Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 6 2016, 09:06 PM

It seems to me and many other folks that perhaps we, as a country, have become a bit OCD in our fear of "Death by Terrorism". Just to put things in perspective. . According to snopes.com, in 2015, 21 toddlers shot and killed themselves or others. That same year, 19 Americans died at the hands of potential or suspected Islamic terrorists. These numbers take into account the mass shootings in San Bernardino by a Muslim man.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

So in the United States, Toddlers finding guns end up causing more deaths than all the terrorists combined, on our soil anyway. In reality, obesity, alcoholism, and prescription pills (In 2014, more than 14,000 people died from overdoses involving prescription opioids per the CDC) kill far more people every year. Yet we don't seem as freaked out about those. hmm.

Todd

Posted by: klasaine Jun 7 2016, 02:16 AM

There's actually an academic name for that - the over reaction to an exaggerated existential 'danger' - it's known as "Terror Management Theory".
Fear of death from this existential cause - real, imagined or just exaggerated, in turn, engenders a defense of one’s cultural worldview. Consequently, the theory predicts that if the salience of one’s mortality (i.e., dying) is raised, the world view will be more heavily endorsed to buffer the resulting anxiety. Under conditions of heightened mortality potential, defense and justification of the 'ideal' worldview (whatever that would be?) should be intensified. Thereby decreasing tolerance of opposing views and social, cultural, and political alternatives. When confronted with thoughts of their own mortality, people appear to shun and/or punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of the cherished worldviews.

Politicians from all sides, have throughout history ALWAYS used this tactic.
It's as simple as the classic 'remember when' or 'before we had this' or 'back in the good old days'. It works because people generally have a very rosy, revisionist and distorted view of the past.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 7 2016, 04:31 AM

This is one of the most well thought out replies I've ever read. Nice!! Of course, you are spot on here. Nailed it outta the gate. The cause/effect of this type of thing is nothing short of propaganda IMHO and it's always worked, just like you say. Sadly, folks can't always tell when they are being manipulated by others, including the media.

I left the stats on booze out but what the heck.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

• Nearly 88,000⁹ people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women⁹) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.¹⁰

88,000 people a year die from booze and we don't get freaked out by that at all. But if you watch any news program, you'll be convinced the baddies are gonna get ya, somehow, someday soon. When in reality you have more chance of being by something mundane like obesity or heart disease. Per the CDC

– You are https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=11&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=596339%20divided%20by%2017%20&tok=duUe66lgoeLquEDcDRFVGQ&pq=596339%20divided%20by%2017%20&cp=4&gs_id=1ri&xhr=t&q=596,339+divided+by+17&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=596,339+divided+by+17+&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&fp=4fb34227f337626b&biw=933&bih=421 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=11&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=596%2C339%20divided%20by%2017%20&tok=duUe66lgoeLquEDcDRFVGQ&pq=596%2C339%20divided%20by%2017&cp=7&gs_id=1z0&xhr=t&q=575,313+divided+by+17&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=575,313+divided+by+17&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&fp=4fb34227f337626b&biw=933&bih=421 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

So we get worked up, as a nation, about something that is a statistically insignificant threat and it makes us more ok with trading freedom for security, more ok with spending billions on the military instead of education/job training, etc. Also, it sells commercial time on TV news. If they just ran stories about how we are killing ourselves off MUCH faster than the baddies, nobody would watch the news at all

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 7 2016, 06:10 PM

Even though what happened on 9/11/01 was against the odds, it happened nevertheless.
Now crunch the numbers on a global scale.
All of those stats/comparisons can be changed with one single attack.
The chances of your home burning down aren't that great either but we all have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.
The odds aren't that great that you will be in an automobile accident, but we are all required to have insurance and wear seat belts.
In fact there are many bad things that have a very low probability of happening but we take precautions anyway don't we?
Maybe we could do without the TSA at airports though.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 7 2016, 08:00 PM

It's a shame we don't take better precautions against the bad things that happen all the time per the stats I posted in the previous post for sure then. We know we are tens of thousands of times more likely to die from prescription pills, obesity, booze, etc. Yet those numbers keep happening. While the things that are very unlikely to kill us, seem to drive our entire political process and spending. It just seems very backwards on an objective level to me. Sadly, our 24 hour for profit news cycle is a beast that must be fed and feeding it scary stuff leads to better ratings and more ad spend form various big biz clients.

I gotta say I think we were better off when news was considered a loss leader by the networks and more of a moral responsibility than a cash machine. The profit motive doesn't serve journalism imho. It tends to water it down and turn it in to "scare tactics" to frighten or anger people in to watching. As a result we get a very distorted view of the world since the producers know a headline like "Isis coming to get you" will sell advert space. Where a headline like "you are eating/drinking yourself to death" won't.

Posted by: PosterBoy Jun 8 2016, 05:17 AM

We became fairly used to terror threats in the 70s and 80s in Britain, from the IRA. If you ever went to London around Christmas time you almost expected bomb warnings and places to be evacuated. Guys in Belfast were living with the threat and military presence day in day out.

Posted by: Spock Jun 8 2016, 02:49 PM

People downplayed the risks involved in Europe too and look at what has happened to Germany, Belgium and the no-go zones in Britain.

If a child accidentally kills someone with a gun they kill 1 person - in contrast one person with the intent of causing casualties en masse is a far greater danger with ever growing potential and a lax view of security in the name compassion and acceptance.

Of course this post is to call out a nationalistic view as xenophobic but when components of the indigenous culture vehemently deny the potential risks of allowing an influx of a culture that is not interested in assimilation it's irresponsable.

All conservatives are wanting is to go back to the days when people entered the country legally, such as through Ellis Island. For the immigrants to accept the values and culture of our country - not use our freedoms in an attempt to stifle our basic constitutional rights.

If people wish to come to our country legally, more power to them. But to embrace illegal immigration in the name of political correctness and call it compassion is on par with the naivety of Neville Chamberlain to Adolph Hitler.

While I enjoyed reading Klasaine's response it in no way means that people that are pro-Trump policies suffer from any sort of paranoid delusion.

Look at the violent protests at Trump rallies. It's ridiculous. You don't see Trump supporters intimidating people at Sanders or Clinton rallies. And it's these "enlightened" social justice warriors that tend to keep their head in the sand when it comes to risk potential.

If the original OP is hinting at gun control - take away guns because someone is more likely to be shot by a toddler than a terrorist (at this current time), then the only people that would be disarmed would be the law abiding people - the criminals will always have guns. You can't punish everyone and take everyone's protection away because of the irresponsibility of a few. If we're going to outlaw firearms we should outlaw automobiles first.

I'm very excited with this new phase of the election. I can't wait for Trump to open the flood gates on the corruption of the Clintons. Corruption that has been known and ignored for decades.

I'm looking forward to a Trump presidency to see if he can actually beat the globalist machine of NAFTA and the TPP and bring jobs back to America - pre 1996.

Posted by: klasaine Jun 8 2016, 03:42 PM

I think it's worth noting that Terror Management Theory goes back to 1651. Thomas Hobbes, 'Leviathan'.

In a nutshell, Hobbes argued for rule by an absolute sovereign. That constant civil war was a state of nature. He called it the war of all, against all - and that it could only be avoided by a strong, undivided government.

Nowhere has this shown to be more true than in the Middle East. We depose the strong man and all 'tribal' hell breaks loose.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 8 2016, 09:29 PM

Very true indeed. Every country we have gone to and "helped" has disintegrated into a endless quagmire of civil war and breeding ground for groups far worse than the ones originally in power.

Not a huge fan of gun control personally, as I"m a proud gun owner The post was really just about what I was talking about in terms of real vs not so real threats to our lives per the stats. Not to say terrorism isn't real, it is. It's sadly become the Orwellian "forever war" that mostly serves to eliminate freedom in favor of the appearance of security.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 8 2016, 11:13 PM

You are pointing out an instance where the common public perception is a reflection of how minds in our culture have been turned into Silly Putty by the entertainment industries, most notably what we call "the News". In this case terrorist "shoot um up" stories are entertaining to the general public, and the after effect is that they develop an unrealistic and exaggerated perception of the dangers, fearing things that are highly unlikely ever to touch their personal lives, or the lives of anyone close to them.

Neil Postman wrote a prophetic book on this subject in 1985. It is dated a bit of course due to the technologies of the time, but his thesis still holds, even more so now after cable TV and Internet. Still you can see that under the Amazon category "TV & Video Engineering" it is the #1 best seller.

http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X?ie=UTF8&keywords=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death&qid=1465423016&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

I have read some other books on the subject, but all have paled in comparison to Postman, notwithstanding it's being written in the pre Cable TV/Internet age.

You can also find interviews of Neil Postman on youtube.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 8 2016, 11:54 PM

WHAT , have you completely forgot about 9-11
Google for yourself how many illegal Muslim immigrants enter the the US every year and just ask yourself , Why
it seems so many people want to find long reports to help support their opinions and all along forget about common sense

Posted by: klasaine Jun 9 2016, 01:59 AM

And this is the essence of 'Leviathan' and more recently Terror Management Theory. *Which refers to managing us with terror (not managing terror).
The powers that be: big money, all govt. (big or small), politicians, law enforcement, the military (industrial complex, not the actual soldiers) - they want to scare the living shit out of us so that we give up freedoms, part with our money, agree to some of the stupid shit they propose and be suspicious of everything and everybody that doesn't fit into our 'world view'. Of course it only really works when the majority of a population is willing to be that frightened.

In my opinion and it is truly just my opinion and really more my feeling or instinct as a human being, is that a threatening and/or protectionist posture and approach to China, Russia, Mexico, etc., whether it be matters of trade or immigration, displays fear not strength.

Posted by: Spock Jun 9 2016, 03:03 AM

Speaking of Orwellian, did anyone catch this story...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 9 2016, 05:27 AM

Crsn: Nope, I have not and will never forget about 9-11. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. But it's just not the case. I don't think anyone can forget it. I was just trying to make a point about perception vs reality.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your question here Please just tell us Why are so many people doing what you suggest (e.g. finding long reports and forgetting about common sense)?

klasaine BINGO!! I have to agree entirely. Well said George Orwell seems to have had it right all along. Even to the the level of "Thought Crime" with our every web search/post being archived and sifted through, saying the wrong thing online, just expressing a thought, can get you in serious trouble and/or declared "a person of interest". Just a sad state of affairs.

Todd




It's scary on the surface for sure, but they were just responding to copyright infringement, so they say You can still get legit versions of 1984 on there.

Fkalich: Thanks for that! I'll have to check it out. He seems spot on. What he is on about in that book seems to be aligned with one of my previous posts if the amazon preview is accurate. It's largely the media, just trying to stay alive and make a buck, scaring us straight so to speak and making us angry , just to encourage eyeballs on the screen in order to charge more for add space. They have found the soft spot in our cultural cranium and they are poking it with a stick for the sake of increased revenue.

Posted by: Spock Jun 9 2016, 11:31 AM

I just don't see how the fear of terrorism is an irrational fear. We can look at Europe as a prime example of consequences of unfiltered immigration and we are headed in the same direction. Of course I understand that using this fear is a way to get the public to give up liberties for safety - just like Rahm Emmanuel said "never let a crisis go to waste".

On the other hand, not being vigilant is careless. If by our vote we can side with an idea to secure our borders, should that be deemed irrational? It is being cast as racist though (big surprise huh).

The ease at which our entire economy could come to a stand still is disastrous. 1 EMP blast, 1 computer hack could shut our grid down indefinitely. That's not irrational fear - that's fact.

As well, I don't see anything irrational or protectionists being raised concerning China or Russia or Mexico. It's time we do something about our relations and how we conduct business with those countries. And there's not a blanket solution to be made for all of those mentioned as each relationship is unique. However I do believe we could have much better ties with Russia if our foreign policy wasn't as imperialist as it is. We would have to rewrite the books on how we conduct trade (NAFTA) with China among other countries. This subject would require a topic of its own.

That we are pouring money into globalist initiatives outside our borders, giving aid to illegal immigrants while our citizens and vets are ignored is outrageous. Think of the social and domestic programs we could easily afford if we weren't throwing money into "fighting for our freedoms" overseas.

The list for why we need change is extensive but easily fits under this title as anytime someone brings up an position against the status quo it seems to be labeled fear mongering or racist if it doesn't side with the progressive agenda.

Who would have thought just 5 years ago that we would be seriously debating bathroom policy and how to classify someone's gender.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 9 2016, 12:00 PM

Spock: Based on the stats I posted, terrorism is used as a "fear tool" by the media to scare us in to watching the news. That was my main point. Terrorism is often billed as being an immediate threat to us while in fact, our own eating/drinking/smoking/prescription pill habits are TENS OF THOUSANDS of times more likely to kill us. Those things are the actual broad threat, according to the numbers. However, none of that sells ad space on the news.

