Quote (Beowulf @ Jun 12 2016 04:41pm)

What I want is for there to be an investigation by professionals (not jsp reporters)

It has been hours since this happened and there is much work to do till its all figured out.

I have no interest in fear games that are used to target certain types of people and push divisive narratives in the meantime.

You can't solve crazy and no wall or ban will ever stop it.

Quote (Beowulf @ Jun 12 2016 11:41am)

What I want is for there to be an investigation by professionals (not jsp reporters)

It has been hours since this happened and there is much work to do till its all figured out.

I have no interest in fear games that are used to target certain types of people and push divisive narratives in the meantime.

You can't solve crazy and no wall or ban will ever stop it.

Quote (EA7 @ Jun 12 2016 07:48am)

The FBI isn't "jsp reporters".

I know you want to be politically correct, but the vast majority of terror attacks are committed by Muslims. Nobody anywhere is saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but it's naive to ignore patterns. You can't just forget about San Bernadino, Paris, Brussels, and 9/11 so quickly.

The whole "no wall or ban will stop it" arguments is nonsense too. It may not stop all terrorism, but it definitely will help prevent some. Would you rather be a total cuck and just give up or at least try to do something to keep the country safe?

By the way, may I ask:

• Are you pro women's rightS?
  
• Are you pro LGBT rights?
  
• Are you pro trans rights?
  
• Are you anti-pedophelia?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, then you against Islam. You can't have it both ways.

Quote (Beowulf @ Jun 12 2016 04:55pm)

I'm against overreacting. I'm against using fear to get us involved in unnecessary conflict, war, and/or bigotry.

That same list could be used against plenty of Americans in plenty of redneck states so don't act like it is imported

Quote (EA7 @ Jun 12 2016 11:59am)

Except "redneckism" isn't a political ideology or religion. There are no countries in the world where being a redneck is the local law. There are plenty where Islam and Shariah law are.

Could you explain what you mean by "overreacting?". This is the single worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. If the shooter was a white, heterosexual, Christian male I bet you'd be going NUTS saying how we have to ban guns and get religion out of the US. Since he's Muslim, you're defending him because it's politically correct to do so.

Funny how you try to come off as such a level-headed, compassionate, and morally rich person. I'm sure you care so much about the victims here, it's just you care more about being politically correct and defending Islam. lol.


e: Guy left the topic pretty fast after he saw this post. Leftist cucks can't win anymore. TRUMP 2016 lads.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Jun 12 2016 05:10pm)

"A Muslim dude killed people and you're still not in favor of banning Muslims? Why are you defending this guy specifically and talking about how he's a great human being and you love him, Beowulf?"

Quote (hydrogod @ Jun 12 2016 05:11pm)

If Islam was all about killing everyone that's not devout we would actually be in trouble since they out number us. What exactly is trump going to do? Stop a religion from migrating or even visiting here? That's nonsense and impossible

Quote (EA7 @ Jun 12 2016 12:12pm)

ISIS said they were going to attack Florida.

ISIS attacked Florida.

We have NO idea who these people are, where they really come from, and whether they're terrorists.

During WWII, all Japanese were banned from coming into the US.

In 2008, Obama banned all Iraqis due to the war.

We are now at war with Radical Islam, whether you want to admit it or not.

Logical step -> temporary ban all Muslims, following previous precedents, to keep people safe.

If you can't see that, I'm sorry you were born with low IQ.



You can ban all people from Syria for a start.

Again, would you rather TRY to do something and come up with a solution to the problem or be a cuck and just totally give up?

Quote

When I carry a gun.
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT.

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL, Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...

And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)