Repeal the second amendment or im moving to canada aka heaven

 

next up, repeal the first amendment so people cant say mean things or im moving to france aka heaven deux

 

You sure you have any skills those countries want?

---

This confirms the conservative suspicion that the left thinks guns commit crimes all by themselves

Says the guy who thinks anyone should be able to buy one - that makes sense. What on earth do you need an ar15 for anyway? Is your penis that minuscule?

---

1.)The father shouldn't have been in the country.

 

Why? From my understanding the father was admitted to the country in the Reagan years, before there even was a Taliban. While I am not aware of exactly why he was admitted, I wonder what your reasons are for banning him entry.



2.) if you publicly swear allegiance to a foreign power or terrorist cell and express the desire to harm Americans your citizenship should be revoked.

 

While I wonder what the legal possibilities are involving revoking citizenship, I think I understand the gist of what you are saying, and tend to agree with it. Could we at least agree that we believe doing so should be considered seditious or a form of assault and prosecutable?



3.) San Bernardino was a migrant here on a fiancé visa.

Not sure what your point is. (Ah, will address below, hopefully)



4.) boston: asylum seekers.

Not sure what your point is.(Ah, will address below, hopefully)



5.) 9-11 over stayed student visas in some cases.

I am going to treat this a bit differently than the above. I have no problem with enforcing limits to Visas, but how? Bench warrants, visits by individuals to last known residence followed by deportation or review? Again, not sure I oppose these, just wondering what is involved.



Is there a magic bullet? No. Are there logical steps that we should take as a country? Yes.


Stop importing people from parts of the world that don't share our basic values.

I would say that depends on what those values are. If we are talking about say, not killing innocent people, hey, all for that. If we are talking about a blanket ban on Muslims, I totally disagree. Furthermore, What if the people seem to agree with our basic values, but the part of the world might not? Wouldn't that make them especially in need of refugee status?



All those that do come into the country must be affirmatively vetted over long periods of time.

Somewhere in this thread there was a link to a situation involving a few idiots shooting folks at a cartoonist thing in Texas I believe. From what I recall, the FBI had investigated them well prior to the incident, and had sent a bulletin to the local authorities prior to the attack. I am wondering if we could use this as sort of a discussion point for what more we should do, and how we should do it. 



The importance of assimilation and maintaining our culture can never take a back seat to PCism.

I would say that depends on your definition of assimilation and PCism. For example, to use an example that is probably not 'PC', I don't really care if all of the above immigrants in your example refuse to use a fork, always use their right hand to eat, only eat goats that are halal, were conventional dress, never learn English(though I think that would make their involvement as active citizens a richer experience), etc etc. I would like them to pay their taxes, not be a burden on society, and most importantly, not harm their fellow citizens. 

jj, thanks for outlining what you see as relevant. While I disagree with some of what you have outlined, I appreciate your supplying some substantive solutions. I guess after reading what you wrote and replying to it, the main question I have is who would you not grant Visas/Citizenship to? It sounds like the answer might be 'anyone from a Middle Eastern, Asian, or African country that is predominantly Muslim', but I don't want to misrepresent your views. Again, these are not just questions for you. I think it was Marty who very early on in this thread ventured that the response from the 'right' would be to limit immigration, and the response on the 'left' would be gun control. So far, that seems to sort of be on target. I think both sides have some merit in their points.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Is more likely a tribal statement? You know this how? There is nothing eye opening other than you coming to your own conclusions based on what you read. You state his quote is more than likely a tribal statement backed with nothing else other than that is what you feel. You aren't being objective. That isn't objective.


I simply stated I would not believe anything the father is saying. Maybe he is telling the truth and maybe he isn't. I have no clue. His son pledging his allegiance to ISIS during the killings and his dad showing support to the Taliban movement is not what one would call normal behavior. Obviously the son is a psycho and the dad, IMO, can't be trusted. You took me stating that I don't trust him and inferred I believed in something I do not. You seem to be doing that on what you wrote above. You have no idea what he is more than likely stating, but you state it anyways. That isn't objective, that is bias.

Jt, I urge you to go and read the wall street journal article I linked. Additionally there are several sources that have reported that the idiot monster that did this claimed allegiance to two middle eastern factions that are opposed to each other... and there's a possibility that the dude was a self loathing homosexual.


I'm providing information to you, this information is from news sites that go against my political leanings. As I said, I may not be completely objective. But I an being as objective as I can be.

---

You sure you have any skills those countries want?

