Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Anyone see this, all over the news.

Nah. Its pretty nice under this rock.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Anyone see this, all over the news.

Ya. What do we do if it was ISIS? Nothing is what this administration will do. Talk, talk, talk...

This is pretty horrible.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya. What do we do if it was ISIS? Nothing is what this administration will do. Talk, talk, talk...


You do know they're already doing air strikes and providing material support against Isis, right? And heck, the nuke deal with Iran may lead to greater coordination with them to help sandwich Isis. They just aren't doing boots on the ground, and I think most of the US populace is still against getting involved in another land war in Iraq personally. What would your course be?

Originally posted by Q99
This is pretty horrible.





You do know they're already doing air strikes and providing material support against Isis, right? And heck, the nuke deal with Iran may lead to greater coordination with them to help sandwich Isis. They just aren't doing boots on the ground, and I think most of the US populace is still against getting involved in another land war in Iraq personally. What would your course be?

I think he wants to go to war and lock you down more at home. More surveillance linked to profiles etc.

Has it been confirmed this is an ISIS-directed attack?

Edit: All I see is that the police and FBI are "investigating" whether the gunman had tangible ties to ISIS.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya. What do we do if it was ISIS? Nothing is what this administration will do. Talk, talk, talk...


That and probably give them a few hundred million dollars.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Has it been confirmed this is an ISIS-directed attack?

Edit: All I see is that the police and FBI are "investigating" whether the gunman had tangible ties to ISIS.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Isis in no way actively set something up, so much as this is a 'self-radicalized' individual who may have come into contact with Isis or some other radical group via the internet and encouraged to do 'something.'

Originally posted by Q99
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Isis in no way actively set something up, so much as this is a 'self-radicalized' individual who may have come into contact with Isis or some other radical group via the internet and encouraged to do 'something.'

Yeah. I hear that the main thing that stops people from officially joining ISIS is the annoying entrance exams and the paper work is a *****. Not to mention the drug screening.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yeah. I hear that the main thing that stops people from officially joining ISIS is the annoying entrance exams and the paper work is a *****. Not to mention the drug screening.

The drug screening isn't far from the truth. They beat members for smoking as they deem it to be unislamic.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Has it been confirmed this is an ISIS-directed attack?

Edit: All I see is that the police and FBI are "investigating" whether the gunman had tangible ties to ISIS.

FBI has declared it domestic terrorism and ISIS had made tweets about it, the account that made the tweets has not been removed.

"Authorities identified the gunman as Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, of Hixson, Tennessee, though the spelling of his first name was in dispute, with federal officials and records giving at least four variations."

Trying not to jump to conclusions, but what else could inspire this?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yeah. I hear that the main thing that stops people from officially joining ISIS is the annoying entrance exams and the paper work is a *****. Not to mention the drug screening.


Oh, it's easy as heck to join, the main hurdle is normally a plain ticket. Then when one arrives, one gets given crap jobs because Isis doesn't actually care for foreigner recruits, it just wants bodies.


I'm more emphasizing that it's not so Al Qaeda ish network that sends trained agents and actual careful plans, this guy likely has only met other Isis people online and some recruiter egged him on and gave him advice when he showed up. He likely picked out the target himself.

Which is what makes this kind of thing fairly hard to pick up, because it's not like they sent people or money, they just convinced someone to grab a gun and go shooting.


At least, that's my impression just based on MO and such. I could be wrong.

Eh, then again, maybe I'm just speculating too much. Time will tell.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
FBI has declared it domestic terrorism and ISIS had made tweets about it, the account that made the tweets has not been removed.

"Authorities identified the gunman as Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, of Hixson, Tennessee, though the spelling of his first name was in dispute, with federal officials and records giving at least four variations."

Trying not to jump to conclusions, but what else could inspire this?
Oh I'm sure it's probably ISIS inspired, but that's different from ISIS directed. If it were the latter, then it would be a lot more worrisome.

Although come to think of it, it might be scarier that even if terrorist groups didn't exist their mere example could cause attacks.

I find it kind of funny to see how people try to make it seem like the distinction of people that go around killing others in the way that groups like ISIS propose some how being illigitimized by a made up view point of Being On the Payroll or not.

ITS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION! That hardly falls under being a LEGITIMATE BUSINESS!

All roads are leading to ISIS ideology on this. His friends said he was popular and well liked. An All American guy, then he left the US and weren't back home and ended up being radicalized.

Of course, Obama's answer to this as usual is that we should have more gun control. He'll use anything as an excuse to try and take our guns away. If guards there had been allowed to carry firearms it could've been prevented.

I haven't heard him say anything about gun control oddly enough. However this happened in a gun free zone of Tennessee. I don't know why these gaurds did not have guns though. As this was a military facility.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I haven't heard him say anything about gun control oddly enough. However this happened in a gun free zone of Tennessee. I don't know why these gaurds did not have guns though. As this was a military facility.



Give him time. He'll probably start hinting at more gun control soon.

Originally posted by Star428
Of course, Obama's answer to this as usual is that we should have more gun control. He'll use anything as an excuse to try and take our guns away. If guards there had been allowed to carry firearms it could've been prevented. Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I haven't heard him say anything about gun control oddly enough. However this happened in a gun free zone of Tennessee. I don't know why these gaurds did not have guns though. As this was a military facility.
Military bases are one of the few places where guns should unquestionably be allowed, but I do think it's worth considering if there need to be as many civilian guns as there are.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Military bases are one of the few places where guns should unquestionably be allowed, but I do think it's worth considering if there need to be as many civilian guns as there are.

With Psychos like that out there I would rather have mine with me then not.

That's crappy American gun logic though. A terror attack is such a rare occurrence in the developed world that the odds of you getting shot in one is much lower than are the odds of you injuring or killing yourself with the gun you keep for protection from terrorists.

European countries don't respond like this to this sort of thing. They ask "how the hell did that guy get a gun?" and "why weren't the police quicker to respond?" They don't say "man if only those victims all had guns" because that isn't a reasonable expectation in Europe and it shouldn't be here. We shouldn't aspire to create a country where everyone has a gun at all times--that will lead to more gun violence, not less.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Military bases are one of the few places where guns should unquestionably be allowed, but I do think it's worth considering if there need to be as many civilian guns as there are. Yeah I agree military personal on military should all probably be allowed to carry weapons.

Still the question becomes would that have stopped the shooter before injuring or killing anyone. Probably not.

How about we give Iran a nuke but say they can only use it on ISIS? Everyone wins! Iran gets to set a nuke off and shit.

On the subject of gun control, people really do seem to leap to "any control = taking our guns away."

How about just better background checks, and better checking of gun inventory?

I've read studies that around 90% of illegal guns from 5% of gun stores... but the ATF isn't allowed to check store inventories often (aren't allowed to even ask stores to self-sumbit inventories!), and they're so underfunded it's often once per decade, which is, of course, nigh-useless.

We could do a lot without even touching who's currently allowed to have guns, simply by giving the ATF more to work with.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I haven't heard him say anything about gun control oddly enough. However this happened in a gun free zone of Tennessee. I don't know why these gaurds did not have guns though. As this was a military facility.


Guns are banned at recruitment offices specifically.


I'm guessing there's some history behind that, like people bringing their own guns and causing incidents. Or maybe it affected recruitment rates, made things too intimidating for newbies.

Originally posted by Q99
On the subject of gun control, people really do seem to leap to "any control = taking our guns away."

How about just better background checks, and better checking of gun inventory?

I've read studies that around 90% of illegal guns from 5% of gun stores... but the ATF isn't allowed to check store inventories often (aren't allowed to even ask stores to self-sumbit inventories!), and they're so underfunded it's often once per decade, which is, of course, nigh-useless.

We could do a lot without even touching who's currently allowed to have guns, simply by giving the ATF more to work with.





Guns are banned at recruitment offices specifically.


I'm guessing there's some history behind that, like people bringing their own guns and causing incidents. Or maybe it affected recruitment rates, made things too intimidating for newbies.
My guess would be that recruitment offices might not count as actual military installations so there would be legal trouble keeping guns around. That could change after this.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's crappy American gun logic though. A terror attack is such a rare occurrence in the developed world that the odds of you getting shot in one is much lower than are the odds of you injuring or killing yourself with the gun you keep for protection from terrorists.

Very true, but on the positive side, it would Darwin-out the weak from the herd.

My dad is an avid gun collector and his argument always stems on the idea of gun owners being put on a government watch list. It's not paranoid it's what's going to happen. He has a point. But I agree on background checks and everything mentioned. But we should also look to the Swiss and Israelis where the majority of homes have weapons and we can look at their firearm violence rates as an example responsible gun owners.

Originally posted by psmith81992
My dad is an avid gun collector and his argument always stems on the idea of gun owners being put on a government watch list. It's not paranoid it's what's going to happen. He has a point. But I agree on background checks and everything mentioned. But we should also look to the Swiss and Israelis where the majority of homes have weapons and we can look at their firearm violence rates as an example responsible gun owners.
In those cases, guns are actually respected and seen as something necessary. Here they're fetishized and treated as a natural right, which I think is all kinds of wrong.

No one should be entitled to a gun, it should be a privilege earned by demonstrating you're a sane, upstanding, emotionally-mature person who understands proper safety and doesn't treat a gun like a toy. Something like a bar exam but for gun ownership instead of practicing law.

I agree

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's crappy American gun logic though. A terror attack is such a rare occurrence in the developed world that the odds of you getting shot in one is much lower than are the odds of you injuring or killing yourself with the gun you keep for protection from terrorists.

European countries don't respond like this to this sort of thing. They ask "how the hell did that guy get a gun?" and "why weren't the police quicker to respond?" They don't say "man if only those victims all had guns" because that isn't a reasonable expectation in Europe and it shouldn't be here. We shouldn't aspire to create a country where everyone has a gun at all times--that will lead to more gun violence, not less.

So why don't you tell us what county you live in so we can look up some facts on its problems?

Originally posted by psmith81992
My dad is an avid gun collector and his argument always stems on the idea of gun owners being put on a government watch list. It's not paranoid it's what's going to happen. He has a point. But I agree on background checks and everything mentioned. But we should also look to the Swiss and Israelis where the majority of homes have weapons and we can look at their firearm violence rates as an example responsible gun owners.

Note that the Swiss do not let people have ammo at home, you need to go to a gun range or such. So, sure, everyone has guns, but there's still much greater control.


I don't know Israel's setup, but the Swiss certainly have a lot more controls than we do, just from another angle.

THey, like the Israelis, have a culture of responsible gun owning. The Israelis don't have restrictions on ammo I believe but their gun violence has been at a minimum for the past 50 years. I guess it helps having a common enemy.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So why don't you tell us what county you live in so we can look up some facts on its problems?
America, fool.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya. What do we do if it was ISIS? Nothing is what this administration will do. Talk, talk, talk...

Why would this administration be able to do more than damage control? What happened to those Marines, would have been far less likely if gun control laws were much tighter. Or, if civilians were prohibited from carrying fire arms entirely. Doing anything about it, or making positive headway would be much like attempting to bail water out of a tub, while the faucet is on full blast.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In those cases, guns are actually respected and seen as something necessary. Here they're fetishized and treated as a natural right, which I think is all kinds of wrong.

No one should be entitled to a gun, it should be a privilege earned by demonstrating you're a sane, upstanding, emotionally-mature person who understands proper safety and doesn't treat a gun like a toy. Something like a bar exam but for gun ownership instead of practicing law.

That could actually work, but I think that it would be better if civilians were prohibited from carrying guns. No matter how responsible a person is, there would still be a possibility that a firearm could find its way into the hands of the less responsible. If no one had guns, many problems would be solved. it would take a while for things to settle down, but they eventually would. Other countries function fine without its civilians being born with the right to bare arms.

That's ridiculous. So civilians are prohibited from carrying guns, giving all the guns to the government. Your suggestion has 'dystopian future' written all over it.


Yup, more civilians problems would be solved and more government related problems would be created.


There's no causation or correlation to what you just said.

Really, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, etc. don't have a lot of guns, and the Swiss as mentioned don't have ammo... and I'm not sure what problems they're supposed to have gotten in return.

Civilians having guns are almost no threat to the government nowadays, they can't fight militaries. Countries without guns function peaceful and successfully for prolonged periods of time no problem, and with no more encroaching 'dystopia' than the US.

Originally posted by psmith81992
THey, like the Israelis, have a culture of responsible gun owning. The Israelis don't have restrictions on ammo I believe but their gun violence has been at a minimum for the past 50 years. I guess it helps having a common enemy.

See, I don't see how we're going to get that without something like mandatory gun training courses.

And I checked- Israel has mandatory licenses before you can own a gun. It's not considered a right there.


You pretty much only get a license if you work in security, law enforcement, are a former military officer- past a certain rank- or live in certain areas.

Then when they get a gun, they get 50 bullets with it, no renewels on that.

They must re-test for qualification every three years, and must have a safe at home.


Article


So yes, they have guns... but they also have gun restrictions left and right. It's not just responsible gun culture, but enforced responsible gun culture.


That also rather demonstrates gun regulation is not all-or-nothing, as much as some treat it like it is. Personally I believe putting in more requirements ensuring responsible ownership is probably the best way to prevent a general ban, but this 'no restrictions period' some have, leaves us stuck in the situation that produces these shooting incidents and leaves much of the country wondering if guns are worth it.

Well said, psmith. I'm glad you're not like the naive majority on this forum and understand the importance of our 2nd amendment right to bear arms. That law is just as relevant today as when our forefathers created it.



I was about ready to throw up at all these peoples' repeated suggestions of taking away our only means of defending ourselves.


I've also posted a link in the "Bad Ammo" thread while back that showed what has happened time and again to people of countries who've had their guns taken away but, of course, the sheep on this forum either ignored it or basically claimed the guy who wrote article was lying. LOL. They don't like anybody posting proof that their ideas are, in fact, very bad.

Originally posted by Star428

I was about ready to throw up at all these peoples' repeated suggestions of taking away our only means of defending ourselves.

From what? What do civilian guns actually protect us again?

I mean, they don't protect us from the military- that'd be hilariously outsided, and the military are us, last time I checked. They don't protect us from the police. And they certainly don't protect us from mass shooters or people like this.

Who are they protecting us from exactly? And why aren't police and military being counted as 'us' in this context? Because I think everyone agrees they still get to keep guns, and again, they are us.

As Switzerland and Israel shows, there's plenty that can be done to make things muuuch safer without getting rid of guns.


As the Onion says, "No Way To Prevent This," Says only nation where this happens



We don't actually seem to be gaining much from this deal. We aren't any freer than our friendly nations who have rules on the subject (i.e. all of our friends. Every last one of them. Every single other 1st world country), we don't seem in the slightest bit more protected from anyone.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's ridiculous. So civilians are prohibited from carrying guns, giving all the guns to the government. Your suggestion has 'dystopian future' written all over it.
If the government decided to instill a "dystopian future" upon US citizens, no amount of small-arms on the planet could stop them.

Maybe not. But at least we'd die free by fighting rather than to become slaves of the government.


Live Free or Die

I'm fine with mandatory gun courses. There's no correlation between countries with no guns/small amount and crime. But I find it irresponsible to take guns away from civilians entirely and put them in the hands of the government. That is idiotic.


I don't think anyone is arguing against better regulation/courses/etc.


Probably not but that's debatable. They'd either face a protracted war, or be responsible for swift genocide.

Originally posted by psmith81992


Probably not but that's debatable. They'd either face a protracted war, or be responsible for swift genocide.


Doubt it, gun nuts are all talk really.

Only an idiot believes that shotguns and AR-15s will help you against tanks and drones and stealth fighters. This is probably what most confuses people outside of America about our gun culture--that our gun nuts are so deluded that they all think they're Rambo.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
If the government decided to instill a "dystopian future" upon US citizens, no amount of small-arms on the planet could stop them.


Gunnuts need to wake the **** up and realize that their guns are no guarantee against totalitarianism, so they need to drop that lame ass excuse. But then without that excuse there's really no good reason why civilians should have guns on a large scale.

So are those opposing firearms for civilians.


And opponents need the wake the **** up and realize that guns vs. tanks is still better than nothing vs. tanks. If civilians don't have guns, there's no need for tanks and there's no protracted war. I'm not saying there's ever going to be a dystopian future but the opinion that civilians shouldn't have firearms is just silly.

Originally posted by psmith81992

And opponents need the wake the **** up and realize that guns vs. tanks is still better than nothing vs. tanks. If civilians don't have guns, there's no need for tanks and there's no protracted war. I'm not saying there's ever going to be a dystopian future but the opinion that civilians shouldn't have firearms is just silly.
Not really. A shotgun has about the same chance of stopping a tank as a man's fists. That is: not at all.

If you have so little faith in our democracy that you think you might have to engage in guerrilla warfare you may as well start stockpiling RPGs and claymores now like all the other domestic terrorists.

Originally posted by psmith81992
So are those opposing firearms for civilians.


Yeah, but they are not hypocritical about it.

It has nothing to do with "little faith". It has to do with reducing the chance of that outcome, no matter how small it is. Like I said, simply saying "civilians shouldn't have firearms because firearms kill" is silly.

I think what people say is "civilians having firearms as some sort of fail safe against the government overstepping its bounds is stupid".

And additionally people think that guns and ammunition should be much more regulated than they are now in the US.

There would never be a war like that unless the people rose up against the government at which they would declare that treason and quell the rebellion.

That is not the goal though. The goal is complete take over and control without a shot fired. Which has been working.

While 60% of the nation keeps up with the kardashian twins and mindless entertainment, the power brokers are at work.

They will allow the recruiters to be armed now(or the marines or whatever) and also moving recruitment into armories or something. Heard this on the radio anyways.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So why don't you tell us what county you live in so we can look up some facts on its problems?

Every country has problems, maybe not the same problems, but they have problems. So I don't think any one country can look down at any one other country and say "yeah, we're doing everything correctly".

More regulated? Yes... Stoic is not saying that though. He's saying civilians should not have firearms. That's dumb.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It has nothing to do with "little faith". It has to do with reducing the chance of that outcome, no matter how small it is. Like I said, simply saying "civilians shouldn't have firearms because firearms kill" is silly.
But it doesn't reduce the chance. So we just end up with a bunch of unnecessary guns in possibly unstable hands and all the risk that goes with that.

Originally posted by psmith81992
More regulated? Yes... Stoic is not saying that though. He's saying civilians should not have firearms. That's dumb. I wouldn't say it's dumb, it's definitely better than the current system in the US.

If a person is a civilian and wants a firearm I'd at least like stricter testing for it. They just do a background check, but I'd also like maybe mandatory proper training and maybe even a psych evaluation.

Why do you assume government hands all of a sudden means "stable"?


Not really

Originally posted by psmith81992

Not really

Why do you think it's dumb?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Why do you assume government hands all of a sudden means "stable"?

Not sure what you're asking or how it addresses my comment. I didn't say anything about the stability or instability of the government, only that with civilian gun owners--as tragedy after tragedy has shown--stability, sanity, and competence aren't guarantees. To disagree with this would be to ignore reality.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Anyone see this, all over the news.
Why you mentioned ISIS in the thread title?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Doubt it, gun nuts are all talk really.



That's real funny coming from a guy in Germany who just sits on his ass lecturing Americans all the time on our gun laws and giving lame-ass suggestions on how to live our lives as if we give two shits about your two-cent opinion. You're no better, dude, and have no room to talk.

Originally posted by Star428
That's real funny coming from a guy in Germany who just sits on his ass lecturing Americans all the time on our gun laws and giving lame-ass suggestions on how to live our lives as if we give two shits about your two-cent opinion. You're no better, dude, and have no room to talk.

