[The Urban Sombrero]

Now that was a sidestep in a class by itself.

The comparison is about perverting the overall text with a controlling, single-minded agenda.
Although, and I concede this (and rejoice in it), Muhammed was no Prince of Peace, and when he could, he answered opposition with violence and cruelty.

[Granny Bear]

This is where the guy you seen on TV is wrong.
The same religion that he follows, according to Quran, is closely aligned with exactly what the jihadist are doing.
If he doesn't agree with extremism, then he shouldn't be a muslim. There teachings tell them to do so. He's not a "true" believer as they say if he doesn't believe in killing us "infidels".
That's why this isn't a terror problem or radical Islam problem. It just an islam problem. It's that faith in general that should be considered wrong and condemned. Until we eradicate that religion from our borders it will always be a problem.

I thought that too for a long time. I'm not so sure now though. I asked a Muslim friend of mine (??!!??) about jihad a few years ago. According to him, his interpretation is a holy war against himself. That was what Ramadan was about for him....soul searching and fixing things that he thought were inferior in his character.

Now all that being said, I don't for one second think that all Muslims believe this. BUT, I do think that he believed it.

[Do-double-gg]

In my opinion a gun (no matter the type) is an inanimate objec. A gun has never taken a human life ever without another human either pulling the trigger or improperly using handling or storing it in some shape form or fashion. If you took every gun away from every person right now we would still have mass killings. People who want to kill will do so with whatever they can get their hands on. They can try to regulate guns all they want but they can never regulate the evil that is in a mass killers heart so they will accomplish nothing from it. I think people are quick to forget about events like the Boston bombings and the Oklahoma City bombing, if they were to start banning guns I think events like that would become much more common. A single mass killer with a little time on their hands and an Internet connection can google how to make a bomb properly that if used correctly in the right time and place could kill way more people then they ever could accomplish with any gun. So what are we going to do then? I think my single main problem with banning any type of gun is this. If you were to ban AR's right now who do you think would turn their guns in? It would be the good law abiding people who are the exact ones who need the protection of the guns in the first place. Do you honestly believe the criminals and mass killers are going to follow the laws that they never follow anyway? So we would be disarming all the good people and empowering all the bad people. Do you have any idea how impossible it would be to track down all those guns that over the years have been traded and sold over and over again? Sometimes I wonder just how much crime is stopped every day just because the criminals think in the back of their head that if I break in this house or car jack this person or rape this person, what if they have a gun? Banning guns will never fix the problems we have in this world and just might make things worse.

[The Urban Sombrero]

For fear of getting a bad rating from the NRA, a majority of the United States Senate says, "Folks on the terror watch list and "no fly" list? Why, sure, here's your AR-15."

[The Urban Sombrero]

In my opinion a gun (no matter the type) is an inanimate objec. A gun has never taken a human life ever without another human either pulling the trigger or improperly using handling or storing it in some shape form or fashion. If you took every gun away from every person right now we would still have mass killings. People who want to kill will do so with whatever they can get their hands on. They can try to regulate guns all they want but they can never regulate the evil that is in a mass killers heart so they will accomplish nothing from it. I think people are quick to forget about events like the Boston bombings and the Oklahoma City bombing, if they were to start banning guns I think events like that would become much more common. A single mass killer with a little time on their hands and an Internet connection can google how to make a bomb properly that if used correctly in the right time and place could kill way more people then they ever could accomplish with any gun. So what are we going to do then? I think my single main problem with banning any type of gun is this. If you were to ban AR's right now who do you think would turn their guns in? It would be the good law abiding people who are the exact ones who need the protection of the guns in the first place. Do you honestly believe the criminals and mass killers are going to follow the laws that they never follow anyway? So we would be disarming all the good people and empowering all the bad people. Do you have any idea how impossible it would be to track down all those guns that over the years have been traded and sold over and over again? Sometimes I wonder just how much crime is stopped every day just because the criminals think in the back of their head that if I break in this house or car jack this person or rape this person, what if they have a gun? Banning guns will never fix the problems we have in this world and just might make things worse.

"Let's pass a sensible law that says if a person is on terror watch list or 'no fly' list that they can't purchase a military style, "mass kill" weapon."

"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Seriously, folks, is this really the best level of debate we can muster?

[SKINNYPIG]

For fear of getting a bad rating from the NRA, a majority of the United States Senate says, "Folks on the terror watch list and "no fly" list? Why, sure, here's your AR-15."

Hope I don't sound wacko but we should be VERY apprehensive about accepting lists compiled by...well, by who knows? In my opinion no list would ever stop mass killings like those that occurred over the last few years. I do think that innocent/harmless Americans will have their constitutional rights snatched away due to such a list though. Be very careful when willfully cracking your door, it might get jerked off the hinges.

[Demarcus ware]

For fear of getting a bad rating from the NRA, a majority of the United States Senate says, "Folks on the terror watch list and "no fly" list? Why, sure, here's your AR-15."

That's a good thing. The no fly list is a joke. Question is, what does it take to get on those list? If I act foolish on a plane how does that affect me being able to purchase a gun? It doesn't. If I'm in a terror watch list which is also ridiculous, what did i do to get on that list as well. Taking away rights needs to depend on more than a list that the government can just put you on for no reason. Look how many people accidentally end up on the no fly list.

[TheRealThing]

That's a good thing. The no fly list is a joke. Question is, what does it take to get on those list? If I act foolish on a plane how does that affect me being able to purchase a gun? It doesn't. If I'm in a terror watch list which is also ridiculous, what did i do to get on that list as well. Taking away rights needs to depend on more than a list that the government can just put you on for no reason. Look how many people accidentally end up on the no fly list.

I just saw an ID that a illegal immigrant from Saudi Arabia discarded into a border trash can after he used it and other documents such as his passport, to legally fly to Mexico. After these guys get to Mexico they throw all identifying documentation away so that they can claim 'credible fear' of prosecution in their own country. Our border agents are under strict orders to admit them even if they have no ID. So we're worried about the good citizens owning legal firearms but we're good with this Arab World fifth column. Unbelievable.

Dr Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas said a lady came up to him Sunday and said that she just couldn't make herself vote for Trump because she didn't like his tone. Dr Jeffress was beside himself and said something like this to her. "You've got to be kidding me, you're worried about tone when we are facing at least four more years of the Obama Administration if Hillary gets elected. Are you seriously telling me that you can accept Hillary as your new President? Will Trump do what he says he will do? I think he will. But we know Hillary will do what she says she will do and that is to advance the policies of this administration even farther."

People want to believe the lie in this day. We need to coalesce behind Donald Trump and defeat Hillary and what I believe will be certain disaster.

[The Urban Sombrero]

(1) As I understand it, 5,000 Americans are on the terror watch list and/or "no fly" list. If the issue truly was "good Americans owning firearms," I would understand. But, what is at issue here is banning those on the "no fly" and terror watch list from purchasing a military style, "mass kill" weapon. I believe in viewing the government with healthy skepticism, but this "crack the door and see it ripped from the hinges" stuff is akin to a paranoid cynicism.

(2) I do not believe the survival of the United States even remotely depends upon which candidate is elected President, speaking of paranoid cynicism.

[SKINNYPIG]

(1) As I understand it, 5,000 Americans are on the terror watch list and/or "no fly" list. If the issue truly was "good Americans owning firearms," I would understand. But, what is at issue here is banning those on the "no fly" and terror watch list from purchasing a military style, "mass kill" weapon. I believe in viewing the government with healthy skepticism, but this "crack the door and see it ripped from the hinges" stuff is akin to a paranoid cynicism.

(2) I do not believe the survival of the United States even remotely depends upon which candidate is elected President, speaking of paranoid cynicism.

I'm a lot of things, paranoid is not one of em. I simply do not see the list stopping any terrorists from doing what they do. I don't see their minds changing because they are on the list. I don't see their ability to "mass kill" decrease because their name is on the list. I DO see law abiding citizens being erroneously being put on the list, therefore losing their constitutional right. Who really gets the stinky end of the stick?

But hey, if it makes people "feel" safer, put 'em all on the list. After the next shooting will the "list" be expanded to cover whatever the next fool represents? After that, another list, right? Call it being paranoid if you wish, I see it as reality.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I'm a lot of things, paranoid is not one of em. I simply do not see the list stopping any terrorists from doing what they do. I don't see their minds changing because they are on the list. I don't see their ability to "mass kill" decrease because their name is on the list. I DO see law abiding citizens being erroneously being put on the list, therefore losing their constitutional right. Who really gets the stinky end of the stick?

But hey, if it makes people "feel" safer, put 'em all on the list. After the next shooting will the "list" be expanded to cover whatever the next fool represents? After that, another list, right? Call it being paranoid if you wish, I see it as reality.

If 5,000 Americans is the correct number at this point (on the terror watch/"no fly"), we are talking about a tiny piece of a 325,000,000 person pie. There is no guarantee that this measure will stop the next mass shooting. However, is it a reasonable, rational thing to ban folks on this list from being able to purchase a military style, "mass kill" weapon?

[TheRealThing]

^^ According to FactCheck.org, as of last December there were 25 thousand Americans on one or another of the no fly lists.

Innocent and honorable Americans wound up getting on some kind of list as they were targeted by the IRS and denied 501 c3 status. Americans who give to the Republican cause are on a list. Americans who donate to the American Center for Law and Justice go on a list. How would you suppose people such as those damnable Tea Partiers wind up on federal lists?

My guess would be they are put on those lists by their political foes from across the aisle. So, if one wanted to treat a decent, charitable, and hard working American patriot like a criminal just to mess with him, put them on the no fly list and watch them squirm like a worm on a hot grill.

[TheRealThing]

If 5,000 Americans is the correct number at this point (on the terror watch/"no fly"), we are talking about a tiny piece of a 325,000,000 person pie. There is no guarantee that this measure will stop the next mass shooting. However, is it a reasonable, rational thing to ban folks on this list from being able to purchase a military style, "mass kill" weapon?

Your argument is just another liberal cul-de-sac up La-La Land anti-logic. Law abiding citizens are going to continue to be law abiding no matter what kind of gun they own. They'll behave whether they own a hand gun, a shot gun, or an AR 15.

The FBI had this guy not once but twice and it was the ridiculous rules under which this administration forces agents to work that caused him to be released. That's where the conversation should be headed. But no, we have to chase yet another hare-brained liberal talking point down another rabbit hole to nowhere. If agents are not allowed to even mention the fact that this guy was a Muslim with extremist Islamic contacts no less in their report, we could put his name on the 10 most wanted list and he'd still get treated like some kind of saint. Pig has it exactly right. The list would wind up being used to harass Americans who've done nothing but pay their own way while real terrorists are given a pass. I mean, how many government run agencies have to tell us they're being told what they can and cannot do before liberals wake up? How many State Department employees have to sign a letter addressed to the President telling him he's wrong before the rest of America snaps out of this stupor?

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^ According to FactCheck.org, as of last December there were 25 thousand Americans on one or another of the no fly lists.

Innocent and honorable Americans wound up getting on some kind of list as they were targeted by the IRS and denied 501 c3 status. Americans who give to the Republican cause are on a list. Americans who donate to the American Center for Law and Justice go on a list. How would you suppose people such as those damnable Tea Partiers wind up on federal lists?

My guess would be they are put on those lists by their political foes from across the aisle. So, if one wanted to treat a decent, charitable, and hard working American patriot like a criminal just to mess with him, put them on the no fly list and watch them squirm like a worm on a hot grill.

I do not think people should be put on either list minus due process, which would need to be addressed. But, and I repeat this again, the ban I am here talking about only applies to military style, "mass kill" weapons.

[SKINNYPIG]

If 5,000 Americans is the correct number at this point (on the terror watch/"no fly"), we are talking about a tiny piece of a 325,000,000 person pie. There is no guarantee that this measure will stop the next mass shooting. However, is it a reasonable, rational thing to ban folks on this list from being able to purchase a military style, "mass kill" weapon?

Personally, I don't see it as reasonable or rational. ANY semi automatic rifle or shotgun can be used as a "mass kill" weapon. ANY semi automatic rifle can be modified to hold more rounds. Being "military style" has no bearing on how many can be killed, nor does it have any bearing on power. If we allow congress to pick and choose (put on a list) which gun is fit for us to own, that list will also grow as fools modify and use them. Many people are ignorant when it comes to guns, styles are moot when it comes to jihadists, they'll use whatever they choose, no matter what the laws are, so why make more laws/lists?

Look at drug laws (War on Drugs), all kinds of laws initially passed to curb or stop the illegal sale and possession of drugs. How's that working out? Lists grow weekly on drugs added as illegal to possess yet drug addicts have them. We have adequate laws pertaining to drug use but it's obvious more will not help the problem, nor will more gun laws stop jihadists. the problem is much deeper than the "style" of gun my friend.

[TheRealThing]

I do not think people should be put on either list minus due process, which would need to be addressed. But, and I repeat this again, the ban I am here talking about only applies to military style, "mass kill" weapons.

Well, while we're repeating ourselves... This is not about banning a gun. Like your liberal buzz word of the day, mass kill suggests, the left has come up with a tag meant to foment sympathy and garner support in simplistic terms; So that a certain gun control salesman, who happens to look an awful lot like our President, can get his foot in the door.

In other words, if they can get one little gun ban passed they will be able at least in some form, to control all guns. They're attempting to establish their own regulatory power over the 2nd Amendment, which was enshrined by the Framers you're always miss-citing, as a Constitutionally guaranteed right which was to be untouchable by government. One reg, that's all they're looking for and the DADT effect will wash over this land with immediate consequences.

[RCM]

Liberals and their lists!! What a wonderful tool to use against terrorists.....put their name on a damn list. That'll teach them.

Gun control, any form of it, is exactly like shutting down Ford Motor Company because of all the car accidents. After all, car accidents are the leading cause of death.

It's about time to get your head out of your asses and deal with reality.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, while we're repeating ourselves... This is not about banning a gun. Like your liberal buzz word of the day, mass kill suggests, the left has come up with a tag meant to foment sympathy and garner support in simplistic terms; So that a certain gun control salesman, who happens to look an awful lot like our President, can get his foot in the door.

In other words, if they can get one little gun ban passed they will be able at least in some form, to control all guns. They're attempting to establish their own regulatory power over the 2nd Amendment, which was enshrined by the Framers you're always miss-citing, as a Constitutionally guaranteed right which was to be untouchable by government. One reg, that's all they're looking for and the DADT effect will wash over this land with immediate consequences.

The idea here presented, a single measure targeting a single style weapon from being purchased by members of a single group, which, you argue, will become the harbinger of a "get the guns" landslide. Again, I have all kinds of relatives who have all kinds of guns, including a military style, "mass kill" weapon. None, I repeat none, of them would lose a single gun under this measure.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Liberals and their lists!! What a wonderful tool to use against terrorists.....put their name on a damn list. That'll teach them.

Gun control, any form of it, is exactly like shutting down Ford Motor Company because of all the car accidents. After all, car accidents are the leading cause of death.

It's about time to get your head out of your asses and deal with reality.

What is the purpose of the design of a car? Is the Taurus conceived as a way to launch a projectile? Yes, yes, that's it: a Ford Focus is a military style, "mass kill" weapon. What rubbish.

[RCM]

What is he purpose of the design of an airplane? Is an airplane conceived as a way to launch a projectile? Yet airplane WERE used as a "mass kill" weapon in the worst attack on American soil.

I work for a living. Two of my kids are working as college educated graduates. The other will be graduating in 2 years and my youngest is in the military.

So I live in reality, where as you appear to exist in the la-la land of entitlement.

[The Urban Sombrero]

"I work for a living."
"My son is in the military."
"I live in reality."
"I have two college educated kids."

I congratulate you on all these things. What they have to do with this particular debate, I have no idea. If you are suggesting that supporting a ban on those on the terror watch list or "no fly" list being able to purchase a military style, "mass kill" weapon equals living in non-reality, I question the validity. As for everyone who disagrees with you being Reagan's "welfare queen?" That must be very reassuring to you, you who lecture about fantasy and reality.

[TheRealThing]

"I work for a living."
"My son is in the military."
"I live in reality."
"I have two college educated kids."

I congratulate you on all these things. What they have to do with this particular debate, I have no idea. If you are suggesting that supporting a ban on those on the terror watch list or "no fly" list being able to purchase a military style, "mass kill" weapon equals living in non-reality, I question the validity. As for everyone who disagrees with you being Reagan's "welfare queen?" That must be very reassuring to you, you who lecture about fantasy and reality.

Well lets get to it then. Morality cannot be regulated or legislated, however, the destructive effects of immorality can, as US history clearly demonstrates, be mitigated when society stands in condemnation of such behavior. The liberal would rather offer excuses as to why we cannot judge or punish bad behavior thereby encouraging it instead of deterring it.

Nor can one legislate or otherwise regulate violence by blaming guns for actions taken by monsters who kill other people. In both scenarios, laws put in place hundreds of years ago were up until the circus came to power in DC, working just fine in limiting crime and keeping the unwed birth rate down in America. We now subsidize immorality in offering unquestioned cradle to grave support for those born out of wedlock. And in so doing, we transfer the financial responsibility or burden of the wild oat sowing jerks who have fathered and immediately abandoned the legions of unguided and unsupported offspring to those who live responsible life styles. Even more unthinkable are the tens of millions that have been butchered before or during their fist breaths. again, largely funded with tax dollars.

Rules are never going to control society. Only when facing stiff penalties equal to the weight of the crime committed, will people behave.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ What is at issue here is a singular ban on military style, "mass kill" weapons for those on the terror watch and "no fly" list. I agree that no one should be put on either list minus due process. As to your other diatribes, I think the United States has more people in prison than anybody in history. "Rules don't make anybody behave." If not to govern behavior, and establish order, why all the codifications in Leviticus? Why Paul's enjoinder to pray for and obey civil authority?

[RCM]

"I work for a living."
"My son is in the military."
"I live in reality."
"I have two college educated kids."

I congratulate you on all these things. What they have to do with this particular debate, I have no idea. If you are suggesting that supporting a ban on those on the terror watch list or "no fly" list being able to purchase a military style, "mass kill" weapon equals living in non-reality, I question the validity. As for everyone who disagrees with you being Reagan's "welfare queen?" That must be very reassuring to you, you who lecture about fantasy and reality.

You dodged the first sentence of my post. LOL You must be someone who can dish it out but can't take the reality when it's shoved back at you. JMO
My point was that I had worked for all of this and supplied for my family through hard work and dedication. I don't know what you are referring to when you say I'm Reagan's welfare queen. We never drew a dime of welfare in our life.

I also didn't say that mass kill weapons equals living in non-reality. My point is that a crazy terrorist can turn most anything into a mass kill weapon. The problem is the operator not the machine. And yes, I include guns in that sentence.

And by the way, just to show how easily you can misinterpret something due to your perspective, the child that joined the military is my daughter.

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ What is at issue here is a singular ban on military style, "mass kill" weapons for those on the terror watch and "no fly" list. I agree that no one should be put on either list minus due process. As to your other diatribes, I think the United States has more people in prison than anybody in history. "Rules don't make anybody behave." If not to govern behavior, and establish order, why all the codifications in Leviticus? Why Paul's enjoinder to pray for and obey civil authority?

Wrong. What's at issue here is the fact that the present leaders of our federal government absolutely refuse to admit the true scope and impact of radical Islam on America and the world. That and the fact that the military and civil authorities of this land now operate with their hands tied behind their backs as government attempts to manipulate planetary opinion to an acceptance of the liberal view.

One of the crown jewels of said liberal view is gun control and as we have seen in the repeal of DADT, every journey no matter how great starts with that first step. Any gun band enacted by Congress is the first step.

The people of England are about to vote as to whether or not to lay hold once again on state sovereignty, which at this point seems tenuous. While we here in the US seem just as likely to give up our sovereignty in an equally mindless manner. The stage is set for anti-Christ to appear and forgive me, but it would seem that we have on every hand apologists such as yourself, cheering it all on. Am I wrong?

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ Let's see, from advocating the ban of military style, "mass kill" weapons for purchase by those on terror watch or "no fly" list to an apologist for Qbut-style hatred of United States and an apologist for the anti-christ. Are you serious?

[The Urban Sombrero]

You dodged the first sentence of my post. LOL You must be someone who can dish it out but can't take the reality when it's shoved back at you. JMO
My point was that I had worked for all of this and supplied for my family through hard work and dedication. I don't know what you are referring to when you say I'm Reagan's welfare queen. We never drew a dime of welfare in our life.

I also didn't say that mass kill weapons equals living in non-reality. My point is that a crazy terrorist can turn most anything into a mass kill weapon. The problem is the operator not the machine. And yes, I include guns in that sentence.

And by the way, just to show how easily you can misinterpret something due to your perspective, the child that joined the military is my daughter.

I was saying that not every one who opposes your position is on welfare, though you might enjoy thinking that.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ Are you suggesting the conception of a commercial airliner included flying it into a building? As opposed to the conception of a military style, "mass kill" weapon?

[Demarcus ware]

Every time i see the phrase military style, "Mass kill" weapon i have to giggle a little. This tells me that the people saying it repeatedly knows nothing about the very guns they want to ban. As for Orlando, this guy could have killed as many with a sling shot, he was surfing facebook, and texting his wife at the same time for goodness sakes. Same could be said for Sandy hook school shooting. How many deaths per day in Chicago or other gun controlled city are because of these scary weapons you speak of, i'm willing to bet they aren't high powered rifles. Gun free zones are an easy target, leaving people as sitting ducks.

As for using the no fly list, here's a scenario for you, i know a guy that was on the no fly list, never committed a crime in his life, oh and he was a medal of honor recipient, but the government got it wrong as usual.

Fact is, these scary weapons are no more scary than any other weapon, they all will kill you or a room full of people. It's the monster shooting into a crowd that's the problem. I have several "scary" guns, and they've yet to kill anyone. Thing about it is, any one of my guns will kill you just as fast as the scary looking one's, even if they are hunting rifles. Just because a gun looks like a military gun doesn't mean it's any more dangerous.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Every time i see the phrase military style, "Mass kill" weapon i have to giggle a little. This tells me that the people saying it repeatedly knows nothing about the very guns they want to ban. As for Orlando, this guy could have killed as many with a sling shot, he was surfing facebook, and texting his wife at the same time for goodness sakes. Same could be said for Sandy hook school shooting. How many deaths per day in Chicago or other gun controlled city are because of these scary weapons you speak of, i'm willing to bet they aren't high powered rifles. Gun free zones are an easy target, leaving people as sitting ducks.

As for using the no fly list, here's a scenario for you, i know a guy that was on the no fly list, never committed a crime in his life, oh and he was a medal of honor recipient, but the government got it wrong as usual.

Fact is, these scary weapons are no more scary than any other weapon, they all will kill you or a room full of people. It's the monster shooting into a crowd that's the problem. I have several "scary" guns, and they've yet to kill anyone. Thing about it is, any one of my guns will kill you just as fast as the scary looking one's, even if they are hunting rifles. Just because a gun looks like a military gun doesn't mean it's any more dangerous.

I don't think Eugene Stoner's family would agree with you, giggle happy or not.