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

Yep, this is a thing:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/furor-after-north-dakota-principal-rejects-students-gun-yearbook-photo-n478656

It really does speak for itself, but I suppose a few words should be added. So here goes: Just...why? The kid also looks absolutely ridiculous. The principal is doing him a favor.

People are upset the principal doesn't want a picture of a kid toting a rifle in the year book.

I just can't get over how ridiculous the kid looks though.

m-much freedoms...

Why is this controversial?
Is he breaking the law? No
Is he doing something amoral? No
Is it inappropriate? No, sounds like a good kid.

Stop censoring people

^^^its in bad taste, but you HAVE to know that. Why you want/need it spelled out is a different question entirely.

Anyway...
Charlie Renville wrote that he felt the picture was "no different then (sic) the pictures in the school library of soldiers during anyone of our nations (sic) wars,"...
LOL at this. Sorry, Charlie, your son is not a soldier.

Typical case of a gun totting dumbass trying to justify owning a gun.

"My son's a hero you guys, he's totally not over-compensating for something!"

Love how the guy has no idea that this looks, I mean it's not like there's been HS shooting or anything...

Ugh, idiots.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Why is this controversial?
Is he breaking the law? No
Is he doing something amoral? No
Is it inappropriate? No, sounds like a good kid.

Stop censoring people

Nobody said he was breaking the law. But this is a damn year book, does he need a gun toting picture for that? Especially with recent school shootings in the past few years? Let's not pretend doing this took a lack of common sense.

Also I'm sure you've been to high school. The underlying message this kid is trying to get off is "look at me I'm a badass with a gun".

Assuming he's been to high school is the first problem.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody said he was breaking the law. But this is a damn year book, does he need a gun toting picture for that? Especially with recent school shootings in the past few years? Let's not pretend doing this took a lack of common sense.

Also I'm sure you've been to high school. The underlying message this kid is trying to get off is "look at me I'm a badass with a gun". is a picture going to shoot kids?

Serious question

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^its in bad taste, but you HAVE to know that. Why you want/need it spelled out is a different question entirely.

Anyway...
Charlie Renville wrote that he felt the picture was "no different then (sic) the pictures in the school library of soldiers during anyone of our nations (sic) wars,"...
LOL at this. Sorry, Charlie, your son is not a soldier. I don't see the difference? Because we wore a uniform with our service weapon?

No a picture isn't going to shoot kids. Nobody ever said it would. The implication was that with recent events in mind this was stupid to even try. The fact is he isn't a soldier, he hasn't served his country or signed up to do so. It's some douche holding a gun.

I'm just shocked he isn't wearing a confederate flag t-shirt or something.

He looks like a douchebag. The principal was saving him from himself and his poor idea of what counts as a cool pic.

I guess this comes down to whether or not you believe the school has the right to refuse to add pictures of students into the yearbook.

Honestly I think they do. I mean if they kid had submitted a nude photo of himself I think we would all agree the school could tell him no. Or one where he is holding a Jack Daniels bottle.

I live in a country wasteland so kids holding guns ion senior photos is common. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I plan to be wearing a horse head helmet with my high school quote being lyrics to shake it off

I think it comes down to the fact this is the schools yearbook not his blog or Facebook page. They have the right to decide what can or can't be in the yearbook.

The principal is truly doing him a favor.

Exactly, HS year book pics generally have to follow a set of guidelines set by the school. Fail-flexing in a U.S.A. beater while holding a gun probably isn't in the rules.

The parents should really thank the principal and send him/her a nice basket or edible arrangement. That person just saved their son epic levels of ridicule.

Originally posted by Newjak
I guess this comes down to whether or not you believe the school has the right to refuse to add pictures of students into the yearbook.

Honestly I think they do. I mean if they kid had submitted a nude photo of himself I think we would all agree the school could tell him no. Or one where he is holding a Jack Daniels bottle. so owning a gun is equal to child pornography and underage drinking?

@literally everyone else

Do you spend your day mocking people for their high school yearbook photos? I've literally never seen anyone of my friend's; outside of those I actually went to school with...

