Religion of peace strikes again

[Got Stripers]

If there is a silver lining, it’s that our security at home has forced them to these less destructive stricks, although the terror is just as palpable. Religion and ideology has been a distructve force throughput history and I see no end in sight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.
calling for political solutions in response to terrorist attacks, particularly those committed by Muslims.


Chuck Schumer ✔@SenSchumer
I guess it's not too soon to politicize a tragedy.
8:37 AM - Nov 1, 2017


Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!


58 people dead and 546 injured. in Vegas

White House officials insisted it was “premature” to discuss politics and dismissed calls to re-evaluate gun legislation.

how sad

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

58 people dead and 546 injured. in Vegas

White House officials insisted it was “premature” to discuss politics and dismissed calls to re-evaluate gun legislation.

how sad

Sad is the thought that you, I presume an American, can put on the same plane of equivalency, questioning the entry of non-citizens with zero claim to be here, with restricting the rights of US citizens with knee-jerk laws that everyone agrees would not have stopped that or damn near any shooting.

In a few short weeks the gun control fire in the belly of the Democrats in Congress has already died. Do you really want to have the conversation or are you just virtue signalling?

If you really want to discuss gun legislation please, go ahead and start a thread and set out specifically what gun laws you want to see enacted and what you expect from each law.

I know you are not at all interested in having the conversation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

with restricting the rights of US citizens with knee-jerk laws that everyone agrees would not have stopped that or damn near any shooting.



I know you are not at all interested in having the conversation.

I'll have it.

I know of no law that would have completely prevented the Vegas shooting. But if bump stocks were illegal, the body count might well have been a lot lower. He shot 600 people. One of the first cops on the scene was a combat vet, and he radioed in that it sounded like a belt fed machine gun.

Just because you can't guarantee a body count of zero, doesn't mean you don't try to do what you can.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if bump stocks were illegal, the body count might well have been a lot lower.

Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.

No, it's not a guarantee that no one will ever have them. But it makes it harder, which means it's possible that lives can be saved. It means that some people won't have them, that might have them if they were legal.

When seat belt laws were passed, the critics said "just because it's illegal to not wear a seat belt, doesn't mean that some people won't still choose not to wear them". And they are 100% right...despite the law, some people don't wear seat belts. But some obey the law, and people are alive because of it. Seat belt laws don't reduce auto fatalities to zero, but that doesn't mean they don't have a positive impact.

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.

The problem is that the legislation now being pushed through bans anything that facilitates a more rapid cycle of fire in a semi-automatic. An aftermarket match trigger that has a faster reset than a stock trigger would fall under the law.

Nearly everyone will be in violation of the law; we are going to forced to cut off the belt loops on our pants . . .

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'll have it.

Just because you can't guarantee a body count of zero, doesn't mean you don't try to do what you can.

Well, since you have picked a position for me and you and the guy in your mirror have arrived at a conclusion, I don't see any room for me in your "conversation".

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.
calling for political solutions in response to terrorist attacks, particularly those committed by Muslims.


Chuck Schumer ✔@SenSchumer
I guess it's not too soon to politicize a tragedy.
8:37 AM - Nov 1, 2017


Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!


58 people dead and 546 injured. in Vegas

White House officials insisted it was “premature” to discuss politics and dismissed calls to re-evaluate gun legislation.

how sad

First of all it’s not a tragedy
It’s an ATROCITY!

Sometimes the truth hurts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Religion and ideology has been a distructve force throughput history and I see no end in sight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The end of humans is the end of the particular destructive force that you're speaking about, though maybe too distant to see, or so unwelcome to think about.

[wdmso]

after NY terrorist attack

Fox news Ingraham: We demand our elected officials keep America safe
We should not lose one more American life because politicians don't have the nerve or the will to do what's necessary to secure the homeland.


Didn't see this concern about to keeping America safe after vegas



I said this on 10\4 after Vegas shooting


Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing.

And as if on Cue look at the responses from Trump and His followers .. I d say its amazing but its just predictable

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I said this on 10\4 after Vegas shooting

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing.

The why was explained to you. Perhaps you missed it.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I said this on 10\4 after Vegas shooting


Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing.

And as if on Cue look at the responses from Trump and His followers .. I d say its amazing but its just predictable

Wicked smaht you are.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Wicked smaht you are.

Smart enough to see Murder is murder reguardless on the motivation

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I


Diversity Visa Lottery Program, started in 1995 550 k a year
To qualify, applicants must have a high school education or two years in an occupation that requires formal training. Those who meet eligibility requirements are selected at random from a computer lottery.

