• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 
Main Menu

Guns

Started by Caruthers612, July 01, 2010, 11:34:40 PM

onan

Quote from: stevesh on June 16, 2013, 11:57:30 AM
Might just be a question of defining 'accidental', but I'm not sure I get your point. Much attention is paid to safety issues during driver's training, too. Does that mean there are no auto 'accidents' ?


No, losing control of an auto on icy roads... the mass of a moving auto becomes uncontrollable. But I am hard pressed to see where a weapon becomes uncontrollable.


And my point is this: as much as it is a right to own a weapon, the responsibility cannot be dismissed because the liability is uncomfortable.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: stevesh on June 16, 2013, 11:57:30 AM
Might just be a question of defining 'accidental', but I'm not sure I get your point. Much attention is paid to safety issues during driver's training, too. Does that mean there are no auto 'accidents' ?


I don't know what it's like in the USA (I'm taking a guess it might vary between states); but in the UK, the police/emergency services no longer call RTA's (Road traffic accidents)..They're called Road traffic collisions. Every major collision and certainly those involving serious injury or death is treated as a crime scene. Stretches of major roads are closed and an investigation takes place before it's reopened..very few 'accidents' happen without pre cursors. Something as seemingly innocuous as changing a cd, or being distracted. Over here using a cell phone or texting is fined,and is to be increased. Research has proven that although not yet illegal, using blue tooth hands free is similar to having over 50% of the drivers attention taken away from the job of driving.


So although everyone knows what they should be doing, human nature being what it is, means some believe they're fine..same as the drunk driver who is never affected, and never gets caught, until the day they are. So as Onan says; everyone knows what they should be doing with responsible firearm use, but too many don't.


When I was a teenager and learned how to shoot a rifle (taught by Royal air force instructors), the potential of what we were doing was drilled into us, over and over again until it was automatic. NEVER point at anything unless it's the target (on the range)..never put a weapon down unless it's discharged and the mag removed and emptied, and the breach cleared and the bolt back. ONLY put our hand up and put the weapon down if there was a jam. Jeeze, we didn't even fart unless the range instructor said we could. But it gave me a deep respect (not sure that's the right word) for what bullets do. We were shown photos of 'little' round wounds. And bigger ones. It was staggering and upsetting at how much damage a round could do. Accidents simply were not allowed to happen. ND's were very seldom (Interestingly with RAF recruits rather than cadets)  but hell to pay if they ever happened; we got to hear of them, but thankfully not with our squadron.

Ruteger


Do you think the ARs Obama sends to the terrorists will only include a 10-round magazine, and have the auto-fire disabled like he and his Democrat minions mandate[size=78%] for law-abiding Americans?[/size]

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 15, 2013, 12:41:20 PM


Correct.  Obama has been very clear all along about who his friends are and who his enemies are.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Ruteger on June 16, 2013, 01:25:51 PM
Do you think the ARs Obama sends to the terrorists will only include a 10-round magazine, and have the auto-fire disabled like he and his Democrat minions mandate[size=78%] for law-abiding Americans?[/size]


It's interesting you refer to them as terrorists. They're rebelling against a tyrannical dictator. Or do you think the Russian backed Assad should be given moral if not military support?

Quote from: onan on June 15, 2013, 04:28:26 PM
... A firearm has one purpose...


I think it has two purposes.

1)  to be fired, whether to kill someone or an animal for whatever reason, as a warning shot, or just for practice

2)  to brandish or even point at an intruder in an attempt to get them to leave


The second purpose does not get nearly enough attention, but it's probably used more often than the first.  Also, just knowing a certain number of people have a gun reduces a good deal of crime.  But we can only collect stats on people shot, not criminals that were scared off or reluctant to commit a crime in the first place

onan

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2013, 01:57:47 PM


I think it has two purposes.

1)  to be fired, whether to kill someone or an animal for whatever reason, as a warning shot, or just for practice

2)  to brandish or even point at an intruder in an attempt to get them to leave


The second purpose does not get nearly enough attention, but it's probably used more often than the first.  Also, just knowing a certain number of people have a gun reduces a good deal of crime.  But we can only collect stats on people shot, not criminals that were scared off or reluctant to commit a crime in the first place


A firearm discharges a round... it has no say in the reason as to why. It is illegal to fire a warning shot. It is assault to point a weapon at another individual.


