Re: Domestic terrorism
 

The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois has the strictest gun control in the country...how has that curbed the continuing violence in the murder capital of the country, Chicago?

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

I'll never understand the fascination with guns.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1136322]I'll never understand the fascination with guns.[/quote]

That's probably because you see the world through life in a basically secure nation, and (I'm assuming) feel the government that we have is a natural state. Much like Maslow's Hierarchy would imply, many people don't feel that level of security, and so they want the ability to secure themselves and their families properly. Guns, in the hands of trained people, are a protective instrument like no other. They definitely can give a sense of security to the owner and a sense of self-protection if the government were to turn from the past to a more oppressive form.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1136322]I'll never understand the fascination with guns.[/quote]

A lot of the people who are into guns usually come from families with a gun culture. It is ingrained into them early and they don't see anything wrong with it and get very defensive about outside ideas on the subject. They deny any facts that don't fall inline with what they want to believe. It is quite like religion or a cult.

Also gun people tend to be people who can't deal with fear as well.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Hijinx;1136330]A lot of the people who are into guns usually come from families with a gun culture. It is ingrained into them early and they don't see anything wrong with it and get very defensive about outside ideas on the subject. They deny any facts that don't fall inline with what they want to believe. It is quite like religion or a cult.

Also gun people tend to be people who can't deal with fear as well.[/quote]



Well said !

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1136322]I'll never understand the fascination with guns.[/quote]

Matty, on one side of my family from around Richmond I have uncle who farms, aunt who raises horses, and lots of cousins who hunt...they are good folks who have been raised around guns. It's kinda a culture thing. But they aren't fanatical about it becuase its second nature...they don't think about it. Another side of my mom family up in southern Maryland, x government worker has like 8 gun closets, probably has close to 100 guns...intellectual type...he is a collector, has a special license to buy. He hunts every now and then, but just likes to shoot. Then his brother up in Minnesota is x miltary, intellectual and I believe he still shoots based on that military experience. All responsible gun owners. Nothing about them says gun nut.

I guess I'll never understand the fascination of gang members to walk around and feel a need to shoot each other. Folks in their neighborhood, community, etc. I'm kinda lost there....

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Hijinx;1136330]A lot of the people who are into guns usually come from families with a gun culture. It is ingrained into them early and they don't see anything wrong with it and get very defensive about outside ideas on the subject. They deny any facts that don't fall inline with what they want to believe. It is quite like religion or a cult.

Also gun people tend to be people who can't deal with fear as well.[/quote]

This describes folks who illegally possess a gun.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

The major driver of gun control is the mass shooting...yes this is a problem. Most of these folks were mentally ill. Anybody mentally ill shouldn't own a gun.

I also think there is a direct correlation with the rise of mass shooting with the rise of social media. A lot of seeking a way to stand out and live in infamy.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Chico23231;1136295]The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois has the strictest gun control in the country...how has that curbed the continuing violence in the murder capital of the country, Chicago?[/quote]

if you have strict gun control in chicago and no gun control in michigan (just as an example) then you have no real gun control in chicago. if gun shows don't require background checks and dealers can sell directly to people stating that they couldn't pass a check if they had to, then you don't really have background checks either.


of course universal checks don't really solve a large myriad of problems like the extant supply of guns already out there etc.

I've got no problem with responsible people having whatever guns they want, but the "everyone should be carrying" crowd is a bit scary. maybe you've never been in a bar when someone decides to whip one out, but it's not really a safe environment. having 18 more drunk people also decide to pull out guns is, um... even less safe.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=That Guy;1136362]if you have strict gun control in chicago and no gun control in michigan (just as an example) then you have no real gun control in chicago. if gun shows don't require background checks and dealers can sell directly to people stating that they couldn't pass a check if they had to, then you don't really have background checks either.


of course universal checks don't really solve a large myriad of problems like the extant supply of guns already out there etc.

I've got no problem with responsible people having whatever guns they want, but the "everyone should be carrying" crowd is a bit scary. maybe you've never been in a bar when someone decides to whip one out, but it's not really a safe environment. having 18 more drunk people also decide to pull out guns is, um... even less safe.[/quote]

I don't have a problem if the president want to expand and strengthen the background checks.

Like the president said, none of the proposals would have stop any of the mass shootings. Also like the president agreed last night, violent crime rates are at an all time low and gun ownership is at all time high. The last 30 years murder rate has dropped drastically. Minors killed by guns his dropped massively.

So I would ask, why does Chicago enjoy using guns to kill one another? Y is Chicago out of step with most of the country? Try having that discussion. Why doesn't Obama pick up the phone and talk with his close friend who runs that city? Excuses in Chicago have run out...

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Hijinx;1136330]A lot of the people who are into guns usually come from families with a gun culture. It is ingrained into them early and they don't see anything wrong with it and get very defensive about outside ideas on the subject. They deny any facts that don't fall inline with what they want to believe. It is quite like religion or a cult.

Also gun people tend to be people who can't deal with fear as well.[/quote]


[img]http://kuukunen.net/pics/facepalm/FACEPALM.JPG[/img]

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Chico23231;1136368]I don't have a problem if the president want to expand and strengthen the background checks.

Like the president said, none of the proposals would have stop any of the mass shootings. Also like the president agreed last night, violent crime rates are at an all time low and gun ownership is at all time high. The last 30 years murder rate has dropped drastically. Minors killed by guns his dropped massively.

So I would ask, why does Chicago enjoy using guns to kill one another? Y is Chicago out of step with most of the country? Try having that discussion. Why doesn't Obama pick up the phone and talk with his close friend who runs that city? Excuses in Chicago have run out...[/quote]

chicagos a whole can of worms that has a lot to do with socio-economics etc. it's something that really should be addressed, and probably needs to be looked at top down. it's not just a gun problem though.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/index.html]Two refugees arrested on terror-related charges - CNN.com[/url]

Here is an under reported story...you cant even find it on msnbc, strange how that is?

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote]A lot of the people who are into guns usually come from families with a gun culture. It is ingrained into them early and they don't see anything wrong with it and get very defensive about outside ideas on the subject. They deny any facts that don't fall inline with what they want to believe. It is quite like religion or a cult.

Also gun people tend to be people who can't deal with fear as well.

[img]http://kuukunen.net/pics/facepalm/FACEPALM.JPG[/img][/quote]

I just love when people speak with a certainty about another person's subjective intent and personality traits and particularly when they transfer this certainty to the intent of a large group of individuals.

The whole topic of gun control creates so many idiotic statements that I despair as to any real dialogue. Each side just points at the other and says "I don't understand why you disagree with me so you must be stupid."

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1136322]I'll never understand the fascination with guns.[/quote]

Totally agree.

We went to Cabals in DE last week with our neighbors. We were walking around the gun part just laughing our asses off at what a waste of money it was. We really lost our shit when we came to the "champagne room" where they kept the even fancier more stupid expensive guns.

Sorry if I offended anyone but it just seems like a total waste to me. Go buy a PS4 and and COD and just have at it.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

As for the Bundy's "protest," they have seized federal property under force of arms and have indicated that they will use force against any federal, state or local lawfully authorized enforcement officers. If I were President, I would notify them that they have 48 hours to lay down their arms and surrender. If they fail to do so, the full force and power of the United States will be brought to bear against them.

I would inform them that I consider them to be bearing arms in revolt against the lawfully and duly elected government of the US, Oregon and County and, as such, they will be treated as traitors leading an armed insurrection. If they surrender peacefully, they will be treated with leniency but they will still be prosecuted in federal and state courts for their illegal actions. If they failed to surrender, the full force of the US Army will be brought to bear.

I would then move a regiment of infantry to surround the area at a safe distance to prevent any one from joining them and park some nice big ass mobile artillery to target the building. They would receive an hourly countdown with notice that the artillery will open fire on any traitors remaining on federal property when time expires. At the 48 hour mark, I would give the order to open fire and not think twice.

Their actions are unlawful and constitute an armed rebellion. They are rebels and traitors and should be treated as such.

... and don't give me the "Our founding fathers were considered rebels and traitors." The founders were ruled by a government where they had no lawful means of representation. They had no one to represent them in Parliament and no inherent right to peacefully assemble to voice their discontent. These dickheads have all that. No, the real analogy here is the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

[quote]The Whiskey Rebellion, also known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. ... The [tax] was a part of U.S. treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to fund war debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War.

The tax was resisted by farmers in the western frontier regions who were long accustomed to distilling their surplus grain and corn into whiskey. ... Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the U.S. federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency.[/quote]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion[/url]

Seems be pretty much spot on to me .

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1136322]I'll never understand the fascination with guns.[/quote]
I think that is probably the most factual statement I have read in this thread.......
And Joe....whatever it is you don't agree with....You're stupid..lol

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1136383]As for the Bundy's "protest," they have seized federal property under force of arms and have indicated that they will use force against any federal, state or local lawfully authorized enforcement officers. If I were President, I would notify them that they have 48 hours to lay down their arms and surrender. If they fail to do so, the full force and power of the United States will be brought to bear against them.

I would inform them that I consider them to be bearing arms in revolt against the lawfully and duly elected government of the US, Oregon and County and, as such, they will be treated as traitors leading an armed insurrection. If they surrender peacefully, they will be treated with leniency but they will still be prosecuted in federal and state courts for their illegal actions. If they failed to surrender, the full force of the US Army will be brought to bear.

I would then move a regiment of infantry to surround the area at a safe distance to prevent any one from joining them and park some nice big ass mobile artillery to target the building. They would receive an hourly countdown with notice that the artillery will open fire on any traitors remaining on federal property when time expires. At the 48 hour mark, I would give the order to open fire and not think twice.

Their actions are unlawful and constitute an armed rebellion. They are rebels and traitors and should be treated as such.

... and don't give me the "Our founding fathers were considered rebels and traitors." The founders were ruled by a government where they had no lawful means of representation. They had no one to represent them in Parliament and no inherent right to peacefully assemble to voice their discontent. These dickheads have all that. No, the real analogy here is the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.



[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion[/url]

Seems be pretty much spot on to me .[/quote]

An armed confrontation is just want these folks want, much like ISIS. I legitimizes this faux sense of cause.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=mredskins;1136379]Totally agree.

We went to Cabals in DE last week with our neighbors. We were walking around the gun part just laughing our asses off at what a waste of money it was. We really lost our shit when we came to the "champagne room" where they kept the even fancier more stupid expensive guns.

Sorry if I offended anyone but it just seems like a total waste to me. Go buy a PS4 and and COD and just have at it.[/quote]

Oh yea, thats a fair comparison.
Just download a flight sim.
Same thing as flying an F-15 or a 747.
[img]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes008.gif[/img]

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Chico23231;1136385]An armed confrontation is just want these folks want, much like ISIS. I legitimizes this faux sense of cause.[/quote]

I get that. Forming a perimeter and starving them out is another response. However, that just creates a siege which, in turn, presents a whole separate set of problems, costs, and risks. The more attention the traitors actions garner; the more tension they creates throughout the country. Right now, they are a festering open wound and strong, lawful, and definitive action is needed. Save the hugs for later. This is one of those situations that, no matte what is done, each side will spin for their own benefit.

In the Whiskey Rebellion, by the time the US Army showed up, the rebels decided "hmm, looks like they gonna kick our ass" and peacefully dispersed without a shot fired. To paraphrase Mike Tyson "Everyone has a plan until they have M109A6 Paladin aimed at their face."

Just as in that case, strong, decisive leadership that takes firm, fair, and lawful action is needed. G. Washington, the supreme diplomat general, exhibited just those traits when confronted with this type of insurrection.

Unfortunately, we have Obama.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Hog1;1136384]I think that is probably the most factual statement I have read in this thread.......
[B]And Joe....whatever it is you don't agree with....You're stupid..lol[/B][/quote]

Well, clearly that just means you are stupider.

... there, we have just summed up the current state of public debate and political discussion in the United States.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1136383]As for the Bundy's "protest," they have seized federal property under force of arms and have indicated that they will use force against any federal, state or local lawfully authorized enforcement officers. If I were President, I would notify them that they have 48 hours to lay down their arms and surrender. If they fail to do so, the full force and power of the United States will be brought to bear against them.

I would inform them that I consider them to be bearing arms in revolt against the lawfully and duly elected government of the US, Oregon and County and, as such, they will be treated as traitors leading an armed insurrection. If they surrender peacefully, they will be treated with leniency but they will still be prosecuted in federal and state courts for their illegal actions. If they failed to surrender, the full force of the US Army will be brought to bear.

I would then move a regiment of infantry to surround the area at a safe distance to prevent any one from joining them and park some nice big ass mobile artillery to target the building. They would receive an hourly countdown with notice that the artillery will open fire on any traitors remaining on federal property when time expires. At the 48 hour mark, I would give the order to open fire and not think twice.

Their actions are unlawful and constitute an armed rebellion. They are rebels and traitors and should be treated as such.

... and don't give me the "Our founding fathers were considered rebels and traitors." The founders were ruled by a government where they had no lawful means of representation. They had no one to represent them in Parliament and no inherent right to peacefully assemble to voice their discontent. These dickheads have all that. No, the real analogy here is the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.



[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion[/url]

Seems be pretty much spot on to me .[/quote]

I agree, this is more a case of the Whiskey Rebellion, and should be put down in an efficient and quick manner.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1136389]Well, clearly that just means you are stupider.

... there, we have just summed up the current state of public debate and political discussion in the United States.[/quote]

you are stupidest, and wrong.

:joecool:

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1136388]I get that. Forming a perimeter and starving them out is another response. However, that just creates a siege which, in turn, presents a whole separate set of problems, costs, and risks. The more attention the traitors actions garner; the more tension they creates throughout the country. Right now, they are a festering open wound and strong, lawful, and definitive action is needed. Save the hugs for later. This is one of those situations that, no matte what is done, each side will spin for their own benefit.

In the Whiskey Rebellion, by the time the US Army showed up, the rebels decided "hmm, looks like they gonna kick our ass" and peacefully dispersed without a shot fired. To paraphrase Mike Tyson "Everyone has a plan until they have M109A6 Paladin aimed at their face."

Just as in that case, strong, decisive leadership that takes firm, fair, and lawful action is needed. G. Washington, the supreme diplomat general, exhibited just those traits when confronted with this type of insurrection.

Unfortunately, we have Obama.[/quote]

Well, I just don't think these folks are that bright to disperse. I'd hate to have anyone harmed for a piece of land that essentially has no real value except preservation. If deadly force was ever used, it would give a rally cry to anti government turds across the country. Best way to end it is if all media would essentially stop give these losers a mouth piece.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

lol this is awesome

[url]http://nymag.com/following/2016/01/reddit-is-glitter-bombing-the-oregon-militants.html[/url]

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

you kinda don't want to be the president that ordered americans to kill americans. they want this to be ruby ridge w/ social media coverage.

it'd probably be better to smoke them out or put tranq guns onto rovers. you should definitely throw them all in jail. you can't let people think that armed takeovers of federal property is a legitimate form of protest or a good way to get what you want.

Domestic terrorism
 

^ agree, although I highly doubt these dopes are truly ready to die like they say, a confrontation is what they want. Don't give it to them. I wish the media would just pack up and go home.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

<iframe src="http://www.npr.org/player/embed/465325691/465325697" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player"></iframe>

Interesting podcast of a Fresh Air interview. Love Terry Gross she always does great interviews and can always gets her guests to answer the tough questions.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1136322]I'll never understand the fascination with guns.[/quote]

I'm not sure what there is to understand? There's a since of control, survival, security, or power that comes with gun ownership. It's a part of teaching your family how to take care of themselves. Some people take martial arts. Some people hire armed guards. It's all about being secure and in control.

Gun enthusiasts are just like enthusiasts of anything else. One person might look at a bedroom dresser and find the beauty in the wood, the finish, the overall design. Others look at the dresser and think it's a fucking dresser that holds clothes. Big deal.

We all have fascinations that others can't make sense of. I am fascinated with hard rock and heavy metal. You might be fascinated by video games or cigars, who knows? There's someone out there who views those things and think, WTF are you wasting your time on that shit?

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

You pretty much answered your own question about my question. ^

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1139350]You pretty much answered your own question about my question. ^[/quote]

Since it appears to be common to not understand another mans interest in "stuff he likes", it begs the question as to why you would tut tut fire arms in a domestic terrorism thread.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

If you follow the thread start to finish it's not too hard to figure out.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=MTK;1139350]You pretty much answered your own question about my question. ^[/quote]

Did I get the right answer? I totally guessed, LOL!!!;)

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[IMG]https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/DoYLq1EgP6V4b3c8bg_f3g--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3E9NzU7dz02NDA7c209MQ--/http://slingstone.zenfs.com/offnetwork/164d348a2d39231a2967834e764673df[/IMG]

[url=http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/04/tense-anti-mosque-protest-draws-armed-demonstrators-in-south-dallas.html/#commentsOuterWrapper]Armed clash over black mosque triggers anger in South Dallas | | Dallas Morning News[/url]

Now we have armed groups protesting each other ... I side with the New Black panthers on this one. Armed groups of people with masks shouldnt be able to intimate mosque patrons under the guise of "free speech".

Why should a family of muslims just trying to pray have to walk past guys with AR 15s saying (im guessing) nasty things?

Im curious to see if this becomes a Mulford Act situation. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act[/url]

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

well it looks like one group was there to spew hate and the other was there to prevent intimidation. there was no reason for bair to bring guns that protest.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

Say it with me, Islamic Terrorist.

Unbelievable tragic news to wake up too on a Sunday. Terrible.

Worst terrorist attacked on American soil since 9/11. #fact

This administration has made the country less safe and the world less safe. #fact

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

i agree, obama is obviously 100% to blame for every abusive and mentally unstable citizen.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Chico23231;1144174]Say it with me, Islamic Terrorist.

Unbelievable tragic news to wake up too on a Sunday. Terrible.

Worst terrorist attacked on American soil since 9/11. #fact

This administration has made the country less safe and the world less safe. #fact[/quote]


Yes

Yes


Yes

No.

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=That Guy;1144176]i agree, obama is obviously 100% to blame for every abusive and mentally unstable citizen.[/quote]

Right...I'm so mean.

Isis is the JV team? Like your president said.

I know the liberals were so so so disappointed to learn this was an Islamic terrorist and not some southern redneck. Typical. You can't control the narrative you want. You have to face reality

Re: Domestic terrorism
 

[quote=Giantone;1144177]Yes

Yes


Yes

No.[/quote]

It's tough to admit, isn't it?

The world is a much dangerous place and our influence means less and less. Israel hates Obama too, they are counting the days...