DescentBB

So a Muslim walks into a gay bar...kind of sounds like the start of a joke. Unfortunately it is not. The muslim goes into a gay bar, see's 2 men kissing and his faith is such that he becomes enraged, plans retribution for a couple of months and then kills 50 people. Still want to believe the Koran teaches peace and love? Tell that crap to the friends and family members of those who died. Now what will happen is people like slick and co. will get on the ban firearm crusade when the problem is people not wrapped real tight. Before you all go we need tighter background checks, the shooter was licensed to carry and had a security officer license. What I have to wonder is why he was allowed the licenses when he was on a terrorist watchlist. I also have to wonder why he was in a gay bar and got mad when he saw men kissing. Did he expect something else? Anyways, feel free to vent as this will be a emotional subject to most all of you.

I am, so far, merely appalled at how each end of every political spectrum seems to wish today's shooting for whatever tangent(Muslims, terrorism, gay agendas, anti-guns, whatever, I've heard a half dozen or more) when the appalling aspect of this is that we need to use the word 'today's' in the damned description. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

a few follow up observations for ya, Woody(although I'm largely chilling on the porch and listening to music). It has seemed, in a couple cases, that there is a real disconnect between being on an FBI watchlist and state gun permitting. Some feeble efforts at legislation to overcome this have proven incapable of passage in the Congress. The other thing I note it how so many issues can intertwine. In other words, someone raised in a sheltered religious tradition freaks out over gay people in public, gets to blaming the US(if he didn't to start with, for something), has access to both inflammatory rhetoric on the web and easy access to weapons in the local gun shop, and off we go. No one factor dictated the others, but all contributed to the outcome at the end.

callmeslick wrote:someone raised in a sheltered religious tradition freaks out over gay people in public, gets to blaming the US(if he didn't to start with, for something), has access to both inflammatory rhetoric on the web

That 'sheltered religious tradition' happens to be islam in this case.

Now how many "sheltered religious traditional" people of other faiths go out and kill people for their perceived slights against their faith? What's the percentage or ratio of say Amish to muslim incidents? Heck, ANY AND ALL OTHER RELIGIONS COMBINED to violent islamically inspired incidents? Even the Hindu (which have some pretty nasty 'religious' traditions) are pussycats next to your 'sheltered religious muslims.'

I'd say the ratio is something like 1:1000...and even that is probably lowballing the violent islamically inspired murder of innocents.

I just knew that when I came here today that either woodchip or Nightshade would start a thread on how we need to deal with those "radical Islamic terrorists" and then freak out about the typical knee jerk reaction that a lot of people have after these types of travesties occur, the call to take away everyone's guns. You know that ain't going to happen, ever, don't you? Our crazy gun culture is here to stay I'm afraid to say.

I'd also like to know how both of them would propose that we as a country deal with the radical Islam problem? All I'm hearing on FOX News right now, from all sorts of military leaders too, is how impotent Obama is for not sending in our fabulous war machine and bombing the hell out of Syria. Seriously? All you right wingers think that's going to solve the problem? Since Trump also thinks that, we're going to end up in an eternal war, on both our soil and foreign soil, if he is elected president. Hate breeds hate, war breeds war and he's going to bury us in it.

By the way, don't forget about good old white American Timothy McVeigh, who managed to kill a 168 people and injure 600 with the click of a switch. He didn't use a gun and he wasn't a Muslim. I never heard a lot of calls for a vendetta to kill or bomb all those anti-government militias roaming around this country as free citizens, people who were probably cheering for McVeigh after he killed all those nasty government people, and their kids too.

callmeslick wrote:a few follow up observations for ya, Woody(although I'm largely chilling on the porch and listening to music). It has seemed, in a couple cases, that there is a real disconnect between being on an FBI watchlist and state gun permitting. Some feeble efforts at legislation to overcome this have proven incapable of passage in the Congress. The other thing I note it how so many issues can intertwine. In other words, someone raised in a sheltered religious tradition freaks out over gay people in public, gets to blaming the US(if he didn't to start with, for something), has access to both inflammatory rhetoric on the web and easy access to weapons in the local gun shop, and off we go. No one factor dictated the others, but all contributed to the outcome at the end.

So you would agree that things like safe rooms on campus and the PC crowd trying to shelter us from bad words is something akin to living a sheltered religious life? And I didn't know the shooter led a sheltered life. Did he?

I would aggree there has to be a means of connecting the dots as far as gun licensing and watch lists. Kinda sounds like Jamie Gorelick's "the wall" here.

tunnelcat wrote:

By the way, don't forget about good old white American Timothy McVeigh, who managed to kill a 168 people and injure 600 with the click of a switch. He didn't use a gun and he wasn't a Muslim. I never heard a lot of calls for a vendetta to kill or bomb all those anti-government militias roaming around this country as free citizens, people who were probably cheering for McVeigh after he killed all those nasty government people, and their kids too.