If a person is in your house, at least in NC, you can assume threat to do bodily and lethal harm. But if you point your weapon at a person outside your home you had better have absolute proof there is a danger to self. And if you admit to firing a warning shot... well good luck.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 16, 2013, 01:36:05 PM

It's interesting you refer to them as terrorists. They're rebelling against a tyrannical dictator. Or do you think the Russian backed Assad should be given moral if not military support?


Is that still true?  It appears that al-Qaeda, Moslem Brotherhood and other jihadis have swarmed into the vacuum.  Between disorganized untrained locals rebelling, and al-Qaeda, who ends up in power after Assad?  (Note - see Afghanistan after the Russians were driven out, Egypt after Mubarak, Libya after Khadafy...).

None of these countries has the infrastructure necessary for democracy.  That takes years to evolve.  It is best done by working with existing friendly or at least neutral regimes, nudging them towards it one step at a time.  That has been US policy for decades.  These upheavals are destructive and counterproductive and only end up setting these places and their neighbors back.

Most of the kingdoms that dominated the region not that long ago are gone.  As of 2013, other than the remaining kingdoms, the only people that hold power or will end up holding power are the non-secular military strongmen (like Assad), and terrorist regimes (so far just Iran, the Palestinian leadership, Hezbollah in Southern and eastern Lebanon, and now suddenly Egypt and Libya).

Jimmy Carter failed badly in Iran.  Much of the worlds problems today stem from that.  Obama is following in his footsteps with Egypt, Libya, and now Syria.  We should have been consulting much more closely with Russia on this - the top objective should have been to keep al-Qaeda, the Brotherhood, etc out, and gotten Assad to the bargaining table.  Instead we have disaster.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2013, 02:18:03 PM


Is that still true?  It appears that al-Qaeda, Moslem Brotherhood and other jihadis have swarmed into the vacuum.  Between disorganized untrained locals rebelling, and al-Qaeda, who ends up in power after Assad?  (Note - see Afghanistan after the Russians were driven out, Egypt after Mubarak, Libya after Khadafy...).




What the final outcome ends up being, still doesn't detract from the fact that the opposition to Assad were motivated by his oppressive and dictatorial regime. I thought that was the premise of armed civilians? To fight against an oppressive and tyrannical government. The fact that Al Qaeda have stepped in is similar to any side in a civil war being supported from outsiders. The fact that it's Syria (It's next to Iraq, Turkey and Jordan in case anyone is struggling; Middle East.), is moot. They're fighting a tyranny.

Quote
None of these countries has the infrastructure necessary for democracy.


Their culture and social infrastructure is far far more structured than mere democracy. You spend half your time pulling your particular flavour to pieces, so you'd not be wanting to export that would you? Electoral colleges, Caucasus, and all narrowed down to a two party structure where a single vote can hold sway over the rest? You think that's democracy?


Quote
  That takes years to evolve.  It is best done by working with existing friendly or at least neutral regimes, nudging them towards it one step at a time.


Why? What if the country doesn't want to be nudged? As I said, the Middle East is millenia older than the last two hundred years of the USA's.


Quote
  That has been US policy for decades. 


Utter bullshit. US policy for decades since WW2 has been to find a bogey man (irrespective if he was voted for democratically by the population) and if they don't like him, finance a coup, but do it so the shit doesn't stick to the USA.. 1963 Indonesia being a doozy. 3 million were killed in that one.. Iraq, the Shah? Tibet?..various central American countries where right wing murderous thugs were paid by the CIA too overthrow the government but stangely they enjoyed their job too much and started on their own populations in some cases. Afghanistan and Iraq? Might be best that one is glossed over eh?


Quote
These upheavals are destructive and counterproductive and only end up setting these places and their neighbors back.


Indeed so; so what makes you think such a situation in the USA where the likes of Alex Asshole feeds the paranoid by screaming that the government is out to 'steal urr guurns', would be a more civilised affair? You think 'rules' would be drawn up before the first shots? I'm not a military strategist, but my money is no they wouldn't. And a bloodbath would be the order of the day.


Quote
Most of the kingdoms that dominated the region not that long ago are gone.  As of 2013, other than the remaining kingdoms, the only people that hold power or will end up holding power are the non-secular military strongmen (like Assad), and terrorist regimes (so far just Iran, the Palestinian leadership, Hezbollah in Southern and eastern Lebanon, and now suddenly Egypt and Libya).