I've heard there's a shortage of bartenders in Quebec Pulse type bars . So, maybe.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Says the guy who thinks anyone should be able to buy one - that makes sense. What on earth do you need an ar15 for anyway? Is your penis that minuscule?

Seriously?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Says the guy who thinks anyone should be able to buy one - that makes sense. What on earth do you need an ar15 for anyway? Is your penis that minuscule?

  

Seriously?

Think he's just checking your " pulse" .

---

Blakes Life Matters

I think most people would think someone who wants people to die simply for living life that has zero effect on anyone else is a psycho.  He is no better than the ISIS sympathizers and extremists.

Yeah, they're really no better.  


Of course the response of some Muslims has also been absolutely disgusting.  Someone translated some of their responses, and they're just as bad.  (I don't think I can link to it here).  A lot of people are actually okay with what this guy did.  And that's not okay.  People who support this guy might as well join ISIS.  Even if they aren't Muslim.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You sure you have any skills those countries want?

What, badgering people isn't a desirable skill set?

---

Is more likely a tribal statement?  You know this how?  There is nothing eye opening other than you coming to your own conclusions based on what you read.  You state his quote is more than likely a tribal statement backed with nothing else other than that is what you feel.  You aren't being objective.  That isn't objective.

 

I simply stated I would not believe anything the father is saying.  Maybe he is telling the truth and maybe he isn't.  I have no clue.  His son pledging his allegiance to ISIS during the killings and his dad showing support to the Taliban movement is not what one would call normal behavior.  Obviously the son is a psycho and the dad, IMO, can't be trusted.  You took me stating that I don't trust him and inferred I believed in something I do not.  You seem to be doing that on what you wrote above.  You have no idea what he is more than likely stating, but you state it anyways.  That isn't objective, that is bias.

 

"He also said this wasn't a religious act. And of course that was not true. I wouldn't believe anything he has to say. "
Seems to me to indicate not that you have no idea about his veracity, but that you disbelieve him.

 
His Dad said on one of his shows “Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up." I'm simply stated I wouldn't believe anything his father has to say. If you want to believe someone who says our warrior brothers in the Taliban movement as a trust worthy figure than by all means.
A couple of things here. First, contrary to the write-up in the Journal, the quote in the Post does seem to indicate at least some sympathy with the Taliban. I am no fan of the Taliban, just noting that the way I read it, you seem to indicate that that video makes him untrustworthy. 

 
Obviously the son is a psycho and the dad, IMO, can't be trusted.  You took me stating that I don't trust him
Umm, wth? Can you parse this? 

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

 

<div>"He also said this wasn't a religious act. And of course that was not true. I wouldn't believe anything he has to say. "
Seems to me to indicate not that you have no idea about his veracity, but that you disbelieve him.

 
His Dad said on one of his shows “Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up." I'm simply stated I wouldn't believe anything his father has to say. If you want to believe someone who says our warrior brothers in the Taliban movement as a trust worthy figure than by all means.
A couple of things here. First, contrary to the write-up in the Journal, the quote in the Post does seem to indicate at least some sympathy with the Taliban. I am no fan of the Taliban, just noting that the way I read it, you seem to indicate that that video makes him untrustworthy. 

 
Obviously the son is a psycho and the dad, IMO, can't be trusted.  You took me stating that I don't trust him
Umm, wth? Can you parse this? 

 

</div>

 

The dad is something of a nut job. Ok, maybe a complete nut job. One of the articles I read said he declared himself a candidate for the Afghan presidency, but it was about a week after the election.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

The dad is something of a nut job. Ok, maybe a complete nut job. One of the articles I read said he declared himself a candidate for the Afghan presidency, but it was about a week after the election.

Yeah, seems a bit whack. The thing is, from what I read in the Article in the post, it sounded like he might have been somewhat pro-Taliban. Yet the Post article seemed to indicate there was no evidence of pro-Taliban sympathies. And the son declares allegiance to ISIS. And ISIS and the Taliban hate each other. So confusing. I am reminded of that scene in Life of Brian. What ever happened to the Popular Front? He's over there. Splitter!!!

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

To answer your first question, I do think that the "final nail in the coffin" so-to-speak was the attack on 9/11. Events that happened after that are directly a result of us finally saying "enough is enough" regarding terrorist attacks. As far as the causes leading up to us declaring the War on Terror, what immediately comes to my mind is the <a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis'>hostage crisis in Iran</a>. However, there were events leading up to that which are really the root cause. It basically boils down to predominately Muslim countries choosing a government that follows religious (in this case Sharia) law. As the world became more "Westernized" there were some that were so much against what "Westernized" was really all about.


