammo and volunteers run through a hail of bullets to fetch ammo. As a child, I always wondered why they just didn't carry more ammo with them. After all, isn't putting massive amount of lead on target what they are there for? Then I had an opportunity to get fitted out in full combat gear with a full battle issue of rounds. Bullets are heavy. Unless the shooter wanted to run out of ammo very early having put large numbers of bullets into each of his targets, he would have to be very disaplined in his firing, which would be much like using his machine gun as a semi auto, our carry a hell of a lot of bullets which would weigh him down conciderably. If I were to carry something like that out, and I am NOT, I would prefer a semi auto. ""protect the citizens from their own government" Then why are you in Japan? " Came for a short stay and now I am pretty much stuck here. Someone could attack and kill you any moment. But even so a semi auto is laughable compared to what the government has" Then we should have more fire power. Other than killing many gays in a nightclub what good are semi autos for? Home Defense aganst any intruder, Defense against any attacker, shooting targets. "OK, I understand that you think there should be no gun laws and just buy then like socks at Walmart." There was a lot less violent crime in the US when this was true.

So what, four cops taken out by one gunman. The people trapped in the nightclub Sunday morning had absolutely no chance to survive, none. Having their own gun with them would have given them a fighting chance.

"No, I'm talking about for reliable teen like 16 (who has no juvenile record and is in good standing in society and a good student). Should they be able to carry like an adult?" Depends upon the state. "It's just amazing that people are so paranoid about not having a gun like their lives depend on it then they come to Japan. " You misread the situation. It is not that we need to have one with us at times like people seem to need their cell phones, we understand what not being allowed to own them means. We know that there are bad folks in the world and that any other than the most totalitarian of governments are unable to eradicate them, such a government has not yet been foisted upon a nation but I know I would not want to be under it.

They then blast "liberals" who want workable gun control".

There is no such thing as "workable" gun control. How many more have to die like sheep because they are denied the ability to defend themselves as liberals continue to experiment? Most gun control attempts have not only failed but failed miserably. Just take a look at Chicago, or France. " But then they move to a country with NO guns, except for hunting." Thus being shot does not concern me. But I would like to be able to defend myself from the next Mr, Kato. Knives kill you just as dead as a gun. I have a really good reason for wanting the right to bear arms here in Japan but the mods won't let me post it.

"But really, those semi autos have got to go. There is almost no practical reason to have them for regular citizens."

You continue to ignore the primary reason for the second amendmendment, which is to protect the citizens from their own government when it grows abusive. You really must study what brought about the British colonist in America breaking away from their government and the reasons for the Constitution and each of the original ten amendments.

@Kuya88

How about the bouncers, waiters/waitresses, the people behind the bar? None of them should have been drinking and should know the layout of the venue very well

But even without being too terribly profivient, or even not at all, the patrons having a firearm would have given them a fighting chance. I lost track of it, but one of the victims, a man with the last name of Justice hid in a bathroom stall for at least 33 minutes tweeting his mother. His last tweet, "I'm going to die." If he had a gun, he would have had a fighting chance, especially as he was in a location that allowed him ambush advantage over his attacker. No fighting chance with out a gun, he perished.

@Nishikat

"What's the problem (in the USA). You have always had the right to own at home. I understand you can never leave the USA since you would be afraid to be without your gun 24/7 and you cannot have a gun in other countries. If you could bring your guns with you anywhere in the world would you travel to other countries?"

I have tried twice to answer this, but the mods won't let me. It seems that talking about self defense in the abstract is not off topic while giving real life personal experience is.

You ask if people under 18 sould be allowed to carry fire arms? When my father was a child, he was on his public schools pistol team. Gun safety used to be taught in at least some public schools in the US in the 50's. Not a lot of school shootings during that age either.

Age for carry would be the same for licensing for ownership and use, which is set by each state. In my state, the minimum age depends on the type of firearm. I bought my first at age 16. Wouldn't think of carrying it except to my friend's target range and to reenactments.

@Nishikat, read my post up thread. Many cops ARE not properly trained.