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so owning a gun is equal to child pornography and underage drinking? facepalm I think you missed the main point. It could be any number of things. A shirt with a nazi symbol on it or a racist saying.

The point is that there are things we could all generally agree on that we would be okay with the school not allowing into a yearbook picture. And that it not the end of the world if the school doesn't want a student photo holding a gun.

Again, are you equating bigotry and genocide with someone who owns a gun?

Is there any way that this photo can harm someone? No. Stop fear mongeing.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so owning a gun is equal to child pornography and underage drinking?

Lol. The school has the right to decide what kind of content they'll allow in their yearbook. No one's comparing owning guns to child pornography. If the kid had decided to pose with a katana the school would probably reject the picture on the grounds that it isn't appropriate, just like posing with a gun.

The issue isn't whether guns are bad or not, it's whether guns are appropriate things to associate with a high school.

Just understand this: it isn't the image itself, it's the context. If this were just a Facebook post, he'd just look like a tool, but it'd be perfectly fine. But it's not a Facebook post, it's a yearbook photo.

And to think the little shit head clock boy got world recognition for brining a hoax bomb to school for the sole purpose of fear mongering.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Again, are you equating bigotry and genocide with someone who owns a gun?

Is there any way that this photo can harm someone? No. Stop fear mongeing. facepalm

Agreed, you made a dumb point.

You are saying that somehow a picture of a gun is related to school shootings. He wasn't supporting the shooter, he is supporting his 2nd amendment rights...

How is that inappropriate?

Kids did this in the 90's to counter the desire of the right to censor hard rock, rap & video games.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Agreed, you made a dumb point.

You are saying that somehow a picture of a gun is related to school shootings. He wasn't supporting the shooter, he is supporting his 2nd amendment rights...

How is that inappropriate?
You're just being obtuse at this point.

A school has a right to control the content of its yearbook. They decided that his photo was in poor taste. You can disagree with their determination of what's in bad taste, but that's about all you can do.

Clock boy is world famous for brining a bomb to school.

This thread is getting hilarious when it's really simple. The kid tried to pass a pic and it goes against school regulations.

Some douche in my senior year tried to pass a pic of him doing the "hang loose" sign, school rejected that, as they have specific guidelines for a yearbook pic. No one cried "my freedoms".

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're just being obtuse at this point.

A school has a right to control the content of its yearbook. They decided that his photo was in poor taste. You can disagree with their determination of what's in bad taste, but that's about all you can do. agreed??? Not sure your point? I'm not advocating a riot to burn down a city till the principal recants their position.

Isn't brining a bomb to school against regulations Rob?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
agreed??? Not sure your point? I'm not advocating a riot to burn down a city till the principal recants their position.
It's me who's not sure of your point. Why are you quibbling with everyone right now?

Edit: LOL @ TI trying to derail.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's me who's not sure of your point. Why are you quibbling with everyone right now?

Edit: LOL @ TI trying to derail. my point is how are pictures of guns and t-shirts with pictures of guns inappropriate? School is a forum for learning and exchanging ideas, not daycares for Man & Woman-babies...

Agreed on Ti...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Isn't brining a bomb to school against regulations Rob?

An opened up digital clock from the 80's isn't a bomb, TI. The Clock-kid's a little douche and phony, but I don't think he broke school regulations.

Things of note since you're trying to equate a picture being denied to clock-boy, gun-douche didn't get arrested; he was just told "no".

Originally posted by Robtard
An opened up digital clock from the 80's isn't a bomb, TI. The Clock-kid's a little douche and phony, but I don't think he broke school regulations.

Things of note since you're trying to equate a picture being denied to clock-boy, gun-douche didn't get arrested; he was just told "no".

He is a Islamic Supremacist from a Supremacist family that's intent was to promote terror and then get our system do defend him.

It's priceless to hear you call him a douche because you and everyone else here on the liberal side fell into the trap and believed it and defended him for so long

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
my point is how are pictures of guns and t-shirts with pictures of guns inappropriate? School is a forum for learning and exchanging ideas, not daycares for Man & Woman-babies...

Agreed on Ti...
You're thinking of colleges. Grade school has always been pretty whitewashed when it comes to "mature" subjects like sex, drugs, alcohol, guns, etc.

I'm not sure how your high school worked, but even in my HS (which is in a really pro-gun area) nobody would have ever thought to submit a picture like that.

Here's the thing: this sort of picture is the kind of glamour shot that egomaniacal shooters tend to take before going on their rampages. Not saying that's what this kid is, just saying that this isn't the sort of thing a humble gunowner does. It doesn't really glorify the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a practical consideration. Now, this is going to be a bit of a tangent, but since I'm on the subject might as well continue. I think gunnuts get the 2nd Amendment wrong all the time. It isn't there so that people can have twenty guns and shoot them all the time for fun or just so they can feel good. The idea was that guns were necessary for hunting and building a well-regulated militia. Most people don't hunt and no one's in a militia these days, so the point of the 2nd Amendment has been lost, and now people treat guns like a religion. I think that's what this kid is doing. I'd have no issue with it if he was hunting in the photo in full camos and all that. But this is just him trying to look like a badass and it comes off as immature and tone deaf.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He is a Islamic Supremacist from a Supremacist family that's intent was to promote terror and then get our system do defend him.

It's priceless to hear you call him a douche because you and everyone else here on the liberal side fell into the trap and believed it and defended him for so long

This isn't anything new, once it came out that he didn't actually invent anything, but just knackered up a shitbox and tried to pass it off as an "invention", practically everyone went "oh, that little douche". You were there in the thread when it happened.

Not sure what clock-kid has to do with gun-douche picture boy.

No no, everyone went on and on about how he was wronged.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No no, everyone went on and on about how he was wronged.
Ahmed was actually arrested. This kid was just told that his photo was inappropriate. World of difference. Please stop derailing with your irrelevant BS.

Its totally relevant. Why is this kid's freedoms being revoked while another was given national recognition. This is bias.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Its totally relevant. Why is this kid's freedoms being revoked while another was given national recognition. This is bias. Because this kid wasn't arrested while the other one was.

Also which freedom is gun-kid having revoked?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No no, everyone went on and on about how he was wronged.

This is wrong, it's in the thread.

Anyhow, what happened to gun-douche isn't comparable. So maybe stick to the topic?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're thinking of colleges. Grade school has always been pretty whitewashed when it comes to "mature" subjects like sex, drugs, alcohol, guns, etc.

I'm not sure how your high school worked, but even in my HS (which is in a really pro-gun area) nobody would have ever thought to submit a picture like that.

Here's the thing: this sort of picture is the kind of glamour shot that egomaniacal shooters tend to take before going on their rampages. Not saying that's what this kid is, just saying that this isn't the sort of thing a humble gunowner does. It doesn't really glorify the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a practical consideration. Now, this is going to be a bit of a tangent, but since I'm on the subject might as well continue. I think gunnuts get the 2nd Amendment wrong all the time. It isn't there so that people can have twenty guns and shoot them all the time for fun or just so they can feel good. The idea was that guns were necessary for hunting and building a well-regulated militia. Most people don't hunt and no one's in a militia these days, so the point of the 2nd Amendment has been lost, and now people treat guns like a religion. I think that's what this kid is doing. I'd have no issue with it if he was hunting in the photo in full camos and all that. But this is just him trying to look like a badass and it comes off as immature and tone deaf. so in the month or so till College starts he goes from coddled baby to full fledged adult? You don't see how this mindset is what is fueling our issues at university?

Citation needed on glamour shot serial killers, especially vs all the people who just want to look tough, thuggish or whatever reason folks pose with firearms.

The 2nd amendment is there to give people the right to destroy there own government should it become corrupt, granted this makes little sense in practice but on the same hand I'm generally against the right to gather and "peacefully" riot. So how is a picture of a gun inappropriate for a young adult to see?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Its totally relevant. Why is this kid's freedoms being revoked while another was given national recognition. This is bias. how is one kid bringing supposed bomb supplies anything like this issue? One is an issue of possible racism, unless you're saying this kid can't pose with a gun because he's white?

