San Bernandino, CA - Shootings

[Spike]

 

[SteelChip]

Seems to me there is a process for changing the Constitution if someone wanted to...it's called the amendment process. Wonder why the anti-gun crowd never starts a movement to do that. Could it be that they know most Americans don't want to give up this essential liberty? That's why they have to try to make end runs around it with all kinds of useless regulations.

 

[Spike]

Take That ISIS! We're Unleashing Gun Control and Women in Combat!

 

[Spike]

 

[Spike]

President Trump would approve


'France likely to close more than 100 mosques'

France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said.

Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut.

"According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html

 

[hamster]

I want to know what his disability was, mental illness?

I'm thinking maybe this guy was a lone wolf with no known ties to any groups. So if that's the case, and he's a US citizen, this would be domestic terrorism.

It is Islamic terror, whether foreign or domestic. It is all the same ideology, they are fighting jihad for the sake of Allah.

 

[Elfiero]

I think BO will tell us this is a religious problem. That the display of a Christmas tree is insulting to Muslims and they had the right to express there dislike.

The root cause is religion, all religion.

Right now fanatical Reich wing Christians are waging a war on women that went from actual terrorism(bombings, assassinations)in the past to legislative terrorism.

In Texas alone abortion clinics have dropped from 41 iin 2012 to 18 today and will be 10 in a few years. All thanks to draconian regulation designed to put them out of business.

Who do you think is behind this?

How many women will die in back alley abortions thanks to these Christian wack jobs?

All religion is **** for **** brains.

 

[hamster]

The root cause is religion, all religion.

Right now fanatical Reich wing Christians are waging a war on women that went from actual terrorism(bombings, assassinations)in the past to legislative terrorism.

In Texas alone abortion clinics have dropped from 41 iin 2012 to 18 today and will be 10 in a few years. All thanks to draconian regulation designed to put them out of business.

Who do you think is behind this?

How many women will die in back alley abortions thanks to these Christian wack jobs?

All religion is **** for **** brains.

Maybe if women/ men practiced birth control, instead of having irresponsible sex, this would be a non-issue.

 

[Superman]

I would argue that the right to choose to have an abortion is not one that is condoned by those fuzzy Muzzies you so love.

 

[IndySteel]

 

[MT~Forged]

Maybe if women/ men practiced birth control, instead of having irresponsible sex, this would be a non-issue.

That requires a BASIC level of responsibility, and we know that will not be tolerated.

 

[Vader]

Government is the left's religion. They want to control everything from how large your coke should be to how your health care works. They want to control every walk of your life. You need to worship at the alter of government or get a label and demonized.

 

[MTC]

Government is the left's religion. They want to control everything from how large your coke should be to how your health care works. They want to control every walk of your life. You need to worship at the alter of government or get a label and demonized.

The left wants every damn little thing to be known and followed and they are supposed to be the tolerant group. Pfft.

 

[deljzc]

This was a terrorist attack. I have no doubt. The planning and type of attack is clearly islamic extremist. Again, this shows our enemy is just a complete nut job. They have a 6-month old daughter and they decide to jihad themselves to Allah and take 15-18 people down with them? Think about that for a minute. Most fathers with a 6-month old are worried about how to get 6 hours of sleep, this guy was building bombs and stockpiling up ammo/weapons.

I still think there needs to be some honest gun talk. Why do we have assault weapons legal exactly? Does an arms race between the right-wing NRA and criminals really benefit anyone except gun corporations? Don't you see this is what they want so they can sell more guns? And the more guns in circulation (legal or illegal) just increases their use in crime and increases the effectiveness of killing.

I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. Those terms don't make any sense to me. A gun is a tool. It's the most effective tool at killing that is "legal" and mentioned in our constitution. Our constitution doesn't mention bombs or nukes or chemical weapons. It just says "arms". I don't understand how "arms" as our forefathers understood them - single shot muskets - has translated into the idea it allows a keeping up with technology into machine guns and assault rifles. Using that logic, maybe bombs and nukes should be allowed into private hands. Why not? What is "arms"? And if the purpose is to be able to fight against an oppressive government, wouldn't bombs and nukes in the hands of civilians deter government oppression as much as assault rifles?

The whole gun thing doesn't make sense.

