Pumpkin Eater Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Also, it's possible that this is actually workplace violence...I'm sure that'll go down well! Anyway, when you apply the definition of terrorism, does this fit? As in, was the intention of the people to terrorise other public health workers? Or just to go after his colleagues? Was what happened because of an ideology, or because of the specific people involved? That's why I'm reserving judgement until more information comes out. Body armor. Arsenal. Ied factory in house. People who didn't work there were involved. Yeah it was workplace violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Just applying some logic routinely used on this board: If they didn't have that SUV it would have been harder for them to transport their "assault gear" and to actually travel to the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 All the climate change they've experienced in their lifetimes made them do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Just applying some logic routinely used on this board: If they didn't have that SUV it would have been harder for them to transport their "assault gear" and to actually travel to the site. You're a smart guy, don't go down that tired route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 You're a smart guy, don't go down that tired route.Look at the structure, not the result. This isn't a "cars kill more/too" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 A refresher: "Yes a knife can kill, but it's easier to kill more with a gun." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 A refresher: "Yes a knife can kill, but it's easier to kill more with a gun." This is true, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 As soon as I heard there was three I knew it was muslims. All the democeans wasted no time in calling for gun control. So let me get this straight...you want to take our guns AND you want us to allow tons of muslim "refugees" into the country? Yeah sounds like a plan. Spot on. Liberal logic 101. As usual there are liberals who will blame the NRA and call for gun control as soon as something like this happens which goes along with their thinking about not letting a crisis go to waste...use the crisis to advocate for their agenda. They can't seem to grasp a simple concept that criminals and those bent on doing evil deeds don't care about new gun laws or signs on doors that read "gun free zones". They are meaningless to them as these laws only affect those who obey laws in the first place and these people who obey laws are not the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 This is true, of course.Then you should have no trouble understanding the logic structure. "I can carry assault gear, and walk to the site, but it's easier to transport it and myself in a SUV." Can we agree the SUV, like the gun(s) isn't/aren't the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Then you should have no trouble understanding the logic structure. "I can carry assault gear, and walk to the site, but it's easier to transport it and myself in a SUV." Can we agree the SUV, like the gun(s) isn't/aren't the problem We can agree the SUV isn't the problem, for sure. I'm going to argue that the "assault gear" is the problem though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Then you should have no trouble understanding the logic structure. "I can carry assault gear, and walk to the site, but it's easier to transport it and myself in a SUV." Can we agree the SUV, like the gun(s) isn't/aren't the problem While I agree that in this current climate, disarming U.S citizens while allowing these fucks into the country is beyond Retard, to say your logic string here is fail is being nice. Equating an SUV with a gun that was built for one purpose and one purpose only........I mean just stop. We can have other valid arguments but this constant insistence on your part to equate guns with other innocuous "things" is getting absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 People who are on the no fly list can buy guns. It'd probably be good to have some sort of law to prohibit that, don't ya think? --- I'm not saying that would have prevented this or many others obviously, but dismissing every kind of gun reform is foolish. Mohammed Al-Zarkaweri-Fleshbong who is on the no-fly list because he's a suspected terrorist shouldn't be able to go buy an AR-15. At least in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 People who are on the no fly list can buy guns. It'd probably be good to have some sort of law to prohibit that, don't ya think? --- I'm not saying that would have prevented this or many others obviously, but dismissing every kind of gun reform is foolish. Mohammed Al-Zarkaweri-Fleshbong who is on the no-fly list because he's a suspected terrorist shouldn't be able to go buy an AR-15. At least in my opinion. That isn't already a law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 That isn't already a law? Nope. We can thank the NRA for shooting that one down. People hear gun laws and think "they're taking our guns away! 2nd amendment! Freedom!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 People who are on the no fly list can buy guns. It'd probably be good to have some sort of law to prohibit that, don't ya think? --- I'm not saying that would have prevented this or many others obviously, but dismissing every kind of gun reform is foolish. Mohammed Al-Zarkaweri-Fleshbong who is on the no-fly list because he's a suspected terrorist shouldn't be able to go buy an AR-15. At least in my opinion. There are a number of problems that need to be resolved mainly as who gets on this list...I think at one time sen. Ted Kennedy was on the list... How A Journalist Ended Up On A Terror Watch List http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352290026/how-a-journalist-ended-up-on-a-terror-watch-list Here’s Why People on the “No Fly List” Should Be Able to Buy Guns http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/robert-farago/heres-why-people-on-the-no-fly-list-should-be-able-to-buy-guns/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 OBF, when your thinking is "but what if an innocent person can't get a gun" rather than "but why can suspected terrorists get a gun" then something's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 OBF, when your thinking is "but what if an innocent person can't get a gun" rather than "but why can suspected terrorists get a gun" then something's not right. When your thinking is the answer is to suspend our constitution something is not right as well. When we suspend our constitution to fight terrorism the terrorists have already won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 There are a number of problems that need to be resolved mainly as who gets on this list...I think at one time sen. Ted Kennedy was on the list... How A Journalist Ended Up On A Terror Watch List http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352290026/how-a-journalist-ended-up-on-a-terror-watch-list Here’s Why People on the “No Fly List” Should Be Able to Buy Guns http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/robert-farago/heres-why-people-on-the-no-fly-list-should-be-able-to-buy-guns/ That isn't already a law? See? Told you so, people are crazy here. I'm sure Cal and many others also think no fly list guys should be able to go buy guns at will. We have about 100,000 people on the no-fly list I believe and 1,000,000 people on the terrorist watch list (at least one of the major ones). They can all go buy AR-15s whenever they want. It takes about 30 days to get your name off of the list - documentation reviewed by Homeland Security, etc. The 0.00002% of Americans