At Least 7 Dead, 20 Wounded in Shootings at Ft. Hood in Texas

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by albonismo

Glad to hear our stationed member SFCIngrum is alive and well over there. My prayers go out to the families of those wounded and killed.

Can you guys please take it easy on the Muslim bashing? Don't act like you don't think you're doing it...

There is a distinct difference between a radical Muslim Islamist or a radical Christian fundamentalist and and their peaceful counterparts but it would seem to me that there is a double standard for differentiating those distinct groups and belief systems within the media circle of power and Progressive, politically correct America and at least they aren't calling the guy a Tea Bagging, Bible thumping, Racist, Red Neck, Neanderthal yet so it could be worse, however this guy is the exception to the rule and seems to have no problem expressing himself, lol.

YouTube - Lt. Col. Ralph Peters to Bill O'Reilly: Ft. Hood Shooter Major Hasan Is An Islamic Terrorist

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

While I enjoyed the analogy, I'm lost as to what point you're attempting to make with my post.

I'm not the one on the forum wanting to ban all guns because of a set of circumstances, or all Muslims from any rights as a citizen of the US, or in general attempting to move to either extreme of the continuum between individual rights and those that a society says they want some form of regulation of or management of in their turf.

Countries choose to let a single belief system run them and that includes religion or be a confederation of fiefdoms and no central government.

I believe that there's a balance between individual right and the rights of a collective. Politics determines how far along that line the country as a whole moves.

37L1 is not available as he is out at the firing range.

Please leave a message and he will try and reply upon his return.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

If a black and white answer is what you seem to want then yes, that's what I believe.

You have free will to do whatever you choose.
However your employer can decide how they want to you act, dress, and respond to given situations and if you choose not to do so, then there's consequences.

Consequences for both. If I am fired for my hair we will see what happens in court. I have nothing to loose by filing the suit.

And I've said it a thousand times but you refuse to acknowledge it.
Bring a gun to an airport or onto an airplane and see what happens to you. The Right to Bear Arms is a right but exercising it wherever you choose is not.

And you fail to acknowledge the founders words. I am not looking them up again right now. But they did not believe in restricting guns. Now the Airport that is private property, and the owner of that property can restrict guns, just like I can stop you are anyone else from bringing something on my property. If you don't like the rules rent a private jet and sit there with your mini gun in your lap. And yes I can bring a gun on a passenger jet, by any of the airlines. I just have to abide by the rules they set forth. Like I said if I want to carry loaded I can rent a private aircraft and do as I please.

Attend public rally in which the President speaks and state that you're going to kill him and see what happens. Right to Free Speech.

Your ability to exercise your Rights is not absolute. Your free will to do so is. There's a difference

Because our government is taking the rights from us. Show me in the constitution where the government is allowed to put ANY RESTRICTIONS on speech or guns. Bet you anything you want you can't.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by 37L1

The name, I'm sure you already know, was given for its ability to penetrate body armor.

Yes but almost any gun with the right ammo can penetrate most body armor. I promise you I can design, make, and load my own ammo for my .40 that will penetrate most body armor.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

Beyond all this, if a state, business, property decides that they don't want guns within their confines, then I'm all for them to make that decision. It's their decision to make.

Just sayin'

Because it is one of the few roles of government to make sure our rights are not violated. To follow your reasoning with a state outlawing a constitutional right would be akin to a state not letting women vote, or allowing slavery. It is the exact same thing. All of the are constitutionally protected rights. And that IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

While I enjoyed the analogy, I'm lost as to what point you're attempting to make with my post.

I'm not the one on the forum wanting to ban all guns because of a set of circumstances, or all Muslims from any rights as a citizen of the US, or in general attempting to move to either extreme of the continuum between individual rights and those that a society says they want some form of regulation of or management of in their turf.

Countries choose to let a single belief system run them and that includes religion or be a confederation of fiefdoms and no central government.

I believe that there's a balance between individual right and the rights of a collective. Politics determines how far along that line the country as a whole moves.

The point is that you are more than willing to restrict the rights of gun owners due to the actions of "a few" and not as willing to restrict the rights of Muslims because of the actions of "a few."

Neither should be restricted because of the actions of "a few."

Freedom to practice your religion of choice is a Constitutionally guaranteed right as is the right to keep and bear arms. I do not see you advocating any restrictions upon the Muslim community (in fact, the opposite is true) but you are pretty staunch in your support of current and additional means to restrict gun ownership.

How exactly would training and gun control laws have prevented the Ft. Hood incident? That base possibly represents the extremes in both training and weapons restrictions.

Events influence politics which in turn "determines how far along that line the country as a whole moves."

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by helomech

Because it is one of the few roles of government to make sure our rights are not violated. To follow your reasoning with a state outlawing a constitutional right would be akin to a state not letting women vote, or allowing slavery. It is the exact same thing. All of the are constitutionally protected rights. And that IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

No doubt, some folks just won't ever understand that simple fact and to many, elections take place to vote on how unconstitutional the majority happens to want to be presently when the fact is, no vote, no politician or new legislation supersedes the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and until the Constitution is altered or abolished to allow for Socialism, Communism or Marxism, we should all follow it or be criminally prosecuted otherwise.

Of course even the abolishment of the Constitution cannot change some things and although the Constitution acknowledges them, it certainly didn't grant them but merely protects them, nor could it's alteration or abolishment serve to change what some of us will always believe.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[helomech]

Originally Posted by Papa_D

No doubt, some folks just won't ever understand that simple fact and to many, elections take place to vote on how unconstitutional the majority happens to want to be presently when the fact is, no vote, no politician or new legislation supersedes the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and until the Constitution is altered or abolished to allow for Socialism, Communism or Marxism, we should all follow it or be criminally prosecuted otherwise.

Of course even the abolishment of the Constitution cannot change some things and although the Constitution acknowledges them, it certainly didn't grant them but merely protects them, nor could it's alteration or abolishment serve to change what some of us will always believe.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes in deed, we are the rulers of this country. But sadly many of us want to turn it over to the government and allow the 9 justices on the supreme court to tell us what the constitution say. The supreme court was never mean to do that. It was simply made to check the laws put forth by the government to determine if they are constitutional or not, that is it. Nothing more, they can't even follow up on a ruling, they have no power to do anything, but say yes or no.

[bestatchess]

Originally Posted by daptech

Saw a report on CNN that the shooter used a
"cop killer" gun......FN Five-seven

Yeah, here comes the spin. Poor misunderstood and abused Muslim guy had access to a bad gun. We obviously need to become even more PC and ban guns. Radicals muslims in the military that post pro jihad messages on the net are just exercising their right to free speech. We need to be more sensitive and respectful. Don't even dare mention that it might be folly to have them in the military.

Fort Hood shootings: gunman used 'cop killer' weapon in massacre at US Army base - Telegraph

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by 37L1

The point is that you are more than willing to restrict the rights of gun owners due to the actions of "a few" and not as willing to restrict the rights of Muslims because of the actions of "a few."

Religion is benign and no one dies because they belong they open a tome and it kills them. It is a belief system that in no way at all can harm. Ideas cannot kill.

The implementation of ideas and the tools to do it kill.

I haven't seen too many examples of someone holding up a store with a Bible. Maybe you provide some source that has statistics that show that a religious artifact kills more people than guns? Other than a paper cut and an occasional whump upside the head, that's pretty much it for a Torah...

A gun is different in that its primary function is to kill.

I somehow see a difference there.

Originally Posted by 37L1

Neither should be restricted because of the actions of "a few."

Freedom to practice your religion of choice is a Constitutionally guaranteed right as is the right to keep and bear arms. I do not see you advocating any restrictions upon the Muslim community (in fact, the opposite is true) but you are pretty staunch in your support of current and additional means to restrict gun ownership.

The Muslim Community enjoys no different standard than any other religion-I believe I have stated such so if you can show somewhere that I've advocated giving special privilege to one religion or another, please feel free to do so. hmmm.

I've stated that Muslim women must show their faces for photo ID's
I've stated that the expression of one's religion by itself does no harm and does not violate the Constitution by having artifacts in a government office. I have stated that it does become a problem when one makes a decision based upon religion as a government official.

As for the issue of gun restrictions, I have actually changed my stance somewhat on it but to black and whiters, they may see no difference.

I believe and have stated that there are plenty of gun laws on the books and that along with that batch are ones that make no sense and only hurt the law abiding public. Maybe I'm supposed to put that in my tag line?

Originally Posted by 37L1

How exactly would training and gun control laws have prevented the Ft. Hood incident? That base possibly represents the extremes in both training and weapons restrictions.

Events influence politics which in turn "determines how far along that line the country as a whole moves."

The example I assume you are asking me to respond to is wholly atypical and at best a loaded question from you.

Yes, those on base have specialized training.
However, I am no privy to what their base commander does for security or what restrictions he has ordered but it seems that only certain people are allowed to carry a weapon on that base.

I pose the pov that if we want to increase safety, simply handing guns to everyone because it is their Right to have a gun isn't the answer. More guns in more hands does not mean less people getting killed.

Interesting point that when others on the Forum make generalizations about the Muslim religion, you are absent from redressing their comments with what you have posted against mine.

Kinda gives the impression that its easier to go after someone who has a dissenting opinion than it is to stand up against a majority one.

[daptech]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

Interesting point that when others on the Forum make generalizations about the Muslim religion, you are absent from redressing their comments with what you have posted against mine.

Kinda gives the impression that its easier to go after someone who has a dissenting opinion than it is to stand up against a majority one.

-

-
Stop whinning & pretending to be a victim..

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by daptech

-

-
Stop whinning & pretending to be a victim..

Not whining at all-just calling out an inconsistency in which some people get a pass on their posts while others do not.

Don't like it? Put me on Ignore.

and for Helo, will you post up another thread about how you're not going to be on the Forum anymore? Ironic isn't it?

[helomech]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

Not whining at all-just calling out an inconsistency in which some people get a pass on their posts while others do not.

Don't like it? Put me on Ignore.

and for Helo, will you post up another thread about how you're not going to be on the Forum anymore? Ironic isn't it?

Don't like it put me on ignore. Yes I said I was getting off, and some of the good people on this forum talked me out of it. Not that it is any of your business. Are you just trying to start something? If not stay on topic.

Funny how when you can repute what I say you resort to some trash like this. Pathetic, just like a liberal. Watch that hand not this one.

[Kronos1965]

Muslim, Arab Groups Condemn Fort Hood Shooting, Brace For Backlash



Suspect told 'There's something wrong with you' - Yahoo! News

"I told him, `There's something wrong with you,'" Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, told The Associated Press on Saturday. "I didn't get the feeling he was talking for himself, but something just didn't seem right."

Danquah assumed the military's chain of command knew about Hasan's doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates in a graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.

"The system is not doing what it's supposed to do," said Dr. Val Finnell, who studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master's program in public health at the military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out."

[Papa_D]

Apparently all radical Muslims don't hide in caves.

YouTube - CNN Reports: Radical Muslim Group's Homegrown Hate