Orlando Attack...ISIS claims it!

[hikenbike]

You all are crazy for WANTING a right to be watered down with requirements to practice it. That's a permission, not a right.

How about we give tests yearly for IQ, and if you don't meet the minimum you lose the right to free speech and the right to vote?

How about we give drug tests monthly and if you fail you just lost your right to freedom of religion and you are now subject to warantless searches?

I know some of you wont see all rights as equal, and that's bogus- but let me go further into why your ideals above are complete shit.

How about the single mother who barely had enough money to get by that lives I a bad neighborhood that wants a gun to protect herself and her child- how is she supposed to afford these clAsses and requirements?

How about we just reimpose a poll tax- because that is essentially what you guys are calling for and its ridiculous.

Rights are just that, once you allow the state to water them down with requirements or fees they become permissions granted by the state and that is not what Liberty, freedom of this country is about. Period.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty straight to the point and there is NO room for interpretation

There should be no permit process to excercise a right. There should be no fees to excercise a right and there should be no minimum requirements to excercise a right.

If you can't understand the above, you need to do some critical thinking, and research the stats. CCW holders are FAR more proficient than LEO's in real world shoots. It's a well known fact. Private citizens are involved in a greater number of shootings, they cause less collateral damage and less loss of life is involved versus police shootings.

Most people who CCW already practice more than your average LEO. Do you know what most departments require for training with firearms in a year?

It's equivalent to how much I shoot in one single week of the year.

There is this idea among people that because law enforcement officers use a gun as a tool for their jobs- they must all be proficient shooters and the general public is just a bunch of fudds with guns that can't shoot. It's a joke.

Here:
Guns in America | Facts and statistics about firearms in the USA

When one removes ignorance, speculation and bias from the equation and merely researches the facts- the picture is quite clear folks.

I urge you to really think about these issues through the lens of truth and fact- not through fear, ignorance or speculation.

Read the friggin CDC reports on crime and shootings, read the FBi uniform crime report, look at real world shooting statistics and quit regurgitating BS you heard on the news or saw posted on Facebook.

I love the IQ and drug test ideas. When can we start?





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gunslinger-13]

I love the IQ and drug test ideas. When can we start?





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hope you're joking, but likely you are not. And it just goes to show anyone reading this thread how you feel about "rights".

You obviously see them as nothing more than permissions granted to you by the whim of the state and as such can be taken away by the whim of the state.

That's a very, very sad thing. You should cogitate on what a right actually is and should be.

Are you so sure that you would have the requisite IQ to be able to vote?

Requirements for practicing rights is quite simply ignorant and ridiculous. Ludicrous and evil.

 

[hikenbike]

Hope you're joking, but likely you are not. And it just goes to show anyone reading this thread how you feel about "rights".



You obviously see them as nothing more than permissions granted to you by the whim of the state and as such can be taken away by the whim of the state.



That's a very, very sad thing. You should cogitate on what a right actually is and should be.



Are you so sure that you would have the requisite IQ to be able to vote?



Requirements for practicing rights is quite simply ignorant and ridiculous. Ludicrous and evil.

I'm good to vote. May want to check on those you're voting FOR.

I am admittedly all for limiting your rights and that people like you who defend the Constitution like this are utterly ridiculous.......so I'll stay out of the fray. Nothing more to be said. You can be sad now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ben550]

You all are crazy for WANTING a right to be watered down with requirements to practice it. That's a permission, not a right.

How about we give tests yearly for IQ, and if you don't meet the minimum you lose the right to free speech and the right to vote?

How about we give drug tests monthly and if you fail you just lost your right to freedom of religion and you are now subject to warantless searches?

I know some of you wont see all rights as equal, and that's bogus- but let me go further into why your ideals above are complete shit.

How about the single mother who barely had enough money to get by that lives I a bad neighborhood that wants a gun to protect herself and her child- how is she supposed to afford these clAsses and requirements?

How about we just reimpose a poll tax- because that is essentially what you guys are calling for and its ridiculous.