To answer your second question, that's pretty difficult. At what point should we impose and enforce our version of Freedom on other countries? As an example, because a certain country and their people think that women should have to dress a certain way (<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab'>hijabs</a>) or outlaws gay activity with the consequence of death. Does that mean that we need to invade them and "fix" their country? I would say no. However, if a country harbors people (including their own government) that want to kill us or our allies because we don't follow their beliefs, then I have a problem with that.



1. Why?


2. I can agree with this, but what's the point? He did it as he was committing the crime.


3. Only one was a migrant, the other was a citizen.


4. So is there any reason that they shouldn't have been allowed asylum prior to the bombing? After all, both migrated here at a young age.

1.) cultural antithesis.


2.) he did it several times before the attack that contributed to the FBI investigations and reports by his coworker. Any of those incidents should have lead to his termination as a defacto government contractor. Due to his profession he had a gun license higher than CC that would have shielded him from most gun restrictions being proposed.


3.) demonstrable proof our vetting sucks.


4.) cultural antithesis.


There are enough people in this country with problems we can't pay for.

---

Deal with the facts, friend. You nor anyone knows what lies in the heart of another man. I heard his interview and he made a statement on the public record.


He said he believes homosexuality is wrong, but that no man can pass judgment, that is "God's job"-- his words.


You have to concede these facts.


The world is not going crazy, you are highlighting certain things, ignoring other things in order to create a false narrative that you are now deluding yourself into thinking is reality.

What facts? What's he supposed to say? I applaud what my son did please arrest me as a possible accomplice?

---

In a nut shell, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.


It's been a while since I've been to a rave, but from my recollection, it's very dark, very loud, and there are these strobe light things that make it very difficult to see clearly. With that and the loudness of the music and acoustics of buildings like that, it would be difficult to identify a bad guy with a gun against the back drop of 300 good guys with guns.


I know, I saw Face/Off too... it seems like all you have to do is dual wield your golden hand guns and dive over the bar as you place 12 slugs right in the torso of the bad guy, with the precision grouping of a sniper, topping it off with the kill shot right between the eyes as you wink at the cute blonde you have just heroically saved from imminent doom---


But yeah, that's not how life works... there is this thing called friendly fire which has been known to happen, even with our highly trained military personnel.


But yeah, 300 nra members are totally gonna all be heros and dead eyes, and know who the bad guy is, nobody will mistake an innocent holding a gun in the middle of a dark loud chaotic rave as the bad guy. /s

You, essentially, added nothing to the conversation with that comment. How much experience do you have with weapon? When was the last time you shot one? Have you fired one? It sounds like you're speaking out of inexperience and pretending it's based on how "life works".


It doesn't take a big, choreographed scene to shoot someone. Absent a no-light situation, I would be confident that I (and millions of others) could've shot him early in his rampage.


I'm also not saying that none of the things you mentioned are impossibilities, either. I'm telling you that they're unlikely. I wonder how much "friendly fire" would have mattered to the fifty dead party-goers. I can't understand the logic behind not doing anything to save your life or that of another is a better situation than shooting at the murderer taking shots at innocents. Also, how many people do you think would have be behind him? Do you think they flocked toward him? I guarantee you that he would have been standing alone as others run for their life.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...didnt-die/

---

To answer your first question, I do think that the "final nail in the coffin" so-to-speak was the attack on 9/11.  Events that happened after that are directly a result of us finally saying "enough is enough" regarding terrorist attacks.  As far as the causes leading up to us declaring the War on Terror, what immediately comes to my mind is the hostage crisis in Iran.  However, there were events leading up to that which are really the root cause.  It basically boils down to predominately Muslim countries choosing a government that follows religious (in this case Sharia) law.  As the world became more "Westernized" there were some that were so much against what "Westernized" was really all about.

 

To answer your second question, that's pretty difficult.  At what point should we impose and enforce our version of Freedom on other countries?  As an example, because a certain country and their people think that women should have to dress a certain way (hijabs) or outlaws gay activity with the consequence of death.  Does that mean that we need to invade them and "fix" their country?  I would say no.  However, if a country harbors people (including their own government) that want to kill us or our allies because we don't follow their beliefs, then I have a problem with that.

 

 

1.  Why?

 

2.  I can agree with this, but what's the point?  He did it as he was committing the crime.

 

3.  Only one was a migrant, the other was a citizen.

 

4.  So is there any reason that they shouldn't have been allowed asylum prior to the bombing?  After all, both migrated here at a young age.

