#4 needs to happen, which will then provide justification for #2. Once #2 is complete, #1 can be debated and negotiated. #3 is irrelevant as the killings can be done with any number of weapons such as suicide bombs, regular bombs, et al.
Orlando Night Club Shooting
- Thread starter UNC '92
- Start date
I feel like this thread has caused @gunslingerdick to find a new appreciation for my intellect and general correctness with everything I do and say.
Ah, if only there was a third candidate that had a snowball's chance in hell of winning....
"Chance of winning" should be the epitaph of this country. That lie is a doozie. Hey, look at how well it works, too! Shit and Turd every election.
Don't get ahead of yourself. A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
Here's Obama's defense for not characterizing these as acts of Muslim extremists:
"What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."
He's correct about all of the above. It would accomplish none of those things and wouldn't make the threat go away. But not calling it out obviously isn't working because it continues to happen. It doesn't put the Muslim community on notice that's it's time to get control of the fringe elements of its membership. It doesn't put the general public on notice that it's time to start speaking up when someone you know openly discusses killing others, particularly if that person is a Muslim. And it sure as hell doesn't place accountability where it belongs. More:
Much of the criticism has centered on Obama's refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam," which the White House argues unfairly maligns the entire Islamic faith.
Oh for f***'s sake. Everybody here can agree that the Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of maniacal nutjobs but nobody is concerned that labeling them as such unfairly maligns the entire Christian faith. He has basically doubled down on his refusal to call it what it is, although I do appreciate the irony of him getting hammered so hard about it that he has no choice but to talk about it anyway.
"What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."
He's correct about all of the above. It would accomplish none of those things and wouldn't make the threat go away. But not calling it out obviously isn't working because it continues to happen. It doesn't put the Muslim community on notice that's it's time to get control of the fringe elements of its membership. It doesn't put the general public on notice that it's time to start speaking up when someone you know openly discusses killing others, particularly if that person is a Muslim. And it sure as hell doesn't place accountability where it belongs. More:
Much of the criticism has centered on Obama's refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam," which the White House argues unfairly maligns the entire Islamic faith.
Oh for f***'s sake. Everybody here can agree that the Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of maniacal nutjobs but nobody is concerned that labeling them as such unfairly maligns the entire Christian faith. He has basically doubled down on his refusal to call it what it is, although I do appreciate the irony of him getting hammered so hard about it that he has no choice but to talk about it anyway.
I still don't know what you're talking about. You want people to have a political discussion without using talking points that mirror those of either party? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
You're in awe of my political expertise. You can admit it. I'm just a smart dude. That's the long and short of it.
Agreed, see my second poast before this one.
Disagreed. It's not justifiable IMO, but that's another discussion.
Disagree here as well. While you'll never stop everyone hell bent on killing, you can mitigate the risk by limiting access to certain weapons. Ever notice how few suicide bombers there are in the US compared to other countries? That's because purchases of bomb materials are so closely monitored by LEOs.
SOmeone shared this with me:
I'm not sure I agree. But, I don't think an AR-15 is a machine gun.
I'm a gun owner. I don't own any assault rifles, but I have friends that do - and I've shot them (the guns, not the friends) at the range. They sure as hell are a lot of fun. But they are not a great gun for sport and would absolutely obliterate anything you would hunt with them. I agree they're not exactly needed for home defense (although would be advantageous to have if you had multiple people with guns breaking into your house).
All that said - I would have no problem banning assault rifles if it would prevent them from ever being used in a massacre like this one (although as pointed out, the AR-15 isn't an automatic assault rifle). However that's not the case at all. Banning assault rifles would prevent law abiding people from getting them. They wouldn't do much to stop some terrorist from getting them through the black market.
When is the blame going to be put on the person using the gun, and not the inanimate object?
The political parties are the problem and that is why NOTHING gets accomplished, too worried about which side will win, which side is correct, which side does this, does that.... completely divides this country and we end up with this crap we have right now... Trump and Hillary and no one will bat an eye to look at another candidate because "they have no chance of winning!" meanwhile, we all just lose instead
I know it is not possible to discuss these things without bringing it in because you all are conditioned to think that way now.