The events in Europe were terrible to be sure. The good news is, we are much more integrationist toward Muslims in the U.S. than in Europe. In Europe they are herded in to ghettos and get involved with extremist organizations in order to have a voice.

Sadly, no matter what we do in terms of wall building and law making can really stop the things that scare people. Where there is a will there is a way, they say. Not to say we should do nothing, or not be vigilant, we should be. But we should also realize that walls and rules won't stop these people. Never have, never will. Only by integrating them in to our society and economy, just like we have been doing, can we keep all ethnic groups invested in the American Dream IMHO.

Posted by: Spock Jun 9 2016, 02:45 PM

I could not agree less.

You integrate groups of immigrants through legal means. Immigrants that are here by legal means and are wishing to assimilate into our culture and ideals. You don't give illegal criminals with no interest in assimilation blanket amnesty. To do so would not be anything resembling vigilance.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 9 2016, 05:14 PM

None of that sells ad space on the news? It IS the news and all of those things you mention are talked about on the news quite a bit and also come to us in the form of public service announcements. You can see stories on all of those topics quite often in the news (eating, drinking, smoking, pills etc) especially the morning shows such as the Today show , Good Morning America etc.
As an example. Most recently we have lost Prince and as it turns out, abuse of prescription medication is the reason why and as a result there have been numerous stories on the dangers of abusing prescription medications.
If the dangers of bad eating habits etc have not been talked about, how would we know about the benefits of eating healthy or the dangers of abusing prescription meds or smoking and drinking? We just went out and found info on these dangers on our own?

It is interesting that I didn't see any concern from you when the current admin renewed and expanded on the Patriot Act, and where was the outrage when we learned more about the NSA's warrantless wire tapping?

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/19/opinion/la-oe-sensenbrenner-data-patriot-act-obama-20130819

Since we are discussing irrational fears. Is there an irrational fear of Conservatism?

Posted by: klasaine Jun 9 2016, 05:15 PM

It's not the fear of terrorism that is irrational, it's the (irrational) amount of emphasis on it.
We should absolutely be vigilant and aware but irrational fear is what breeds totalitarianism.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 9 2016, 06:14 PM

Oops. .....

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 10 2016, 06:38 AM

Sadly, as I mentioned, no wall or law will keep those out who want to come in. Those things have never and will never work. So as long as people from elsewhere want to come here, they will find someone to pay to help them get here. This is the spark of human trafficking. Yet another thing that laws/walls have failed to stop since supply/demand simply wins out. We could make laws and build walls till we are blue in the face and it won't change anything at all. Given that, the laws on it are mostly irrelevant, just as most laws against illegal drugs are, but that's another topic. What we are left with then is what to do. Thankfully we have done a great job of integrating our Muslim population compared to many parts of the E.U. where they are considered pariahs.

Vigilance in terms of awareness of outcomes is what I"m talking about here. Not vigilance as in putting our hopes in laws and walls. Immigrants could be called "criminal" for being here illegally, but anyone whose broken any law can be called a criminal. Breaking the speed limit, fudging on ones taxes, etc. are simple examples of lawbreaking and thus, criminality, that most of us engage in. Making most of us "criminals" in the strictest sense. Those things are mostly attractive from an authoritarian viewpoint. I'm not big on authoritarianism simply because it's impractical in the long term. I"m speaking of political authoritarianism here in a traditional Political Science type of view. I found a great vid on this. It does speak, in part to the rise of Mr. Trump, and the attraction to the authoritarian view, partially.

Klasaine: BINGO yet again Or should I just say "NAILED IT" for those not familiar with Bingo Not everyone is a bingo fan after all.

Posted by: Spock Jun 10 2016, 11:31 AM

The reason for the shift in party is that the left has swung too far left. The democrat party left their moderates - just like when Reagan flipped to being a Republican and said, "I didn't leave my party - my party left me".

Sure Trump is going to be more authoritarian and that is what we (his voter base) are wanting in a candidate right now - someone that will clean house - Republicans and Democrats. If the political climate in the U.S. had not changed so drastically since 1990 we probably wouldn't see a Trump running for office right now. The issues would probably be something completely different if NAFTA had never been enacted and multicultural - political correctness had not been funneled down everyone's throat. Then maybe we could vote for someone I would truly like to see in office like a Ron or Rand Paul, fighting the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Most of Trump's voter base would love to see more liberties, less government intervention and a flat/fair tax - but unfortunately because of the failings of Clinton/Bush/Obama other issues are more important.

It's a political pendulum.

What Trump does represent is not Republicanism as an establishment - but a conservative foundation. Like Ron and Rand Paul who are libertarians. We are not nicely packaged into a republican mould,

For instance - when I take political position tests, I actually end up just to the left of center. So people that believe themselves to be moderate in their liberal views actually find they are way out to the left of the political scale.

We see the liberal left and RINO neocons as screaming little brats and instead of a parent that are going to coddle them because of feelings and political correctness - we're voting for someone brazen enough to take them behind the woodshed and whip their asses as they should be. And Donald Trump represents that and it is apparent that most in the country want this as well - because Sanders represents the same type of vote against the establishment on the Democrat side.

And I hope Sander's supporters flock to Trump en masse once the dust has settled from the Super Delegates handing Clinton the nomination and rendering their voice mute.

People can bash Trump all they want but one thing is certain, the trail of corruption for him is not going to be anything like what we're going to be talking about in the coming months with Hillary.

This is why I am voting for Trump...

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 10 2016, 07:45 PM

Awesome post Spock. You have your finger on the pulse of the country right now. I especially liked the woodshed comment.

Building a wall may not put a stop to illegal immigration but it will go a long way in managing the massive influx we are seeing lately that is largely a direct result of unlawful actions taken by our current president and to a degree ,the inactions of previous presidents and congress.

It was mentioned that our immigration laws are irrelevant. Yeah, that's the problem. They need to be made relevant again.

No country can survive unfettered illegal immigration. That is actually called an invasion. There has to be limits and we must be able to properly screen and limit those that seek to come here in order to avoid overwhelming the system and overburdening taxpayers and to protect citizens from the criminal element that would come here only to cause a lot of trouble.

I think many in this country and some here in this forum see what is happening in recent years as business as usual and are turning a blind eye to the reality of the situation in the name of misguided compassion so that they can feel better about themselves. To each his own.

Allowing Muslims to come to this country and have their own set of laws (Sharia etc ) that are in direct conflict to our laws and constitution is NOT integration. It is basically starting another country within a country. To truly assimilate into this country, those ancient religious laws must be completely abandoned and denounced by would be Muslim immigrants. Anything less is unacceptable.

It has been talked about in this thread how there are all these other dangers that folks should be more worried about than terrorism. But the thing is, the majority of these things are the responsibility of the individual to avoid and there are plenty of warnings given about the dangers of those things and recommendations for avoiding them as well (drugs, smoking etc). If an individual chooses to ignore these warnings then that is their choice and their right to do so. On the other hand, national security and protecting the citizens of this country is governments primary role as it should be.

I think that if as a country we continue down this path on the left that government will increasingly take the role of a parent and dictate to us what foods we can eat or what activities we can take part in and we will be increasingly limited in making our own choices as to the kind of lifestyle we want to have, and what government describes as fact to justify the rules or laws it puts forth will be largely unchallengable by the people no matter how ridiculous those so called facts and laws might be.

There is a very real threat of terrorism to this country and to suggest or imply that maybe we shouldn't worry about it because it is against the odds is completely irresponsible in my view and ignores the reality of the situation.

Is the threat of terrorism overhyped? Maybe, or maybe not. Time will tell. I know I would rather be safe than sorry and err on the side of caution.

Posted by: klasaine Jun 11 2016, 03:04 AM

OK, there's never gonna be any place in the US of A where there will be Sharia Law.
Come on, that's what I'm talking about when I say 'irrational' fear.
I know that a few states have actually passed legislation that 'bans' it ... except that we don't have it. That's the point when I just throw up my hands.

As for Bernie supporters going over to Donald Trump ... there will of course be some. I even know a few but my gut tells me that the majority, when push comes to shove, will vote democratic even if they think Hillary Clinton is a corporate owned she devil.
It'll most likely come down to the Supreme court vacancy and who folks want to see as the ninth justice.
November is still a long, hot summer and 5 months away.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 11 2016, 03:51 AM

Well said yet again Klaisaine There is not now, ANY place in the U.S that has adapted Sharia Law on the books. I dare say it won't happen either as Muslims who do come here tend to integrate and moderate, thankfully. There are HUGE communities of muslims here in the states that own small biz's, pay taxes and pray 5 times a day. That's it. Or example, Dearborn Michigan has a HUGE muslim population and they are among the most peaceful, moderate, law abiding citizens we have. Here is a documentary about them. By integrating, they become a bit "Americanized" and are not attracted to extremism. That is the ONLY real cure for extremism. Opportunity. That's it, not laws/guns/wars/etc. None of that works. If it was going to work, it would have worked already. Here is the vid.



It is this irrational fear of the "other" that has been soooooo overhyped and has resulted in the attraction toward the "Strong Man" E.G. trump (historically other figures as well) to come in an "KICK ASS" and fix things. This is the authoritarian impulse that is discussed in the last video I posted. And again, it's just not a practical approach as it breeds the exact opposite of what is intended. E.G. instead of submission, it breeds rebellion/revolution, which is the natural ending cycle of every authoritarian regime through history. We simply know how that story ends. Badly.

Yet none of this will change the minds of any Trump supporters. It just won't. They have been taken in by the authoritarian message and brash style of Trump that simply rings true in the hearts of about half the country. And if he gets the votes, he will be the president of the People. It's just that simple. I"m trying to point out the long term problems with the approach he represents in a historical/political context. It's never gone well. Mussolini was a "Strong Man" as well, as was Stalin. I don't think Hillary is the answer either to be honest. We don't have a valid choice imho. So we have to make do.

I think the real answer is local. Very local. As in on the personal level. Our own actions, thoughts, words are what impact our own head space and the space around us. Giving folks a chance, a break, a job, a pat on the back, etc. Will always have more positive outcomes than taking the opposite approach IMHO.

I"ve taught at the university level, and taught children. From that I've learned that, in the end, it's really the same thing. All you can do is encourage those around you and try to be a positive example of a human being. Strive for fairness and tolerance and inclusiveness. It's teaching that taught me this and why I think everyone should teach something at some point. All change starts local IMHO

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 11 2016, 04:31 AM

It's not that it will ever be on the books , it's that it will be done simultaneously inside the Us and political correctness will tie Our hands . ( like the more than forty sharia law centers in England)
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/29/u-s-sharia-tribunals-no-problem/
Not irrational fear Ken and Todd , Going on as we debate



funny that you don't believe this to be true of the new gun laws you have wanted in other threads

Posted by: Spock Jun 11 2016, 09:54 AM

I would have never thought we'd see a major liberal political news source give voice to pedophiles, or that there'd be serious discussion or laws about gender and bathrooms.

When it comes to liberals - never say never.

Remember, you can be a 7 foot Chinese woman if you claim to identify as such. Welcome to generation snowflake.

Posted by: klasaine Jun 11 2016, 02:56 PM

This is a poster from the 70's that used to be hanging in the place I'd go to get a haircut when I was a little kid. I always got a kick out of it ...



We've been going to the bathroom with guys and gals in drag since forever - we just don't notice it.
In many other parts of the world, being able to have gender specific toilets, is a luxury (due to space/economics).

There's not going to be an over-preponderance of pervs waiting in the john for your daughter or girlfriend. At least not any more than there already are. Anybody dressed any way they want can slip into any bathroom. How many real and verified incidents of a trans dude dressing as a chick and hiding in the ladies bathroom (possibly practicing Sharia Law) to attack a gal have you heard of or know about? *In 35 years of non-discrimination ordinances world-wide, there has only been one verified case of a non-trans person taking advantage of the situation. It happened in Canada in 2012.
And how are you ever gonna know anyway unless you post a guard checking penises and vaginas?

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 11 2016, 06:02 PM

I should have been more careful how I worded that statement. My bad. Currently there are no Sharia courts or tribunals but it certainly isn't from a lack of trying which is why some states have banned it, but even so there are court challenges to these laws backed by various Islamic groups.
I certainly hope you are right though.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 11 2016, 07:21 PM

Actually there have been other instances of this, many that haven't played out in the courts yet. Here is one for you.

"A Fredericksburg man was arrested Monday at Potomac Mills Mall after, police say, he dressed in women's clothes and attempted to film a woman through a bathroom stall – the third such incident since May."

http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/police-peeper-dressed-like-a-woman-arrested-at-potomac-mills/article_ed53ae70-8d6c-11e5-94aa-cfd12cd8f99a.html

And what about school locker rooms and showers? Should a boy be able to declare himself a girl and join the girls in school showers or showers at a public pool?

And what about sports? A man/boy that identifies as a woman/girl should be able to compete with females even though they are biologically a male?

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Congro-381191581.html

Also, I have to wonder if this bathroom and shower policy will be enacted in our prisons and how that will play out as well.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 11 2016, 10:12 PM

You are saying that " we are going to have SHARIA LAW and "Political Correctness" will tie our hands? " Thankfully, no amount of PC could motivate regular folks to accept Sharia law. I'll go ahead and put myself out on a limb on that one If you find any evidence to the contrary please share with the group. For now, that sounds like the type of quasi semi-paranoia that get's pitched on right wing radio shows to work people up and make them listen to commercials (per Mr. K's great post on manipulation of the masses through Terror). It has no basis in reality, thank goodness. But we are making progress as you just made one of Mr. K's main points for him. On the whole I'd say thats a positive step.

The link you posted doesn't work sadly , but even it it did, it's about England, not the U.S. England qualifies as one of those places in Europe I just mentioned in a previous post that does NOT do well integrating Muslims and therefore has increased rates of extremism compared to the U.S. (Stats o plenty on that if needed) So you have made one of my points for me as well Now that's progress. However, Yale has been funded by the Saudis (Taking money from Petro States is a bad idea in Academia IMHO) to build a Sharia law center of study, but that's an academic institution, not putting sharia on the streets and forcing it on people. So thinking that we are going to have Sharia here, does in fact seem an irrational fear as we don't have it, and since we don't, how could political correctness be binding us to it? So there's that sorted

Third point. The new gun laws that "I've wanted"? in other threads? I'm all for folks owning guns. I own one myself as I've said I do think they should be kept safe in the home, and I"d support a law for Gun Lockers. Is that what you are talking about? If so, then yes I do not support "New Gun Laws" that would restrict ownership, as I've said People should have the right to buy whatever weapon they desire, so long as they are not crazy. Crazy folks should not be given guns though. I'd say that

That seems entirely unrelated to our thread her on the irrational fear of terrorists? But everyone has the right to express themselves so feel free I certainly don't support pedophilia in any form and would support the death penalty for anyone convicted for it (yup I'm a "deather" despite being a libertarian).

I don't see how your post relates to our discussion though, but then again I could just be missing something. If so I apologize and please do fill me in.

Todd



Yet more good points from Mr. K I think this entire issue has been blown way out of proportion. Again, not related to the thread it seems but since it's the second post on it, I guess we are branching out since we seem to have sorted the previous arguments, hopefully

It reminds me of "Voter Fraud" (also beyond the scope here, but what the heck). Which barely exists, yet was given much air time on FAUX news and their ilk as if it were a national disaster. The true travesty on voting rights is how far we need to go still after JIM CROWE. We lose more legit votes than we ever stand to lose over "fraud votes" based on every study I"ve ever read from any source not funded by the Koch brother or the heritage foundation. Both of which are sorta like letting the fox guard the hen house in all honesty. The Pew research center though is one I do trust as they don't start out with pre defined answer and work toward it. So maybe we can agree on pew data just so we can have some data to look at

There will always be "pervs". Always. This law really doesn't change that. As far as school showers go, each state will have to figure out how to best approach this issue as each one is a bit different. Anyone of highschool age or under that is "trans" is going through a living hell just being in Highschool. I can't imagine the abuse they'd get. Especially here in the south. Some sort of solution will be needed for sure. I'd support private stalls, or even letting them use the teacher restrooms, just to keep everyone a bit more "safe" and prevent kids from having the crap kicked out of them for being who they are.

As for adults trying this who are not actually trans? I'd say bash them silly for good measure and lock them up.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 11 2016, 10:45 PM

I said (plain as day) it will not be on the books and I guess i was unclear as it I do not believe it will be be held against Americans ever ! . However Sharia law centers have no business in the U.S. and I believe that political correctness will stop Law enforcement from shutting them down. I can't believe you don't fight more for women's rights as it pertains the way these courts treat them. just to make clear I do not believe they will force it on non muslims , but they should not justify honor killings , underage marriage and so on on American soil. http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/29/u-s-sharia-tribunals-no-problem/

Always Love how you say" that settles that ' , like you some how are patting yourself on the back and were capable of shutting down all remarks with your blistering response

On to the gun laws , your response was that "LAWS" and walls wont stop them and you are mostly right ( if the wall won't work , why is there outrage) , but in the same way, Laws will not stop criminals from breaking them and or from peoples stupidity.
But I also don't think you should make laws telling people what they should do in their own House, wasn't hat the arguing points for homosexual marriage , growing pot and so on ?

Posted by: Spock Jun 12 2016, 03:22 AM

It was in response to never seeing sharia law in the U.S.

But I will say that "yes - political correctness will tie our hands". Unless we fight political correctness.

Posted by: PosterBoy Jun 12 2016, 08:46 AM

You want to get better sources than the Daily Mail, Daily Express, and The Sun when it comes to new in England, there is a lot of unfounded scaremongering and lazy journalism going on in those outlets. It would be like me going to Fox news for my news on the US.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 12 2016, 11:02 AM

Is it the BBC that tells you Fox news is not Real ?
Fox repeatedly scores higher as a trusted news source in America . news outlets with differing views have talked people into believing it's Faux news . Am I really supposed to put in who the opposing team wants as pitcher


It's funny that somehow the liberals get to tell conservatives that their news sources are wrong , But when the shoe is on the other foot !

This is another reason for trump , we are tired of the bullshit the regular media is feeding ( as Todd mentioned earlier in this thread) us and Trump seems to be the only one standing up to them

Posted by: Spock Jun 12 2016, 04:56 PM

Compared to CNN, MSNBC and all the main stream news media outlets - Fox is the only one that doesn't follow the liberal agenda.

That's why it's hated. Sure, there is no doubt Fox op-ed hosts have a conservative bent, but news is news - and Fox will report on news that the liberal MSM won't touch because it doesn't play into their script.

I get most my news from Drudge.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 12 2016, 06:59 PM

Seriously sad news today as 50 people are dead in a shooting in a gay bar in Orlando Florida just last night. The shooter is an American with leanings toward extremism and was a serious bigot (per his father) toward the gay community. His rage and hate finally won over and he went out and killed 50 innocent people just for being at a gay club. My thought's and prayers are with those who have lost loved ones. This is just a couple of blocks from the shooter of the Singer from 'The Voice" which just happened and was all over the news.

This is the WORST MASS SHOOTING IN U.S. HISTORY.

It's very sad and was done by a 29 year old resident of Florida. An American Born, U.S. Citizen. He is of Afghan ancestry and his father has told reporters that he "Self Identified" with ISIS. A single, lone wolf, nut job, self starter who didn't cross the border, wasn't invading the country, grew up here, and decided to embrace hate and mass murder. His hatred of folks who are different than he is lead him to violence. It is my sincere hope that we take heed of this an example of what home grown, hate based, terror looks like, and try our best, as a people, to avoid the hatred and bigotry that led this guy to take so many lives. I"m sure this will be covered on all the news outlets as I"m watching it on BBC right now. It will be on the other outlets as well.

This incident will have seriously negative outcomes for the millions of folks who just want to live in peace and go to work, but happen to share a religion with this nut job guy. Very sad.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 12 2016, 06:59 PM

Irrational fear huh? I think this thread just got shut down by reality and todays headlines.

I can assure you what I am feeling right now is NOT fear.

http://drudgereport.com/

Posted by: Spock Jun 12 2016, 08:13 PM

Days before Orlando attack, ISIS issued this WARNING…

http://www.allenbwest.com/matt-palumbo/days-before-orlando-attack-isis-issued-this-warning

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 13 2016, 01:11 AM

And already Obama is trying to use this for gun control

Obama said " we don't have the facts yet" and then turns right around and says that this tragedy highlights how easy it is to get a gun like this
If you don't have the fn facts How can this jerkwad say it was easy for him to get the gun

Once again , lets take the guns from law abiding citizens
https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-fla-ap-gunman-wielding-000000701.html

Posted by: klasaine Jun 13 2016, 05:38 PM

Well ain't that timing.

I don't know. I have to take several international flights starting this Thursday. I'll let you know (in regard to my anxiety).

Posted by: Mertay Jun 13 2016, 08:08 PM

+1

As an outsider, seems both sides are milking this tragedy hardcore...nothing un-expected but this soon isn't exactly honoring the victims

Posted by: klasaine Jun 13 2016, 08:20 PM

That is the American way my Anatolian friend.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 14 2016, 12:45 AM

Sadly yes. It's just how politics works here in the states. It's become fodder for both sides.


Statistically, even with this awful attack, you are still more likely to die from a self inflicted wound and or kidney disease (thousands of times more likely actually) than a terrorist/nut job attack. Here is a handy chart from the CDC. It's from 2013 as they are still working on 2015 and 2016 but the drift isn't that significant. so...


100 people were shot by this nut job. 50 of them lost their lives. He'd been under investigation by the FBI. He lost his job and got kicked out of school, and then went nuts apparently and bought legal weapons and shot up a gay bar.

He claimed to be a member of ISIS and Hezbollah. This is impossible, since both groups are sworn enemies. I don't think he was really connected to any actual group. I think he just snapped after losing his job and place in school, and decided to unleash his anger on gay people. His ex wife was on the news talking about his instability and abusive behavior. He was a time bomb just waiting to go off.

Public places are going to have to get a lot more serious about security. Clubs, Malls, etc. All the "Soft Targets" need metal detectors at every entrance and armed cops at the main door IMHO.

So despite this tragedy, the numbers are still the numbers. Even though this event did increase the numbers for terrorist attack, it's still tens of thousands of times less likely than suicide or heart disease. So yeah, the media is creating the "irrational fear" out of this. This event is being blasted on every news channel all day long. It deserves to be heard of course. But the news outlets are milking it like it was the Michael Jackson or Prince story. Which is sorta sickening to watch.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 14 2016, 02:42 AM

Stay safe Ken, us nut jobs with guns will hold the fort down

Posted by: fkalich Jun 14 2016, 02:54 AM

I understand that in the wide scheme of things, there are other dangers a thousand times more likely.

However when you have the simple solution to protect us from deranged American born-citizens, of banning all foreign Muslims from entering the country, well problem solved! Makes sense to his herd.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 14 2016, 03:09 AM

Looks like something has you so wrapped up you can't swallow the fact that this act shattered the hell out of peoples perception in regards to your "numbers"


This is very inaccurate. Trump only wants the process slowed until they can be vetted . Much different than never letting them in , Which is what mainstream media wants you to believe

Posted by: klasaine Jun 14 2016, 03:41 AM

Thanks. I expect no less

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 14 2016, 07:19 AM

What exactly is so irrational about the media right now, other than standing on the bodies of the dead before they are even cold to call for more gun control?
Did someone call for war and I somehow missed it? And what kind of irrational behavior based on fear have you seen from average everyday folks before or after this attack, other than the folks in Cali protesting the Trump rally? Are there groups of armed men roaming the streets rounding up Muslims or anyone else?

And by the way, your numbers and comparisons don't really mean anything. it is a meaningless little factoid in my view. Sorry, man. Folks may look at it and say yeah, that's interesting, and then just move on because it doesn't change the fact that there are radical Islamic terrorists hell bent on world domination that would love to kill as many Americans (among others) as possible, which is also a fact.
As an individual, sure the chances are low that you or I would be killed by a terrorist attack, varying a bit depending on where you live. But as a country the chances are close to, if not 100% wouldn't you agree? And are we ok with that?

And just because this guy was born here and so far is not directly connected to those terrorist organizations doesn't mean much when he was obviously following the example of such groups and was maybe even further inspired by the preaching's of radical Islam right here in this country, not to mention his father, who was not born here if I am not mistaken, has some questionable views as well.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 14 2016, 07:38 AM

I am going to discuss this with someone who should have at least a slightly more intelligent opinion...

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 14 2016, 07:45 AM

Good God man, I hope you are on the pre-screened list. Safe travels, Ken.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 14 2016, 08:34 AM

Just to lighten things up. You may be more likely to be killed in The Dangerous Kitchen than in a terrorist attack.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 14 2016, 08:52 AM

Sorry for popping in out of nowhere -

I get to hear similar opinions here in Sweden as well - ( 'just keep them far away from here and all will be fine' ).

However to me that opinion is so disconnected from reality of today. Although this strategy might (maybe just maybe) have some effect in the short run, I think it is absolutely counterproductive in the long run. I believe exclusion will give you more terrorist acts in the long run, not less.

Recent events have shown that terrorists acts are a global phenomenon, meaning that physical/geographical limitations is becoming less of a problem if you want to commit a terrorist act. And I am afraid we have only seen the beginning of this - as smart terrorists will focus on IT crimes instead, as our modern society's main features are accessible to hackers via digital networks (in theory only - so far).

I think the only way to create a better place is to not only focus on local problems, but start caring about lifes on the other side of the planet as well - if you want them to care about your life.

