LGBT - Terror

Ricter · Jun 13, 2016

The weapons will always be an issue, because some weapons are simply vastly more effective.

CaptainObvious · Jun 13, 2016

conduit said:
Ok, here a perfect suggestion that appeases both sides:

* Muslim extremism will be more closely monitored, prevented, and screened. Government will infiltrate Muslim organizations in order to keep a tab on what is going on there. Immigration by Muslims will be limited or at the very least extremely well background checked.

at the same time

* We start an honest discussion about an unrelated but actually much more important issue, which is gun violence. We will honestly talk about the need of assault weapons and we get on with an honest debate about better screening and possibly a license that involves training for all gun owners and new gun purchasers.

Sound fair?

Fine by me. Isn't going to happen, but it should.

Frederick Foresight · Jun 13, 2016

AAAintheBeltway said:
...another step down the slippery slope

And there it is. Who could possibly have predicted it...

Frederick Foresight said:
Go ahead and ask the NRA about the slippery slope thing and how it's all for the greater good.

conduit · Jun 13, 2016

Ah, in what police state are you living? On the basis of what should the parents be deported???

AAAintheBeltway said:
His parents should be deported immediately but of course that won't happen either.

Ricter · Jun 13, 2016

AAAintheBeltway said:
Wrong. We have the predictable outcome of a suicidal immigration policy.

Columbine? Newtown? Sandy Hook?

Stfu.

CaptainObvious · Jun 13, 2016

Frederick Foresight said:
The killer was profiled. But he was still allowed to purchase the weaponry regardless. Because that's how the Second Amendment presently works.

No, that's not how the second amendment works, that's how law enforcement, or lack thereof presently works. This is not a second amendment issue, it's a law enforcement/anti terrorism issue. If we can't even stop a guy like this who was identifying himself as a terrorist, then we can't stop anyone.

Scataphagos · Jun 13, 2016

conduit said:
Ok, here a perfect suggestion that appeases both sides:

* Muslim extremism will be more closely monitored, prevented, and screened. Government will infiltrate Muslim organizations in order to keep a tab on what is going on there. Immigration by Muslims will be limited or at the very least extremely well background checked.

at the same time

* We start an honest discussion about an unrelated but actually much more important issue, which is gun violence. We will honestly talk about the need of assault weapons and we get on with an honest debate about better screening and possibly a license that involves training for all gun owners and new gun purchasers.

Sound fair?

You seem to constantly miss a big point.

Our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms... is not just to defend ourselves against muggers and Muslim savages. It's also to defend ourselves against "oppressive governments"... both foreign and domestic*.

If the oppressing government (including our own) has battle rifles and the public has only hand guns, the public is effectively disarmed. There is no "half-way" ground. Either we have the right and capability to defend our freedoms or we don't.

Relating an appropriate quote...

"For personal defense you need a hand gun. For defense of your home you need a shot gun or carbine. For defense of your liberty you need a battle rifle".

* In WW II, the Japanese knew they could not invade America, because... "everybody there has a gun".

EXACTLY!!

conduit · Jun 13, 2016

No. and No. At least you are honest about not wanting to move an inch in any direction. That helps a lot when choosing future leaders from either side of the political spectrum in that they can weed out people who are incapable of compromise and focus on those who understand how to bring people together. Life is a compromise and please do not suggest that the few limitations that were so far imposed on your gun games for the sake of saving lives was a true sacrifice or compromise.

AAAintheBeltway said:
No. The former will not happen and the latter is another step down the slippery slope.

wjk · Jun 13, 2016

conduit said:
Ok, here a perfect suggestion that appeases both sides:

* Muslim extremism will be more closely monitored, prevented, and screened. Government will infiltrate Muslim organizations in order to keep a tab on what is going on there. Immigration by Muslims will be limited or at the very least extremely well background checked.

at the same time

* We start an honest discussion about an unrelated but actually much more important issue, which is gun violence. We will honestly talk about the need of assault weapons and we get on with an honest debate about better screening and possibly a license that involves training for all gun owners and new gun purchasers.

Sound fair?

Sounds reasonable to me. Can we go a few steps further? How about greater gov infiltration into organizations that are arming bangers and other criminals. Cut the flow to and then begin to systematically disarm criminals. Use terrorism laws on those who terrorize the inner cities. If the criminal element could be largely disarmed before turning law abiding citizens into criminals for simple ownership, I think great progress could be made in what actually needs to be done regarding gun violence. Wouldn't a discussion on gun violence look a lot different if a large percentage of criminals have been disarmed?

conduit · Jun 13, 2016

lol. Do 23k posts turn one into an ironic being?

Ricter said:
Agreed. Obama, call it what it is: homophobia.