Jeff Flake ✔@JeffFlake
Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://twitter

your up to speed on 2a issues and arguments I suggest you broaden your reading .. its easy being a 1 trick pony

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Smart enough to see Murder is murder reguardless on the motivation

You sound a more like a "conservative" with this statement. Progressives insist that we must understand why people kill. They go through tortuous investigations to know why terrorists and mass murderers and serial killers and familycides (just made that word up), and all sorts of killings occur. The idea being that it might help in preventing future killings. So far, in spite of the analyses, the killings continue. A rural redneck is more likely to view murder the way you do than a Progressive would

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

I am not aware of some "Conservative" agenda to end immigration. Please inform about it.

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I


Diversity Visa Lottery Program, started in 1995 550 k a year
To qualify, applicants must have a high school education or two years in an occupation that requires formal training. Those who meet eligibility requirements are selected at random from a computer lottery.

Jeff Flake ✔@JeffFlake
Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://twitter

your up to speed on 2a issues and arguments I suggest you broaden your reading .. its easy being a 1 trick pony

Don't know why your twitter links disassociate Schumer from the program. Some broader reading of various opinions have different views, such as:http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...llent-program/

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

didn't know they had an Anti-immigration agenda.

They have a Pro-Increased Security and Improved Vetting agenda.

Maybe they have an Anti-ILLEGAL-Immigration agenda. Maybe that's where you are getting confused.

but never knew they had an Anti-Immigration agenda.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Going back, my family thought the same thing about the Irish, and Catholics in general. Actually, I am pretty sure they didn't think it was worth it.

I am OK with it within reason. I don't like the Irish or Italian Gang underground in Boston / NYC but did not have a problem with Irish or Italians (or Germans, or Poles, or French - well, the French are different ; ) ) . I support LEGAL immigration. I support immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, but I do expect them to buy in to the American idea and assimilate. I also expect a higher level of vetting, same as I would expect with IRA folks coming over in the 80s or Russian mob types in the 90s.

There - immigration - WITHIN THE LAW - with vetting of potential problem / ideology / and those that choose not to assimilate.

Originally Posted by wdmso

For many conservatives its worth it as long as those bad eggs are not Muslim or Mexcian. whole streets in Fall river still speak Portuguese they have moved ti where the french used to live and now other immigrants live where the Portuguese started ..

many Americans have never seen or experienced how integration works like urban Americans .. rural Americans Have the right who explains it ..

Thank you for the instruction on how to think

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

didn't know they had an Anti-immigration agenda.

They have a Pro-Increased Security and Improved Vetting agenda.

Maybe they have an Anti-ILLEGAL-Immigration agenda. Maybe that's where you are getting confused.

but never knew they had an Anti-Immigration agenda.

Ding Ding Ding

My "Party" is the one that respects the law, supports legal immigration, embraces Freedom, and respects the Constitution.

Sometimes that is Reps and on a rare occasion it is Dems.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

didn't know they had an Anti-immigration agenda.

They have a Pro-Increased Security and Improved Vetting agenda. (we have no issues with our vetting or our security only your party thinks one exist against all the facts to the contary )

Maybe they have an Anti-ILLEGAL-Immigration agenda. Maybe that's where you are getting confused.

but never knew they had an Anti-Immigration agenda.

Seems you dont know your Party very well

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Smart enough to see Murder is murder reguardless on the motivation

No. Liberals only get outraged when the killer is a White male. Liberals are happy to ignore the majority of murder and focus on the lighting strikes of mass casualty events. That attention cools and dies as quick as welding slag if the killer is a minority (San Bernardino).

Liberals scream 'RACISM' when ever any note is made that 6.7% of the nation's population comprise 53% of gun homicides.

Originally Posted by wdmso

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

And the left's disingenuousness starts right there, in how you define conservative's position as a generalized "anti-immigration agenda". I don't know any conservative that is against legal immigration, outrage about illegal immigrant murderers is multi-layered. Just a few:

Illegal border crossers and visa overstays are law breakers simply by being here -- there is no such thing as a "law-abiding illegal immigrant" (see my sig-line).

We are disgusted that liberals are so eager to ignore the crimes of illegal immigrants -- to the point of declaring certain areas of the USA to be a sanctuary for them. They get released back into society even if there is a detention order on them. Our disgust turns to rage when one of those released criminals kills an American; the blood-guilt for those deaths lays at your feet.

