I don't understand this post. What is your point here?Love this coming form the guy who said that the Garland cartoon contest would magically make American Muslims into terrorists, what a comple joke.
Hypothetically, if you were unfortunate enough to be at a rail station where a terrorist decides he wants to go jihad, would you prefer them attack with an axe or an AR-15?The last three ISIS attacks in Europe were with an axe, knives and a truck.
You know the answer to that one. Not sure why you are asking me, thoughHypothetically, if you were unfortunate enough to be at a rail station where a terrorist decides he wants to go jihad, would you prefer them attack with an axe or an AR-15?
My point is when Garland went down you claimed that American Muslims were at risk of being made violent by cartoons. So I think your reasoning is faulty, I think you think American Muslims are dangerous and I think the underlying point if your post is based on faulty premises.I don't understand this post. What is your point here?
I think Tim wants to start another gun control threadMy point is when Garland went down you claimed that American Muslims were at risk of being made violent by cartoons. So I think you're reasoning is faulty, I think you think American Muslims are dangerous and I think the underlying point if your post is based on faulty premises.
Because you are making the point that terrorists use other weapons, as if it's the same thing. You know that guns and especially (semi)automatic guns with high capacity magazines which are quite easy to get ahold of in the USA makes a terrorists job a whole lot easier.You know the answer to that one. Not sure why you are asking me, though
Depends on whether I'm carrying or not.Hypothetically, if you were unfortunate enough to be at a rail station where a terrorist decides he wants to go jihad, would you prefer them attack with an axe or an AR-15?
Actually what I wrote back then is that I feared it would inflame radical Muslims, which though they are less prominent here rather than elsewhere, are still here and are still a threat. I don't believe the vast majority of American Muslims are dangerous.My point is when Garland went down you claimed that American Muslims were at risk of being made violent by cartoons. So I think you're reasoning is faulty, I think you think American Muslims are dangerous and I think the underlying point if your post is based on faulty premises.
No, I was making the point that gun control actually limits ISIS effectiveness if not their ability to carry out terrorBecause you are making the point that terrorists use other weapons, as if it's the same thing. You know that guns and especially (semi)automatic guns with high capacity magazines which are quite easy to get ahold of in the USA makes a terrorists job a whole lot easier.
I didn't write that I was necessarily convinced by any argument, I simply wrote that I thought what I read was scary.Propaganda - got you hook, line and sinker. No wonder you support Democrats.
Fair enough, it read as the opposite to me.No, I was making the point that gun control actually limits ISIS effectiveness if not their ability to carry out terror
This makes no sense whatsoever.Depends on whether I'm carrying or not.
In which scenario would you rather your opponent have an AR-15 instead of an axe?Depends on whether I'm carrying or not.
You're not saying you're just you know sayin'. - You think radical American Muslims are sitting around waiting to be inflamed. So they need a cartoon or maybe Trump threatening to ban them all etc., and then they're going to go get a gun, right? Not a truck, not a pistol, not a plane, not a hand grenade.Actually what I wrote back then is that I feared it would inflame radical Muslims, which though they are less prominent here rather than elsewhere, are still here and are still a threat. I don't believe the vast majority of American Muslims are dangerous.
But that has nothing to do with this story, which I found interesting and scary. I am not making any proposals as a result of it. I simply thought it was worth reading and discussing.
Forget what I wrote earlier. What do you think of the article, and what the guy said? He said that ISIS regards our loose gun laws as making terrorism easier for them, because they don't have to worry about securing weapons. Do you agree with this statement or not?Youre not saying you're just you know satin'. - You think radicalnAmerican Muslims are sitting around waiting to be inflamed. So they need a cartoon or maybe Trump threatening to ban them all etc., and then they're going to go get a gun, right? Not a truck, not a pistol, not a plane, not a hand grenade.
How about you ban the cartoons and a trump anything else you think "they" might feel offensive, then you don't have to worry about the guns.
Radical Muslims are already inflamed.Actually what I wrote back then is that I feared it would inflame radical Muslims, which though they are less prominent here rather than elsewhere, are still here and are still a threat. I don't believe the vast majority of American Muslims are dangerous.
But that has nothing to do with this story, which I found interesting and scary. I am not making any proposals as a result of it. I simply thought it was worth reading and discussing.
I can defend myself better against a gun with another gun than I can unarmed against an axe.This makes no sense whatsoever.
I am behind him with my glock.In which scenario would you rather your opponent have an AR-15 instead of an axe?
Sorry but I strongly doubt that. Against an axe you can run away.I can defend myself better against a gun with another gun than I can unarmed against an axe.
All of this arguably provides yet another reason for the US to advocate for stronger gun control laws in order to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands.
Why don't you apply that to one if the Isis inspired attacks we have had:Forget what I wrote earlier. What do you think of the article, and what the guy said? He said that ISIS regards our loose gun laws as making terrorism easier for them, because they don't have to worry about securing weapons. Do you agree with this statement or not?
Well you didn't answer my question. As far as YOUR question, I have no idea. A few of those instances, possibly. I am in favor of prohibiting anyone on the FBI "no-fly" list from purchasing firearms.Why don't you apply that to one if the Isis inspired attacks we have had:
Chatanooga
San Bernardino
Orlando
New York Times Square plot
Ft. Hood
Boston
...and explain how a particular measure would have stopped attacks in those particular instances.
Go.
So witty. Actually it isn't, since you're free to put me on ignore.I wish we could get a ban on Tim.
I'm sorry why stop at the 5th Amendment then?Well you didn't answer my question. As far as YOUR question, I have no idea. A few of those instances, possibly. I am in favor of prohibiting anyone on the FBI "no-fly" list from purchasing firearms.
I don't want to remove any serious rights from them. I just don't want them to own firearms. I find equating that to jail to be pretty extreme.I'm sorry why stop at the 5th Amendment then?
Serious question - why not jail them? I'm not kidding you're making aTrump argument here, keep going.
You're depriving Muslim Americans of rights based on putting them ***on a list.I don't want to remove any serious rights from them. I just don't want them to own firearms. I find equating that to jail to be pretty extreme.
All of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions for security.And our free speech laws make ISIS recruitment easier. And the Establishment Clause makes it tougher to root out ISIS sympathizers.
Sounds like you're a Trump supporter, giving up American freedoms out of fear.
Actual Trump 2024 quote.All of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions for security.
No, it's a Hillary Clinton quote, and she was quoting Antonin Scalia in Heller as a matter fact.Actual Trump 2024 quote.
I wonder why our enemy would give us advice on how to make their job more difficult. Perhaps the goal is to foment discord.Forget what I wrote earlier. What do you think of the article, and what the guy said? He said that ISIS regards our loose gun laws as making terrorism easier for them, because they don't have to worry about securing weapons. Do you agree with this statement or not?
Heller.No, it's a Hillary Clinton quote, and she was quoting Antonin Scalia in Heller as a matter fact.
The interviewee was a defector from ISIS.I wonder why our enemy would give us advice on how to make their job more difficult. Perhaps the goal is to foment discord.
The conclusion is it and you are dead wrong.Besides Saints, I have no solutions to offer here (besides the one I mentioned). I posted that article because I thought it was worth discussing. Draw your own conclusions.
I missed that in the article. In fact I keep missing it in the article. Can you point out where it says he is a defector. I see where he is imprisoned, but not a defector.The interviewee was a defector from ISIS.
I first heard about it on the Rachel Maddow show. That's what she said.I missed that in the article. In fact I keep missing it in the article. Can you point out where it says he is a defector. I see where he is imprisoned, but not a defector.