Rights are just that, once you allow the state to water them down with requirements or fees they become permissions granted by the state and that is not what Liberty, freedom of this country is about. Period.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty straight to the point and there is NO room for interpretation

There should be no permit process to excercise a right. There should be no fees to excercise a right and there should be no minimum requirements to excercise a right.

If you can't understand the above, you need to do some critical thinking, and research the stats. CCW holders are FAR more proficient than LEO's in real world shoots. It's a well known fact. Private citizens are involved in a greater number of shootings, they cause less collateral damage and less loss of life is involved versus police shootings.

Most people who CCW already practice more than your average LEO. Do you know what most departments require for training with firearms in a year?

It's equivalent to how much I shoot in one single week of the year.

There is this idea among people that because law enforcement officers use a gun as a tool for their jobs- they must all be proficient shooters and the general public is just a bunch of fudds with guns that can't shoot. It's a joke.

Here:
Guns in America | Facts and statistics about firearms in the USA

When one removes ignorance, speculation and bias from the equation and merely researches the facts- the picture is quite clear folks.

I urge you to really think about these issues through the lens of truth and fact- not through fear, ignorance or speculation.

Read the friggin CDC reports on crime and shootings, read the FBi uniform crime report, look at real world shooting statistics and quit regurgitating BS you heard on the news or saw posted on Facebook.

I understand your points listed above and agree with you. But, it has already happened. I am not allowed to carry a firearm in many states because they don't allow it under their regulations. Some say too many features are illegal, some say too many bullets are illegal, some say certain types of bullets are illegal... Its nuts.

I agree it is a constitutional right and should be unhindered and unregulated. However I am also for certain procedures. As in voting, I think you should have to show a drivers license or gov issued photo ID before casting a vote to verify you are who you say you are. Is that oppressive? It prevents people from voting 3x 4x 5x etc...

The 2nd amendment is heavily regulated already. No other amendment is as heavily regulated although the 1st is quickly gaining steam in that direction. Are there women in the country who are told that if they want to vote they should move to a 19th amendment friendly state? Its ridiculous.

We all have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would argue that we have already lost most of those...

All I was saying/explaining was trying to argue for a way where I am allowed to responsibly exercise my right in every state of the union.

 

[AntleredRuin]

Not particularly arguing one way or the other, but don't forget that the Constitution was originally written almost 230 years ago and has been amended many time since then.

It's pretty common knowledge that the world was less 'civilized' back then. Everyone and their baby carried around some form of firearm and pretty regulary used it during everyday life. General proficiency was assumed back then. Hunting, self defense from wild animals, defense from natives, etc. Everyone knew how to carry, load, clean, shoot, check for bad bullets before usage, etc.

Nowadays, in a lot of places, the only requirement for gun ownership is simply being 18/21 and NOT a criminal or verifiably insane. You're allowed to legally carry it around in some places even if you've never fired a firearm before in your life.

Is sticking to 200+ year old customs simply because they are 200+ years old really the smartest thing to do? Again, the constitution has been amended many times to stay 'up to date'.

Not trying to take guns away AT ALL, but now that proficiency CAN'T be assumed, having to prove that you at least know how to load a gun, much less shoot it, doesn't seem too crazy.

Don't throw around constitutional amendments willy-nilly, but still. The culture is completely different now.

 

[ndcent]

Not particularly arguing one way or the other, but don't forget that the Constitution was originally written almost 230 years ago and has been amended many time since then.

It's pretty common knowledge that the world was less 'civilized' back then. Everyone and their baby carried around some form of firearm and pretty regulary used it during everyday life. General proficiency was assumed back then. Hunting, self defense from wild animals, defense from natives, etc. Everyone new how to carry, load, clean, shoot, check for bad bullets before usage, etc.

Nowadays, in a lot of places, the only requirement for gun ownership is simply being 18/21 and NOT a criminal or verifiably insane. You're allowed to legally carry it around in some places even if you've never fired a firearm before in your life.

Is sticking to 200+ year old customs simply because they are 200+ years old really the smartest thing to do? Again, the constitution has been amended many times to stay 'up to date'.

Not trying to take guns away AT ALL, but now that proficiency CAN'T be assumed, having to prove that you at least know how to load a gun, much less shoot it, doesn't seem too crazy.

