How is what is happening in VA affecting your your position on Gun Control? Should Americans have unfettered access to firearms? Is it our unrestricted Constitutional right to bear arms?
Onward and Upward!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Even with tighter gun control laws, do you honestly think that this guy would not have been able to obtain a firearm??? Come on, please!!!
Tighter gun control laws would only affect those who ABIDE BY THE LAW, not those who go against the law.
Even if all guns were outlawed, do you believe that all guns would be dispossed of so no one would have access??
A comment on the description of the "snipper". WorldNetDaily said that the description of the gunman was "Hispanic" or Middle Eastern 2 weeks ago!!!!! You didn't hear about it until yesterday.....I know the left is hoping it some white madman....
I also think that this is being done to throw off authorities for something bigger. Look at it, while the authorities are focusing on this snipper, it is setting up for a target that is not being watched. I hope not, but it makes sense.
Me thinks that this is an Islamic Terrorist operation: An excerpt from the article:
Federal authorities interviewed by WorldNetDaily say the sniper shootings are more sophisticated than first thought, and have the earmarks of an al-Qaida operation.
For one, the shootings are unbelievably brazen, like the Sept. 11 attacks. Eyewitnesses in both the Home Depot shooting in Falls Church, Va., and Exxon station shooting in Fredericksburg, Va., told authorities they saw a sniper taking aim and shooting from outside the reported getaway van, WorldNetDaily has learned.
The snipers, like the Sept. 11 hijackers, seem highly disciplined and under control. They've stayed away from the District of Columbia, where security is tight and Potomac bridges make escape risky. They take one shot, aiming at the head or heart, and flee the scene. A man shot at a Manassas, Va., Sunoco station, for example, was felled by a bullet that entered the upper left part of his back. They appear to have pre-selected their targets to spread the greatest fear in the nation's capital. Victims range in age (13 to 72), race and sex. Message: No one is safe – not even under a covered parking lot amid other shoppers, as they proved in the Home Depot assault.
They strike at day and at night – but not on weekends, ostensibly to breed panic among workers commuting into Washington Monday through Friday from the five bedroom communities where they've hit. It's as if the snipers are "on a mission to shut down" the nation's capital, observed one law-enforcement official. And it may be working: Many federal employees, including some at the Pentagon, have requested they be allowed to telecommute to work part of the week until the shootings stop, WorldNetDaily has learned.
By using common white delivery trucks and/or vans, snipers have spread law enforcement thin. Dragnets that have shut down major arteries in and out of the capital have proved fruitless. Some 200 detectives in the Washington area are working around the clock on the case. The FBI Terrorism Task Force has assigned agents. So have Maryland and Virginia state police. The Secret Service also is helping with the investigation, as WorldNetDaily first reported Oct 4. Next: The Pentagon is expected to help with aerial surveillance.
Snipers have managed to terrify America's capital with just 11 strategic shots. Homecoming football games and SAT tests have been canceled. Drivers are afraid to pump gas. Shoppers brave enough to go out walk briskly across parking lots in zig-zag patterns. Schools are in indefinite "lock-down," meaning kids can't go outside for recess until the snipers are caught.
The shootings took place alongside a resurgence in al-Qaida terrorism. Successful smaller-scale attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Yemen, Kuwait and Indonesia were apparently praised in a letter penned by Osama bin Laden himself, who appears to have reemerged defiantly from the shadows.
"These shootings are in line with cheap, low-level terrorism designed to disrupt commerce and law enforcement, and to lower morale," the ATF official summed up.
If I'm wrong, then I'll be the first to admit it!!!!!
Tighter gun control laws would only affect those who ABIDE BY THE LAW, not those who go against the law.
Even if all guns were outlawed, do you believe that all guns would be dispossed of so no one would have access??
A comment on the description of the "snipper". WorldNetDaily said that the description of the gunman was "Hispanic" or Middle Eastern 2 weeks ago!!!!! You didn't hear about it until yesterday.....I know the left is hoping it some white madman....
I also think that this is being done to throw off authorities for something bigger. Look at it, while the authorities are focusing on this snipper, it is setting up for a target that is not being watched. I hope not, but it makes sense.
Me thinks that this is an Islamic Terrorist operation: An excerpt from the article:
Federal authorities interviewed by WorldNetDaily say the sniper shootings are more sophisticated than first thought, and have the earmarks of an al-Qaida operation.
For one, the shootings are unbelievably brazen, like the Sept. 11 attacks. Eyewitnesses in both the Home Depot shooting in Falls Church, Va., and Exxon station shooting in Fredericksburg, Va., told authorities they saw a sniper taking aim and shooting from outside the reported getaway van, WorldNetDaily has learned.
The snipers, like the Sept. 11 hijackers, seem highly disciplined and under control. They've stayed away from the District of Columbia, where security is tight and Potomac bridges make escape risky. They take one shot, aiming at the head or heart, and flee the scene. A man shot at a Manassas, Va., Sunoco station, for example, was felled by a bullet that entered the upper left part of his back. They appear to have pre-selected their targets to spread the greatest fear in the nation's capital. Victims range in age (13 to 72), race and sex. Message: No one is safe – not even under a covered parking lot amid other shoppers, as they proved in the Home Depot assault.
They strike at day and at night – but not on weekends, ostensibly to breed panic among workers commuting into Washington Monday through Friday from the five bedroom communities where they've hit. It's as if the snipers are "on a mission to shut down" the nation's capital, observed one law-enforcement official. And it may be working: Many federal employees, including some at the Pentagon, have requested they be allowed to telecommute to work part of the week until the shootings stop, WorldNetDaily has learned.
By using common white delivery trucks and/or vans, snipers have spread law enforcement thin. Dragnets that have shut down major arteries in and out of the capital have proved fruitless. Some 200 detectives in the Washington area are working around the clock on the case. The FBI Terrorism Task Force has assigned agents. So have Maryland and Virginia state police. The Secret Service also is helping with the investigation, as WorldNetDaily first reported Oct 4. Next: The Pentagon is expected to help with aerial surveillance.
Snipers have managed to terrify America's capital with just 11 strategic shots. Homecoming football games and SAT tests have been canceled. Drivers are afraid to pump gas. Shoppers brave enough to go out walk briskly across parking lots in zig-zag patterns. Schools are in indefinite "lock-down," meaning kids can't go outside for recess until the snipers are caught.
The shootings took place alongside a resurgence in al-Qaida terrorism. Successful smaller-scale attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Yemen, Kuwait and Indonesia were apparently praised in a letter penned by Osama bin Laden himself, who appears to have reemerged defiantly from the shadows.
"These shootings are in line with cheap, low-level terrorism designed to disrupt commerce and law enforcement, and to lower morale," the ATF official summed up.
If I'm wrong, then I'll be the first to admit it!!!!!
Over the past 2 months, this has become one of my favorite topics. I just discovered, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the Founders didn't have guns in mind when they adopted the 2nd Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms" referred to the right to serve in the military. Somewhere along the line, the historic meaning of the term became lost to Americans, and courts have had little recourse since then but to interpret it as the right to own firearms.
Given what the founders really meant, the constitutionality of gun ownership should probably turn on other clauses, like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," or the commerce clause.
Having said that, I doubt any new laws are necessary or would be helpful, although before we can even ask the question, we need to catch this bastard and determine how he acquired his weapon.
By the way, Independent, the news info is really informative. I don't have an opinion on who it could be, but it definitely makes sense.
Given what the founders really meant, the constitutionality of gun ownership should probably turn on other clauses, like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," or the commerce clause.
Having said that, I doubt any new laws are necessary or would be helpful, although before we can even ask the question, we need to catch this bastard and determine how he acquired his weapon.
By the way, Independent, the news info is really informative. I don't have an opinion on who it could be, but it definitely makes sense.
Doesn't change my opinion at all that we have the right to bear arms. Gun control only affects those who actually abide by the laws governing gun ownership. Criminals like this person who operate and live outside the law, gun control means nothing to them and that is the problem.
What do you think about limiting just hand guns?
What do you think about the new gun "finger printing" technology?
Onward and Upward!
What do you think about the new gun "finger printing" technology?
Onward and Upward!
Good questions! I'm just starting to learn about gun control laws, but in general I think I like any law that calls for information about the gun and the owner, like registration, waiting periods, background checks, etc. But I'm not big on laws that ban actual ownership, unless it's automatic/assault weapons and things like that. As for handguns, I would like to have the right to carry a concealed weapon for my own protection.
What is "fingerprinting technology?"
What is "fingerprinting technology?"
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
What is "fingerprinting technology?"
Companies in the gun industry are developing a technology to be able to link a bullet with the specific gun that it came from. The technology is similar to what DNA does for humans.
Onward and Upward!
I have no problem doing background checks on potential gun owners since it is clear everyday in this country that there are people who have no need to process a firearm.
I see no problem is having a short waiting period to pick up your firearm, after all how many times do you just absolutely need a gun RIGHT NOW.
I think that every handgun sold should automatically come with a tigger lock.
That say anything that limits the rights of law abiding people to own however many guns that they want while not dealing effectively with the criminals and their unfeathered access to guns is wrong. That is the whole problem with this gun control the only guns being controlled are in the hands of people who don't use them everyday to commit crimes aganist the innocent.
Any technology that helps to identified criminals who use guns to commit crimes should be encouraged. Smart guns that only function using technology that identifies the appropriate user should be developed on a full scale also.
While the gun control adocates continue to tell stories of accidents due to gun use they always seem forget to tell the stories of innocent women and men who defended their lives and the lives of their loved ones with the use of a gun.
I see no problem is having a short waiting period to pick up your firearm, after all how many times do you just absolutely need a gun RIGHT NOW.
I think that every handgun sold should automatically come with a tigger lock.
That say anything that limits the rights of law abiding people to own however many guns that they want while not dealing effectively with the criminals and their unfeathered access to guns is wrong. That is the whole problem with this gun control the only guns being controlled are in the hands of people who don't use them everyday to commit crimes aganist the innocent.
Any technology that helps to identified criminals who use guns to commit crimes should be encouraged. Smart guns that only function using technology that identifies the appropriate user should be developed on a full scale also.
While the gun control adocates continue to tell stories of accidents due to gun use they always seem forget to tell the stories of innocent women and men who defended their lives and the lives of their loved ones with the use of a gun.
guns--not an advocate, or a supporter, but not against the right to anyone lawfully owning as many guns as they want.
i agree that no type of control or enforcement is going to keep criminals from getting guns and using them.
maybe i need to search for more information on the fingerprinting concept because i don't see how "linking a bullet with the specific gun that it came from" helps control criminal behavior.
criminals don't go to their local gun shop and purchase/register a gun--law abiding gun owner do. let's say as a law abiding gun owner, my gun gets stolen, and sold and re-sold x-times over, and ends up in the hands of a criminal who uses to kill people--how does knowing the gun that the bullet came from help catch the bad guy?
it can link the gun to the law abiding citizen who made the original purchase...but then what?
i'm sure i need more information, if anyone has anything...please share.
Don't make me come down there. --God
i agree that no type of control or enforcement is going to keep criminals from getting guns and using them.
maybe i need to search for more information on the fingerprinting concept because i don't see how "linking a bullet with the specific gun that it came from" helps control criminal behavior.
criminals don't go to their local gun shop and purchase/register a gun--law abiding gun owner do. let's say as a law abiding gun owner, my gun gets stolen, and sold and re-sold x-times over, and ends up in the hands of a criminal who uses to kill people--how does knowing the gun that the bullet came from help catch the bad guy?
it can link the gun to the law abiding citizen who made the original purchase...but then what?
i'm sure i need more information, if anyone has anything...please share.
Don't make me come down there. --God
Most likely the sniper is not a registered gun owner. Tightening gun laws makes it more difficult to defend ourselves from criminals who traded a kilo and two prostitutes for a Buick Regal trunk full of guns.
The argument that "if we ban guns only the criminals will have them" is problematic in my view for the following reasons:
This statement implies that everyone in America owns guns and that by removing them from lawful Americans, only criminals will posess them. In reality, only 25% of Americans own guns. The vast majority, naturally, then do not.
The suggestion, therefore, that citizen gun ownership is a meaningful protection and deterrent against criminal behavior therefore has no merit. The vast majority of Americans are NOT using guns to protect themselves.
This statement also implcitly infers that the more guns that Americans have, the safer we'll be. This contradicts the facts which show that the incidence of crime and murder is directly proportionate to the increase in gun distribution. People aren't safer with guns, they are deader.
Guns are a part of American culture. So was slavery, lynching and segregation. Enlightened Americans looking to make this country even greater decided that it no longer made sense to engage in the former activities. We can do so with regard to the latter.
As an aside, I'm not moved by constitutional arguments about gun ownership. There have been plenty of examples where current sensibilities have proven the Framers' ideas outmoded. You and I considered 3/5 of a human being is but one of them. In my opinion, the "right" to bear arms is another.
Onward and Upward!
The suggestion, therefore, that citizen gun ownership is a meaningful protection and deterrent against criminal behavior therefore has no merit. The vast majority of Americans are NOT using guns to protect themselves.
Guns are a part of American culture. So was slavery, lynching and segregation. Enlightened Americans looking to make this country even greater decided that it no longer made sense to engage in the former activities. We can do so with regard to the latter.
As an aside, I'm not moved by constitutional arguments about gun ownership. There have been plenty of examples where current sensibilities have proven the Framers' ideas outmoded. You and I considered 3/5 of a human being is but one of them. In my opinion, the "right" to bear arms is another.
Onward and Upward!
I'm curious about where the 25% stat comes from. I guess since I am of southern extraction, it seems to me that almost everyone I know owns a gun and owns it for either hunting, hunting, hunting, or scaring off would be assailants.
fathers give their sons guns for their 7th birthday.
grandma keeps one under her mattress
and single women traveling alone love those dainty ones with the pink pearl handle.
"This statement implies that everyone in America owns guns and that by removing them from lawful Americans, only criminals will posess them. In reality, only 25% of Americans own guns. The vast majority, naturally, then do not."
Why would we remove guns from lawful americans?
fathers give their sons guns for their 7th birthday.
grandma keeps one under her mattress
and single women traveling alone love those dainty ones with the pink pearl handle.
"This statement implies that everyone in America owns guns and that by removing them from lawful Americans, only criminals will posess them. In reality, only 25% of Americans own guns. The vast majority, naturally, then do not."
Why would we remove guns from lawful americans?
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
Why would we remove guns from lawful americans?
'Cause "shit happens"!
Seriously though - accidents happen. Your kid finds it and starts playing around with it and blows his head off. You get in a fight and your spouse blows your head off. You get depressed and blow your own head off. You see someone out on an evening walk, confuse them for a burglar, and mistakenly blow their head off. You're cleaning it one day, you make a mistake and blow your kids head off. ETC.!
Plus, "lawful" Americans, under the right circumstances, can quickly become "unlawful" Americans.
Seriously though, why do you need something, the sole purpose of which is to kill another human being? Really, why? What's the point? I ask that in all seriousness and with all due respect.
Onward and Upward!
between letting an assailant kill you and squeezing off a round of ammo which may not kill them, but might scare the bejesus out of them enough to send them running and leave you alone....
Which would u choose?
Ok,
If citizens were stripped of their right to own a gun, what would you prefer they use to even the balance of power between themselves and a killer?
alarm systems are good, but even better in conjunction with a firearm...
this is one of my "conservative" stances...lol
Which would u choose?
Ok,
If citizens were stripped of their right to own a gun, what would you prefer they use to even the balance of power between themselves and a killer?
alarm systems are good, but even better in conjunction with a firearm...
this is one of my "conservative" stances...lol
I will agree with that.
chit like
heart attack
car accidents
cancer
sex/AIDs
kills way more people on a daily basis than guns, don't ya think?
chit like
heart attack
car accidents
cancer
sex/AIDs
kills way more people on a daily basis than guns, don't ya think?
- Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40
These increased risks persisted for more than five years after the purchase.
- CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8)
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)
- Harvard School of Public Health
- U.S. Department of Justice
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
- National Institute of Justice (May '97)
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8)
- Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
17,566 in firearm suicides,
13,522 in firearm homicides,
981 in unintentional firearm deaths,
367 in firearm deaths of undetermined intent.
Onward and Upward!
[This message was edited by MBM on October 19, 2002 at 04:22 PM.]
but they don't tell whether or not these injuries were caused by registered guns, just guns period - therefore there is no way to make an effective argument for the removal of firearms from law abiding citizens with registered guns.
other points to ponder may be
Gun control/removal will not deter suicide since guns are not the cause of suicide, emotional status is.
Perhaps white males (who have the highest rates of suicide) and black males (with the highest rates of homicide) should be legally barred from gun ownership. According to the above stats american males are not to be trusted with guns.
interesting point about the stats comparing death rates in USA and other countries, but doesn't that imply that violence in an of itself, not necessarily firearms, is a problem in the American culture?
HIV/AIDs kills thousands of people per day around the world. Will we strip citizens of reproductive systems?
other points to ponder may be
Gun control/removal will not deter suicide since guns are not the cause of suicide, emotional status is.
Perhaps white males (who have the highest rates of suicide) and black males (with the highest rates of homicide) should be legally barred from gun ownership. According to the above stats american males are not to be trusted with guns.
interesting point about the stats comparing death rates in USA and other countries, but doesn't that imply that violence in an of itself, not necessarily firearms, is a problem in the American culture?
HIV/AIDs kills thousands of people per day around the world. Will we strip citizens of reproductive systems?
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
HIV/AIDs kills thousands of people per day around the world. Will we strip citizens of reproductive systems?
I hope you're not suggesting that because there are many things out there that harm and kill people, that we just give up and do nothing about anything? Don't we have a responsibility to do what we can to make our country better? Shouldn't we do what we can do?
Reducing the number of guns seems like an easy thing to do that will yield immediate results. Let's take the 'low hanging fruit' first.
Onward and Upward!
since laws against guns would only remove guns from the hands of lawful gun owners. Gangbangers, mafiosos, other assorted criminals who kill as a career option will still have guns.
Outlawing guns only removes the gun from under grandma's mattress. It does not eliminate the cache being shipped in exchange for kilos of cocaine. How will this help?
I think the American culture of violence, not guns, needs to be eliminated.
*the hiv/aids point was meant to imply that people are dying in greater numbers from diseases than gunshots...isn't that a priority?
Outlawing guns only removes the gun from under grandma's mattress. It does not eliminate the cache being shipped in exchange for kilos of cocaine. How will this help?
I think the American culture of violence, not guns, needs to be eliminated.
*the hiv/aids point was meant to imply that people are dying in greater numbers from diseases than gunshots...isn't that a priority?
Talking about gun control is a nice idealist thing to do to impress your liberal friends, but the cold hard truth is that until you can gurantee that the only people who process firearms are the police and the military, then gun control will never happen. Its kinda of funny, Rosie O'Donald big gun control person but her bodyguard applied for carrying a concealed permit, Carl Rowan the columnist from DC big gun control person but several years ago shot a kid for climbing over his fence and taking a midnight dip in his pool (even I wouldn't shoot a kid for that).
What do those examples prove, they prove that they talk the talk but in reality know that owning a gun makes them feel safer. Three different times in my life I have pulled my weapon prepared to defend myself and my family, I firmly believe that the site of me holding that big .357 make the person think twice about screwing with me and my family, for that I don't apoloize to anyone.
It would be nice to post the numbers of everyday people who used a gun to protect themselves or stop a crime, why is that whenever numbers are posted those numbers are never shown. I suspect it is because those numbers would overwhelming show that guns in the hands of law abiding people prevent more crimes then they are used to committ them.
What do those examples prove, they prove that they talk the talk but in reality know that owning a gun makes them feel safer. Three different times in my life I have pulled my weapon prepared to defend myself and my family, I firmly believe that the site of me holding that big .357 make the person think twice about screwing with me and my family, for that I don't apoloize to anyone.
It would be nice to post the numbers of everyday people who used a gun to protect themselves or stop a crime, why is that whenever numbers are posted those numbers are never shown. I suspect it is because those numbers would overwhelming show that guns in the hands of law abiding people prevent more crimes then they are used to committ them.
and one was a Muslim, killing black people too, I think that 13 year old school kid was black.
Well, African Muslims, enslave Black people, kill African people, take their land, force their faith on everyone, take their resources, destroy african culture, so sniping innocent black and white men, women and children is a pattern for them. SELL OUTS!!!! for a religion which matches up with their vehement HATE FOR AMERICA!
I hope they are the wrong ones but it looks like they are the culprits.
It was also those Muslim Blacks in Detroit who was planning terrorists acts against Americans.
Well, African Muslims, enslave Black people, kill African people, take their land, force their faith on everyone, take their resources, destroy african culture, so sniping innocent black and white men, women and children is a pattern for them. SELL OUTS!!!! for a religion which matches up with their vehement HATE FOR AMERICA!
I hope they are the wrong ones but it looks like they are the culprits.
It was also those Muslim Blacks in Detroit who was planning terrorists acts against Americans.
They haven't even been charged with anything yet. For all we know they could just be material witnesses. Let's not hang 'em yet!
Just checked CNN. Looks pretty convincing.
Are these guys the ones or are they being railroaded? There aren't too many (any?) black serial killers out there.
Are these guys the ones or are they being railroaded? There aren't too many (any?) black serial killers out there.
Not that I wanted them to get away with it... but where did the stupidity come in where they practically gave themselves up. I mean this guy was once in the military and he did not have any better sense than that?
Transfer to a bank account in Jamaica. Notes in broken english. Mention of looking in Montgomery?? (Not sure of the exact words) and sleeping in a public place when people are looking for you and your car, not staying on top of the news. Geesh, not a time to be napping. Even I know to have stuff transfered to the Caman Islands (from watching TV)
Another question... was the fact that a gun of the same type was found in the car mentioned early or later? It seems to me that fact was known later in the news, which makes it suspicious. I don't trust the government not to plant shyt when convenient.
What happens if there is another snipper attack while they are in custody? Maybe this was planned for, could be more in the group.
I wonder if there will be copycats. The (terrorist) world was just shown how to really get to us.
I also heard (on the radio this morning), that those who are real sharp shooters (that we trained in our militaries) are monitored for life. To be able to kill with one shot like that takes certain abilites and training. I wonder if they were going down their list of people with this ability one by one until they found him/her.
Anyway... I don't see him as a serial killer. He was holding an area for ransom. A serial killer usually gets off on killing and wants to just do it for the sake of doing it. No, this guy had a plan and several innocent people had to die for him to get 10 million...Means to an End. There are a lot of people, who if they thought they could get away with it, would do the same thing. Riches without regard to human life or quality of life. OUR ECONOMY IS BASED ON THIS.
La Femme Nkechi
Transfer to a bank account in Jamaica. Notes in broken english. Mention of looking in Montgomery?? (Not sure of the exact words) and sleeping in a public place when people are looking for you and your car, not staying on top of the news. Geesh, not a time to be napping. Even I know to have stuff transfered to the Caman Islands (from watching TV)
Another question... was the fact that a gun of the same type was found in the car mentioned early or later? It seems to me that fact was known later in the news, which makes it suspicious. I don't trust the government not to plant shyt when convenient.
What happens if there is another snipper attack while they are in custody? Maybe this was planned for, could be more in the group.
I wonder if there will be copycats. The (terrorist) world was just shown how to really get to us.
I also heard (on the radio this morning), that those who are real sharp shooters (that we trained in our militaries) are monitored for life. To be able to kill with one shot like that takes certain abilites and training. I wonder if they were going down their list of people with this ability one by one until they found him/her.
Anyway... I don't see him as a serial killer. He was holding an area for ransom. A serial killer usually gets off on killing and wants to just do it for the sake of doing it. No, this guy had a plan and several innocent people had to die for him to get 10 million...Means to an End. There are a lot of people, who if they thought they could get away with it, would do the same thing. Riches without regard to human life or quality of life. OUR ECONOMY IS BASED ON THIS.
La Femme Nkechi
quote:- Think about the effects even your smallest actions have on the world. You are often a part of the problem. Stop pointing fingers, accept responsibility and be a part of the solution. Create your higher self!
Be the change in the world you want to see
Nkechi, I also tend to be suspect of law enforcement. The OJ situation has shown us that law enforcement will manufacture evidence supportive of their theories.
Maybe, this guy will get off on the same basis. He better call Johnnie C.
I liked your "he was holding the area for ransom, he's not serial killer" spin. Maybe Johnnie can use that one.
Maybe, this guy will get off on the same basis. He better call Johnnie C.
I liked your "he was holding the area for ransom, he's not serial killer" spin. Maybe Johnnie can use that one.
So the one who killed because he was Muslim, did so because of his religion and the one who was non-Muslim did so because of whatever reason? The problem here is NOT Islam, but your preception of it.
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. " Quran 5:3
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
Malcolm X 1965 on Islam
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. " Quran 5:3
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
Malcolm X 1965 on Islam
And I don't mean the military, I mean the Combat Engineers. We spent the day trying to recall if any of us served with the twit and making calls to friends to see if anyone remembered the bum.
LaFemmeNkechi
Not even remotely true, he was not a sniper just an expert marksman. If our gov't is wasting time tracking anyone who makes expert sharpshooter, we have serious issues. Sniper school trains you more in the aspect of not being seen.
What does his military career have to do with him being a complete idiot?
LaFemmeNkechi
quote:
I also heard (on the radio this morning), that those who are real sharp shooters (that we trained in our militaries) are monitored for life. To be able to kill with one shot like that takes certain abilites and training. I wonder if they were going down their list of people with this ability one by one until they found him/her.
Not even remotely true, he was not a sniper just an expert marksman. If our gov't is wasting time tracking anyone who makes expert sharpshooter, we have serious issues. Sniper school trains you more in the aspect of not being seen.
quote:
I mean this guy was once in the military and he did not have any better sense than that?
What does his military career have to do with him being a complete idiot?
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
What does his military career have to do with him being a complete idiot?
I make the presumption that people in the military are trained in the art of war. Trained in how to be in enemy territory and not get caught. Etc... training that would suggest you don't do things that would give away your position or identity. I hope this is true, or else we are in trouble if we don't have highly competent people defending us.
Why would they not track the people they have trained that could eventually be a threat?
Are you aware that before the president goes anywhere, a team of snippers are sent to the location and are ready to shoot anyone? I would want to know where people like this are at all times. And maybe he did not make snipper training... but I'd have those people who were expert marksmen on some list (if I was a government).
La Femme Nkechi
quote:- Think about the effects even your smallest actions have on the world. You are often a part of the problem. Stop pointing fingers, accept responsibility and be a part of the solution. Create your higher self!
Be the change in the world you want to see
Everyone in the military goes to markmanship training and numerous people hit expert including basic trainees, women, reserves national guard, etc. The majority of those that hit expert gained experience from hunting or shooting on the civilian side. Hitting marksman on a 300 meter range takes very little skill at all.
If they were really worried, his demolitions training would be more of a threat than his shooting ability. But since he was a total idiot he probably would blow himself up first.
If they were really worried, his demolitions training would be more of a threat than his shooting ability. But since he was a total idiot he probably would blow himself up first.
quote:
Originally posted by Icon:
They haven't even been charged with anything yet. For all we know they could just be material witnesses. Let's not hang 'em yet!
HANG 'EM and HANG 'EM HIGH!!!!!!!!
The evidence is all there, unless you think the racists are planting it so as to set these poor "brothers" up.
Let's see: They shot more "people of colour" more than "whites" including a 13 year old black kid.
Blacks aren't capable of being serial killers, come on, please!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by ArabianQueen:
So the one who killed because he was Muslim, did so because of his religion and the one who was non-Muslim did so because of whatever reason? The problem here is NOT Islam, but your preception of it.
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. " Quran 5:3
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
Malcolm X 1965 on Islam
Well let's see: My Indian friends who never say anything bad about ANYTHING, that is except for Islam.
Let's look at the problems around the world:
Chechnea (sic): Russias' muslim problem
Sudan: arab muslims enslaving and mutilating black Sudansese Christians
India: where muslims routinely blow up and terrorize Hindus
Indonesia: Phillipines.
The problem is not Islam per se. But the problem I have with Islam is that it's mainstream leaders do not speak out enough against the fundamentalists. So non-muslims get the perception that Islam teaches it's practioners to be violent.
One of the most genuine humble person that I have met happens to be a Muslim from Bangladesh. He has the same problems with Islam that I do, though he practises Islam. I am convinced that it is people like him who represent the majority of Muslims. He makes NO EXCUSES. He thinks the NOI are imposters. But what I see in you is a person who makes excuses and refuse to see the wrong that your Muslim brethern committs. Yes, I admit that I am rather prejudicial. I do not want to be, but I can't help it. I try, but so far, the writings of the majority of the Musilms make it such that it re-enforces my feelings.
In their typical insidious manor, the white media is questioning whether Islamic organizations like the Nation of Islam and other orthodox Islamic practices in general foster the kind of violence witnessed in the sniper killings. Is it not true that the Christian faith, chattel slavery, the Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, Identity Christians, American Nazis, Skin Heads, and the variety of Southern Confederate organizations all rest at the core of the most violent interactions between the white and black races!
Shouldn't Americans be asking if Christian organizations like above mentioned promote violence? Isn't that the real question?
Shouldn't Americans be asking if Christian organizations like above mentioned promote violence? Isn't that the real question?
Kraaal,
You were in such a hurry and in what looks like a steam of emotion that I think that you confused a couple of nonchristian organizations twith teh Church.
Aryan Nations, the Klan, Skinheads, Nazis, and groups like them are NOT Christian. They don't read the Bible, they don't obey the Ten Commandments, they don't obey the words of Jesus, they don't study the letters of the apostles in order to live like Christians...
If it doesn't look like a duck, if it doesn't walk like a duck, if it doesn't sound like a duck...
So why change the subject and drag the Christians into a discussion that was not about them to begin with?
You were in such a hurry and in what looks like a steam of emotion that I think that you confused a couple of nonchristian organizations twith teh Church.
Aryan Nations, the Klan, Skinheads, Nazis, and groups like them are NOT Christian. They don't read the Bible, they don't obey the Ten Commandments, they don't obey the words of Jesus, they don't study the letters of the apostles in order to live like Christians...
If it doesn't look like a duck, if it doesn't walk like a duck, if it doesn't sound like a duck...
So why change the subject and drag the Christians into a discussion that was not about them to begin with?
Actually, your right, I will ask MBM to repost elsewhere
I'll remove the post if you like, but actually Kraaal you are right. At least with the KKK and a number of white supremacist groups - they do use Christianity as the basis of their beliefs. Of course they bend the meaning and words of the Bible to fit their bizaare interpretations, but they call themselves "Christian".
Remember "cross burnings"?
Onward and Upward!
Remember "cross burnings"?
Onward and Upward!
And what church burns a cross?
OK, Your child--he's now a seven year old with an active imagination--has started calling himself a Buick. He limps into the house one afternoon crying and holding his arm which sticks out at a very strange angle. He didn't have two elbows before he went out to play, so you realize that his arm is broken. You:
a. Go to Honest Levon's Garage and Auto Emporium
b. Go to the hospital emergency room.
You know what you would pick, because no matter how many times Little Larnell has called himself a Buick, you know that he's not one.
OK, so these guys call themselves Christians or say that they are a Christian organization. A name does not a Christian make, or have we never heard the word "hypocrisy"?
Christianity is not even the basis of their beliefs. It never calls for hatred by reason of race or color. It does say that a believer should not marry an unbeliever, and that's why in the OT Jews werenot supposed to intermarry with other peoples UNLESS they had become Jews. It's a religious issue, not a racial one.
Therefore the racial hatred of the KKK and others like them is not Christian, not matter how often they may say that it is. That's because they are not Christian. They don't even have a Christian "basis." They just use the name, but it means about as much as if David Duke called himself a Zulu.
Besides, the thread was about snipers and gun control. Muslims were mentioned because one of them has the name of Muhammad. When Kraaaal mentioned Christians, he was changing the subject. I fully expect that Christianity has little to do with what Malvo and Muhammad have done.
OK, Your child--he's now a seven year old with an active imagination--has started calling himself a Buick. He limps into the house one afternoon crying and holding his arm which sticks out at a very strange angle. He didn't have two elbows before he went out to play, so you realize that his arm is broken. You:
a. Go to Honest Levon's Garage and Auto Emporium
b. Go to the hospital emergency room.
You know what you would pick, because no matter how many times Little Larnell has called himself a Buick, you know that he's not one.
OK, so these guys call themselves Christians or say that they are a Christian organization. A name does not a Christian make, or have we never heard the word "hypocrisy"?
Christianity is not even the basis of their beliefs. It never calls for hatred by reason of race or color. It does say that a believer should not marry an unbeliever, and that's why in the OT Jews werenot supposed to intermarry with other peoples UNLESS they had become Jews. It's a religious issue, not a racial one.
Therefore the racial hatred of the KKK and others like them is not Christian, not matter how often they may say that it is. That's because they are not Christian. They don't even have a Christian "basis." They just use the name, but it means about as much as if David Duke called himself a Zulu.
Besides, the thread was about snipers and gun control. Muslims were mentioned because one of them has the name of Muhammad. When Kraaaal mentioned Christians, he was changing the subject. I fully expect that Christianity has little to do with what Malvo and Muhammad have done.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Therefore the racial hatred of the KKK and others like them is not Christian, not matter how often they may say that it is.
Would David Duke agree with you? The point is that people are rushing to universal condemnation of Islam, yet have not characterized Christianity in the same manner despite equally despicable behavior. The other point is that people of all ilk utilize religion to support whatever belief system they have. Your interpretation of the Bible may be completely inconsistent and incompatible with someone else's. Of course each believes they have the truth.
IMO - bottom line - it ain't about religion, it's about people. Let's not evolve from racial profiling to religous profiling.
Onward and Upward!
On the topic of gun control...
As long as ordinary citizens are allowed the right to protect themselves, the criminal will always have to think twice about victimizing someone. Remember, the teacher and the students at that law school in Virginia shot back at the shooter, and saved themselves and everyone else. I bet no disgruntled __________ will bother that school again.
When we were teenagers, a friend of mine experienced a home invasion. She and her mother managed to drive him out, fortunately. He was unarmed, but so were they. So would a no-gun law have made a difference? Well--I don't think he would have bothered them if they had an NRA sticker on their door. I also doubt this would have happened if they lived in say, Texas.
Incidentally, here's an article from Reason online about how banning guns didn't help England:Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
The author goes into how Britain first had people register for guns with the chief of police. I don't know why it was imagined criminals would go along with this, but anyway:
Ultimately, the anti-gun laws became anti self-defense with respect to banning anything that could be used for self-defense. Let's learn from England's mistake.
As long as ordinary citizens are allowed the right to protect themselves, the criminal will always have to think twice about victimizing someone. Remember, the teacher and the students at that law school in Virginia shot back at the shooter, and saved themselves and everyone else. I bet no disgruntled __________ will bother that school again.
When we were teenagers, a friend of mine experienced a home invasion. She and her mother managed to drive him out, fortunately. He was unarmed, but so were they. So would a no-gun law have made a difference? Well--I don't think he would have bothered them if they had an NRA sticker on their door. I also doubt this would have happened if they lived in say, Texas.
Incidentally, here's an article from Reason online about how banning guns didn't help England:Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
The author goes into how Britain first had people register for guns with the chief of police. I don't know why it was imagined criminals would go along with this, but anyway:
quote:
At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."
In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person."
...Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.
Ultimately, the anti-gun laws became anti self-defense with respect to banning anything that could be used for self-defense. Let's learn from England's mistake.
I believe that owning a firearm is an American privilege. I learned about rifles when I was in ROTC and that taught me how to respect and care for a weapon. When I was in the Army, I sometimes drew duty as the pay officer. I was required to carry a forty-five sidearm and have a guard accompany me as long as I had all that cash in my possession. I also did some skeet shooting while in the mulitary and that is really fun. A firearm can be a detriment or benefit. Perhaps what should be required before an individual purchases and is allowed to own a firearm is an extensive education about pistols and rifles. Owning and possessing a firearm should not be any different than owning or driving an automobile.
Let me take it a couple of levels out for the purposes of probing the limits of your beliefs. Apparently what those of you who support gun ownership believe is that the government is not able to adequately protect you, therefore you need guns to supplement their effort.
First, is this true?
Second, since many of the gun proponents here are also conservatives (and believe in limited government) - would you then agree to doing away with local police completely and arming and training every citizen in our nation to protect themselves? Since you seem to suggest that the threat that some of us might be caryying guns seems to be a conmpelling deterrent to criminals, wouldn't all of us carrying guns elevate that threat to the point where criminals would be completely deterred from their criminal behavior?
This would also seem to accomplish two conservative objectives at once: 1) having a fully armed poopulation (thus increasing the fear that every home would be armed/protected and thus not a good chance for a criminal to take), and 2) it obviously would free up perhaps billions of dollars around the country that could be returned to our pockets. It reduces government.
What do you think? Is making personal safety an individual responsibility something that makes sense to you?
Onward and Upward!
First, is this true?
Second, since many of the gun proponents here are also conservatives (and believe in limited government) - would you then agree to doing away with local police completely and arming and training every citizen in our nation to protect themselves? Since you seem to suggest that the threat that some of us might be caryying guns seems to be a conmpelling deterrent to criminals, wouldn't all of us carrying guns elevate that threat to the point where criminals would be completely deterred from their criminal behavior?
This would also seem to accomplish two conservative objectives at once: 1) having a fully armed poopulation (thus increasing the fear that every home would be armed/protected and thus not a good chance for a criminal to take), and 2) it obviously would free up perhaps billions of dollars around the country that could be returned to our pockets. It reduces government.
What do you think? Is making personal safety an individual responsibility something that makes sense to you?
Onward and Upward!