who get put on the list accidentially can deal with the inconvenience (Can't buy a gun for 30 days) if it means keeping the other 99.999% of us safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 The terrorist (male) purchased the handguns legally. The rifles were purchased by someone else, not sure how he obtained those. The arms used in Paris I read were obtained in Germany. Don't they have strict gun control laws there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 When your thinking is the answer is to suspend our constitution something is not right as well. When we suspend our constitution to fight terrorism the terrorists have already won. You already suspend your constitution plenty. Prisoners, drug addicts, mental patients, and a bunch of other groups of people aren't allowed to buy guns. So, given that the 'suspending the constitution = terrorists winning' argument doesn't hold much water, why should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy guns exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 While I agree that in this current climate, disarming U.S citizens while allowing these fucks into the country is beyond Retard, to say your logic string here is fail is being nice. Equating an SUV with a gun that was built for one purpose and one purpose only........I mean just stop. We can have other valid arguments but this constant insistence on your part to equate guns with other innocuous "things" is getting absurd. I wasn't expecting any level of comprehension from you. Thanks for not letting me down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 The bill would give the attorney general discretion to “deny the transfer of a firearm” if he or she “determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism” and “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.” In other words, the bill would have given the [Democratic] Attorney General of the United States the power to define terrorism, and then deny anyone who falls under his or her definition their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Based on the AG’s “reasonable belief.” Statism baby! That’s how the Dems roll. The Obama administration’s no-fly lists and broader watchlisting system is based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses, the government has been forced to admit in court. In a little-noticed filing before an Oregon federal judge, the US Justice Department and the FBI conceded that stopping US and other citizens from travelling on airplanes is a matter of “predictive assessments about potential threats”, the government asserted in May . . . The declaration comes in a longstanding case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), arguing that the government does not provide significant steps for someone caught in the “predictive assessments” to get off the blacklists. Note that the above-named Senators (not to mention our NY RINO pal Peter King in the House and his Democratic pals) want to duplicate the No-Fly List to create a No-Gun List. It would involve the same secret determination according to secret criteria, without prior judicial oversight. While the No-Fly List appeals process is ultimately adjudicated by . . . wait for it . . . the Transportation Safety Administration, someone on the No-Gun List would have to take Uncle Sam to court, where they would NOT be able to see the evidence against them (ex parte all the way baby!). While we await the return of the No-Gun list proposal, the civilian disarmament industrial complex continues its clarion call for federal laws to prohibit people on the No-Fly list from purchasing firearms. This recent revelation about the No-Fly list’s unproven, unconstitutional “predictive” process should completely undermine that effort. But won’t. On Friday, the ACLU asked Judge Anna Brown to conduct her own review of the error rate in the government’s predictions modeling – a process the ACLU likens to the “pre-crime” of Philip K Dick’s science fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 People who are on the no fly list can buy guns. It'd probably be good to have some sort of law to prohibit that, don't ya think? --- I'm not saying that would have prevented this or many others obviously, but dismissing every kind of gun reform is foolish. Mohammed Al-Zarkaweri-Fleshbong who is on the no-fly list because he's a suspected terrorist shouldn't be able to go buy an AR-15. At least in my opinion. He also shouldn't be in our country. Gun problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 So, you posted the link, then dumped the text from the link? I'm capable of clicking on the link. It basically said "government baaaaaad" "...based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses..." So, now we're saying intelligence is a bad thing? Aside from being scared of the governmental boogie man, what legitimate reasons are there for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 He also shouldn't be in our country. Gun problem solved. The shooter today was born in the US. Which country should he have been in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 It is better to incorrectly call a good part defective than to call a defective part good and ship it to the customer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 It is better to incorrectly call a good part defective than to call a defective part hood and ship it yo the customer. Spell check man. Like it or not, your point carries significantly more legitimacy if the spelling and grammar is on point. To your point, that works in parts, but the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing disagrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 So, you posted the link, then dumped the text from the link? I'm capable of clicking on the link. It basically said "government baaaaaad" "...based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses..." So, now we're saying intelligence is a bad thing? Aside from being scared of the governmental boogie man, what legitimate reasons are there for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns? What is hard to understand about getting the process right first before enacting yet another law that will infringe on the rights of innocent people. The system that puts people on no fly lists is flawed as has been demonstrated. Fix the system where actual terrorists are on the list instead of those just suspected such as conservative journalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 What is hard to understand about getting the process right first before enacting yet another law that will infringe on the rights of innocent people. The system that puts people on no fly lists is flawed as has been demonstrated. Fix the system where actual terrorists are on the list instead of those just suspected such as conservative journalists. Even by your own logic, the part of the process that is (apparently) at fault is not the "suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns" but the "this person is a suspected terrorist" part. By all means fix that if it's broken, but I'd rather a few people get inadvertently caught in the "is this persona terrorist? maybe, let's keep them under serveillance for a bit" net than a few actual terrorists slip through. I'm honestly staggered that we're even having this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Spell check man. Like it or not, your point carries significantly more legitimacy if the spelling and grammar is on point. To your point, that works in parts, but the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing disagrees. That was in response to Ed and having people incorrectly on the no fly list be unable to get guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.