The human misery and suffering we are seeing around the glode today is a perfect breeding ground for global terrorism - and it 'works' for everybody. This is why we are seeing barbarous terrorists from Norway, Middle east and US (etc). Your religion or color of skin makes absolutely no difference, if you are exposed to enough horrible crimes you will become a horrible criminal. It is very simple!

So again if you care about solving this problem in order to give our children a better future - then start caring about other people's life, not just yours and your neighbours'.

Posted by: Spock Jun 14 2016, 11:24 AM

When Russia invaded Ukraine - the numbers for likelihood of people dyeing from the invasion were still not as high as dying by natural means - but Crimea was still invaded and annexed.

There will always be sympathizers which are considered "home grown" terrorists. But the reason to stop the mass immigration (better termed invasion) is because it's a clash of cultures. The people being allowed into your country as well as other European countries and the U.S. are from a culture that hates western values.

I believe it is imperative to assimilate the migrating people into a given culture before being allowed entrance to live and work. In order to do this you must have a gateway into your country - like Ellis Island was for America earlier last century. Back then people came to the U.S. for opportunity and we didn't have all the social benefits illegal aliens come to take advantage of now. When immigrants got here, they worked until they fulfilled their dream. They didn't just sit on the public's dime.

Now you have mass illegal immigration going on all over the western world and even though many of the people are good natured and truly just wanting to get out of their backwards culture in the hopes of a better life - there are others that are intent on creating the same sort of mayhem that we saw in Orlando. And that is the fear. Small terror cells. Mosques which house small cells of radical individuals.

What we have to be worried about are small cells, sleeper cells, lone gunmen, bonded together by a common ideology - to inflict terror and mass casualties by attacking innocent unsuspecting civilians. They don't have to take down a major industrial center or military complex - they could just hit a night club, or college campus, or recruiting office - all which have happened here.

How much terror would be caused if on some given day a handful of elementary schools across the nation were hit with the same sort of violence?

The only thing that allowing mass immigration allows are the chances of scenarios such as this to become more of a reality.

Top updates

• Mateen traveled to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — before the FBI interviewed him in 2013

• A former co-worker reported Mateen’s extremism to their employer but no one took action… because Mateen was Muslim

• Last year, the FBI investigated Mateen’s connection to “the first American suicide bomber in Syria”

• Fox report: Mateen was enrolled in online courses from a notorious terrorist recruiter

• UPDATE – Two trips to Saudi Arabia

• Mateen’s wife knew he was planning an attack; told law enforcement one potential target was Disney World

• Local news station reports police will soon arrest an alleged accomplicel

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 14 2016, 11:30 AM

sounds like, um , a, political correctness , huh , now were did I hear something in regards to that . Well , can't remember. Peace , Im out

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 14 2016, 12:00 PM

Posted by: Spock Jun 14 2016, 01:08 PM

Interesting video so far.

This terrorists father was from Afghanistan where I guess they don't consider men having young boys as sexual slaves homosexuality...introducing Bacha Bazi







One last thing about this chart - and then I'll bow out of the debate as well.

Concerning the U.S. invasion of Iraq - Documented civilian deaths from violence was 159,539 - 173,351. Total violent deaths including combatants was 251,000.

This is spread out over a 7 year period 2008 - 2015

Should these numbers be proof of an irrational fear of war?

https://www.iraqbodycount.org

Posted by: klasaine Jun 14 2016, 04:29 PM

Thanks. I'm not on the pre-screened list (Global Entry) but my flight days and times are during 'off times'.

*On a lighter note, my mom and dad are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary this year and the whole family is doing a week long Alaska cruise.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 14 2016, 05:27 PM

just like the left in America . Say they are inclusive and they except all Ideas ( unless it might contradict theirs ) and when one does they resort to classifying them as dumber than a brick wall . Nice

I don't remember anyone on the so called conservative side calling names . So who really is the more accepting group ?

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 14 2016, 05:42 PM

Hey that's awesome! Congrats to your folks man! So far it has been a pretty nice summer up here and it looks as if it will continue for some time, so some beautiful sunny days will make that cruise that much more enjoyable.
I think you guys will have a great time.

Posted by: Spock Jun 14 2016, 07:10 PM

Oh man I am JEALOUS!!! An Alaskan cruise is my wife's and my dream vacation - living in the southeast lower 48, we'll have to take at least 3 weeks off work to pull that off though.

Hope you have a blast!

Posted by: klasaine Jun 14 2016, 07:35 PM

Thanks!
We've been to Alaska before but not on the cruise. It is truly one of the most beautiful and unique places on the planet.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 14 2016, 08:08 PM

I really wish your analysis were true! It would be so much easier if we could dismiss the problem as a bunch of lunatics who hate us.

However I am afraid the terrorists you describe started out as kids just like you and me, but then something went horribly wrong.

If we are looking for a long term solution - not just one that brings us 10 years of relative tranquility until 'the next' thing comes - then we must start understing who these people are and why they became what they are today. Know your enemies for real!

Therein lies the long term solution. And I am primarily interested in the long term solution, because I have two small kids and I want them to grow up in a better world.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 14 2016, 08:44 PM

I only said "slightly dumber that a brick wall"

I have always had a problem with Newt Gingrich. I disagree with most things he says, but the problem is that I know him to be very well read, well educated. In fact John Ferling, the author of one of my favorite books in American history,"The Ascent of George Washington" once taught at the same college that Newt taught at, and in an interview really did not say anything bad about him.

However Newt Gingrich is the only person I have come across among active Trump supporters, where this problem has come up for me.



You can look for causes here and there, religion, culture, whatever. But in the final analysis if everyone in the world at least had indoor plumbing, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

So long as 1% of the world population owns 50% of the world's assets, a lot of the other 7 billion are going to be very poor, and increasingly desperate. Desperate people are willing to buy into the song and dance of whoever emerges convincing them that they are going to change things. And damage has been done by Trump. If they really hate us enough, oh yes they will get someone in here, they will go though Canada, or Denmark, or Fiji, or wherever. All those statements did was make them hate us more, and serve as recruiting bulletin board material for the "bad guys".

Posted by: Spock Jun 14 2016, 08:59 PM

I'm afraid you may be mistaken. The culture I was brought up in, and I would imagine yours as well, is to be friendly and respectful. The culture I am talking about teach their children at an early age to slaughter people. This is easily found all over the net. They are taught to hate jews mostly.

But simply look into what a theocracy stands for as compared to western values. These countries condone death sentences to homosexuals, no rights for women, if a woman is raped she can be sentenced to death - the list goes on and on. It boils down to Sharia law. This is not hate speech - these are cold hard facts and I would be more than happy to make post after post after post to prove this - but it would be so much easier if people would just look into it themselves.

I am interested in a long term solution as well - and the only solution I see would be a major reformation of Islam. The ultimate goal of which is a global caliphate. It was even said by Gaddafi that Islam would conquer Europe and not have to fire a single shot, it would be done through immigration. Look at the demographic trends of Italy and France.



I agree with you though - we must understand who these people are - and I want your children and my family to grow old in a better world. And unless you are happy with your country turning into something akin to the middle east and be a slave to Islamic Sharia Law then you should understand what is happening.

And before anyone feels like this is a racist post - remember, Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 14 2016, 10:34 PM

I did not know this. And I have grown up all over the world, including two years in Jerusalem where I made both Israeli and Palestinian friends (so Jews, Christians and Muslims all together).

What are your sources? Have you made an effort to get to know people from all around the world? Have you met the beasts you are talking about?



I don't believe poverty itself gives birth to the kind of bestiality we are seeing. I believe dictatorship, war, murder, rape etc is the underlying problem. Basically what the 'bloodthirsty' Muslims (and Christians) are fleeing from.

Posted by: Spock Jun 14 2016, 11:26 PM

Personally no I have not been all over the world. But the facts are there, I am glad you had a good experience in Jerusalem. My wife was Baptized in Jordan.

Although I did have a friend that got fed up with what he considered the same sort of "rhetoric" that you presume I am using and he left the states and converted to Islam. He lived in Syria and Turkey. At first he was a sympathizer but then saw the true colors and is now very vocal against Islam.

I grew up on Military bases mixed with all kinds of people - there were no colors or ideologies, your color was camouflage green and your ideology was to uphold the constitution.

My immediate family is a mix of white, black, hispanic, mixed, gay, atheist, liberal, conservative, Christian, Mormon and Jehovah's Witness (and that is just my immediate family that gather together and enjoy meals, holidays, etc. - we all get along. I feel I have had a very diversified life among different groups of people.

And if you did not know those things presented above, it is not at all hard to learn. The material is readily available if you are willing to put any effort into learning about it.

Just because one does not wish to believe a root canal doesn't hurt, does not make the root canal will not hurt.

Would you care to see videos of the numerous accounts of violence perpetrated by Islamic mobs in Europe against innocent citizens? How about the intimidation in the U.S. given to Trump supporters?

I'll be glad to post them. The MSM may try to cover these instances up - but the internet won't. It's all there - like an open book and I have been looking into this subject for at least 8 years now.
















This is simply a quick example. Hundreds more are available.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 15 2016, 08:10 AM

Well said I hope that we can learn, as a people, to start better understanding each other and ourselves. The rise of apparent tribalism and wrong doing on every side of every issue is certainly real. We could go on forever posting things done/said from folks on every side of every issue that represent an extreme/violent view. I do think that it must start at home, and early, at the primary learning stage. Once views become ingrained. They are very hard to change. Whether those views are for or against.

Posted by: Spock Jun 15 2016, 10:05 AM

Well I agree. We must learn how to live together and accept each other. By and large I think we do this very well as a nation although I have been appalled at the aggressive rudeness towards people simply trying to attend a Trump rally. Yes, we have a small minority of fringe groups but nothing near what is pouring out of the middle east.

My point is a simple one. We protect each other, we protect our culture and values, that's it. Legal Immigration is fine, Illegal immigration en masse is not fine.

To deny there are is a culture bent on destroying ours and using the current trend in Europe and the U.S. to infiltrate our countries is careless. Add to that the liberals would use this in order to strip us of our right to protect ourselves.

Now the radical islamists are not only cheering the Orlando killer as a "hero of the caliphate" but are calling on others to attack schools, restaurants, malls and hospitals. These is not a people we can live with and understand.

We are a "tribe". Western culture is our tribe. We are diverse, we are made of many races and ideologies. That is what makes our culture so diverse and valuable. Simply because we have a clash of ideas in this thread does not mean I don't respect you or anyone that disagrees with me. I feel we could easily have this same discussion across the dinner table from each other and nobody be in fear of assault or even the loss of friendship. We are different. We are civil and by and large empathetic.

However, there are some that would kill you for your beliefs, and it's a culture built around a barbaric religious judicial system and I just fail to see how that ideology can mix with ours when it's main tenant is abolish it.

I wish the world was how you see it. I wish that people that were vocal about the way it is would not be pointed out as the "haters" or "bigots" when all we are trying to do is protect not just us, but you as well. And it's extremely disheartening when the same people that call for tolerance and understanding would rather apply that to radical Islam over the people that would sound the alarm against it.

Posted by: fzalfa Jun 15 2016, 10:42 AM

irrational or not, terrorist have killed a couple of cops in france in the name of daesh......

i wash in jail for 3 years and was released recently......

we (gov and cops) know about his mind and plans, but they keept him free.

sorry for this familly, and theire 3yo son, they have been savagely killed with a knife in from of him !

hopefully this guy was killed by cops, but he have time to send a 10minutes video message on facebook, he xplain how and why he done that.

daesh lover are cowards and they are the results of century of non blood mixing !!

THEY SUCKX !!!

Laurent

ps: a schoolgirl was also attacked by knife elsewhere, while she was waiting her bus, sad, only injuried

Posted by: Spock Jun 15 2016, 11:27 AM

It's terrible - I'm so sorry to hear that. Nobody is safe from this mindset, even little children and women.


I thought this may be of interest to this forum...


http://www.metalinjection.net/metal-crimes/iranian-musicians-jailed-facing-possible-execution-for-playing-metal


Also this...

http://www.huckmagazine.com/art-and-culture/music-2/kirkuks-metal-band-defying-isis-iraq/

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 15 2016, 03:22 PM

If it weren't for the fact that our bill of rights, the very foundations of our country, are tied to religious freedom, then I"d sure, let's just ban any religion that contains violent nut jobs Sadly, there are some violent Christian nut jobs too, so we would have to ban christians as well. Most of the Christian folks don't want to this part. Just ban the muslims

Worse yet, the past several mass killings were done by NATIVE BORN AMERICANS, not by immigrants. So there is that

Just to make note, I DO NOT support radicalism in any religion. I DO NOT support violence, especially in religion. The folks shooting things up in the states, have not been immigrants in the last several mass shootings. They have been Americans. American born citizens who are just nut jobs. Don't know how else to describe them. The bulk of followers of Islam are peace loving, hard working people. They don't want any association with the nut jobs any more than Christians want to be associated with Christians who bomb abortion clinics.

