• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

San Bernandino, CA - Shootings

deljzc said:
Well that's just not true. Civilization and agriculture BEGAN in the fertile crescent, which is basically the Euphrates river up into Syria and then down towards the Jordan/Israel and into Egypt (and the Nile river). That's the source of all civilization as we know it. It migrated around the Mediterranean. It absorbed technologies from India/China and became what we are today.

To say the whole region is just desert is just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

You ever been there? I have it's all a desert trust me. There is very little rain fall in the Tigris/Euphrates valley. The crescent is fertile because the rivers provide irrigation.
 
Really enjoying the left saying that folks on a terrorist watch list shouldn't be able to purchase guns. Huge can of worms that I'd think they wouldn't want to open. Hatred of guns has blinded them.
 
Since when do criminals follow laws anyway? Ban guns and then people will attack with knives or pipe bombs.

Or box cutters as they did with 911.

It's time to stop with the we are afraid to offend anyone politically correct bullshit and start paying attention
 
EdReed4Prez said:
Really enjoying the left saying that folks on a terrorist watch list shouldn't be able to purchase guns. Huge can of worms that I'd think they wouldn't want to open. Hatred of guns has blinded them.
Click to expand...

Why not sell them guns, they are the very people assigned to keep tabs on us...jus sayin'

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) — A Homeland Security Department investigation finds that 73 airport workers got security clearance from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) even though the employees were on a terror watch list.

The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found that TSA officials responsible for vetting every application for airport security credentials did not have access to terrorist watch list data, CBS News reports. In addition, thousands of aviation employees across the country were found to have provided “incomplete or inaccurate” records – including those for 75,000 immigrants.

This comes after last week’s Homeland Security investigation was released showing TSA agents failed to detect banned weapons in 95 percent of airport screening tests.

Homeland Security investigators managed to sneak mock explosives and banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials at TSA checkpoints at the country’s busiest airports.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015...r-watch-list-received-tsa-security-clearance/

Makes me happy to avoid them aeroplanes forever.

hwanmup.png
 
Last edited:
EdReed4Prez said:
Really enjoying the left saying that folks on a terrorist watch list shouldn't be able to purchase guns. Huge can of worms that I'd think they wouldn't want to open. Hatred of guns has blinded them.
Click to expand...

I hollered unintelligble cuss words at the TV when he said that. What a ******* tool.
 
Last edited:
EdReed4Prez said:
Really enjoying the left saying that folks on a terrorist watch list shouldn't be able to purchase guns. Huge can of worms that I'd think they wouldn't want to open. Hatred of guns has blinded them.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. The left is anti-gun by nature. They are also pro-immigration in cases where they think it will help them win elections. In this case, their strategy backfired ( pun intended ) and blew up in their face. The Nation is very alarmed at the thought of Islamic immigration, as a certain percentage will become radicalzed, and attack our citizens.

The left can't have it both ways...be anti-gun, and pro-Islamic immigration. Something has to give. I do however agree that ANYONE on the terrorst list should not be able to purcahse guns.
 
SteelChip said:
Why not sell them guns, they are the very people assigned to keep tabs on us...jus sayin'

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) — A Homeland Security Department investigation finds that 73 airport workers got security clearance from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) even though the employees were on a terror watch list.

The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found that TSA officials responsible for vetting every application for airport security credentials did not have access to terrorist watch list data, CBS News reports. In addition, thousands of aviation employees across the country were found to have provided “incomplete or inaccurate” records – including those for 75,000 immigrants.

This comes after last week’s Homeland Security investigation was released showing TSA agents failed to detect banned weapons in 95 percent of airport screening tests.

Homeland Security investigators managed to sneak mock explosives and banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials at TSA checkpoints at the country’s busiest airports.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015...r-watch-list-received-tsa-security-clearance/

Makes me happy to avoid them aeroplanes forever.

hwanmup.png
Click to expand...

OUCH. Of course mainsteam news won't correct Obama
 
Here is a trick question: when the rains came, did any Bibles get wet?
 
ark steel said:
This is what they mean by "common sense":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amita...mame_b_8739712.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of that.

I'm all for legal gun ownership in a reasonable way. I really am. But someone needs to explain to me how having 1 out of every 4 guns in the world within our boarders is reasonable gun ownership. And many here promote MORE guns as the answer.

If we do decide that having 250 million guns in this country is acceptable, then I want more regulation on them. Like cars. Insurance, titles, required competence testing, proof/record of sales.

Trading/selling guns shouldn't be like trading/buying baseball cards. I just don't see the harm in saying if you want to legally own a gun, you have to prove to the State that you have some maturity and responsibility. Nothing different than how we treat driving/owning a car.

And when we decide on said system/laws, we really prosecute those that break the law or commit crimes with illegal guns.

Guns today aren't the muskets our forefathers knew about when writing the 2nd amendment. With increased killing power, I think it's reasonable to demand increased regulation, training and licensing. We can then reasonable discuss increase responsibilities for increased firepower. Maybe hunting shotguns on the low end of regulation, handguns in the middle and any assault-style rifles on the high side of regulation.