Originally posted by Newjak
Because this kid wasn't arrested while the other one was.

Also which freedom is gun-kid having revoked?

Freedom of expression.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Freedom of expression.

So you'd have been cool with Ahmed sending in a yearbook pic of him sporting an Kalashnikov, ISIS beater, standing behind an ISIS flag?

Not even close to the same. Isis is a Islamic Terrorist organization.

This guy looks like Captain America.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not even close to the same. Isis is a Islamic Terrorist organization.

This guy looks like Captain America.

And that means 'Freedom of Expression" is out?

He looks like a douche (which is fine, as he has the right to look like a douche), the pic broke school yearbook pic guidelines though.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Freedom of expression. When you say freedom of expression are you basically saying freedom of speech?

Just because you want to express yourself in a certain way doesn't mean the school needs to endorse it by allowing it in their yearbook.

So you jumping from one debate to another because Pym was kicking your logic out the window?

Originally posted by Robtard
And that means 'Freedom of Expression" is out?

He looks like a douche (which is fine, as he has the right to look like a douche), the pic broke school yearbook pic guidelines though.

He looks like Captain America, I didn't know that was douchy..or are you only a fan of Cap in the movies? In real life it's uncool?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you jumping from one debate to another because Pym was kicking your logic out the window? Ah no. I still am saying the same thing pretty much. Just relating it to you in a different manner.

The school is perfectly okay rejecting pictures that it deems inappropriate. Just like it could reject a picture of him holding a Jack Daniels bottle or they were holding a burning american flag. It sucks for the person giving the picture but it didn't violate their freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He looks like Captain America, I didn't know that was douchy..or are you only a fan of Cap in the movies? In real life it's uncool?

I don't see Captain America, I see a try-hard douche. But our opinions of him looking badass or douchy are irrelevant. Schools have guidelines for yearbook pics; really that simple.

The only difference between that pic and a pic of cap would be one has a shield. The other a gun. Otherwise it is the same representation of America. Something you apparently despise for unknown reasons.

The symbolism of Caps "Weapon" being a shield is pretty important and essential to the character and the understanding of what Caps America stands for.


Also im pretty sure Cap doesn't wear a wife beater.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The only difference between that pic and a pic of cap would be one has a shield. The other a gun. Otherwise it is the same representation of America. Something you apparently despise for unknown reasons.

Just stop already

Originally posted by Bardock42
The symbolism of Caps "Weapon" being a shield is pretty important and essential to the character and the understanding of what Caps America stands for.


Also im pretty sure Cap doesn't wear a wife beater.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/91/cf/8f/91cf8fdb30507983c306ddbae506a370.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Just stop already

Literally there is nothing wrong with what he did, he was sporting the American flag and the Second Amendment..

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/91/cf/8f/91cf8fdb30507983c306ddbae506a370.jpg

Are you alleging that this was worn by Captain America himself?

No but it's something that could be worn, and nothing wrong with it. Tank Tops are apart of American Culture.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Literally there is nothing wrong with what he did, he was sporting the American flag and the Second Amendment..

You're confusing me thinking he looks like a douche with being "wrong". No, it's not wrong in the general sense, as I said, he's free to look like a douche all he likes.

Okay, but he's not dressed as Captain America, that's just nonsense.

At any rate, no one is saying that he can't wear that, it's perfectly fine, but the high school yearbook doesn't need to print it.

I never said he was. But its very similar..so my point stands.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're confusing me thinking he looks like a douche with being "wrong". No, it's not wrong in the general sense, as I said, he's free to look like a douche all he likes.

So what makes him look like a douche, but not Captain America, its the same concept.

America, Freedoms and all that good stuff.

We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this or even half way. I see a tryhard douche, you see Captain America. Let's move on.

Anyhow, one thing of interest:

Dahlen, who has been the principal of Fargo North for more than two decades, said he's dealt with his share of controversy and knew that Renville's photo would cause a stir "partly because of the family that was submitting it, and partly because it's a polarizing topic."

