Anonymous wrote:France has now eased it's gun rules to allow off duty officers to carry weapons after an Islamic state fanatic slaughtered an officer and his wife in front of their child on live stream - with a knife.

Anonymous wrote:

with the Boston bombers, two people killed 4. in Orlando, one killed 50. in Newtown one killed 30 in less than 5 minutes, same at VA Tech. powerful bombs that kill a lot of people can be made, but they normally require skills and organization random idiots like the Orlando killer normally do not have. assault weapons, high capacity magazines make any single idiot with no skills a mass killer in just a few minutes. the US with its idiotic laws on weapons is actually ISIS paradise. any lone wolf with no preparation and skills can wake up one morning and make a massacre (heck, it does not even need money, just max out the credit card, like the San Bernardino guy did) . forget trying to recruit US fighters to go to Syria, they are of much better use here clearly. and this is just for the terrorists, then there are the mentally ill, who so far are responsible for the vast majority of the massacres

Anonymous wrote:When earlier immigrants came:

1. They did not fly home frequently.
2. They did not communicate on a daily basis with the "old country"....
3. They did not have dual passports--because they seldom traveled.
4. Their allegiance changed to US--they may have been proud of their heritage, but their loyalties were not divided.
5. They did not criticize the US as much--because they were grateful to be here.

Anonymous wrote:
with the Boston bombers, two people killed 4. in Orlando, one killed 50. in Newtown one killed 30 in less than 5 minutes, same at VA Tech. powerful bombs that kill a lot of people can be made, but they normally require skills and organization random idiots like the Orlando killer normally do not have. assault weapons, high capacity magazines make any single idiot with no skills a mass killer in just a few minutes. the US with its idiotic laws on weapons is actually ISIS paradise. any lone wolf with no preparation and skills can wake up one morning and make a massacre (heck, it does not even need money, just max out the credit card, like the San Bernardino guy did) . forget trying to recruit US fighters to go to Syria, they are of much better use here clearly. and this is just for the terrorists, then there are the mentally ill, who so far are responsible for the vast majority of the massacres

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

And private aircraft. And hardware store shopping for bomb ingredients. And motor vehicles. What else, Einstein?

With the exception of bomb ingredient, those things are regulated way more extensively than guns. Guns shouldn't be any different. Bombs that kill 49 people are hard to make.

+1 to all of this. There is a reason that guns are the mass murderers weapon-of-choice in this country. 9/11 took a lot of planning, which is part of why missing it was deemed such an intelligence failure. Very few people can make stable, transportable bombs capable of killing 49 people even in an enclosed area like a nightclub. Just about anyone, though, can buy a gun.

Ehh, have to disagree. pipe bombs or even pressure cooker bombs are much easier and you also don't have the paper trail of a gun. The ingredients are easily obtainable and don't set off red flags. You can also place one and get away (like the Boston Bombers) if you don't have a death wish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't have to amend the Constitution for gay marriage and we don't have to to regulate guns. It's not that complicated people.

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Next.

It was a question of constitutional interpretation. Read the opinion. I can tell you're not a lawyer.

Overturning the right to own a gun would overturn a whole lot of precedent, so good luck with that.

And, again, which mainstream Democratic national leaders are calling for gun bans or something that would prevent the horrible gun deaths we see? Not Sanders, Obama or HRC. They talk in circles about making sure guns don't get in the hands of the wrong people and talk about ""military-assault rifles" which means nothing to anybody that has even a basic understanding of guns.

Hillary is running for President against a frigging clownshow, and yet even in this position, she is afraid to take on the gun issue, because it might actually cost her the election.

Gay marriage decision overturned a lot of precedent. No problem. It will get done. Hillary will do it. Go load up on your guns now, PP. The end is near.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't have to amend the Constitution for gay marriage and we don't have to to regulate guns. It's not that complicated people.

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Next.

It was a question of constitutional interpretation. Read the opinion. I can tell you're not a lawyer.

Overturning the right to own a gun would overturn a whole lot of precedent, so good luck with that.

And, again, which mainstream Democratic national leaders are calling for gun bans or something that would prevent the horrible gun deaths we see? Not Sanders, Obama or HRC. They talk in circles about making sure guns don't get in the hands of the wrong people and talk about ""military-assault rifles" which means nothing to anybody that has even a basic understanding of guns.

Hillary is running for President against a frigging clownshow, and yet even in this position, she is afraid to take on the gun issue, because it might actually cost her the election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't have to amend the Constitution for gay marriage and we don't have to to regulate guns. It's not that complicated people.

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Next.

It was a question of constitutional interpretation. Read the opinion. I can tell you're not a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the Indians would love to evict all of use Europeans from their country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't have to amend the Constitution for gay marriage and we don't have to to regulate guns. It's not that complicated people.

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Next.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

And private aircraft. And hardware store shopping for bomb ingredients. And motor vehicles. What else, Einstein?

With the exception of bomb ingredient, those things are regulated way more extensively than guns. Guns shouldn't be any different. Bombs that kill 49 people are hard to make.

+1 to all of this. There is a reason that guns are the mass murderers weapon-of-choice in this country. 9/11 took a lot of planning, which is part of why missing it was deemed such an intelligence failure. Very few people can make stable, transportable bombs capable of killing 49 people even in an enclosed area like a nightclub. Just about anyone, though, can buy a gun.

Ehh, have to disagree. pipe bombs or even pressure cooker bombs are much easier and you also don't have the paper trail of a gun. The ingredients are easily obtainable and don't set off red flags. You can also place one and get away (like the Boston Bombers) if you don't have a death wish.

Your "ehh" disagreement is not borne out by the evidence.

It most certainly is. The abortion bomber/Atlanta bomber got away for years as did the Unibomber. The Boston bombers were found but initially got away. Almost all mass shooters are caught immediately.

Also forgot to mention Tim McVeigh OK City and the World Trade Center Bombings. They both got away from the scene and took longer to catch than your average mass shooter.

The fatalities from bombs pale in comparison to mass shooting deaths. OK City scale is super rare. True that it can take longer to catch perps but LESS people die. We need to regulate guns.

Guns are probably the most regulated "thing" that Americans actually have a Constitutional right to. I have asked, and have yet to see any answer, as to how any of the proposals being floated would make any significant dent in gun deaths. You cannot ban guns without amending the Constitution. Background checks, waiting periods and licensing have done little to solve the problem of illegal gun use. It's a very difficult problem with no easy solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

And private aircraft. And hardware store shopping for bomb ingredients. And motor vehicles. What else, Einstein?

With the exception of bomb ingredient, those things are regulated way more extensively than guns. Guns shouldn't be any different. Bombs that kill 49 people are hard to make.

+1 to all of this. There is a reason that guns are the mass murderers weapon-of-choice in this country. 9/11 took a lot of planning, which is part of why missing it was deemed such an intelligence failure. Very few people can make stable, transportable bombs capable of killing 49 people even in an enclosed area like a nightclub. Just about anyone, though, can buy a gun.

Ehh, have to disagree. pipe bombs or even pressure cooker bombs are much easier and you also don't have the paper trail of a gun. The ingredients are easily obtainable and don't set off red flags. You can also place one and get away (like the Boston Bombers) if you don't have a death wish.

Your "ehh" disagreement is not borne out by the evidence.

It most certainly is. The abortion bomber/Atlanta bomber got away for years as did the Unibomber. The Boston bombers were found but initially got away. Almost all mass shooters are caught immediately.

Also forgot to mention Tim McVeigh OK City and the World Trade Center Bombings. They both got away from the scene and took longer to catch than your average mass shooter.

The fatalities from bombs pale in comparison to mass shooting deaths. OK City scale is super rare. True that it can take longer to catch perps but LESS people die. We need to regulate guns.

Guns are probably the most regulated "thing" that Americans actually have a Constitutional right to. I have asked, and have yet to see any answer, as to how any of the proposals being floated would make any significant dent in gun deaths. You cannot ban guns without amending the Constitution. Background checks, waiting periods and licensing have done little to solve the problem of illegal gun use. It's a very difficult problem with no easy solution.

We're regulating them, not banning them. It's a "well-regulated militia" in the Constitution. Elect Hillary. Fill Scalia's spot on the Supreme Court with a sane Democratic-appointee. The Court will uphold a reasonable regulation and interpret the Constitution in a non-stupid way.

For seemingly the tenth time, how would you regulate them and how would this regulation have prevented the last 20 mass shootings and the routine gun deaths in Chicago and Baltimore?

This has been addressed in tons of threads. Sick of repeating. In any event, you're wrong that we'd need to amend the Constitution. Can we at least try to fix the problem? You don't have a crystal ball. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

The FBI and other agencies are struggling as it is to monitor terrorists who are citizens of our country.
Shall we make their job even more challenging by bringing in immigrants, whom we know little about, to add to their list?

I did not understand. Are you suggesting we stop immigration from all countries, countries which are in this chart or something else?

To be honest, I would be fine with a very strict immigration ban temporarily. Very strict.
Until we get illegal immigration in check and determine a way to accurately and completely vet those coming in.....
And, maybe a more lengthy immigration ban from areas in which ISIS has a stronghold (or any other country where terrorists, of whatever stripe, are actively recruiting and killing citizens).
And, I think we need to reconsider the VISA waiver program. Too many terrorists have made their way into Europe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

The FBI and other agencies are struggling as it is to monitor terrorists who are citizens of our country.
Shall we make their job even more challenging by bringing in immigrants, whom we know little about, to add to their list?

I did not understand. Are you suggesting we stop immigration from all countries, countries which are in this chart or something else?

To be honest, I would be fine with a very strict immigration ban temporarily. Very strict.
Until we get illegal immigration in check and determine a way to accurately and completely vet those coming in.....
And, maybe a more lengthy immigration ban from areas in which ISIS has a stronghold (or any other country where terrorists, of whatever stripe, are actively recruiting and killing citizens).
And, I think we need to reconsider the VISA waiver program. Too many terrorists have made their way into Europe.