Nah

Originally posted by psmith81992
More regulated? Yes... Stoic is not saying that though. He's saying civilians should not have firearms. That's dumb.



Indeed, it is. I've posted this before but here it is again for people who have forgotten or never seen it:


http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/



I'm sure that in response to the article in that link that liberals will say something like "he's lying" or "tea party links don't count" or some other nonsense. Obviously, only links to their biased liberal websites counts and all other websites have no validity.

Originally posted by Star428
Indeed, it is. I've posted this before but here it is again for people who have forgotten or never seen it:


http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/



I'm sure that in response to the article in that link that liberals will say something like "he's lying" or "tea party links don't count" or some other nonsense. Obviously, only links to their biased liberal websites counts and all other websites have no validity.


...and obviously there are other reasons besides having guns than just protection from an out-of-control government. Although that is one of the major ones. Others, for example, are protection from common thugs, criminals, or terrorists. I posted a link to an article in the "Bad Ammo" thread that shows it's been proven ISIS was operating a base not far from Texas. You can rest assured since they have a base that close that sleeper agents are already in the country. Anyone who thinks they or common thugs/criminals will be good law-abiding criminals and turn in their weapons like everybody else needs a reality check.

Originally posted by Star428
...and obviously there are other reasons besides having guns than just protection from an out-of-control government. Although that is one of the major ones.

Because AR-15s are a match for drones and tanks.

Originally posted by Star428
...and obviously there are other reasons besides having guns than just protection from an out-of-control government. Although that is one of the major ones. Others, for example, are protection from common thugs, criminals, or terrorists. I posted a link to an article in the "Bad Ammo" thread that shows it's been proven ISIS was operating a base not far from Texas. You can rest assured since they have a base that close that sleeper agents are already in the country. Anyone who thinks they or common thugs/criminals will be good law-abiding criminals and turn in their weapons like everybody else needs a reality check. I remember that article you posted and it did not give any actual proof of the ISIS base.

Also simply having an armed citizenry does not equate to being able to control government. It takes more than that to fight a government. You should also list all the countries that have severe or total gun control bans like the UK.

Y8Q0MMHwx4k

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because AR-15s are a match for drones and tanks.

Red Dawn taught us that real Americans can take on a military force.

Speaking of drones I know someone who has one. Not a military drone obviously, they use it to take pictures and had it up in the clouds on the 4th of July taking photo's of fireworks at interesting angles.

He is a civilian, so it makes me wonder how long until we have civilians hooking up guns or other weapons to the drones they can buy? Since he already modded the drone(not for guns) but I'm thinking someone clever enough could probably rig something up.

Originally posted by Robtard
Red Dawn taught us that real Americans can take on a military force.

We talking about drones and civil unrest when this has nothing to do with that? Funny how the SC shooting happens and everyone is on point and keeping it real, screaming racism, this happens to the military and it turns into this quack talk? What this guy did was no better.

I don't think anyone's made light of the shootings here. But so far, we can probably rule out racism as being the motive. Most sources are claiming this guy was a nice/regular guy, then he went to the ME for a length of time and came back changed.

Considering he attacked a military installation and killed military personal, I wouldn't be surprised if some anti-American person(s) got to him and convinced him it was his Muslim duty to kill. Like those predators do to the numerous young men they convince to strap bombs to themselves in the name of religion, even though they're cowardly chicken-hawks who won't do it themselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think anyone's made light of the shootings here. But so far, we can probably rule out racism as being the motive. Most sources are claiming this guy was a nice/regular guy, then he went to the ME for a length of time and came back changed.

Considering he attacked a military installation and killed military personal, I wouldn't be surprised if some anti-American person(s) got to him and convinced him it was his Muslim duty to kill. Like those predators do to the numerous young men they convince to strap bombs to themselves in the name of religion, even though they're cowardly chicken-hawks who won't do it themselves.

I agree, I just find it funny that the normal liberal crowd here piles all over SC shooting and Michael Brown killing, but really does not have much to say here.

But of coarse, why would they.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I agree, I just find it funny that the normal liberal crowd here piles all over SC shooting and Michael Brown killing, but really does not have much to say here.

But of coarse, why would they.
I think (1) you're underrepresenting the reaction to the shootings in the "liberal" media. I was at the gym when the shootings happened and the gym tvs were playing every major news outlet. They all were covering the same thing and all of them were calling it a "massacre" or a "tragedy."

(2) you're still not getting why the Mike Brown killing and the Charleston shooting are the hotbed issues they are. Islamist-motivated attacks on the USA and US military personel have only been a phenomenon for the last 20 years, whereas attacks on black churches and extrajudicial killings of young black men go back centuries. They're also much more common than Islamist terrorist attacks, and whereas everyone is in agreement that we need to be on watch against Islamist terrorists, whether homegrown or foreign-based, there's still plenty of folks who will deny that the USA has a major problem with racism.

Edit: Though it occurs to me now that you're actually talking about KMC, not the media. In either case, my #2 comment stands.

