I stopped bothering with the useful idiots long ago...no benefit to even talking to them.
OT: Sounds like we might have our first ISIS attack in the US
- Thread starter Ghost of Spaceheater
- Start date
I stopped bothering with the useful idiots long ago...no benefit to even talking to them.
Rather than start a new thread, I'm posting this here. This is so accurate as to be surreal. This is ISIS. This is Islam. What Obama and the Media call "Radicals" are actually Faithful. The moderates are the ones who aren't actually following the mandates of the Koran.
If we were as nutty as you think we are, wouldn't there be more than 10 thousand firearms homicides a year? There are 81 million of us. Thats .01%
Why's that? According to my government the FBI needs to keep an eye on me because I'm conservative, belong to the NRA, and am a veteran.
Two rifles and two pistols is not an arsenal. There are more guns within reach of where I am sitting than they had.
This show is so good it is scary.
Saw that, spot on. For some reason people do not want to admit the reality of Islam, so much so, that they invented the term "Islamaphobia" in order to suppress the discussion.
Funny how they continue to ignore the fact that less than one percent of all firearms will be used in a crime. And those of us they call "gun nuts" are generally much more law-abiding than the general population, as shown by the fact that less than 1% of FL CCWs have ever been revoked for a firearm related crime. The media, the DNC, the schools, whoever, has these people so brainwashed, that they are actually more scared of law-abiding citizens who have never done anything wrong than they are of actual violent criminals or Islamic terrorists. Amazing really.
I don't have it with me here at my office, but the WSJ printed a letter sent by Jefferson and Adams in 1786 to John Jay, Foreign Affairs Secretary, reporting on their meeting with the ambassador from the Barbary States regarding the practice of attacking US ships.
He told them directly that it was because it was in the Quran that non-believers had to be met and killed at every opportunity and that it was their religious duty.
Jefferson had to wait several years until he was sworn in but he wasted no time in going after the barbarians. That's what is needed now. Funny how they knew what to do then. How have we lost our way on this?
He told them directly that it was because it was in the Quran that non-believers had to be met and killed at every opportunity and that it was their religious duty.
Jefferson had to wait several years until he was sworn in but he wasted no time in going after the barbarians. That's what is needed now. Funny how they knew what to do then. How have we lost our way on this?
Right now, I don't think we need to just focus on Muslims in general. I'm not worried about Shia'ts or Sufis..... It's the Salafist Sunnis that are craping the works ..... They pay no heed to any of the established Sunni schools that are over 150 y.o. And they account for vast amount of the radical terror problem
Where Trump was wrong, he should have said we need to halt ALL immigration....incoming rates have been too high for too long.
Want to know how he did that?
Marines. That's where we got our Mameluke sword from, after we kicked ass in the battle of Derne.
CHARLES C.W. COOKE IN THE WAPO: The right to bear arms isn’t up for debate:
When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such. . . .
At the time of the American founding, it was widely understood that there was a real danger in a government’s attempting to deprive the people of what Alexander Hamilton called their “original right of self-defense.” This is why, when it came to writing the Constitution, the anti-Federalists, who feared the government’s potential to become corrupt, refused to sign on to a more powerful national government until they had been promised certain explicit protections. Then, as now, their logic was clear: It makes no sense to allow the representatives of a free people to disarm their masters.
Reacting to this argument, we often hear advocates of gun control propose that the Founders’ observations are irrelevant because they could “not have imagined the modern world.” I agree with the latter assertion: They couldn’t have. As well-read in world history as they were, there is no way that they could have foreseen just how prescient they were in insisting on harsh limitations of government power. In their time, “tyranny” was comparatively soft — their complaints focused on under-representation and the capricious restriction of ancient rights. In the past century, by contrast, tyranny involved the systematic execution of entire groups and the enslavement of whole countries. The notion that if James Madison had foreseen the 20th century he would have concluded that the Bill of Rights was too generous is laughable.
At the time of the American founding, it was widely understood that there was a real danger in a government’s attempting to deprive the people of what Alexander Hamilton called their “original right of self-defense.” This is why, when it came to writing the Constitution, the anti-Federalists, who feared the government’s potential to become corrupt, refused to sign on to a more powerful national government until they had been promised certain explicit protections. Then, as now, their logic was clear: It makes no sense to allow the representatives of a free people to disarm their masters.
Reacting to this argument, we often hear advocates of gun control propose that the Founders’ observations are irrelevant because they could “not have imagined the modern world.” I agree with the latter assertion: They couldn’t have. As well-read in world history as they were, there is no way that they could have foreseen just how prescient they were in insisting on harsh limitations of government power. In their time, “tyranny” was comparatively soft — their complaints focused on under-representation and the capricious restriction of ancient rights. In the past century, by contrast, tyranny involved the systematic execution of entire groups and the enslavement of whole countries. The notion that if James Madison had foreseen the 20th century he would have concluded that the Bill of Rights was too generous is laughable.
I'm not overly worried about y'all doing criminal things but y'all are a bunch of fanatics. You act like the 2nd amendment is the only law in history that may never be questioned or changed. You think reasonable gun controls measures mean the feds will be kicking down your doors any minute. Y'all are like insanely paranoid. I don't see y'all being a threat....just very, very weird.
They don't seem nearly as concerned about the first amendment. Keep all of those scary Mooslums out of our country. I guess the constitution is relative in that case.
So Trump is not xenophobic enough? All aboard the crazy train. Here is where it starts.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the 1st Amendment that says "The right of the government to let people from other countries enter the country willy nilly shall not be infringed?"
And I don't want to hear your crap about us being anti 1st amendment, what with safe spaces and trigger warnings and all the other anti- first amendment tripe spewing forth from progressive's mouths. Censorship these days come from YOUR folks, not ours.
Last edited:
We don't see your measures as reasonable, and you are constantly taking away slices of our gun rights pie but never giving us anything back in return. You just keep incrementally taking. Well NO MORE PIE FOR YOU. That's why we're paranoid.
I'm pretty sure singling out Muslims for exclusion would be considered unconstitutional (I'm with the Donald on that point though). And don't lump me in with those millenial idiots. Those are not my folks.
How many guns do you have? How many more do you need? Are there guns you need that you cannot get?
Because the progressives desperately want to believe that all peoples the world over can live together in harmony if only we water down everyone's ideas, philosophies and beliefs enough that no one "offends" anyone else. It's the Tower of Babel.
What they don't get is that Islam has the same ideal, but that Islam is willing to burn civilization to the ground in order to bring about its goal.
Islam does NOT teach "Love thy neighbor as thyself." It does not teach "Do unto others as you have done unto you." Christians who do not follows those mandates . . . From the book of Matthew, Chapter 22:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him,“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment.39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
Christians who do NOT follow the above are apostate; violating Christ's commandants; being sinful; out of communion with G-d. And yes, the history of Christianity is replete with examples of rulers, popes, pastors and churches who willfully violated, twisted and perverted these commandants for their own ends. The point is that they were NOT being true to their own faith.
By comparison, Muslims who do not practice Jihad--and Jihad is a religious sacrament just as communion and baptism is in Christianity--are being apostate. Muslims who do not practice "Taqiyya" (lying to achieve an obligatory goal) are being apostate.
Is Islam a religion of peace? Yes, it is. But the method of achieving that peace is not at all the same way that Christ commands being peaceful--turn the other cheek; love your enemy as yourself; forgive your brother 70 times 7. In Islam you achieve peace by making everyone into a Moslem by means necessary.
Last edited:
To be fair, there are plenty of folk on the right who would love to censor people with who they don't agree too. That was the whole schtick of the "Moral Majority."
"Need?" That ain't the standard bud. Therefore, I'm not engaging in that discussion.
And it is no one's damn business! I won't talk about relations with my wife, my finances, or medical history either.
PS You want paranoid? How's this for paranoid. I know nothing at all about you. I know that you believe people who are ardent defenders of the Constitution in its entirety--because if you don't defend all of the Constitution including the Second Amendment with equal zeal then you don't actually believe it is the law of the land; and therefore likely believe other parts should also be ignored--are "fanatics" and "insane" as you wrote that in this thread. I would NEVER tell you whether I EVEN OWN ANY firearms. Why? Because I don't trust you enough to not act according to what you believe.
Your questioning of Wolf is just a little too precise to be idle curiosity.
You would make a lousy fascist. Everyone knows jackboots are black and polished to a high gloss.
Legion.
As many as I feel like and can legally and financially acquire.
If I'm using the 2nd amendment for its intended purpose then the fact that I can't acquire a machine gun manufacturered after 1986 is problematic.
I'm not sure I understand why you think you get to decide what I need. If I want to wander around with a suppressed Glock18C with a 33 round magazine, as a law abiding citizen, that's my business.
In short:
Last edited:
If you can fetch me a part of the constitution that pertains to classes of immigrant and the rights of those immigrants to be allowed into the country, I'd love to see it. I know there'a's a section that guarantees a right to travel, but that only applies to citizens.
I didn't like kids when I was a kid, and I didn't want to play baseball or football or whatever dumb crap the other kids did. I spent most of my time alone in the woods. The grownups started referring to me as "that lone wolf kid." Which got shortened eventually to Wolf.
Nice. Childhood nicknames last forever. I won't tell you what mine was, too embarrassing.
Do you wear sheeps clothing?
I think most constitional scholars would disagree but since I am not one I won't argue with you. There are very few specifics in the constitution bud the principles still apply. Regardless, that is why I think the first amendment needs to be updated since they could not have envisioned ISIS.
You're a good dude Wolfman. While we often disagree, you don't shirk from a debate (unlike some of the others)
Guns ARE a problem. They are very dangerous and the tool of choice for very bad people.
I'm just wondering why you and other individuals care so intensely. You can have a bunch of guns. You can defend yourself all you want. You can hunt. You can carry.
Y'all are scared Democrats are going to take your guns away in the same way old people are frightened that Republicans are going to take their social security away.
Guns are a tool, just like you said. They are only dangerous if used improperly. In the hands of a bad person, fertilizer and fuel oil are dangerous. If you don't use a chainsaw correctly, it can be dangerous.
Why do I care that people that I don't know want to curtail a right so fundamental to the foundation of this country that its founders wrote it down second in the bill of rights? That can't be a serious question.
The democrats do want to take our guns away. Hell, a couple of them have even admitted it. See Senator Feinstein, the senior senator from Californistan.
They just won't come out and say it, so they infringe a little here, and infringe a little there. It's called incrementalism.
The whole "you don't need a _______" argument is BS. You don't determine what I need. I determine what I need.