Probably; but it's no accident. Find the bogey man that doesn't fit the mould; Do you think the civilians in Afghanistan look forward to being killed? There is no such thing as friendly fire, it kills whatever the source. 

Quote
Jimmy Carter failed badly in Iran.  Much of the worlds problems today stem from that.  Obama is following in his footsteps with Egypt, Libya, and now Syria.  We should have been consulting much more closely with Russia on this - the top objective should have been to keep al-Qaeda, the Brotherhood, etc out, and gotten Assad to the bargaining table.  Instead we have disaster.


Oh come come...Selectively pointing only at Dem presidents is disingenuous at best. It does conveniently overlook Reagan's part in illegal arms deals with Iran though. How did good ole Ollie put it? "I was just doing my job"? Similar defences were used at Nuremberg. Everyone loves a patriot, even if they are on the take. (You got to admit he's done okay for himself since; personally I don't know how he and his ilk sleep at night). I'm sure you don't need me to link to that particular blotted copybook in full.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 17, 2013, 01:05:52 AM
... Their culture and social infrastructure is far far more structured than mere democracy. You spend half your time pulling your particular flavour to pieces, so you'd not be wanting to export that would you? Electoral colleges, Caucasus, and all narrowed down to a two party structure where a single vote can hold sway over the rest? You think that's democracy? ...


Yes, you've pointed out a few items that makes the US a Republic (rule of law), which is the opposite of a Democracy (majority rules, mob rule).  Using the term 'democracy', while not correct, is shorthand in this context for the people selecting their rulers.  As I think you know.

By infrastructure, I mean institutions that make that possible, including - free speech, media operating free of government interference, multiple political parties allowed to operate freely, functioning legal system (as opposed to the whims of the leader), a military that reports to civilian leadership, acceptance of majority rule with a loyal opposition, free exchange of most goods and services, freedom of movement, ownership of private property, acknowledgement of  individual rights, and so on. 

If the people aren't familiar with and accept these institutions - which are necessary for a 'democracy' (Republic) - then one can't just be imposed.  It doesn't work that way.




Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 17, 2013, 01:05:52 AM
.. Oh come come...Selectively pointing only at Dem presidents is disingenuous at best. It does conveniently overlook Reagan's part in illegal arms deals with Iran though. How did good ole Ollie put it? "I was just doing my job"? Similar defences were used at Nuremberg. Everyone loves a patriot, even if they are on the take. (You got to admit he's done okay for himself since; personally I don't know how he and his ilk sleep at night). I'm sure you don't need me to link to that particular blotted copybook in full.


About that.  Let's take a look at a few items the Libs like to trot out, vs what's going on today.

1)  Iran-Contra.  In the wake of Carter's disaster in Iran, Reagan and his National Security team try to pick up the pieces.  Top of the list, to get 7 American hostages back.  They identify some folks in Iran that appear to oppose the hard core Ayatollahs and Iranian  Revolutionary Guard types - people with some influence in Iran, people that we might be able to do business with.  Israel was to ship weapons to these people and we were to resupply Israel in exchange for their assistance in getting the hostages back.  Both sides were taking a risk, and were to do this as a show of 'good will'. 

Well you know what happened.  The Ds insisted all Iranians were the same - terrorists - thus we were dealing with terrorists, and it became a campaign issue and a way to slam the Rs:  boiled down, it became 'Arms for hostages'

It's funny - I watched a great deal of those hearings, and I have to say Ollie made the Ds look like shit, so many funny/great lines every day while he was answering questions and telling his story.  You'd think it would be pretty dull, but it was great theatre - one little David (Ollie) vs the full set of the all powerful Washington DC Democrat political class and their lawyers, consultants, and staff.  Ollie routinely embarrassed and outclassed them - over and over day after day.  You could see the toll mounting on the faces of his inquisitors by the day.  The Ds couldn't get those hearing ended fast enough.  To this day it's a clinic in how to deal with government bullies intent on lying and smearing.  When they decided to broadcast the hearings they forgot their media accomplices wouldn't be able to filter it and that it would go directly to the American people without the usual distortions.  By the end of it the American people were watching and were almost universally behind Oliver North.  VHS tapes of those hearings were sold for a time - you may want to run a set of those down, they should be gold.

After that episode, the media of course did what they usually do in those situations - remain silent for awhile, then after memories slowly dim start re-writing history to fit their preferred narrative, inserting little lies here and there in support of the' Arms for Hostages' stuff.