@Backscratcher

Yes, shotguns for hunting with the attendant paper work is allowed. As it is for a citizen own a hand gun, but it must be stored under lock and key in the shooting club the citizen is a member of, never kept in the home. But it is not a right, it is a strictly controled privledge of a very, very, very few.

There are exception to every rule.

These legally owned fire arms in Japan are not the source for most of the gun crime in Japan. The only case I am aware of, there may be more especially further back, is when a licensed hunter, who had a history of mental issues, took his shotgun to a fitness center and killed a few people there.

@Strangerland

People are not statistics. Yes, the percapita rate of fire arm death is higher in the US. So what? Are dead French apples and dead Americans oranges? Those people killed by illegal guns in Europe are just as dead as those killed in the US. It being impossible to wish guns away, the only way to protect oneself from such an occurance is to be able to match one's attacker force to force. And it is not truth that you legislate guns away in a nation that already has such a huge number of them. It is not any more true that they can be legislated away than it is that drugs can be legislated away. And again, Congress does have the legal authority to legislate drugs away but it does not have the legal authority to legislate guns away.

But, since you have a fetish for stats, try this. http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

You want to amend the Constitution, what's stopping you? Get to work. Put you money where your mouth is.

What numbers on gun crime do you want, and why? You argue that Forida would have happened if guns were banned. Unless it is demonstratable that banning guns reduces crime to zero, it can not be said that Florida could not have happened. But this focus on only preventing gun crime is really telling. What has happened to violent crime against women in Australia after they banned guns? How about assaults involving blunt objects and broken beer bottles in the UK? Just a couple of examples. Why do you not research to see if the desired outcome is achieved where the policies you support have been put in place? Or, do you just not care about violent crime unless it involves a gun?

In recent news in Japan, a man broke into his girlfriend's house, killed her, her father and seriously injured her mother before killing himself. That family had no hope what so ever of defending themselves. The police were called during the attack and they could not protect this family. The Japanese people have not taken it upon themselves to force their government to allow them to protect themselves. Fine, it is their country. If they want it bad enough, they will earn that right.

Americans have taken it upon themselves and at great expense to secure the right of self defence. The only way to protect oneself and family in such a situation is with a fire arm. The only way to end an active shooter's killing is with a fire arm. Here is what a couple of experts say about the Florida attack. "It could have been over with one round, in the first couple of seconds,” said Henrichs. He noted that several officers appear to have engaged the terrorist—who was not wearing body armor—ineffectively. Unlike the pistol-armed officer who took on two rifle-armed terrorists in Garland, Texas last year, before a responding SWAT officers finished them off, the officers here were ineffective at stopping the attack as it began. “Poor marksmanship allowed this to take place.”

“Your average beat cop doesn’t get training they need for these kind of situations.” She went on to note that citizens who are serious about defensive firearms training often spend a great deal of time and money becoming much more proficient than most police officers, and that “someone with active shooter training might have made a difference” at any point during the attack.

She made very clear to point out that better shooting from the law enforcement officers outside of the club or even hypothetical concealed carriers were not a perfect solution, but would have likely great reduced the number of dead and wounded."

Undeniable truths. If someone in the office of Charlie Hebdo had been armed, far fewer would have died in that office that day. If someone at the concert in Paris was armed, far fewer would have died that day. If someone was armed during the Fort Hood shootings, far fewer would have died that day. If someone had been armed at that nightclub in Florida, far fewer would have died that day.

Don't throw out that "if guns were banned" nonsense. They aren't and can not be in the US and as demonstrated in Europe and the no gun zones in the US, have the exact opposite effect of what you want.

People are not statistics. Each and every victim of all these deserved the right and the ability to protect themselves. And you favor continued denial of those who do not have this right and the denial of this right of those who currently have it, citing statistics as justification. Sick. Especially when statistics show that mass shooting are FAR more likely to occure in gun free zones.

Guns have never been allowed in the hands of the citizen in Japan and yet gun crime is not zero in Japan.

Prisons in the US are packed with people caught in possesion of illegal drugs. Bad guys get guns in Europe in violation of European law.

Reality disproves your theory.

