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

Anyone seen or heard about this yet:



http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/active-shooter-reported-at-oregon-college-at-least-20-victims-reported




It's still a developing story and shooter is still at large. 20 fatalities reported already.

I heard it was 10 fatalities from CBS news.

It says on website that it's a developing story and you can refresh the page every few minutes to get updates.

This says 15 killed and over 20 injured.

http://ktla.com/2015/10/01/active-shooter-reported-at-oregon-college/

It sucks.

still not a good time to discuss gun control?

Horrible tragedy. It breaks my heart whenever I see this. Makes me mad and just **** man....

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still not a good time to discuss gun control?





*sigh*... You libs never learn do you? We've already talked about that shit ad nauseum. This shooting doesn't change anything that's been repeated again and yet again by those of us who support our God-given right to bear arms and defend ourselves. Nor would an incident like this happening everyday for the next year. Give it up.

As always: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

Originally posted by Bardock42
As always: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

yyyyyyyyyyyyup!

Someone should let Star know that gun rights are not "God-given", they're given by the government, like many other rights and can be taken away.

Gun control was actually always something I was in favor for. And after seeing this, I feel even stronger.

Hell, I'll be honest as someone who's been around guns his whole life, I wouldn't mind it if all guns disappeared. But I understand that it just isn't practical or even possible. But shootings like this just makes me wish it was.

Sadly, this is one problem that I can't find a solid solution for. I think of ways that one can keep guns 100% away from criminals or the mentally disturbed and I draw a blank.

Of course, mental health tests that would prevent guns from falling into the hands of mentally disturbed individuals would be a start. I am also not averse to banning guns altogether (like they have in Japan),

I also considered devices on legal guns that can prevent them from being fired in specific areas where it becomes extremely illegal to remove them.

Of course, all these are easily bypassed. A determined killer could just get his guns illegally, most probably modified to remove "restriction locks" that I mentioned above.

So yeah, blank. Open to suggestions.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still not a good time to discuss gun control?

No but that's the emotional reaction everybody expects from you the minute this was reported. Was going to say "queue gun control discussion" right before I saw your post. Yes, we need tighter gun control, everybody knows.

Libs quick on the carcass about gun control.
They're not even cold yet, you dogs.

Originally posted by psmith81992
No but that's the emotional reaction everybody expects from you the minute this was reported. Was going to say "queue gun control discussion" right before I saw your post. Yes, we need tighter gun control, everybody knows.

I don't think everybody knows. There seems to be a large amount of people, including many politicians, who don't know, or if they know, choose to go against that knowledge.

It's actually incidents like this that make our second amendment right to bear arms even more important.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As always: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131


This kinda misses the point doesn't it? Or is more control=less incidents the logic of the day?

Originally posted by psmith81992
emotional

one trick pony

Originally posted by long pig
Libs quick on the carcass about gun control.
They're not even cold yet, you dogs.

The thing is if we don't talk about gun control for a week after a shooting spree, we'll never talk about gun control.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
one trick pony

Oh the irony

Originally posted by psmith81992
This kinda misses the point doesn't it? Or is more control=less incidents the logic of the day?

It's not the only aspect that can prevent these kinds of things of happening, perhaps not even the most important, but yes, it is one aspect. So indeed, more control = less of these incidents....

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh the irony

another word you're too dense to look up, learn, and apply correctly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not the only aspect that can prevent these kinds of things of happening, perhaps not even the most important, but yes, it is one aspect. So indeed, more control = less of these incidents....

Ok I'm glad you acknowledge that it's only one aspect because you know full well other countries that have more weapons per household don't have these issues.


Still seeing that you're having difficulty with the english language. Another shocker.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The thing is if we don't talk about gun control for a week after a shooting spree, we'll never talk about gun control.
Disgusting.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As always: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131




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



See, two can play that game.

Originally posted by Star428
AS always: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens



See, two can play that game.

I don't think Bardock is talking about disarming the citizens. A little stricter gun controls doesn't equate to "they're taking away our guns", and I'm a gun advocate from texas so...

Originally posted by long pig
Disgusting.

