-
Features
Great news! Over 20 dead in Orlando Night Club!
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
Tristan Scott
Senior Member
No shit? You're going to continue this horseshit? Your link said there were thousands. I guess you aren't aware that thousands of Muslims JUST IN ORLANDO have come out expressing outrage over these killings. They have even organized blood drives for the victims. But then thats no fun is it? HATE is so much more fun. By all means, keep surfing around, I'll bet you can find even more than those.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Trevor talks about the idiocy of pointing to 911 as part of this conversation, too
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RolEI5n4Jxs[/YOUTUBE]
Love this: "ISIS without guns is just basically a blog"
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RolEI5n4Jxs[/YOUTUBE]
Love this: "ISIS without guns is just basically a blog"
No. The outgrowth of those rebels was the government of Afghanistan which was pretty much displaced by the Taliban.
- - - Updated - - -
The Afghanistan mess was caused by the Soviet invasion.
- - - Updated - - -
What Soviet civilians were there to be the target of terrorism??
Of course, Trausti ignores the fact that after airplanes were used for a terrorism event, we changed procedures, tightened security, locked cockpit doors, etc. In other words, took what steps we could to make it harder for mass killers to kill masses of people with airplanes.
But somehow AR-15s are too special. We can't do anything at all ever to make it harder for killers to get this gun.
Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk
Tightened security?? Theater to make you feel safer but really only about upping the drug war.
Changed procedures?? Nothing of importance.
Tougher cockpit doors?? In theory of help but to date it's only caused harm.
The only real change post 9/11 that matters is the change in how hijacking is viewed. It used to be the advice was to wait it out. Now we know that if the hijackers want to take the cockpit that waiting it out is not an option, active resistance is needed. 5 guys with boxcutters don't stand a chance if the passengers decide to take them out.
Note that since 9/11 nobody has tried to actually seize an airplane--it was a one-shot tactic.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Perhaps because it was made more difficult to seize an airplane
I agree that most of the security measure the public sees is just theater; but the reality is that it was a "one-shot tactic" because WE MADE IT FUCKING TOO HARD TO SEIZE AIRPLANES.Let's do the same with guns.
Even the terrorists in their recruitment videos talk about our lax gun laws
That should tell you something
barbos
Contributor
barbos
Contributor
Nope, Afghanistan mess was caused by US messing up soviet "invasion" by supporting fucking terrorists. The whole idea as Brzezinski gleefully admitted was to draw soviets in and then release
repoman
Contributor
Steven Anderson had another jackass pastor (Roger Jimenez) plagiarize his youtube video in a sermon and he upped the ante, so much so I think he will have a good chance to have an incitement to violence conviction stick. Despicable stuff.
Anyway, as far as anti-gay speeches like this there are probably only two reasons, 1.) internalized self hatred and repression of gay feelings and 2.) Generalized self-righteous and narcissistic bullying personality, which may be the case for Anderson. Anderson is a total control freak sadist in my opinion.
For the latter case it would be like a guy being against and humiliating other races, women, handicapped people (NYT reporter) and so on. Basically a Donald Trump...
Anyway, as far as anti-gay speeches like this there are probably only two reasons, 1.) internalized self hatred and repression of gay feelings and 2.) Generalized self-righteous and narcissistic bullying personality, which may be the case for Anderson. Anderson is a total control freak sadist in my opinion.
For the latter case it would be like a guy being against and humiliating other races, women, handicapped people (NYT reporter) and so on. Basically a Donald Trump...
Potoooooooo
Contributor
http://theweek.com/speedreads/629943/mitt-romney-says-special-prayer-lgbt-community-after-orlando
Mitt Romney says 'a special prayer for the LGBT community' after Orlando
I'd like to tell him where he can stick his prayer
Mitt Romney says 'a special prayer for the LGBT community' after Orlando
I'd like to tell him where he can stick his prayer
Playball40
Veteran Member
Playball40
Veteran Member
Restricting certain weaponry does not 'infringe your stupid right to bear arms'. Unless you are saying that having limits on the populace owning tanks, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons etc., is somehow preventing you from killing a deer.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,085
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
The 2nd amendment should be trashed.
Barbarian
Member
There was an alleged Chinese case in 2012, but the details are disputed. The Chinese version is that Uyghur separatists tried to hijack the plane on a domestic route and the passengers beat them up so hard that two of the hijackers died before the plane landed. The Uyghur version is that there was some altercation between Uyghurs and Chinese about seating and it spiraled out of control. The problem here is that both sides are of the type I am inclined to disbelieve on principle, so I am not sure any of these events happened as described by either party.
Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianjin_Airlines_Flight_7554
If you're so insistent that they exist, you find them. Giddy up!
We would certainly be safer if we had Venezuela's gun control laws.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
People should indeed have a right to have 3 ounces of gunpowder and a musket to protect themselves or go hunting. What's the problem?
fast
Contributor
One must have armor piercing bullets to effectively engage the deer population. They are cunning, and you are blinded by the fact they are animals, as it minimizes (in your mind) their real threat to our loved ones on the road ways. They are constantly trying to hijack vehicles and use our instruments of transportation against us. You think they are merely running out in front of vehicles, but a closer, objective, reasonable, logical, and methodical empiracle study would show that they are actually broadsiding vehicles. Wonder why? The gunmen in the woods are having to shoot through these moving vehicles to score against these criminal deer.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Of course, Trausti ignores the fact that after airplanes were used for a terrorism event, we changed procedures, tightened security, locked cockpit doors, etc. In other words, took what steps we could to make it harder for mass killers to kill masses of people with airplanes.
But somehow AR-15s are too special. We can't do anything at all ever to make it harder for killers to get this gun.
Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk
Tightened security?? Theater to make you feel safer but really only about upping the drug war.
Changed procedures?? Nothing of importance.
Tougher cockpit doors?? In theory of help but to date it's only caused harm.
The only real change post 9/11 that matters is the change in how hijacking is viewed. It used to be the advice was to wait it out. Now we know that if the hijackers want to take the cockpit that waiting it out is not an option, active resistance is needed. 5 guys with boxcutters don't stand a chance if the passengers decide to take them out.
Note that since 9/11 nobody has tried to actually seize an airplane--it was a one-shot tactic.
You contradict yourself. You claim that the new cockpit doors have "only caused harm", then point out zero attempts to seize an airplane since the change. More important than a likely difference in passenger response is the far greater difficulty in getting into the cockpit, no matter how the passengers respond. Terrorist could still crash a plane, if they got into the cockpit, before the passengers knew what was happening. Also, remember that passenger rebellion on flight 93 still resulted in a crash and everyone on the plane dying. Plus knowledge of an potential armed air marshal also deters hijackers armed with less than guns. Passenger revolt would help minimize harm in a hijacking without guns, but be far less effective if they had guns, and regardless does less to prevent potential hijackers from attempting it than does the cockpit doors, armed marshalls, combined with new security policies for pilots not to give into demands no matter how many passengers are killed.
Regardless, the point is that it was not knives but planes that were the key weapons used in 9/11, and guns would have made their task far easier, prevented the revolt on flight 93, and would make a repeat of 9/11 far more likely. Two unskilled schmucks with AK-47s could mow down an entire plane full of 300 passengers. The passengers path to try and get to the gunmen would be blocked by the first rows of dead passengers killed in seconds. In contrast, 2 ninjas with box cutters couldn't kill more than several people before being overrun. The point is that Trautsi's claim that assault rifles and box cutters are equivalent and thus should be treated as such by the law is absurd.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Geez, you're like a jukebox full of right-wing fallacies. The US would be safer with Venezuela's gun control laws, because unlike them, we don't have a total absence of law enforcement or criminal justice system (less than 2% of crimes in Venezuela are even prosecuted) or murderous crime lords in complete control of the government. Their top "elected" officials, police officers, military, and Supreme Court justices are all involved with drug trafficking.
The impact of gun control laws being on the books obviously depends upon whether they are enforced, and factors such as whether the majority of murders are being committed by or with approval from the government and law enforcement itself.