Questions for Gun Control Advocates

[NoobCrawler]

The current gun laws are mostly fine, but won't really be effective until they include point of transfer background checks. If you already know you can't legally own a weapon, all you have to do is buy privately. No, it won't stop all the crazies, but it will make it harder for them to acquire something they shouldn't.

I agree, there's probably 100's, likely more, laws that nobody even know are there-on either side of this discussion. That's partly why I laugh when I see the more whacked out anti-gun crowd say we need stricter background checks. Chances are they have no idea what goes into one.

IF we could somehow even put a dent in the shady sales of guns would be huge...but I don't know how that would happen. The almighty quick $ reigns supreme to too many.

I am bad late to the party . Will throw in my worthless two cents .
gun show loop hole. I have been to more than a hundred of them.
now you have insta check. I have no real opinion on this , but back in the day you had to fill out paperwork and wait five days for a hand gun.
the so called loop hole people might be talking about , comes not from new guns but used ones. I have bought and traded guns at shows with dealers and patrons.
Immediately followed with a call to one of my law enforcement friends to make sure it was not stolen.
in the past 20 years , any hand gun I have sold ,the buyer would have to show me his or her c.c. permit.
with things the way they are now a days, I carry concealed everywhere I go but to my work.
my inner gun nut was killed off by my job years ago. Now as a father of two , I feel like I should do all in my power to be able tp protect my family in the unlikely event of being faced with an armed attacker.
I am not a paranoid, right wing freak, but to me it is like insurance. I pay for insurance every month ,but do not expect to have a wreck.
I hope and pray I am never put in a situation where I feel the need to draw a weapon against another human. However I hope I would not hesitate if my kids or wife were in harms way.
I might be a bad person in veiw of most of society, I take my wife and kids shooting with me. They each know how to load ,shoot and safely handel every firearm we own.

Do these things make me the horrible monster right wing gun owner that liberals rant about ?

This is my thinking as well. I would much rather have it than not. My weekly going ons include church, movie theatre, popular Christian owned restaraunt-across the street from a junior college...prime locations for those incidents. Now, I don't expect anything to ever happen, but so did those people at the Christmas office party...you just don't know anymore. Sure, that may be a bit paranoid, but I'd rather be seen alive as paranoid, than dead and naive.

 

[67mustang]

Of course they are uneasy, everyone is uneasy, but that doesn't mean we should rush into booting all the Muslims out, or move to keep new ones out.

You and Jato should pair up and look into what ISIS wants and is trying to do, which is exactly the same thing Al Queda tried to do: 1) get us into an end-of-the-world ground war, and 2) build support by getting us to demonize all of Islam.

There is a reason why we (and everyone else) haven't sent troops to Syria. It is exactly what they want, and it gives validity to their twisted prophecies. Instead, we lend air support and supplies so that the locals can do it instead. All western countries that are actively involved are on board with this. It's not because Obama is weak kneed about it, it's because that is everyones current strategy.

Its rhetoric. Just because Trump says something doesnt make it so. Do people really believe he will build a border fence? No. Do people really believe he will get the Mexican govt to pay for it? No. Is he really gonna round up muslims? No. All he is doing is saying is that the fire is big, hot, and far from contained.

Everyone knows ISIS is trying to scale up in terms of recruitment. The muslim family didnt wear gopros for fun. ISIS is growing whether we do something or not. The current strategy is not a winning strategy. I hear you parroting obamas talking points about "arming the locals" which is a joke. ISIS always takes that equipment in the end.

Surely you dont actually believe that Obama is leading on this. France has conducted raids on 2300 homes since the paris attacks. Islamaphobia be damned. The french are coordinating with russia now. Obamas calm the waters plan is already backfiring. Calming the waters will do nothing to slow the spread of ISIS/radical islam.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I disagree. I think it's reverse psychology and that's what they REALLY want. By us thinking that they want us to get into a ground war and we don't go along, that essentially makes us neutral. We and everyone else are not doing anything and are as such sitting ducks for them to play with.

