Guns, race, religion, terror, wingnut thread

[Seth Milner]

Not mentioned: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - architect of the 9/11 attacks, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and more - attended Chowan College in Murfreesboro, North Carolina and later North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University.

Chowan College: Electrical Engineering
NC State: Fertilizer Mixology

[rstrong]

NC State: Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering, actually.

[Vrede too]

Terrorlina.

Syed Farook's last words: "Who cares, it's a rental."

California massacre victim ranted about Muslims on Facebook

One of the victims of the San Bernardino massacre was a Messianic Jew who filled his Facebook page with condemnations of Muslims and impassioned screeds against jihadist terror.

“On behalf of this guy… You can stick your Million Muslim March up your asses,” victim Nicholas Thalasinos posted on Sept. 11, 2013, alongside a photo of a shirtless victim plummeting to his death from the burning World Trade Center....

References to Israel and “Turbanheads” fill his pages.

Under “Education,” Thalasinos listed on Facebook, “Studied Conservatism at Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies.” ...

Another article said that he and Syed Farook argued recently about the Facebook posts. Unlikely we'll ever know whether that had anything at all to do with the massacre.

[Vrede too]

Probably unknowable - Which had more influence, being Muslim or being American?

[Seth Milner]

I don't know if prayer works or not; but I have doubts about praying for someone who's already met their fate. I believe there may be a measure of good in praying for someone who suffers from a loss, but in my mind, that is open for debate. Therefore I believe the cover title is out of touch with the meaning of what prayer means to those who diligently practice prayer. For instance, God isn't going to unfix what has already been done; no more than He's going to "end the gun scourge"; nor is our ending the "gun scourge" going to keep radical extremists from killing large numbers of people. It goes back to the worn-out saying "when guns are outlawed. . ."

The real intent of the message on the cover of that supermarket rag is to bash conservative candidates; otherwise, it has no real validity as far as the intent of it's supposed "news" item.

[Vrede too]

... "when guns are outlawed. . ."

... or reduced, restricted or more regulated there is less violence and murder.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... ted#p55877
Why is it so difficult for you gunhuggers to admit that less would be a good thing?

... The real intent of the message on the cover of that supermarket rag is to bash conservative candidates ...

... who could act to reduce "the gun scourge" as every other comparable nation has done but offer meaningless platitudes instead. Your "no real validity" is just your voluntary illiteracy and confusion.

[Seth Milner]

Why is it so difficult for you gunhuggers to admit that less would be a good thing?

I'm not a gunhugger; I just believe it's my right to own a gun of my choice, and to use it if deemed necessary.

Let me ask you and your fuming anti-gun cohorts this question: Let's suppose for a moment this nation was successful in banning and enforcing a ban on firearms; then what? Do you really think that firearms are going to magically disappear? Explain to me, specifically, what you, et al, define as "gun control", and if you had a hand in it, what your proposal would be.
England and Australia have the strictest gun laws, yet their gun-related incidents have not decreased; in fact they've increased.

[O Really]

Not to speak for Vrede, and I'm certainly not a "fuming anti-gun cohort", but I do have an answer to your question. Previously posted more than once, but maybe you've missed it.
First, hypothesizing about a general ban/confiscation of firearms in general is a worthless as just hypothesizing that everyone will suddenly become gentle nice people who don't hurt each other. For a looooong list of reasons, nagonnahappen. So let's move on to the "what would you do" part.

In the eyes of everyone but the NRA (including the Supreme Court) it is constitutional to prohibit sale and possession of certain types of firearms. So you can't legally buy or own a fully automatic firearm without jumping through a bunch of hoops. So let's start making the list of firearms whose primary purpose of design is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time and set severe limits on purchase and possession. Some gun, ummmm, "enthusiasts" have repeatedly pointed out that a Bushwhacker is no different from a less "scary" rifle except in style. Fine. But the purpose of that "style" was developed to facilitate its use as a military weapon, so let's make sure that any of those sold or possessed have limited capabilities to actually work like a military rifle. No large capacity magazines, for example. We could probably require a design change to make it take longer or more steps to change the magazine, too.

I'd require registration of all firearms, much like you have to register your car, and a license to own, i.e., extend the concealed carry to general ownership. Possession of an un-registered firearm would be a low-grade felony. That helps make life more difficult on criminals who may steal instead of buy their firearms, but doesn't affect me and mine at all.

I'd require actual training for anybody purchasing a firearm. You currently have to have training to get a hunting license (snicker) and you have to have training to get a concealed carry permit (snicker, chortle, as if), but I'd require training for anyone who has a firearm. And if you want to carry concealed, the training would be fairly extensive.

I'd make negligent use of firearms subject to the same type of criminal and civil liability that applies to other potentially dangerous things. We need more actions like in Transylvania where the woman who didn't move the shotgun and the guy who left it on the table where kids could get to it were both charged. Undoubtedly in this case they'll eventually walk with an "opps" defense, but we need to eliminate the "opps" defense. You don't get an "opps" defense when you run somebody over with your car, or even if you accidentally leave your kid locked in it. Strict personal responsibility for use and control of your firearm.

I'd prohibit ownership by anyone convicted of a violent crime, and require temporary forfeiture of firearms by anyone charged until after their case is ended. Kinda like part of bail or restriction on personal movement awaiting trial. No firearms until they're found not guilty.

"Can't do anything? Bullshit - there's a lot that could be done.

[rstrong]

I don't know if prayer works or not;

Prayer is like masturbation. It may make you feel good, but it does nothing for the person you're thinking about.

The real intent of the message on the cover of that supermarket rag is to bash conservative candidates; otherwise, it has no real validity as far as the intent of it's supposed "news" item.

That's a lame cop-out. They're bashing those who have the power to fix the problem but refuse to do so. That those people tend to be conservatives can't be helped.

[Vrede too]

... "when guns are outlawed. . ."

... or reduced, restricted or more regulated there is less violence and murder.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... ted#p55877
Why is it so difficult for you gunhuggers to admit that less would be a good thing?

... The real intent of the message on the cover of that supermarket rag is to bash conservative candidates ...

... who could act to reduce "the gun scourge" as every other comparable nation has done but offer meaningless platitudes instead. Your "no real validity" is just your voluntary illiteracy and confusion.

I'm not a gunhugger; I just believe it's my right to own a gun of my choice, and to use it if deemed necessary.

That's not what makes you a gunhugger. Thanks to the 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS, I believe those things, too, and O Really practices them. Rather, it's your regurgitation of stupid phrases in support of guns, your editing out and running away from uncomfortable responses, your voluntary illiteracy and confusion, and your deflection to uncontested irrelevancies that make you a gunhugger. Own it.

Let me ask you and your fuming anti-gun cohorts this question: Let's suppose for a moment this nation was successful in banning and enforcing a ban on firearms; then what?

Another sign of a gunhugger, lame straw men. No one is seriously proposing that. What part of "reduced, restricted or more regulated" was unclear to you?

Do you really think that firearms are going to magically disappear?

No, things might not change much for years or decades thanks to the gun industry shills at the NRA - which used to be pro-gun control until the 1970s when the crazies took over - being so successful at drowning the nation in guns. But, the experience of every comparable nation shows that things will get better. That real world evidence stands in stark contrast to your gunhugging delusions that they won't.

Explain to me, specifically, what you, et al, define as "gun control", and if you had a hand in it, what your proposal would be.

There are bunches of ideas - O Really has been particularly adept at enumerating them - you just run away.

England and Australia have the strictest gun laws, yet their gun-related incidents have not decreased; in fact they've increased.

Lie, as I just posted and linked. Oh that's right, you edited it out and ran away.

Anyhow, nations change over time for lots of reasons. It's more appropriate to compare homes, states and nations at the same time and the answer is consistently the same - fewer guns and/or more effective regulation = fewer deaths and injuries. You fail Stats and Logic, again.

[rstrong]

It goes back to the worn-out saying "when guns are outlawed. . ."

No-one is trying to outlaw your guns.

