Breakng news. Not good.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Still don't understand why you need to remove rights from 99.99999999% of lawful gun owners because multiple government agencies fucked up and failed to do their job because of muh racism. It's like getting rid of cars when a drunk driver with a suspended license crashes into a school bus.

Signed,
Someone who's never owned a gun, hasn't held one in ten years and hasn't fired one since childhood.

[Richard Groyper]

Still don't understand why you need to remove rights from 99.99999999% of gun owners because multiple government agencies fucked up and failed to do their job because of muh racism.

Signed,
Someone who's never owned a gun, hasn't held one in ten years and hasn't fired one since childhood.

Didn't you hear?... Owning a gun is now considered: 'transphobic'.

Signed,

  Baba Booey Baba Booey

PS: Howard Stern's penis

[ItsOver]

Still don't understand why you need to remove rights from 99.99999999% of lawful gun owners because multiple government agencies fucked up and failed to do their job because of muh racism. It's like getting rid of cars when a drunk driver with a suspended license crashes into a school bus.

Signed,
Someone who's never owned a gun, hasn't held one in ten years and hasn't fired one since childhood.

Well, for starters we need more laws for the bureaucracy to arbitrarily enforce because everybody knows their so damn efficient.  Look at how well the immigration laws are enforced.  Think what would have happened if we didn't have all the current gun laws.  Things like Orlando, uh, oh, whoops.  They'll get it right this time to prevent the next time.  You can never have too many laws.  Utopia is just around the corner.

[Juan]

You fail to understand that the elites consider us prey.

[Brody]

http://uproxx.com/news/marines-alleged-threats-facebook-gay-bars/

Oh boy....

[ItsOver]

You fail to understand that the elites consider us prey.

Pretty much.  I love Big Brother.  Everything he does, he does for us himself.

[mikuthing01]

http://uproxx.com/news/marines-alleged-threats-facebook-gay-bars/

Oh boy....

He has Dylan Roof face, he's guilty hang him!

[MAX]

Didn't you hear?... Owning a gun is now considered: 'transphobic'.

Signed,

  Baba Booey Baba Booey

PS: Howard Stern's penis

Ma ma monkey, ta ta toothy
Signed Eric Fred Norris

[VtaGeezer]

It's like getting rid of cars when a drunk driver with a suspended license crashes into a school bus.

Signed,
Someone who's never owned a gun, hasn't held one in ten years and hasn't fired one since childhood.

All that's being proposed is a "No-Fly No-Buy" rule.  It's pretty screwy to let people who are banned from flying as terrorism risks buy any firearm they can afford. 

[21st Century Man]

All that's being proposed is a "No-Fly No-Buy" rule.  It's pretty screwy to let people who are banned from flying as terrorism risks buy any firearm they can afford.

LOL, tell that to John Lewis and Ted Kennedy who were on that list.   Oh, I forgot, Teddy boy has passed on.  The lists are still highly unreliable and flawed.  Until they straighten them out,  I suggest due process before not being allowed to purchase a gun.

[VtaGeezer]

LOL, tell that to John Lewis and Ted Kennedy who were on that list.   Oh, I forgot, Teddy boy has passed on.  The lists are still highly unreliable and flawed.  Until they straighten them out,  I suggest due process before not being allowed to purchase a gun.

All that shows is how sloppily the DHS administers the list.  There are 800K name on the bloody thing; it's ridiculous.  The answer is to make the list meaningful, stronger and provide a means for appeal.  And break up the DHS monster that was another Bush debacle. 

[21st Century Man]

All that shows is how sloppily the DHS administers the list.  There are 800K name on the bloody thing; it's ridiculous.  The answer is to make the list meaningful, stronger and provide a means for appeal.  And break up the DHS monster that was another Bush debacle.

I'm with you on that.  DHS is an embarrassment and provides proof that Republicans don't want to decrease the size of the federal government.

[Value Of Pi]

All that's being proposed is a "No-Fly No-Buy" rule.  It's pretty screwy to let people who are banned from flying as terrorism risks buy any firearm they can afford.

The NRA would be smart strategically to show a little give on this issue. If they remain totally intransigent and lose this particular battle, they will put themselves in a weaker position in future battles.

Having just watched the movie "Stalingrad," I can't help thinking about the ultimate cost that leaders pay for being entirely inflexible. It's one thing to lose a battle, it's another to willingly turn that battle into the turning point of the whole war. That kind of thing does happen.

[mikuthing01]

The NRA would be smart strategically to show a little give on this issue. If they remain totally intransigent and lose this particular battle, they will put themselves in a weaker position in future battles.

Having just watched the movie "Stalingrad," I can't help thinking about the ultimate cost that leaders pay for being entirely inflexible. It's one thing to lose a battle, it's another to willingly turn that battle into the turning point of the whole war. That kind of thing does happen.

Gun owners have given up to much already and got nothing in return NRA should not give an inch.

[albrecht]

LOL, tell that to John Lewis and Ted Kennedy who were on that list.   Oh, I forgot, Teddy boy has passed on.  The lists are still highly unreliable and flawed.  Until they straighten them out,  I suggest due process before not being allowed to purchase a gun.

And the history of the government being hacked, losing servers, accidentally deleting things, etc. We want another government database. And what happens when the list is hacked or accidentally released? Now the Muslims, criminals, or enemy knows who and what guns and where he lives.
Also the list would be very problematic, especially with Muslims or even Orientals (though not much of a current threat now but in some future conflict in Asia,) because they often have similar and common names and/or make up names when Anglicized. Also passports from the ME region are very problematic. Rumors are Obama's rebels and ISIS have captured official Syria passport machines and paper. So his refugees that he doesn't vett get vetted the information would be wrong.

[JesusJuice]

Hipster record store in Istanbul that was participating in a Radiohead streaming event was attacked for being Haram.

http://pitchfork.com/news/66181-radiohead-istanbul-event-attacked/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PChZEdekxiE

[albrecht]

Hipster record store in Istanbul that was participating in a Radiohead streaming event was attacked for being Haram.

http://pitchfork.com/news/66181-radiohead-istanbul-event-attacked/

The problem is radical Islam. And these politicians who refuse to even say the radical part is amazing. Their core constituencies are being murdered and raped and the first response is to forgive Islam, call for more immigrants and "refugees" (often unvetted,) and call for more acceptance and understanding of/for Islam. I'm not surprised by Obama but all the others here and in Europe?

[Value Of Pi]

The problem is radical Islam. And these politicians who refuse to even say the radical part is amazing. Their core constituencies are being murdered and raped and the first response is to forgive Islam, call for more immigrants and "refugees" (often unvetted,) and call for more acceptance and understanding of/for Islam. I'm not surprised by Obama but all the others here and in Europe?

There are maybe a million or so Muslims who at this point are ready and willing to fight for radical Islam. I'm counting mainly groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian military/paramilitary. There are other Muslims who are potential recruits, underline potential.

Do we want to fight a war against one million radicals or a war against several billion Muslims? Do we want to fight terrorists or the whole Muslim religion? That's just one reason to keep drawing the distinction between radical Islam and Islam. I think the reluctance to use the term "radical Islam" hurts more than it helps at this point, but I do understand what's at stake in defining our enemy.

[albrecht]

There are maybe a million or so Muslims who at this point are ready and willing to fight for radical Islam. I'm counting mainly groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian military/paramilitary. There are other Muslims who are potential recruits, underline potential.

Do we want to fight a war against one million radicals or a war against several billion Muslims? Do we want to fight terrorists or the whole Muslim religion? That's just one reason to keep drawing the distinction between radical Islam and Islam. I think the reluctance to use the term "radical Islam" hurts more than it helps at this point, but I do understand what's at stake in defining our enemy.

Even if a very small percentage of our Muslims are so-called "radical" (actually real Muslims) it would cause chaos and mayhem. There also is a larger population of Muslims who won't 'pull the trigger' but offer safe-houses, funding, shelter, communications, etc to the more "radical," and then there are an even larger group of Muslims who won't help but celebrate attacks. And then an even bigger percentage of Muslims who won't celebrate but secretly approve of attacks.

