Disclaimer: The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site.
The Democratic Party is unquestioningly supporting an endless proxy war and has been reluctant to press President Biden to prioritize a negotiated settlement to the war.
Every time there’s a mass shooting in America with an AR-15, high-level Democrats line up to proclaim that those weapons should only ever be used to kill impoverished foreigners.
I would hope that veterans of war, like Tammy Duckworth and Pete Buttigeig, would know the difference between a semiautomatic rifle and an automatic rifle (which IS a weapon of war)! Of course, they’re being deceptive!
The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their “services.”
Republican members said to expect “15 or 20” of them to support the legislation, a far lower ratio of support than the bill has garnered across the Capitol.
Fulminating at congressional inaction in the face of spree killers may be satisfying and even necessary. But it is unlikely to persuade them to change the law. Continuing to insist on new rules while shying away from enforcing existing ones, meanwhile, burns credibility with conservative voters, who see a left that’s eager to penalize their hobby and reluctant to punish criminals.
Considerable progress against gun violence is politically and logistically feasible with more quality-of-life policing and vigorous prosecution of illegal gun possession — and the increased levels of incarceration both would require. If progressives want to make guns harder to get but don’t want to prosecute those who have guns illegally, then … it’s almost as if they’re inviting a future in which only outlaws will have guns.
Gendered misinformation (scene from Kindergarten Cop 2)?!
Related:
The Task Force is an interagency effort to address online harassment and abuse, specifically focused on technology-facilitated gender-based violence. In consultation with survivors, advocates, educators, experts from diverse fields, and the private sector, the Task Force will develop specific recommendations to improve prevention, response, and protection efforts through programs and policies in the United States and globally by:
– Improving coordination among executive departments, agencies, and offices to maximize the Federal Government’s effectiveness in preventing and addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence in the United States and globally, including by developing policy solutions to enhance accountability for those who perpetrate online harms;
– Enhancing and expanding data collection and research across the Federal Government to measure the costs, prevalence, exposure to, and impact of technology-facilitated gender-based violence, including by studying the mental health effects of harassment and abuse perpetrated through social media, particularly affecting adolescents;
– Increasing access to survivor-centered services, information, and support for victims, and increasing training and technical assistance for federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial governments, as well as for global organizations and entities in the fields of criminal justice, health and mental health services, education, and victim services;
– Developing programs and policies to address the disproportionate impact of online harassment, abuse, and [gendered] disinformation campaigns targeting women and LGBTQI+ individuals who are public and political figures, government and civic leaders, activists, and journalists in the United States and globally;
– Examining existing Federal laws, regulations, and policies to evaluate the adequacy of the current legal framework to address technology-facilitated gender-based violence and provide recommendations for strengthening it; and
When is speech violence? The answer is never. Speech may be upsetting, but that doesn’t make it violence. Speech may be ugly or hateful, but that doesn’t make it violence. Speech may be associated with deleterious physiological effects or even harm, but that still doesn’t make it violence. Speech may even intimidate or threaten violence. That makes it illegal, but it doesn’t make it violence. Equating speech with violence not only robs us of our understanding of ourselves as competent and civil human beings capable of defeating bad ideas with better ones, it gives us license to use physical violence in response to speech––or even in advance, as “self-defense.” For psychologists to assert that speech is violence is not merely incorrect, it’s harmful.
The social media posts are of a distinct type. They hint darkly that the CIA or the FBI are behind mass shootings*. They traffic in racist, sexist and homophobic tropes. They revel in the prospect of a “white boy summer.”
…
These type of threats and racist ideology have become so commonplace on social media that it’s nearly impossible for law enforcement to separate internet ramblings from dangerous, potentially violent people, Michael German**, who infiltrated white supremacy groups as an FBI agent, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
…
Facebook and Instagram owner Meta banned praise and support for white nationalist and separatists movements in 2019*** on company platforms, but the social media shift to subtlety makes it difficult to moderate the posts.
In the last week alone, the nation has been rocked by two extremely violent, horrific, and disgusting acts of mass murder. In total, between the shooting in Buffalo, NY and Uvalde, TX, more than 30 innocent people have been slaughtered. It is also true that according to the FBI, the number of active shooter incidents in the United States has risen significantly since 2020.
You must be logged in to post a comment.