West Syria

[Plastic Nathrakh]

Scoff and dismiss was directed at leftist treatment of Christians, along with shaming them into a corner for something the catholics did a thousand years ago. Not yourself. But earlier, you did call the other dude a moron...which doesn't really do much of anything to support your criticism.

Just saying, you can be an Atheist. I can be a Christian. Now lets focus on an actual enemy who wants to kill us both. Ignoring the specificity only perpetuates the problem and causes potential allies to be turned off by your lumping together. No other religion is beheading people for disbelief, being gay, or etc etc.

 

[CiG]

Christians are burning witches in Africa. I'm not in favour of letting other religions off the hook because Islam is the worst right now.

Scoff and dismiss was directed at leftist treatment of Christians, along with shaming them into a corner for something the catholics did a thousand years ago. Not yourself. But earlier, you did call the other dude a moron...which doesn't really do much of anything to support your criticism.

This still has me confused.

 

[CiG]

By the comment of how leftists treat Christianity, I mean that for example they're willing to go after Christian bakeries for not wanting to bake cakes for gay weddings, yet you never see them go after Muslim bakeries in similar situations.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

Christians are burning witches in Africa. I'm not in favour of letting other religions off the hook because Islam is the worst right now.

This still has me confused.

This argument is about immigration. How many of these Kenyan savage "Christians" are we bringing in? How many occurrences of this are there? Exactly. Keep digging. Islam keeps 'em coming.

I said I didn't want to derail this into a theological debate, because I am outnumbered on a metal forum obviously. I'd be glad to discuss Christianity where ears are open to listen, but it is plainly clear that Islam is reactionary to the Bible. It paints straw-man arguments against Christianity within its own text and fails to slay them.

I'm not going much further than that, but here is a liberal Brit comparing Islam to Christianity.

 

[CiG]

 

[Reign in Acai]

Which is of course what brought about ISIS in the first place.

No. Pulling out of Iraq, creating a power vacuum that a bunch of cucks were unable to control, while simultaneously arming Syrian rebels (radical turd burglars) to overthrow Assad, and removing Gaddafi from Libya is what has brought about this shit storm. All on Obama's watch. Nice try though.

No. When they are able to acquire weapons, then they attack. You have absolutely no idea how equipping everyone with a weapon - even self radicalised lone actors with no support and no current means of acquiring weapons - would influence the situation. Not to mention that permissive gun laws didn't really help the Floridians.

Floridians are not allowed to carry in night clubs, it's a gun free zone. Only four states permit fire arms in venues that serve alcohol.

 

[CiG]

He's British, of course he thinks guns are evil. They're all mostly retards over there.

 

[Reign in Acai]

Well at least 48% of the populace is certifiably retarded.

 

[Internally Deformed]

No they wouldn't. Explain how they'd be eligible?

Because the majority of terrorists were raised in the country they end up attacking, particularly in Britain. So they'd be as eligible to own firearms as you or I.

Also, the FBI watchlist is a red herring. You can't be denied your second amendment right because you were placed on a secret list without your knowledge and without due process. Learn how the constitution and law works in the future before you spew asinine bullshit.

Martin Luther King was on the "no fly" list and so was John Lewis. Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI, no guns for her too?

Exactly - you've just admitted that being flagged as a potential terrorist is considered insufficient reason to deny someone access to armaments. So terrorists would have access to weapons, just as Omar Mateen in fact did. Tell me why you think they wouldn't, I'm curious.

He's British, of course he thinks guns are evil. They're all mostly retards over there.

I guess our retarded policies are why we have so much gun crime here. Oh wait.

No. Pulling out of Iraq, creating a power vacuum that a bunch of cucks were unable to control, while simultaneously arming Syrian rebels (radical turd burglars) to overthrow Assad, and removing Gaddafi from Libya is what has brought about this shit storm. All on Obama's watch. Nice try though.

Of course, it would have been somewhat challenging to pull out of Iraq if we hadn't actually been there in the first place. As to Gadaffi, I'm not trying to defend Obama here. Interfering in the middle east is stupid, so you're right, Obama fucked up too.

Floridians are not allowed to carry in night clubs, it's a gun free zone. Only four states permit fire arms in venues that serve alcohol.

Cool law, although it's pretty difficult to actually prevent someone already carrying an assault rifle going into a venue they're technically banned from, as the attack itself proves.

 

[Reign in Acai]

Yea its hard to prevent, but the loss of life would have been heavily minimized if the Aladdin had to worry about a venue where any target may have been armed, over a sole door man. This is why these cowards stake out their locations a dozen times over, they want to ensure it's a den of defenseless lambs.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Yea its hard to prevent, but the loss of life would have been heavily minimized if the Aladdin had to worry about a venue where any target may have been armed, over a sole door man. This is why these cowards stake out their locations a dozen times over, they want to ensure it's a den of defenseless lambs.