Yes, we are all outraged that this happens so damn often.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok I'm glad you acknowledge that it's only one aspect because you know full well other countries that have more weapons per household don't have these issues.


Still seeing that you're having difficulty with the english language. Another shocker.

Yeah, but it would still help the US, and is probably the most straightforward and easiest to implement.

Everyone that mentions gun control doesn't really have an opinion of what exactly to change. The only "list" I'm for is regarding automatic weapons. The idea of all gun users being on a registry is highly unAmerican.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think Bardock is talking about disarming the citizens. A little stricter gun controls doesn't equate to "they're taking away our guns", and I'm a gun advocate from texas so...




You must not know Bardock very well. He's one of those Europeans who thinks there should be a nationwide ban on guns in America.

Originally posted by Star428
You must not know Bardock very well. He's one of those Europeans who thinks there should be a nationwide ban on guns in America.

He's certainly more liberal than I'm comfortable with but I don't believe he's ever made that assertion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Everyone that mentions gun control doesn't really have an opinion of what exactly to change. The only "list" I'm for is regarding automatic weapons. The idea of all gun users being on a registry is highly unAmerican.

I suppose some view it that way, I do think that every firearm should be tracked though. I think firearms should be limited per person. And I think there should be a "drivers license" for getting them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose some view it that way, I do think that every firearm should be tracked though. I think firearms should be limited per person. And I think there should be a "drivers license" for getting them.

Having a registry seems quite ridiculous and I'm opposed to it, as far as hand guns go. I'm on the fence regarding automatic weapons. Further, the idea of a limit per person gives the state or the law makers the power to declare what they feel is a good enough number. I know plenty of gun owners who collect and shoot their weapons at the range and they cringe every time something like this happens.

You need a driver's license to operate a vehicle and you need to register said vehicle, so what's so far fetched an "un American" about one for guns, all guns?

Originally posted by Robtard
You need a driver's license to operate a vehicle and you need to register said vehicle, so what's so far fetched an "un American" about one for guns, all guns?

Because the "registry" would be on every federal law enforcement watch list. Hardly the same thing as a driver's license, won't you agree?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Because the "registry" would be on every federal law enforcement watch list. Hardly the same thing as a driver's license, won't you agree?

What would be the problem about federal law enforcement knowing what guns you own tho?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Because the "registry" would be on every federal law enforcement watch list. Hardly the same thing as a driver's license, won't you agree? Not really... the ease of getting the the information of who owns what gun is the same as getting who owns what car.

Really don't see the difference. If you have a driver's license and a registered car(s), you're already wilfully in the system, which the feds have access too.

It's basically saying: "I have a privacy right to my gun, not my car". Which doesn't make sense, unless you have a good reason for the distinction/separation?

Originally posted by Bardock42
As always: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

The terrifying truth is that there is indeed no immediate way to prevent this, guns or no guns(mind you, guns do make it easier). If someone is determined and demented enough to kill a bunch of people, they will. Knives, vehicles, homemade bombs, etc. have proven themselves to be sufficient instruments of mass slaughter in cases both inside and outside of the US.

Better attention to mental health and reduction of poverty are the best solutions in the long run.

The difference is an active or dormant watch list. Nobody cares about licenses. Everyone on a gun registry is going to be watched one way or another.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The terrifying truth is that there is indeed no immediate way to prevent this, guns or no guns(mind you, guns do make it easier). If someone is determined and demented enough to kill a bunch of people, they will. Knives, vehicles, homemade bombs, etc. have proven themselves to be sufficient instruments of mass slaughter in cases both inside and outside of the US.

Better attention to mental health and reduction of poverty are the best solutions in the long run.

We have real-world examples of stricter gun laws lowering gun related crimes. So unless you believe "nope, just won't work in the US cos nope", there is precedence.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The difference is an active or dormant watch list. Nobody cares about licenses. Everyone on a gun registry is going to be watched one way or another.

While I understand your point, it does sound very "big brother is watching" paranoia. I can see people with a criminal past being watched, but your average gun owner, doubt it.

Originally posted by Robtard
We have real-world examples of more stricter gun laws lowering gun related crimes. So unless you believe "nope, just won't work in the US cos nope", there is precedence.