Originally Posted by wdmso

your up to speed on 2a issues and arguments I suggest you broaden your reading .. its easy being a 1 trick pony

LOL. The reason I focus on gun rights is precisely because liberals think the 2nd Amendment is a single issue discussion. They think they are just talking about "guns" but so much more is exposed.

The 2nd Amendment and gun rights is a benchmark for one's understanding and respect for the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Liberals are willing (if not eager) to rationalize carving-out this right from the "rational continuum" of liberty for special treatment, ignoring inviolate rules and principles to achieve what they deem to be, much more important social policy objectives (i.e., "public safety").

In other words, how a person considers the 2nd Amendment is a short but reliable test to expose a wide breadth of deficiencies in understanding of the Constitution and its application (the legitimate extent of government).

I recognize that some "conservatives" have their own litmus test . . . (i.e., abortion and LGBTQ rights) that expose their deficiencies in understanding and applying the Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned -- being an Originalist / Strict Constructionist -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Constitution-ignoring leftists have more in common than social/cultural conservatives and Constitutional Originalist conservatives.

Each see government having a role in "regulating" (if not outlawing) what they consider, their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior. That many dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constructionists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists.

.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

after NY terrorist attack

Fox news Ingraham: We demand our elected officials keep America safe
We should not lose one more American life because politicians don't have the nerve or the will to do what's necessary to secure the homeland.


Didn't see this concern about to keeping America safe after vegas

( I guess you did not look very far then)


I said this on 10\4 after Vegas shooting


Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing.

( if you expect the government to protect us instead of being responsible for yourselves, that is foolish. I think it is more about precautions to prevent these atrocities. )


And as if on Cue look at the responses from Trump and His followers .. I d say its amazing but its just predictable

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

after NY terrorist attack

Fox news Ingraham: We demand our elected officials keep America safe
We should not lose one more American life because politicians don't have the nerve or the will to do what's necessary to secure the homeland.


Didn't see this concern about to keeping America safe after vegas



I said this on 10\4 after Vegas shooting


Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing.

And as if on Cue look at the responses from Trump and His followers .. I d say its amazing but its just predictable

Aren't you somebody who criticizes others for justifying bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior? Yet you are doing it here.

But you are 100% correct, it's amazingly hypocritical for conservatives to attack liberals for using the Vegas attack to advocate for gun control, and then do the same thing by using this terror attack to advocate for immigration security.

There is nothing wrong, in the wake of any tragedy, to advocate for policies that would make another tragedy less likely. Both sides do it, yet each side acts as if only the other side does it. It's stupid.

I don't get how any sane person can be opposed to our being aggressive and vigilant in the war on terror. Nor do I get how any sane person can think that the second amendment is absolute. Each of those two extreme positions, defies common sense.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But you are 100% correct, it's amazingly hypocritical for conservatives to attack liberals for using the Vegas attack to advocate for gun control, and then do the same thing by using this terror attack to advocate for immigration security.

I think the real reason Republicans quickly said, "this isn't the time", is to spare Democrats the embarrassment of going off the deep-end proposing knee-jerk, ridiculously ineffective policy. If the Dem's can be counted for anything it is acting the fool when it looks like more than two decades of gun control blue-balls are about to be released.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There is nothing wrong, in the wake of any tragedy, to advocate for policies that would make another tragedy less likely. Both sides do it, yet each side acts as if only the other side does it. It's stupid.

One big difference between these instances is that Republican proposals would have an effect on the particular type of event. Just like liberals say, 'if there were no guns nobody would get shot; let's like, you know, get rid of them', righties say 'if we had a firm handle on who comes in we wouldn't be suffering these crimes at the hands of non-citizens'.

Big hint, only one side's "solution" to the "problem" are both reasonable and have a chance of being effective.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't get how any sane person can be opposed to our being aggressive and vigilant in the war on terror. Nor do I get how any sane person can think that the second amendment is absolute. Each of those two extreme positions, defies common sense.

I can admit that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute if you can agree that that truth does not mean that any gun law the left can think up is constitutional.

It's hilarious, the people who most employ the "absolute right" line are anti-gunners. I rarely hear any such thing from pro-gunners; when the government can take someone's life, how can any right be said to be "absolute"?

The term when employed by anti-gunners is intended to quash dialogue rather than nurture it. It is uttered in the hope that the reader has as superficial an understanding of the issue as the speaker, so the speaker's opinion that any law the left can think up is A-OK is agreed to.

.