There's no reason but the powers that be why we haven't sent in special forces from all branches and ended this. We found Saddam and Obama. We could at least put a huge dent in this if not end it if we really wanted to.

No. Groups like ISIS and Al Qeada have no other means to wage war, and no other perceived enemy like the west.

They have no nukes, no air force, no navy, no real means of intercontinental transportation or strike capabilities. The only way they can fulfill their prophecy is for us to come to them, and the only way they can grow is brainwash people into thinking we hate and are coming to kill them.

 

[Highmark]

Thats not what I said. I said that 80% of FBI resources are devoted to terrorism as stated by Comey himself and as reflected in the TURK system.

Your data is old. If you think SB is an anomaly then your head is in the sand. In 3 months this post will be laughable. What do you think 80% of FBI resources are devoted to nowadays?

Again, back it up.

According this report only 7% of agents are dedicated to joint terrorism task forces:
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/...bi-facts-figures/facts-and-figures-031413.pdf

Seems that they care much more about cyber terrorism as they have more than 10x the personnel dedicated to that.

But that's beside the point, even if what you said was true, my original statement that a disproportionately number of attacks in the U.S. are perpetrated by religious extremists and an even smaller amount is is Muslim is true and you have still yet to produce anything that discredits that.

Just more flab.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Its rhetoric. Just because Trump says something doesnt make it so. Do people really believe he will build a border fence? No. Do people really believe he will get the Mexican govt to pay for it? No. Is he really gonna round up muslims? No. All he is doing is saying is that the fire is big, hot, and far from contained.

Everyone knows ISIS is trying to scale up in terms of recruitment. The muslim family didnt wear gopros for fun. ISIS is growing whether we do something or not. The current strategy is not a winning strategy. I hear you parroting obamas talking points about "arming the locals" which is a joke. ISIS always takes that equipment in the end.

Surely you dont actually believe that Obama is leading on this. France has conducted raids on 2300 homes since the paris attacks. Islamaphobia be damned. The french are coordinating with russia now. Obamas calm the waters plan is already backfiring. Calming the waters will do nothing to slow the spread of ISIS/radical islam.

It doesn't matter what it is, it is fuel for ISIS' fire. Trump says some shit, gets the crowd wound up, and ISIS uses it for evidence to convince people that they were right all along.

Obamas so called talking points are strategies we've been trying to implement since long before he was president. Every time we personally go in, we make things worse. Every time we simply arm the locals, we make things worse. It's a lose-lose, but getting the locals to do the fighting is still the best (though historically not great) chance that they'll be able to keep it when we pull out. At least by only providing support we aren't putting scores of American soldiers directly at risk. Plus it's cheaper.

No, Obama isn't leading on this. He doesn't need to. It's Europes turn. Since they are part of the same land mass and receiving a huge amount of refugees, there is a more than fair risk of another attack and they are not out of line by raiding homes and mosques. The odds of an ISIS member crossing their borders is astronomically greater than it is that we'll unknowingly fly one over in a year or more after they've managed to get through the vetting system.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Do people not get what's so amazing ****ed up about this?

Same process as how Hitler attempted to wipe out the Jews.

That is the first relevant Hitler reference I've heard in the past 7 years. :ror:

 

[67mustang]

Again, back it up.

According this report only 7% of agents are dedicated to joint terrorism task forces:
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/...bi-facts-figures/facts-and-figures-031413.pdf

Seems that they care much more about cyber terrorism as they have more than 10x the personnel dedicated to that.

But that's beside the point, even if what you said was true, my original statement that a disproportionately number of attacks in the U.S. are perpetrated by religious extremists and an even smaller amount is is Muslim is true and you have still yet to produce anything that discredits that.

Just more flab.

The jttfs are made up of more than just FBI. And the FBI has more people working terrorism than just what they contibute to the jttfs.

You can look at your own pdf and see that cyber crime is a lower priority than protecting against a terrorist attack which occupies the top priority.

I never claimed that any certain percentage of anything was committed by muslims. Either way...we shouldnt tolerate jihad on American soil. Period.

 

[67mustang]

It doesn't matter what it is, it is fuel for ISIS' fire. Trump says some shit, gets the crowd wound up, and ISIS uses it for evidence to convince people that they were right all along.

Obamas so called talking points are strategies we've been trying to implement since long before he was president. Every time we personally go in, we make things worse. Every time we simply arm the locals, we make things worse. It's a lose-lose, but getting the locals to do the fighting is still the best (though historically not great) chance that they'll be able to keep it when we pull out. At least by only providing support we aren't putting scores of American soldiers directly at risk. Plus it's cheaper.

No, Obama isn't leading on this. He doesn't need to. It's Europes turn. Since they are part of the same land mass and receiving a huge amount of refugees, there is a more than fair risk of another attack and they are not out of line by raiding homes and mosques. The odds of an ISIS member crossing their borders is astronomically greater than it is that we'll unknowingly fly one over in a year or more after they've managed to get through the vetting system.

Isis doesnt need whatsoever Donald Trump for its propaganda. Donald Trump has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment and progresses of ISIS. The idea that he does is just a democrat talking point. Its not based in truth.

The whole local forces thing is a sideshow. We propped up the Iraqi Army and they fell like a house of cards. We spent millions of dollars for a grand total of 3 fighters. Hows that for cheap? ISIS vehicle of choice is an American Humvee. The current strategy is not a winning strategy. Its a political strategy to try to salvage the presidency.

You are right. Russia and Europe will have to pick it up cause our current administration dropped the ball and allowed ISIS to go from JV to the pros.

 

[RANOVRU]

No. Groups like ISIS and Al Qeada have no other means to wage war, and no other perceived enemy like the west.

They have no nukes, no air force, no navy, no real means of intercontinental transportation or strike capabilities. The only way they can fulfill their prophecy is for us to come to them, and the only way they can grow is brainwash people into thinking we hate and are coming to kill them.

That's very laughable. Now they're incapable. Really? After the last few years of attacks you come up with "no other means' or 'no real means'?


Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? That's pretty much what ISIS is doing to everyone they terrorize. We've dealt with that in that past and whether or not you want to call it a win, lose or draw, we took action and the problem stopped.


Doing nothing force wise isn't an option.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

That's very laughable. Now they're incapable. Really? After the last few years of attacks you come up with "no other means' or 'no real means'?


Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? That's pretty much what ISIS is doing to everyone they terrorize. We've dealt with that in that past and whether or not you want to call it a win, lose or draw, we took action and the problem stopped.


Doing nothing force wise isn't an option.

They're only capable on their own turf. Outside of that they have to depend on propaganda and sympathizers to do their work for them, and even then they can only do that on a small scale. It takes an incredible amount of resources to invade, win, and hold territory. They don't have those resources.

Yes, we got Hussein and Osama, but look at what it cost us, and the effort involved.

The problem didn't stop. Al Queda is still active, though not nearly as powerful and they're now focused on local targets. So are several other terrorist groups. Whenever we go in and upset the balance of power, and don't leave a reasonably reliable and strong government in our wake, everything falls apart again and the bad guys get back into power with nobody available to counter it. The other factions that are fighting ISIS only do so on their own ground because if they leave to fight, their homes are exposed. That is true of every country there.

If we get wholly involved again, like we did after 9/11, we won't make a damn bit of difference unless we plan to be there for decades. It would have to be a serious and dedicated long term occupation. We can't afford that.

 

[RANOVRU]

They're only capable on their own turf. Outside of that they have to depend on propaganda and sympathizers to do their work for them, and even then they can only do that on a small scale. It takes an incredible amount of resources to invade, win, and hold territory. They don't have those resources.

Yes, we got Hussein and Osama, but look at what it cost us, and the effort involved.

The problem didn't stop. Al Queda is still active, though not nearly as powerful and they're now focused on local targets. So are several other terrorist groups. Whenever we go in and upset the balance of power, and don't leave a reasonably reliable and strong government in our wake, everything falls apart again and the bad guys get back into power with nobody available to counter it. The other factions that are fighting ISIS only do so on their own ground because if they leave to fight, their homes are exposed. That is true of every country there.

If we get wholly involved again, like we did after 9/11, we won't make a damn bit of difference unless we plan to be there for decades. It would have to be a serious and dedicated long term occupation. We can't afford that.

They're only capable on their own turf? Are you serious?

That's part of the problem we get too involved. Get in get out and don't try and convert a democracy in 5-10yrs. This idea of laying hands on our enemies after we beat beat them and converting a major population to our own way of society is not only insane but not wanted or needed.


We have the resources to end this. All the wars we've been in ended because we took part in one way or another. I really don't see how this "Lets do nothing because they want us to do something" attitude is beneficial in any way. If that attitude had been the case in any other war we fought in the last 200yrs things would've for sure turned out different than they are.



And please stop acting like we're not at 'war' with ISIS just because they're not a country or state. The whole world is at war with ISIS.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

They're only capable on their own turf? Are you serious?

Yes. The very worst that was ever done or could be done to the western world by Muslim extremists was 9/11, and that was incredibly ambitious on their part.

They do not want to fight the west anywhere but in the middle east, specifically Syria. The prophecy that fuels them says that Islam will battle western forces (it actually specifically mentions the Romans...lol) in two Syrian cities. That battle will bring Armageddon and the end of the infidels.

That's part of the problem we get too involved. Get in get out and don't try and convert a democracy in 5-10yrs. This idea of laying hands on our enemies after we beat beat them and converting a major population to our own way of society is not only insane but not wanted or needed.


We have the resources to end this. All the wars we've been in ended because we took part in one way or another. I really don't see how this "Lets do nothing because they want us to do something" attitude is beneficial in any way. If that attitude had been the case in any other war we fought in the last 200yrs things would've for sure turned out different than they are.

The resources we have to end this quickly will turn the entire world against us.

The resources we have to go in and occupy and end this less shortly will ruin us financially.

Yes, we have won wars, but at a great cost and massive loss of life on both sides.

We're not doing nothing. The locals have to be at the forefront or we will be back again. The Europeans got hit like they haven't been hit in ages. Let them lead the charge.

The benefit is obvious. Don't give them what they want. It's foolish to fight on the enemies terms.

And please stop acting like we're not at 'war' with ISIS just because they're not a country or state. The whole world is at war with ISIS.

Of course we are at war with ISIS, but ISIS is an ideal, not a bordered, governed state that can be overthrown. Fighting them will be exactly like fighting Al Queda.

 

[binaryterror]

This muslim family killed the whole office at the xmas party.

Wow, to add on. Have you ever once posted an actual fact? Let alone actually backed up wrong completely incorrect claims with a resource providing information to said fact?

Everything you've posted is rumor, rhetoric, or hearsay. Sadly when you look at the facts, as Highmark has requested, you've yet to prove anything but your own intelligence level.

Regardless of it being state or fed gov't, the point still stands that I can't freely bear arms-legally. Here in delightful CA,

The problem with your needs is state. No one should be in California if they want to own a gun.

brought here via a difference type of temporary status from a known ISIS area.

Saudi Arabia is currently one of the US's allies when it comes to the Middle East and keeping peace there. That is where she was from. Saudi Arabia has very minimal ISIS influence compared to other less modernized countries in the Middle East.

We have the resources to end this. All the wars we've been in ended because we took part in one way or another. I really don't see how this "Lets do nothing because they want us to do something" attitude is beneficial in any way.

No one is asking for no war against ISIS. Or that nothing be done.

Saying Muslim is bad is just ignorance. Tim McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, turns out he was a Christian. Will we ban all Christians from immigration?

If we ban Muslims, we must ban all immigrants who practice religion.

 

[Robbob]

The resources we have to end this quickly will turn the entire world against us.

Putin will do it before we do in my opinion ......

The resources we have to go in and occupy and end this less shortly will ruin us financially.

