Orlando Attack...ISIS claims it!

[ndcent]

No you did actually. . .and your round about argument again to avoid be called out gets old. If you can keep track of your own thoughts/opinons/and posts how can you expect to have a discussion and know your own stance if you insist on back pedaling? Sorry if I "offended you again".
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/off-topic/220995-orlando-attack-isis-claims-12.html#post2387543

But then again understandable, as you dismissed my response to this and moved on to pick another point to refute with someone else. Your arguments per usual are littered with holes and tried attempts and avoiding logical rebuttals.

The guy using the face of a terrorist murderer to make some empty point about gun rights is an expert on logic and hole littered arguments.

As I've remarked in the past, getting a little redundant now actually - if you don't like how or what I post, I invite you to not engage me.

 

[wadle5]

As I've remarked in the past, getting a little redundant now actually - if you don't like how or what I post, I invite you to not engage me.

Only thing redundant is you walking away in the middle of an argument as you have run out of excuses apparently. As I have remarked in the past, if you cant discuss with logic, why do you continue to "contribute". As for engagement, that goes both ways.

 

[-JD-]

So basically we have another mass shooting in which the gun crowd is unwilling to compromise in any way whatsoever, and we have reached no conclusions about how to prevent more mass shootings in the future.

I think we have agreed that we can call this Islamic terrorism though, right?

(My summary of the last 15 pages)

 

[ThorInc]

So basically we have another mass shooting in which the gun crowd is unwilling to compromise in any way whatsoever, and we have reached no conclusions about how to prevent more mass shootings in the future.

As for firearms, (the Canadian terminology!!! A darn fine one if I may say so myself) not from our cold dead hands and Trump is the solution

I think we have agreed that we can call this Islamic terrorism though, right?

(My summary of the last 15 pages)

And The Donald will fix it all, including the radical Islam world issue.......ban 'em all, just for a short time period while he buys up all of their property of course. :heh:

 

[wadle5]

Man do you Canadians travel in packs? I only ask, because no joke about 50% of my neighborhood is Canadian.




But really how can you dismiss the facts that it is not correlated with the Islamic beliefs he laid claim to?

 

[-JD-]

But really how can you dismiss the facts that it is not correlated with the Islamic beliefs he laid claim to?

I'm not denying that. But what good does that do? Okay, there are radical Muslims out there carrying out terror acts in the name of their religion. What do we do with that information? We can't simply ban, ostracize, etc all Muslims.

I suggested not letting knowing ISIS sympathizers buy weapons, but even that was met with opposition because apparently they still qualify as part of a 'well regulated militia'. So what else do you do?

 

[BrianSD_42]

I suggested not letting knowing ISIS sympathizers buy weapons, but even that was met with opposition because apparently they still qualify as part of a 'well regulated militia'. So what else do you do?

There is broad popular support for stopping immigration from countries that are RIFE WITH TERRORISM.

The President can do this with the stroke of a pen. I agree that the President cannot and should not institute a "religious test" but he certainly can ban entire regions because the populations of those countries have so many problems with terrorism and would pose a thread to US society.


Fact-Checking Donald Trump's Orlando Response Speech
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/or...onald-trump-s-orlando-response-speech-n591571

Trump: "When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."

Federal law does give the president wide and fairly unilateral authority to restrict immigration.

Under a statute regarding inadmissible aliens, the president is granted the authority to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens" whenever the president finds their entry to the U.S. "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

If the President signs an executive order laying out criteria and selecting several countries to be put on a block list, as long as he doesn't mention religion or ethnicity it will most certainly stand up to constitutional muster.

Is that the right thing to do? Everyone is asking that question.

op2:

 

[-JD-]

^ Wasn't the shooter US born?

Also, isn't there significant risk that leaving these moderate Muslims no where to go they too will become radicalized?

 

[BrianSD_42]

^ Wasn't the shooter US born?

YES.

Also, isn't there significant risk that leaving these moderate Muslims no where to go they too will become radicalized?

No where to go to? A ban would simply stop immigration. They would just stay where they are, in those countries. Not my problem.

My point in posting was to simply lay out the options. I"m not advocating for Donald's message but I do think it is time for AN HONEST CONVERSATION. We can't bury our heads in the sand like the Europeans have for the last 15 years.

 

[-JD-]

No where to go to? A ban would simply stop immigration. They would just stay where they are, in those countries. Not my problem.

Well, if they end up becoming radicalized against the west then it will be your problem. Also, keep in mind that we have/are destroying their homes with bombs.

