Watch it on the name-calling... :thumbsdown:
So sad.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
Watch it on the name-calling... :thumbsdown:
Howard Jones
Supporter
I agree with Pete. Until we are done with President Barrack Hussein Obama (that is his friggin name so you can't censor me for that .....or can you) and the fools in his administration, nothing will be done to reduce the ISIS threat.
The exception might be so many future France and Calif type attracts that they are forced by their own party to act.
And yes I would rather have a gun in my hand in a gun fight than not...........go figure.
The exception might be so many future France and Calif type attracts that they are forced by their own party to act.
And yes I would rather have a gun in my hand in a gun fight than not...........go figure.
That's just the problem. America HAS "changed its thinking". That's why the country is now a debtor nation, 'is a welfare state, 'is overrun by illegal aliens, 'has "dumbed down" its education system, ignores the constitution, 'has a "Justice Department" that doesn't seek justice, allows "sanctuary cities", 'allows the president to rule by "executive order", 'allows government officials to abuse their power/authority (IRS, et al) w/o penalty, is PRO ABORTION but anti-death penalty for monsters, 'won't tolerate ANY reference to God - or allow prayer in any 'public' meeting/event, 'won't allow CHRISTMAS trees/decorations in public places, 'gives DRIVER'S LICENSES to illegal aliens, 'won't enforce federal drug laws (Colorado & Wash. St.), 'won't enforce its borders and SUES any state that attempts to do that themselves, 'will NOT ALLOW "profiling" in any way, shape, or form no matter what, 'has passed laws that force its ENTIRE population to bow down to every off-the-wall "p.c." demand made by every minority group around...and on, and on, and on.
None of that was the case either at all, or to anywhere NEAR as great a degree (depending on the topic) just a few decades ago. Anyone my age or older knows that's a fact.
With no other effective counter-measure(s) suggested/on the table...what's to "debate"? The choice is simple: Either 'allow' law-abiding citizens to legally carry when ever/where ever...or just leave things as they stand, and, in effect, only allow terrorists, criminals and LOONS to, huh, 'legally carry illegally'...so to speak. (The latter quite literally IS what's going on in the U.S. these days.)
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
You anger is palatable.....
It must drive you insane that the majority of Americans voted for him twice, and most of us still think he is doing a better job than President Bush (who I respect as well, I just disagree with).
What are you going to do when the likely result of the 2016 election comes to pass given the lineup of crazies the Republicans have come up with and Hillary Clinton is President for the next 8 yeas?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Larry, you keep saying "what other counter measures" are there. That belief seems based on the idea that armed citizenry is an effective counter measure.
Just how in a crowded, dark theater like in Colorado or in Paris, or a mall or a school, do you think this will play out? Yes, there could be a good result, but you and others just seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that bullets flying around in a confused public space are just as likely to cause more harm than do any good. And what are the police supposed to do? The show up and see two grups of people, armed, dressed like civilians shooting at each other?
I don't discount that in some situations this Superduper good guy with a gun MIGHT do some good. What irks me is the certianity with which you guys believe this to be true in all cases, without any consideration for the fact you might do more harm than good and might hurt innocent folks by opening fire in a crowded public space.
And no, I'm sorry, you aren't trained in how to deal with situations like that. You just aren't/
Just how in a crowded, dark theater like in Colorado or in Paris, or a mall or a school, do you think this will play out? Yes, there could be a good result, but you and others just seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that bullets flying around in a confused public space are just as likely to cause more harm than do any good. And what are the police supposed to do? The show up and see two grups of people, armed, dressed like civilians shooting at each other?
I don't discount that in some situations this Superduper good guy with a gun MIGHT do some good. What irks me is the certianity with which you guys believe this to be true in all cases, without any consideration for the fact you might do more harm than good and might hurt innocent folks by opening fire in a crowded public space.
And no, I'm sorry, you aren't trained in how to deal with situations like that. You just aren't/
No one on the forum, I was referring to Obama, affectionately of course.
I know Howard, I don't believe he gets angry.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
It's still offensive. Don't do it. He's the President, show some respect. I would never call a Republican President a "dipshit" -- the fact this level of discourse has become de rigeur in the US is part of the problem.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
So We have seen the pro gun argument and as Howard says I would rather take a gun to a gunfight than not. However Jeff does make a good point about untrained people in a dark theatre or cafe taking pot shots at the bad guys could result in more casualties. Although at San Bernardino the bad guys wore camouflage and would be easy to identify.
