<BREAKING> Active Shooter in San Bernardino, California

"Radicalization" doesn't mean jack except "they went and did a crime." It's not an ideology. If you are saying radicalization is an ideology, then I wonder how you know the details of their "radical" ideology. People hardly know more than their names at this point.

 

As horrible as this was, this is no where near the Paris-style attack. Motive is still unknown and official has not linked to ISIS.

I see that you forgot your own advice from a few hours ago.

 

Fail on your part. More facts have come to light suggesting this was done by "violent extremists", to use the dunce in the White House's lingo.

 

Maybe some thoughts and prayers will stop this senseless tweeting.

 

What do you call someone who quotes a "dunce" to back up his claims?

 

Just like the Star Wars program, having a defense can be seen as aggressive. If these shooters were wearing bulletproof vests, it was because they foresaw cops needing to shoot at them. I don't think it should be regulated, but I can see why FBI might be interested in who is buying.

"Tactical gear" though isn't necessarily body armor. Were these shooters wearing bullet proof vests or tactical vests? You can get a tactical vest on Amazon for $60.

 

They confirmed in the press conference that they were not wearing bullet proof vests.

 

Vests and armor are easy to get.

http://www.ar500armor.com/


As long as you're a law abiding citizen like Syed Farook was then you can buy all the AR15s and ammunition you want. Thank goodness for freedom.

Sadly, unless something changes, there is going to be an event like this in the US with people who are far more prepared and ruthless than these two.

 

The topic of regulating it came up and unless you plan on shutting down 511tactical.com, the real discussion is about body armor. It is already regulated in other countries.

 

Here's the deal: Americans are too busy/indifferent to monitor their government's behavior, so we just let the executive branch arm itself as much is it wants (using our money), and then we arm ourselves as much as we want to protect ourselves from the ones we are giving our money to. So we buy guns for them, then we buy guns for us in response.

Other countries just try to make sure the government is not a bunch of murderers. We, on the other hand, assume our government wants to kill us and arm ourselves appropriately.

 

Frankly I think you have turned "looking like a tool" into an artform. Congrats on your success in that regard.

 

You can always count on the left in the US to mock the freedom granted by civil liberties and call for more of a totalitarian police state.....and then be the first to whine and complain about the state of police in the country.

It's pretty ridiculous.

Living in a country with "freedom" and civil liberties is accepting a risk of potential danger by those who would abuse their "freedom" or civil liberties in order to do harm. It's just part of the cost of the system, but it's better than the alternative in my opinion. If you disagree and want to live in a nanny state, there are plenty of countries to move to if you can convince them to take you in.

 

Typical gun nut nonsense. People on terror watch lists can buy unlimited firepower and ammunition, freedumb. Mentally unstable nuts can buy unlimited firepower and ammunition, freedumb. No training or safety requirements for gun owners, freedumb. No background checks whatsoever required for person to person gun sales, freedumb. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy, or a SWAT team, with a gun... derp.

You guys are so lost in your own bull crap. If the general public knew how armed to the teeth these gun nuts are and how freaking lax the laws are they'd freak out.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ruthaboutgunscom-editorials-debates/76700270/

Here is Robert Farago’s closing paragraph:

As the French terrorist attacks proved, gun control doesn’t work. Worse, civilian disarmament leaves innocent people defenseless against killers. Gun control enables — rather than prevents — homicide.

Poll results for the Second Amendment supporter, Robert Farago’s response:

Strongly agree 79%
Agree 5%
Don’t Know 1%
Disagree 3%
Strongly Disagree 12%

 

What is typical is a factually inaccurate response from you. Firepower is absolutely limited and that's not just for people on a list (being on a list doesn't mean you are guilty of any crime BTW) it's for everyone.

Depending on the gun you want to buy and depending on the state you live in there are background checks and if you want to carry a handgun there are safety and training courses to go through.

What people like you don't seem to understand is that owning a gun is a constitutionally protected RIGHT, equal to the right to vote, the right to free speech, or the right to freely practice religion.

Every freedom or right comes with the potential for abuse and it's just the cost of doing business. Again, if you don't like that you are free to move to a country that doesn't value that right if they'll take you in. People who seemingly hate civil liberties won't be missed if they decide to leave.

 

Um, how exactly did French terror attacks prove gun control doesn't work?

 

Oh, that proved gun control doesn't work. Is that why even with that attack France has far less gun crime than the US? Makes sense..

 

France has very strong gun control laws and they meant nothing to those who would do harm. Those gun control laws did nothing to prevent the mass shooting in Paris yet every time there is a mass shooting we here people call for more gun control laws as if they'll actually do something. It's nothing more than the illusion of safety and security.

 

Yikes, *hear