RE: Shooting in California

RE: Shooting in California (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 9:02:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant So...this young couple did all this, nullifying California's strict control laws, but still...we must crack down harder on the law-abiders. Like with any law abiding person. They were innocent, until they weren't. Buying legally is one thing, making them into killing machines made them criminals, just like anyone else. Just like dear, and roof and all the other mass shooters in the country. What they did with those weapons made them even worse criminals. Lots of people get away with modifying their guns unless they use them against other people, they arent likely to get caught. The motive may be different, the result is the same. Too many dead bodies and ruined lives. and no one doing fuck all about it. Or willing to be inconvenienced by it.

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 9:10:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant So...this young couple did all this, nullifying California's strict control laws, but still...we must crack down harder on the law-abiders. Like with any law abiding person. They were innocent, until they weren't. Buying legally is one thing, making them into killing machines made them criminals, just like anyone else. Just like dear, and roof and all the other mass shooters in the country. What they did with those weapons made them even worse criminals. Lots of people get away with modifying their guns unless they use them against other people, they arent likely to get caught. The motive may be different, the result is the same. Too many dead bodies and ruined lives. and no one doing fuck all about it. Or willing to be inconvenienced by it. Jack the Ripper was innocent, untill he wasn't, sounds good but it is just another mindless political slogan.

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 9:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It must be comforting to gun lovers to learn that the law is being applied equally to all, and that it's just as easy for would-be terrorists to arm themselves to the teeth as it is for any one else in the USA. Just in case there is any doubt about this, the GOP has announced its opposition to a bill banning weapons to people on the 'no-fly list'. Source I must admit I find it confusing that the US is prepared to sell guns to people it won't allow on planes because of their known or suspected links to terrorism. But apparently this is a big blow for freedom as it is understood in certain circles in the USA. A list that had Ted Kennedy on it twice and Al Gore three times can't be trusted.

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 9:34:17 AM)
The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said. It would appear that the only modification to the weapons were to replace the 10 round magazines with high capacity magazines. The cops say between 65 and 75 rounds were fired in the incident. That would seem to indicate that they fired one 30 round magazine each and their hand guns.

subrob1967 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 9:41:46 AM)
SoCal jihadist wife pledged allegiance to ISIS before massacre, Fox News confirms Is anyone other than a Democrat really surprised by this?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 9:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant So...this young couple did all this, nullifying California's strict control laws, but still...we must crack down harder on the law-abiders. Like with any law abiding person. They were innocent, until they weren't. Buying legally is one thing, making them into killing machines made them criminals, just like anyone else. Just like dear, and roof and all the other mass shooters in the country. What they did with those weapons made them even worse criminals. Lots of people get away with modifying their guns unless they use them against other people, they arent likely to get caught. The motive may be different, the result is the same. Too many dead bodies and ruined lives. and no one doing fuck all about it. Or willing to be inconvenienced by it. Why the hell should law-abiding citizens be deprived of their right because of the actions of a very small percentage of gun-owners? The right to keep arms is a right guaranteed within the Constitution. The right to "keep and bear a cellphone" is not. I went over the stats...taken from the National Safety Transportation Board on deaths while driving due to illegal texting. Do you wish to ban cellphones? And please...no tired arguments about the driver "not setting out to kill anyone". The minute they take their eye off the road, they do set out to kill someone.

mnottertail -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 9:49:37 AM)
I agree. Why cant I drunk drive? I havent killed anyone. But you have made a huge argument in favor of shooting any nutsucker who talks about voter id, or muslim bashing or doesnt shoot any self described christian conservative who is white that has a gun.

Lucylastic -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:01:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant So...this young couple did all this, nullifying California's strict control laws, but still...we must crack down harder on the law-abiders. Like with any law abiding person. They were innocent, until they weren't. Buying legally is one thing, making them into killing machines made them criminals, just like anyone else. Just like dear, and roof and all the other mass shooters in the country. What they did with those weapons made them even worse criminals. Lots of people get away with modifying their guns unless they use them against other people, they arent likely to get caught. The motive may be different, the result is the same. Too many dead bodies and ruined lives. and no one doing fuck all about it. Or willing to be inconvenienced by it. Jack the Ripper was innocent, untill he wasn't, sounds good but it is just another mindless political slogan. truth hurts doesnt it.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:02:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I agree. Why cant I drunk drive? I havent killed anyone. But you have made a huge argument in favor of shooting any nutsucker who talks about voter id, or muslim bashing or doesnt shoot any self described christian conservative who is white that has a gun. Nice to see you bring senselessness to the forum...again.

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:09:58 AM)
ORIGINAL: subrob1967 SoCal jihadist wife pledged allegiance to ISIS before massacre, Fox News confirms When the fbi confirms it then we may have something. Is anyone other than a Democrat really surprised by this? Do you really believe the demopubs were behind this? You have posted some really stupid shit before but we all chalked it up to too many donuts. This is you felching shit out of your own ass. Even for a mall cop this is moronic, insipid drivel.

Lucylastic -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:39:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant So...this young couple did all this, nullifying California's strict control laws, but still...we must crack down harder on the law-abiders. Like with any law abiding person. They were innocent, until they weren't. Buying legally is one thing, making them into killing machines made them criminals, just like anyone else. Just like dear, and roof and all the other mass shooters in the country. What they did with those weapons made them even worse criminals. Lots of people get away with modifying their guns unless they use them against other people, they arent likely to get caught. The motive may be different, the result is the same. Too many dead bodies and ruined lives. and no one doing fuck all about it. Or willing to be inconvenienced by it. Why the hell should law-abiding citizens be deprived of their right because of the actions of a very small percentage of gun-owners? The right to keep arms is a right guaranteed within the Constitution. The right to "keep and bear a cellphone" is not. I went over the stats...taken from the National Safety Transportation Board on deaths while driving due to illegal texting. Do you wish to ban cellphones? And please...no tired arguments about the driver "not setting out to kill anyone". The minute they take their eye off the road, they do set out to kill someone. and...they made texting illegal precisely because it kills. try something more relevant.

Lucylastic -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:44:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I agree. Why cant I drunk drive? I havent killed anyone. But you have made a huge argument in favor of shooting any nutsucker who talks about voter id, or muslim bashing or doesnt shoot any self described christian conservative who is white that has a gun. Nice to see you bring senselessness to the forum...again. using texting as an "argument" was senseless. they didnt ban cell phones, they banned using them to text while driving..

Lucylastic -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:45:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: subrob1967 SoCal jihadist wife pledged allegiance to ISIS before massacre, Fox News confirms When the fbi confirms it then we may have something. Is anyone other than a Democrat really surprised by this? Do you really believe the demopubs were behind this? You have posted some really stupid shit before but we all chalked it up to too many donuts. This is you felching shit out of your own ass. Even for a mall cop this is moronic, insipid drivel. well yeah, he really believes it, fox told him so.... and not even democraps are surprised by this so hes got NOTHING going for him, as usual

subrob1967 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:48:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: subrob1967 SoCal jihadist wife pledged allegiance to ISIS before massacre, Fox News confirms When the fbi confirms it then we may have something. Is anyone other than a Democrat really surprised by this? Do you really believe the demopubs were behind this? You have posted some really stupid shit before but we all chalked it up to too many donuts. This is you felching shit out of your own ass. Even for a mall cop this is moronic, insipid drivel. Yawn Keep squelching Secret Agent Man... It's YOUR side that wants to expedite Syrian refugees, and supports this administration... Yah I DO think Democrats, and their supporters are to blame for these terrorist attacks.

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 10:57:13 AM)
ORIGINAL: subrob1967 It's YOUR side that wants to expedite Syrian refugees, and supports this administration... Yah I DO think Democrats, and their supporters are to blame for these terrorist attacks. Because I point out your ignorance you think I am a demopub???[8\|] Should you ever stop stuffing your face with donuts you might notice that I have posted many times that there is no difference between the two parties. I have posted many times that I find them both despicable.

OsideGirl -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 11:03:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I must admit I find it confusing that the US is prepared to sell guns to people it won't allow on planes because of their known or suspected links to terrorism. Because the list inaccurate. I've had several clients that ended up on the list. I had a client's 3 year old son end up on the no fly list. The redress procedures through DHS tend to be long and drawn out.

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 11:11:03 AM)
Yah I DO think Democrats, and their supporters are to blame for these terrorist attacks. Let's assume for a moment that it is possible for you to think: What precisely would lead you to connect syrians with pakistanis? What specifically do you think the demopubs did to be blamed for this incident? Now if you cannot do this on your own I have nothing to do and plenty of time to do it in, you can consult a grown up.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 11:13:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant So...this young couple did all this, nullifying California's strict control laws, but still...we must crack down harder on the law-abiders. Like with any law abiding person. They were innocent, until they weren't. Buying legally is one thing, making them into killing machines made them criminals, just like anyone else. Just like dear, and roof and all the other mass shooters in the country. What they did with those weapons made them even worse criminals. Lots of people get away with modifying their guns unless they use them against other people, they arent likely to get caught. The motive may be different, the result is the same. Too many dead bodies and ruined lives. and no one doing fuck all about it. Or willing to be inconvenienced by it. Why the hell should law-abiding citizens be deprived of their right because of the actions of a very small percentage of gun-owners? The right to keep arms is a right guaranteed within the Constitution. The right to "keep and bear a cellphone" is not. I went over the stats...taken from the National Safety Transportation Board on deaths while driving due to illegal texting. Do you wish to ban cellphones? And please...no tired arguments about the driver "not setting out to kill anyone". The minute they take their eye off the road, they do set out to kill someone. and...they made texting illegal precisely because it kills. try something more relevant. And yet...it still happens, just as it is illegal to shoot or kill anyone with a gun and yet...it still happens. But while they want to restrict your right to have a gun even more, I see no one demanding stricter rules to obtain a cell phone. Especially among the young who, percentage-wise, are more likely to text while driving. It is relevant...you just don't like the comparison.

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 11:20:27 AM)
It is relevant...you just don't like the comparison. What is relevant is you wish to make this false comparson. Tell us what is there about those weapons that make them illegal?

joether -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 11:47:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 SoCal jihadist wife pledged allegiance to ISIS before massacre, Fox News confirms Is anyone other than a Democrat really surprised by this? Really? Must be true if FOX 'news' states it.... On the day this all took place, FOX 'news' was pushing this as terrorism even before any facts were apparent. The moment they knew the names, they simply assumed it was a Muslim attacking the nation; STILL, with no evidence to back that statement up. After the Planned Parenthood attack in which a... ....White....Male....Conservative....Pro-NRA.....Pro-Lifer....armed to the teeth stormed the clinic and did many bad things to good people.... ....FOX news needed a story to push upon the Low Information Voters. Someone has an un-English like name = Muslim Terrorist. The US Government has a very specific set of guidelines that determine if an act of violence is just a crime or terrorism. Because terrorism falls between crime and 'an act of war'. In fact, all three are different concepts. On the surface they all seem the same. But go down a few layers and there are big differences. A crime is simply breaking the law. The person does it not for political or territorial control/dominance. An act of war, is the opening salvo to push civilians away from their living spot, but the attackers are not doing it for petty crime. Petty crime to 'Act of War' is murder in the first. An Act of terrorism in one in which locals are effected, but the aim of the attack extends beyond those attacked. Linguists have been grappling with defining terrorism. An we should be careful about labeling things to freely. Here is an article about the subject matter.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02