Wonder if it's just a lawsuit stunt.

He might learned from the best, the clockboy.

Originally posted by Robtard
This thread is getting hilarious when it's really simple. The kid tried to pass a pic and it goes against school regulations.

Some douche in my senior year tried to pass a pic of him doing the "hang loose" sign, school rejected that, as they have specific guidelines for a yearbook pic. No one cried "my freedoms".

Actually the dad was calling for the principal to be fired. That is more or less whining about the lack of freedom his son has to pose with a gun in a school yearbook.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He might learned from the best, the clockboy.

I honestly think this is an example of just stupid people. Though it doesn't mean they won't try to turn it into more.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So what makes him look like a douche, but not Captain America, its the same concept.

America, Freedoms and all that good stuff.

Come on now just look at the kid. I don't think of Captain America when I see this kid.

Plus how far do you want to push this? What if a kid had a yearbook photo of himself stomping on the American flag, is that cool to print? What about a kid toting a shotgun? Or some uzi's? Surely if we can allow the rifle we can allow uzi's.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
how is one kid bringing supposed bomb supplies anything like this issue? One is an issue of possible racism, unless you're saying this kid can't pose with a gun because he's white?

Islam is not a race..

Originally posted by Surtur
What if a kid had a yearbook photo of himself stomping on the American flag, i was wondering this exact same thing when i first heard this story. It actually reminded me of michael douglas speech in The American President, and i was curious as to whether or not those defending his freedoms and constitutional rights and citing censorship for his pro america gun photo would equally support an anti america flag burning photo based on its equal protection under the law and constitution.


Heres the speech. He sums it up much better than i can-

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zemrWBIc_hE

If he had been stomping on it, it would have been allowed most likely.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If he had been stomping on it, it would have been allowed most likely. what about burning in your opinion?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If he had been stomping on it, it would have been allowed most likely.
Do you think patriotism is threatened in this country?

Obama himself said conservatives were terrorists. He also sicked the IRS on tea partiers. And he is a closet muslim who hates christians, he;s deported Syrian Christians and won't let them in anymore. What other proof do you need?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama himself said conservatives were terrorists. He also sicked the IRS on tea partiers. And he is a closet muslim who hates christians, he;s deported Syrian Christians and won't let them in anymore. What other proof do you need?
Sources for each claim please.

Also it's "sicced"

Deporting Christians
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/18/obama-is-importing-muslims-deporting-christians.html

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/27.iraqi.christians.face.deportation.in.u.s.while.obama.offers.asylum.to.thousands.of.muslims.from.syria/71278.htm

Obama is muslim
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-barack-hussein-obama-islam-christianity/

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080225/080224-obamaphoto-vmed-11a.grid-4x2.jpg

IRS attacks tea partiers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/irs-tea-party-scandal/

Hilary calls conservatives Terrorists
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-terrorist-groups/

Biden calls them terrorists
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/sources-biden-likened-tea-partiers-to-terrorists-060421

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Deporting Christians
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/18/obama-is-importing-muslims-deporting-christians.html

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/27.iraqi.christians.face.deportation.in.u.s.while.obama.offers.asylum.to.thousands.of.muslims.from.syria/71278.htm

Obama is muslim
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-barack-hussein-obama-islam-christianity/

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080225/080224-obamaphoto-vmed-11a.grid-4x2.jpg

IRS attacks tea partiers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/irs-tea-party-scandal/

Hilary calls conservatives Terrorists
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-terrorist-groups/

Biden calls them terrorists
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/sources-biden-likened-tea-partiers-to-terrorists-060421
Lol. You have no idea what constitutes proof. The first link is basically irrelevant. The second link is an isolated incident that doesn't at all show that Obama hates Christians, it just shows that people who entered illegally are getting deported, which I thought you approved of.

The third link...haha. You sap.

Lol, you claimed Obama called conservatives terrorists so you show me Clinton and Biden?

C'mon, son. This is just sad.

No my links are sound.

Here is the Obama one, and yes he has deported Christians, and won't allow any more in

Here is him on conservatives, and you ignored the IRS scandall

http://conservativepost.com/video-obama-says-anyone-that-opposes-him-is-a-terrorist/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If he had been stomping on it, it would have been allowed most likely.

So what about the shotguns and/or uzi's?

Genuine question: I don't believe the whole "Obama is a muslim" thing, but for the sake of argument, let's say he was... What difference would it make?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Genuine question: I don't believe the whole "Obama is a muslim" thing, but for the sake of argument, let's say he was... What difference would it make?

Wouldn't it would mean he had been lying about not being one?

No one can answer the tough questions.

Him being a Muslim matters because he is in leauge with them to take down America. America represents everything against Islam.

Hence Obama stating openly when elected "I will fundementally change America."

Originally posted by Surtur
Wouldn't it would mean he had been lying about not being one?

Well obviously that. But apart from that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No one can answer the tough questions.

Him being a Muslim matters because he is in leauge with them to take down America. America represents everything against Islam.

Hence Obama stating openly when elected "I will fundementally change America."

lol. Load of bollocks, dude. Come on, now.

Well if he lied about his religion I'd wonder why, so it would bother me. Apart from that lie I suppose nothing would bother me, but the lie of course. Though for me I'd prefer someone as President who didn't adhere to any religion. The thing is I doubt we'd ever even know though, I'm sure they'd just lie and say they believe in something.

Obama better hurry up and finish his Jihad against America then, he's leaving office pretty soon and the country's doing better than when he first came into office.

If I had to rate Islamic-Jihad-Obama right now, I'd give him an 'F'.

Considering he allowed the SB shooting to happen, I'd say that's an A+.

Or are you going to ignore this and blame it on someone else?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No one can answer the tough questions.

Him being a Muslim matters because he is in leauge with them to take down America. America represents everything against Islam.

Hence Obama stating openly when elected "I will fundementally change America."
What's the state of play on Jadehelm? How many hours before Obama declares martial law?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Considering he allowed the SB shooting to happen, I'd say that's an A+.

Or are you going to ignore this and blame it on someone else?

If Obam's plan in destroying America is two amateur terrorist, then Islamic-Jihad-Obama definitely gets an 'F'.

I'm going to blame the two terrorist.

How were they Amatures?

So wait it's not Obama's fault for stopping the investigation?

Two of them, with high-powered rifles and explosives, their death toll will tragic, could have been MUCH higher. Compare them to the coordinated attacks in France, amateurs.

As I said, if this is Islamic-Jihad-Obama's plan in destroying America, he's failing.

Not really. He used a Muslim attack to further his gun rights agenda against the constitution and conservatives. I can't believe you calling these two Amatures, they were highly armed and dangerous. Are you really denying now this isn't how terrorism works?

Compared to other massacres and considering the weapons and explosives they had and two years of planning, yes. As noted, they could have killed far more people, luckily for us, they were amateurs. J.E. Holmes killed twelve people by himself and he's supposedly just some nutter.


As far as "further his guns rights agenda", has anything changed? Will anything change before Obama leaves office? I'm guessing no.

So you are now marginalizing them to circumvent what they did and blame someone else besides Obama for not stopping the attacks?

WE ALL KNOW HE KNEW.

It's like you can't even accept that fact.

Originally posted by Robtard
Compared to other massacres and considering the weapons and explosives they had and two years of planning, yes. As noted, they could have killed far more people, luckily for us, they were amateurs. J.E. Holmes killed twelve people by himself and he's supposedly just some nutter.


As far as "further his guns rights agenda", has anything changed? Will anything change before Obama leaves office? I'm guessing no.
In the skewed world of Obama conspiracy theorists, the true believer's knowledge of Obama's evil plans as well as unflinching vigilance is the only thing keeping him at bay.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you are now marginalizing them to circumvent what they did and blame someone else besides Obama for not stopping the attacks?

WE ALL KNOW HE KNEW.

It's like you can't even accept that fact. When you say "WE ALL KNOW HE KNEW" are you implying that Obama knew this attack was going to happen before it happened and didn't stop it?

