Orlando Attack...ISIS claims it!

[Hepar]

Oh NOW we need to slow down? Why two weeks ago everyone was a bathroom expert on transgender individuals, last week everyone was apparently a zoologist and cared about gorillas, and this week we had a scene occur over 48 hours ago have been blasted with information and videos, but we are to slow down? Nothing to speculate here. The fact are Guns stopped him from causing more damage? He called in and pledged allegiance to ISIS.

I think the speculation comes from believing he was a closet homosexual, dismissing the teachings of his faith he was following?

So no I think I'm good. This investigation will go just like any other. The important defining details will be dismissed and not publicly blasted, but the agenda of the President and gun grabbers will blame the extreme and dismiss the facts.

Um, ok. You're right, it's not irresponsible at all to immediately start saying that "3 civilians carrying at the nightclub prevented further casualties" when there are not only no facts to substantiate that, but that the very fact it was 3 civilians is not correct at all.

 

[nevada]

I'm curious if anyone watched the video I posted in which Obama says that they can't even stop people who are known to be ISIS sympathizer's from buying guns. Why? Because anytime anything remotely involving gun control is brought up the gun nuts immediately react, and start arguing, as if he is going to take people's guns away.

Reasonable gun laws do not equate taking all your guns away.

what is reasonable?

I never know what you are talking about. This has occurred in multiple threads now, not just with me but between you and others where you claim that you wont answer because they dodged your questions, but then fail to explain what you are talking about or where the original question was.

You are arguing against a point I am not making. I'm not advocating for taking ALL guns away. No one is.

What are some common sense concessions? how about not selling guns to people the FBI knows are ISIS sympathizers, for one. Now you go...

only because they know it cant and wont happen. otherwise, you can bet your ass they would be trying.

You see any sort of changes to gun policy as a loss of your freedom? Aren't there already some restrictions on civilian weaponry in the US?




You are making an incorrect assumption here. I'm not advocating for disarming law abiding citizens. Never was.

In fact, I'm not even pushing any specific policy. Merely the idea that there are things that can be done to limit criminal access to weapons without disarming law abiding citizens.



My understanding is that it's not a red flag because the current system limits their access to that information. Though they undoubtedly share some blame in this if they did in fact know about this guy beforehand.


Now you go.. you never addressed my reply to your statement that Muslims aren't supporting the US against ISIS. Do you concede that you were wrong? How about gun policy? are there anything's you think should be changed, or is the current policy as good as it can be?

how would you propose that happens? criminals do not obey the laws. that's what makes them criminals. lots of people talk about magazine capacities, and that he couldn't have killed as many people.
how exactly would that go? what level of dead bodies IS acceptable, in determining the capacity of a magazine?
someone intent on MURDER(which, in case you did not know, was highly illegal) is not going to suddenly choose to use LEGAL size magazines
for his killing...

any restrictions on guns, and gun owners will ONLY affect the law abiding. the rest of them will simply do, and continue to do whatever they want.

Yep. I dont disagree with any of that, but obviously you must realize that this means the government does nothing while someone it knows is an ISIS sympathizer purchases an assault rifle.

Do you simply accept that risk as a reality of a free society? Do you think there are other ways to go about limiting known criminals access to weapons?

because our worthless government refuses to acknowledge these scumbags for what they are.

 

[wadle5]

Um, ok. You're right, it's not irresponsible at all to immediately start saying that "3 civilians carrying at the nightclub prevented further casualties" when there are not only no facts to substantiate that, but that the very fact it was 3 civilians is not correct at all.

Last time I checked it was stated individuals with GUNS stopped the terrorist?
Last time I checked an off duty officer, was the first to engage in civilian clothes makes them a civilian as they were not on official duty?

But yes please again position how guns are bad, and his extreme religious beliefs didn't cause this, as you forgot to touch on those points as well. That is what is truly irresponsible.

 

[Hepar]

Last time I checked it was stated individuals with GUNS stopped the terrorist?
Last time I checked an off duty officer, was the first to engage in civilian clothes makes them a civilian as they were not on official duty?

But yes please again position how guns are bad, and his extreme religious beliefs didn't cause this, as you forgot to touch on those points as well. That is what is truly irresponsible.

OK:

1, "An off-duty police officer and two others had opened fire" does not = individuals in the context you are looking for it mean.

2. An off-duty officer working security (and armed security at that) also does not = civilian.

3. I am also not drawing any other conclusions to go along with your "But yes please again position how guns are bad, and his extreme religious beliefs didn't cause this, as you forgot to touch on those points as well. That is what is truly irresponsible" statement. I am in information gathering mode. Not an emotionally charged mode. Because when people get emotionally charged, they become irrational.

 

[wadle5]

OK:

1, "An off-duty police officer and two others had opened fire" does not = individuals in the context you are looking for it mean.

2. And off-duty officer working security (and armed security at that) also does not = civilian.

3. I am also not drawing any other conclusions to go along with your "But yes please again position how guns are bad, and his extreme religious beliefs didn't cause this, as you forgot to touch on those points as well. That is what is truly irresponsible" statement. I am in information gathering mode. Not an emotionally charged mode. Because when people get emotionally charged, they become irrational.

Agreed. Again as irrational as denying the facts that have been presented. And again ignoring the facts that are the common denominator between these reoccurring incidences.

 

[Hepar]

Agreed. Again as irrational as denying the facts that have been presented. And again ignoring the facts that are the common denominator between these reoccurring incidences.

I'm not denying any facts nor ignoring any. I'm choosing to stay out of certain areas of discussion. This one was specific to a discussion that [MENTION=98419]ben550[/MENTION] and I were having on the "good guy with a gun" debate. I added you into that since you decided to make a fairly large assumption by taking "An off-duty police officer and two others" to mean "3 civilians carrying at the nightclub."

 

[wadle5]

I'm not denying any facts nor ignoring any. I'm choosing to stay out of certain areas of discussion. This one was specific to a discussion that [MENTION=98419]ben550[/MENTION] and I were having on the "good guy with a gun" debate. I added you into that since you decided to make a fairly large assumption by taking "An off-duty police officer and two others" to mean "3 civilians carrying at the nightclub."

No my assumption was that guns prevented mass casualties. . .and yes it just so happened the first person to hold this threat accountable was an off duty officer? You are making the assumption that it has nothing to with his religion. . . so I guess I would say you are denying and ignoring facts.

 

[Hepar]

No my assumption was that guns prevented mass casualties. . .and yes it just so happened the first person to hold this threat accountable was an off duty officer? You are making the assumption that it has nothing to with his religion. . . so I guess I would say you are denying and ignoring facts.

Um, I never said nor made the assumption that it had nothing to do with his religion.

 

[ThorInc]

Um, I never said nor made the assumption that it had nothing to do with his religion.

Yeah, I think he is mixing you up with ndcent but I could be wrong..

 

[wadle5]

Um, I never said nor made the assumption that it had nothing to do with his religion.

You did by ignoring the presented facts in your research as well as several statements and you only holding onto guns. Just like ndecent I guess. But no confusion. You both just keep doing the same thing I guess.

 

[MudPie]

Democrats/Liberals as a whole should be subject to a more stringent vetting process for gun ownership due to their inherently violent disposition as demonstrated time and time again. Race nor religion provide a more accurate representation of mental health wellness when compared to political party affiliation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ndcent]

How about the public shaming that is happening throughout Europe now by Muslims? Kind of hard to be tolerant of the intolerant ?

Giving that murderer a cause? Eesh. I support gun rights but wouldn't use that face to do it.

 

[Thai]

I support gun rights

**cough**bullsh!t**cough**

 

[wadle5]

Giving that murderer a cause? Eesh. I support gun rights but wouldn't use that face to do it.

You support gun rights? Really. . .about every other one of your posts would refute that. In regards to what you are trying to imply with that posts is even more humorous. Keep up with your "neutrality"

 

[ndcent]

**cough**bullsh!t**cough**

Another winning post, Thai.

I have lots of guns, I'm just not a ****ing *******.

 

[ndcent]

You support gun rights? Really. . .about every other one of your posts would refute that. In regards to what you are trying to imply with that posts is even more humorous. Keep up with you "neutrality"

You're using the face of a murderer to make a case about gun rights.

Not a good look, homie.

 

[wadle5]

Another winning post, Thai.

I have lots of guns, I'm just not a ****ing *******.

Another solid contribution ndecent. . .

You're using the face of a murder to make a case about gun rights.

Not a good look, homie.

No I am not making the case of a murder. I'm showing how you can apparently make a blanket statement about a population on ones actions, but then dismiss it when it benefits you. In regards to not looking good, you were the one that tried playing the victim card in this thread, and somehow made this event about you? Talk about desperation and seeking self-worth. :violin:

 

[ndcent]

Another solid contribution ndecent. . .


No I am not making the case of a murder. I'm showing how you can apparently make a blanket statement about a population on ones actions, but then dismiss it when it benefits you. In regards to not looking good, you were the one that tried playing the victim card in this thread, and somehow made this event about you? Talk about desperation and seeking self-worth. :violin:

While using the face of a murderer to make your point.

I'm not playing any victim card, little man.

 

[wadle5]

I'm not playing any victim card, little man.

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.

 

[Thai]

Another winning post, Thai.

I have lots of guns, I'm just not a ****ing *******.

Thanks.

As for whatever you wrote, i have no clue with all those "****" but i assume that it means something good...so, i beg to differ...you ARE a ****ing *******.