B-Man Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 "As the San Bernardino attack was happening... Tashfeen Malik, posted on Facebook, pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi..." ... investigators believe, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation. WHEN NARRATIVES FAIL: San Bernardino Shootings Destroy Leftist Narrative After Leftist Narrative. “Over the last 48 hours, the unserious parade of clown leftists in politics and the media have jumped on every narrative rake in sight. They desperately wanted the shooting in San Bernardino to be a right-winger with an NRA tramp stamp gone mad. Instead, it turned out to be two Muslims who dropped their six-month-old baby off in order to pursue killing. Here’s how the left desperately attempted to spin narrative after narrative – and will continue to spin in the coming days, ignoring the very real threat of radical Islam.” Plus: “There’s just one more step before we reach the end of the rake-stepping parade: climate change.” http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/220503/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pjmedia%2Finstapundit+%28Instapundit%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Still does not change the fact that the NRA has stopped sensible reforms like not letting people on a terrorism watch list from buying guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Is this news? I would have been shocked if she pledged allegiance to Billy Graham. No, it's just 100% confirmation from the shooters themselves that they intended on committing acts of terrorism. No sane logical person can claim otherwise. Still does not change the fact that the NRA has stopped sensible reforms like not letting people on a terrorism watch list from buying guns These guys were not on a watch list. Would not have mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 These guys were not on a watch list. Would not have mattered. But the guys on the list could have and still can so it would not have mattered if they were on the list, thanks to the NRA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 But the guys on the list could have and still can so it would not have mattered if they were on the list, thanks to the NRA Exhibit #34,567,654 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Republicans say "yes" to due process. The "terrorism watch list" is arbitrary; anyone can be put on it. Out of ideas, Democrats circle back to terrorism watch list “gun loophole” FTA: According to that report, the Democrats believe the first proposal, related to the so-called terrorism watch list “gun loophole,” has the greatest chance of eventually becoming law, although today’s particular proposals will be non-binding votes offered only because they “could become major campaign fodder in next year’s Senate races.” As my colleague Taylor has explained, the terrorism watch list was never meant for this purpose. As a mere watch list, it includes thousands of people who have done no wrong and clearly do not represent a threat to anyone. Like, for example, Fox News contributor Stephen F. Hayes, who was added last year for the crime of going on a cruise, or Nelson Mandela, who’s placement on the list should demonstrate for anyone with two working brain cells that it was never intended as a tool to strip citizens of their rights. There are no statutory criteria for inclusion on the terrorism watch list and no statutory mechanism to challenge one’s placement on the list. All of that was left to unelected, anonymous government bureaucrats. That’s probably half the reason Democrats like the idea so much. With respect to the other two proposed show votes, the first is purely redundant. Convicted felons (actually, even people who merely have felony charges pending) cannot pass a firearms background check, assuming the brain trust that runs the background check process does its job right. Mark that one down as a vote made purely so that it can juice the election campaigns of struggling Democrats. Finally, we’ve done the universal background check merry-go-round before. Like the last time they tried this, Democrats have failed to demonstrate that the proposal would have any effect on gun crime. Edited December 4, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 355 mass shootings but the vast majority seem to be gang related. So the statistic is more a drug problem. The war on drugs that started in the 70's has caused this massive problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Not going to bother reading thru 14 pages of this thread because I'm pretty sure I know how it went. NRA Bad! Muslims Bad! You're an idiot! Did I miss anything or did I catch the gist of it? You might have missed this brilliant exchange: Actually they don't have guns. Europeans don't have guns? Nope So there is not one gun owner in all of Europe? Are you really saying this? Zero, never have been :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 You might have missed this brilliant exchange: :lol: None at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 LA Grant -Gatorman Butt buddies or one in the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Way off topic but to hell with gun control. Let's go after Phillip Morris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 But the guys on the list could have and still can so it would not have mattered if they were on the list, thanks to the NRA Wow. You're really working hard for that Rover payment. Don't you EVER question what you're told to post? Ever? You'd think you'd have quit after that whole 'no one in Europe has ever owned a gun' embarrassment. But no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Still does not change the fact that the NRA has stopped sensible reforms like not letting people on a terrorism watch list from buying guns Who controls the watch list? I suppose some southern preacher who is against homosexual marriage could be placed on the watch list by some sniveling, government bureaucrat? Pretty soon, anyone who utters a word against Islam will be on the list. Anyone who hates green apples...watch list. Be careful what you wish for gator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) But the guys on the list could have and still can so it would not have mattered if they were on the list, thanks to the NRA Watch lists operate outside of due process, and are arbitrary. There is no way to know if you are on a watch list, no way to protest your inclusion on the list, no way to know why you were placed on a list, and no way to get yourself off such a list. Given these glaring flaws, inclusion on watch list is just about the worst way to go about curtailing a citizen's rights. There is a strong likelihood that vocal support of the Second Amendment, or membership in one of several gun rights advocacy groups could land you on a watch list, given the current climate. Under such circumstances, wanting to own a gun could exclude you owning a gun. Edited December 4, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 The New Yorker tries to out-SoProg the New York Daily News with the ultimate in idiocy on its cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 The New Yorker tries to out-SoProg the New York Daily News with the ultimate in idiocy on its cover. Well, that's a nice politically corrected cartoon of a couple going out gun shopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Well, that's a nice politically corrected cartoon of a couple going out gun shopping. At least they put Magpul parts on the AR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 They should have least put a picture of reality "missing" on the milk carton.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Well, that's a nice politically corrected cartoon of a couple going out gun shopping. I can't tell which i like more; the list in her hand or the stack of rifles in her shopping cart. The New Yorker is so edgy. Perhaps their next cover will have a photo of Muhammad in drag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Unreasonable demands by NRA members? Apparently for some people Also a note of support from Ulster County gun clubs. (Note the process of registering and getting checks approved) The Federated Sportsmen’s Clubs of Ulster County supports Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum’s comments made on 12/3/15 regarding licensed handgun permit holders. Owing firearms is not for everyone and only individuals properly trained should possess them. With that being said we agree that they should and we encourage everyone to exercise their rights. The Federation has been involved with Ulster County and the Ulster County’s Sheriff’s office for over 40 years promoting gun safety. We are proud of that partnership and the safety record. Thousands of Ulster County residents have gone through the arduous process of obtaining a concealed carry permit. They go through a safety course, a state and federal background check and then their application is reviewed by one of the county judges. The process can take up to a year. All permit holders have the knowledge regarding NYS law and are fully aware of their responsibilities and the consequences. We are confident that our county residents are responsible and properly trained. Most permit holders carry already and we encourage more law enforcement to carry off duty. It is easy for us to understand the sheriff’s desire to release comments. We share in his frustration at the agenda push for more gun control from elected officials every time there is a shooting. Personal defense and protecting your family is definitely on the minds of Ulster County residents. We are proud to have a Sheriff like Paul Van Blarcum to speak out knowing that his comments would be controversial. Thank you Sheriff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts