Loading...
Next Match: Image
West Bromwich Albion in the Premier League.
Sunday 17th December 2017, KO 14:15 UTC.
Sandies
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 6100
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:15 am

Re: Terrorism

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:38 am

Relly wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:03 pm
Sandies wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:48 am
ArizonaRed wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:27 pm


And politicians will try and use it to validate their viewpoints - so very sad
Do you really see the topic of gun control as an exploitation of the constant tragedy, or trying to do something about preventing the next one. The view that people are "exploiting it" really is silly. The same people have been asking for gun control for a while, its not an exploitation of tragedy.

If I or a loved one was killed in this tragedy, I would have no issue of the gun control debate coming up again
So HIllary Clinton on twitter just a few hours after it happened saying this is why they should keep silencers banned when this guy didn't use a silencer, in fact a silencer wouldn't have worked on his guns, isn't just capitalizing on this tragedy?

This situation isn't political, and the left instantly turning it political is disgusting and shown how far they have fallen.
Clinton's lack of knowledge on guns and silencers is irrelevant to the fact that America has a massive gun problem. These events are becoming a regular occurrence.

When the government isn't protecting its citizens from these attacks, it is political. There are shootings every day, so when exactly is the right time to start talking about guns? When this record of 59 people is broken?


"Beckham... into Sheringham... and Solskjær has won it!"

User avatar
Dante
Referee
Referee
Posts: 8351
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: Terrorism

Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:52 am

ivandaman wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:57 pm
For the record I'm all for gun control if the system can guarantee that no guns would end up in the wrong (criminal) hands.

Still, found the meme below funny


Image
No one is advocating prohibition though. They're advocating for sensible controls and restrictions on the sale of firearms, which indecently is a similar thing to what is being advocated for with drugs.

The argument that something should only be done if we can eliminate all issues is a silly one. We don't make laws that way for anything else.
Image

User avatar
Relly
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5965
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:41 am
Call Me: Ben

Re: Terrorism

Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:28 pm

RedSte wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:11 pm
Relly wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:24 am
RedSte wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Thatwas my substantive point really. Words written in 1776 reflect the time and the contemporary culture- they were probably very wise words at the time, given the threat Britain still posed a fledgling nation. They have no relevance in the world in2017.

Rather like the Bible and other "books of god "(sic) - all written in times which reflected the culture, beliefs, mores and attitudes of their time, but don't get me started on that debate!

What's wrong with reasoned argument based on the current world, not how the world was 100s or1000s of years ago?!?!
You do know that the right to bear arms is there to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. When horrible people get in charge of a country often the first thing they do is take away guns so people can't fight back, Mao, Stalin, Chavez, etc.

As neither of us is American, I wanted to check the facts (remember those pesky things) so here is what the 2nd amendment ACTUALLY says:

"The Second amendment to the United States Constitution provides: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No mention of tyrannical government (this is something the alt-right quacks have dreamed up in their paranoia - they're talking about their own govt by the way here, not some foreign invading one).

Meanwhile back to the reality of the world in 1776. Clearly the founding fathers were extremely wary of the security of their new nation. Having just overthrown the yolk of British oppression, they couldn't be sure that the big bully would just slope off with its tail between its legs and leave them be. Quite rightly, they enshrined in their laws that the citizens of the nation should be in a position to form " a well-regulated militia" to go to arms in defence of their new nation in the event of invasion from across the pond. Washington , Jefferson et al werent saying "you should have the right to keep guns in case WE (your own govt) come for you". That's just a complete distortion of the situation and I hope you would belatedly acknowledge that to be true and withdraw that ludicrous statement. See, some folk always focus on "the right to keep and bear arms" phrase whilst ignoring the context of the preceding - and much more meaningful -phrase. In other words WHY they should have that right.

Times change - cults don't - In 1776 the 2nd amendment made perfect sense. In 2017 America isn't about to be bullied by any nation on earth, they could wipe out any nation at the push of a button, so there is no need for the 2nd amendment based on its original purpose. Any logical, empirical study of the facts by a 3rd party (by Martians, say) would conclude that to retain the 2nd amendment in 2017 is based largely on that cowardly argument "tradition" ( a word which has held back mankinds progress for centuries) with just a dash of tinfoil hat paranoia from some quarters.


Almost, rant over. Just wanted to add *after a manic Jack Nicholson-style laugh* that if your government REALLY was coming for you, how long do you think your rifles, pistols and semi-automatics would last against umm mortar shells, drone attacks, sea to air missiles, chemical and biological weapons! I'd give you about 12 hours! :laugh:
You are just interpreting the 2nd Amendment to suit your argument even though as read it aligns more with what I am saying then you. No where does it state that people should have guns to protect themselves from outside forces. It says a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people. They chose the term militia as opposed to army. A militia is a group of people without control of the government, basically the citizens. What nation relies on uncontrolled citizens to fight it's wars? At the end of the day the supreme court has debated over this so I don't think you and I will solve it, however you putting it there and just labelling your argument as a slam dunk is misleading.

Well there are about 200 million guns in private hands in the US and about 6 million members of the military so the numbers definitely favour gun owners. As well I don't think the world would sit back and allow the US government to use chemical and biological weapons on its people. So currently the government isn't coming for the people because they can't. Obama was determined at all costs to completely erode gun rights and accomplished pretty much nothing. I think he quickly realized you make guns illegal and start going door to door to round them up that he was entering a losing battle. And that's a good thing, had Obama seized guns year 1 or 2 of his presidency then there would have been nothing stopping him implementing his destruction of America plan. The US would be half way to living like Venezuela by now.

People having guns keeps the government a little scared and a little honest and that's a good thing.
"Make America Great Again!"

User avatar
Relly
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5965
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:41 am
Call Me: Ben

Re: Terrorism

Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:33 pm

ivandaman wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:57 pm
For the record I'm all for gun control if the system can guarantee that no guns would end up in the wrong (criminal) hands.

Still, found the meme below funny


Image
Saw that, very logical analogy.

This guy murdered people, which is against the law, using guns, which may or may not been legal. Either way he broke one law, and I am pretty sure the killing people law would be harder to a person to mentally overcome then the using and illegal means to do so would, so I am pretty sure he would break that law too.

I fully support stringent background checks and limiting some types, but I definitely believe in the right to own guns.
"Make America Great Again!"

User avatar
Relly
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5965
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:41 am
Call Me: Ben

Re: Terrorism

Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:35 pm

Sandies wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:38 am
Relly wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:03 pm
Sandies wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:48 am


Do you really see the topic of gun control as an exploitation of the constant tragedy, or trying to do something about preventing the next one. The view that people are "exploiting it" really is silly. The same people have been asking for gun control for a while, its not an exploitation of tragedy.

If I or a loved one was killed in this tragedy, I would have no issue of the gun control debate coming up again
So HIllary Clinton on twitter just a few hours after it happened saying this is why they should keep silencers banned when this guy didn't use a silencer, in fact a silencer wouldn't have worked on his guns, isn't just capitalizing on this tragedy?

This situation isn't political, and the left instantly turning it political is disgusting and shown how far they have fallen.
Clinton's lack of knowledge on guns and silencers is irrelevant to the fact that America has a massive gun problem. These events are becoming a regular occurrence.

When the government isn't protecting its citizens from these attacks, it is political. There are shootings every day, so when exactly is the right time to start talking about guns? When this record of 59 people is broken?
Clinton standing on these still warm bodies to push an argument that had nothing to do with this situation only to put herself in the spotlight is beyond disgusting.

And if this does turn out to be political then that most likely meant this guy purposely targeted Trump supporters, because they probably weren't democrats in that crowd.
"Make America Great Again!"