I just don't agree with a strict literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean any "gun". I just don't.
 
deljzc said:
I agree with a lot of that.

I'm all for legal gun ownership in a reasonable way. I really am. But someone needs to explain to me how having 1 out of every 4 guns in the world within our boarders is reasonable gun ownership. And many here promote MORE guns as the answer.

If we do decide that having 250 million guns in this country is acceptable, then I want more regulation on them. Like cars. Insurance, titles, required competence testing, proof/record of sales.

Trading/selling guns shouldn't be like trading/buying baseball cards. I just don't see the harm in saying if you want to legally own a gun, you have to prove to the State that you have some maturity and responsibility. Nothing different than how we treat driving/owning a car.

And when we decide on said system/laws, we really prosecute those that break the law or commit crimes with illegal guns.

Guns today aren't the muskets our forefathers knew about when writing the 2nd amendment. With increased killing power, I think it's reasonable to demand increased regulation, training and licensing. We can then reasonable discuss increase responsibilities for increased firepower. Maybe hunting shotguns on the low end of regulation, handguns in the middle and any assault-style rifles on the high side of regulation.

I just don't agree with a strict literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean any "gun". I just don't.
Click to expand...

Owning a gun is a RIGHT. Owning a car is not. BTW you can own insurance and be crazy as a bat. You can own a house and be crazy. You don't have to prove sanity for any of those. The liberal argument that you make is disingenuous and out right wrong. The number of guns does not matter ONE whit. Seriously, if there were 50 million less guns in the U.S. it wouldn't change a thing. Nothing you proposed would change a damn thing except to make you and you're liberal buddies feel better. Which is what liberalism does. It accomplishes the very opposite of what it tries. Increasing regulation won't do anything except take guns away from law abiding citizens and you know it. Which is what the real agenda is for liberals. They want all guns gone. But they've lost the argument and the numbers. You and the rest of liberal America better just get over it and realize that it isn't going to happen.

The real answer is sealing the border so you can control who comes in and out. But liberal don't want to do that. They want to do **** that won't help a damn thing. Nothing you or anyone else has proposed would have stopped ONE shooting... NOT ONE. But yet you want regulations that only add more layers of government and more taxes to pay for it. No thanks.
 
Fox Suspends Stacey Dash, Ralph Peters for On-Air Profanity

155845_5_.jpg
Actress-Stacey-Dash.jpg


Fox has suspended commenters Stacey Dash and Ralph Peters for two weeks after two separate instances of on-air profanity while criticizing Obama.


Peters referred to the president as a common slang for female anatomy (no, not Mulva, *****) when he appeared on Fox Business Network on Monday morning. His comments were not "bleeped," although Peters was reprimanded on-air by host Stuart Varney. Peters then apologized for his prior language.

Later on Monday, Dash said that Obama "doesn't give a ****" about terrorism during the show Outnumbered. Dash's comments were partially censored.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...ash-ralph-peters-for-onair-profanity-n2090363

-----------------------

They should have let it go, **** Obama... I never watch Fox News - they are just as bad, or even worse, than the other channels
 
deljzc said:
...blah, blah, blah... I just don't agree with a strict literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean any "gun". I just don't.
Click to expand...

Don't agree. Emigrate You're free to do so. Try the UK. They don't have any guns. They speak English. But be careful because the muzloids have 'no go' zones and they like to walk up to people on the street and hack them to bits. Y'know, no guns to defend themselves.

Spike said:
Fox Suspends Stacey Dash, Ralph Peters for On-Air Profanity

Fox has suspended commenters Stacey Dash and Ralph Peters for two weeks after two separate instances of on-air profanity while criticizing Obama.
Click to expand...

Really? How else do you criticize obama?
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
Owning a gun is a RIGHT. Owning a car is not. BTW you can own insurance and be crazy as a bat. You can own a house and be crazy. You don't have to prove sanity for any of those. The liberal argument that you make is disingenuous and out right wrong. The number of guns does not matter ONE whit. Seriously, if there were 50 million less guns in the U.S. it wouldn't change a thing. Nothing you proposed would change a damn thing except to make you and you're liberal buddies feel better. Which is what liberalism does. It accomplishes the very opposite of what it tries. Increasing regulation won't do anything except take guns away from law abiding citizens and you know it. Which is what the real agenda is for liberals. They want all guns gone. But they've lost the argument and the numbers. You and the rest of liberal America better just get over it and realize that it isn't going to happen.

The real answer is sealing the border so you can control who comes in and out. But liberal don't want to do that. They want to do **** that won't help a damn thing. Nothing you or anyone else has proposed would have stopped ONE shooting... NOT ONE. But yet you want regulations that only add more layers of government and more taxes to pay for it. No thanks.
Click to expand...

I guess gang bangers would buy insurance? Wait, are you suggesting they wouldn't? If that is the case, it would make legal gun owners pay more for a right they shouldn't have to pay for in the first place. That can't, possibly, be anyone's goal. Could it?
 
deljzc said:
Guns today aren't the muskets our forefathers knew about when writing the 2nd amendment. With increased killing power, I think it's reasonable to demand increased regulation, training and licensing. We can then reasonable discuss increase responsibilities for increased firepower. Maybe hunting shotguns on the low end of regulation, handguns in the middle and any assault-style rifles on the high side of regulation.

I just don't agree with a strict literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean any "gun". I just don't.
Click to expand...

See, I would say that the forefathers realized that the people we need to protect ourselves from wouldn't always have muskets, too. They, specifically, did not limit it so and, specifically, didn't mention hunting.

I'd still like to know what "assault weapons" or "assault-style" weapons are. The TV the other day even used the phrase "assault-style clothing". A commercially available AR 15 has no different function than a regular .223 rifle. Both fire 1 shot per trigger pull. One looks "scarier".
 
Coach said:
You are 100% correct. The left is anti-gun by nature. They are also pro-immigration in cases where they think it will help them win elections. In this case, their strategy backfired ( pun intended ) and blew up in their face. The Nation is very alarmed at the thought of Islamic immigration, as a certain percentage will become radicalzed, and attack our citizens.

The left can't have it both ways...be anti-gun, and pro-Islamic immigration. Something has to give. I do however agree that ANYONE on the terrorst list should not be able to purcahse guns.
Click to expand...


The "no fly" list is not a "terrorist list." And as already pointed out there are many, many people listed on the "no fly" one by mistake. And if you're on it I'm sure getting removed from it is a ridiculous, onerous, time consuming and probably futile process.

ark steel said:
This is what they mean by "common sense":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amita...mame_b_8739712.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Click to expand...

I guarantee that if I were so motivated that I could take that entire article, line by line and completely destroy it factually. I didn't graduate high school, the author is a college professor. That should give everyone a more clear and better perspective on the fact that being a college professor no longer requires, nor is it indicative of the ability to think critically. What professorship has become is a position awarded to someone with the time and pre-disposition to attend school long enough to earn numerous meaningless diplomas This person then attains tenure. Once tenured, rather than use their knowledge and position to actually teach usable skills, they use their position as a means of almost literally preaching their political agenda.
This miscarriage and abuse of their position wouldn't be as big a problem if those exposed to them were rational, life experienced adults. But their audiences are young, impressionable and naïve.....thus it's a huge problem.

21STEELERS21 said:
Here is a trick question: when the rains came, did any Bibles get wet?
Click to expand...

NOT a trick question.....Why are all the liberals here cheap *****?

deljzc said:
I agree with a lot of that.

I'm all for legal gun ownership in a reasonable way. I really am. But someone needs to explain to me how having 1 out of every 4 guns in the world within our boarders is reasonable gun ownership. And many here promote MORE guns as the answer.

If we do decide that having 250 million guns in this country is acceptable, then I want more regulation on them. Like cars. Insurance, titles, required competence testing, proof/record of sales.

Trading/selling guns shouldn't be like trading/buying baseball cards. I just don't see the harm in saying if you want to legally own a gun, you have to prove to the State that you have some maturity and responsibility. Nothing different than how we treat driving/owning a car.

And when we decide on said system/laws, we really prosecute those that break the law or commit crimes with illegal guns.

Guns today aren't the muskets our forefathers knew about when writing the 2nd amendment. With increased killing power, I think it's reasonable to demand increased regulation, training and licensing. We can then reasonable discuss increase responsibilities for increased firepower. Maybe hunting shotguns on the low end of regulation, handguns in the middle and any assault-style rifles on the high side of regulation.

I just don't agree with a strict literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean any "gun". I just don't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we all KNOW your anti gun position. And it IS anti gun no matter how many times you claim that it and you are not. We know your positions because for some reason you feel the need to repeat them ad nauseum......but why are you afraid or unwilling to defend or explain your positions? I've asked at least twice in this very thread (post #'s 211 and 223) for some response, any response from you when I've pointed out what I believe to be flaws in your argument(s) and have yet to get an answer. Yet here you are again expecting others to answer your questions.

Maybe you have me on ignore, I don't know and don't care.....but for God's sake, stop expecting answers to your questions and curiosities when you don't have either the balls or the courtesy to answer those from others.

Vader said:
Owning a gun is a RIGHT. Owning a car is not. BTW you can own insurance and be crazy as a bat. You can own a house and be crazy. You don't have to prove sanity for any of those. The liberal argument that you make is disingenuous and out right wrong. The number of guns does not matter ONE whit. Seriously, if there were 50 million less guns in the U.S. it wouldn't change a thing. Nothing you proposed would change a damn thing except to make you and you're liberal buddies feel better. Which is what liberalism does. It accomplishes the very opposite of what it tries. Increasing regulation won't do anything except take guns away from law abiding citizens and you know it. Which is what the real agenda is for liberals. They want all guns gone. But they've lost the argument and the numbers. You and the rest of liberal America better just get over it and realize that it isn't going to happen.

The real answer is sealing the border so you can control who comes in and out. But liberal don't want to do that. They want to do **** that won't help a damn thing. Nothing you or anyone else has proposed would have stopped ONE shooting... NOT ONE. But yet you want regulations that only add more layers of government and more taxes to pay for it. No thanks.
Click to expand...

BMTI.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top