Don't throw around constitutional amendments willy-nilly, but still. The culture is completely different now.

"Since zero women & zero people of color weighed in on US constitution when it was written, I assume it may occasionally need a few updates."

 

[AntleredRuin]

"Since zero women & zero people of color weighed in on US constitution when it was written, I assume it may occasionally need a few updates."

Not sure what snarky point you're trying to make here as it's pretty obvious that I don't specifically disagree. That just seemed sarcastic for the sake of sarcasm.
If there's something in the constitution that specifically singles out (or specifically doesn't) women and colored people that hasn't already been amended, then sure, let's take a second look.
While I do believe in being 'constitutional', it's occasionally necessary to update the constitution to have it match the basic culture we live in now. Things like electricity made a VAST difference in how the whole country operated, economically and socially.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[ndcent]

Not sure what snarky point you're trying to make here as it's pretty obvious that I don't specifically disagree. That just seemed sarcastic for the sake of sarcasm.
If there's something in the constitution that specifically singles out (or specifically doesn't) women and colored people that hasn't already been amended, then sure, let's take a second look.
While I do believe in being 'constitutional', it's occasionally necessary to update the constitution to have it match the basic culture we live in now. Things like electricity made a VAST difference in how the whole country operated, economically and socially.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Your post just reminded me of that quote I recently read is all. Eesh.

 

[AntleredRuin]

Your post just reminded me of that quote I recently read is all. Eesh.

Oh geez ok then I apologize. I saw the quotation marks, but didn't put 2 and 2 together. I didn't realized you were quoting someone; I thought you were just being sarcastic. My mistake. Sorry about that.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[ThorInc]

Oh geez ok then I apologize. I saw the quotation marks, but didn't put 2 and 2 together. I didn't realized you were quoting someone; I thought you were just being sarcastic. My mistake. Sorry about that.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Yeah well he did not include the quote's source so he had me a wee bit confused as well. Just though I would throw that in for good measure, :eyebrows:

 

[ndcent]

Yeah well he did not include the quote's source so he had me a wee bit confused as well. Just though I would throw that in for good measure, :eyebrows:

A lot of times I'll exclude the quotee because if it's something that peaked your interest you tend to look it up and learn/read more.

I wish more people did this.

 

[Hepar]

EVERYDAY - we hear liberals state "it's not religion" ... "you have to be PC and know that this has nothing to do with religion"

layball:

Are these quotes from an actual credible source? Because there is a very distinct and important difference between saying religion has nothing to do with it and the condemning of an entire religion based on these acts.

 

[Hepar]

There is a very distinct and important difference between saying religion has nothing to do with it (something I've heard many times) and admitting that religion, albiet only a small sect of one religion has A LOT to do with these attacks.

Couldn't agree more. I'm just curious to where you've heard that religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[1engineer]

Are these quotes from an actual credible source? Because there is a very distinct and important difference between saying religion has nothing to do with it and the condemning of an entire religion based on these acts.

So let's take it a step further:

If it IS a specific religion based (it is) then what's the answer to prevent these guys from committing terrorist acts?

We know they will not police themselves.
We know they will strike again and again, all in the name of religion.
We know there are just a small percentage of them that are wicked bad but they won't speak up.

What is the answer? What is "a" answer?

One answer is to condemn an entire religion.
Another answer is to identify some of the players and kill them. (doing this now with no measurable effect, as evidenced by the recent attacks globally.)
Another answer is to take the fight to them and invade.
Another answer is to do nothing and hope it goes away.

Is there another answer? Sort of need one quick before they get too big.

If we continue along this current course of action, I think that eventually these bad guys will continue to grow and bring the west to their knees from fear. ISIS will continue to grow.

I would love to have an answer from either side on how best to handle this that does not condemn a whole religion but will be effective. In reality the Muslims as a whole should take care of this but they have not yet and don't look like they will.

 

[Hepar]

I'm not going to answer this with direct links because I read a lot of articles, a lot of comments sections, a lot of T4R threads, listen to a lot of radio, a lot of talk shows (not radio talk shows) and have literally heard this HUNDREDS of times.

