please provide an example of a shooting "over here" where the perpetrators did so because they claimed they "didn't like what this place has become"...I know it fits your narrative but I can't think of an instance...the media and left were desperately hoping these last two(and nearly every other) examples were perpetrated by right wing loons and are obviously deeply disappointed that it turned out not to be the case...

if "what we've become" is responsible for these shootings then it's more likely the fact that we've become a society where sex and violence are fed to our children at an early age teaching them that neither carry consequences and desensitizing them to the realities of life and constantly reinforced as they move along through life... drugs are issued and taken with abandon to help deal with any realities that may try to creep in...they lash out and the libs run around blaming guns

the ones shooting people over there want you to become them...it's pretty simple...:)

I'd wager they were simply trying to describe the scene based on available information...long guns and hand guns without knowing additional details. Long gun has been used more frequently the last several years in the gun debate, at least from what I've seen.

Hmmmmm....

http://thehill.com/regulation/health...ch-has-regrets

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ted-terrorists

Must have been used more in Progressive Circles if you have been seeing it more and more because generally I have not seen it much used in gun control. Historical writings, research, yes. Media / Gun Control, I have not seen it.

Long gun cover's a lot more thing things than just semi-auto

They used it because that is the term the Police Chief used when addressing the media about it. Pretty smart actually...instead of giving out bogus info so the media could sensationalize it, they used this term until the facts were in....because, anything that isn't a hand gun, can be categorized as a long gun.

:btu:

And I'm sure it's the term the witnesses used when describing what the terrorist used , you know while they were giving them the terrorists name .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During my kids' lifetime, we will start having the horrible, but necessary, conversation about whether or not Islam is compatible with civilization. If 95% of Muslims are peace loving, they need to start exerting a LOT more influence over the other 5%. Or face ugly consequeces.

What the hell does that mean?

Spence, what do you honestly think the answer is? Do you concede there is a huge problem with Islam in the world today? Or do you side with our moron-in-chief, who thinks the problem is citizens with lawfully-purchased guns?

If you concede there is a huge problem with Islam, what would you do about it?

My guess...eventually a western nation is going to lose a city. When that happens, the west may well say "we tried welcoming Muslims, but it's not working, it's time for you to go, and no more Muslims can enter our country." I just don't see what an alternative answer is.

We also need to take the gloves off, completely off, when it comes to dealing with known terrorists. Our current POTUS thinks it's wrong to pour water down the nose of someone with insider knowledge of a planned attack at an elementary school. I don't think we can afford that anymore.

I am speculating, of course, that this was a terrorist attack. But the guy's name wasn't Seamus O'Grady, and it wasn't County Cork where he spent a month recently.

[QUOTE=spence;1087750]This is true Nebe, at the Liberal Headquarters in Berkeley, California there's a big granite obelisk with "if it feels good, do it" chiseled into its surface.

Liberalism is way more permissive of counter-productive behavior (sleeping around, adultery, divorce, etc) than conservatism. Deny that all you want. It's still fact.

Liberals have sanctuary cities, for God's sake, for people who want to be refugees from laws that liberals don't happen to like. It's anarchy, but it's celebrated on your side. As an aside, what would happen if I declared my hometown a sanctuary for the unborn, and outlawed all abortion? Would Obama allow that to continue for 8 years?

I hope jim has the same discussion with his son about the planned parenthood protesters. The amount of criminal behavior from them is so much higher than the general public that the government should have the FBI look into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back that statement up ........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The anti-abortion kooks probably do commit a lot more crime than the average citizen. But sure as hell, they don't commit anywhere near as much violence as jihadists. This one shooting yesterday, will leave almost half as many did as have been killed by anti-abortion protesters in the last 40 years.

I am sure the FBIlooks into these people. But you cannot compare the threat they pose, to that posed by jihadists.

I'll have to say it is stunning the contrast between President Obama's reaction to an attack on our country and the leader of France's reaction to an attack on his country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, you're thinking we could at least bomb Dearborn as a start?

I'd suggest you just made all that up...

Understatement of the year, Buck.. Even this morning he said" It is POSSIBLE
that this was terrorist related. We don't know. It's possible that this was workplace related. "

Believe it or not there are sheeple who will actually believe he really doesn't know, even with all the facts that have come out in the last 24 hours. Remember the Iissis JV team is under control ?

God Bless our law enforcement officers for their outstanding work.