I'm not a gunhugger; I just believe it's my right to own a gun of my choice,

No-one is trying to take away your gun of choice.

Let's suppose for a moment this nation was successful in banning and enforcing a ban on firearms; then what?

No-one is trying to ban your firearms.

Do you really think that firearms are going to magically disappear?

No-one is trying to make your firearms disappear, magically or otherwise.

One more time: With VERY few exceptions, all the "fuming anti-gun cohorts" have been asking for in recent decades is the same background checks that NRA head and spokes-psychotic Wayne Lapierre himself was asking for not too long ago. You know, keep guns away from known criminals and the known mentally ill. Close the gun show loophole on background checks.

C'mon. It's not even insulting to say that your claims are believed - and endlessly reposted to the internet - only by the gullible and goddamned stupid.

England and Australia have the strictest gun laws, yet their gun-related incidents have not decreased; in fact they've increased.

Countries with stricter gun laws consistently have a tiny fraction of the gun violence of those that don't. That includes England and Australia.

[Vrede too]

Baby toys, a Koran: California shooters' home thrown open to media

:-0?> :!:

TV BBC guy says he's never seen this happen in his entire career.

[Seth Milner]

It goes back to the worn-out saying "when guns are outlawed. . ."

No-one is trying to outlaw your guns.
I didn't say they were.

I'm not a gunhugger; I just believe it's my right to own a gun of my choice,

No-one is trying to take away your gun of choice.
I didn't say they were.

Let's suppose for a moment this nation was successful in banning and enforcing a ban on firearms; then what?

No-one is trying to ban your firearms.
I didn't say they were.

Do you really think that firearms are going to magically disappear?
No-one is trying to make your firearms disappear, magically or otherwise.
I didn't say they were.



One more time: With VERY few exceptions, all the "fuming anti-gun cohorts" have been asking for in recent decades is the same background checks that NRA head and spokes-psychotic Wayne Lapierre himself was asking for not too long ago. You know, keep guns away from known criminals and the known mentally ill. Close the gun show loophole on background checks.

C'mon. It's not even insulting to say that your claims are believed - and endlessly reposted to the internet - only by the gullible and goddamned stupid.

[Vrede too]

I didn't say they were. (x 4)

rstrong responds to your wingnutty stupidity, you are so wussy and stupid as to deny the clear meaning of your own post. That's pathetic.

[JTA]

Every able bodied man, woman, and child ought to be required by law to be armed at all times.

Accidental gun deaths would spiral out of control, preventing future mass murderers from ever reaching adult hood and carrying out their nefarious deeds.

[Seth Milner]

Every able bodied man, woman, and child ought to be required by law to be armed at all times.

Accidental gun deaths would spiral out of control, preventing future mass murderers from ever reaching adult hood and carrying out their nefarious deeds.

That's one way to look at it!

[Seth Milner]

I didn't say they were. (x 4)

rstrong responds to your wingnutty stupidity, you are so wussy and stupid as to deny the clear meaning of your own post. That's pathetic.

I knew Ole Pinky would have to throw in his 2 cents worth! You really ought to choose the color maroon, it suits you better, as in "whatta maroon"!

[rstrong]

I didn't say they were. (x 4)

rstrong responds to your wingnutty stupidity, you are so wussy and stupid as to deny the clear meaning of your own post. That's pathetic.

Yup. He's the perfect Trump/Carson follower. Make a statement for everyone to see. Get it on record for everyone to quote. Be blunt about it, so that it's crystal clear what you're saying. Repeat it multiple times. Then deny saying it.

[rstrong]

The London Underground just suffered another terrorist attack, with the man shouting "This is for Syria."

He used a knife. Three people were injured. Police used a stun gun on the attacker and detained him.

[Seth Milner]

Yup. He's the perfect Trump/Carson follower. Make a statement for everyone to see. Get it on record for everyone to quote. Be blunt about it, so that it's crystal clear what you're saying. Repeat it multiple times. Then deny saying it.

Ok, I'm being blunt. You're more full of crap than Vrede too. Trump, Carson, and Hillary are jokes in the race of POTUS.
There, I've made two statements
.