Gun control does exist to a certain extent, yes. Some of it follows the law, some of it is under legal discussion. Banning fire arms can not be legally legislated. If you believe that a Constitutional Convention is neccessary, hop to it. Get the ball rolling.

@Strangerland

Gun control legislation is illegal. Only a Constitutional Convention can legally accomplish what you wish. Except, even after said convention, guns won't just disappear. The bad guys will keep theirs and the good guys will be easy, unarmed targets.

My grandmother died of this over twenty years ago. Many advances have been made in treating this since then. Much time, money and effort are spent researching ways to beat it. Cancers are a tough nut to crack.

@therougou "The best chance any single individual has of surviving a situation like this is being sufficiently armed to end the attack"

"So with all the gun-wielding heroes out there, why did it take the SWAT to end this lone terrorist?" The question answers itself. None of the people targeted were carrying.

Somewhere up thread s.o. stated that guns do not save lives and cited a stat that there were only 500 justifiable homicides in a given year. Nonsense. First, at least 500 lives were saved. If a family member of a family of four killed a home invader, then in that one case four lives were saved. But, does the assailant need to be killed to save the life of the would be victim? How many lives were saved by wounding the assailant? How many attacks were averted by the mere presence of a firearm with out even a shot being fired?

@Kuya 808 Why do you assume a gun owner has no training? Can one get a driver's license with out demonstrating the ability to drive. Rights have resposibilities. One who exercises the right of gun ownership has the responsibility to learn how to use it.

If one finds themself in a similar situation, there are no good options, just less bad. the least bad is to drop, draw, acquire target, fire. 53 people died using your method. 53. It would have been less if there were armed people inside the club. Bouncers, for example.

As for the story earlier about the armed citizen who returned fire at a shooter at a mall. Yes, he drew fire to himself and was hit multiple times. But, he is alive and the bullets that wounded him might have kilked other people becuase the shooter would not have been distracted from shooting unarmed targets. Lives were saved by this armed citizen, perhaps even his own.

@Strangerland "Attacks in the US by muslims did not start with Trump's proposals. No, they have been around a lot longer, but in full force since 9-11. Trump is just making things even worse. But I see you managed to completely avoid the fact that hatred of Muslims disenfranchises them." Evidence that Trump is making it worse? Again, they feel disenfranchised only if they don't wish to assimulate. "For someone who loves using the word "bigot", you sure are not very tolerant of people who have views that differ frim your own. Of course I'm not tolerant of bigotry. Bigotry deserves no tolerance. " LOL "With his history this should have lost his security job and firearm licenses if, and I believe they were, they were issued inconjuction to his security position. This in turn should have red flagged him for futher investigation. But he somehow passed these background checks. Yep - and yet the gun nuts think that there should be no increases in gun control - even after a tragedy like this." The only way to legally increase gun control is via a Constitutional Convention. Your continued attack on those you lable "gun nuts", a rather bigoted view I might add, and calling for more gun control is nothing more than a red herring. Unless, you are advocating breaking the law. In which case, different issues must be taken stock of. The system is bad and the only solution, in your mind, is to deny law abiding citizens the right to defend thenselves. @SmithinJapan Lots of people who have nothing to do with terror find themselves on no fly lists. The bureaucrats have conclusively shown that they are incompetent and I for one, am not going to trust incompetent bureaucrats with deciding who can and can not exercise any of their rights. The best chance any single individual has of surviving a situation like this is being sufficiently armed to end the attack. Not a guarantee by any measure but by far the best chance.

@Nishikat H. Clinton is a criminal and should be in prison and yet you support her?

@Strangerland Americans do not make muslims in the outsiders. If you don't think that Trump calling for a registry of Muslims, and saying that any relatives of those American Muslims should be banned outright for being Muslim creates disaffected outsiders, you're kidding yourself.

Attacks in the US by muslims did not start with Trump's proposals. You are putting the cart before the horse.

...and it would be nice if we could get along and sing kumbaya and all guns would just disappear.

"And if it's such an equalizer, then why are 50 people dead in Florida?"

Can't be an equalizer if it is in only one side of the equation.

For someone who loves using the word "bigot", you sure are not very tolerant of people who have views that differ frim your own.