Spence, what world do you live in? All this progressive liberalism started back in the Sixties with exactly the slogan , "If it feels good do it." Free love, drugs, Alfred E Newman [" What me care."] followed by the greed of the Seventies "Take care of # one" and let greed reign. Anybody that doesn't know that was never educated.

Why aren't they calling this terrorism ? Two Muslims shot up a Christmas party ..... Wtf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around. Considering the very strange situation of this attack I don't think they really know the full motive. It's like the Ft. Hood shooter, there was evidence of radicalization but also a mental state brought about by the death of his mother that caused him to break.

pisses you off doesn't it?
it should

there are enough facts known already to call it what it is = Terrorism, a terrorist attack in this country, radical islamists
it is what is is

I still don't understand why our president will not say the word

They planned it, had bombs and everything and attacked innocent people at a Christmas party. Seems pretty obvious to me.

reason why they don't call a spade a spade = the wusification of America the land that I love.

time to take back America from the pussies who have allowed this to happen in the first place.

Well he is legally the President and this is the time to act like one, if he can't, then get the hell out of the way
wtf

so are we supposed to sit around and wait for the next situation that does not fit nicely in a box and expect the government to protect us?
maybe the next terrorist had some other kind of event or trauma in his life and reaches his boiling point and attacks God knows where next.
This is what they want.
I'm not going to be a sheep

"My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around"

OK, I made it up that liberals are permissive, yet you can claim that Obama is legally barred from saying the word "terrorism".

Remember, when you are painting inside, you need to open the windows a crack. I think you've been painting with the windows closed.

We can start with closing Mosques down, make the Muslims register (we can tattoo the #s on their arm), wear stars on their clothing. If that doesn't work we can put them in camps - might as well make them work to earn their keep.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure that they commit less violence then the jihadists, but what level does the violence have to reach bf something is done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So then he would face punishment for using a" legal word" if it didn't meet with what
he, the law professsor, whoops LAW INSTRUCTOR, determines is??
Sounds more like he is hiding behind a word to protect his legacy like he tried with the Benghazi tape.

He just said today it could be. You're just looking for gripes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said there are legal ramifications for his using the word "terrorism" loosely. Please explain, or kindly admit you made it up in a desperate attempt, once again, to make the guy look brilliant.

He says it "might be terrorism, it might be workplace violence". Atta boy, Columbo.

Well, we tried electing a guy who thought he could fix the problem by being softer with them. IT'S NOT WORKING. So what would you do?

For starters, it's time to take the gloves all the way off in dealing with the people we know are involved. Make waterboarding look like an invitation to a noon tea party. If we have to torture these people overseas, fine. But the gloves need to come off. If the last 8 years have taught sane people anything, it's that trying to be nicer, doesn't work.

We all bleed red,so suck it up,move on nothing to see here.

Unfortunately the world's problems will not be fulfilled on this site,world media or on local.


Move on....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If only we could get a handle on this global warming .....
Sorry Nebe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What gave it away? The bomb making factory ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Making a bomb doesn't make you a terrorist. Using one or intending to use one with a specific political intent certainly could. Currently they really don't know the intent and the couple didn't leave any obvious indication of what they were trying to achieve aside from carnage.

The situation does appear to show something bad was afoot but until they have a better understanding of motive the FBI isn't going to call it terrorism and neither should POTUS.

That's what the investigators are saying. There's a line of thinking that they may not have intended to attack the party but some disagreement changed their actions. Don't know right now.

You know the Fort Hood shooting was never declared terrorism either as it didn't meet the legal standard?

How about we agree that this was a Muslim extremist hate crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Making a bomb with the intent to use it makes you a terrorist.

They were far too geared up, prepared to do maximum damage, and setup to attack someone. So if they were going to do this and had all the training, weapons, gear, plans, as well as the scrubbing all ready to go, the "some disagreement changed their actions" to attack the party changes it from terrorism to workplace violence? How convenient.

Fort Hood had all the makings of Terrorism, the shooter claimed he was a soldier of Allah

Spence come on UUUUU know what it was an hour after......terrorism.....say it slowly take a deep breath....ter-ror-ism.....:)

I'm not willing to throw away the values that we held for almost our total existance - not torturing people.

There was a special on Showtime the other night and I wasn't really watching it but I did see many former CIA directors saying that the best way to get info. is to be bc friends w/the prisoner.