Guns, Guns Guns

Daryl, If you believe this, why are you not giving up your weapons. Correct me if I am wrong but you own rifles and/or semi automatic hand guns. I you feel so strongly about this issue, man up and lead by example. No...I then in this instance call you a hypocrite.

This people have been attacking western civilization for a while. Their stated goal is world wide sharia law and muslim ruled governments. Does this type of attack really surprise anyone? Remember America is "the Great Satan!" These attacks are only going to increase. Islam jihadists would rather kill you than help you.

Just to point out that I have not been to a night club or bar in many years! So I just assumed that they have armed security and metal detectors at the clubs. That's my bad because I did not think that through. A weapon would not be ideal in a club. Booze and women....definitely not a good idea to have weapons on a person.

Daryl wrote:I know that I'm wasting my time typing this but be aware that among the international headlines concerning this atrocity, there are some saying words to the tune of "Wait for it, the US gun loonies will now claim that the fix for gun massacres is more guns". As predicted here it is.

No point in pointing out the obvious but why have assault rifles legally available to anyone with the cash? I have used them on the range and in hunting feral pigs, but really they have only one true function, to kill humans wholesale.

smr wrote:This people have been attacking western civilization for a while. Their stated goal is world wide sharia law and muslim ruled governments. Does this type of attack really surprise anyone? Remember America is "the Great Satan!" These attacks are only going to increase. Islam jihadists would rather kill you than help you.

No, in a country with a homophobic population as vocal as yours, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

To each his own hatred...I shall pray for peace upon your soul. God Bless! I pray for the victims families.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:This people have been attacking western civilization for a while. Their stated goal is world wide sharia law and muslim ruled governments. Does this type of attack really surprise anyone? Remember America is "the Great Satan!" These attacks are only going to increase. Islam jihadists would rather kill you than help you.


No, in a country with a homophobic population as vocal as yours, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Here's an idea: Why not institute the same process for prospective gun owners that women who want an abortion have to go through?

Mandatory 48 hour wait period, signed note from a professional that proves that you understand and acknowledge the responsibility you take on, instructional videos about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound exam (just because). Close down all but one gun shop in a several hundred mile radius, make you stay in an unknown city for the night and lose days off work, and make him run a gauntlet of people holding up photos of loved ones shot to death, calling you a murderer and begging you not to go through with what you are about to do.

(I can't take credit for this idea, as it popped up in my twitter feed without attribution, but I do like it a lot)

The E wrote:

smr wrote:This people have been attacking western civilization for a while. Their stated goal is world wide sharia law and muslim ruled governments. Does this type of attack really surprise anyone? Remember America is "the Great Satan!" These attacks are only going to increase. Islam jihadists would rather kill you than help you.

No, in a country with a homophobic population as vocal as yours, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Freedom of Speech - which is most relevant in the cases of speech which you DISLIKE is very different from actively shooting large numbers of people. The USA is homophobic statement is a red herring. This guy was an Islamic jihadist, inspired by ISIS. If there hadn't been a gay nightclub nearby, he would have found something else on the long list of things Islamic fundamentalists object to. And Obama and Clinton still won't call this Islamic terror.

biochem wrote:Freedom of Speech - which is most relevant in the cases of speech which you DISLIKE is very different from actively shooting large numbers of people. The USA is homophobic statement is a red herring.

Is it? Because anti-LGBT legislation is still part and parcel of the american political discourse. Disparaging statements against LGBT people are still seen as unimportant offences in certain circles.
No, the US as a whole is not more homophobic than other countries. The populace is probably more accepting of these things than their elected mouthpieces, but given that those mouthpieces are setting the tone, it should not be surprising that some people believe that LGBT people are "acceptable" targets (like muslims or blacks or hispanics).

This guy was an Islamic jihadist, inspired by ISIS. If there hadn't been a gay nightclub nearby, he would have found something else on the long list of things Islamic fundamentalists object to. And Obama and Clinton still won't call this Islamic terror.

Because that's irrelevant? The relevant point here is that this guy, who was known as a domestic abuser and was investigated twice for connections to islamic terrorism (albeit, as noted above, without much result as he didn't seem like a risk when those investigations happened) was still able to easily and legally obtain the weapons he used in this attack. This wasn't someone who came from Syria to shoot up a nightclub or whatever. This isn't an "outside attack" of any sort, it's domestic terrorism.

That sob was radicalized recently or used that ideology as an excuse to do what he did. As of 2009 gay acquaintances at that time did not notice anti-gay attitudes. What changed since then?

Assuming that his behavior was purely mental illness or purely driven by radical ideology is likely false. This was a combination of both. Yet, how can both causes be addressed if no one is supposed to even breath a word about how some of the tenets of Islam influencing this sort of thing? Not all Muslims believe in those tenets that powerfully, but enough do to make it a problem.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/world/gunman-florida-massacre-described-quiet-few-friends

All right The E, what is your response to this Muslim Cleric's speech.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/12/orlando-mosque-invited-this-muslim-scholar-to-speak-just-weeks-ago-listen-to-his-message-on-gays/

Here's the deal, he has a right to say it that's guaranteed by the Constitution. You and I just do not have to listen to it or act upon his suggestions. As individuals we are responsible for own actions and thoughts. Did or did not Germany just approve Sharia law in one of the cities or was it for the whole country?

The E, he was not from Syria but from Afghanistan descent. The authorities had chance to stop this but due to Political Correctness, they ignored the warning signs.

God bless! May someone commit a random act of kindness to the E. May Peace and Love flow through your life and family.




Is it? Because anti-LGBT legislation is still part and parcel of the american political discourse. Disparaging statements against LGBT people are still seen as unimportant offences in certain circles.
No, the US as a whole is not more homophobic than other countries. The populace is probably more accepting of these things than their elected mouthpieces, but given that those mouthpieces are setting the tone, it should not be surprising that some people believe that LGBT people are "acceptable" targets (like muslims or blacks or hispanics).

This guy was an Islamic jihadist, inspired by ISIS. If there hadn't been a gay nightclub nearby, he would have found something else on the long list of things Islamic fundamentalists object to. And Obama and Clinton still won't call this Islamic terror.

Because that's irrelevant? The relevant point here is that this guy, who was known as a domestic abuser and was investigated twice for connections to islamic terrorism (albeit, as noted above, without much result as he didn't seem like a risk when those investigations happened) was still able to easily and legally obtain the weapons he used in this attack. This wasn't someone who came from Syria to shoot up a nightclub or whatever. This isn't an "outside attack" of any sort, it's domestic terrorism.[/quote]

smr wrote:Daryl, If you believe this, why are you not giving up your weapons. Correct me if I am wrong but you own rifles and/or semi automatic hand guns. I you feel so strongly about this issue, man up and lead by example. No...I then in this instance call you a hypocrite.

In order for his stance to be hypocritical he would have to be arguing for universal disarmament while owning guns.

He is not.

Saying guns should not be SO RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO GET because they are freaking dangerous, or that it is stupid to argue that the solution to a high number of shootings is to pour more guns into the general population, is not the same thing as saying "take everyone's guns away except mine!"

So no, not hypocritical. At all.

Comment from gay columnist regarding Islamic terrorism in Orlando was to state "now they've come for me" and quote this classic statement:

Martin Niemöller famously wrote, as the Nazis took over control of Germany: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.