@Launa He had two licenses to own firearms, each requiring a background check and a job as a security guard which also requires a background check. Each of these should have, if done properly, turned up the information now being reported about him. Coworkers reported him to their employer which shpuld have resulted in his employer and the authorities knowing what we now know about him.

With his history this should have lost his security job and firearm licenses if, and I believe they were, they were issued inconjuction to his security position. This in turn should have red flagged him for futher investigation. But he somehow passed these background checks.

Additionally, he pased the National Instant Background Check System because he didn't have a criminal record. Not the first to do so either, yet we keep hearing how Federal background checks are essential to public safety.

"And don't forget that idol who was gunned downed".

Don't forget that idol who was stabbed here in Japan. The attacker in the Florida case would have used a knife to attack her if he was denied a gun.

@Nishikat Machine guns are a bit harder to handle than semiautos. they take a little more practice to keep the muzzle level, otherwise the shooter would be shooting up the ceiling. And they use a lot more ammo, which weighs a lot more. These are also factors in the fact that they ate not used for mass killings. BTW, how many machine gun attacks before registration of them was required?

And you are ignoring the main reason for the second amendment.

What has the US done after 9/11 that has made the US safer? It should be common knowledge that if all the current security measures regarding passengers were in place on that day that it would not have stopped the attack.

"my wifes hospital has people like this as "patients" they blow there pension on booze and pachincos then check themselves back into the hospital!!! At the tax payers expense."

Yep, but it is those who are not paying into the National health care scam that are the cause of all the woes the system faces.

@Laguna

Same damage? I seem to remember over 120 people dying in the latest attack in Paris.

No, he was not allowed by law. There are laws to prevent this. Incompetent administration of the law is not solved by either more laws or breaking the law and disarming law abiding gun owners.

Look into how many of those guns got to Mexico from the US. It will surprise you who was behind it.

@Strangerland

Americans do not make muslims in the outsiders. It is those who do not assimulate that make themselves outsiders. Why do people immigrate to the US yet not wish to assimulate? If someone does not want to become an American, to assimulate into American culture, then they should not immigrate to the US.

And again, Congress can not legally legislate gun rights away, nor can the President legally dictate them away. You may not like it, but facts are facts.

@Strangerland

Building a wall defends the law by providing a physical barrier to those who are breaking the law.

Banning gun ownership in the US violates US law. The only legal way to revoke the second amendment is for the States, not the federal government, for the States to call a Constitutional Convention. Any talk of legislation to end private gun ownership is ignoring US law and advocating the violation of it.

@SmithinJapan.

Following your logic, then the attacks in paris did not happen. How could they, as gun ownership in France is not allowed. As you and many others state that the solution to gun violence is banning gun ownership, then gun crimes can not happen in countries that that have banned firearm ownership.

@Any and All

Would someone please explain how banning guns (if US law allowed for it) would cause gun crime to cease? Do you believe that by passing a law that all guns in the US would just disappear?

Several western nations have banned firearm ownership to some degree or another in the not so distant past. Many tout the decreae in gun crime, but are remarkably silent on the increase of other violent crimes, especially against women. I guess, in the antigun nutters mindset, getting knifed, bottled or beaten to death is far preferable to being able to protect oneself with a firearm.

And again, banning any kind of fire arm is not only inconsistsnt with the law, but defeats one of the major original intents of the second amendment, to allow the citizens to defend themselves from abuse from their own government. For the citizens to be able to defend themselves against their government, then they must be able to possess some of the same weaponry.

Of course, it is a gun control issue. The fact that tens of thousands of illegal aliens are allowed each year to flood across the border plays no part in this. The fact that the State Dept. gives visas to people who should not be allowed to enter the country for any reason has nothing at all to do with this. The fact that the shooter was under investigation by the FBI but was still allowed to carry out the attack is not a factor.

No, the only cause can be that Americans have the right to arm themselves to protect against threats the government can't be bothered with.

There should be a long line of agency and department heads and higher standing in the unemployment line. But just as under Bush after 9/11, I doubt anyone whose incompetence is actually responsible for this is even reprimanded.