Fast forward to today - for some reason the D's are now able to make distinctions between Muslims and are now insisting they aren't all terrorists, and that in fact only a handful world wide are.  Go figure.



2)  Afghanistan.   The rebels are composed mostly of the private armies of Afghan tribes and warlords.  Osama bin-Laden goes there as a very young man from a wealthy family to fight the Soviets.  The US funnels money and weapons to the rebels through the Pakistanis.  Bin-Laden brings family money of his own and leaves with contacts for the future.  Ultimately the Soviets are driven out, civil war ensues, a group called the Taliban emerges and comes to power.

Bin Laden puts together al-Qaeda to continue the jihad, this time against the west.  After a few al-Qaeda terrorist incidents, Sudan offers to turn bin Laden over to the Clinton Administration.  Clinton declines and bin Laden leaves Sudan and goes back to Afghanistan.  Then comes 9/11.  The Libs decide after the fact that the US under Reagan 'created' al-Qaeda. bin-Laden, and the Taliban. 

So Reagan should have known and is responsible.  But Clinton, who came along later and thus should have had more information available, isn't.


3)  Fast forward to the past few years - Obama openly turns his back on the Iranian people that only want verbal support in opposing the current regime.  But is quick to support the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood when they co-opt the protests in Egypt and ultimately take power.  And also waits until the Libyan revolution is hijacked by the Jihadi's, and only then does he support that revolution.  Meanwhile al-Qaeda of the Maghreb gets ahold of Libya's weapons when the country falls - which we are likely going to find out is ultimately what Benghazi was all about.   But that's all ok - weapons to terrorists, being a handmaiden to terrorist groups coming to power, supporting terrorists where he can but not people that oppose them.  Now he waits until the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda take control of the rebellion in Syria THEN - and only then - does he finally offer support.

4)  we don't even need to get into Carter legitimizing Arafat and his various terrorist gangs


So we have a bunch of people lying about the Rs supporting terrorists for over 25 years, and pretending to be all angry about it, but Obama's current policies get a full and complete pass.


And you want to bring up Iran-Contra?  Oh Pud, you are so full of media spoon fed shit.  But thanks for giving us today's talking points.


Yorkshire pud

You missed out the Contra aspect PB... But it's good that you consistently exercise the the same discriminating carve up of events as you accuse others of doing.  As long as you see life and the world as 'liberal' (evil) V all goodness without exception, you'd be saying the same if the next Rep candidate went on TV and battered his wife, pulled legs off kittens and had sex with a corpse. In the real world, politicians of all colours are opportunists and all in one form or another will use their power to fuck over another country..Yep even republican ones.




So, on the topic of what defines a terrorist; do you subscribe to all Iranians and all Muslims being terrorists? Or neither? Or some of each? And what of other nationalities/ religions? Italian catholics? Spanish catholics? Irish catholics and protestants? African christians? Central american catholics? I bet if you were an Afghan you'd be forgiven for thinking anyone with a gun and firing at you was a terrorist, be they Taliban, NATO or Al Qaeda.





NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2013, 02:27:57 AM


That's weird.  It was you that took 4 posts to tell the story, each time adding details that had nothing to do with the kid drowning:  rich... tax dodging... inflating customer invoices...

I get that you hate the guy.  So why were you working for them?  If that kid hadn't drowned, I get the feeling you'd be somewhere posting about what a spoiled brat he is.  if you knew they were being so obviously negligent, why didn't you call Child Protective Services?
I was working for him because the economic meltdown really limited my opportunities to change jobs. Why presume I could simply walk away from that job? (I am in a much better gig now, but it took two years.)  Actually, none of this guy's daughters have ever been anything but polite and pleasant to the workforce, so why presume I would be complaining about the son?  The son died before I even joined the company.  Why presume I would be in a position to do something to help the son yet fail to do so? 
This is classic conservative debate.  Full of assertions and presumptions to fill a narrative.  Facts and evidence be damned. 
The worst part is that you noticed the further details in each narrative but failed to understand that I was outlining his entitlement mentality. The drowning son, the tax dodging, the arrogance were all part and parcel of the problem; laws and rules are for the minions.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 17, 2013, 06:42:20 AM
You missed out the Contra aspect PB...


Sorry.