I think the right-wing, NRA proponents don't want to admit how silly their argument of legal assault weapons against an oppressive government is. We are WAY past that.

It really comes down to me on what gun ownership means and for what reasons. We have propagandized the ownership of guns into being "American" and we have decided owning a gun is what makes us separate and superior in our freedoms. The NRA and gun manufacturers have played the uneducated rural lifestyle and the ghetto gang lifestyle into glorifying gun ownership as a symbol of freedom and power and independence (when it really means none of those things). And the more guns that get into circulation, the more they are used in acts of violence.

It is much too late to get the cat back into the bag with guns. We have 1 out of every 4 guns in the world within our borders, yet no one cares. We have no effective way of tracking them or knowing who has access or how. They are everywhere. For every man, woman and child you see in a day, there are that many guns "around". Hand guns, shot guns, assault rifles, hunting rifles, et. al.

I've voting for more gun regulation because I think we need LESS guns in circulation (I want that to be a republican, but oh well). That's me. We are a democracy so I am fine with voters disagreeing with me. The voters will decide. But I do think we'd be a better society with less guns in it. It's just how to do that now that is so convoluted.

 

[MTC]

I agree it was a terrorist attack based on extreme islamic beliefs. But I dont think the attackers were isis affiliated. Maybe this will wake up the libs and realize this will become an issue. Instead of talking about steelers and pens games we will be talking about how we are under attack by terrorist if this country doesnt wake up

 

[Ron Burgundy]

But I dont think the attackers were isis affiliated.

Wrong-o, according to the latest news. Sorry.

 

[ark steel]

This was a terrorist attack. I have no doubt. The planning and type of attack is clearly islamic extremist. Again, this shows our enemy is just a complete nut job. They have a 6-month old daughter and they decide to jihad themselves to Allah and take 15-18 people down with them? Think about that for a minute. Most fathers with a 6-month old are worried about how to get 6 hours of sleep, this guy was building bombs and stockpiling up ammo/weapons.

I still think there needs to be some honest gun talk. Why do we have assault weapons legal exactly? Does an arms race between the right-wing NRA and criminals really benefit anyone except gun corporations? Don't you see this is what they want so they can sell more guns? And the more guns in circulation (legal or illegal) just increases their use in crime and increases the effectiveness of killing.

I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. Those terms don't make any sense to me. A gun is a tool. It's the most effective tool at killing that is "legal" and mentioned in our constitution. Our constitution doesn't mention bombs or nukes or chemical weapons. It just says "arms". I don't understand how "arms" as our forefathers understood them - single shot muskets - has translated into the idea it allows a keeping up with technology into machine guns and assault rifles. Using that logic, maybe bombs and nukes should be allowed into private hands. Why not? What is "arms"? And if the purpose is to be able to fight against an oppressive government, wouldn't bombs and nukes in the hands of civilians deter government oppression as much as assault rifles?

The whole gun thing doesn't make sense.

I think the right-wing, NRA proponents don't want to admit how silly their argument of legal assault weapons against an oppressive government is. We are WAY past that.

It really comes down to me on what gun ownership means and for what reasons. We have propagandized the ownership of guns into being "American" and we have decided owning a gun is what makes us separate and superior in our freedoms. The NRA and gun manufacturers have played the uneducated rural lifestyle and the ghetto gang lifestyle into glorifying gun ownership as a symbol of freedom and power and independence (when it really means none of those things). And the more guns that get into circulation, the more they are used in acts of violence.

It is much too late to get the cat back into the bag with guns. We have 1 out of every 4 guns in the world within our borders, yet no one cares. We have no effective way of tracking them or knowing who has access or how. They are everywhere. For every man, woman and child you see in a day, there are that many guns "around". Hand guns, shot guns, assault rifles, hunting rifles, et. al.

I've voting for more gun regulation because I think we need LESS guns in circulation (I want that to be a republican, but oh well). That's me. We are a democracy so I am fine with voters disagreeing with me. The voters will decide. But I do think we'd be a better society with less guns in it. It's just how to do that now that is so convoluted.

I don't know what "assault weapons" are. I'm not sure you do, either.

 

[ark steel]

Oh, and we are NOT a democracy. If the majority can't vote to ban gay marriage, of which there is no direct link in the Constitution, why can they out vote something that was important enough to put as the second amendment to the Constitution?