I think the US has had plenty of Jihad, more then people think or remember, we just all forget as well.

Here is the list
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm

I think you're missing OV's #2 point.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think you're missing OV's #2 point.

This started in the early 70's, thats 40 years of this. He said 20.

Big difference.

Again, OV's error in not accounting for 20-something deaths over a 20ish year span doesn't really dismiss his point.

If you re-read his #2 point and substitute "40" for the "20", it's still basically the same.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, OV's error in not accounting for 20-something deaths over a 20ish year span doesn't really dismiss his point.

But if you read his #2 post and substitute "40" for the "20", it doesn't change the point.

Yes just 20-something people died in 9/11

Wilson was exonerated of all charges, and people like Bardock don't agree. Even when justice is served, if its not to their agenda, its heresay.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes just 20-something people died in 9/11

9/11 would be included in his "last 20 years" remark.

My "20ish" comment was in regards to the 70-90's killings, which you commented on OV missing.

So how is a Arab with a gun killing White marines not racist?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So how is a Arab with a gun killing White marines not racist?

Because so far there is nothing to indicate that he shot the people because of their "race".

Compare that to the SC shootings, where the gunmen specifically did so.

No but Wilson was called a racist for shooting Brown.

Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of drones I know someone who has one. Not a military drone obviously, they use it to take pictures and had it up in the clouds on the 4th of July taking photo's of fireworks at interesting angles.

He is a civilian, so it makes me wonder how long until we have civilians hooking up guns or other weapons to the drones they can buy? Since he already modded the drone(not for guns) but I'm thinking someone clever enough could probably rig something up. r_kfUVZdTkU

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No but Wilson was called a racist for shooting Brown.

Could it be because there's a very, very, very long history of violence against black people (esp men) in America that is racially based?

Or see OV's #2 point in his post.

GD Rob, I got his point.

This made me think of you, idk why.
http://www.homehairremovalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/z11.jpg

Odd

Why are you shopping for a "No!No!"?

Originally posted by Robtard
Odd

Why are you shopping for a "No!No!"?

I heard in on the TV, I thought you might like it.

Right.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I think the US has had plenty of Jihad, more then people think or remember, we just all forget as well.

Here is the list
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm
Robtard basically addressed this. Whether 20 or 40 years, it's nothing compared to the history of racially motivated killings of blacks in America.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So how is a Arab with a gun killing White marines not racist?
Here's my question: if there had been a black guy or an Asian among the Marines, do you think the shooter would have spared them? If so, that's an assumption based on absolutely no evidence.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Robtard basically addressed this. Whether 20 or 40 years, it's nothing compared to the history of racially motivated killings of blacks in America.

Here's my question: if there had been a black guy or an Asian among the Marines, do you think the shooter would have spared them? If so, that's an assumption based on absolutely no evidence.

Of coarse not, but if it had been 4 black marines, then what?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Of coarse not, but if it had been 4 black marines, then what?
He probably would have killed them because they were marines.

But not labeled racist.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
But not labeled racist.

Because there's killings that are racially motivated and killings that aren't. Most people can differentiate between those.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because there's killings that are racially motivated and killings that aren't. Most people can differentiate between those.

The killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner were not racial motivated. However you still think they are.

Eric Garner not? Funny dude.

Why do they have to be white for it to be racist?

Guy specifically targetted a different group of people than himself. Whether that be because of race, religion, or just hailing from a different country there's a hate aspect to it. Really doesn't matter at that point what sort of place you want to file that under.

It doesn't.

By all accounts so far, he targeted a military installation.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Why do they have to be white for it to be racist?

Guy specifically targetted a different group of people than himself. Whether that be because of race, religion, or just hailing from a different country there's a hate aspect to it. Really doesn't matter at that point what sort of place you want to file that under. No one is denying that the attack was targeted against a specific group of individuals (soldiers), but racism has a definition. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that his actions don't align with the definition of racism.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No one is denying that the attack was targeted against a specific group of individuals (soldiers), but racism has a definition. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that his actions don't align with the definition of racism. It's a retarded schemantic though is what I'm saying. Does labeling it an act of hate really make a difference? As long as it wasn't racism it's fine.

Guy killed some American "enforcement" because they were against his bottom dawgs. I don't see why skin color really makes a difference in the amount of hate there. It wasn't racism, it was just based on severe hate because they differed from him!

Though not really sure in the first place how that would make this worse or better. Guy got sent in the murder "his" enemies, but it's worse because hate was involved in the motivation or something? I don't see the point in strong against or for "racism" in this case. Almost diminishes the actual act. Like when people call cold blooded murderers goofballs or bullies.

Flag's never went to half mass at the white house, and no call from the President to any of the family's.

Stark contrast to this.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-joins-michael-brown-parents-calls-calm

JB orders the flags at the capital half mast, white house stays up.

Ok Obama finally ordered them down today. And made a great speech about them at the VFW.

I am pleased

He read your post.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He read your post.

Maybe

Quick, TI, say that Obama should sign an executive order mandating that True Detective bring back the director from the first season.