The Boland Amendments (funding the Contras, an attachment to the Defense Dept bill) were different each year, one year they allowed this and prohibited that, another year they allowed that and prohibited this.  To fill the gaps in the various years the State Dept would ask other allies to supply what was prohibited.  That was back when Presidents followed the Constitution and didn't just make decrees.  Very last century, I realize.

Whether the funds from the sale of weapons to some Iranians bypassed that years Boland Amendment was a subject of the hearing.  Did that years Boland Amendment prohibit what was done?  Was it ever decided?  I don't even know.  I do know the American people at the time weren't too worried about it after the hearings.  I don't think it hurt Bush I in his campaign a short time later.

Feel free to compare it to the Clinton scandals, or the completely lawless Obama Administration, but there really isn't a lot there.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 17, 2013, 03:33:09 AM


...Oh Pud, you are so full of media spoon fed shit.  But thanks for giving us today's talking points.
The other part of conservative debate, paternalistic condescension. 

But thanks for the fiction, PB!  Great reading!

Ruteger


No, I am sorry but  they are terrorists. Have you viewed the video showing one of the peace-loving rebels cutting the heart out of another human being and EATING it?

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 16, 2013, 01:36:05 PM

It's interesting you refer to them as terrorists. They're rebelling against a tyrannical dictator. Or do you think the Russian backed Assad should be given moral if not military support?

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Ruteger on June 17, 2013, 06:25:47 PM
No, I am sorry but  they are terrorists. Have you viewed the video showing one of the peace-loving rebels cutting the heart out of another human being and EATING it?


Yes I have.. and there's no excuse for it whatsoever..But as a principle; Do you think the indigenous population are terrorists for rising up against a tyrannical government; who are armed to the teeth with ordnance and weapons from Russia?

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 17, 2013, 01:05:52 AM
... Why? What if the country doesn't want to be nudged? As I said, the Middle East is millenia older than the last two hundred years of the USA's...


That was always the assumed difference between a dictatorship and a communist regime.  A dictatorship could be moved towards more freedom over time, while a communist one couldn't be.

Of course the dictatorship didn't want to be nudged.  Just as the people tended not to be thrilled with the regime.

It wasn't just US policy, it was also UK policy as well as that of much of the rest of the free western countries.  By 'nudging', it meant they would request political prisoners be freed, or journalists be allowed to re-open their office and begin publication again, or that opposition parties be allowed to open freely, or that an elected advisory body - like a Congress or a Parliament - be established, or universities would be re-opened.  The carrots would be closer economic and military ties with the US and the west.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 17, 2013, 06:42:20 AM
.... So, on the topic of what defines a terrorist; do you subscribe to all Iranians and all Muslims being terrorists? Or neither? Or some of each? And what of other nationalities/ religions? Italian catholics? Spanish catholics? Irish catholics and protestants? African christians? Central american catholics? I bet if you were an Afghan you'd be forgiven for thinking anyone with a gun and firing at you was a terrorist, be they Taliban, NATO or Al Qaeda.

Islam is a legal system, government, social system, it even has plenty to say about economics - the religious aspect is just one part of the whole.  It's simply incompatible with life in the western democracies.  They believe god is the leader of the government - as revealed by the top clerics - and do not believe in self rule.  That, sharia law, the idea the rest of us are infidels, etc, has no place in our societies.

There are a certain number of terrorists - it's not everyone, and those that finance and otherwise provide support.  There is also a certain percentage that condone and support it - a much larger percentage.  This is indisputable.  And we don't have any idea who is who.  There are individuals and cells in the west that need a community to hide among.  It makes no sense to allow immigration that creates these communities.  If we allow any immigrants or refugees from these countries, it makes more sense to allow the non-Muslims from these areas - they are the ones most under duress.

Since the rise of Arafat, the fall of the Shah, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there has been a general radicalization of many formerly peaceful places.  Countries like Afghanistan and Lebanon - and now Egypt - used to be wonderful peaceful places to visit.  The situation is different in the various countries - Morocco, Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Oman and even Iran (the people, not the government) are mostly not radicalized.  Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan - and immigrants from there - should be avoided.

Given the current point in our history, it makes no sense to allow these people to immigrate here.  That's all. 

Now Obama is talking about resettling Syrian refugees here.  Completely asinine.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 19, 2013, 06:00:33 AM

Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan - and immigrants from there - should be avoided.

Given the current point in our history, it makes no sense to allow these people to immigrate here.  That's all. 