 

I agree with you regarding 9/11.  I think it would be safe to say that 2001 was the beginning of the war on Terror.  Here's something I always found stupid, and didn't understand how anyone could buy into it--- Right after 9/11 everyone was asking, "why"  why did they do this.  And the Bush/Cheney administration decided to say it was because "they hated our freedom".  What a load of Mike Mularkey.  I don't understand why anyone would think this was a legit.  The USA was a superpower and the beacon for western civilization since for the longest time.  The middle east didn't just wake up and realize that we wear jeans and our women vote and shave thier legs.  It was the stupidest reason and is part of the problem we still have today.

 

Many still do no understand why middle easterners, specifically from certain countries are wanting to attack us.  And it's not because of our western society.  They are attacking us because of our imperialism, that's my take on it.

 

One thing to back up my point...  Iran is a theocratic country.  But, besides postering, they are not involved in any of these terrorist acts.  Yes, one can say they fund certain groups, but they are not directly involved.  It's not about religion, it's about something else.  These specific middle easterners feel wrong by the USA's involvment in thier lands and are lashing out.  I don't believe this has anything to do with religion.  It's much simpler than that.  Now, don't get me wrong, ISIS is clearly using religion to recruit individuals, to make the fight bigger than just thier own self interests.  

 

Remember Ireland?  The protestant v. catholic war was more about britain's oppression of Ireland's freedoms.  People said that that war would never end because of it's religous foundation.  But once both parties could agree in principles to recognize Ireland's freedom, did not the "religous" war end?  I think it's important to realize the similarities there.

 

Now we totally jacked up the middle east because of Bush/Cheney., thier excuse that they hate our freedom should have been a warning sign that they had no idea what the hell they were doing.  But here we are, a vacuum in Afganastan and Iraq has lead to a whole bunch of radicals that are using religion to recruit people to fight a war that in effect is a grab for power and a fight against the imperalistic western countries that screwed up the region.  It's more a political fight than it is a religious one.  In my opinion.

---

Yeah, seems a bit whack. The thing is, from what I read in the Article in the post, it sounded like he might have been somewhat pro-Taliban. Yet the Post article seemed to indicate there was no evidence of pro-Taliban sympathies. And the son declares allegiance to ISIS. And ISIS and the Taliban hate each other. So confusing. I am reminded of that scene in Life of Brian. What ever happened to the Popular Front? He's over there. Splitter!!!

 

First of all, I agree with everyone that thinks the dad is a wackadoo...  Seems like the nut didnt' fall far from the tree....  Second, I'm no expert of Afghani/Pakastani tribal relationships so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt...

 

But here goes:  Remember that these borders are all artificial.  It's like the states of the USA landing on top of native american territories.  So to me, the article is trying to point out, as best as the writer can, that his Pro-Taliban sympathies is not because of the Taliban's ideologies as a terror organization and enemy of the USA...  But more that he recognizes his nationality as being closer to the Taliban's nationality as compared to those over on the pakistani side.

 

That's what I'm gathering from what I've read.

---

I agree with you regarding 9/11.  I think it would be safe to say that 2001 was the beginning of the war on Terror.  Here's something I always found stupid, and didn't understand how anyone could buy into it--- Right after 9/11 everyone was asking, "why"  why did they do this.  And the Bush/Cheney administration decided to say it was because "they hated our freedom".  What a load of Mike Mularkey.  I don't understand why anyone would think this was a legit.  The USA was a superpower and the beacon for western civilization since for the longest time.  The middle east didn't just wake up and realize that we wear jeans and our women vote and shave thier legs.  It was the stupidest reason and is part of the problem we still have today.

 

Many still do no understand why middle easterners, specifically from certain countries are wanting to attack us.  And it's not because of our western society.  They are attacking us because of our imperialism, that's my take on it.

 

One thing to back up my point...  Iran is a theocratic country.  But, besides postering, they are not involved in any of these terrorist acts.  Yes, one can say they fund certain groups, but they are not directly involved.  It's not about religion, it's about something else.  These specific middle easterners feel wrong by the USA's involvment in thier lands and are lashing out.  I don't believe this has anything to do with religion.  It's much simpler than that.  Now, don't get me wrong, ISIS is clearly using religion to recruit individuals, to make the fight bigger than just thier own self interests.  