Imagine just hearing what a candidate wants to do for the country, lay out his/her plan in detail, and not say a word about what anyone else did in the past or might do in the future, just laid it out there for all to see without you knowing the person's name or political party where the people who just simply vote for someone because of the R or D and have no dang clue what they really stand for (I am not saying the guys here do that, but MANY people do whatever the TV tells them to do).. and then went into a polling booth and selected person A, B, C, etc. based on JUST the platform of the person running and not the party.... voting for the things you truly believe in.
Maybe strum knows what I mean and can explain this better. He seems to be like me with this political party BS.
I hate this argument. Absolutely hate it. They can't all be stopped, but the risk could be mitigated. And you're being contradictory by arguing statistics but not being willing to reduce the likelihood that a terrorist gets access to these kinds of weapons.
How did I get sucked into this thread? I don't like you anymore, OOTB.
Yes it is justifiable. Would-be American refugees (or whatever word you want to use for someone who's here legally but isn't a citizen yet) who are still abroad and haven't yet immigrated here have no Constitutional rights. I'm not saying kick out the ones who are currently here. I'm saying ban any future Muslims from coming here. Is that harshly singling out a specific subgroup of people? Hell yes it is. If you don't want to say it's causation between atrocities and the assailants being Muslim, then it sure is hell strong correlation between the two. Muslims are the ones committing the vast, vast majority of these acts here and abroad; therefore, stop letting them in until we can figure out how to quell it short- and long-term.
Afraid the rest of the world will see this as mean and bullying? Fine, put a ban on ALL peoples from immigrating here for awhile. Just say our borders are a Safe Space while we spend some time to find ourselves and figure out how to solve our problems.
As for this,
look, gun control isn't the biggest issue to me (within reason). If the government decided to put restrictions on AR-15s and other types of SA weapons, I would be disappointed but not that upset about it. Hell, I'd say 90% of America wouldn't be upset about that act on its face. BUT, a lot of people would be majorly upset at the potential ramifications of such a ban. It would be the proverbial slippery slope of what will the government ban next and when does it end.
American politics is more polarized than probably any time in history. Is your point that neither side is willing to compromise on certain proposals (assault weapons bans, labeling it Muslim extremism, etc.) that might actually help? If so, did I just make your point using 5,000 less words?
Last edited:
It isn't a lie. None of the third party candidates have a chance at winning this election. No matter how much you and I might want a Libertarian (or other 3rd party) candidate to win - the vast majority of Americans will vote for the Democrat or the Republican - just based solely on part allegiance. I would love for a third candidate to have a chance in this election - but it's not realistic with the current views of the electorate.
I'm not arguing rights. I'm saying that you can't block refugees who adhere to a certain religion without blocking literally everyone. You seem to by okay with that but it would never, ever fly.
We've had an assault weapons ban before, which was enacted under the stipulation that it be sunsetted, which it was. It's not unprecedented (although there are certainly arguments against its effectiveness).
I don't think banning the guns is the solution. I'd hate to see an illegal market for guns like exists for drugs.
You're absolutely correct - and I was mulling over that contradiction while I was poasting it. I was more hoping that one of the people arguing that we can't profile Muslims based on statistics to call me out on it so I could point that out. Unfortunately you beat them to it haha.
I agree the risk would be mitigated. So sure - ban the assault rifles. I'm willing to have my life negatively impacted if it decreases the chance of these thing happening. But if they do that - they damn well better ban/profile/quell the groups that are known to use those assault rifles in terrorist acts. As you said - denying one but spearheading against the other is a contradictory stance.
Feeding what beast? I get the impression you're making an assumption that when I said I would be more likely to vote for Trump than Clinton - that I said that I was going to vote for Trump. Which is something I never said. I was merely pointing out that, of the two, his platform is a bigger shake up (which is what I want).
I may take the moral high ground and throw my vote away on some 3rd party candidate that will end up with approximately 4% of the total vote. I may take the opportunity to try to keep Clinton out of the White House and vote for the only person that has a chance to beat her (Trump). I may write in my own name - in the off chance that everyone is so sick of all this by November that I get the only vote. I'm not sure what I'll do yet.
I'm okay with it, yes. Why wouldn't it fly? (Besides [liberal] media pressure).
Look, I get it. America was born and became great because of immigration. That's all well and good but that's also history. It's 2016. This country can't sustain itself with the continual influx of new people. Hell, you've got baby boomers living so long that it's depleting social security.
I'd support a 10-year ban on all immigration. It would give this country time to (hopefully) fix internal problems and allow the improvement of life quality for those already here, before adding more people to the fold.
I can get on board with that. I'm generally pretty moderate/tolerant but my position on profiling has changed over the years. We simply can't keep having one after another after another after another atrocity committed by radical Islamists and think it's okay to stand idly by.
If everyone voted for the one that doesn't have a snowball's chance, then the snowball melts. It really is in people's hands.
I don't think banning these assault rifles will keep the assault rifles from being used in these killings. You'll create a flourishing black market, that cannot be traced, and the crimes go on as usual.
I agree that the propaganda that's out there stating how much of an impact banning these would have is overblown. However I will acknowledge that to some degree, it has the potential to help the situation. I feel like putting a small inconvenience on someone's life in order to squash this ever-growing nationwide problem can be beneficial. I'm willing to accept not being able to enjoy assault weapons responsibly if it'll help the greater good. Just like I expect immigrants from known muslim terrorist breeding grounds to accept undergoing a little extra investigation and profiling. In both cases - you can't argue with statistics.
My only fear is that the progressive left will get their way on the gun issue - and then pull a hypocritical 180 and not do the same on the profiling issue.
American-Muslim Peace Initiative : http://american-peace.org/ There's a picture of them in some governor's office
Here's CAIR http://www.cair.com/
And another: http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/in-the-news/news-updates/
and another: http://hcef.org/790794278-the-us-muslim-a-christian-coalition-mcc/
White House: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/6/wh-gives-names-muslim-leaders-who-met-obama/
There are so many people trying to do what you have proposed that I could spend hours poasting links and not scratch the surface.
I'm thinking about the price of an AR-15 (or whatever other banned rifle) going from $500 to $5000 or $10k. because of the illegal market. I'm just very leery of a black market for firearms.
Awesome. Then go back to trying to out-fight them. Good luck!
I like the headline from the White House link:
Obama quietly hands out names of Muslim leaders he met with privately
then---
After stonewalling journalists for two days about the names of the participants at the meeting Wednesday, the White House quietly attached the list of attendees to the end of its daily press briefing transcript Thursday evening.
That's really making it public. Superb job! Keep it a secret. That's really giving it your all.
Last edited:
Agreed. But the people will not do that. I'm hoping this will be the last election that is like that - and the 2020 election will give us more than just 2 candidates from the usual parties. I'm hoping that after Obama and Hillary have been president the rhetoric of "The US needs to show it's ready for blacks and women to have prominent roles" will get exhausted - and those people that voted for each of them because they were black or a woman will get tired of doing that. And then maybe we can finally get someone in office (regardless of race or gender) who is going to actually do something - rather than just be a poster boy (girl) for the PC movement.
ummmm that was what I was saying..... I know the reality... I just don't like it.
SOmeone shared this with me:
I'm not sure I agree. But, I don't think an AR-15 is a machine gun.
it's not...but it is an semi-automatic(now) assault rifle that shouldn't be sold to the public for any purpose.
and the mass shootings(14) that occurred in this country, this was the overwhelming weapon of choice because it's incredibly accurate and can fire rapidly.
this dude had to wait 3 days to purchase the handgun, 0 days to purchase the ar-15.
I would have no problem with thorough background checks on anyone trying to buy them.
If only getting put on a terrorist watch list could be grounds to profile someone into needing an extra strenuous background test... wouldn't want to offend them though.
I know many friends that have AR15's and would never shoot up a group of people. You can ban guns all day long but the fanatics will get their hands on them somehow. It's not complicated.
Ok, disregard that link and comment on the others. Or actually, don't bother.
Basically Strum, you fervently believe that if we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya long enough, this shit will stop.
It's like you want to put your head in the sand, but at the same time run around and accuse everyone else of being wrong for also not putting our heads in the sand.
And every time, I walk away from one of these threads shaking my head and laughing at myself for being suckered into humoring you. Cap tip to you- you pulled me in again.
I'm out- the rest of y'all deal with him as you will.