Oh shit, and I just hired a guy who immigrated from Pakistan about twenty years ago.  He is an American citizen, but fuck it, I better just go ahead and fire him. 


When the HR department asks me why, do you mind if I just tell them "some dickhead on the Internet thinks all Pakistanis are terrorists"?

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on June 19, 2013, 06:38:56 AM
Oh shit, and I just hired a guy who immigrated from Pakistan about twenty years ago.  He is an American citizen, but fuck it, I better just go ahead and fire him. 


When the HR department asks me why, do you mind if I just tell them "some dickhead on the Internet thinks all Pakistanis are terrorists"?

Nah, 20 years ago, you're probably good 


;  )

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on June 19, 2013, 06:38:56 AM
Oh shit, and I just hired a guy who immigrated from Pakistan about twenty years ago.  He is an American citizen, but fuck it, I better just go ahead and fire him. 


When the HR department asks me why, do you mind if I just tell them "some dickhead on the Internet thinks all Pakistanis are terrorists"?


Oh come on. I can't let that go. PB isn't just any dickhead; he has credentials. It's well documented that the ills of the world since we climbed out of  the primeval soup can be traced back to Muslims. Even the Spanish inquisition, and Russian revolution, Chinese revolution, Crimean war, Boar War, WW1 and 2. The fact that Pakistan didn't exist before 1947 is hardly the point. That British Empire/ Commonwealth troops (including India-which was split in 1947 to form Pakistan) fought for the allies was only for show. That the Gurkhas were revered as amongst the bravest of the brave (but clearly not European or American) can be dismissed as simple propaganda.


Quote From PB
There are a certain number of terrorists - it's not everyone, and those that finance and otherwise provide support.  There is also a certain percentage that condone and support it - a much larger percentage.  This is indisputable.  And we don't have any idea who is who.  There are individuals and cells in the west that need a community to hide among.


Yeah. Right thinking people had similar views when the PIRA was launching attacks on Irish and mainland civilians. There are certain American politicians and other senior figures who should stand trial for 'being against us'..Because against us is what they were.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 19, 2013, 07:18:27 AM
...  The fact that Pakistan didn't exist before 1947 is hardly the point. That British Empire/ Commonwealth troops (including India-which was split in 1947 to form Pakistan) fought for the allies was only for show. That  the Gurkhas were revered as amongst the bravest of the brave (but clearly not European or American) can be dismissed as simple propaganda...


The Gurkhas are a Nepalese people known and respected for their military prowess (some live across the border in India), whose religion is Hindu/Buddhist

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on June 19, 2013, 06:38:56 AM
Oh shit, and I just hired a guy who immigrated from Pakistan about twenty years ago.  He is an American citizen, but fuck it, I better just go ahead and fire him. 


When the HR department asks me why, do you mind if I just tell them "some dickhead on the Internet thinks all Pakistanis are terrorists"?


It`s not about nationality; it`s about religiosity and culture. I don`t know a single soul, with a functioning cerebrum, who doesn`t grasp that. With that said, it stands to reason that folks originating from a Moslem-majority country will have greater exposure to terror propaganda. By definition, that makes them a higher risk. The only question here is: How much of a higher risk are we talking about?


Should you fire an employee based solely on the fact he is an Asian Moslem (e.g., Pakistani)? Probably not. Then again, I  would never have hired one in the first place.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 15, 2013, 12:18:10 PM



But were they really treated differently due to wealth?  Are parents of other drowned kids thrown in jail for the 8-10 years you suggest?  Do we really want to send already grieving parents off to prison? 

Maybe if we had more details about the extent of negligence vs accident instead of all the information about their finances... and by the way in no way do I condone tax evasion or ripping off the government or other customers.
Yeah, I apologize for being snide.  You're one of my favorite gab posters and your "eye pad" sketches are to die for! 
The story is that, during a family reunion party, the husband thought the wife was watching the son and vice versa.  When the boy was discovered in the pool, the local authorities, fully mindful of who the family was (and I won't use their name but will send it privately if you would like me to message it) filed no charges and concluded it was an accidental death.  Which it tragically was.  To give this guy further credit he and his wife established a swim safety foundation which to this day helps finance water safety activities around the country.
I don't really believe they should have been imprisoned. 
But everyday (especially during summer) I see stories of families (mostly black) having their children taken away because they were unattended in a yard or in a car.  (My mom would leave me in the car to go shopping and I never felt neglected.  I was actually relieved not to have to be dragged around the store!) They are almost always charged with child endangerment, their children packed off to DCF/Foster care, and they are required to go through court-mandated activities to get them back. Oh, and they are humiliated on the evening news, too.
I am sick of the double standard.  I am doubly sick of people who already have so much feeling entitled to even more, whether in the form of more lucre or acquiescence from local authorities. 