True, but we also have real-world examples where mass ownership of guns doesn't really produce mass shootings or even increased crime. Either way, stricter gun control laws are unlikely to deter a spree killing lunatic.

Big surprise. The place where this happened was a "gun-free" zone:


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/no-surprise-community-college-where-10-shot-dead-was-a-gun-free-zone



If victims had been armed they could've at least defended themselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
While I understand your point, it does sound very "big brother is watching" paranoia. I can see people with a criminal past being watched, but your average gun owner, doubt it. It's not though it's a valid point. I was also born in communist russia so its well founded.

Originally posted by Star428
Big surprise. The place where this happened was a "gun-free" zone:


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/no-surprise-community-college-where-10-shot-dead-was-a-gun-free-zone



If victims had been armed they could've at least defended themselves.

Dude, of course schools are gun-free zones. The idea of killers killing people in gun-free zones stems from the fact that they bring the guns FROM non gun-free zones INTO gun free zones to kill ppl...

I mean, come on!

Originally posted by Star428
Big surprise. The place where this happened was a "gun-free" zone:


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/no-surprise-community-college-where-10-shot-dead-was-a-gun-free-zone



If victims had been armed they could've at least defended themselves.

solution: more guns.

who needs links the onion when we have so many creative satirists right here.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
True, but we also have real-world examples where mass ownership of guns doesn't really produce mass shootings or even increased crime. Either way, stricter gun control laws are unlikely to deter a spree killing lunatic. LoL, "more stricter", I sound like one of the Caucasian Southern muckfolk in here. Sorry.

Anyhow. No, they're still going to be gun related murders, no one who argues for stricter guns laws uses "end of all gun crime" as a reason, just a reduction and possibly even less deaths (like the 15-20 here) per incident.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It's not though it's a valid point. I was also born in communist russia so its well founded.

I resisted making a Yakov joke

But personal fears (even founded from Soviet past experiences) aside, every random gun owner being watched by the government is a silly notion.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Dude, of course schools are gun-free zones. The idea of killers killing people in gun-free zones stems from the fact that they bring the guns FROM non gun-free zones INTO gun free zones to kill ppl...

I mean, come on!



My point, "dude", is that if they at least allowed some kind of security at the school like armed guards then it could've been prevented.


"I mean, come on!"

Originally posted by Robtard
I resisted making a Yakov joke

But personal fears (even founded from Soviet past experiences) aside, every random gun owner being watched by the government is a silly notion.

It's not being watched it's the idea and potential of it. Sure you'll throw it out because you don't own a gun and aren't going to be part of this but I understand the concern.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It's not being watched it's the idea and potential of it. Sure you'll throw it out because you don't own a gun and aren't going to be part of this but I understand the concern.

I don't own a gun, I've considered owning one (target shooting is fun) and if I did, I assure you that if there was a registry, the idea of "the government is watching me now" would never cross my mind.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It's not being watched it's the idea and potential of it. Sure you'll throw it out because you don't own a gun and aren't going to be part of this but I understand the concern.

I, too, was born in the Eastern Bloc, but I find your fears unfounded.

I'm currently living in the former Eastern Bloc and I find your unfounded fears.

During the apex of communism?

Being on anyone's active watch list is a serious matter. If the registry happens, those with automatic weapons will most definitely be watched. Those who own 5-10 guns will be watched. It's a silly notion until it isn't.

Originally posted by psmith81992
During the apex of communism?

Being on anyone's active watch list is a serious matter. If the registry happens, those with automatic weapons will most definitely be watched. Those who own 5-10 guns will be watched. It's a silly notion until it isn't.

No, but I know quite well where you're coming from. The US is nothing like the Soviet Union and if it did become like it(it won't), being on some gun registry would be the least of your worries.

Besides, isn't the NSA already watching everyone?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
No, but I know quite well where you're coming from. The US is nothing like the Soviet Union and if it did become like it(it won't), being on some gun registry would be the least of your worries.

Besides, isn't the NSA already watching everyone?

Actively? I Doubt it. Although I need to clear my browser history just to make sure.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Actively? I Doubt it. Although I need to clear my browser history just to make sure.

Too late.

Originally posted by psmith81992
During the apex of communism?

Being on anyone's active watch list is a serious matter. If the registry happens, those with automatic weapons will most definitely be watched. Those who own 5-10 guns will be watched. It's a silly notion until it isn't.

Well, if things get TOO bad and communist-y, wouldn't acquiring guns off the grid make more sense THEN? I know it would be harder but isn't one argument that "anyone who is determined would be able to get a gun?"

But atm, wouldn't it make MORE sense to have guns tracked so as to lower risks of them falling into the wrong hands?

Anyone know the reason(s) why the shooter murdered?

Originally posted by Robtard
Anyone know the reason(s) why the shooter murdered?

Why do people who post on 4chan kill?

Most likely some kind of untreated mental illness.

He also posted to 4chan yesterday talking about doing this.

http://i.imgur.com/oUzhCuJ.png

No. You can have tighter gun control without having a registry.

There are also reports that the gunman asked everyone in the class to identify their religion before shooting them. So this may have also had some kind of religious motive.

Problem is that school in Roseburg, OR didn't have enough additional security or no security at all to begin with due to a no gun policy state's got going so what's clearly needed is security. Armed security. I say security a lot in case it keeps getting overlooked.

It is really Liberal/Progressive Thinking that a "No Gun Policy" somehow means that it also effects Security as well.

Gun control is pointless if someone wants to commit an act of terror and kill people. It's rather easy to make homemade bombs. Many other ways exist to kill people if someone really wants to.

I don't know the statistics on stabbing deaths, but I know it is high. Do we ban knives? Drunk drivers kill people every day. Do we ban cars? Guns are the only issue where people blame the weapon more than the person. I wouldn't be surprised if these are false flag attacks to gather support to ban firearms in this country.

Apologies if this has already been posted:

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51444

Originally posted by BackFire
Most likely some kind of untreated mental illness.

He also posted to 4chan yesterday talking about doing this.

http://i.imgur.com/oUzhCuJ.png I browsed that thread yesterday lol.

Spooky.

Originally posted by BackFire
Most likely some kind of untreated mental illness.

He also posted to 4chan yesterday talking about doing this.

http://i.imgur.com/oUzhCuJ.png

Of course it would be some shit head from /r9k/

Truly the most deplorable of boards on the 'chan. Not even /pol/ is such a treacherous hive of scum and villainy.

4chan never went there. I bet the place is a bust.

To the contrary, you'd fit in right in I think.

Nah, they're too hardcore even for Quan.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Nah, they're too hardcore even for Quan. Absurd.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
To the contrary, you'd fit in right in I think. Do they argue fictional matchups ?

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Of course it would be some shit head from /r9k/

Who the hell are those people anyway? Are they like btards?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Apologies if this has already been posted:

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51444

Yes, it has been posted already and I've expressed my thoughts on it on page 2.

Originally posted by quanchi112
4chan never went there. I bet the place is a bust.

Used to be better 8-10 years ago.

R9K is a board explicitly for people who are depressed/suicidal/socially awkward etc.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Used to be better 8-10 years ago. Can't that be said of all message boards ?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
R9K is a board explicitly for people who are depressed/suicidal/socially awkward etc.

Oh dear, I think I'm beginning to understand. Does the place have a lot of irrationally angry permavirgins?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Can't that be said of all message boards ?

Ehh, I suppose.

Appears he was targeting Christians.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/index.html

Found em

https://www.facebook.com/ChrisHarperMercer

You know he didn't make that page, right?

So what?

Not sure why you're posting it.

Originally posted by Mindset
Not sure why you're posting it.

Its a posting forum, you post things.

Try it sometime.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Its a posting forum, you post things.

Try it sometime. No

here's my theory on these mass killers

usually they are no-pussy getting losers, who write some manifesto before they go on their spree

and then we all spend the next month or so combing through their manifesto and turning them into virtual celebrities, which is exactly what they want

so in order to deal with this phenomenon.... when someone does this sort of thing we should all just ignore it. since we lack the willpower to do that... the state should just make it illegal to report on this sort of thing. and as retribution, destroy any trace of the identity of the killer such as their facebook account, youtube account, any family pictures including them should be photo-shopped to remove them, etc.

then and only then can we help to curb this sort of behavior, my friends.

We have a world war in the making, people will forget about about killing each other and band together to kill others.

Originally posted by red g jacks
here's my theory on these mass killers

usually they are no-pussy getting losers, who write some manifesto before they go on their spree

and then we all spend the next month or so combing through their manifesto and turning them into virtual celebrities, which is exactly what they want

so in order to deal with this phenomenon.... when someone does this sort of thing we should all just ignore it. since we lack the willpower to do that... the state should just make it illegal to report on this sort of thing. and as retribution, destroy any trace of the identity of the killer such as their facebook account, youtube account, any family pictures including them should be photo-shopped to remove them, etc.

then and only then can we help to curb this sort of behavior, my friends. :/ lol

That would also stagnate research into why people commit mass murder, fascist

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Gun control is pointless if someone wants to commit an act of terror and kill people. It's rather easy to make homemade bombs. Many other ways exist to kill people if someone really wants to.

I don't know the statistics on stabbing deaths, but I know it is high. Do we ban knives? Drunk drivers kill people every day. Do we ban cars? Guns are the only issue where people blame the weapon more than the person. I wouldn't be surprised if these are false flag attacks to gather support to ban firearms in this country.



Indeed they are much higher than gun deaths:


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/fbi-far-more-murders-committed-with-knives-than-assault-rifles


...and yet, no one is calling for more restrictive sales of knives. I wonder why?


Could it be that it's because knives won't help us when the government oversteps its boundaries?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
:/ lol

That would also stagnate research into why people commit mass murder, fascist

is that really a promising field of research as it stands?

anyway i have a solution

the ones who are taken alive can be sent to research facilities for further analysis

In Obama's latest gun control rant after the shooting he referred to himself 28 times:


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/4nzgcxzmshpdma88iaeufjuil40q1e




What does that tell you?


Edit: Obviously, my question is intended for people who don't think Obama is some kind of Saint who can do no wrong and aren't blind and have an IQ at least in the double digits. Which means it excludes liberals, of course.

Originally posted by Star428
Indeed they are much higher than gun deaths:


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/fbi-far-more-murders-committed-with-knives-than-assault-rifles


...and yet, no one is calling for more restrictive sales of knives. I wonder why?


Could it be that it's because knives won't help us when the government oversteps its boundaries?

Neither will guns. Do you genuinely think an assault rifle would cause any problems for a B2 bomber or a tank?

Originally posted by jaden101
Neither will guns. Do you genuinely think an assault rifle would cause any problems for a B2 bomber or a tank?

If it shoots lasers?

Originally posted by jaden101
Neither will guns. Do you genuinely think an assault rifle would cause any problems for a B2 bomber or a tank?



Do you genuinely think that our entire military will obey unlawful orders to wage all-out war against and slaughter American citizens? If you do, you don't understand American loyalty at all.

The logic of "if the argument wants to start a war, they'll come with tanks and your guns are useless" is facetious. It ignores strategy and rules of combat to just use tanks and air raids. This isn't a land war in asia, it's a continent where a land war is probably going to account for the majority of the battles.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
It is really Liberal/Progressive Thinking that a "No Gun Policy" somehow means that it also effects Security as well.

Perhaps not nothing but the ease of accessibility when it comes to firearms in the states is something that only worsens the issue, I think.

The more challenging it is, the less likely someone would be able to commit these atrocities. People immediately cry, "It's mental illness! Throw tax dollars to improve education, therapy, medicine, etc!"

I don't think it is that straightforward. It's only a portion of what needs to be done to curb these shooting sprees.

Originally posted by Star428
Do you genuinely think that our entire military will obey unlawful orders to wage all-out war against and slaughter American citizens? If you do, you don't understand American loyalty at all.

I don't think even a tiny proportion of the US military would follow orders to kill US citizens. But then that only makes the argument that the citizens should be armed in case of government tyranny even more redundant.

I disagree but whatever.

Originally posted by Star428
I disagree but whatever.

Would you have killed US citizens if ordered?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you have killed US citizens if ordered?



I was in the Navy so I doubt I would've ever been ordered to kill any American citizens.

Jason Bourne had to.

That sounds like a name I should know but I"m drawing a blank.

Originally posted by Star428
I was in the Navy so I doubt I would've ever been ordered to kill any American citizens.

Would you have done it if you had been though?

Originally posted by Star428
That sounds like a name I should know but I"m drawing a blank.

It's a fictional character from a spy movie franchise starting with The Bourne Identity (2002)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you have done it if you had been though?



It's a fictional character from a spy movie franchise starting with The Bourne Identity (2002)




I guess it would depend on the circumstances. If I thought it was an unlawful order I would've been obligated not to follow it even if an officer tried to convince me it was a lawful one. I would've ignored it and just accepted whatever punishment my superiors handed down to me. I would've never killed American citizens if I thought all they were doing is protecting their right to bear arms, for example. Even if the PoTUS himself personally ordered me to do it.




Hopefully, there are still enough officers left in high-ranking positions who will not order unlawful orders to the men under their command to kill American citizens who're just protecting their 2nd amendment right. Obama has been purging the military of those in high positions though who he thought would question him in a situation like that and replaced them with inexperienced people whom he thinks won't question him. Like that gay man he appointed as Secretary of the Army recently which I posted about in a recent thread. The article linked to the link in a thread I just made today about many high-ranking generals and admirals accusing Obama of treason has several links in it related to it. One of them is specifically about Obama firing anyone who disagrees with him.



I see. Never seen them before.

I gotta say i liked Obama's speech, particularly the routine bit.

I couldn't force myself to watch more than 2 or 3 minutes of it.

You have to learn to be objective. I like obama despite him and i having different ideologies. He IS a smart guy.

So because I don't like him and didn't want to listen to yet another one of his ridiculous anti-gun rants means I'm not objective? Give me a break. Obama is the one who needs to be more objective. For example, he has a clear bias for muslims over Christians. That's clear as day. I"m tired of his ass talking about gun control, criticizing how our cops do things, how much he respects Islam while claiming to be Christian and how he tries to blame the Crusades for what ISIS is doing today. LOL. Or how about how he loves opening his mouth when a cop rightfully kills some thug and automatically assumes the cop is guilty before the body is even cold? But then, when a cop is killed by some thug he has nothing to say. Yeah, LOL. Obama is sooooo objective.



And "smart"? LOL. He's not really particularly smart when compared to some of our best Presidents we've had (like Reagan, for instance). He MIGHT be smarter than Bush but that's really not saying much.

You've never been objective about Obama, just like Basher Tag and lestov have never been objective about conservatives. Obama is an intelligent likeable guy who happens to disagree with conservative policies, nothing more. No, he's no Reagan but I never said he was.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You've never been objective about Obama, just like Basher Tag and lestov have never been objective about conservatives. Obama is an intelligent likeable guy who happens to disagree with conservative policies, nothing more. No, he's no Reagan but I never said he was.



I actually like Obama. I don't agree with everything he's done but I think he's an ok president.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You've never been objective about Obama, just like Basher Tag and lestov have never been objective about conservatives. Obama is an intelligent likeable guy who happens to disagree with conservative policies, nothing more. No, he's no Reagan but I never said he was.



Well, you know... perhaps if Obama himself was more objective about things then the people who hate him so much would be too. In fact, so many people wouldn't hate him in the first place if he were. Just compare his list of quotes in link below about Islam and Christianity to see how he clearly favors Islam despite claiming he's a Christian:



http://conservativetribune.com/40-quotes-obama/


So he's obviously a liar. Any fool should be able to see that.


Also, why does he blame everyone and everything for this tragedy except for, you know, *gasp* the guy who actually committed it?


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/obama-blames-everyone-but-the-gunman-for-the-oregon-community-college-shooting


...and why does he make up his own facts about the gun violence in America if he is sooooo objective:


http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/obama-makes-up-his-own-facts-about-gun-violence-here-are-the-real-facts-he-refuses-to-admit-read


Do you seriously think that if Obama succeeeds in getting more restrictive gun laws that he will stop there? I know you're not that naive because I"ve read many of your posts.

Dude, Obama doesn't have to be objective. He's a Democrat. He's a liberal. Meaning his ideologies are different from ours. He exhibits the typical liberal ideologies and that's what I have issues with. That doesn't say anything about his intelligence or personality. He seems like a nice, likable guy and is doing a decent job.

I"m sorry but being a democrat or liberal is no excuse for not being objective.

I think Obama is pretty objective generally though.

Also all of those quotes about Islam is what any reasonable statesman would say.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Dude, Obama doesn't have to be objective. He's a Democrat. He's a liberal.

Good job drinking the whackjob juice

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Obama is pretty objective generally though.

Also all of those quotes about Islam is what any reasonable statesman would say. Now you're being disingenuous. No president is objective because they more or less follow their own ideologies that coinvide with the other party. Might as well claim W was objective.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good job drinking the whackjob juice pot. Kettle.black

Oh i see, as usual you misinterpreted my post and got angry. I didn't mean he wasn't objective because he's a liberal or democrat, but that because he follows his specific ideoligies. We can put bush in there instead if it helps you dry your panties.

I'm sorry, have I ever said "Being a Conservative means you can't be objective" or something to that nature?

edit: I see you edited, maybe mean what you say and say what you mean then?

Read up tough pants.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm sorry, have I ever said "Being a Conservative means you can't be objective" or something to that nature?

apparently i said that as well.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Read up tough pants.

You got emotional really quick. If you felt I misread your post, you could have calmly and without snarky remarks said "no, you misread my intent" and that would have been that.

It's only an unlawful order when it violates the Constitution of the United States. If the right to bear arms was removed, then soldiers could not use that as a reason to make war on American citizens. I still don't know if the military would follow the order. It will probably lead to an attempted coup d'etat.

One of the many Obama quotes in article that angers me: "As a student of history, I know that civilization owes a debt to Islam".



Does that sound like the opinion of an objective or rational man?Obviously, he's referring to the Crusades (again) because he stupidly thinks, like most people, that Christians were the aggressors of that conflict when they clearly weren't. The muslims' aggressions towards Christians is what started that shit so if anyone owes any body a debt it's the ****ing muslims.

Originally posted by Robtard
You got emotional really quick. If you felt I misread your post, you could have calmly and without snarky remarks said "no, you misread my intent" and that would have been that. yup, all this after me wccusing you of getting angry after misconstruing my point. It's much easier to repeat me than coming up with a rebuttal huh

Originally posted by Star428
One of the many Obama quotes in article that angers me: "As a student of history, I know that the world owes a debt to Islam".



Does that sound like the opinion of an objective or rational man?Obviously, he's referring to the Crusades (again) because he stupidly thinks, like most people, that Christians were the aggressors of that conflict when they clearly weren't. The muslims aggressions towards Christians is what started that shit so if anyone owes any body a debt it's the ****ing muslims.

I think he is referring to Islam preserving most of the thought of Greek philosophers as well as being mainly responsible for scientific advancements during the European dark ages....

Originally posted by psmith81992
yup, all this after me wccusing you of getting angry after misconstruing my point. It's much easier to repeat me than coming up with a rebuttal huh

Alright, I see where this is going and prefer we just skip to the end where you claim I'm emotional (check?) and declare yourself the winner. Thanks, bye now.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
It's only an unlawful order when it violates the Constitution of the United States. If the right to bear arms was removed, then soldiers could not use that as a reason to make war on American citizens. I still don't know if the military would follow the order. It will probably lead to an attempted coup d'etat.



The second amendment is part ofthe Bill of Rights. Those rights are unalienable. Which means they can NEVER be taken away. It's against the law for Congress to amend any of the first 10 amendments. They might very well do it but if they do, they're doing it illegally.

I just think the whole "right to bear arms" thing is such an outdated amendment. It made a lot of sense to put that in during the time period when it first came into existence, but it has been a long long time since then.

