(06-14-2016, 06:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They should just teach firearm safety courses in high school. Everyone should have some exposure so they can at least be slightly informed. All the band kids ducking PE can take this ....
Year long course. Firearm safety, history, recognition.
A few questions....
What is the price to supply every public school with enough variety of firearms that we deem our country informed?
Who teaches such classes?
Who is paying for the above?
Are we honestly going to supply every school with guns, or are we going to attempt to cut inner-city schools out of the loop?
Which politician wants to charge taxpayers to send tens of thousands of assault rifles to inner-city school to make sure they all know how to handle a high-powered firearm?
(06-14-2016, 06:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: A few questions....
What is the price to supply every public school with enough variety of firearms that we deem our country informed?
Who teaches such classes?
Who is paying for the above?
Are we honestly going to supply every school with guns, or are we going to attempt to cut inner-city schools out of the loop?
Which politician wants to charge taxpayers to send tens of thousands of assault rifles to inner-city school to make sure they all know how to handle a high-powered firearm?
Lucie has proven time and again that the poor are without merit and should be left behind.
Our father, who art in Hell
Unhallowed, be thy name
Cursed be thy sons and daughters
Of our nemesis who are to blame
Thy kingdom come, Nema
(06-14-2016, 06:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: A few questions....
What is the price to supply every public school with enough variety of firearms that we deem our country informed?
Who teaches such classes?
Who is paying for the above?
Are we honestly going to supply every school with guns, or are we going to attempt to cut inner-city schools out of the loop?
Which politician wants to charge taxpayers to send tens of thousands of assault rifles to inner-city school to make sure they all know how to handle a high-powered firearm?
School districts allocate their funds as necessary. It can be taught through the PE department. 1 credit mandatory for graduation. Then allow a few follow up in depth classes for anyone who wants to go further.
Why is every conversation about guns always come down to "assault rifles"?
(06-14-2016, 06:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: School districts allocate their funds as necessary. It can be taught through the PE department. 1 credit mandatory for graduation. Then allow a few follow up in depth classes for anyone who wants to go further.
Why is every conversation about guns always come down to "assault rifles"?
The same reason conversations about football tend to be about the NFL and not the Arena League? But again, don't you think we're going to have to raise taxes to supply public schools with firearms? They seem like a fairly expensive thing to just add to every school's budget so I don't think skimping on the volley balls is going to free up enough funds on its own.
(06-14-2016, 07:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The same reason conversations about football tend to be about the NFL and not the Arena League? But again, don't you think we're going to have to raise taxes to supply public schools with firearms? They seem like a fairly expensive thing to just add to every school's budget so I don't think skimping on the volley balls is going to free up enough funds on its own.
The older kids could always build them in shop class.
I think it's well known that I like Obama (btw I agree with Lucie that he's an atheist which only helps me like him), but I disagree with him on this and it's symptomatic of a major issue we're having in this country. Words mean something. Calling something by it's proper name is important as shared language and experience matter. Using the proper words promotes greater understanding. I've often told people I've been involved with professionally that I can write up a description of the same crime and, simply by using different, still accurate, wording I can make the situation seem much less serious or I can make it sound like a serial killing.
I get why Obama shies away from the term, he's trying not to alienate islamic allies in the region who are aiding in the fight against Daesh. Even for those that aren't actively assisting it makes sense not to give them the impression that the US considers all of islam to be the enemy. However, in so doing he minimizes the cause behind these attacks in the US. He opens the door for opportunists to make these attacks about something they aren't. The ACLU lawyer who blamed this on right wing christians is a prime, and insane, example. Yes, the far right are not friends of the gay community, but they don't condone killing them. You get a pastor who rants about them, some even say they deserve death, but these instances pale in comparison, both in scope and intensity, with what goes on in many (most?) islamic countries every minute of every day. Obama is wrong to conflate this killing with gun control more than, or even equal to, the dangers of religious extremism. He is wrong to attempt to minimize the connection as it muddies the water and allows others to inject their pet issues into the subject.
Bottom line is, if Obama was honest about these attacks the dialogue regarding it would be a lot more focused. A focused dialogue is more likely to bring a larger group of people to a consensus. A consensus is more likely to accomplish meaningful action and change. It's not that complicated and the correct words absolutely do matter.
(06-14-2016, 06:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not saying gun control is ever going to happen, but it probably isn't a coincidence an assault rifle was used in the deadliest mass shooting in the county's history and not an angry guy with a car, a sword, and a wal mart hammer.
This discussion came up on Facebook today.
My response:
Which of course means I am for coming for yer gunz apparently.
This was the topic of the thread:
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-14-2016, 08:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it's well known that I like Obama (btw I agree with Lucie that he's an atheist which only helps me like him), but I disagree with him on this and it's symptomatic of a major issue we're having in this country. Words mean something. Calling something by it's proper name is important as shared language and experience matter. Using the proper words promotes greater understanding. I've often told people I've been involved with professionally that I can write up a description of the same crime and, simply by using different, still accurate, wording I can make the situation seem much less serious or I can make it sound like a serial killing.
I get why Obama shies away from the term, he's trying not to alienate islamic allies in the region who are aiding in the fight against Daesh. Even for those that aren't actively assisting it makes sense not to give them the impression that the US considers all of islam to be the enemy. However, in so doing he minimizes the cause behind these attacks in the US. He opens the door for opportunists to make these attacks about something they aren't. The ACLU lawyer who blamed this on right wing christians is a prime, and insane, example. Yes, the far right are not friends of the gay community, but they don't condone killing them. You get a pastor who rants about them, some even say they deserve death, but these instances pale in comparison, both in scope and intensity, with what goes on in many (most?) islamic countries every minute of every day. Obama is wrong to conflate this killing with gun control more than, or even equal to, the dangers of religious extremism. He is wrong to attempt to minimize the connection as it muddies the water and allows others to inject their pet issues into the subject.
Bottom line is, if Obama was honest about these attacks the dialogue regarding it would be a lot more focused. A focused dialogue is more likely to bring a larger group of people to a consensus. A consensus is more likely to accomplish meaningful action and change. It's not that complicated and the correct words absolutely do matter.
Not for nothing but did you read what the President said?
Quote:"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies, is there a military strategy that is served by this?" he said. "The answer is none of the above."
I don't know how much more "focused" you want him to be just by using words that even you admit could potentially alienate our allies in this war.
Or who is not in the consensus that terrorism is bad because he won't use one phrase to describe it.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-14-2016, 08:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not for nothing but did you read what the President said?
I don't know how much more "focused" you want him to be just by using words that even you admit could potentially alienate our allies in this war.
Or who is not in the consensus that terrorism is bad because he won't use one phrase to describe it.
What exactly would the label accomplish? How you read my post and missed that part confuses me, but I'll explain again. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't a cannibalistic serial killer, he was "a human flesh oriented depriver of homosapien life". A child molester should instead be called, "a person with sexual proclivities towards those younger than legally allowed." The fact that you don't get this distinction simply shows how significant, and pervasive, this problem has become.
(06-14-2016, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What exactly would the label accomplish? How you read my post and missed that part confuses me, but I'll explain again. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't a cannibalistic serial killer, he was "a human flesh oriented depriver of homosapien life". A child molester should instead be called, "a person with sexual proclivities towards those younger than legally allowed." The fact that you don't get this distinction simply shows how significant, and pervasive, this problem has become.
That fact that you said...
(06-14-2016, 08:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get why Obama shies away from the term, he's trying not to alienate islamic allies in the region who are aiding in the fight against Daesh. Even for those that aren't actively assisting it makes sense not to give them the impression that the US considers all of islam to be the enemy. However, in so doing he minimizes the cause behind these attacks in the US.
...but still think somehow people would be more "focused" or there would be a greater "consensus" if just said one word different.
It accomplishes nothing.
The President in now way minimized the shooting.
Quote:First of all, our hearts go out to the families of those who have been killed. Our prayers go to those who have been wounded. This is a devastating attack on all Americans. It is one that is particularly painful for the people of Orlando, but I think we all recognize that this could have happened anywhere in this country. And we feel enormous solidarity and grief on behalf of the families that have been affected.
The fact that it took place at a club frequented by the LGBT community I think is also relevant. We’re still looking at all the motivations of the killer. But it’s a reminder that regardless of race, religion, faith or sexual orientation, we’re all Americans, and we need to be looking after each other and protecting each other at all times in the face of this kind of terrible act.
With respect to the killer, there’s been a lot of reporting that’s been done. It’s important to emphasize that we’re still at the preliminary stages of the investigation, and there’s a lot more that we have to learn. The one thing that we can say is that this is being treated as a terrorist investigation. It appears that the shooter was inspired by various extremist information that was disseminated over the Internet. All those materials are currently being searched, exploited so we will have a better sense of the pathway that the killer took in making the decision to launch this attack.
As Director Comey I think will indicate, at this stage we see no clear evidence that he was directed externally. It does appear that, at the last minute, he announced allegiance to ISIL, but there is no evidence so far that he was in fact directed by ISIL. And there also at this stage is no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot. In that sense, it appears to be similar to what we saw in San Bernardino, but we don’t yet know. And this is part of what is going to be important in terms of the investigation.
As far as we can tell right now, this is certainly an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have been so concerned about for a very long time.
What you are saying is exactly why the President said what he did in the OP. It serves no purpose but would make a small group feel better for some reason.
He is preaching unity.
If someone thinks that means terrorism isn't bad enough because he won't say Islamic then they have deeper problems. And they will never join the "consensus".
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-14-2016, 08:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: That fact that you said...
...but still think somehow people would be more "focused" or there would be a greater "consensus" if just said one word different.
It accomplishes nothing.
The President in now way minimized the shooting.
Yes, he did in exactly the way I described. You're venturing back into GMDabo territory right now.
Quote:What you are saying is exactly why the President said what he did in the OP. It serves no purpose but would make a small group feel better for some reason.
No, it would serve the exact purpose I described in my original post, you know, the one you ignored.
Quote:He is preaching unity.
If someone thinks that means terrorism isn't bad enough because he won't say Islamic then they have deeper problems. And they will never join the "consensus".
The word islamic is important because it was islamic inspired terrorism. The guy pledged allegience to isis. The man was almost certainly motivated by the extreme hatred of homosexuals constantly exhorted by much of the islamic world. The planned parenthood shooter was motivated by extreme christian ideology, this maniac was motivated by islam as it is practiced in much of the world. To claim, or state, otherwise is disingenuous and wrong.
(06-14-2016, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, he did in exactly the way I described. You're venturing back into GMDabo territory right now.
No, it would serve the exact purpose I described in my original post, you know, the one you ignored.
The word islamic is important because it was islamic inspired terrorism. The guy pledged allegience to isis. The man was almost certainly motivated by the extreme hatred of homosexuals constantly exhorted by much of the islamic world. The planned parenthood shooter was motivated by extreme christian ideology, this maniac was motivated by islam as it is practiced in much of the world. To claim, or state, otherwise is disingenuous and wrong.
I really don't why you insist that I "ignored" why you say (every time) when I post the exact quote and respond to it.
This is a high level of trolling you've reached when you can't say you might, possibly, for a second, be wrong.
And no, I am not going to argue with you (again) so you can just say I didn't read what you posted.
Go ahead tell the internet you "won" again.
Carry on and have a great night!
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-14-2016, 09:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: I really don't why you insist that I "ignored" why you say (every time) when I post the exact quote and respond to it.
This is a high level of trolling you've reached when you can't say you might, possibly, for a second, be wrong.
And no, I am not going to argue with you (again) so you can just say I didn't read what you posted.
Go ahead tell the internet you "won" again.
Carry on and have a great night!
That's one way to respond. Another would be to acknowledge the mitigation of certain acts and causes by using minimizing language. I suppose that would take a degree of mental acuity you don't seem willing to exert on this issue.
(06-14-2016, 05:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obama has done everything he could to not say Islamic terrorism or really Islamic anything. This is nothing new, been doing it since elected.
Praises Islam and trashes the police. That's the Obama way. Reading those CAIR Talking points.
Has he ever said "Christian fanatic" or "Religious fanatic"?
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
(06-14-2016, 09:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's one way to respond. Another would be to acknowledge the mitigation of certain acts and causes by using minimizing language. I suppose that would take a degree of mental acuity you don't seem willing to exert on this issue.
I don't even know why Obama bothers to address the media anymore...people already have their minds made up about this stuff.
(06-14-2016, 09:15 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Has he ever said "Christian fanatic" or "Religious fanatic"?
My friend's wife about crapped her pants because I had the gall to refer to Muslims as "ultra conservative." Let's just call this like it is...an ultra conservative, religious, gun lovin', anti-gay, American citizen went on a killing spree. Thankfully he believes in the extra brown god so we can release guns, people who love guns, Americans, people who believe in god, and people who give a crap about gay people being gay from feeling guilty.
POTUS Wrote:“That’s their propaganda; that’s how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with an entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them,”
Does POTUS think so little of the Muslim people that he fears if he calls a portion of the religion radical that Muslims everywhere will think we are talking about them as a whole?
I have zero issue is folks call people at Westboro Baptist Church, snake-handlers, or KKK members radical Christians; however, folks usually do not include that distinction when talking about them and others; they just call them Christians.
Regardless of the right thing to do or proper way to address something, Obama will never say anything that could possibly reinforce any of Trump's platform.
If he were to speak of Islamic Extremism now, he'd be like Morgan Freeman in this meme....
Quote:“I watched President Obama today, and he was more angry at me than he was at the shooter,” Trump said, referring to Omar Mateen, the Florida security guard accused of shooting 100 people, 49 of them fatally, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. “The level of anger: that’s the kind of anger he should have for the shooter and these killers who shouldn’t be here.”
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/ZJqPtMjmHbNN6/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 85d8232ebbf088d606250ddec1641e7b.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/85/d8/23/85d8232ebbf088d606250ddec1641e7b.jpg)
![[Image: 061416.jpg]](http://s32.postimg.org/pypzfe22d/061416.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: f7FdEdG.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/f7FdEdG.jpg)