Sardondi

This has nothing to do with guns of course, hut somehow this thread has skewed all the over the place. But the smug comments and derision directed at P-B need a response. Besides, all that mockery is merely empty chatter, not argument.

Islam, insofar as an institution with as many sects is a single entity, is at war with the West, period. That is, the larger mass of Muslims worldwide see all of Western civilization as evil, something to be feared, fought and destroyed. It is the height of foolishness, or willful blindness, to pretend otherwise. Unlike Judaism, which was based on tribal and blood relationships, and Christianity, which established itself by moral suasion, Islam was founded on literal military conquest.

One of the basic tenets of Islam is its duty to subjugate the world to the Prophet. "Convert or die" was the only choice which Muhammad and his generals gave to the survivors of their many wars of conquest as they marched beginning in 623 C.E. throughout Arabia and north Africa and thereafter the Middle and Near East and Asia. The imperative to conquest by blood in the name of The Prophet was still just as strong over 1,000 years later when the Muslims were defeated at the very the gates of Vienna and Europe (not forgetting that Islam had already conquered significant portions of Spain and held them for almost 800 years until the fateful year of 1492 C.E.).

No sect of Islam to my knowledge has ever repudiated this call to physically and spiritually dominate all peoples of the world through blood and the sword. I am unaware of any major Muslim figure today, outside of perhaps Salman Rushdie (who IIRC still has a fatwa against him for The Satanic Verses) who has unequivocally denounced the Islamic terrorist war against the West in general and the US in particular.

Islam's birthright of bloodthirstiness and ongoing absolute commitment to violence and oppression is morally indefensible. We keep ignoring the outrageous rhetoric and bloody threats of its religious and political leaders (and lest we forget, Islam is not just a religion - it is a system governance as well, in which the religious is secular, and the secular is religious). We treat Islam as if it was a bunch of kids in moral special education, who were just so limited in their understanding of right and wrong that we just can't expect the same standard of civilized behavior from them as we do from, say, those sweet Luxembourg kids. (Why is it that the patronization and arrogance of such an attitude is rarely addressed?) 

Unless and until Islam's silent minority of liberal intelligentsia have the courage of their convictions, and speak out loudly, clearly and continually, Islam will remain a very real foe of and danger to the freedoms of expression, press, religion and even thought the world over.

onan

Quote from: Sardondi on June 19, 2013, 03:48:50 PM


Islam, insofar as an institution with as many sects is a single entity, is at war with the West, period. That is, the larger mass of Muslims worldwide see all of Western civilization as evil, something to be feared, fought and destroyed. It is the height of foolishness, or willful blindness, to pretend otherwise. Unlike Judaism, which was based on tribal and blood relationships, and Christianity, which established itself by moral suasion, Islam was founded on literal military conquest.

One of the basic tenets of Islam is its duty to subjugate the world to the Prophet. "Convert or die" was the only choice which Muhammad and his generals gave to the survivors of their many wars of conquest as they marched beginning in 623 C.E. throughout Arabia and north Africa and thereafter the Middle and Near East and Asia. The imperative to conquest by blood in the name of The Prophet was still just as strong over 1,000 years later when the Muslims were defeated at the very the gates of Vienna and Europe (not forgetting that Islam had already conquered significant portions of Spain and held them for almost 800 years until the fateful year of 1492 C.E.).

No sect of Islam to my knowledge has ever repudiated this call to physically and spiritually dominate all peoples of the world through blood and the sword. I am unaware of any major Muslim figure today, outside of perhaps Salman Rushdie (who IIRC still has a fatwa against him for The Satanic Verses) who has unequivocally denounced the Islamic terrorist war against the West in general and the US in particular.

