Active shooter, reports of multiple victims in San Bernardino, Calif.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Minx**

DarkLink wrote:
You'll need to elaborate. You mean the oecd stats are incorrect, or falsified? Or that they've been misquoted? And what's your source for claiming the us has the higher mass shooting rate. I've seen a dozen different claims with as many different statistics and as many different criteria.

I don't know whether the oecd numbers are correct, although i would assume they are. They've been presented in a very misleading way though, to show some of the European countries ahead of the USA. Look for the length and start of the quoted time period and more importantly the very low number of incidents in the chosen time frame that leads to these inflated rates. For some of the Scandinavian countries the number of mass shootings is one in the chosen time frame and zero in nearly any other time frame. I wouldn't be comfortable comparing those highly time frame dependent numbers to other countries with much more frequent mass shootings.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's good news for the gun industry when people go out to buy a new weapon after

Another call for "common sense gun control/safety" measures that would have done nothing to prevent the attack, but further erode the Second Amendment

sirlynchmob wrote:
Another way to look at that is a bunch of scared and panicked people are buying guns. It's like the opposite of "responsible gun owners".

And you are going to give us examples of these "scared and panicked people" handling a firearm in a manner that it irresponsible?

sirlynchmob wrote:
People so scared of the people around them you can safely assume a good portion of them have mental health issues that should prevent them from having a gun.

Mental health issues precludes you from lawfully owning a firearm. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the firearms laws in the US should be aware of this, or anyone paying attention to this thread as it has been mentioned on more than one occasion.

sirlynchmob wrote:
so when someone in this black friday group commits a mass shooting we can all go "see he bought the guns legally" thus proving the leftists control freaks waving the banner of 'Common Sense Gun Control' correct.

a bunch of scared, panicked and terrorized people buying guns, what could possible go wrong?
I'm sure with this increase in gun ownership america will finally have enough guns to be the safest country in the world.

Like the common sense gun control in California that is the benchmark across the nation? The same "common sense" gun control that did not stop the straw purchase and the subsequent illegal modification of two of the firearms used?

What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack, or are you just going to rely on smearing people who's choices you disagree with?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The FBI has now changed their opinion of when the radicalization took place.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35055104

The couple behind the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people were radicalised before they started dating, the director of the FBI has said.

James Comey said Tashfeen Malik and husband Syed Farook spoke of jihad and martyrdom during conversations on an online dating service in late 2013.

The FBI believes the duo were inspired by foreign terrorist organisations, but said the investigation is ongoing.

Last week's massacre was the deadliest terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.

The couple were both killed in a shoot-out with police hours after the attack.

Speaking during a Senate hearing in Washington, Mr Comey characterised the couple as "homegrown violent extremists", and said that precise nature of the foreign influence is still under investigation.

Mr Comey made the revelations during testimony on Capitol Hill

Earlier this week, another FBI official said that there was no evidence uncovered so far to suggest the attack was plotted overseas.

Mr Comey said the investigation "indicates that they were actually radicalised before they started courting or dating each other online, and noted discussions they had about jihad before their engagement last year. Malik moved to the US in July 2014 on a visa designed for fiances, and married Farook - a US national - a month later.

The BBC's Jane O'Brien in Washington says the revelation is significant, as it contradicts earlier suggestions that Malik may have radicalised her husband.

More than dozen people were killed in the San Bernardino attack

Meanwhile, the investigation has broadened to examine anybody who may have been "involved with assisting them, with supporting them, with equipping them," the director said.

Over the weekend, police raided the home of Enrique Marquez, a long-time friend and distant relative of Farook who purchased the two large weapons used during the rampage.

Mr Marquez is being questioned by federal investigators. Media reports say that authorities had trouble finding him after the attack, but later found that he had checked into a mental health facility.

Mr Comey was also chided for not securing the couple's home, which allowed journalists to enter and produce reports from inside. The ethics of that reporting was widely debated.

The transfer of the weapons was illegal as it did not have a background check per California law. It will be interesting to see if Mr Marquez has a history of mental illness.

And it appears that this has not been the first plot from this pair, a previous plot was discussed in 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

(CNN)What happened to transform a trained pharmacist and a county health inspector into terrorists, and when did they take that dark turn?

Officials say it could have been years before last week's deadly attack in San Bernardino, California.

Investigators believe shooter Syed Rizwan Farook may have been plotting an earlier attack in California with someone else, two U.S. officials told CNN on Tuesday. One of the officials said the two conspired in 2012 and a specific target was considered. The pair "got spooked" and decided not to go through with the earlier attack after a round of terror-related arrests in the area, an official said.

And sources also told CNN that investigators believe Tashfeen Malik, Farook's wife and the other shooter who opened fire Wednesday, was radicalized at least two years ago.

Investigators are still trying to piece together profiles of the couple who killed 14 people and died in a gunbattle with police last week. They're also working to pinpoint whether anyone in the United States or abroad helped finance and shape the plot.

Farook took out a bank loan for $28,500 in November, multiple law enforcement officials told CNN on Tuesday.

About half the money was given to Farook's mother in the last couple of weeks, one official said, and some of it was spent on household items.

Investigators have accounted for all the money and do not believe any of it was provided to the killers by any outside entity backing the plot, according to one of the sources. Because of that, the officials said the loan is not considered of significant investigative value at this stage.

But one expert told CNN the loan could be another sign that Farook had been preparing for the attack.

"What it indicates is he was financing this operation or his life or his afterlife for his child and mother, using what is now wire fraud and bank fraud, so it's just two more additional charges that the FBI will be looking at," said Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent.

**Nostromodamus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
or are you just going to rely on smearing people who's choices you disagree with?

This one

All we can do is continue to educate, and seek viable proposals that would actually cause meaningful change while still respecting our Constitutionally-protected rights.

**sirlynchmob**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And you are going to give us examples of these "scared and panicked people" handling a firearm in a manner that it irresponsible?

here's what happens when a good guy with a gun tries to be helpful:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Woman-Who-Shot-At-Shoplifters-Gets-Probation--361241471.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WILX_News_10
http://deadstate.org/good-guy-with-a-gun-tries-to-stop-carjacking-shoots-victim-in-the-head-instead-and-bails/
oh and I forgot, who was the guy at a school shooting they interviewed? He had a gun, he was nearby, but refused to do anything to help because he was worried the cops would think he was the shooter.

the usual victims:
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

and won't somebody think of the children:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/death-child-unintentional-shooting/11324717/

**yellowfever**

Hey lynchmob why do you care so much about America's gun laws. If you don't live in America it's none of your concern or business. If you do live in America just move to the commie coast or New York.

**Dreadclaw69**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And you are going to give us examples of these "scared and panicked people" handling a firearm in a manner that it irresponsible?

here's what happens when a good guy with a gun tries to be helpful:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Woman-Who-Shot-At-Shoplifters-Gets-Probation--361241471.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WILX_News_10
http://deadstate.org/good-guy-with-a-gun-tries-to-stop-carjacking-shoots-victim-in-the-head-instead-and-bails/
oh and I forgot, who was the guy at a school shooting they interviewed? He had a gun, he was nearby, but refused to do anything to help because he was worried the cops would think he was the shooter.

the usual victims:
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

and won't somebody think of the children:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/death-child-unintentional-shooting/11324717/

So you didn't show people who were scared and/or panicked, and you quoted an organization that has worked with the Brady Campaign to pass stricter gun control laws. Just to round out your collection of biased links you also include an article from USA Today based on research by the widely discredited Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action who fudged the statistics to get a figure 61% higher than the CDC. The only biased source you excluded was Shooting Tracker that counts people shot with BB guns in their "mass shooting" statistics (and conveniently use their own definition that is at odds with every other commonly accepted one).

You can pick out the isolated incidents but the fact of the matter is that while gun ownership continues to rise the rate of accidental deaths is at an all time low.

Source; CDC

Source; FBI

Here are some examples of defensive gun since the start of December;
http://www.newschannel5.com/news/victims-in-robbery-set-up-turn-tables-on-gunman
http://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/burglar-shot-by-odessa-homeowner
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/police-robbery-suspect-fatally-shot-in-store/36846222
http://6abc.com/news/club-worker-questioned-after-shooting-in-south-philadelphia/1112431/
http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2015/12/06/alleged-attempted-robbery-suspect-found-shot-to-death-in-street/76880000/
http://www.abqjournal.com/686851/news/auto-burglary-may-have-resulted-in-gunfight-police-say.html
http://www.kivitv.com/news/police-intruder-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner

In raw numbers it is commonly accepted that there are between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year by law abiding Americans,

I'll ask you again; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?

**Seaward**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And you are going to give us examples of these "scared and panicked people" handling a firearm in a manner that it irresponsible?

here's what happens when a good guy with a gun tries to be helpful:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Woman-Who-Shot-At-Shoplifters-Gets-Probation--361241471.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WILX_News_10
http://deadstate.org/good-guy-with-a-gun-tries-to-stop-carjacking-shoots-victim-in-the-head-instead-and-bails/
oh and I forgot, who was the guy at a school shooting they interviewed? He had a gun, he was nearby, but refused to do anything to help because he was worried the cops would think he was the shooter.

the usual victims:
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

and won't somebody think of the children:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/death-child-unintentional-shooting/11324717/

Sometimes.

Sometimes it works.

**Relapse**

Seaward wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And you are going to give us examples of these "scared and panicked people" handling a firearm in a manner that it irresponsible?

here's what happens when a good guy with a gun tries to be helpful:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Woman-Who-Shot-At-Shoplifters-Gets-Probation--361241471.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WILX_News_10
http://deadstate.org/good-guy-with-a-gun-tries-to-stop-carjacking-shoots-victim-in-the-head-instead-and-bails/
oh and I forgot, who was the guy at a school shooting they interviewed? He had a gun, he was nearby, but refused to do anything to help because he was worried the cops would think he was the shooter.

the usual victims:
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

and won't somebody think of the children:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/death-child-unintentional-shooting/11324717/

Sometimes.

Sometimes it works.

This right here. To tell the truth, as I've said before, I laugh at the hypocracy of the media in the way they come down on gun violence, churning out reports of admittedly horrific incidents and giving plenty of air time to anti gun activists. All the while, they never say a word about the fact almost nine times more people die from alcohol related causes per year than gun homicides and, in fact, glorify it's consumption through advertising and other means.

**motyak**

Telling a user to not take part in a discussion because they have the wrong flag by their name is NOT constructive, it is in fact spammy if that is the entirety of your post. It is also NOT polite. Therefore it is NOT allowed. This should be common sense, and has been made clear in numerous ot threads

**sirlynchmob**

Seaward wrote:

Sometimes.

Sometimes it works.

so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.

clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.

@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.

**Bromsy**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Seaward wrote:

Sometimes.

Sometimes it works.

so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.

clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.

@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.

The 355 statistic is for mass shootings, not mass murders.

**Relapse**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Seaward wrote:

Sometimes.

Sometimes it works.

so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.

clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.

@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.

Figuring at least 88,000 people a year died from alcohol in the same time frame what does that put the casualty count at? Going from your time frame of 1997we have 1,584,000 people dead of alcohol related causes. Even shaving a quarter of that number for arguments sake still leaves an appalling number killed.
If we average 11, 000 a year killed by drunk drivers since 1997, in other words, people that would have as little warning or control of the situation as if it were a shooter, it comes to 198,000 dead.
The media and political hypocrisy over this is incredible. But most of these people like to drink, so nothing will ever be done, and alcohol will continue to be glorified as compared to spreading fears about gun violence even though alcohol kills far more people annually.

**Breotan**

So, what to do about gun control when terrorists didn't obey the laws already in place? Federal laws, apparently. Oh, wait. Weren't Federal laws broken, too? O.o

PJMedia wrote:Pelosi: California Gun Laws Didn't Stop Terrorists, So 'That's Why We Need a National Gun Law'

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged that even with her home state's strict gun laws the San Bernardino terrorists got their weapons, but argued that's reason to expand the statutes federally nonetheless.

Pelosi was asked on PBS about the fact that the guns used in last week's massacre at a county Christmas party were legally purchased in California, which "has one of the tougher gun control laws in the country."

"Well, it is. And the fact is that's why we need a national gun law so that there is no thought that even though one state may have good laws you can buy guns in another place. These, as you said, were bought in California," Pelosi said.

"But the bigger issue is as follows. Overwhelmingly, the American people support sensible background check legislation, expanding the Brady Bill to include online purchases, straw purchases, I can't qualify, you can, you buy it and you sell it to me, and gun shows."

She added that "the most egregious and the one the American people understand clearly" among pending gun legislation "is that if you are on the FBI no-fly watch list, it doesn't disqualify you or prevent you from buying a gun."

"And the NRA does not allow this Congress to take a vote on that. The NRA on a no-fly, FBI watch list. So on both of those bills it's about the NRA intervening when in fact the American people should call the shots."

Pelosi said she doesn't know what Republican support in Congress might exist for an assault weapons ban, but "the assault weapons are bad things."

"Senator [Dianne] Feinstein has been the champion on this issue. But I think that if you look at not the high profile shootings which are terrible and break our hearts and challenge our conscience, but look at the fact that every night many people are killed throughout our country, most of them not with an assault weapon," she continued. "So if you're going to reduce gun violence in our country, the background check has much more reach than assault weapon ban -- although my colleagues may introduce an assault weapon ban this week as well."

On Campaign 2016, Pelosi predicted that a Donald Trump nomination "would maximize our members of Congress."

"But nonetheless, having said that, it's up to the Republicans to choose their nominee," she added. "We have three great candidates. Any one of them would walk into that Oval Office with all the values of our country, we would be very proud of them whoever she may be."

So, once again, she spouts the same old party line about gun control but doesn't propose a single thing that could possibly make a difference in a situation like this.

**Seaward**

sirlynchmob wrote:

so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.

clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.

Most people in America don't own a gun.

Most gun owners in America don't have a CCL.

Most CCL holders don't actually concealed carry.

Having an armed bystander at the site of a mass shooting when it starts is going to be only slightly less rare than having a unicorn there.

**Dreadclaw69**

sirlynchmob wrote:
@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.

The study was carried out by Kleck and Gertz. This is what one gun control advocate had to say about it;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, who described himself "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" and whose opinion of guns was "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people" defended Kleck's methodology, saying "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator". He went on to say that the NCVS survey did not contradict the Kleck study and that "I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Even if we take the absolute lowest estimate of defensive gun uses by citizens it is still well above the number of deaths due to firearms.

And defensive gun uses typically exclude police from their numbers, so your comment that citizens do not stop crime is wholly incorrect. You can continue to claim that " it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys", but the overwhelming number of incidents were citizens use firearms to defend themselves can only be ignored if you are willfully blind to their existence.

Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?

And before I forget your claim that there has been 355 mass shootings is wholly incorrect, and comes from Shooting Tracker. As mentioned previously their definition is wholly at odds with any accepted definition, and includes incidents were children were playing with BB guns and hit each other. The people behind Shooting Tracker would have you believe that kids playing with pellet guns is as serious an incident as Sandy Hook. Even Mother Jones walked back this claim after they published it, saying the total in 2015 was 4, or 1.12% of the actual incidents claimed.

**Nostromodamus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?

I admire your determination Dreadclaw. Unfortunately anti-gun advocates tend to not actually propose any meaningful solutions that are Constitutionally viable. If they suggest anything at all, it's the same old gak that does nothing but violate the rights of the law-abiding.

Look at our President's latest speech. In one breath he advocates that we shouldn't paint a broad brush over Islam and that all Muslims are not terrorists (which is true, and people need to realize this), but in the next breath he wants to gak all over the rights of all American gun owners just because of the actions of a tiny percentage of madmen. The hypocrisy is astounding.

**Dreadclaw69**

Alex C wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?

I admire your determination Dreadclaw. Unfortunately anti-gun advocates tend to not actually propose any meaningful solutions that are Constitutionally viable. If they suggest anything at all, it's the same old gak that does nothing but violate the rights of the law-abiding.

Look at our President's latest speech. In one breath he advocates that we shouldn't paint a broad brush over Islam and that all Muslims are not terrorists (which is true, and people need to realize this), but in the next breath he wants to gak all over the rights of all American gun owners just because of the actions of a tiny percentage of madmen. The hypocrisy is astounding.

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, and that most people want to act or discuss a topic in good faith. I am giving him that opportunity. Anyone can tell me what they are against, I want to hear what he is for.

As our President said earlier this week from the Oval Office, freedom is more powerful than fear. So that is why he would like to strip people of their fundamental freedoms and right to due process.

**Relapse**

Alex C wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?

I admire your determination Dreadclaw. Unfortunately anti-gun advocates tend to not actually propose any meaningful solutions that are Constitutionally viable. If they suggest anything at all, it's the same old gak that does nothing but violate the rights of the law-abiding.

Look at our President's latest speech. In one breath he advocates that we shouldn't paint a broad brush over Islam and that all Muslims are not terrorists (which is true, and people need to realize this), but in the next breath he wants to gak all over the rights of all American gun owners just because of the actions of a tiny percentage of madmen. The hypocrisy is astounding.

That's true of much of the anti gun crowd.

**Frazzled**

Much of the difficulty with the "sensible gun control" is the limited knowledge of what is already in place legally.

**Nostromodamus**

Frazzled wrote:
Much of the difficulty with the "sensible gun control" is the limited knowledge of what is already in place legally.

Indeed, as well as the limited knowledge of exactly what it is they want to ban.

bs terminology from the anti-gun politicians like "high-powered assault rifles with a 30 magazine clip and a shoulder thing that goes up" just highlight the level of ignorance about the very things they want to ban. It's like they don't even know what they want to ban, but "something must be done", so they just try to parrot what other ignorant people have said before in order to pander to their supporters and get (re)elected.