So what is your solution anti gun people ban guns? We know that doesn't work as the bad guys won't hand their guns in.
Ban Islam, I doubt that would be effective, so what is your solution?
So what is your solution anti gun people ban guns? We know that doesn't work as the bad guys won't hand their guns in.
Ban Islam, I doubt that would be effective, so what is your solution?
First thing the Mericuns need to do is a get a grip on crime, half of the criminals jailed worldwide are Mericuns. Whatever they are doing about it is not working and they really need to get tough on it. People that feel safe going about their daily lives are less likely to feel the need to go out tooled up. As for the Muslim threat "we" need to get super tough on both the radicals and the Muslim community . It needs to be made crystal clear that harboring or knowingly turning a blind eye to the radical element within their community will not go unpunished. If punishment was to include the deportation or jail of the whole family unit I bet things would change rather quickly.
Bob
I said "dipstick", respect is not given, it's earned, and no I don't have to respect him.
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
When I was growing up as a kid, we were taught to respect our leaders as they were selected by the process set forth in the Constitution. Disagree with them? Sure. Pout and call names like a 2 year old? No.
You are doing the latter. It cheapens the entire debate. Don't do it. Or continue, and show us a lot about your character.
You are doing the latter. It cheapens the entire debate. Don't do it. Or continue, and show us a lot about your character.
It's called freedom of speech. You of all people should not spout off about what cheapens a debate. Done.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
The simple fact of the matter is when the right wing brigade goes on its back patting rants and tirades that many others find offensive, YOU DON'T EVEN REALIZE you are being offensive. It makes me saying stuff like the above to point it out. Just remember, for God's sake, not every white American male who likes cars thinks like you or agrees with you. This place was a cesspool of right wing nonsense LONG before I got here.
So let's try to talk about substance:
1. What really happened in San Bernadino? The facts are coming into focus. A young American Muslim from a relatively normal background who liked cars, etc. went to Saudi to get a wife, said wife became radicalized and returned to the US. They do not seem to be a part of any terror organization. They appear to have shown some support for ISIS nad others in postings but this was not some orchestrated attack like Paris.
In fact, it appears Farook lost his cool with a loudmouth white Jewish guy at the center where he worked. They had argued loudly in the past about Islam and apparently did again that morning. That's obviously no excuse for any of this, but it does appear to have been what set this off (although I agree, it's obvious additional attacks were planned).
2. Why be careful in what you call this? No one is saying Islam didn't have a part in this. It did, along with too easy availability of weapons and an older guy at a job place harassing another.
But you don't want to use this event to further the divide between the Islamic and Christian worlds. Most Muslims -- Al is wrong with his numbers on the percentage of radicalization, laughably so, and I could post polls of American Christians that would show them to be similarly "radicalized" using the Wolhmstrom methodology - do not support this violence. They are not at war with us. Makng them think WE are at war with THEM merely makes the problem worse.
Hillary Clinton said it best:
"Hillary Clinton explained on Sunday that she won't use the term "radical Islam" because it "sounds like we are declaring war against a religion."
"It doesn't do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people," Clinton said in an appearance on ABC's "This Week."
No. 2, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying, 'We are in a war against the West -- you must join us,'" she said.
Now, that doesn't mean we don't aggressively attack ISIS -- along with the millions of other Muslims in the region who are opposed to them. Eliminate those bastards from the face of the planet.
But there is no need to make them into martyrs and to make the rest of the Islamic world think we are at war with them over word games.
3. Why is gun control being discussed in the context of the San Bernadino shootings? Because it is relevant. It's half the equation. It's no "deflection." You had two problems here. You had a crazy Muslim and he had too easy access to weapons. You don't win the battle against this kind of thing internally unless you address BOTH problems.
4. And.....Planned Parenthood In many respects, it's not "Islam" that is the problem. It's "crazy religious people who do terrible tings in the name of religion." And our inability to have a rational discussion about that. We've got a whole thread here in which people are demanding that we pin a shooting by a single crazy guy and his wife, done at least in part because of religion on "Islam" and yet when the exact same thing happened last week with a crazy Christian this place was simply incapable of having that discussion. Man up. It's both sides. One is worse than the other right now, but it's both.
So let's try to talk about substance:
1. What really happened in San Bernadino? The facts are coming into focus. A young American Muslim from a relatively normal background who liked cars, etc. went to Saudi to get a wife, said wife became radicalized and returned to the US. They do not seem to be a part of any terror organization. They appear to have shown some support for ISIS nad others in postings but this was not some orchestrated attack like Paris.
