redleger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Muslims: 1,600,000,000
ISIS (highest guess): 300,000
Percentage of Muslims who are part of ISIS: 0.02%

although your math is correct, many support the ideals, without active participation, which is a number no one knows.

 Asherian Command wrote:

You put restrictions on who can own a gun.... AKA

Someone has been listed as a convicted felon, is currently on an FBI watchlist, or has been investigated by the Federal Government on numerous occasions.

 redleger wrote:
OK, here is the deal. You ban semi automatic rifles, then shotguns become the norm. You ban shotguns, pistols become the norm. You ban pistols, revolvers become the norm, you ban revolvers, semi automatic rifles become the norm. You see where this is going.

a bullet from a .22 caliber pistol kills you just as dead as a 5.56 round from a rifle. Banning any form of weapon does not fix the problem. People use tools. The tools are not to blame, the people are. Blame this person. Bombs are banned and they get used.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Boy, a lot of the news sites reporting on this seem to keep mentioning a time he saw some gay men making out in front of his family, and imply that was the reason he went on a shooting spree.

That seems like the dumbest reasoning since they blamed Benghazi on that ridiculous youtube video.

We may not ever know why he did it, exactly, but it seems like they're trying to cover up a more likely terrorism connection by blaming it on him seeing a couple dudes making out.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/adam-lanza-spreadsheet_n_2901377.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/21/sandy-hook-massacre-newtown-connecticut-adam-lanza/19343223/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.

If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar. Or at least that would be the logic behind these kind of laws.

I suspect Texas is similar to Oklahoma in that the law doesn't state you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol and instead states that you cannot carry on a place where the principal business is alcohol sales. The basic rule is that if less than 50% of sales are food, then you cannot carry there. That means that it's okay to carry into all your basic restaurants that serve alcohol.

If my friends want to go to a bar or if my family wants to go to a place where my wife/relatives can have a drink with dinner it makes sense for me to be able to accompany them and just stay sober if I'm carrying. This is no different than requiring people to stay sober if they want to be able to legally drive home.

And my post explained that the law in Oklahoma has no problem with you going to the place with your wife/relatives to eat dinner and where they can have a drink, but says no to hanging out at the bar.

 Manchu wrote:
What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

CptJake wrote:1. 2nd generation are more prone to radicalization.

2. http://www.newsmax.com/US/mateen-orlando-nightclub-saudi-arabia/2016/06/13/id/733568/

3. That is your guess, not based on any actually revealed facts from the investigation.

1. True. Why is that? I suspect the answer is "it depends".

2. Interesting. Saudi Arabia is an "ally" but incredibly shady and the nation of millionaires does fund a sizable portion of terror groups.

3. I thought the "two guys kissing" narrative set him off? It's early days still, so lots of info will be incomplete.

I posted some links that get you started on the answer to 1. It is not 'it depends'.

Syed Farook had also traveled to Saudi. Lots of radicalizing Wahabi influences there without looking for direct ties to the Saudi gov't or royal family. And lots of travel across land borders from Saudi to places known to have jihadi training.

The 'two guys kissing' is what daddy said. Daddy also is a fan of the Talibs. I'll wait for the investigation to turn up more before taking Daddy at his word.

 Frazzled wrote:
Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.

They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.

 Manchu wrote:
What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.

They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.

I don't disagree on principle.

I don't mind the pro-more-gun-control making their case...

nor, do I mind that the pro-gun-ownership making theirs...

Both sides are making their cases (whether poorly or strong). At least we can have this debate.

It's the idea that we're told to shutup about criticizing another's religion. Which isn't... optimal.

Meaning, let's discuss the rampant homophobia perpetuated by these radical extremist...

Can we please?

 Goliath wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Boy, a lot of the news sites reporting on this seem to keep mentioning a time he saw some gay men making out in front of his family, and imply that was the reason he went on a shooting spree.

That seems like the dumbest reasoning since they blamed Benghazi on that ridiculous youtube video.

We may not ever know why he did it, exactly, but it seems like they're trying to cover up a more likely terrorism connection by blaming it on him seeing a couple dudes making out.

Yeah, I don't know why they're trying to connect it at all to homophobia, there's nothing else that connects it other than him going out of his way specifically to target a gay club.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.

They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.

They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.

Its like I am desperately trying to disagree with your statement, but I can't...arghh!!!

One can easily condemn ISIL without condemning Islam. After all, 95% of ISIL's victims are muslims.

 redleger wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.

They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.

I am not in either camp. Truth is, Trump lost me at mention of conentration camps, and Hillary lost me the moment she started running. It pains me to say, if I had to vote it would be Sanders, and even then thats the lesser of several evils. I think people here are just upset at the events, and realize groups will again use this as an excuse to attack one group or the other, instead of coming together and just showing some sympathy. I mean, really, there is nothing we can do, the moment has passed, the damage is done. We all agree it was horrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.

I don't disagree on principle.

I don't mind the pro-more-gun-control making their case...

nor, do I mind that the pro-gun-ownership making theirs...

Both sides are making their cases (whether poorly or strong). At least we can have this debate.

It's the idea that we're told to shutup about criticizing another's religion. Which isn't... optimal.

Meaning, let's discuss the rampant homophobia perpetuated by these radical extremist...

Can we please?

Lets discuss the hold religion has on too many facets of daily life while we are at it.

I agree though, there is a lot of intolerance hidden in the peaceful relgion, but I could show instances of that in most religions. Buddha, that guy got it right though.

 redleger wrote:
looks like 49Ks 53Ws. Based on the latest from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So interesting post I just saw on my FB feed. Not saying I take it one way or the other, however one interesting fact to pull from it, there was another mass shooting that was larger in the US. Unfortunately it was a long time ago, and people in America tend to have short memories.
Placing in spoiler.

Spoiler:

THE LARGEST MASS SHOOTING IN US HISTORY HAPPENED December 29,1890. When 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota were murdered by federal agents & members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

The Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

The Wounded Knee Massacre occurred on December 29, 1890,[5] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota.

The previous day, a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment commanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk's band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38 Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them 5 miles (8.0 km) westward to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp. The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, led by Colonel James W. Forsyth, arrived and surrounded the encampment. The regiment was supported by a battery of four Hotchkiss mountain guns.[6]

On the morning of December 29, the troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.[7] A scuffle over the rifle escalated, and a shot was fired which resulted in the 7th Cavalry opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their fellow soldiers. The Lakota warriors who still had weapons began shooting back at the attacking soldiers, who quickly suppressed the Lakota fire. The surviving Lakota fled, but cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed.

By the time it was over, more than 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300.[8] Twenty-five soldiers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded later died).[9] At least twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.[10] In 2001, the National Congress of American Indians passed two resolutions condemning the awards and called on the U.S. government to rescind them.[11] The site of the battlefield has been designated a National Historic Landmark.[5]

 redleger wrote:
Yea, I edited my statement most likely as you typed it. I already posted on this persons FB page what was wrong with everything about that statement.

 redleger wrote:
well I do agree with resisting anyone stripping away the second amendment, and I do agree this person was definitely manipulating the truth. As I have said, I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, till someone comes in my house, threatens me or my property, even if that person is the Government. Then Ill just be a statistic, and easily forgotten.

But I will not lie, manipulate, or stretch truth to keep a right guaranteed to me and all Americans.

 redleger wrote:
I'm not in any militia, nor will I ever be. I am regular army, and as active duty, the militia (National Guard) is not my cup of tea. that's another whole discussion though. I will never again, after retirement do any sort of organized drilling or anything close to what I do now.

As far as what I mean, I believe in the second amendment, and why it was put in place. Although I also believe there is a large population that would just roll over if the government ever started stripping rights, I am just not one of them.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 redleger wrote:
well I do agree with resisting anyone stripping away the second amendment, and I do agree this person was definitely manipulating the truth. As I have said, I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, till someone comes in my house, threatens me or my property, even if that person is the Government. Then Ill just be a statistic, and easily forgotten.

But I will not lie, manipulate, or stretch truth to keep a right guaranteed to me and all Americans.

Wait the last bit what do you mean?

I mean the American Government can technically disarm militia groups if they threaten the security of the nation. Its not an inalienable right, it is a responsbility you can bare arms, as long as it doesn't threaten others. (IE you threaten someone with your gun)

Then the american government and state governments or just the state government has full rights to revoke your right.

As long as you are law abiding you can bare arms, as long as you don't infringe on others rights. Such as their right to live, and their pursuit of happiness.

Prestor Jon wrote:
...

I don't disagree with your take on Wahabi influences but it's my understanding that the Saudi royal family has a formal obligation to promote and spread Wahabism and would have difficulty maintaining their power if they didn't do so or acted against Wahabism.

 Asherian Command wrote:


I mean the American Government can technically disarm militia groups if they threaten the security of the nation. Its not an inalienable right, it is a responsbility you can bare arms, as long as it doesn't threaten others. (IE you threaten someone with your gun)

Then the american government and state governments or just the state government has full rights to revoke your right.

As long as you are law abiding you can bare arms, as long as you don't infringe on others rights. Such as their right to live, and their pursuit of happiness.