^That’s the GOP voter base right there.
“I discrimate towards people from countries that value freedom, life, democracy, and the equality of women.”
How about the freedom to practice whatever religion you want? Do you value that? Discriminating against certain races and relations doesn’t speak to valuing democracy.
German-Americans, such as my grandmother, were not sent away from their homes during World War II.
They didn’t become radicalized or marginalized, either.
I suspect this idea, suggested by @Saintfan, will turn out to be true.
To me, it seems like the best explanation for a terrorist-style attack on a target that doesn’t seem to have any political importance.
“How about the freedom to practice whatever religion you want? Do you value that? Discriminating against certain races and relations doesn’t speak to valuing democracy.”
I do value that, and freedom to practice no religion whatsoever. However, if the way you practice your religion involves supporting imprisoning and killing others who are not of your religion, if your religion suppresses women and doesn’t value freedom, then I see no reason to roll out the welcome mat here. There are plenty of other people to take your place.
A majority of people support stronger gun control laws. A majority of republicans and democrats want to expand social security, expand or maintain medicare, and increase taxes on the wealthier people. 100 CEOs have as many assets in their retirement plans as 41 million families. I think 20 people have as much wealth as half the country. (I am not going to look that up). Fewer than 200 families have financed half the presidential campaign so far.
I don’t think we have a democracy. Looks like an oligarchy to me. Saying the United States is a democracy sells better.
“Spoken like a true ignorant , paranoid man who does not understand what Sharia is. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. When was the last time a Muslim tried to force you to convert? Get. A. Grip.”
Do you think this kind of personally insulting language has a place on this forum? Does calling people names further conversation?
And while you’re at it, perhaps you can explain the beauty of Sharia law. I’m sure women from Saudi Arabia can pipe in to support how wonderful it is.
I missed something… Did someone ACTUALLY try to justify Japanese segregation camps on this thread? Seriously?
I was shocked, too, romani.
A couple of random thoughts. First, there are people who have studied the characteristics of those who join ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. They tend to be young people seeking adventure and a sense of belonging. They are not particularly religious. Most of the fighters haven’t read the Quran, could not quote passages etc. That is not what drove them to join the cause. Second, we may fare better than Europe when it comes to radicalization because we do a better job of offering opportunities to immigrants. In the US, by the second generation, immigrants have caught up in terms of education, jobs, etc., while that is not happening in Europe so you have communities with little prospects for advancement.
On the gun front, I see no reason why military style weapons need to be legal. These guns are capable of shooting through walls and even bullet proof vests. If people want to use them for target shooting, then maybe we could allow locked cabinets at gun ranges where people could store their weapons for sport, but the guns stay there and are only used on the premises.
I think some politicians truly believe that any infringement on gun rights is wrong, but many others are motivated by their fear of losing financial support from the NRA which is essentially a lobbying arm of the gun industry. To defeat their influence, we need campaign finance reform. Until we keep people and groups with vast sums of money from wielding inappropriate influence, we delude ourselves by thinking that we have a real democracy where each person has an equal vote. The Koch brothers, the NRA, etc., all have too much power. I’m not a republican, but I think the party would benefit from restricting the money influence. Now, the far right controls the primary voting to such an extent that the party is increasingly forced to nominate candidates who have little chance in a general election. In that way, we’re not even a real two party government anymore. Citizens United has to be reversed.
I love reading logical, well-thought out posts that stay away from the crazy. Thank you.
- Both Malik and Farook become noticeably MORE religious in the last few years.
- They read the Koran and Farook had even memorized it lately.
- I don't think they were 'seeking adventure'. I think they were out to kill people they knew, who had just recently given them a baby shower, FTLOC.
I don’t know enough about the Internet so anyone who knows can respond. Is there some way to block internet access in ISIS controlled areas? So they couldn’t send out email messages, tweets or texts to anyone. There are still areas in our country with no Internet or cell phone service. Couldn’t our cyber people just block theirs?
Can the provider satellites be equipped to do that? Could be knock out cell towers?
I have wondered about that as well. ISIS would be far less influential without their social media presence.
Many of the ISIS sympathizers and social media people aren’t in ISIS areas.
As I said last night, I do favor some gun control legislation.
But I would like to ask a sincere and respectful question of some of the posters here who are the most upset and outraged. If you enact all of the measures you support in their entirety, what will you do and how will you cope emotionally when it happens again, because it will since legal guns aren’t the problem. As someone who supports the legislation and hates the NRA posted earlier, she knows that any gun control legislation will only have the benefit of stopping some accidents and a very small percentage of shootings. Which is important. I understand that the NRA represents a way of life and a group of people that are the antithesis of what most people on this thread find worthwhile, but I think the rage focused that way prevents attention on what is really dangerous. Additionally, what is the thought process that allows you to rail against something that isn’t to blame in a thread about an atrocity and ignore the actual bogeyman - except sometimes to worry, now that it was confirmed as terrorism, that the conversation might move from legal gun control to immigration?
Their beliefs didn’t kill 14 people. Their guns killed 14 people.
“Their beliefs didn’t kill 14 people. Their guns killed 14 people.”
Oh no, not that argument. Next we’ll have people saying it wasn’t rheur guns that killed people, but their bullets! 
And what laws would have prevented the couple from killing 14 people with pipe bombs when they made the decision to kill? They were educated people with resources. Once the decision was made, it was just a matter of who, how and when.
Bombs kill. Pressure cookers kill. Knives kill. Automobiles kill.
What turns those into killers? Personal beliefs.
No gun laws would have prevented this couple from being murderers.
Do we have to pick one approach? Can I not support reasonable gun control AND better screening of immigrants to the US AND keeping guns away from the mentally ill?
Yes you can rockvillemom, which is part of what I was asking. There is so much rage turned on the NRA (politically motivated?) and gun laws in a thread about terrorists who also made bombs. An odd juxtaposition in my view.
It’s a little strange to say that guns kill, not beliefs, with regard to people who turned their home Into a bomb factory.