User avatar
Dante
Referee
Referee
Posts: 8351
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: Terrorism

Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:13 pm

Relly wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:33 pm
Saw that, very logical analogy.
It's not, because basically no one is calling for all guns to be banned.
Relly wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:33 pm
I fully support stringent background checks and limiting some types, but I definitely believe in the right to own guns.
So you agree with Democrats then.
Image

Sandies
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 6100
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:15 am

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:07 am

Relly wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:35 pm
Sandies wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:38 am
Relly wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:03 pm

So HIllary Clinton on twitter just a few hours after it happened saying this is why they should keep silencers banned when this guy didn't use a silencer, in fact a silencer wouldn't have worked on his guns, isn't just capitalizing on this tragedy?

This situation isn't political, and the left instantly turning it political is disgusting and shown how far they have fallen.
Clinton's lack of knowledge on guns and silencers is irrelevant to the fact that America has a massive gun problem. These events are becoming a regular occurrence.

When the government isn't protecting its citizens from these attacks, it is political. There are shootings every day, so when exactly is the right time to start talking about guns? When this record of 59 people is broken?
Clinton standing on these still warm bodies to push an argument that had nothing to do with this situation only to put herself in the spotlight is beyond disgusting.

And if this does turn out to be political then that most likely meant this guy purposely targeted Trump supporters, because they probably weren't democrats in that crowd.

Well looking at crowd demographics, I'd say there would also be a very high percentage of pro gun nuts then no?

you really think gun control has no connection to another "deadliest mass shooting" in United States history?
"Beckham... into Sheringham... and Solskjær has won it!"

User avatar
Relly
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5965
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:41 am
Call Me: Ben

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:08 pm

Dante wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:13 pm
Relly wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:33 pm
Saw that, very logical analogy.
It's not, because basically no one is calling for all guns to be banned.
Relly wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:33 pm
I fully support stringent background checks and limiting some types, but I definitely believe in the right to own guns.
So you agree with Democrats then.
Actually lots of people are.

I have a position, who it aligns with is incidental. For the record, stringent might of been to strong of a word. I think the process should be closer to Canada, which I have gone through, and it's slow and requires a bit of work and time, but owning a gun isn't something to take lightly, so I think its fair. But I believe you should be able to own semi-auto rifles and handguns which most democrats want to make illegal.
"Make America Great Again!"

User avatar
Relly
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5965
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:41 am
Call Me: Ben

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:14 pm

Sandies wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:07 am
Relly wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:35 pm
Sandies wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:38 am


Clinton's lack of knowledge on guns and silencers is irrelevant to the fact that America has a massive gun problem. These events are becoming a regular occurrence.

When the government isn't protecting its citizens from these attacks, it is political. There are shootings every day, so when exactly is the right time to start talking about guns? When this record of 59 people is broken?
Clinton standing on these still warm bodies to push an argument that had nothing to do with this situation only to put herself in the spotlight is beyond disgusting.

And if this does turn out to be political then that most likely meant this guy purposely targeted Trump supporters, because they probably weren't democrats in that crowd.

Well looking at crowd demographics, I'd say there would also be a very high percentage of pro gun nuts then no?

you really think gun control has no connection to another "deadliest mass shooting" in United States history?
Why do you always have to be such a condescending prick? I know lots of people who own multiple guns, they are normal, average, everyday people. Why do you have to call someone a nut because they do something you don't do and don't understand? And yes, I was referring to the fact that a country music concert would attract a lot of pro 2nd amendment republicans.

I think their laws made it easier for this guy to get guns, but for how well organized and planned out this was I am pretty sure he would have acquired guns some other way or found another, equally deadly means.
"Make America Great Again!"

User avatar
Martin
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:22 pm

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:36 pm

The right are as slow to accept criticism re: gun control as it accuses the left of being on topics like Islam.

Obviously gun laws play a part. The US needs gun control.
Make football fabulous again!

User avatar
Dante
Referee
Referee
Posts: 8351
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:54 pm

Relly wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:08 pm
Dante wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:13 pm
It's not, because basically no one is calling for all guns to be banned.
Actually lots of people are.
Such as?
Image

RedSte
Reserve Team Coach
Reserve Team Coach
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:40 am
Call Me: Ste

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:41 pm

Me :)
My old man said be a City fan...

Nothing significant and lasting will ever come of FFP! - RedSte (2012)

User avatar
Carrick 5 Gerrard 0
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:24 pm

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:32 pm

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... a-41488081

Link to a BBC article on gun stats if anyone's interested. 11,000 deaths a year by guns and yet people oppose tougher restrictions on purchasing guns. And before people bring up the knife argument, more people were killed representative of the population in the us by guns than in the U.K. by knifes

Question for those in America - Are they labelling this strongly as a terrorist act?

User avatar
Carrick 5 Gerrard 0
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:24 pm

Re: Terrorism

Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:34 pm

RedSte wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:41 pm
Me :)
What does Cindy and her family think?

I would agree in theory but it would be impossible to ban guns considering a number of them probably aren't even registered

User avatar
ArizonaRed
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5626
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 1:12 pm
Call Me: Barry

Re: Terrorism

Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:06 am

This is just my view and observations om the division in the American people and why true gun controls legislation will never be passed in the USA.

The bi-polarization of America started during the Vietnam war, the country was split between those who needed to believe that their government would never lie to them and therefore if the government said the communism needed to be stopped in Southeast Asia then by God we need to support the government and if you don’t then you are not a true American. Another part of the population did not believe the report coming back from Vietnam and the bright picture being painted by their government, instead they saw a war that was decimating the youth of the nation, killing thousand of civilians, supporting a totally corrupt puppet government and making billions and billions of dollars for American industries. I arrived in America in 1972 and as a Stranger in a Strange Land the division in the people I met was as plain to see as night from day. In the intervening 40 years since I arrived I have witnessed the divisions in America grow until there is no longer any middle or even common ground that doesn’t become a political battleground.

Over the decades the main stream political parties have had to reached out to their fringes for votes which has resulted in diluting their core believes and values. The end result of this dilution is that as one party reached out to the Pro Life – Anti-abortion groups the other reached out to the Pro Choice – Women’s rights, one party makes advances to the LGBT groups and the other aligns itself with the Christian Moral Majority, one courts the NRA and 2nd Amendment activist and the other makes advances to the Gun Control lobbies. Under normal circumstances differing view would be a good thing for a country, unfortunately American politics has reached a point where if you disagree with my viewpoint; not only are you wrong you are evil and part of what’s wrong with America. Both Liberal and Conservative have become swear words in the American lexicon. The leaders of the political parties have little or no incentive to try and work across the aisle, rather they take every opportunity to widen the gap because that’s what keeps them in power and what laughingly passes for governing. The US economy is the largest in the world and politics are what greases the wheels of the economic machine.
I can't believe it. I can't believe it. Football. Bloody hell.

Sandies
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 6100
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:15 am

Re: Terrorism

Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:26 am

Relly wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:14 pm
Sandies wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:07 am
Relly wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:35 pm


Clinton standing on these still warm bodies to push an argument that had nothing to do with this situation only to put herself in the spotlight is beyond disgusting.

And if this does turn out to be political then that most likely meant this guy purposely targeted Trump supporters, because they probably weren't democrats in that crowd.

Well looking at crowd demographics, I'd say there would also be a very high percentage of pro gun nuts then no?

you really think gun control has no connection to another "deadliest mass shooting" in United States history?
Why do you always have to be such a condescending prick? I know lots of people who own multiple guns, they are normal, average, everyday people. Why do you have to call someone a nut because they do something you don't do and don't understand? And yes, I was referring to the fact that a country music concert would attract a lot of pro 2nd amendment republicans.

I think their laws made it easier for this guy to get guns, but for how well organized and planned out this was I am pretty sure he would have acquired guns some other way or found another, equally deadly means.
What exactly was condescending at all about this post? Please enlighten me?

Nut is something used to describe as a crazed fan. Were all United nuts. What exactly is your issue
"Beckham... into Sheringham... and Solskjær has won it!"

User avatar
Relly
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5965
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:41 am
Call Me: Ben

Re: Terrorism

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:09 pm

Sandies wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:26 am
Relly wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:14 pm
Sandies wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:07 am



Well looking at crowd demographics, I'd say there would also be a very high percentage of pro gun nuts then no?

you really think gun control has no connection to another "deadliest mass shooting" in United States history?
Why do you always have to be such a condescending prick? I know lots of people who own multiple guns, they are normal, average, everyday people. Why do you have to call someone a nut because they do something you don't do and don't understand? And yes, I was referring to the fact that a country music concert would attract a lot of pro 2nd amendment republicans.

I think their laws made it easier for this guy to get guns, but for how well organized and planned out this was I am pretty sure he would have acquired guns some other way or found another, equally deadly means.
What exactly was condescending at all about this post? Please enlighten me?

Nut is something used to describe as a crazed fan. Were all United nuts. What exactly is your issue
Insulting and belittling people you don't agree with. Maybe nut is used different where you are, but here and the US, it implies a crazy person. And given your position on the argument and your tone in these posts I highly doubt you referred to them as nuts in a friendly, jovial manor.
"Make America Great Again!"

User avatar
ArizonaRed
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5626
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 1:12 pm
Call Me: Barry

Re: Terrorism

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:22 pm

Maybe in Canada Nuts only has a single usage - I would not know because I do not live there - but in America has all type of interpretation.
I can't believe it. I can't believe it. Football. Bloody hell.

RedSte
Reserve Team Coach
Reserve Team Coach
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:40 am
Call Me: Ste

Re: Terrorism

Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:48 pm

Carrick 5 Gerrard 0 wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:34 pm
RedSte wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:41 pm
Me :)
What does Cindy and her family think?

I would agree in theory but it would be impossible to ban guns considering a number of them probably aren't even registered

Cindy wouldn't go near a gun anymore than I would. Her Dad had a couple of guns in the house but they were locked away in a drawer in a cupboard in the basement. He used to go huntin & fishin when he was younger & just kept them because 'they were there' I think. He only lived for about 5 years after I met Cindy so I didn't have too much interaction with him tbf. I got the impression he just had them because his dad had them and his dad had one and his peers had them etc. We never really talked about it and he never got them out in my presence.

Her mom's still with us and it may be relevant that she isn't American-born so she didn't grow up in that "2nd amendment" culture. . I dont think she'd know one end of a gun from the other and certainly wouldn't want to use one. AFAIK the guns are still double-locked away in the basement. -
My old man said be a City fan...

Nothing significant and lasting will ever come of FFP! - RedSte (2012)

Sandies
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 6100
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:15 am

Re: Terrorism

Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:52 am

Relly wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:09 pm
Sandies wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:26 am
Relly wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:14 pm


Why do you always have to be such a condescending prick? I know lots of people who own multiple guns, they are normal, average, everyday people. Why do you have to call someone a nut because they do something you don't do and don't understand? And yes, I was referring to the fact that a country music concert would attract a lot of pro 2nd amendment republicans.

I think their laws made it easier for this guy to get guns, but for how well organized and planned out this was I am pretty sure he would have acquired guns some other way or found another, equally deadly means.
What exactly was condescending at all about this post? Please enlighten me?

Nut is something used to describe as a crazed fan. Were all United nuts. What exactly is your issue
Insulting and belittling people you don't agree with. Maybe nut is used different where you are, but here and the US, it implies a crazy person. And given your position on the argument and your tone in these posts I highly doubt you referred to them as nuts in a friendly, jovial manor.
Wait so hold on, you accused me of something without knowing the facts properly a day after accusing me of doing that, and then when I tried to clarify and explain myself you still doubt it saying you dont believe where I come from I am being genuine, a day after saying I did the same thing about Suarez

And again, what has been wrong with my tone? I have argued this pretty amicable I'd thought
"Beckham... into Sheringham... and Solskjær has won it!"

Return to “Members Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users