I suppose we could equip every nightclub, McDonald's and corner shop with heavily armed bouncers to prevent this sort of thing happening again. It might be cheaper though, to just not let him have a gun in the first place.

 

[CiG]

It might be cheaper though, to just not let him have a gun in the first place.

There was no justification to deny him his second amendment right, but actually the vast majority of gun crime, in America as well as globally, is done with illegally attained firearms.

I guess our retarded policies are why we have so much gun crime here. Oh wait.

Your gun crime rates are low as a result of stripping civilians of their right to bear arms, but all other violent crimes are up as a result. Same here in Australia. Stabbings, beatings, blunt objects, they all go up when criminals know the civilian poses no threat.

Because the majority of terrorists were raised in the country they end up attacking, particularly in Britain. So they'd be as eligible to own firearms as you or I.

You think so? How many homegrown American terrorists use legally attained firearms in their attacks?

 

[Internally Deformed]

There was no justification to deny him his second amendment right, but actually the vast majority of gun crime, in America as well as globally, is done with illegally attained firearms.

What would constitute a justification to deny him his second amendment right if not suspected involvement with terrorist groups and ideology? The emphasis should really be on why you are qualified to own a gun, rather than why you aren't. Everyone has the right to own a car and drive, but you've still got to prove that you're able to do so safely. As to the second part, it goes without saying that illegal firearms are much easier to obtain in a country in which firearms are also legal, which is why gun crime committed with illegal weapons is also higher than the total level of guncrime in the UK and Western Europe.

Your gun crime rates are low as a result of stripping civilians of their right to bear arms, but all other violent crimes are up as a result. Same here in Australia. Stabbings, beatings, blunt objects, they all go up when criminals know the civilian poses no threat.

Crime levels across the board are lower in the UK and Western Europe compared to the USA. Guns simply make murdering people less difficult to accomplish.

You think so? How many homegrown American terrorists use legally attained firearms in their attacks?

See first point.

 

[CiG]

Guns are constantly used in Euro zones that have strict gun control. Show me statistics or fuck off.

What would constitute a justification to deny him his second amendment right if not suspected involvement with terrorist groups and ideology?

Proof of involvement. Learn how freedom works retard. Would you support Martin Luther King's second amendment rights being taken away because the FBI put him on a list for being a possible radical via suspected support of the Soviet Union/communism?

 

[Internally Deformed]

Guns are constantly used in Euro zones that have strict gun control. Show me statistics or fuck off.

Okay then.

Proof of involvement. Learn how freedom works retard. Would you support Martin Luther King's second amendment rights being taken away because the FBI put him on a list for being a possible radical via suspected support of the Soviet Union/communism?

So what you're saying is the only proof strong enough to convince you that a potential terrorist shouldn't be allowed a weapon is if he's already committed a terrorist act. Seems reasonable.

As to MLK and his second amendment rights, as someone against the legality of firearms I obviously don't believe he should even have had those rights in the first place.

 

[CiG]

Not stats for that, stats that show that less terrorists use guns if they come from places with gun control/bans.

I obviously don't believe he should even have had those rights in the first place.

And that's why I don't take you seriously at all.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Not stats for that, stats that show that less terrorists use guns if they come from places with gun control/bans.

Whether or not that stat exists is irrelevant, as what I'm arguing is that terrorists won't even be able to commit terrorist acts if they don't have the proper equipment. By providing easy access to guns you're allowing people who probably wouldn't have become terrorists otherwise to kill a bunch of people without extensive planning or connections.

 

[CiG]

You have no way of proving that. Places with gun bans prove the opposite, because they get guns anyway and in places like America terrorists don't exclusively use guns, legally attained or otherwise, eg Boston bombers.

So your position is fascism masquerading as bullshit.

 

[Internally Deformed]

You have no way of proving that. Places with gun bans prove the opposite, because they get guns anyway and in places like America terrorists don't exclusively use guns, legally attained or otherwise, eg Boston bombers.

So your position is fascism masquerading as bullshit.

Because some guns are smuggled into gun prohibitive countries is in no way equivalent to saying that everyone in those countries who wants a gun gets a gun.

True, you can kill people through other means, but it's a lot harder to construct a pressure cooker bomb than it is to mow down a crowd of people with an assault rifle.

The thing that makes me laugh about the fascism argument is that everyone believes some weapons ought to be prohibited to the general population - for instance nukes. Are you a nuclear fascist?

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

The thing that makes me laugh about the fascism argument is that everyone believes some weapons ought to be prohibited to the general population - for instance nukes. Are you a nuclear fascist?

Know a lot of guys that can enrich uranium, eh?