*Actually not joking*

Funny no one wants to talk about this but they will when it's a black vs white incident.

Shameful, this place only caters to race issues.

What do you want us to talk about?

If the subject is "Islamic terrorists must be stopped" no one's going to disagree, ergo not much conversation.

I also agree that islamic terrorists must be stopped...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What do you want us to talk about?

If the subject is "Islamic terrorists must be stopped" no one's going to disagree, ergo not much conversation.

Do Dylan kills a bunch of church going people and we burn the flag.

Why are not burning burning Islamic Flags?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do Dylan kills a bunch of church going people and we burn the flag.

Why are not burning burning Islamic Flags?

Oh that's easy. The confederate flag is a symbol of racism that is condoned by some US state governments, which people who are against racism find offensive so they want it banned of off their government property. The ISIS flag is not flown by any US government as far as I know, and other islamic flags are not symbols of terrorism or hatred.

For the record, I also agree that Islamic terrorist must be stopped.

#islamicsterroristmustbestopped

I also would like to add that all terrorist (FLNC, FAI, Israel's government etc.), must be stopped.

#allterroristmustbestopped


edit:#islamicsterroristmustbestoppedtoo

lol

Originally posted by Robtard
For the record, I also agree that Islamic terrorist must be stopped.

#islamicsterroristmustbestopped

I also would like to add that all terrorist (FLNC, FAI, Israel's government etc.), must be stopped.

#allterroristmustbestopped


edit:#islamicsterroristmustbestoppedtoo

What did the Israelis do?

Besides terrorize a people?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do Dylan kills a bunch of church going people and we burn the flag.

Why are not burning burning Islamic Flags?




Cause that would make our muslim-in-chief very mad.



It's ok though to piss off a bunch of southerners who had absolutely nothing to do with those murders by disgracing the flag that represents their heritage.

Gun shop owner in Florida has banned Muslims from his store in reponse to these killings:



http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/21/owner-declares-his-gun-shop-muslim-free-zone/21211996/



Good for him.

yes illegal discrimination and bigotry is awesome. why do you have to prove yourself a proudly ignorant morally bankrupt seething hypocrite on every issue? are you for real or is this all just 'trolololo'?

The guy doesn't even make any sense. He says he believes a vast majority of Muslims are not out to kill us, but still declares his gun shop "Muslim Free".

Which since he's not the only gun shop in the state isn't going to really deter anyone from doing anything anyways.

He's a rampant bigot, so his actions don't have to make sense.

Iran detains Americans and imprisons them without cause, seems the whole nation is bigots to me.

The truly disturbing thing about the current era is people this day and age just don't care about trying to hide how horrible they are. They will advertise it and talk to the media about it. Or brag about it on Facebook or Twitter.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Iran detains Americans and imprisons them without cause, seems the whole nation is bigots to me.

I wouldn't be so quick to condemn an entire nation of people because of something their government did.

I'd also point out that the issue above is likely politically based and not racial.

Originally posted by Surtur
The truly disturbing thing about the current era is people this day and age just don't care about trying to hide how horrible they are. They will advertise it and talk to the media about it. Or brag about it on Facebook or Twitter.

Star428 is a perfect example of that in here. He seems to view his bigotry and racism as some sort of medal.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Iran detains Americans and imprisons them without cause, seems the whole nation is bigots to me.
Xenophobic maybe, but most Americans who end up getting detained are Iranian Americans, so calling it racism or bigotry is silly.

3/4 currently held Americans are of Iranian background, and the fourth is an ex-FBI agent, so racism is probably the last reason why the Iranians seized him.

Hence why we should keep the sanctions on them until a revolution.

Originally posted by Robtard
Star428 is a perfect example of that in here. He seems to view his bigotry and racism as some sort of medal.

Hell in this generation we have raised people so stupid they post about illegal activities on facebook, and some of them even put up *videos* of themselves committing crimes. I'd be curious to see the stats on the amount of people busted via their own social media pages for crimes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hence why we should keep the sanctions on them until a revolution.

Hasn't happened in the last 35 or so years.

What hasn't?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hence why we should keep the sanctions on them until a revolution.
I don't think that would be a likely outcome of sustained sanctions. And if a revolution did break out, it wouldn't be a quick and easy one like the Islamic Revolution in 1979. It would be more like the Syrian Civil War on a horrifically larger scale. That, or it would be crushed rather quickly.

Western countries putting sanctions on Iran isn't exactly the greatest sales pitch for Western values.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What hasn't?

Iranian's overthrowing their government because of sanctions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Iranian's overthrowing their government because of sanctions.

Yes.

Their government, even with sanctions, appears really stable. It should also be noted that, like us, they can change their direction with elections, so even if things are going poor, they can just toss out one party and replace it with another. Indeed, this already happened, they tossed out their more loud-mouth aggressive president with a less aggressive one when they thought the former wasn't accomplishing anything.

There's not even any signs that their government as a whole is becoming unstable.



And at the same time, the sanctions couldn't be kept on forever- Russia and China were onboard with them, but *only* as long as it was to prevent Iran from getting nukes. If it begins to look like it's just the US wanting to keep them on indefinitely, then Russia will start buying Iranian oil, and the sanctions will falter, and we'll have gained nothing.



It's better to get something in exchange for dropping the sanctions, then to keep them on until we lose the capacity to do sanctions that work at all.

FBI Labels this guy a home grown violent extremist.

When in fact he went to Jordan and was radicalized by Muslim Jihad.

Why is this being labeled a homegrown violent extremist, and not a Islamic Terrorist?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
FBI Labels this guy a home grown violent extremist.

When in fact he went to Jordan and was radicalized by Muslim Jihad.

Why is this being labeled a homegrown violent extremist, and not a Islamic Terrorist?
Homegrown=American citizen. Most homegrown terrorists spend some time abroad, it doesn't make them less "homegrown."

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Homegrown=American citizen. Most homegrown terrorists spend some time abroad, it doesn't make them less "homegrown."

Why violent extremist, not Islamic Terrorist?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why violent extremist, not Islamic Terrorist?
I don't know. Possibly whoever used that particular phrasing wanted to avoid making this about Islam so that normal Muslims wouldn't be made guilty by association.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't know. Possibly whoever used that particular phrasing wanted to avoid making this about Islam so that normal Muslims wouldn't be made guilty by association.

FBI classified it as such.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
FBI classified it as such.
For the reason I just gave most likely.

And really it doesn't matter, unless you think that this event should change the country's approach to dealing with Muslims. Categorization is a political statement, and by opting to call him a "violent extremist" it's an accurate statement without implicating Muslims at large in any way.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
For the reason I just gave most likely.

And really it doesn't matter, unless you think that this event should change the country's approach to dealing with Muslims. Categorization is a political statement, and by opting to call him a "violent extremist" it's an accurate statement without implicating Muslims at large in any way.

If someone who was a christian went around killing muslims. How would it be labeled?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If someone who was a christian went around killing muslims. How would it be labeled?
Probably "violent extremist" in American media. Calling such a person a Christian terrorist would probably piss off every church in the country and there would be a flurry of denunciations that the shooter was "no true Christian."

No he would be labeled a racist or bigot.

This makes me proud to be an American:


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/22/after-tennessee-shootings-armed-citizens-guard-ecruiters/21212334/


It's a disgrace that ordinary civilians have to be counted on to do something that the government should've already been doing.

I head about that today, pretty patriotic.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No he would be labeled a racist or bigot.
And that.

But I really don't see your point. Why are you so set on making this a racial issue when it's clear the reason the shooter killed the marines was that they were marines?

Because it's always racial when it needs to be to keep the pressure on civil right movement. Then there is smoke screen for Islamic terrorist.

Remember when everyone flipped the phuck out when I said Dylan was a lone wolf? Guess what, people are calling this guy a lone wolf. You tell me what the difference is.

Originally posted by Star428
This makes me proud to be an American:


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/22/after-tennessee-shootings-armed-citizens-guard-ecruiters/21212334/


It's a disgrace that ordinary civilians have to be counted on to do something that the government should've already been doing. I find it funny that in the article it seems like the military these people are trying to protect almost seem offended by the actions those people are taking.

Heck one guy says we don't condone it. Another says I don't care until they start interfering with recruitment like he's saying "Fine do what you want. I don't really want to deal with you right now but if you actually start to bother me then I'm kicking you out."

If it's legal for them to be sitting outside a recruitment office armed, I see no problem with it, it's their own time.

Let's just hope none of these yahoos kneejerk and start shooting darker skinned bearded men.

Don't go to Tennessee and you should not have a problem.

Originally posted by Newjak
I find it funny that in the article it seems like the military these people are trying to protect almost seem offended by the actions those people are taking.

Heck one guy says we don't condone it. Another says I don't care until they start interfering with recruitment like he's saying "Fine do what you want. I don't really want to deal with you right now but if you actually start to bother me then I'm kicking you out."



Of course it might bother those trying to do recruiting because they're worried that it might interfere with recruitment process as you've pointed out but they're there to protect those who are interested in serving our country anyway. If the government would just do their goddamn job properly and allow military personnel on all military bases and recruitment centers to be armed to prevent something like this from happening again then civilians wouldn't be having to do it. Civilians doing this is a clear indication that they care about those who serve our nation. Which is more than I can say about our government. Particulary our current so-called "Commander-in-Chief".


I'm also quite certain that if you polled ALL unarmed military personnel at these recruitment centers that the majority would be grateful for their protection since they're not allowed to defend themselves. I'm sure the media only questioned a very small sample. I can't speak for anyone else but if I was somehow able to join the military again I would welcome any protection from ANYONE at the recruitment center where I went to sign-up. Especially with all the threats from ISIS this country has been receiving lately and the fact that it's been confirmed that they were operating a base notfar from Texas border.

Lol just saw your sig star, top notch

Truth be told and heard.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lol just saw your sig star, top notch

Truth be told and heard.