One Muslim group, ISIS/ISIL/SI/Daesh, wants a final confrontation and is very apocalyptic in their views (though to the fighters on the ground and the supporters we've allowed entry or "self-radicalized" in our countries might not know the whole philosophy.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Other Muslim groups have other aims (territory, Palestine, Caliphate, political/economic, attacking their "royals," attacking other Muslims, attacking blacks, attacking Jews/Christians/others, slaving operations, etc.) But violence, slavery, misogyny, anti-homosexuality (though there are regional and import doctrinal issues here, like if the boy has no hair or if you are the "giver" versus the taker,) polygamy, etc is fundamental to Islam and Muhammed.  I say let Muslim have their Muslim lands and caliphate end our wars there. (Except maybe certain actions on a case-by-case basis, or if they attack us again, but do things with more modern weaponry- biological weapons on their crops and water supply, blockades, trade bans, tactical nukes if needed on holy sites.) But no more many "boots on the ground" or selling any Muslim nation weapons or helping them.  But defend our borders, do not accept any Muslim immigration, travel, or visitors, and use (where it is legal different countries have different laws) our military, now home, from the battlefields to surveil, root-out, arrest, or deport (or simply kill if they react violently) the Muslim 5th-column already in our midst. Deport all the "refugees" immediately by barges with naval support to their country (or to whatever Muslim country will take them) and if any fight back or attack dispose of those at sea. Those Muslim who don't wish to self-deport to a Muslim country or caliphate and already are citizens or legal residents need to accept the surveillance and increased scrutiny. And should be appreciative and thankful for our countries- not attacking people or raping people- and should bend over-backwards to prove how honest and non-criminal they are for the ability to live in our countries.

Therein ends the rant.
ps: do I think we will do any of this? No. I think most of the people have been too corrupted by political correctness and just hope it won't happen to them. And the politicians don't really care about their countries or people and are, normally, safe behind gates and security guards, as well as political correctness. But almost certainly there will be much more terrorism and raping by the Muslims we so graciously allow to enter and live in our countries.

[JesusJuice]

Yeah but The Crusades...

[albrecht]

Yeah but The Crusades...

Self-defense caused, mostly. Nobody talks about the many, many millions who were killed by Muslim expansion, slaving, etc especially into Africa and the Indian subcontinent. And the killings and slaving operations that are still going on today in the Islamic world and as they expand.

[VtaGeezer]

There are maybe a million or so Muslims who at this point are ready and willing to fight for radical Islam. I'm counting mainly groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian military/paramilitary. There are other Muslims who are potential recruits, underline potential.

Do we want to fight a war against one million radicals or a war against several billion Muslims? Do we want to fight terrorists or the whole Muslim religion? That's just one reason to keep drawing the distinction between radical Islam and Islam. I think the reluctance to use the term "radical Islam" hurts more than it helps at this point, but I do understand what's at stake in defining our enemy.

We either them fight now, over there, or our grandchildren will be fighting them or their surrogates here. Tolerance is no defense against a closed, violent ideology.  They've already turned our openness and tolerance against us, and it's turning us against each other.

[norland2424]

Yeah but The Crusades...

If those lazy crusaders would have finished the job back then we wouldn't be dealing with shit now

[GuerrillaUnReal]

All that's being proposed is a "No-Fly No-Buy" rule.  It's pretty screwy to let people who are banned from flying as terrorism risks buy any firearm they can afford.

That's not what liberals want. And considering the government agencies fucked up yet again in this situation what is more rules going to accomplish? I don't think anyone is against this aside from the government's bizarre way of putting people on these lists. But this isn't what the hivemind is screaming about.

[Value Of Pi]

We either them fight now, over there, or our grandchildren will be fighting them or their surrogates here. Tolerance is no defense against a closed, violent ideology.  They've already turned our openness and tolerance against us, and it's turning us against each other.

I generally agree with the need to defeat the threat now rather than later, and over there as opposed to over here. I don't think we can make peace with terrorist extremist types or expect the threat to diminish or peter out without a giant push in that direction. Right now, they have the initiative, the momentum and the advantage, not us. Us, including everyone who can and should be joining us in the fight, if not helping to lead it.

How this gets done is to me the big question, not whether or not it needs to be done.

[mikuthing01]

We either them fight now, over there, or our grandchildren will be fighting them or their surrogates here. T

We are already fighting them here, San Bernardino. Boston Marathon, Chattanooga, TN Military Shooting, Orlando Gay Club, Fort Hood Shooting. Children born in 2001 are 15 years old now and 3 years away from being able to join the military. And even if we nuked the middle east until there was nothing left but a glass parking lot there would still be Muslims hell bent on killing infidels.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

At this point could we just do something about people popping up repeatedly on terrorist watch lists? Wasn't that the point of removing a lot of America's right to privacy? I don't need a race war at the moment just people actually doing their fucking jobs.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

A civil war of some sort is coming sooner or later.

[RealCool Daddio]

A civil war of some sort is coming sooner or later.

Yep, pretty polarized.  It's also telling that just about everyone sees it as a binary choice.

[VtaGeezer]

Yep, pretty polarized.  It's also telling that just about everyone sees it as a binary choice.

Someone on TV said earlier that the day after the election, regardless of outcome, half of the country will wake up angry.