Islam's birthright of bloodthirstiness and ongoing absolute commitment to violence and oppression is morally indefensible. We keep ignoring the outrageous rhetoric and bloody threats of its religious and political leaders (and lest we forget, Islam is not just a religion - it is a system governance as well, in which the religious is secular, and the secular is religious). We treat Islam as if it was a bunch of kids in moral special education, who were just so limited in their understanding of right and wrong that we just can't expect the same standard of civilized behavior from them as we do from, say, those sweet Luxembourg kids. (Why is it that the patronization and arrogance of such an attitude is rarely addressed?) 

Unless and until Islam's silent minority of liberal intelligentsia have the courage of their convictions, and speak out loudly, clearly and continually, Islam will remain a very real foe of and danger to the freedoms of expression, press, religion and even thought the world over.


If this is your truth, you don't do the most basic of searches.


A fair question would be, is it enough? I don't know. What I believe is there is a desire for some to make this a we against them. And thanks to your post I am obviously blind and stupid... I will concede I do have my moments.


Quote
Islamic Society of North America:
"U.S.MUSLIM RELIGIOUS COUNCIL ISSUES FATWA AGAINST TERRORISM


CAIR:
"CAIR’s Anti-Terrorism Campaigns


Islamic Circle of North America:
"ICNA Shariah Council Responds to Al Awlaki


ADAMS Center, VA:
"ADAMS Condemns Terrorism

Muslims Do Speak Out Against TerrorBy Imam Mohammad Shamsi Ali and Rabbi Marc Schneier

And this was from the simplest of searches and looking at only 2 websites.
I don't think it is enough to convince you or others, that want to think all muslims want us dead... it is enough for me.
At the same time I do have concerns, significant concerns, but I am that way with all religion.

Sardondi

I would be leery to take as evidence anything by a headline writer. Or just about anything at all from CAIR for that matter. But I would be interested in knowing the literal content of what appear to be these stands against terrorism. It's been my experience they are in no way unequivocal. But I would love to know there are some genuine, legitimate Muslim organizations which do take a courageous stand against terrorism in the name of Islam.

onan

Quote from: Sardondi on June 19, 2013, 04:33:33 PM
I would be leery to take as evidence anything by a headline writer. Or just about anything at all from CAIR for that matter. But I would be interested in knowing the literal content of what appear to be these stands against terrorism. It's been my experience they are in no way unequivocal. But I would love to know there are some genuine, legitimate Muslim organizations which do take a courageous stand against terrorism in the name of Islam.


Me too, I don't deny for a second that a large number of muslims are way off their nut. Whether they have legitimate claims is irrelevant when the use of terrorism is their main strategy.


I have to add however, I work with several muslims. And with no reservations I would trust them with everything I own. I can't say that about many of my christian coworkers, some of them, you bet.




I get a little nervous when someone wants to lump a whole subsection of humanity into one neat, tidy little group.  Imagine a non-Christian looking at the Westboro Baptist Church and some rogue Catholic priests and deciding all Christians were stupid, uniformed, pedophiliac misanthropes.

I also get a little nervous when someone (say, Onan) offers examples of Muslims who don't appear to want all thing non-Muslim destroyed/assimilated, and such examples are always and immediately "suspect" or flawed. 

We see the same dynamic at play in lots of areas today.  The great majority of true climate scientists say global warming is real and man-made, but there is always someone who will argue that these scientists are only pursuing research dollars or that they are incompetent/dishonest/uncredible.  The guys on the other side (who claim global warming is bunk) -- well, they are always good and true and honest.

Having said that, I would LOVE to see a shitload more Islamic leadership decrying Muslim fundamentalism.

Eddie Coyle

 
          Mike Bloomberg spinning as one of his groups name Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a victim of "gun violence". ::)

        Even as someone with gun-grabbing tendencies, I'm just disgusted by how absolutely tone deaf some of these activists are.

        Using this rubric, Adolf Hitler was technically a victim of gun violence as well. As was Osama Bin Laden.

Yorkshire pud

Yes, it has skewed..Note the title of the thread?


It's been proposed that one of the reasons is to future proof against a US government who will subjugate the 300 plus million population. I few posts back I asked a poster how he felt about the population of Syria rising up against it's real tyrannical leadership. It hasn't yet played out and I fear that it will be some time and involve much more needless bloodshed before it does; if it does.


An armed rise up against a government has one outcome. No winners. Millions of losers. Any such event in the USA won't be any different..it might even be worse. And the big noises (such as Alex asshole) who promote such uprisings are certifiable at best; he has reputedly fifty firearms. He hasn't the common sense to hold a catapult.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod