Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

[GATTACA!]

<iframe width="600" height="338" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1Agt0A1Fcrg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wtf?

 

[ACamp1900]

Wouldn't that have been easier? Oh no right, I forgot. I can walk off the street and buy all the killing machine I need. This is part of the point. Listen, idiots like this will always be around. But why make it easy for them to do it?

I agree with the underlying thought here... you just asked what an alternative would have been...

 

[connor_in]

Let me know when you have enough money saved up for your personal F-35.

Heck no! You could die in one of those things.




What you need is an a-10 Warthog...now there's a fully integrated messenger of death!

 

[phgreek]

1. Weird they didn't just say "well trained" instead of a word that means something else

2. Why didn't they make firearms mandatory for adult males, then?

Well there is a standing Army now, so ....

Do your Liberal friends know you became a "plain and obvious language" proponent of the constitution?

The advent of a standing Federal Army actually makes the anti Tyranny interpretation of the 2nd Amendment MORE important if you acknowledge the context under which it was written...I think.

 

[phgreek]

Heck no! You could die in one of those things.




What you need is an a-10 Warthog...now there's a fully integrated messenger of death!

LOVE that machine. Just a mean Mfer.

 

[NorthDakota]

So.... I take that to mean you aren't stepping up. Because as I see it right now I am arguing with a fence post that says "Git yer gunz & ammo here, all ya can carry!"

All I see is a Canadian who thinks making it illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon is going to stop a terrorist.

 

[ulukinatme]

Illegal immigration is also illegal, but every year a lot of people make their way into the country. How is focusing on this easier than focusing on the guns that are used to kill people. Can't we, as a country, walk and chew gum at the same time? Doing one thing does not mean we address the other. They are two different problems.

Because even if you prevent the weapons from coming in the weapons can and will be manufactured here regardless. It's a lot harder to manufacture a terrorist domestically, they usually have to be imported. There are exceptions, I realize there have been a few cases of people born here that have converted, but I think you'd find those to be few and far between. There's also the fact it's easier to smuggle weapons into the country than people, not that both don't occur. Like it or not, right or wrong, you can restrict these weapons, but you're not going to prevent deaths from occurring. Background checks and waiting periods, sure, do them...but we need to do a better job of closing the borders and policing who we currently have here.

 

[Rizzophil]

POTUS says Orlando mass murderer was "inspired by terrorist information." Good grief.


From Brit Hume

 

[GoIrish41]

Do your Liberal friends know you became a "plain and obvious language" proponent of the constitution?

The advent of a standing Federal Army actually makes the anti Tyranny interpretation of the 2nd Amendment MORE important if you acknowledge the context under which it was written...I think.

So, if the Army has you in the crosshairs, you think owning an AR-15 is going to help? You need nukes! And should be able to get them, because as a citizen you have the right to own all the "arms" you want. Doesn't say dick in the Constitution about firearms, so you shouldn't have any trouble. It would be unConstitutional to restrict your ability to own any weapon you want. Oh wait, average Joe's aren't allowed to own nukes, or biological weapons, or aircraft carriers, or Apache helicopters. How is it possible that we can restrict those things when the Constitution clearly gives us all the right to own them? Now, apply that logic to AR-15s that can shoot 60 bullets before having to reload. Too dangerous for people to own, and only bad things happen when they do.

 

[phork]

Do your Liberal friends know you became a "plain and obvious language" proponent of the constitution?

The advent of a standing Federal Army actually makes the anti Tyranny interpretation of the 2nd Amendment MORE important if you acknowledge the context under which it was written...I think.

So you are going to bear arms against your government one day when you've had enough? You do know that if said goverment wanted you taken out that they would lock you in a room and throw away the room? Or joystick a drone and create a red smear where you just stood?

 

[NorthDakota]

So, if the Army has you in the crosshairs, you think owning an AR-15 is going to help? You need nukes! And should be able to get them, because as a citizen you have the right to own all the "arms" you want. Doesn't say dick in the Constitution about firearms, so you shouldn't have any trouble. It would be unConstitutional to restrict your ability to own any weapon you want.

If the Army has citizens in their crosshairs, they'll probably find themselves in millions of crosshairs.

 

[tussin]

So, if the Army has you in the crosshairs, you think owning an AR-15 is going to help? You need nukes!

So you are going to bear arms against your government one day when you've had enough? You do know that if said goverment wanted you taken out that they would lock you in a room and throw away the room? Or joystick a drone and create a red smear where you just stood?

That's this is the point I was trying to make to Wiz. It's pretty comical that he thinks owning an AR-15 is going to perturb potential tyranny by the US government.

 

[Ndaccountant]

... Its more assault rifle than it isn't I am sure a minor modification exists to make it fully auto. But I digress. An AR15 has a firing rate equal to that of how fast can you pull a trigger. Theorectically it can shoot up to 800rounds a minute. So say I pair that up with an extended clip and carry 5 or 6 clips with me, I suddenly become a lot deadlier than if I had, say, a bolt action rifle.

For $500 you can have almost full auto:
New trigger makes AR-15s nearly full auto - Grand View Outdoors

how is that any different than a semi-automatic handgun?

 

[phgreek]

POTUS says Orlando mass murderer was "inspired by terrorist information." Good grief.


From Brit Hume

That man makes my head hurt....SMH.

I will say if what Mr. Obama was getting at is that this guy was going to find a reason to kill people...I'm in agreement. He appears to be a failed, angry loser who didn't have the decency to kill himself first. He tried to seek honor and acceptance in his miserable failure of a life with people who have none, but feign it well enough to inspire the failed souls of the world...

 

[phork]

All I see is a Canadian who thinks making it illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon is going to stop a terrorist.

See here is your reaction to gun control. Never, ever did say to make anything illegal. Tell me why you need to own an AR15 with a fully auto trigger and 60 round magazine? Its not hunting.

I'd also like to add, again, we don't have the same problems you do. Why is that?

PS: 164 days into 2016 and you've had 133 mass shootings. Do you or do you not see a problem with that?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Yes, I am aware of the differences. Focus less on my admittedly poor verbiage and more on the practicality of the gun itself. Why should civilians have the right to own semi automatic rifles?


I'm not even going to address the absurd justification of "protection from a tyrannical government," which is entirely asinine in the context of modern society.

I don't own a AR15, but for some of the people that I do know that own one, they say the diversity of the gun is the major draw.

 

[tussin]

I don't own a AR15, but for some of the people that I do know that own one, they say the diversity of the gun is the major draw.

lol at the "diversity of the gun" -- perfect for the target range, hunting gamelands, and the move theater!

 

[phork]

how is that any different than a semi-automatic handgun?

Much harder to spray a crowd and less ammo per magazine.

 

[goldandblue]

So, if the Army has you in the crosshairs, you think owning an AR-15 is going to help? You need nukes! And should be able to get them, because as a citizen you have the right to own all the "arms" you want. Doesn't say dick in the Constitution about firearms, so you shouldn't have any trouble. It would be unConstitutional to restrict your ability to own any weapon you want. Oh wait, average Joe's aren't allowed to own nukes, or biological weapons, or aircraft carriers, or Apache helicopters. How is it possible that we can restrict those things when the Constitution clearly gives us all the right to own them? Now, apply that logic to AR-15s that can shoot 60 bullets before having to reload. Too dangerous for people to own, and only bad things happen when they do.

You are such a shit starter....

 

[Ndaccountant]

lol at the "diversity of the gun" -- perfect for the target range, hunting gamelands, and the move theater!

let me ask you this.....if you can buy one device that can perform the function of, say, three others.....wouldn't you do it?

Like the article I posted above says......the AR15 accounts for the tiniest sliver of gun related murders in this country. If we want to talk about gun control and impact of gun control, handguns are the issue to focus on.

 

[NorthDakota]

See here is your reaction to gun control. Never, ever did say to make anything illegal. Tell me why you need to own an AR15 with a fully auto trigger and 60 round magazine? Its not hunting.

I'd also like to add, again, we don't have the same problems you do. Why is that?

PS: 164 days into 2016 and you've had 133 mass shootings. Do you or do you not see a problem with that?

For whatever reason you want, Doomsday theorist...target practice...sport shooting....whatever you feel like.

It's unfortunate. I don't see a reason to ban the sale of guns or anything insane though.

 

[phgreek]

So, if the Army has you in the crosshairs, you think owning an AR-15 is going to help? You need nukes! And should be able to get them, because as a citizen you have the right to own all the "arms" you want. Doesn't say dick in the Constitution about firearms, so you shouldn't have any trouble. It would be unConstitutional to restrict your ability to own any weapon you want. Oh wait, average Joe's aren't allowed to own nukes, or biological weapons, or aircraft carriers, or Apache helicopters. How is it possible that we can restrict those things when the Constitution clearly gives us all the right to own them? Now, apply that logic to AR-15s that can shoot 60 bullets before having to reload. Too dangerous for people to own, and only bad things happen when they do.

Context my boy Context...again when the word Arms was used, it is clear they meant what we know to be fire arms...guns. Restrictions/Regulations pertaining to other weapons are not a constitutional issue...guns are. Pretty simple really. Does that whole emotional, arm waving conflation usually work for you?

The point is not rather the Army has me in its crosshairs, and you know it. The point is, if your basis or owning a gun is to defend against Tyranny, I'd think you'd want the best one you can get...further I know it is convenient to think in terms of a big tank pointed at me...but you know there are many more forms that come in packages far smaller than the Army...you don't think there is Tyranny and serious misconduct inclusive of attempted murder at the county and city level?

You guys get all freaked out and offended and fail to stop and think that there may be considerations that approach the realm of plausible outside your immediate ascension/escalation to "TANK" and "ICBM"...

 

[phork]

For whatever reason you want, Doomsday theorist...target practice...sport shooting....whatever you feel like.

It's unfortunate. I don't see a reason to ban the sale of guns or anything insane though.

Indeed. Whatever I feel like. A gun isn't a can of Pepsi. This kind of blase attitude about guns is why you are in the predicament you are in. The only intended use for a gun is to kill things. But heh, whatever you feel like.

Also, again, no one said anything about banning anything.

 

[BobbyMac]

Is phork really a Canadian?

 

[phgreek]

So you are going to bear arms against your government one day when you've had enough? You do know that if said goverment wanted you taken out that they would lock you in a room and throw away the room? Or joystick a drone and create a red smear where you just stood?

...because that is what this discussion was about...SMFH. Do you ever go 0-15 in logic, or is everything always 0-120...this is juvenile.

 

[gkIrish]

Imagine the possibility that radical Islam and lack of gun control are both problems that need to be addressed.

I swear some of the discourse I'm seeing in this thread makes it seem like it has to be one or the other.

 

[Wild Bill]

Indeed. Whatever I feel like. A gun isn't a can of Pepsi. This kind of blase attitude about guns is why you are in the predicament you are in. The only intended use for a gun is to kill things. But heh, whatever you feel like.

Also, again, no one said anything about banning anything.

Or to deter and protect.

 

[NorthDakota]

Indeed. Whatever I feel like. A gun isn't a can of Pepsi. This kind of blase attitude about guns is why you are in the predicament you are in. The only intended use for a gun is to kill things. But heh, whatever you feel like.

Also, again, no one said anything about banning anything.

I don't see any predicament. It's a sad deal that those people are dead. I don't see why that should stop me from being able to purchase a firearm.

Then what are you suggesting? You've been throwing a fit about how people can purchase/own these guns.

 

[Bubbles]

Indeed. Whatever I feel like. A gun isn't a can of Pepsi. This kind of blase attitude about guns is why you are in the predicament you are in. The only intended use for a gun is to kill things. But heh, whatever you feel like.

Also, again, no one said anything about banning anything.

The plastic rings found on pepsi cans get stuck on, injure and kill dolphins. Why do you hate Dolphins!?!?

 

[ulukinatme]

Indeed. Whatever I feel like. A gun isn't a can of Pepsi. This kind of blase attitude about guns is why you are in the predicament you are in. The only intended use for a gun is to kill things. But heh, whatever you feel like.

Also, again, no one said anything about banning anything.

Or to deter and protect.

Or for recreation. I've shot targets and inanimate objects with no intention of ever aiming at a living thing.