<BREAKING> Active Shooter in San Bernardino, California

I'm not trying to discredit your point, man. I just don't get your point. I am saying congress often uses current events to put forth legislation, from both sides of the aisle. ...after Sandy Hook, the same thing happened, championed by Republicans.

It's not correct to say any of that is hypocritical or just liberals, because gun control is from both sides of the aisle. And controversial legislation rarely passes right away. Politicians use current events, because they know that's the best way to get it in front of the electorate. That allows congressmen to get the most feedback from their constituents. That's how it's supposed to work.

Why are you being so divisive to say congress should not bring to the public-eye legislation that addresses current events, especially when Feinstein and Cornyn put forth proposals from both sides of the aisle.

I just don't get your point.

 

You don't know what you're talking about, and are certainly wrong about my motivations. I could care less what religion or race the shooters were in this. Notice that I said the same thing in the thread about the white Christian who attacked planned parenthood.

Then just as now, I think anyone who is trying to put effort into placing the perpetrators on a different 'team' than theirs, or criticizing the other 'team' because of which groups the perpetrators could fit into, were missing the point.

A tragedy is tragedy and when almost everyone from both sides of the aisle can agree that something wrong and horrible happened, why not work on ways to prevent them from happening in the future or at least reducing the frequency with which these things happen. Everyone on both sides shouldn't have a problem doing that, but unfortunately that all gets clouded and muddled with people so quick to use the example to bash another group and show horrible that group is.

I felt that way and posted about it in a thread before this ever happened even when the shooter was a white Christian male. All I did was post the same thing here.

You tried to assign a motive to my posting, but it was unsuccessful and has been shown that it doesn't really fit with me or my posting history.

And if you and ATW find it amusing that I call terrorism random acts of violence used to create terror in people with or without a political motive, then great. I'm glad your getting something out of this thread.

 

Wow after all this time your lack at even a basic understanding of how the Syrian refugees would be allowed or not allowed to enter this nation is puzzling.

Your lack of sympathy toward victims of the terrorist group ISIS may say some unflattering things about you.

But hopefully more people will want to help the victims of ISIS and Islamic terrorism than you seem to be willing to.

 

We should help them but in other Muslim countries.

 

Makes too much sense to work.

Though I will say that Turkey currently has an enormous refugee population. Most of them directly as a result of ISIS.

 

Because terrorists don't use guns?

 

I wonder if what happened is this:

1. The two shooters were planning a terror attack at a public location (a shopping center, sports or concert venue, etc.) not connected with either of them personally.

2. But then the husband got pissed at work for whatever reason and so they decided this holiday party is as good a target as any.

These two certainly prepared way more material than was used for this one attack. And if they had plans to carry out more attacks right after this one maybe they should have taken all the stuff with them instead of leaving a bunch at home. Didn't the police find them somewhere near their residence?

 

Exactly right.

 

Terrorists use guns even if there is strict gun control....or were you not paying attention to Paris?

 

The amount of rounds and explosives they had makes me wonder if it was only them that were willing to attack something. With the amount of firepower they had amassed you got to think 4 or 5 or more people would be needed to use it all. They had 12 IEDs and had the capacity to build more, is that correct?

It's all very strange to me. Clearly they had some ties to radicalist organizations but the fact that none of these organizations has stepped up to claim responsibility is odd.

I hope some kind of motive or reasoning behind the attack is discovered because it seems like there is more to this story. I still think it's nuts that all of our anti terrorist surveillance was able to do nothing ahead of time. Have there ever been any big busts that stopped planned massacres?

 

Absolutely, but you don't hear about them often and when you do they aren't talked about very much.

 

Sounds like a possibility (and was raised a couple of times already as one in this thread).

I would bet that there are many more "sleeper cells" like this in the USA and even more of them in Europe - people who have been infected with the cancerous ideology called extremist political Islam (which is a related extension of Islam itself).

 

I see the logic. If sometimes a terrorist can get a gun, we should just pass laws that let terrorists always get guns as easy as possible. Very smart strategy.

 

It's not really amusing as much as it is simply stupid and ignorant on your behalf.

Look at any dictionary or at Wikipedia or basically at any credible website with a definition of terrorism, and you will find that it refers to "political motive" one way or another as part of what defines terrorism.

It's even legally defined:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Here is more about it:

http://www.terrorism-research.com/

You just ignore that it is the universally accepted definition that a random shooting without any goal other than the killing itself is not terrorism and say that you use the word differently.

It's like calling basketball football - because you are FranchiseBlade, the dorky teacher.

 

You don't seem to get it, since you won't be stopping terrorists from getting them, you don't pass laws stripping people of their constitutional rights based on being on a list without even so much as accusing them of a crime.

Why do you hate civil liberties so much?

 

No I just hate giving terrorists and unstable people guns to shoot up the world. Why do you hate life so much?

 

Not sure if this article has been posted, but it is very in depth. It does point to some friction between him and another employee. Who knows what was going through the couple's heads. Clearly they were preparing for some kind of larger scale terrorist attack, but maybe this argument set him over the edge too soon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...red-14-leaving-baby-mother.html#ixzz3tTmXyiLr

 

Again, stripping the constitutional rights from people who end up on a random list (often for nothing more than having Arab sounding names) who have never even been accused of a crime in no way takes guns away from terrorists or unstable people....so why strip those people of their rights? Is it that taking rights away from people makes you feel better? I know the general leftist thinking is to strip power from the people whenever possible to empower the federal government, but I'll never understand why people would sign on to that ridiculous ideology.

 

inb4 somebody points out that programs targeted at Muslims have consistently violated the Constitution or different American laws (warrantless wiretapping/drones/torture and suspension of habeas corpus)

 

The general thinking is that if somebody has been designated as unsafe for travel to a country, they shouldn't be able to buy weapons designed for massacres in said country?

with that said, I agree with you on the general premise that the no-fly list is pretty BS, and that it's often used to arbitrarily punish people the state deems undesirable (see: Laura Poitras)