So it seems that immigration issue is a bit of a red herring here. The real problem seems to be domestic in nature. It seems that dealing with that should be our top issue here, but somehow it's not.

Illegal immigration can certainly have negative impacts. It can also have positive ones as has been discussed. Also, like we talked about earlier, you can no more stop illegal immigration than you can stop illegal drugs. So it's important to take a very measured look at it and take a measured response. We can "ban" anyone from anything. We "banned" pot/heroin/coke, etc. and yet we are flooded with it. So banning something doesn't remove it. It just makes some folks feel better So I gotta say, it's just not a solution.

As Kris said, what we really need to do is come to an understanding of what is motivating people so that we can start to make changes and address it. That is the only thing, imho that has a hope of stopping all this.

One last thing. Lettting folks who are on a "NO FLY LIST" buy weapons is a bad idea. Once a person can't even fly, legally, it's a bad idea to let them buy guns IMHO. That is what is being proposed by the "left" as well as closing the loophole on guns shows where anyone, even terrorists, can buy guns without registering them. Also a bad idea. So law abiding folks have nothing to worry about here. But closing the door on folks under terrorist suspicion (no fly list) and making folks register their guns (gun show loophole) seem to be pragmatic, and good ideas. I don't see how folks could be against, but some are


Just awful. The problems in France/Europe that we see on the news here are tragic indeed. If thos esame nut jobs were here, they would be using easy to to get to assault rifles instead of knifes imho. As shown by the last several mass shootings. If we could get our nut jobs to use knives instead of guns, we could cut down on the number of dead by quite a bit. One innocent is too many, but 50 dead and 50 wounded by a guy on a terrorist no fly list is just crazy. This crazy nut was able to walk in to a gun store and by a military style assault weapon with no problem. We saw the results on the news. Folks on terror watch lists should not have it that easy.

Posted by: Spock Jun 15 2016, 03:34 PM

Radicalized Muslims.




You may want to look into this further as well. You could be on a No Fly list. My friend I work with is and before he worked here he was a missionary - one of the meekest people you could know.

No fly lists target people "of suspicion" for ridiculous reasons.

I could very well be on one.

BTW. Since you like guns - we should get together sometime - we're not too far away. I have a fully automatic AR-15 I bet you'd enjoy. Plus I just put a new scope on my 22 marksman rifle and have not fired it yet.

Posted by: Spock Jun 15 2016, 05:18 PM

Posted by: klasaine Jun 15 2016, 05:44 PM

Seems like this last one, the Orlando attack, is turning into more of an anti-gay thing with Daesh wrapped around it for convenience, sensationalism and a bullshit sense of piece of mind for the psycho killer.

The ultimate headline 'possibly' reading ... "Closeted gay man guns down 50. Invokes allegiance to ISIS to absolve his perceived sins". I think this one is a lot more nuanced that it appears.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 15 2016, 08:05 PM

1: There is no gun show loophole. This actually refers to private transactions such as if I was to buy a firearm from you or if one was given by or inherited from a family member.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/MythofGunShowLoophole.pdf

2:There is no National Gun Registry with the exception of automatic weapons and certain short barreled rifles and shotguns and it is actually against federal law to have one, and states that have a registry run afoul to The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/49

http://www.usafirearmtraining.com/law/are-guns-registered/

Gun registries tend to lead to confiscation.

3:The AR-15 (ArmaLite rifle) is NOT an assault rifle and is SEMI- AUTOMATIC. It only looks like an assault rifle and my .300 Win Mag hunting rifle is more powerful than most of variants of the AR-15.
In contrast, the M4A1 carbine is a fully automatic assault weapon.

http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm

http://assaultweapontruth.com/

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

In other news concerning terrorists from abroad infiltrating the US:

“Islamic Refugee” With Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/islamic-refugee-gas-pipeline-plans-arrested-new-mexico-border-county/

Middle Eastern Men Arrested Near Mexican Border with Steel Cylinders
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/12/middle-eastern-men-arrested-near-mexican-border-with-steel-cylinders/

ISIS Camp a Few Miles from Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirm
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/04/isis-camp-a-few-miles-from-texas-mexican-authorities-confirm/

Cartels Help Terrorists in Mexico Get to U.S. to Explore Targets; ISIS Militant Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir Among Them
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/04/cartels-help-terrorists-in-mexico-get-to-u-s-to-explore-targets-isis-militant-shaykh-mahmood-omar-khabir-among-them/

Judicial Watch Uncovers New State Department Records Confirming Arab Smuggling “Cells,” Al Qaeda Leader in Mexico.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/01/judicial-watch-uncovers-2004-state-department-records-confirming-arab-smuggling-cells-al-qaeda-leader-in-mexico/

Posted by: Spock Jun 15 2016, 08:24 PM

I purchased an M4A1 about 10 years ago that was semi-automatic but I just recently put a bump stock on it which is completely legal (right now) and it can fire single shot, 3 round burst or fully automatic.

Pretty cool device...



I like this video better...

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 15 2016, 09:22 PM

I have looked in to it. And I still assert that nobody on a no fly list should have access to buy guns. Sure, there will be exceptions where your buddy is on one for whatever reason or what not. But these exceptions don't outweigh the benefits of making it just a bit harder for terrorists to by assuault weapons. Folks can appeal to get off the list. But most folks on the list are there because they are under investigation. Just seems pragmatic. Of course, it will make those folks by guns illegally or at a gunshow, or from a friend, but at least they can't walk in to a gunstore and "gun up".

Anyone could be on the list in theory, but yeah, if you are on a no fly list, you should either appeal to get off of it, or find out why you are on it. But again, just one pragmatic step to slow down nut jobs when they go to snag up assault weapons. Let's make it just a bit harder on them. Seems pragmatic and would serve the greater good imho. Nothing is ever perfect. But letting folks on watch lists buy guns is just a bad idea IMHO, since the primary way on the no fly list is to be flagged by the FBI. They could flag me and I"d deal with it, just to make it harder for nuts to get assault weapons.

I bought my first gun in an effort to bond with a Mormon friend of mine who was a gun fan. Mormons take a LOT of crap from wads of people, evangelicals, etc. just because they are Mormon. I wanted to find out more about him and his faith and thought we could bond over guns. Most folks seemed to want to condemn him for his faith straight away and hint he was a polygamist cult member. Reminds me a lot of what he happening now.

On a happier note, we have some great gun ranges around here Last time I was at one was with Gitarrero which was a fun night They will rent you full auto weapons at the ranges which is handy

BINGO yet again It's coming to light now that he had Gay hookup aps on his phone, often went to Gay night clubs and drank/danced all night, despite this being a very big no no in Islam, and he said he was involved with two islamic groups that are blood enemies. The ISIS bit seems to be just icing on his "crazy cake". Not buying it. Seems he hated himself for being Gay and took it out on the place where he associated this hatred of himself. After buying assault weapons legally, despite being on a Terrorist no fly list.

Posted by: Spock Jun 15 2016, 09:33 PM

I understand about the Mormon issue. My wife was raised Mormon and even though she isn't involved with them anymore her entire side of the family are - and they are great people. My wife hides that from her coworkers and especially her boss because they are fundamentalists. She should not be ashamed, and to be honest it makes me ashamed that Christians would act that way. Anyone on a spiritual path is okay in my book, just as long as that path doesn't include the blood of innocents. I admit, I'm not perfect - that's not what being a Christian is, being a Christian one should realize how far from perfect they are - unfortunately that is not the case in many, many instances.

On the guns - no doubt, and I can agree with you concerning the No-Fly list. I'm just a bit concerned over the list myself.

And yes, always keep receipts wherever I'm taking that rifle. You shouldn't have to - but I wouldn't want to put up with the headache - just be like - "Thank you officer, have a good day now - ya hear!". There are no gun ranges except for outdoor around her where it can be fired. My friend has a large pasture where I've shot it as I don't shoot enough to become a member of a gun club - but I just don't have the time. I purchased guns for safety, then just had to have that AR. Now I'm sort of concerned about the possibility of civil unrest via something, whether an EMP from a bomb, sun flare, terrorist hit to the electric grid or the dollar collapsing. Name your crisis du jour. I've turned into a prepper - faraday cage, food rations for a year - all that stuff.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 15 2016, 09:57 PM

I have to agree to disagree about the "loophole" The loophole is that you can, as a Terrorist, go to a gun show and buy any weapon you like without having to have a BACKGROUND CHECK. That's a loophole if there ever was a loophole. But terrorists/nuts don't have to do that, as they can just go buy guns at the local gun store. How easy Let's make it as easy as we can for them right? I had a full background check when I bought my weapon and I"m registered as a gun owner in Ga. I"m a "law abiding" gun owner. Thus, I went through the legal hoops of buying a gun. Background checks should be mandatory IMHO or we are just begging terrorists to buy all the guns they want.

Skipping those hoops is an easy way for folks that should not have guns to get guns.

By saying that registration leads to confiscation, you are making a huge leap. I"m registered and have never been confiscated? I don't know anyone who has and I know a LOT of gun owners. That seems more like the fear of Big Govt than anything else to be honest

I looked up the web site you pasted several links from and sadly it was started by a debunked, far right wing conspiracy theorist Larry Clayman. More on him here.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/25/discredited-conspiracy-theorist-larry-klayman-i/203042
We have to stop using these types of blogs as source material guys. Unless we can agree on some sort of reference ground, it's going to be hard to move forward. I"d say anything by the PEW research center will work, or anything by the census, etc. Not stuff by highly partisan, suspect, conspiracy blogger types.

The Mormon issue, is really similar to the Muslim issue to be honest. There are some Mormons who support bombing abortion clinics. There are Mormons who HAVE bombed abortion clinics. This doesn't mean that we should call them RADICAL MORMONS, as it demonizes all mormons for actions of a nut job few. Same thing with Islam IMHO, the proportion of nut jobs/radicals compared to the 1plus billion peace loving muslims is quite small. It just gets hyped in the media to a HUGE degree.

Seeing Christians "act that way" to any other religion turns my stomach. I see you are offended when Christians act that way to Mormons, but not when they "act that way" to muslims. Seems a bit of a double standard yes? Are the bulk of Muslims not on a "Spiritual Path" as well? And are not the followers of Christ called upon to forgive, and love thy neighbor and "turn the other cheek, etc? Seeing Christian folks embrace animosity toward another religious path is sorta sickening and hypocritical imho. Yes, to be sure, ISIS ARE EVIL, EVIL, EVIL. But again, they represent a small fraction of Islam. out of the 1plus billion Muslims, the tiny fraction that are nut job violent, get all the press. It's become OK to think of all of them as being either complicit with ISIS or part of ISIS when in fact it's just not the case.

The sicko nut jobs who engage in mass murder often use religion as an excuse just like the guy in Orlando did. First he said it was for Hezbolah, then Isis, (both groups are blood enemies), then we find out he might be Gay himself. This guy was just a NUT. Mentally ill people should not be allowed access to firearms IMHO. We have to take a test to drive a car and get a license for it. Yet, we let any nut job terrorist walk in and buy a semi automatic rifle? That's just plain stupid and begging for trouble. Owning a gun is a great responsibility. It should come with great personal effort and willingness to prove one is not crazy, not prone to violence, and not being investigated by the FBI for terrorist connections IMHO. Most gun deaths in this country are between people who know eachother. Usually, people who know each other very well, as in husband wife/boyfriend girlfriend/etc. Your wife is more likely to shoot you than anyone else to be honest in terms of the stats. In short, if we can accept the Mormons, we can surely accept the bulk of Islam which is peace loving and also descended from Abraham, as it is one of the "Abrahamic Faiths" along with Judaism and Christianity.

So let's not condemn an entire faith system becuase of the actions of some nuts. Anymore than we would condemn Mormons because a few of them killed abortion doctors.

I see nothing wrong with "prepping" as everyone needs a hobby and being prepared is a good hobby to have One never knows after all. However, it's easy to become a bit too wrapped up in end time prophecy (had that happen to myself at one point) and the belief that it's all going to collapse. After all, "we are not promised tomorrow". Making peace with that has helped me make peace with just about everything else

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 15 2016, 10:32 PM

Dealers really don't want go to jail for 20 years just sell something illegally they can sell legally

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 15 2016, 11:18 PM

it start at 12:00 if I don't code it right

Posted by: Spock Jun 15 2016, 11:56 PM

Honestly Todd - you have not studied Islam enough to make those comparisons. Yes - there a nut jobs in any religion - but to call it hypocritical when considering the majority of Islam is a true sign that you don't know what you are talking about and have not studied anything on Islam - but just wish to feel that way.

The "moderate" Muslims are NOT the vast majority. In Islam moderate should be changed to westernized. Westernized muslims are considered heretics to the vast amount of middle eastern Muslims.