I even heard it at lunch last week. If you haven't heard fellow (or not fellow) liberals express this then I guess we travel in a totally different America.

I highly suggest avoiding the comments section of articles. It does little more than show the high percentage of ignorance and stupidity that exists. And that's on both sides of the coin.

And honestly, I personally have never heard anyone say that it has nothing to do with religion, so maybe we do travel in a different America.

 

[Hepar]

If we continue along this current course of action, I think that eventually these bad guys will continue to grow and bring the west to their knees from fear. ISIS will continue to grow.

Already happening.

And I don't have the answer, but am open to all viable solutions. I just know one solution that should never be discussed in any of it is the condemning of an entire religion. That is a very dangerous path.

 

[Hepar]

This is a pretty decent example of the sentiment. Bill simply expresses this is related to religion. He doesn't say "all xxx people", he just says relgion is a factor. Ben practically has a PC police meltdown.

Ben is a perfect example of what we're seeing again on both sides of the coin. Hearing a few keywords or phrases that cause an emotional reaction, then reacting based on that emotion. No thought to the whole. That's why I always stress to people if they get emotional, take a break. Because you'll never listen to what is said, but only what you want to hear.

And just to clarify, when I said personally I meant face to face. I know people have and continue to say that. But people (again, no matter what side of the political coin you fall) make some of the most ridiculous statements all the time. Which is why I asked for credible. When credible sources start perpetuating that thought, that's when I'd have an issue with it.

 

[Hepar]

Btw, I disagree with your statement about the comment section of article. Some of the best balance and thought can be found in the comment sections, whether it is the WashPo, NYT, WSJ, whatever. I take comments with a grain of salt, just like I do the articles. We all know the corporate media is not very good at their jobs and sometimes they are downright incompetent. Usually when I read comments I will read about 20-25 for perspective on an article. It only takes 2-5 minutes and provides a lot of balance.

Here's an example [MENTION=56396]Hepar[/MENTION] - this mornings Wash Post article (below) talks about how ISIS targeted foreigners and elites in their attack on the cafe but barely touched on the fact that they lined people up and checked if they were Muslim then killed the non muslims. A similar thing happened in the BocaHaram attack at the mall in Kenya 2 years ago. I know this because it was mentioned in the comments. The article mostly glossed over it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...l?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wv-attacks-1116am

:bat:

I agree too about the comments section. It was more of a sarcastic remark on how they can represent so much ridiculousness. It was my mistake for writing it here being so much would be lost in translation through written text on an Internet thread. But 100% agree that they can also provide insight that otherwise may have been overlooked or mistakes that may have been present within the article.

And omitting certain facts aren't the same as saying the facts don't exist or are different. Especially when plenty of articles are focusing on those facts too.


At least 22 dead in 10-hour standoff with Islamic State

 

[hikenbike]

Another answer is to identify some of the players and kill them. (doing this now with no measurable effect, as evidenced by the recent attacks globally.)

.

This is an opinion which could be very wrong to think that only the bad you see in the news is the whole picture.

Right or wrong, IMO little of what you've seen the past few weeks resonates with most Americans. The most recent attacks are abroad where any intelligence and protections are questionable at best. Only the most fearful of Americans (who will be fearful to the grave regardless) will give a damn. Even the Orlando attack falls into the same category since most Americans see it as a whack who had it out for those types of people......and nothing more than that.......an isolated instance based on one persons hate.

The level of "fear" that exists is greatly exaggerated IMO. Very different perspectives depending on your daily lives. For people that don't spend much time around a diverse group of people, they are thinking we're under vicious attack. A friend is a doctor who drives 40 min to work in his Audi is far more fearful than I who commutes on 6 trains per day in NYC surrounded by many who really look like they could be a seriously bad dude, and yet like many others either fall asleep or get comfortably immersed in reading the morning news.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Porqupine82]

Thats an opinion. Theres also the very real possibility that even more could have been killed in a dark, loud, crowded nightclub if more guns were present. No?

I'll take my chances.

What should we do, let theme have at it?