The levels of restriction already in place in CA are among the highest in the nation (along with such violence-free utopias as Chicago, New York City and D.C.) and yet still they harp on about wanting to feth over everyone's rights, often calling for the very same restrictions that were already law there. In addition, you get the lies about the "gun show loophole" and "internet sales" that they probably couldn't explain if they were asked, but again, it "sounds good" and makes their audience happy so they parrot away the same old gak time after time without actually comprehending what actual law is already in place or offering viable solutions themselves.

Gun owners are disgusted at these shootings too. It's not like we revel in the violence. We don't have wet dreams about getting to shoot people. But for some reason it's becoming socially acceptable to lump us all into the same type of crowd as these psychopaths, treating us as guilty of something first and having to prove that we are not of their ilk in order to exercise what are supposed to be Constitutionally-protected rights. I'm not a psychopath, or a murderer, or a terrorist, so why am I viewed as such simply for wanting to own the most effective tool available to protect myself and my family?

**NuggzTheNinja**

This morning, XM radio was alight with stupidity. On NPR we had an editor for MotherJones lying through his teeth about how people use "automatic weapons" in mass shootings. On literally the next station, we had a Muslim radio host running damage control for Islam's public image.

Sometimes I wonder if leftists aren't actively conspiring to destroy this country.

**Grey Templar**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This morning, XM radio was alight with stupidity. On NPR we had an editor for MotherJones lying through his teeth about how people use "automatic weapons" in mass shootings. On literally the next station, we had a Muslim radio host running damage control for Islam's public image.

Sometimes I wonder if leftists aren't actively conspiring to destroy this country.

Actively? No, but they're too blind to see the damage their "its for your own good!" ideology will/is causing.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Grey Templar wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This morning, XM radio was alight with stupidity. On NPR we had an editor for MotherJones lying through his teeth about how people use "automatic weapons" in mass shootings. On literally the next station, we had a Muslim radio host running damage control for Islam's public image.

Sometimes I wonder if leftists aren't actively conspiring to destroy this country.

Actively? No, but they're too blind to see the damage their "its for your own good!" ideology will/is causing.

The reason I say "I wonder" is because I don't think I could engineer an ideology more destructive to the future of our nation if I tried.

Their ideas literally require the complete suspension of logic in attributing blame. When a Confederacy-loving Christian lunatic kills Americans, they rightly blame the ideology. When an Islamic terrorist cell kills Americans, they blame everything BUT the ideology.

**skyth**

The ideology is blamed. It just isn't allowed to say all of Islam is responsible...Same as you don't blame all of Christians for the Christian terrorists.

We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.

**Nostromodamus**

skyth wrote:

We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please.

You do know what that part means, right?

**NuggzTheNinja**

skyth wrote:
The ideology is blamed. It just isn't allowed to say all of Islam is responsible...Same as you don't blame all of Christians for the Christian terrorists.

We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Are ALL people who fly the Confederate flag mass murderers? Because the leftists where quick to "ban" the Confederate flag.

**skyth**

Flying the Confederate flag has a very strong correlation for being a racist. That is the attitude that emboldens people to engage in terrorism against African American.

**A Town Called Malus**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
skyth wrote:
The ideology is blamed. It just isn't allowed to say all of Islam is responsible...Same as you don't blame all of Christians for the Christian terrorists.

We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Are ALL people who fly the Confederate flag mass murderers? Because the leftists where quick to "ban" the Confederate flag.

No, but the confederate flag was and is a symbol of hatred and bigotry. Would you be okay with public buildings flying the flag of the Third Reich? The confederate flag stood for much of the same values, such as the superiority of one race over others.

So why should such a flag be allowed to be flown over public buildings, which are owned and paid for by the people, in a country where it was written into its very founding that all men are created equal?

**skyth**

Alex C wrote:

You do know what that part means, right?

That it is constitutional to regulate gun owners.

**Nostromodamus**

skyth wrote:
Alex C wrote:

You do know what that part means, right?

That it is constitutional to regulate gun owners.

Incorrect.

"Well regulated" in the verbage of the time meant "well equipped and trained". Because the founders believed that a well equipped and trained militia (which is composed of most of the adult population) was necessary to keep a country free, they installed the second amendment to ensure the government could not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The founders recognised that the right is inherent to all people, it is not something that is granted to anyone. The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.