Don't forget he set off the bomb on the anniversary of Waco. And just goes to show you a little diesel fuel and fertilizer can kill way more people than a guy with a gun ever could.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:someone raised in a sheltered religious tradition freaks out over gay people in public, gets to blaming the US(if he didn't to start with, for something), has access to both inflammatory rhetoric on the web

That 'sheltered religious tradition' happens to be islam in this case.

Now how many "sheltered religious traditional" people of other faiths go out and kill people for their perceived slights against their faith? What's the percentage or ratio of say Amish to muslim incidents? Heck, ANY AND ALL OTHER RELIGIONS COMBINED to violent islamically inspired incidents? Even the Hindu (which have some pretty nasty 'religious' traditions) are pussycats next to your 'sheltered religious muslims.'

I'd say the ratio is something like 1:1000...and even that is probably lowballing the violent islamically inspired murder of innocents.

sorry, but you're wrong. Sheltered religious people of ALL stripes(from Fundamentalist Christians,to Muslims, to Hasidim) tend to get rather easily lathered up over anything outside their norm, and have, at various times attacked others with guns, knives, bombs out of that. To my mind, there is a component of mental instability to go with the sheltered aspect, but to pin it on Muslims, as ever is xenophobic. This isn't in any way typical Muslim behavior, and everyone except those stupid enough to buy into Trumps brand of fascism can see that.

woodchip wrote: So you would agree that things like safe rooms on campus and the PC crowd trying to shelter us from bad words is something akin to living a sheltered religious life?

yup

And I didn't know the shooter led a sheltered life. Did he?

unsure, at this point, but Afghan families are often rather traditional.

Only relevant (satirical) headline I saw: "'No way to stop this from happening,' says only nation where this happens regularly."

callmeslick wrote:
sorry, but you're wrong. Sheltered religious people of ALL stripes(from Fundamentalist Christians,to Muslims, to Hasidim) tend to get rather easily lathered up over anything outside their norm, and have, at various times attacked others with guns, knives, bombs out of that.

And you're avoiding the obviously lopsided numbers of muslim violence vs all other 'religiously inspired' mayhem.

it isn't all that skewed, TB. Not as much as your scared perceptions are.

Top Gun wrote:Only relevant (satirical) headline I saw: "'No way to stop this from happening,' says only nation where this happens regularly."

Yeah, if you think banning guns would have stopped this guy, you're naïve. Guys like this would have the motivation to build a bomb.

because the above happens ALL the time undetected, by people on FBI watch lists, right Isaac?

I had a feeling either woody or TB would start this wretched, disgusting trainwreck of a thread.

thanks for doing the expected. Can't even show even a shred of respect to the dead, but instead it was all about pointing the finger.

callmeslick wrote:it isn't all that skewed, TB. Not as much as your scared perceptions are.

Reassure me it is not skewed after this most recent act, San Bernadino and the Fort Hood shooting. Show me where a equal number of religiously inspired shooting by other faiths has occurred. Hiding under the bed is not going to help you.

Can't see it woody. But if it's anything like you usually post, it's not worth seeing.

callmeslick wrote:because the above happens ALL the time undetected, by people on FBI watch lists, right Isaac?

Why not? This one did.

nope, can't see that one either.

Ferno wrote:Can't see it woody.

...so says the willfully blind.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:because the above happens ALL the time undetected, by people on FBI watch lists, right Isaac?

Why not? This one did.

I didn't hear about the bomb he was able to make while on the watchlist. Virtually all wannabe bombmakers have been caught rather easily, that I'm aware of. However, I DID read about how he was able to purchase and/or keep weapons and high capacity magazines because our gun laws are as fucked up as a soup sandwich.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:because the above happens ALL the time undetected, by people on FBI watch lists, right Isaac?

Why not? This one did.

I didn't hear about the bomb he was able to make while on the watchlist. Virtually all wannabe bombmakers have been caught rather easily, that I'm aware of. However, I DID read about how he was able to purchase and/or keep weapons and high capacity magazines because our gun laws are as fucked up as a soup sandwich.

Tell that to the Boston Marathon survivors.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:because the above happens ALL the time undetected, by people on FBI watch lists, right Isaac?

Why not? This one did.

I didn't hear about the bomb he was able to make while on the watchlist. Virtually all wannabe bombmakers have been caught rather easily, that I'm aware of. However, I DID read about how he was able to purchase and/or keep weapons and high capacity magazines because our gun laws are as fucked up as a soup sandwich.

Doesn't help that all you have to do is pass the background check once, and no followups are done after that. Because we all know, everyone who has a background check is the pinnacle of safety and mental stability, and would never abuse the privilege.

Driving laws are more stringent than gun laws.

Also Trump's comments today were the most nauseating sack of ★■◆● I've come across in a long time. To quote a fantastic movie, all he needs to do at this point is take a big step back and literally ★■◆● his own face.

Maybe we need bigger gun free zone signs and ban anything that be turned into a weapon? We should ban people, too.

a helpful start, Isaac, but only a start!