Originally posted by Newjak
When you say "WE ALL KNOW HE KNEW" are you implying that Obama new this attack was going to happen before it happened and didn't stop it?
Lol he's not implying, he's outright claiming it.

Well this threads gone full retard, thanks TI

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol he's not implying, he's outright claiming it.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/11/homeland-security-shut-investigation-farook-malik-linked-islamist-group-protect-civil-liberties-potential-terrorists/

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Well this threads gone full retard, thanks TI

Reported for flaming

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you are now marginalizing them to circumvent what they did and blame someone else besides Obama for not stopping the attacks?

WE ALL KNOW HE KNEW.

It's like you can't even accept that fact.

No one's being marginalized. They're terrorist and they murdered 14 people; I blame them for it.

This is also offtopic, so maybe take it over to the SB thread.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/11/homeland-security-shut-investigation-farook-malik-linked-islamist-group-protect-civil-liberties-potential-terrorists/ That doesn't say Obama knew anything. It simply says, if it is true, that the guy doing the investigating was simply told to stop investigating American citizens linked to certain groups because those groups were not designated terrorist organizations at the time. That doing so violated their civil liberties which probably wasn't an unreasonable request. Once again assuming this is true.

And nothing in that article says Obama knew these attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them. Or as you say helped them happen.

I mean history is full of weird things happening but from a strategic standpoint how does this help Obama if he is a secret Muslim trying to turn America into an Islamic state.

I mean if his goal is to disarm America while painting muslims is rose colored glasses. How does allowing two Muslims to carry out a shooting that in the grand scheme of things did nothing to really hurt the American infrastructure/economy/security/intelligence. Shouldn't all this do is make people distrust muslims more?

Oh so DHS knew, and Obama shut the program down, but didn't know

Has common sense been abandoned, or have people lost touch with reality?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh so DHS knew, and Obama shut the program down, but didn't know

Has common sense been abandoned, or have people lost touch with reality? The DHS shut down the guy's investigation, according to the article, because someone was complaining the investigation was going against people's civil liberties.

Now whether that is the case or not. Whether this story is true or not. Can we at least read the article and understand what it really says vs what you are trying to make it say.

Seems your doing that thing you do, like you did with Galan in CBVF. We are done.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obama better hurry up and finish his Jihad against America then, he's leaving office pretty soon and the country's doing better than when he first came into office.

If I had to rate Islamic-Jihad-Obama right now, I'd give him an 'F'.
I rate 9/11

I will agree with this kid if I can wear masks in school photos

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Seems your doing that thing you do, like you did with Galan in CBVF. We are done. What thing is that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Reported for flaming you have taken this thread so far off topic it's not even in the same sphere as the OP, but yes I'm the problem

Oh yes. It was all me, no one else took part in the discussion.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Clock boy is world famous for brining a bomb to school. Originally posted by Omega Vision
LOL @ TI trying to derail. Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Agreed on Ti... yes, you alone did

And were called on it... On page 2.

Seems you want the last word. The clock boy was relevant, and I stopped talking about it, so just move on kid. And you are the one derailing now and talking off topic, If you have a problem, PM me and I'll set you straight.

Except he's not relevant because he didn't actually bring a bomb to school.

No just brought a hoax bomb..to cause terror.

I actually wish this kid was like the clock kid, it would make me feel better if this was just an attempt at fame or maybe to even try to somehow cash in. That is better then "people just thought this was a good idea".

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Seems you want the last word. The clock boy was relevant, and I stopped talking about it, so just move on kid. And you are the one derailing now and talking off topic, If you have a problem, PM me and I'll set you straight. one post and you're back on it...

You derailed the thread because you want to >force< a narrative where there wasn't one... The topic is "should a picture of a kid with a gun be considered offensive?"

Look who's still crying, this is over with, I suggest you move on.

To be fair though I had two guns in my yearbook photo. It couldn't be avoided though, it's not like they were going to remove my arms.

/thread

Originally posted by Surtur
To be fair though I had two guns in my yearbook photo. It couldn't be avoided though, it's not like they were going to remove my arms.