Not that I want to get rid of all guns, but you see some gun people who act as if taking their guns from them would be akin to taking their first born child.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong, any Amendment can be repealed legally with the correct number of senate/congress votes, presidential endorsement and X number of states complying.

Originally posted by Robtard
...skip to the end where you claim I'm emotional (check?) and declare yourself the winner. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=Emotional+userid%3A144515

Originally posted by Star428
The second amendment is part ofthe Bill of Rights. Those rights are unalienable. Which means they can NEVER be taken away. It's against the law for Congress to amend any of the first 10 amendments. They might very well do it but if they do, they're doing it illegally.

Liberals are much for tradition. Those rights could very well be done away with. It will probably cause a second Civil War though.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=Emotional+userid%3A144515

Alright, I lol'd

Ah that's cute, I have a mentally handicapped fan. Sweet

Originally posted by Star428
The second amendment is part ofthe Bill of Rights. Those rights are unalienable. Which means they can NEVER be taken away. It's against the law for Congress to amend any of the first 10 amendments. They might very well do it but if they do, they're doing it illegally.

I have heard this before as well. Googling it it is hard to find the information, and I can't find it in the constitution either, could you point me to on what basis they are inalienable?

Originally posted by Robtard
Alright, I lol'd

amusement is also an emotion, so i suppose he was right in a way.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Liberals are much for tradition. Those rights could very well be done away with. It will probably cause a second Civil War though.



Yeah, that's what I was getting at. If Congress violates the Bill of Rights then it would probably instigate a second revolutionary war.

There is no law about the Bill of Rights being impossible to change. 'Bill of Rights' is just a name for the first ten amendments. The amendments can be changed via Congress like any other part of the Constitution.

It's a slightly ridiculous concept anyway, because even if there was such a law, you could just repeal the law. Laws are set by legislatures.

But in any case, there is no such law.

So I just saw a few articles that apparently the gunman was targeting Christians specifically. That was why he went around asking people what their religion was.


So sad ...Another LeftWing Nut Job gets ahold of a gun and loses control of it. There aught to be a law....saying that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives shouldn't be allowd to own weapons.


They just don't' have the mental stability to handle them.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So I just saw a few articles that apparently the gunman was targeting Christians specifically. That was why he went around asking people what their religion was.


So sad ...Another LeftWing Nut Job gets ahold of a gun and loses control of it. There aught to be a law....saying that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives shouldn't be allowd to own weapons.


They just don't' have the mental stability to handle them.







I'm down with that.

Originally posted by Star428




I'm down with that.

Could you point out the legal basis for the first ten amendments to the US constitution being inalienable?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Could you point out the legal basis for the first ten amendments to the US constitution being inalienable?


It's in our country's Declaration of Independence. You can also read about it below:


http://conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights


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

Originally posted by Star428
It's in our country's Declaration of Independence. Read about it below:


http://conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights


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

ever try reading your own links to see if they prove what you think they prove?

also @ conservapedia. i lol'd. thanks

Can someone point out to Star that the DoI isn't the US Constitution.

"ll men are created equal... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That was written in a time where slavery was legal.

Originally posted by Star428
It's in our country's Declaration of Independence. You can also read about it below:


http://conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights


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

Hmm, the conservapedia article seems to deal with a slightly different topic, as far as I can tell it doesn't state why the Bill of Rights is inalienable, if at all.

The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention it either.

I assume if the Bill of Rights is inalienable that would be written in the Constitution, can you maybe point me to the Article where it says that?

Indeed- Star, those links do not say what you say they do.

The only rights given as 'unalienable' in the constitution are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- but the idea there is that these things are BEYOND law, not special types of law.

There is nothing legally different about the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights as compared to any other amendment. They can be changed or repealed as other amendments have been.

LOL. You people must be blind.

We can read, Star. You seem to be having the difficulty there.

You've backed yourself into another corner. You should be more careful about how you process your facts.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. You people must be blind.

Please.Stop.Embarrassing.Conservatives


http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/10/02/army-vet-shot-7-times-hailed-as-hero-in-oregon-massacre/