Not so sure that the Europeans have been 'burying their heads in the sand' so much as not having a practical solution.

Banning immigration wouldn't have stopped this most recent attack, but it would have kept out thousands of decent reasonable people who MAY have then become radicalized in their home countries. (Sort of like the gun control argument, creating laws doesn't work if the criminals don't follow them, or can get around them).

 

[BrianSD_42]

Not so sure that the Europeans have been 'burying their heads in the sand' so much as not having a practical solution.

Of course the Europeans have been burying their heads in sand.

They have an open door policy, no border patrol and they don't even vet those coming in.

The Paris attacks were carried out by migrants and EU citizen children of migrants who used the open borders to come and go without being tracked.

They shot 435 people in the streets of Paris. Only 100+ died but the rest were pretty messed up. An AK round is devastating to the human body.

So it really is quite simple. Don't take in people when you cannot verify their background. If it cannot be verified then they can't come here. No problem. They can go to Canada instead, or Europe or Africa or Antarctica. Just not here.

I don't support a religious test but I do want to know who people are when they enter the country.

Btw I truly believe I am speaking the popular opinion on this issue. Americans do not want strangers just entering this country. I'm practically a liberal compared to what the right is saying. I bet if you polled Democrats you would find that tightening immigration rules so there is MORE SCRUTINY is vastly popular among even Democrats.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Banning immigration wouldn't have stopped this most recent attack, but it would have kept out thousands of decent reasonable people who MAY have then become radicalized in their home countries.

This logic is so flawed. So America should take in foreign people's because if we don't then they MAY become radicalized? Yeah that makes about as much sense as jumping into oncoming traffic.

What moral obligation does America have to take in people who otherwise MAY become radicalized? ZERO.

Btw I don't hear anyone talking about China's moral obligation or Japan's or Brazil's. Why is everything about America?

Sorry but as pretty left leaning, sometimes conservative I can strait up tell you that Americans do not want uncontrolled immigration and we have no moral obligations to solve the problems of other people's cultures.

Canada could take in 100 million people from the middle East. Will that solve the problems of the middle East? Honestly, ask yourself ....

 

[ndcent]

We could cut mass shootings down 75% by banning white men from this county.


Sorry that logic is probably flawed too.

 

[ndcent]

Speaking of flawed logic, we should continue to let suspected terrorists freely purchase firearms so they don't know we know they're a suspected terrorist.

 

[Thai]

Lone wolf? Lol

Wolf dens, not lone wolves, the norm in U.S. Islamic State plots | Reuters

 

[BrianSD_42]

We could cut mass shootings down 75% by banning white men from this county.

Sorry that logic is probably flawed too.

Not really sure why you keep bringing up race. White this and white that. What's up with you and white people. Why do you keep bringing this up dude?

 

[Thai]

We could cut mass shootings down 75% by banning white men from this county.


Sorry that logic is probably flawed too.

Or just ban ladders...saves way more lives!!

 

[Thai]

Not really sure why you keep bringing up race. White this and white that. What's up with you and white people. Why do you keep bringing this up dude?

White guilt?? Thank goodness I am yellow!

 

[Scramble]

The biggest dillusion is that any of this or any of our countries/worlds issues could be the blame of one person.

But Obama blamed all of his problems on Bush? LOL:bounce:

 

[simple]

Lone wolf? Lol

Wolf dens, not lone wolves, the norm in U.S. Islamic State plots | Reuters

Good article. But I think that tends to highlight the fact that this dude wasn't isis. I've heard some interesting points on NPR lately. I also wasn't surprised that this guy may have been a patron of that club and potentially gay himself. Either way, based on talking points, this guy had a very poor understanding of Isis and related terrorist groups and cultural implications/conflicts with them. Likely a disillusioned dude who found some sort of belonging or comfort on radicalized websites.

The question is, does it matter? Probably not because the end result is the same and you can really call it semantics. But there's still a big difference between a dude that is trained and infiltrated by isis over some guy who falls in with the wrong crowd and decides he wants to act. Either way this guys mental state was prime for Isis online recruitment.

Ultimately I can argue scary similarities amongst some red blooded American groups. The 3 percenters? This is my issues with guns, and I'm a card carrying multiple gun owner. An (probably) overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible citizens. But then there's the guys who are self professed special forces, ready for a made-up war with the govt. And the dudes I'm thinking about are the clowns who had negligent discharges standing outside of recruiter offices. And I've been to enough ranges to see people doing stupid shit with weapons. Social media inbreeding pools all these people together and they just fester on the same ideology and radicalize themselves.