Isaac wrote:Maybe we need bigger gun free zone signs and ban anything that be turned into a weapon? We should ban people, too.

So what "well-regulated militia" are you a part of, again?

I'm trying to figure out why the billions we pump into the NSA didn't stop this. Remind me why I can't have my privacy? I'm not pissed at Muslims or gun owners because I have virtually no chance of being killed by either, but I sure as hell am pissed off about impotent government surveillance. That's where you need to direct your anger.

sounds less like lack of surveillance(you wouldn't likely want, nor could the naton afford, round the clock coverage of everyone on the watch list), but lack of coordination of legal response. Why couldn't the FBI point out that he was not the best person to have guard clearance nor a firearm carry license for that position? Why couldn't the watch list preclude both purchase of or even possession of a weapon? Oh yeah, because the government could jimmy the list and you and your mom could be called terrorists for joining a quilting club.
That's the way the day to day thinking has been from day one. And, I don't blame anyone, really......it's hard to run a pretty damned free nation of laws, but yet with presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process, and be able to ruthlessly prosecute a terror war.

Top Gun wrote: So what "well-regulated militia" are you a part of, again?

The part that trains on their own, practices safety, and gets no credit on the news for doing so.

So none, then. Explain to me why we should hold up half of that sentence as sacrosanct while systematically ignoring the other half.

You're beyond ignorant

Top Gun wrote:So none, then.

Wrong. A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

If I see my neighbors arming to fight something I'll be helping. A militia doesn't have to be some official organisation, like you're imagining...

it was to the people who 'imagined' your Constitution.......

callmeslick wrote:it was to the people who 'imagined' your Constitution.......

Care to elaborate. The militia's back then were made up farmers from areas with little to no real training or "regulations":

Just as the British had discovered the difficulties of waging war with obstreperous Yankees for soldiers during the Seven Years’ War, Washington, the Virginia planter-cum-soldier, was unimpressed upon meeting his supposed army outside Boston upon his appointment as commander in chief of Continental forces in 1775. Just as the British had, he saw “stupidity” among the enlisted men, who were used to the easy familiarity of being commanded by neighbors in local militias with elected officers. Washington promptly insisted that the officers behave with decorum and the enlisted men with deference. Although he enjoyed some success with this original army, the New Englanders went home to their farms at the end of 1775, and Washington had to start fresh with new recruits in 1776.

If you stick to the “militia” interpretation then the people have a right to own firearms to form a militia when needed, that doesn’t mean the militias must exist at all times.

And whether the people still have a right to protect their freedom, in light of having a standing army, should be brain dead obvious…of course they do.

Isaac wrote:Wrong. A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

If I see my neighbors arming to fight something I'll be helping. A militia doesn't have to be some official organisation, like you're imagining...

If it's regulated, then yes, it does have to.

Spidey wrote:If you stick to the “militia” interpretation then the people have a right to own firearms to form a militia when needed, that doesn’t mean the militias must exist at all times.

And whether the people still have a right to protect their freedom, in light of having a standing army, should be brain dead obvious…of course they do.

No, the actual gathering of people doesn't have to exist at all times, but the framework certainly does. A militia is more formal than a couple of schmucks getting together and deciding, "Let's shoot ★■◆●!"

Also waiting for someone to tell me why the ★■◆● anyone should be able to carry around an AR-15. This country truly is insane.

The “framework” already exists…it’s called the second.

When you need to form the militia the rules are pretty clear.

What rules? Who has command authority? Where do the members gather? Hell, who's qualified to be a member in the first place? Where does the equipment they'll need come from? Do they have standardized types of firearms? These are all questions that have to be answered to operate an effective militia, and all of them are much more involved than a bunch of random people grabbing whatever motley collection of firearms they have lying around and meeting up somewhere with an ill-defined purpose.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:it was to the people who 'imagined' your Constitution.......

Care to elaborate. The militia's back then were made up farmers from areas with little to no real training or "regulations":

exactly, and the founders, seeing potential threats on a pretty regular basis saw it as crucial to end that. Hence, a 'well-regulated' militia, which was seen operating at the behest of the government and states. They didn't want to create a standing army(a professional cadre of fighters), having suffered at the hands of one rather recently. They envisioned an army of the citizenry. By 1812, such an idea seemed unworkable, by the end of the decade, we had a rather elaborate Federal armed force. At that point, the 2nd Amendment was more of an extra layer of domestic protection, if not actually completely outmoded.

Top Gun wrote:What rules? Who has command authority? Where do the members gather? Hell, who's qualified to be a member in the first place? Where does the equipment they'll need come from? Do they have standardized types of firearms? These are all questions that have to be answered to operate an effective militia, and all of them are much more involved than a bunch of random people grabbing whatever motley collection of firearms they have lying around and meeting up somewhere with an ill-defined purpose.

And that is NOT the way it was back in the 1700's