 

Remember Ireland?  The protestant v. catholic war was more about britain's oppression of Ireland's freedoms.  People said that that war would never end because of it's religous foundation.  But once both parties could agree in principles to recognize Ireland's freedom, did not the "religous" war end?  I think it's important to realize the similarities there.

 

Now we totally jacked up the middle east because of Bush/Cheney., thier excuse that they hate our freedom should have been a warning sign that they had no idea what the hell they were doing.  But here we are, a vacuum in Afganastan and Iraq has lead to a whole bunch of radicals that are using religion to recruit people to fight a war that in effect is a grab for power and a fight against the imperalistic western countries that screwed up the region.  It's more a political fight than it is a religious one.  In my opinion.

 

I tend to agree.  It's not that "they hate our freedom."   That's bovine excrement.   I think that a large part of Arab resentment of the United States is because of

 

1) our hypocrisy and greed.   We say we support democracy and human rights, but at the same time we prop up the Saudi royal family and other non-democratic kingdoms in the region, because we want their oil.  

 

2) our support for Israel, which many Arabs see as a European colony which was placed in their midst by outside powers.  

 

A lot of Arabs just want the United States and its allies to go away and stop trying to run the Middle East.  What ISIS wants is the opposite: they want to draw us into a war, with the West on one side and all Muslims on the other side.   I suspect that we will see more terrorist incidents over the coming months, in an attempt to influence the election and get Trump elected President.   I suspect that ISIS would love for Trump to ban Muslims from entering the United States, because that will enable them to "prove" that the United States is in the Middle East because we hate Muslims.  

 

That's what a lot of people don't understand.   ISIS and Al Qaeda don't want us out of the Middle East, they want to draw us into the Middle East.   They believe that the more we are in the Middle East, the easier it will be for them to recruit followers.  

 

Edit: also, I would  add, we (The West) sends sexually related images and videos into their homes via the Internet.   These people are pretty straight-laced, and here we are producing and exporting [BAD WORD REMOVED] free on demand to everyone in the world, corrupting their society with it. 

---

I agree with you regarding 9/11.  I think it would be safe to say that 2001 was the beginning of the war on Terror.  Here's something I always found stupid, and didn't understand how anyone could buy into it--- Right after 9/11 everyone was asking, "why"  why did they do this.  And the Bush/Cheney administration decided to say it was because "they hated our freedom".  What a load of Mike Mularkey.  I don't understand why anyone would think this was a legit.  The USA was a superpower and the beacon for western civilization since for the longest time.  The middle east didn't just wake up and realize that we wear jeans and our women vote and shave thier legs.  It was the stupidest reason and is part of the problem we still have today.

 

Many still do no understand why middle easterners, specifically from certain countries are wanting to attack us.  And it's not because of our western society.  They are attacking us because of our imperialism, that's my take on it.

 

One thing to back up my point...  Iran is a theocratic country.  But, besides postering, they are not involved in any of these terrorist acts.  Yes, one can say they fund certain groups, but they are not directly involved.  It's not about religion, it's about something else.  These specific middle easterners feel wrong by the USA's involvment in thier lands and are lashing out.  I don't believe this has anything to do with religion.  It's much simpler than that.  Now, don't get me wrong, ISIS is clearly using religion to recruit individuals, to make the fight bigger than just thier own self interests.  

 

 

 

I have to say...  THIS IS A LIE!  We fought off the russians and gave afghan back to the afghan people.  We fought of sadam and gave kuwait back tot he Kuwaities.  We gave Iraq back to Iraq.  We didn't even take the oil resources that we could have taken that is now being used to fund the largest terror group in history.  We spend billions of dollars defending Saudi Arabia.  

 

Those aren't acts of imperialism!

 

I'll make it really simple, there is a young girl in Iraq.  She just woke up this morning.  She is probably about 9-10 years old.  her life now is as a sex slave.  No matter how much she kicks no matter how much she screams she is going to be rapped, over and over and over again.  As she is lying there feeling their hot breath on her skin, being violated in ways that she isn't even old enough to understand, what imperial sins are you going to accuse her of?  Did she inspire bush?  Was she in on the meetings with Dick Cheyne?  

 

There's a woman in Saudi Arabia that wishes she could go to work without her fathers permission.  She wishes that she could drive a car.  Is she being punished because she worked at the state department?

 

There is a gay man in Qatar that is about to be thrown off of a building.  Are you going to tell him that it's ok, he deserves it because he worked at the state department.  

 

Trying to excuse these acts or worse, blame the US is frankly despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself sir.

---