tinnitus photography Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 more terrorists, more gun sales fueled by fear. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 more terrorists, more gun sales fueled by fear.Gun sales aren't fueled by fear of terrorists, they're fueled by fear of the government and what it might do concerning guns in the future. That's it in a nutshell. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 OH MY GOD, LOOK AT ALL THE GUNS THAT HAVE BEEN SEIZED!seriously, don't people bother w/ rational thought these days? Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 OH MY GOD, LOOK AT ALL THE GUNS THAT HAVE BEEN SEIZED! seriously, don't people bother w/ rational thought these days?It's an entirely rational concern when a gun that is legal in one state would now earn you a felony in another state. I could walk across the California border with a piece of plastic and a spring (typical AR-15 magazine) and become a felon who would no longer be allowed to own firearms of any kind. Or vote, for that matter. When President Obama and other politicians point to Australia as an example of how gun control "works" they conveniently leave out the fact that a million firearms were seized. They leave that fact out, but they fully understand that it happened. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob_Roberts Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Gun sales aren't fueled by fear of terrorists, they're fueled by fear of the government and what it might do concerning guns in the future. That's it in a nutshell. This is funny. On one thread you see no problem with big government having a massive surveillance programs aimed at its citizens, and yet on this thread you are afraid of that same big government taking away your guns. On one you argue that we should trust our brave leaders, on this one that we shouldn't. Cognitive dissonance? Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 On one thread you see no problem with big government having a massive surveillance programs aimed at its citizensIt wasn't. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I sincerely doubt that American terrorism market is big enough to persuade the NRA and/or gun manufacturers to court their business. Any attempt to restrict gun purchases is dismissed out of hand by the NRA. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Any attempt to restrict gun purchases is dismissed out of hand by the NRA.Nope. Not true. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob_Roberts Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It wasn't. Ok, let's remove it. You're ok with big government possessing a massive surveillance system but not ok with big government regulating guns? Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Nope. Not true.Any examples you can cite from the last 35 years? Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 You're ok with big government possessing a massive surveillance system but not ok with big government regulating guns?Yes, I'm ok with the government possessing a massive surveillance system. That's the NSA's whole purpose. Several other acronyms', too. Every government does it. It's important for a nation's safety. I'm also ok with the government regulating guns, but knee-jerk reactions to mass murders that infringe on our constitutional rights are another story entirely. Don't let bad guys have guns. Don't let drug abusers have guns. Don't let crazy people have guns. Murder is already illegal, so that about covers it. Restrictions on magazine size, so-called "assault weapons" and handguns are just blatant attempts at slowly chipping away at our right to bear arms. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Any examples you can cite from the last 35 years?I don't really pay any attention to them other than to write a check every few years when the president starts talking about enacting additional laws which will do nothing to solve our gun problems while simultaneously turning me into a felon at the swish of his pen. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob_Roberts Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Yes, I'm ok with the government possessing a massive surveillance system. That's the NSA's whole purpose. Several other acronyms', too. Every government does it. It's important for a nation's safety. I'm also ok with the government regulating guns, but knee-jerk reactions to mass murders that infringe on our constitutional rights are another story entirely. Don't let bad guys have guns. Don't let drug abusers have guns. Don't let crazy people have guns. Murder is already illegal, so that about covers it. Restrictions on magazine size, so-called "assault weapons" and handguns are just blatant attempts at slowly chipping away at our right to bear arms. Understood. What I don't understand is why you are so focused on the government using a terrorist incident to erode our right to bear arms but not concerned with its efforts to use the same incident to erode our right to privacy and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. They both seem like expansion of government power to me. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Yay, we're back to "debating" guns. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 What I don't understand is why you are so focused on the government using a terrorist incident to erode our right to bear arms but not concerned with its efforts to use the same incident to erode our right to privacy and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.The calls for more gun control that come after a school shooting or whatever aren't really related to terrorism as we know it. They are the acts of deranged individuals, not organized terror groups with clearly defined goals. And politicians using them to criminalize law-abiding gun owners in order to be seen as "doing something" doesn't make the nation any safer. As for the NSA, their programs are vetted by an army of lawyers. They don't just sit down with Verizon and say, "Hey, we want to spy on millions of Americans and we expect you to go along with it." They bring a team of lawyers to meet with a team of Verizon's lawyers and then they hash out a deal where they pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a little metadata. The NSA's programs aren't directed at Americans. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob_Roberts Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 As for the NSA, their programs are vetted by an army of lawyers. They don't just sit down with Verizon and say, "Hey, we want to spy on millions of Americans and we expect you to go along with it." They bring a team of lawyers to meet with a team of Verizon's lawyers and then they hash out a deal where they pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a little metadata. The NSA's programs aren't directed at Americans. I wish that I could be as peaceful with the program as you are. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Yay, we're back to "debating" guns.I thought we only did that after a mass shooting at a school in America. Progress I guess. Â It is all noise at this point. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 the noise of shells, firing. Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The GOP's rejection of refugees is rooted in a shared virtue: Like all Americans of any political persuasion, they sincerely want to keep America safe. The irony is that it doesn't take into consideration the tried-and-true methods of keeping America safe. First, there is a careful vetting process already in place that has been working for more than a decade.  (To listen to the cable news blowhards, you'd think that the president's plan is to simply open the doors to an unregulated stampede.)  Embracing refugees keeps America safe for several reasons. Research shows that moving refugees far away from the conflict zone results in much reduced chances that they will be radicalized at some point in the future. Additionally, refusal sends the message that America is heartless and condemns all Muslims, which potentially helps radicalize those turned away and confirms for extremists their view of America, aiding in their recruitment efforts. Is it possible that a terrorist could sneak into the country via the refugee program? Of course. But I'd wager, given the data acquired over the previous decade, that the likelihood is small and that any potential threat is dramatically outweighed by the potential threat created by refusing refugees. In other words, rejecting the refugees makes us less safe, while accepting them makes us more safe. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 In other words, rejecting the refugees makes us less safe, while accepting them makes us more safe.And it makes us look weak to the rest of the world. Terrorism at its core, wants us to be afraid. To no longer do what is right because of fear. After 9/11 the adage was if we don't do X the terrorists have won. It is clear with the comments and actions of these governors and the GOP leadership the terrorists are winning. Â And you know who is still planning to bring in 30k refugees? France. Yeah let's chew on that for awhile. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 In other words, rejecting the refugees makes us less safe, while accepting them makes us more safe.And it makes us look weak to the rest of the world. Terrorism at its core, wants us to be afraid. To no longer do what is right because of fear. After 9/11 the adage was if we don't do X the terrorists have won. It is clear with the comments and actions of these governors and the GOP leadership the terrorists are winning. Â And you know who is still planning to bring in 30k refugees? France. Yeah let's chew on that for awhile. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The other twist is the planners of the Paris attacks weren't from Syria. Following the knee-jerk logic of the right we should start barring Belgians from entering the U.S. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The other twist is the planners of the Paris attacks weren't from Syria.But the leader was very active in ISIS activities in Syria and bragged that he traveled freely between Syria and Europe at will. It will be interesting to learn how he was able to do so. It won't do the pro-refugee crowd any favors if it turns out that he was blending in with the wave of people pouring into Europe. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 yay for bigots.http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/watch-virginia-town-hall-meeting-descends-into-chaos-as-anti-muslim-bigots-scream-insults/ Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts