Mass Shooting - Umpqua Community College

[marshallnoise]

I'm pretty sure the terrorists who killed 14 people last month were not mentally unstable. the whole "mental health" thing is a farce.

and if it's not a farce, then do something about it - but they won't. There's too much money to be made by spreading fear.

Islamic Terrorists don't have mental health issues, other than being psychopaths.

Here is some good reading for you nando. They absolutely have mental issues. Mostly revolving around lack of empathy.

[Wschnitz]

I doubt its mental health, its religious ferocity through ideology.

Imam says allah says so, they do it.

[marshallnoise]

I doubt its mental health, its religious ferocity through ideology.

Imam says allah says so, they do it.

And sociopaths are conditioned by their environment. Religious ferocity can create conditions ripe for breeding sociopaths. The Imams are the psychopaths of the group. The commonality is perverse loyalty and no empathy toward anyone outside the group.

[agent]

I'm pretty sure the terrorists who killed 14 people last month were not mentally unstable.

That's debatable, though let's not lose sight of the fact that the guns used in that attack were purchased legally from dealers, and

There was no paperwork transferring ownership of the weapons from Marquez to Farook, as required by law, government officials told The Times.

Source

[marshallnoise]

That's debatable, though let's not lose sight of the fact that the guns used in that attack were purchased legally from dealers, and

You know what? I think we ought to blame laws that are just sitting on their asses, not working. If they would stop being so lazy, they could enforce themselves and make everyone obey. They have to make their presence known and the only one that can do that is the laws themselves.

[nando]

Islamic Terrorists don't have mental health issues, other than being psychopaths.

Here is some good reading for you nando. They absolutely have mental issues. Mostly revolving around lack of empathy.

you can say that, but they are doing it through a rational thought process. They believe what they are doing is right. They don't have a physical or emotional ailment that is causing them to kill people. They made a choice - they knew exactly what they were doing. Yeah, they look crazy to us but to say it's mental health is nonsense.

but, keep up the worthless platitudes. We all know your side is never going to do anything to fix either issue.

[CorvallisBMW]

So true.

Also, the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from what can become our biggest threat: our own government.

LOL, sure.

The founding fathers were the wealthiest, most powerful mean in the country. Their fortunes, livelihoods, and futures rested on the assurance that the new United States government would remain strong, cohesive, and under the rule of law. Why would they intentionally include a constitutional amendment that would take away everything they possessed and built? Hint: they didn't. That's why the 2A says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". A state means a country with a government. The 2A doesn't provide laypeople with means to overthrow the government by force, it provides the government with means to maintain it's security. Hence the only two times the 2A has ever been put to use, in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

The 2A was written and included in the constitution to ensure that some fringe group with an ax to grind didn't end up overthrowing the brand new US government (which didn't have a standing army to protect itself, remember?), NOT the exact opposite. You may not like it, but it's spelled out clear-as-day right in the 27 words that make up the 2A in it's entirety.

[marshallnoise]

you can say that, but they are doing it through a rational thought process. They believe what they are doing is right.They don't have a physical or emotional ailment that is causing them to kill people. They made a choice - they knew exactly what they were doing. Yeah, they look crazy to us but to say it's mental health is nonsense.

but, keep up the worthless platitudes. We all know your side is never going to do anything to fix either issue.

I can buy your line of reasoning. Even more reason to just kill them where they stand if they have made a choice that we are to die because we have beliefs other than theirs.

And our side won't do anything...Just like the jihadis, "your" side thinks that talking to terrorists will fix the issue. "Your" side has no problem blaming guns for personal choices or mental health induced killings. "Your" side's solution is to make more laws that simply can't be enforced.

I suggest that "your" side isn't really going to do shit that matters about either issue as well.

[nando]

but don't worry a bunch of rednecks with guns are totally going to be able to take on the US military. Not to mention the idea that the military, who is made up of US citizens, would attack their own people at home is pretty absurd.

[nando]

I can buy your line of reasoning. Even more reason to just kill them where they stand if they have made a choice that we are to die because we have beliefs other than theirs.

And our side won't do anything...Just like the jihadis, "your" side thinks that talking to terrorists will fix the issue. "Your" side has no problem blaming guns for personal choices or mental health induced killings. "Your" side's solution is to make more laws that simply can't be enforced.

I suggest that "your" side isn't really going to do shit that matters about either issue as well.

right. so we shouldn't have laws that would stop people who are likely terrorsts/jihadists from legally purchasing weapons, because, hey, they have 2A rights as well? I mean, we shouldn't even try to do anything right? Also while we're at it, we should have laws banning people we don't like from existence, that way we can create even more terrorists. win/win!

it's easy to blame guns when we have the highest per capita gun deaths in the developed world, and coincidentally the highest number of guns ownership per capita. You know what would probably solve a flood? More water!

[marshallnoise]

LOL, sure.

The founding fathers were the wealthiest, most powerful mean in the country. Their fortunes, livelihoods, and futures rested on the assurance that the new United States government would remain strong, cohesive, and under the rule of law. Why would they intentionally include a constitutional amendment that would take away everything they possessed and built? Hint: they didn't. That's why the 2A says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". A state means a country with a government. The 2A doesn't provide laypeople with means to overthrow the government by force, it provides the government with means to maintain it's security. Hence the only two times the 2A has ever been put to use, in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

The 2A was written and included in the constitution to ensure that some fringe group with an ax to grind didn't end up overthrowing the brand new US government (which didn't have a standing army to protect itself, remember?), NOT the exact opposite. You may not like it, but it's spelled out clear-as-day right in the 27 words that make up the 2A in it's entirety.

You clearly have not read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers. If you had, you wouldn't have made the comments above. All of our founding fathers feared tyranny and even some of them said that exchanging one tyrant in King George for a government full of tyrants was something that could be a reality.

Thomas Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."

[marshallnoise]

right. so we shouldn't have laws that would stop people who are likely terrorsts/jihadists from legally purchasing weapons, because, hey, they have 2A rights as well? I mean, we shouldn't even try to do anything right? Also while we're at it, we should have laws banning people we don't like from existence, that way we can create even more terrorists. win/win!

We already have those laws and no one is asking to repeal them! And going by "your" side's logic, we should grant them our rights since so do illegal immigrants. They get drivers' licenses and they get tax rebates too. You have gone full loon man.

it's easy to blame guns when we have the highest per capita gun deaths in the developed world, and coincidentally the highest number of guns ownership per capita. You know what would probably solve a flood? More water!

That's the conclusion that "your" side comes to. But if you actually fucking listen, you will understand that "my" side is requesting more educated and prepared people to carry guns in public. But you see the word "gun" and instantaneously see "scary," "bad," and "horrible."

[nando]

I never said anything about immigrants. talk about full loon?

there is no law on the books that prevents people who are basically known or likely terrorists from legally purchasing weapons. They have to pass a background check, but those are basically worthless. I have to assume people on the "no fly" list are there for a reason.

I don't think guns are scary, BTW. I don't care that people like yourself can get them. Rednecks with guns don't scare me either - I know all they want to do is be left alone. Hunting and target shooting is fun. But there are tons of people who probably should not own one, you know it and everyone else knows it. But we are unwilling to do anything about it because it means Obama is gonna take all our gunz away.. or so goes the theory. :p

[marshallnoise]

I never said anything about immigrants. talk about full loon?

Considering most jihadists are imported...the logic still applies.

there is no law on the books that prevents people who are basically known or likely terrorists from legally purchasing weapons. They have to pass a background check, but those are basically worthless. I have to assume people on the "no fly" list are there for a reason.

It's illegal to murder people. That's the law that applies regardless of weapon choice. And you said it yourself that background checks miss shit all the time.

I don't think guns are scary, BTW. I don't care that people like yourself can get them. Rednecks with guns don't scare me either - I know all they want to do is be left alone. Hunting and target shooting is fun. But there are tons of people who probably should not own one, you know it and everyone else knows it. But we are unwilling to do anything about it because it means Obama is gonna take all our gunz away.. or so goes the theory. :p

For sure people who shouldn't own guns do own guns. Short of door to door confiscation of people who haven't committed any crimes yet, there is no reasonable defense against this situation other than a well informed and well trained public.

We can't just do shit because we "think" something might happen. Laws are cautionary and reactionary. Cautionary to the rational. Reactionary to the irrational. If you want to abandon the way this functions, you must embrace tyranny for there is no other way.

[Wschnitz]

Considering most jihadists are imported...the logic still applies.

Considering that most acts of terrorism in the last 5 years were done by US citizens, religiously motivated or otherwise, I find your statements hilarious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

Also take note jihad means struggle in basic terms, meaning jihadist could apply to almost any of these terrorists.