Shall not be infringed.

 

[Shane Falco]

We are a representative republic.

 

[ark steel]

is one of these an assault weapon? Both, neither?

 

[Vincent]

I still think there needs to be some honest gun talk. Why do we have assault weapons legal exactly? Blah, blah, blah...

Amendment II..... A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It is amazing how unambiguous that which frames our every liberty is. It is succinct for a reason - to prevent the usurpation of said liberties for the duration of the Republic, and lend to its own defense against the arguments of those who would usurp. In honest consideration, it leaves no room for debate. Every word of the amendment is readily understandable to any literate, and should be even to those whose minds have been ravaged by modern "education".

Note that types and classes of weapons are not prescribed, but rather the amendment is framed, again succinctly, no, air tightly as "shall not be infringed". To modern readers, this translates to mean any weapon of any kind is available by right to the people without any consideration by the damn gubmint in order that they may defend their free state. It is so stated because the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the Republic by giving advantage to the people to defend it against would-be tyrants and their apologists. Had it been written for another purpose, it might have read "A well organized hunting club, being necessary to the recreation of rich white folk, the right of white people to have registered shotguns with approved storage, shall be granted as long as they pass all gubmint regulations, are not on the 'no fly' list, and said rich white folk have greased the requisite palms.". But it wasn't, and it doesn't. In fact, one might infer that the framers framed it to be idiot proof, albeit modern idiots find such deliberation absorbing.

"Shall not be infringed" seems to elude moderns. What that means is that the gubmint has no right, real or imagined to regulate, license, contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach, restrict, limit, curb, check, or say **** about weapon a citizen chooses to defend his free *** with, and by extension the free state. In consideration to moderns, and in terms they would find usable, that means if I can afford to buy an MRAP, an F-16, or even an evil "assault rifle", I get to damn do so and would-be tyrants, even black ones, and their courtiers have nothing to say about it.

 

[MTC]

Wrong-o, according to the latest news. Sorry.

Just read it. Isis likes to claim responsibility for everything. Well isis did pick a pretty liberal state. Do you think they would try that in a place like Texas?

 

[Spike]

I've voting for more gun regulation because I think we need LESS guns in circulation .

 

[DBS1970]

So does anybody have any qualms about putting a moritorium on migration from majority Muslim countries now?

P.s.

The guns are not the problem hostile intent was. The Second Amendment has never been about hunting, it has always been about self protection and mainly self protection from the government.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Amendment II..... A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It is amazing how unambiguous that which frames our every liberty is. It is succinct for a reason - to prevent the usurpation of said liberties for the duration of the Republic, and lend to its own defense against the arguments of those who would usurp. In honest consideration, it leaves no room for debate. Every word of the amendment is readily understandable to any literate, and should be even to those whose minds have been ravaged by modern "education".

Note that types and classes of weapons are not prescribed, but rather the amendment is framed, again succinctly, no, air tightly as "shall not be infringed". To modern readers, this translates to mean any weapon of any kind is available by right to the people without any consideration by the damn gubmint in order that they may defend their free state. It is so stated because the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the Republic by giving advantage to the people to defend it against would-be tyrants and their apologists. Had it been written for another purpose, it might have read "A well organized hunting club, being necessary to the recreation of rich white folk, the right of white people to have registered shotguns with approved storage, shall be granted as long as they pass all gubmint regulations, are not on the 'no fly' list, and said rich white folk have greased the requisite palms.". But it wasn't, and it doesn't. In fact, one might infer that the framers framed it to be idiot proof, albeit modern idiots find such deliberation absorbing.

"Shall not be infringed" seems to elude moderns. What that means is that the gubmint has no right, real or imagined to regulate, license, contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach, restrict, limit, curb, check, or say **** about weapon a citizen chooses to defend his free *** with, and by extension the free state. In consideration to moderns, and in terms they would find usable, that means if I can afford to buy an MRAP, an F-16, or even an evil "assault rifle", I get to damn do so and would-be tyrants, even black ones, and their courtiers have nothing to say about it.

It would be nice to hear this argument more from the politicians. Everyone is afraid to state the real reason for the right, which is defense against a tyrannical government.