I'm sorry if this doesn't sit right with you but it is the absolute truth. All it takes is research to find this out. Just because something feels right and lovey dovery does not make it so.

Islam is NOT compatible with western civilization unless they individually become westernized. Even so called "moderate" not westernized muslims, condone killing gays.

There is no greater danger to culture then the mass immigration of middle eastern Muslims.

And I'm not preparing for prophecy sake - I'm prepping for common sense sake.

You must not take the seriousness of our dilapidated power grid being compromised seriously either. Another clear sign you have not studied on that subject either.

Yes this guy was a nut job.

He was a nut job that cheered 911 when we were attacked. He was a nut job when he declared he was part of al-queda, and since al-queda is basically wiped out he claimed allegiance to ISIS.

He is the absolute epitome of a Muslim Terrorists. And All Muslim terrorists are nut jobs.

Make no doubt about it - this was an planned terrorist attack in the name of Islam that was cheered through the Muslim world and he is being called the Lion of the Caliphate.

Under Sharia law you have 3 choices, See if these sound loving and moderate: Convert to Islam, Pay an exorbitant tax and be treated as a 2nd class citizen, or die.

That sums up the "Religion of Peace".

The only path Islam is on is a path to a 1 world caliphate, the destruction of Israel and of course the Great Satan - You and me. And judging from the mass murders in Europe along with the heinous acts to the indigenous people of those countries - they have started their march to conquest.

Seeing it with rose colored glasses doesn't change a thing.

There is no other religion or spiritual group in the world responsible for the amount of innocent deaths as Islam. That ideology is the true plague of this planet.

BTW - everyone with your position brings up abortion clinic bombings. Please list all of those bombings. Can you count them on 1 hand? 2 Hands? Actually from 1993 to 2015 there were 12 murders at abortion clinics (not including the murder of babies of course). There were numerous acts of arson - but in total 84. 12 murders 84 total acts reported. Killing in the name of Islam has far surpassed that in just the first 10 days of this month during Ramadan 2016.

Then I will post the amount of Islam terrorist attacks that has taken place in the past few years - it will be a very large post.

Here's just a taste for Ramadan of this year - and we're not even half way through...



What's hypocritical to me is comparing violence of other religions to the violence of Islam IMHO.

Posted by: Spock Jun 16 2016, 09:41 AM

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 16 2016, 04:56 PM

Strange how these debates always turn into an "irrational fear of guns" thread

this is going to be my next build

Listen to him breath in comparison to just firing the gun !

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 16 2016, 05:39 PM

And here ya go Quick pic detailing which states actually require background checks at gun shows In my state, Georgia, NO bacground checks required. It's the states that DO NOT require background checks that I am personally opposed to. The states that DO require them, (as in the video you shared) are doing just fine IMHO



Youtube doesn't always make a great "source". You can find vids to substantiate nearly any view. Also, in many cases the folks making a given video leave off the bits that go against the argument being made, as in the vid shared.

Todd

Posted by: Mertay Jun 16 2016, 05:47 PM

I heard it was easy to get a gun in USA but no background checks!? thats simply wrong.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 16 2016, 05:53 PM

I can appreciate how you feel, but the same argument you are making could be leveled right back. It could easily be said that perhaps you don't know enough to suggest that most are violent. As Kris asked, "what are your sources" youtube videos made by folks that share a given worldview don't really hold muster as an objective "source" sadly So then, I'll try to share some stats. Here is a pew poll used by BOTH SIDES to justify various arguments. In historically Muslim countries, there is a disturbing comfort level with violence and Sharia, in many cases. However, there are many historically muslim countries who do not poll this way. Let's talk about American muslims first as this is our country


Support for violence among Muslims Worldwide
From the pew poll
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians
in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say
violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend
Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against
civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at
least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in
Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories

Not shocking to find out the Palestinian muslims are more violent. They are often invaded and killed by their neighbor. And there are substantial minorities of violent muslims in many of the countries as listed. However, it's important to note that in every case listed, these are MINORITY VIEWS. In the United States, where we do a better job integrating people than some countries, the numbers drop to 1%.

I've looked in to this in depth. I'm not speaking off the cuff here. I'm open to any research that anyone wants to share. Let's not call youtube vids, created by folks who are biased either for or against, to valid sources though eh?

Nut job, not a member of isis
Also, as far as his connection to "ISIS" and islamic terror. As I mentioned, he first gave credit to HEZBOLAH then gave credit to ISIS. Anyone who knows better will tell you that these organizations hate each other and that what this shows is that he did this for himself, only. The terror groups latched on to it of course, in order to give themselves the appearance of power. He was another lone wolf nut. He just happened to be Muslim. He may have also been Gay. His inability to resolve this, led him perhaps to this act in order to try to cleanse his soul through martrydom. He had been going and dancing/drinking at this club/using gay hookup aps on his phone for many years according to his current and ex wife.


Prepping
on the subject of prepping. Any reason is a good reason IMHO. And yes, I know well how our infrastructure is in need of repair. I only hope the next folks in charge will spend some money repairing it, instead of building billions (2.8 billion) in main battle tanks that the Army doesn't need, according to the Army itself.. E.g. 2000 abrahms tanks sitting in a parking lot.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/


Deaths By Religion Christianity vs Islam: Christianity 15 Million, Islam 2 Million
Also, I've looked in to this topic in depth as well. I try to research any topic that I make any claims about before I make the claims.
Here is a handy link detailing the bloody history of both religions. Sadly, the Christians win by SEVEN TO ONE over islam. So just like the first argument, it may be that perhaps you have not researched this to adequate depth?

https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-is-responsible-for-the-greatest-number-of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history

I AGREE!! That is why I support background checks in EVERY STATE at EVERY GUNSHOW. If you want a gun, you should have to pass a background check to show if you are legally insane, have a history of violence, are under FBI suspicion, etc. Granted, sometimes it may get in the way of someone who might deserve a gun. But on the whole, it serves to protect the public interest in safety IMHO. I submitted to a background check to get my gun. Had zero problem with it. Waited the few days required and bingo, gun owner.

Posted by: Spock Jun 16 2016, 06:39 PM

Intersting - I live in South Carolina and I've had a background check run on every gun I've purchased.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 16 2016, 07:51 PM

More violence from Palastine? GDP per capita in Palestine averaged 1309.66 USD from 1994 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 1653 USD in 2012 and a record low of 879.52 USD in 2002. You try living on an income like that. Surprise surprise that some young men pick up guns rather than resigning themselves to the life of living in a slum in abject poverty. How about Afganistan? Taken as a whole, life expectancy for Afghans is still just 48 years, and the average annual national income per capita is about $410. You thought living on about $1,500 a year was tough, try it on $410 a year. Let's look at the Sudan. $960 a year average income, compared to Aganistan, they live in style. How about Syria? $1,200 a year, now that is big money, what are those people raising hell for? If they can't get by on almost $4 a day to pay their living expenses, well what can you say?

Radical religion just becomes an umbrella that these desperate people unify themselves under, it is symbolic, but it is not the primary cause of conflicts. Actually in my experience, as religions go, the one where I have observed the most intolerance is certainly among those calling themselves Christian.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 16 2016, 08:01 PM

Sorry Todd but you have no idea what you are talking about, Read the Brady Act, It is FEDERAL LAW. You are talking about private purchases between individuals and in some states the sales to those who already have a permit, which means they have been pre-screened and have already been though the check within the last 5 years before the purchase. If their permit is over 5 years old then they have to re-screen.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1025

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-background-checks/

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-private-sales/

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/permanent-brady-permit-chart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

If you don't believe me why don't you try it? Go to a gun show in your state that you say doesn't require a check and try to buy. It ain't gonna happen without a check. Then after they tell you they need info for a check you can just back out of the deal so you don't have to spend any money on a firearm you may not actually want.
Or, if you would like to get a Colt 1911, and you can without a background check I will pay for it and buy you a holster and an extra clip for it to boot. No BS.
But if you can't purchase that Colt without a check, you will need to send me your beloved old school Ibanez RG. Deal?
A private sale between one individual to another does not count.

Oh and one more thing concerning the no fly list being used to disqualify folks from purchasing a firearm. Here is the ACLU's position on the issue.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 16 2016, 08:55 PM

SPOCK: Despite that, it's not required by law in South Carolina for Gun shows. Did you purchase at Gun shows?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

AKRICH: I hate to have to say it again, but I sorta do know
First up, this is from ONE OF YOUR LINKS:
---
Closing the private sale loophole – The Brady Act applies only to sales by FFLs. Accordingly, persons who purchase firearms from private sellers – estimated to be 40 percent of all gun purchasers – are not required to undergo background checks.^{http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-background-checks/#footnote_15_6353} Additional information about private transfers is contained in http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-private-sales/.
---
**Pretty big loophole eh? 40 percent of ALL GUN SALES! Onward to the Gunshow loophole.

Here is a link from governing.com and the info as it relates to what is happening under the current state of laws.


http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
-----

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-background-checks-by-state-nics-chart.html for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.

Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-background-checks-by-state-nics-chart.html at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. The majority of these such states require background checks at the point of transfer for all firearms. Alternatively, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey and North Carolina regulate purchases by prohibiting private dealers from selling to individuals who do not have licenses/permits, which they obtain following background checks. Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases.http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-background-checks-by-state-nics-chart.html

Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law.

Last Updated: January 2016

--------

CONCLUSIONS: According to your own sources, 40 percent of all gun sales go through the loophole of private sale, requiring no background check at all. Further, under current law, 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. As a result, vendors at gun shows need only say that gun sales are not their principal method of livelihood and bam, no background check required. Such has been my experience at every gun show I"ve ever been to.


------
As for the ACLU, they are more than welcome to any thoughts they may have. I have been expressing my personal thoughts, which seem to be a bit different. Then again, I"ve never claimed allegiance to the ACLU. I still think anyone on a watch list should be banned from buying firearms until they are off the list. Seems like basic common sense. The good of the many wins out for me on this. Simple as that

We have had many guns shows here in GA, and I've gotten to the point of purchase at every one I've gone to without being asked for so much as my drivers license. Maybe I just got lucky? It seems that there is just a steady flow of bad info coming from the NRA and other sources that just serves to muddy the water. The link to the bit from governing.com breaks it down in really simple terms. There is a huge loophole in gun shows, not to mention the 40 percent of all gun sales that are "personal sales" that require no background check at all. So any gun owner could sell to a terrorist/jihadist or buy guns for them, and nobody would know, nor could they do anything about it. This is simply BAD LAW imho.

Todd




Well said Indeed, Palestine is a nation under occupation by any definition and the poverty they experience is part of what pushes many of them to vote for Hezbolah (a Terrorist group) or join a radical mosque. They simply lack other valid options. This is what I was talking about in terms of understanding the root cause in order to fix the problem. Poverty, prejudice, overt discrimination, occupation of ones homeland, the "collateral damage" of war, etc. These things are the seed of radicalism. IMHO the only way to address these things is at the source. Not at the results stage.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 16 2016, 09:22 PM

Than that dealer violated federal law and can get 20 years . This is a cnn report on the checks that are required by law right now
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-explainer/index.html

I as well have , have to go thru one of these checks every time I have to buy one in solidly red Kansas, At gun shows also. You are mislead from the graph on your post. If you read the article you took your map from , at the top it mentions that dealers having to go thru a check( database) (sounds like a background check to me) this is the check in the above link, but for some reason your article has a different opinion of what a background check is. Here is the full article if you want to see how todd cherry picked
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

You are forgetting as well , if someone sells a firearm registered to them and someone else uses it in a crime , it is very likely you will be prosecuted for this , so most people that do private sles don't want a gun registered to them in the wrong hands

But it goes further than that , many peolpe are turned down because store owners get a bad feeling just this latest one in which the gun store owner was diligent in reporting it to the officials who did nothing
https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-shooter-turned-away-different-gun-store-being-141628142--abc-news-topstories.html#

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 16 2016, 09:49 PM

LOL The only reason I used that particular site as a reference is so you couldn't say it wasn't a legit source since it is from a pro gun control group and was only posted to show what the law is and not what this groups OPINION was on the laws or their version of stats. That 40% figure is complete rubbish. Other studies show the number of private sales to be .07 %. And a private sale loophole is different from a gun show loophole which is what I have been saying, and there really aren't many private sellers at gun shows and the ones that are there are watched by law enforcement that frequently sends undercover agents to these shows to root out folks who may be trying to skirt the law.
To claim that a background check is not required in your state or any other state is complete bullshit and I invite you to put your Ibanez where your mouth is and see for yourself.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

Posted by: Spock Jun 16 2016, 10:17 PM

No, I purchased all mine from gun stores.

Interesting links concerning Christian versus Islamic killing.

I must say though that I am a big fan of the Crusades, and they were tying to give safe passage to Jerusalem and take the city back.

However, did you read the comments below the guys assessment? Tends to level the playing field quite a bit.

Also - I should have made myself clearer, I'm talking about more recent attacks - say, since the invention of the radio. Don't get me wrong, I'm still pissed that Persia Invaded Greece - filthy buggers.

And I realize the Catholics and Protestants went at each other like Pit Bulls. But you have to admit that there has been a major reformation in the church since the Protestant reformation.

In 2016 alone - THIS YEAR!!!! There have been 1067 Islamic attacks in 47 countries, in which 10022 people were killed and 12050 injured. Not including Orlando - the list can be updated.

The list for the past 5 years is staggering. And the worse part about it is that this is not against another warring faction but against regular citizens.

You must see the difference. Wars of hundreds or thousands of years ago don't compare to today's civilization.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 16 2016, 11:34 PM

SPOCK: The point I was making was about the gun show loophole. Not about buying guns from stores. If you buy a gun from a store, yes, you will have to go through the process I bought from a gun store as well and went through the same process. Did you read my actual post?

It's hard for me to be a "fan" of the crusades as they did kill every man/woman/child when they entered jerusalem and it's said "blood ran to the knee". This sort of slaughter is simply unchristian no matter what it's purpose. Christ was not about violence. So killing women and chlldren in his hame would not be something he would suggest or approve of IMHO. The sermon on the mount pretty much covers his personal ideology. He was a pacifist. This irks many. He was also socialist. All early christians kept all money in "common" until it was Romanized and corrupted and became the catholic church. Having read the scriptures, I still wonder how it ever got that bad. Much like the man from Nazareth, I oppose the slaughter of women and children, no matter what the purpose. What's worse, the Muslims took the city back so it was pointless. But I digress Christians still out kill Muslims 7 TO 1. in historical terms

I know you were talking about recent attacks. That's why I wanted to put some historical perspective on things. If we are staying current, we would have to keep aware of the "collateral damage" in IRAQ, and Afghanistan caused by our military. It's this collateral damage that serves as propaganda for recruiting radicals. We saw some of it, remember? The apache chopper mowing down civilians and journalists that went viral? Just a small tip of the iceberg.

So even if we keep it to modern times. We have invaded Muslim countries, (Like Iraq) for no reason, killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, for no apparent reason and called it "collateral damage" and we wonder why radicalism is on the rise. Here is an article about this very thing from BROWN UNIVERSITY (Ivy League school for reference) showing over 200,000 CIVILIANS KILLED as a result of our "wars" in the region.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians

So even if we keep it to recent history, we are winning the KILL COUNT by leaps and bounds. It's just the simple truth. We have created our own monster. We never should have invaded these places at all. 15 of the 19 hijackers of 911 were from SAUDI ARABIA and yet we have no war with them. Instead, we have destabilized an entire region and allowed the expansion of forces like ISIS (many of whom are ex Iraqi army). If we want to be honest, we have done this to ourselves.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 17 2016, 01:05 AM

here was alittle friendly debate that found otherwise
http://www.debate.org/debates/History-suggests-Muslims-have-killed-more-than-Christians-in-the-name-of-their-god./2/

Posted by: Spock Jun 17 2016, 01:30 AM

I saw that as well and decided not to post it - good read though.


Todd - I understand the U.S. led invasion of the middle east is terrible - we shouldn't be there. But that can not be classified as a "Christian" war.

As fars as the crusades, here's some history for you...

Posted by: fkalich Jun 17 2016, 01:31 AM

No, not really. The impetus behind the Crusades came from Alexius I, Emperor of the Byzantine Empire. He had attained power after a civil war, and was challenged from two sources, Normans and Seljuk Turks. He managed to fend off the Normans, and actually had successfully defended Constantinople from invasion. Curiously enough the major threat to him came from Christians fighting for the Turks, and his success largely was due to convincing a different Turkish people to come in on his side in opposition to the Seljuk Turks.

However to consolidate his position, he needed to win back lands (largely modern day Turkey) that Constantinople had lost to the Seljuks. He followed the traditional pattern of hiring mercenaries by appealing to the Pope and other Western European leader for help. The Papacy had itself experienced a string of power struggles with some European leaders, and Pope Urban also needed to consolidate his position. The request by Alexius for help was just what the doctor ordered, as he could be the catalyst in orchestrating what became the 1st Crusade.

This is where the "take back Jerusalem" part came in. This became a propaganda tool used to drum up support among the various leaders and populations. They could not really ask leaders and populations to travel for years and suffer privation, for the expressed prupose of consolidating the political positions of the Emperor of Constantinople and the Pope.l

And no, this all does sound very familiar to me, right up to date, right in line with what is happening today. The mindless masses getting manipulated by an individual trying to achieve a position of power, for no other reason other than he wants to be king of the hill, a man who will say anything, do anything if it serves the purpose of encouraging them to pull his lever in November. Sounds familiar to me, say technique used by Alexius and Urban a thousand years ago, same by European leadership in 1914 used to get 10 million to charge machine guns for no other purpose than to maintained the positions of wealth of European capitalists and monarchs, and the same thing I can read today in the election news where Trump spoon feeds you whatever you will lap up.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 17 2016, 01:37 AM

The only way to know your enemy is be truthful of their beliefs as it refers to what their holy book says and it seems to many people turn a blind eye so no one will call them a bigot .
They are raised from birth ,taught that those that don't believe are infidels , second class citizens , even dogs to many of them . This is why they spit at female hospitall staffers in Europe that are trying to help them
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/muslims_in_the_hospital_muslims_on_the_train_as_europe_hands_over_the_keys_to_the_kingdom.html .If you are raised like that , what will happen when you are approached by some one you have been taught look down upon. You will look down upon them . It has happened to me and I want you to pay attention to how they will treat you should you have an encounter ( not the ones you grew up with , times change, the ones now entering your coutry) , They look at you and talk to you as if they would rather not have to put up with you. Now there are many friendly Muslims to be sure , but as many as fifty percent of the ones I meet , treat me this way

Posted by: fkalich Jun 17 2016, 01:37 AM

No, that is not history, that is called drivel you find on Internet that entertains people, but actually makes them more stupid after watching it.

If you want to learn some serious history about the period, and not have to work hard (just 18 hours of lectures), get a copy of this, maybe your library has it.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/era-of-the-crusades.html

Posted by: Spock Jun 17 2016, 01:40 AM

You really should look into the Islamic onslaught of the middle east, Africa and Europe - I don't think it took much propaganda when the Crusaders had a common enemy if they cherished their homeland. As the videos above explain.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 17 2016, 01:41 AM

and I can fully agree with you , but for some reason people think Bernie or Hillary are not doing the same thing

Posted by: Spock Jun 17 2016, 02:07 AM

The course does look interesting and sure there was much politics and dogmas going on in 200 years. But can it be denied that Islam was conquering the entire region and pushing north and the Crusaders attempted to fight against that and regain Jerusalem. Or was that just stupid dribble too?

I also find it amusing you were able to make your post seconds after I posted the videos. Speed watcher.

Just so I understand:

- Islam is peaceful - nothing to be concerned about
- Killers in the name of Islam are just lone crazed killers with no real affiliation
- Christians are biased evil bigots that pose a far greater threat to the Earth
- People don't kill people - guns kill people, unless you're a conservative
- Trump is nothing but empty racist propaganda that stupid people eat up with glee
- Orlando should be blamed on the Christian right and lack of gun control.
- Assault weapons should be banned from all law abiding citizens - in order to keep them from the hands of criminals.
- There is no reason to take Islamic immigration in Europe and see it as anything other than peaceful assimilation.
- We should allow all people into our nation because we should build bridges and not walls.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 17 2016, 02:55 AM

Yes, things were much more complicated than that. I can't even answer that question. That is just not how the world worked, things were not that clear cut, not at all. I mean for one thing, loyalties shifted all over the place. Often Christians allied with some Muslims. And there were different groups of Muslims, often opposed to each other. Often Christians fought against Christians, as was the case in the 4th crusade and to a lessor extent in some of the others. Yes there was a strong movement to take Jerusalem, but there were other objectives, quite a number of them. At at a point, in some ways it quit being a religious motivation per see, it became just an establishment of a kingdom and the maintenance of it. There were three Kingdoms establish, I mean a lot went on, it was all very complicated.

Regarding the video, I disregarded it based on the the presenter. He gave no credentials that meant anything, and based on his youtube page he is clearly an ideologue. I don't waste my time with such people, regardless of their political orientation, time is short, and I only read the best. As I mentioned earlier, I will listen to Newt Gingrich, even though I don't agree with him much. But he has a Ph.D and taught History at a University. But I don't waste my time with youtube or TV crap. One thing you can say about the really good sources, the definitive and qualified sources, they never make it clear what their political orientation is. You may suspect what it is, but they are careful to avoid expressions of their personal political sentiments. That is just proper behavior for a serious historical author. For the most part the best Historians are academic. There are exceptions, some journalists are good, such as Sir Max Hastings, and Rick Atkinson. And some others, but most are academic. The thing about academics, there are subject to peer review, so they have to be careful about what they say, that someone can't shoot it to holes.

One more thing, and I am out of here. About guns, I have one. For defense, a S&W .357 magnum revolver. But why in the hell guys needs all those guys, semi automatics and automatics, go figure. It is just bizarre to me. I mean I have Guitars and Amps, and speaker cabinets, I get obsessed with those, but the obsession with guns, go figure. And also, making a game out of shooting animals. That I look down on. If you really want to hunt for some food, fine. But to take pleasure in making a game out of killing an animal, that to me in the 21st century is just perverse, time for humanity to grow up and have some respect for other life forms.

Regarding Trump. Put it this way, if I had most of you in a room, I would just start quizzing you on your knowledge of human history, world and American. That is the basis of my opinions. In fact, I get TV out of my house 10 years ago, the more you watch the stupider you get. I read books. If I asked you, name all 44 presidencies, could you do it? And I'll bet Trump could not either. Why do I know who they are? Because I am reasonably fluent in American history, if you are that, well you know about all the presidencies.

And I know this. While I did not like Cruz, at least he was qualified. I might have even voted for Kasich, he is a good man. But this Trump is a clown act, I know American history pretty well. I know what were the successes and the failures. Hell, even Warren G. Harding, a ridiculous compromise candidate who knew he was out of his league, was more qualified that Trump. You may not like the Democrats. But I warn you, if Trump is president, we are in serious danger, that is way way too much power to be in the hands of someone like that. I don't think he will win, I think most Americans will understand this, that regardless of your political orientation, this man is just a danger for the world. If we get in a shooting incident with China (very possible), how would he handle it? That should scare you, if you understand the Chinese culture, and military, you can only push them so far, there is a way to deal with them in a tough situation, and I don't think Trump is the man you want calling the shots in such a scenario. I am old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis. We came close to oblivion. My father was a Colonel in the Air Force reserve, he was scheduled to go one night, to replace someone they assumed was dead as soon as things started. If someone other than Kennedy was president, like Nixon, god knows. That is just to much power in the hands of someone like Trump. And considering the way he behaves, one has to consider the possibility that it is an not just an act, that in fact he is truly unbalanced. Has any political leader/candidate ever behaved in the fashion he does? He is about 70 years old you know, it gets more likely the older you get, that a person can a number of cords short of a full load. Even most of the Republican leadership understands that. The rest of the world certainly does. Maybe consider the possibility that they are right, and however much you might hate the thought of Hillary Clinton being the boss, at least we can be pretty confident that we will survive through a Clinton presidency.

Sorry, you had a chance, you had someone like Kasich, who I think would have won. And who would have been a good president, and given you most of what you wanted.

Posted by: Spock Jun 17 2016, 09:36 AM

I appreciate your reply fkalich and you brought up many valuable points. Some of those points play right into my position however. The first being about the Crusades. You can't deny that Islam was on it's way to conquer Europe as it had the middle east and northern Africa. And the fact that factions of crusaders fought side by side with Muslims sort of puts a damper on the idea of it being being a totally Christian slaughter machine but more based on political ideology using the old "the enemy of my enemy is my ally" idea.

As of the 44 Presidents - you're right, at this point there is no way I could do it - however I once could it was part of my political science class in 10th grade. I could name them and their party affiliation in order, it was like memorizing multiplication tables in 3rd grade. But after all these years - that ability has gone.

I commend you on ditching the TV. I've found that MSM can not be trusted but I just can't give up Game of Thrones. People want to bash Fox News but tend to overlook the other major brands lean unfairly to the left, so I receive 99% of my news from the internet - in particular The Drudge Report.

As far as dangerous presidents, I do remember that your exact fears concerning Trump were also leveled against Reagan. People railed about him being the one to start WW3. I even remember some Christian wahoo saying "Ronald Wilson Reagan - 666". Reagan turned out to be the best President since Kennedy and I believe Trump can be that man now.

What I did like about Cruz was his tax plan - which I support more than Trump's. I've always been for a flat / fair tax, but I feel border security and our relations with Russia are more important than that right now. Especially with the immigration crisis the world leaders seem to be allowing to happen at the peril of their countries culture and citizen. It's seems too planned and that is another reason why Trump is so appealing - he is not a politician. He is outside the loop.

I just don't see how you could think Kasich would have had a chance against Hillary. He may be a good person but he doesn't have the brand recognition that Hillary does. And he is not as mean and underhanded, plus I see him as just being another RINO like most the other Republicans. A vote for Trump is not a vote for the Republicans but a vote against the establishment.

For gawd sake look at Hillary - look at her track record, her agendas and the trail of corruption for years. She is the last person we need as President. I'd rather have Sanders over here and he's a died in the wool socialist.

And I like Trump's brazen attitude. It's going to take someone with balls like that to unfuck this country - status quo would have our federal government being drug by the nose by NATO. I've always felt the U.S. has spent way too much money on our overseas agendas and that money could be used for domestic social policies as opposed to surrounding Russia with an arsenal of missiles under the ridiculous pretense that it's to ward off an Iranian attack. It would be like Russia putting missiles in Cuba and Mexico to protect them from Venezuela - ridiculous.

As far as gun rights, an armed populace is not armed for killing animals for fun, they are armed for personal protection and from a rogue government. The last thing an invading nation or a rogue government want is an armed populace.



So we have differing opinions - that's just the way the world turns. I hope you have a fulfilling and fruitful life. And I hope you wish me the same if Hillary wins as I move to Patagonia and open a fish hatchery.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 17 2016, 03:23 PM

JSTCRSN: before we get too long winded in our back and forth here, which I fear has already happened, let me just sum up what I"m suggesting overall P.S. The CNN link you shared is about law that is being proposed. Here is a quote from your link If the democratic bill passes, THEN we will get rid of the loopholes.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-explainer/index.html

AKRICH: (from crsns cnn link, citing 20% of all sales being private) "The use of the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) however is not required for private sales of firearms, which make up about 20% of all firearm transactions. A Democrat-backed bill being discussed in Congress closes this loophole (the gunshow loophole), requiring background checks for all gun transactions, even private ones. This would extend background checks to purchases made at gun shows and on the internet."

1.)I'm for not allowing anyone on a NO FLY LIST to buy a weapon until they get off the list, and of course providing a legal way for them to challenge the list. Just seems pragmatic IMHO.

2.)I'm for requiring the exact same procedures that are required in gun shops, to be required at Gun Shows AND in person to person sales. Again, just seems pragmatic to me.

I"m aware of all of the arguments against these two ideas. No need to go through them again. Not everyone can agree that these two things are needed. It's my suggestion that these are needed. Thus why I would support this legislation. Simple as that

SPOCK: The mass immigration is more a European problem right now. It may spread to our shores as well in time. I sill maintain the only way to make real progress is through integration of folks coming here. We can't stop them IMHO unless we shoot them all at the border. Giving young, angry, war ravaged, men a second chance in life, indeed to have a life worth living, is IMHO our only long term solution.

That about covers it for me Thanks for the conversation guys, I"m heading back to guitar land and you guys may have the last word.

Practice!
Todd
Todd

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 17 2016, 05:59 PM

I am trying to figure out if I missread it or you did
the head line :how backround checks work : as in something that is in place , not , how would they work.
but the quote you mentioned was in regards to the a fore mentioned private sales

a few quotes :
Here's how the current system works:
Once you have decided to purchase a gun from a retail outlet -- it could be a local gun shop or national chain such as Bass Pro Shops, Cabelas or Walmart -- the store enters your name and information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, via a toll-free number or the Internet, to check the eligibility of the buyer.
The check usually takes a few minutes to complete.
The NICS system is linked to several databases managed by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center, and runs an individual's name through federal and state criminal records.
CNN Poll: Background checks popular, worrisome
Individuals can also be added to the NICS index outside of potential gun sales, on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.

The check usually takes a few minutes to complete.
The NICS system is linked to several databases managed by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center, and runs an individual's name through federal and state criminal records.
CNN Poll: Background checks popular, worrisome
Individuals can also be added to the NICS index outside of potential gun sales, on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.
Under the current NICS system, buyers may be denied the purchase of a firearm for reasons such as being indicted or convicted of a felony, admitting to being addicted to a controlled substances, having been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, being subject to a restraining order, as well as other regulations._________Since its implementation in 1998_______, 2.1 million background checks have been denied out of 118 million requests, or almost 2%.

I find it funny that you told Rich it was forty percent and you use this cnn pole to now say 20 percent and you have even agreed that cnn might biased ,but 20 is way less than the forty you so strongly stood by in earlier posts , which number and post shuld we counter

and more on the border

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 17 2016, 08:39 PM

Great post. I def think this is part of the root cause that must be adressed to stop terrorism. Terrorism is just the tip of an iceberg - and it's naive to think chopping the top off will help fix the real problem.

Unless we make sure skilled diplomats are elected as leaders we're probably screwed. We need leaders that understand how the world functions, not just someone who can score home ground points by telling people what they want to hear.

The only way people will vote for these kinds of leaders is if the worlds' population itself gets smarter and more insightful. So let's keep talking about this, great thread!

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 17 2016, 10:10 PM

People need to first realize ALL politicians on every side do this, you just want to hear something different than I do

Posted by: Arpeggio Jun 17 2016, 11:30 PM

More US soldiers die from suicide outside the combat zone.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/01/us-military-suicide-epidemic-veteran
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/csp/mediapool/sites/PressDemocrat/News/story.csp?cid=2276892&sid=555&fid=181

US education system is poor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUmcjbSHYq0 They want SOLDIERS.....not thinkers / informed voters.

US / Allies fund ISIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqNwUxjdsAA

US has no gold, Libya had loads and wanted to start trading oil in gold rather than US dollars.

Standard Oil (US) sold aviation fuel to the Lufftwaffe https://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2

Ex US president Eisenhower's parting speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gahL5j4ack

etc.

Posted by: Spock Jun 18 2016, 02:17 AM

That is why I'm voting for Trump.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 18 2016, 03:41 AM

should this be irrational fear of voters like this guy

Posted by: Spock Jun 18 2016, 08:19 AM

Posted by: Spock Jun 18 2016, 09:34 AM

Muslims are 'not like us' and we should just accept they will never integrate, says former racial equalities chief Trevor Phillips

Man who coined the term "Islamophobia" admits he was wrong.

Muslim communities are not like others in Britain and the country should accept they will never integrate, the former head of the equalities watchdog has claimed.

Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was disrespectful to assume that Muslim communities would change.

He told a meeting at the Policy Exchange think tank in Westminster on Monday that Muslims ‘see the world differently from the rest of us’.

According to The Times, he said: ‘Continuously pretending that a group is somehow eventually going to become like the rest of us is perhaps the deepest form of disrespect.

‘Because what you are essentially saying is the fact that they behave in a different way, some of which we may not like, is because they haven’t yet seen the light. It may be that they see the world differently to the rest of us.’

Mr Phillips added that people of certain backgrounds in the UK are not going to change their views ‘simply because we are constantly telling them that basically they should be like us’.

The Muslim Council of Britain has insisted that members of the religion are compatible with UK life, and believes that the idea of demanding change from Muslims has promoted discrimination.

A spokesman for the organisation told The Times: ‘It assumes that Muslims are not equal, and not civilised enough to be part and parcel of British society, which they most certainly are.’

The Prime Minister has previously made clear that integration failures have allowed extremist ideas to gain traction – resulting in around 700 British Muslims travelling to Syria to join Islamic State.

Counter-terror police say about half are thought to have returned and could pose a threat.

And last week David Cameron launched a new drive to counter extremism by calling on more Muslim women to learn English in the hope that they will turn into more powerful moderating forces.

Mr Phillips, 62, who is known for his outspoken views, hit the headlines last March when he claimed Britain was silencing debate on race issues by ‘intimidating’ those who dare to ask questions.

In a devastating critique of a culture of misguided political correctness, he claimed far too many people felt unable to speak their minds because they feared being branded racist.

Mr Phillips said people would have to become ‘more ready to offend each other’ as the price of free speech, and attacked the ‘racket’ of multiculturalism which took root under Tony Blair’s government.

Muslims, who first arrived in Britain about three centuries ago as sailors working for the East India Company, had a UK population of 2.7million in 2011 - dramatically up from 1.6million in 2001.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3418620/Muslims-not-like-just-accept-never-integrate-says-former-racial-equalities-chief-Trevor-Phillips.html

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 18 2016, 10:45 AM

we might have to check with the left and ask them if this is an acceptable source , haven't you learned anything by now , sheesh

Posted by: Spock Jun 18 2016, 10:55 AM

LOL! I took that into account when posting but realized that facts are irrelevant anyway regardless of source.

For instance they still pound the drum that David Duke supports Trump so that affiliates him with the KKK, but neglect to mention that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan also supports Trump so by the same logic would that not affiliate Trump to the Nation of Islam and nullify the whole "racist" tag?

Nah.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 18 2016, 12:03 PM

for a laugh


this is our "non-biased" media people shooting a gun

Posted by: Spock Jun 18 2016, 02:18 PM

More tolerance from "The Religion of Peace". We should just hug them until they love us back...


Radiohead's live from A Moon Shaped Pool event in Istanbul is attacked

A group of radical Islamists attacked a listening party in Istanbul where Radiohead was holding a listening party for fans in support of their new album.

The men reportedly stormed the record store, Velvet Indieground, in Istanbul, Turkey, and used pipes to violently beat fans running away from the venue for drinking alcohol during the holy month of Ramadan.

“Our hearts go out to those attacked tonight at Velvet IndieGround in Istanbul,” Radiohead said in a statement. “We hope that someday we will be able to look back on such acts of violent intolerance as things of the ancient past. For now, we can only offer our fans in Istanbul our love and support.”

It’s unknown how many people were injured in the uproar or the severity of their injuries.

One of the store’s owners allegedly posted about the encounter on Reddit, saying, “I am the person that’s speaking in that video. I am the owner of that periscope account. They were determined to kill us. We were beaten by more than 20 men with pipes in their hands, beer bottles were broken on our heads. I don’t even know how we made it out. I will share the details later guys, just hoping that no one will die.”

The event was part of a global listening party in support of Radiohead’s new album, “A Moon Shaped Pool,” and included specially curated playlists, games, and limited-edition vinyls.

Video of the attack can be seen below:



http://variety.com/2016/music/news/radiohead-listening-party-in-istanbul-attacked-by-islamists-1201798367/

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 18 2016, 02:41 PM

But we do not know if they are getting a fare wage or have even been assimilated into the culture ?

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 18 2016, 10:12 PM

Yeah, that's what I have been saying since you posted that ridiculous map and claim that no background checks are required at gun shows in the red states on your map.
You make it sound like gun shows in those states are some kind of law free zone free for all where anyone can buy a gun with no questions asked. It's at least 90% BS and you knew it when you posted it.
The VAST majority of sellers at gun shows in EVERY state are licensed dealers who are required by federal law to perform the same checks that are performed at any gun retailer everywhere in US.
Furthermore, the vast majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers, probably 75% or more, and most of the rest of the booths at gun shows are selling things other than guns such as literature or clothing or gear associated with firearms etc, and you may even find a public relations booth setup by local law enforcement to answer any questions you might have regarding gun laws in the country or the state.
The so called closing the gun show loophole legislation is not really about gun shows at all. It is meant to regulate private sales between individuals and not only that but to regulate gifts and inheritance as well which is something I am firmly against.
Can you show me an example of a mass shooting where the gun was purchased in a LEGAL private transaction? I don't recall any of the top of my head.

Your claim about Judicial Watch and Media Matters claim as well is also BS. First of all Media matters is the propaganda arm of the Obama admin and arguably the greatest source of garbage on the planet. While Judicial Watch on the other hand is a watchdog on government and has been very successful in the courts against the Obama admin concerning the Illegal executive actions on Illegal Immigration and that is just one example, one that is relevant to this topic.
They have done pretty well in the courts on other issues as well such as the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Commerce Dept trade mission scandal concerning the Clinton/Gore campaign and also against the Bush admin concerning transparency of White House visitor logs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

It's funny how the left loves watchdogs and whistleblowers until it doesn't suit them.

You have been captain exaggerator(Edit: Sorry Todd, I should not have resorted to name calling, it's normally not my thing but hey, no excuses. I respectfully apologize for that, my bad.) in pretty much every one of these political type threads since I have been here at GMC and I have caught you misrepresenting the facts to try an strengthen your argument on numerous occasions over the years. So when you misrepresent the laws of this country in an international forum I will continue to set you straight every time and I don't need to exaggerate and misrepresent facts to do it.
And I may or may not use the sources you suggest. With all due respect, who are you to tell me what sources are legit as you suggested in another post you have made in this thread?