As for the need of a citizen to have military weapons, a chief reason for the Americans gaining independence from Great Britain on their first try and the Irish needing several tries is that the American colonists had access to the same fire power the British army had and the Irish did not. That is the main reason for the second amendment. Those who had just gained independence from an abusive government understood very clearly the need of a people to be able to defend themselves from abusive governments.

Police can not protect you. Police were called during the shooting and they finially killed the shooter AFTER 53 were already dead. All the police can do is pick up the pieces afterwards and try to put someone away for it. Protect, they can not, unless there are multiple officers in every classroom, theater, boardroom, nightclub...

To say the second amendment causes these ignores the facts of the recent attacks in Europe where very strict gun control exists.

Most Americans do not wring their hands over gun crime. Certain government official wring their hands over it, but not most citizens.

@Strangerland,

Have to agree with you on this one.

But do remember that "It takes a village" mentality in child rearing. This armchair parenting is a sumptom of that disease.

Why in the world didn't search parties check all structures in the area? Why did he have to be found by chance in a nearby building?

Setsuden being the current excuse for not using the a/c no matter how hot, or worse, setting it for 28 at low power thus doung nothing but waste energy, plays a part too.

But seriously, what is with dressing as if for an artic expedition just for a jaunt across Tokyo.

And how many times have you heard people complaining about it being too cold while they are sweating?

If you are sweating, ya ain't cold.

@Superlib, Strangerland, Kuya 808, Maria and all.

This did not start with N. Carolina passing a law compelling State employees to use restrooms, locker rooms and etc that correspond to their birth sex. It started earlier.

Here are some more details of one of the reports I linked to earlier.

ABC

Nov. 04, 2012

"The decision to allow a transgender 45-year-old college student who identifies as a women but has male genitalia to use the woman's locker room has raised a fracas among parents and faith-based organizations, who say children as young as six years old use the locker room.

The locker room at Evergreen College in Olympia, Wash., is shared with the Capital High School swim club and a children's swim academy, along with students at Evergreen.

"The college has to follow State Law," Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate, KOMO. "The college can not discriminate based based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination in this state."

..."that the student has exposed her male genitalia,"...

Digging a bit furher, one who wishes to be as informed as possible can learn not only the name of the person at the center of this, but also that they identify as a "transgender lesbian".

SuperLib, your statement that this exists only in the ninds of republicans is false. Perhaps, only in the minds of republicans is this a problem, but it does exist it the real world. Am I a bigot for supporting efforts to stop this?

Strangerland, Am I being discriminatory by saying 45 y/o men should not be allowed to share shower rooms etc with woman, period?

Maria, is ..."that the student has exposed her male genitalia,"... logical to you?

Kuya808, notice the reference to a state law allowing a 45 y/o transgender lesbian to shower with little girls. So, your statement, which I let pass earlier as I was focusing on the Feds, that there are no state laws forcing little girls to shower with men is false. Although I never heard Ted Cruz make such a statement, how is his statement, if he indeed made it, wrong? Additionally, California has a similar law that went into effecr Jan. 01/2014.

If I can do a "quick google search", so can you. Why do you not check the veracity of statements of public figures and news stories that are important to you?

Why have we not heard from you in a while?

Liberals do not like to debate in the arena of ideas as they know their ideas to be counter to the ideas held by the majority. Instead, they rely on liberal judges to rewrite law, liberal gov. agencies to write regulations, and dubious parlimentary tactics to force their agenda upon the disapproving majority while they call those who oppose them names such as "bigot" and threaten bad press to stifle open debate and all other opposition.

@retiree

"Is this the most important issue facing the citizens of the US?"

This is a very good question. There are many seemingly bigger issues facing the US. However, if a parent can not protect their little girl from 'grown women with male genitalia' from showering with them, little else really matters.

@Kuya How is that different from what I said? They are using a law with the purpose you stated which specifically allows separate changing, showering and toilet facilities based upon sex, not gender, to force girls to shower with biological males. Here it is in print from a Chicago paper. Daily Herald

updated: 11/3/2015 4:56 AM

Feds find Dist. 211 transgender policy discriminatory Palatine-Schaumburg High School District 211 is violating the anti-discriminatory Title IX law by denying a transgender student who identifies as female unrestricted access to a girls' locker room, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights ruled Monday.

Now this one is not from the court but might as well be. Please note the "unrestricted access to a girl's locker room".

Yes, the ACLU's involvement in this case probably made this person's life a lot more difficult, which leads me to believe it ain't about the individual but about the agenda the ACLU is pushing, which is to allow biological males 'unrestricted access to female locker rooms'. Actually, their agenda is far worse that even that but that is not the scope of this discussion.

This administration's goal, as it has stated, is to allow biological males unrestricted access to to female restrooms, locker rooms and showers based solely upon which sex the say they identify with.

Title IX does not mandate that transgendered persons be allowed to use the facilities of their choice. "According to the law, schools “may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.” In other words, under Title IX, a school can designate certain facilities for biological males and other facilities for biological females. That isn’t discrimination; it’s common sense. "

Further, in regards to prison inmates, a court ruled thus: “shielding one’s unclothed figure from the view of strangers, particularly strangers of the opposite sex, is impelled by elementary self-respect and personal dignity.”

But not if they are children or teenagers?

Now, let's talk about your assertion that Cruz lied about men having access to changing rooms and showers with young girls present. It has already happened. In one case in California, a 45 yo male college student who dresses as a women uses the female sauna and other facilities at their college, sitting spread legged, exposing the male genitals to all who pass by.

Many colleges, mine included, held various children's classes such as swim lessons. Where do you think the little boys and girls change and shower? Does the school have separate facilities by age, do you suppose? No, they do not. Little girls change and with their mommies and little boys with their daddies. And right now, fearing lawsuits a/o loss of federal funding, there are facilities in the US allowing grown men to change in the women's locker room along side young girls.

Despite my calling out this administration's intent, the intent of those behind this is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the result. And the result is as Senator Cruz stated, grown men are now allowed to change and shower with young girls.

Don't let your political loyalties cloud your vision and judgement. Just because the "other guy says it" doesn't mean it is not true. A very little research shows that not only are his concerns shared by many but they are also valid.

Your comment about making the student in Palestine, Illinois shower with the boys really puzzles me. Because the one student, with a male body, would feel uncomfortable showering with others with male bodies we should make all those with female bodies uncomfortable by allowing a student with a male body to shower with them.

And that is what this is about. The school made accommodations but the one student was not happy and wants unrestricted access to the girl's locker room.

@Kuya 808

You are absolutely correct, there are no laws forcing high school students of the opposite sexes to share showers. HOWEVER, courts have recently held that various sections of various laws provide for this and courts are forcing teenage girls to shower with boys if the boy indentifies as a girl.

@Toshiko

Yet that is exactly what is wrong to the people who are behind this, young children do not know about transgender. They want children exposed to it as young as possible and forced to accept it as natural and normal. Some courts have concurred and high school girls are being forced to shower with boys who identify as female but in the shower, amazing though it may be to some, appear as the boys who do not identify as female.

It is this that the state laws were written to protect against.

To answer your earlier question, I do not live in the States nor watch Mariner's games, nor TV at all. I learned quite some time ago that there is a lot that goes on in the States that gets plenty of news coverage locally but zero mention in the national and international news. I'll leave it to the individual readers to ponder the implications of that.

@Maria

The claims made by your side are false and all you can do is fault my editing? I'll take a hit for poor editing over statements that are opposite of facts any day.

HA!

Why thankyee.

First, I made a typo in my first sentence in my last post above. It should read. "There is NO discrimination with these state laws,..."

@FizzBit.

I do get that impression.

There is discrimination with these state laws, none whatsoever. No one before has ever been able to choose which restroom or shower room to use. Recent court cases have created this "right" and given it precedence over women's right to privacy, and even to men's right to privacy.

The state laws are to protect women and men from being discriminated against for not being transsexual.

Our opinions, yours and mine, do not matter. You can argue that you support X but X is not what the C outports have decided nor is X what the new state laws are protecting against.

Your are on the wrong field.