In fact, it appears Farook lost his cool with a loudmouth white Jewish guy at the center where he worked. They had argued loudly in the past about Islam and apparently did again that morning. That's obviously no excuse for any of this, but it does appear to have been what set this off (although I agree, it's obvious additional attacks were planned).
2. Why be careful in what you call this? No one is saying Islam didn't have a part in this. It did, along with too easy availability of weapons and an older guy at a job place harassing another.
But you don't want to use this event to further the divide between the Islamic and Christian worlds. Most Muslims -- Al is wrong with his numbers on the percentage of radicalization, laughably so, and I could post polls of American Christians that would show them to be similarly "radicalized" using the Wolhmstrom methodology - do not support this violence. They are not at war with us. Makng them think WE are at war with THEM merely makes the problem worse.
Hillary Clinton said it best:
"Hillary Clinton explained on Sunday that she won't use the term "radical Islam" because it "sounds like we are declaring war against a religion."
"It doesn't do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people," Clinton said in an appearance on ABC's "This Week."
No. 2, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying, 'We are in a war against the West -- you must join us,'" she said.
Now, that doesn't mean we don't aggressively attack ISIS -- along with the millions of other Muslims in the region who are opposed to them. Eliminate those bastards from the face of the planet.
But there is no need to make them into martyrs and to make the rest of the Islamic world think we are at war with them over word games.
3. Why is gun control being discussed in the context of the San Bernadino shootings? Because it is relevant. It's half the equation. It's no "deflection." You had two problems here. You had a crazy Muslim and he had too easy access to weapons. You don't win the battle against this kind of thing internally unless you address BOTH problems.
4. And.....Planned Parenthood In many respects, it's not "Islam" that is the problem. It's "crazy religious people who do terrible tings in the name of religion." And our inability to have a rational discussion about that. We've got a whole thread here in which people are demanding that we pin a shooting by a single crazy guy and his wife, done at least in part because of religion on "Islam" and yet when the exact same thing happened last week with a crazy Christian this place was simply incapable of having that discussion. Man up. It's both sides. One is worse than the other right now, but it's both.
WHO amongst us has said using a gun in any and all defense situations will be effective/win out/save the day in ALL CASES??? Who?
What I and others HAVE said/implied/suggested is that a gun is the ONLY effective defense against another gun in situations like the ones we've been discussing. WHAT OTHER 'on-the-spot' weapon/defense strategy stands even a snowball's chance of 'dropping' the bad guys? What? Tell us. What alternative is there that might promise to be MORE effective, or even as effective, as an 'instant' armed response - AND would ensure a higher likelihood that no 'innocent' will be harmed/killed in the process? Please. Outline it.
As far as LEOs not being able to tell the diff between the good guys and the bad guys - the whole episode would likely be OVER (one way or another) by the time LEOs arrived, don't cha think? And anyway, I don't believe you're giving TRAINED LEOs enough credit as to their abilities in that area.
What you and others fail to consider is, as things stand right now, by far and away the ONLY people currently >BEING< killed/wounded in mass shootings ARE 'innocents'. Why? Because the "trained" ARMED response you insist on too often arrives on site too late to stop it. I cannot recall a single shooting rampage wherein that was NOT the case. And yet you seem 'fine' with that. You accept it almost as a 'given'. OTOH, you abhorrer the fact there exists even the possibility of a single 'innocent' being killed or wounded during an immediate armed response by 'civilians' on site...and 'appear to believe that the current 'trained S.W.A.T. Team response' should be the ONLY armed response strategy in place. You seem to INSIST that mass casualties to innocents would prove to be the only inevitable result/outcome if any other strategy were also employed...even though the possibility exists that might not be the case.
All I know for sure right now is the fact that current tactics being employed aren't 'cutting it' as an effective defense. (I doubt anything we do will ever 'deter' terrorists, however. They want to die. We need to provide them with the opportunity.)
The definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
...Christmas decorations call...
Howard Jones
Supporter
Jeff...........we can't save em all...............ah never mind............it's like talking to a rock.
I think it's time to call "Time" on this. We've all had our say but there are no new solutions or ideas just the same old rhetoric along predictable party lines..
I think I ought to add from a 'foreign' perspective, that I completely identify with your frustrations on how to tackle this potential menace and I sincerely hope Americans can close the gap between themselves to present a united front against this menace...
I think I ought to add from a 'foreign' perspective, that I completely identify with your frustrations on how to tackle this potential menace and I sincerely hope Americans can close the gap between themselves to present a united front against this menace...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