Great Depression all over again if we do

We're not doing nothing. The locals have to be at the forefront or we will be back again. The Europeans got hit like they haven't been hit in ages. Let them lead the charge.

The benefit is obvious. Don't give them what they want. It's foolish to fight on the enemies terms.

Of course we are at war with ISIS, but ISIS is an ideal, not a bordered, governed state that can be overthrown. Fighting them will be exactly like fighting Al Queda.

Im with ya on letting the other countries step up to the plate, we've been their police for too long.

Discouraging part is seeing American Muslims tell the world not all of them are bad but then when they are prompted to step up and help fight against radicalizing they turn and say its not our job. Americans will protect us.

 

[The Violator]

We can't afford that.

If only more liberals said those words, we would be in much better shape.

 

[binaryterror]

If only more liberals said those words, we would be in much better shape.

And if only Republican's paid their fair share, we'd have money to spare.

Explain how a rich business man, one of the wealthiest in the world pays less tax rate than his upper middle class secretary: #5

 

[The Violator]

And if only Republican's paid their fair share, we'd have money to spare.

Explain how a rich business man, one of the wealthiest in the world pays less tax rate than his upper middle class secretary: #5

My guess would be he followed the tax laws. Not his fault the secretary did not have somebody more knowledgeable do hers.


BUT, if one of them was cutting you a check, which one would you want. The amount Trump paid, or the amount the secretary paid?

 

[binaryterror]

BUT, if one of them was cutting you a check, which one would you want. The amount Trump paid, or the amount the secretary paid?

As a moderate, the only form of tax that should exist is one an 18 year old high school student can read. That would be a flat tax.

But then the republicans would be mad, all their loopholes would be closed.

More oddly, the GOP's leading candidate wants a fixed rate system, another reason hes considered not really a GOP candidate.

 

[C*H*U*D]

It's interesting that when a white American shoots up a High School or movie theater, we see comments like this:

And less than .00000000000001% of guns commit mass shootings...

Or perhaps more accurately like this:

I like facts.

Fact is of those guns less than .0001% are used to commit crime any given day.

Facts are neat.

But if one of those Americans (yes, the SB shooter was American) happens to be Muslim, everyone starts crapping down both pant legs and we get this:

Fuk the Muslims..

And everyone wants to ban Muslims from coming into the country. While we are at it, let's shut down Mosques and put American Muslims on a watch list. Doesn't the SB shooter simply fall into that .0001% category?

Anybody remember the asshole who shot and killed 3 people in Colorado Springs just days before the SB shooting? Almost forgot about him right? Probably because he's an old white guy instead of a headline grabbing Muslim shooter.

...and lets remember ISIS didnt exist 2 years ago..

Also remember that the ISIS we know today didn't exist until we invaded Iraq. Think long and hard on that one.

Yes, we got Hussein...

The mistake that started all of this.

...and Osama, but look at what it cost us, and the effort involved.

BINGO! 10 years to find one guy. Does anyone think taking out all of ISIS will happen in less than 10?

Whenever we go in and upset the balance of power, and don't leave a reasonably reliable and strong government in our wake, everything falls apart again and the bad guys get back into power with nobody available to counter it.

Planning for the occupation of Germany after WWII took eleven years. We have no plan for the mess we're in now. Sorry to all of you Donald fans, but "Bomb the shit out of them" is not a plan.

ISIS is in Syria, but we should not be entering another country's civil war. To all of you with children, I hope you think before voting in someone who wants to escalate our involvement in Syria. If you think your grade school kids will be safer, think again. The kids who were in kindergarten during our invasion of Iraq, are the troops who will be going to Syria today. If you think we'll be done with Syria in 13 years, guess again.

Like many, I fell for the rhetoric that was being spewed after 9/11. I believed our leaders when they said we had to take out Iraq. I'm not going to fall for it again. Everyone likes to say, "Support our troops". Sometimes that means standing up for them before they are sent off to die in a war that is not ours.

 

[wings_of_fire]

in a war that is not ours.

anyway....welcome back CHUD:thumbup: