I didn't know the UN passed a resolution. I guess the problem is solved and no further action is needed. [/sarcasm]

What's next ... is the UN going to condemn the French for their attacks?

 

No. But the US said that they will
be putting more sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are free to act as they want. The bigger the lie, the more they believe in it someone said once...

 

I see where Washington DC is now an ISIS target. Another gun free zone.

 

I see where Washington DC is now an ISIS target. Another gun free zone.

And my wife wonders why I won't take her to visit D.C.

 

Every person I have ever met has a kitchen full of knives. Some quite large and sharp. Some are even fully automatic -- and have been used to assault poor, defenseless turkeys.

Yet not one of them has been involved in a kitchen knife fight. How could this be?

Oh Joey man come on son. Where I live there are plenty of riffles per person yet only one third of the population has one(People who own guns usually own more than one). Doesn't make us any more polite. The fact that you can never come home if you cross some lines one does

Trust me I'm the less aggressive egotistic mega manic money obsessed one of my fellow countrymen

Don't get me started on the knives Vs guns argument. Come on Joey you know better

 

Oh Joey man come on son.

Son?

Racist.

 

Tell that to the officer in all them movies talking to people younger than him whatever their color of skin

 

Tell that to the officer in all them movies talking to people younger than him whatever their color of skin

When you use Hollywood Movies as a source of logic, you are on a very weak foundation.

 

#12. I know.

But anyways what would you guys think is the right course of action now when the shock and rage has reduced a little?

 

When you use Hollywood Movies as a source of logic, you are on a very weak foundation.

True. Where I live nobody calls anybody sir anymore...

 

True. Where I live nobody calls anybody sir anymore...

where I live, everybody calls everybody sir... or at least the deferential term of usted instead of the more familiar tú ...

 

You don't hear a lot about this aspect, but I believe it is nearly 100%. ( I admit I haven't researched this fully.) There's a toxic combination of perceived anonymity, lack of family and social structure, political correctness (that prevents preemptive action against potential crazies), and finally the American tendency to medicate and hope for the best.

I hear (and concur with) the spirit of your comment! -- That said one wants to be very, very careful treading down the 'mental illness path' -- Lunacy/normalcy are often in the 'eyes of the beholders', and, frequently, the dictates of political opportunists --- A venerable statist/collectivist/fascist strategy, for instance, is pronouncement of all skeptics of their narratives as 'deniers' - ergo- 'out of touch with reality' and, hence, 'insane' --- IMNSHO Just cause for depriving one of the right of self defense (CIP an important means thereof) must meet the selfsame 'bar' as felony conviction - i.e. hard objective proof that the individual is dangerous! - Lest we revisit old Salem...

Again - this is not intended as an argument, but, rather, an expansion

Best regards
HP

 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...europe/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social



I just came across this reference. What do you all think about it?

I think I'm a little surprised that all these countries have so little regard for their own borders. (Not that we're any better. ) When I traveled Europe in '84, there were armed men in uniforms at every border crossing. The assumption was you risked being shot at if you stormed in without the right papers. I guess that pretense is long gone.

If you won't protect yourself, you can count on no one else doing it for you.

 

where I live, everybody calls everybody sir... or at least the deferential term of usted instead of the more familiar tú ...

Well the thing is that when you live in a small country. Those that were called sirs got a bit bigger in their head than they are. So in only 2-3 generations they became "Hey man". Not meant disrespectfully just to level the communication path between the generations.

 

Kill of their flow of weapons and money. Do you really want every pawn of theirs to become a queen

These guys have entire states filled with city's and military bases under their control. They are not hurting for military supplies. They do need money for things like running their magic kingdom so they make money from selling captured oil supplies, taxing captured populations and general criminal activity.

 

I refer to Kileen, Texas because two of my family were in that restaurant 30 minutes before the attack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
"Hennard reloaded at least three times"

I say:
If 5% of the honest citizens of Texas were armed, he would not have reloaded even once.
If 5% of the honest citizens of Paris were armed, the attack would have ended differently, and a lot more quickly. The French police waited 2 hours before entering the building. The occupants would not have waited 2 hours to shoot back. When the police arrive and then wait 2 hours to do anything, that isn't much help. Obviously, survival in a gun attack is not related to calling the police.

Having a gun makes killing (yourself or somebody else) much more convenient than using a knife or a club, but merely having a gun does not make you a murderer. Being without a gun in the middle of an armed attack makes you almost completely helpless. Disarming the entire population of honest citizens to, "make them safer" means that only the dishonest ones will have guns. Can you imagine something is wrong with this theory?

 

These guys have entire states filled with city's and military bases under their control. They are not hurting for military supplies. They do need money for things like running their magic kingdom so they make money from selling captured oil supplies, taxing captured populations and general criminal activity.

Sadly yes but the more the need to hurt them where they are getting their stuff from. Bombing them to submission will only make more people follow them. Since those people only get to see the side where their people are getting slaughtered.

They aren't really getting to see our side unfiltered so those that are killing them become their enemy. So they easily recruit.

I refer to Kileen, Texas because two of my family were in that restaurant 30 minutes before the attack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
"Hennard reloaded at least three times"

I say:
If 5% of the honest citizens of Texas were armed, he would not have reloaded even once.
If 5% of the honest citizens of Paris were armed, the attack would have ended differently, and a lot more quickly. The French police waited 2 hours before entering the building. The occupants would not have waited 2 hours to shoot back. When the police arrive and then wait 2 hours to do anything, that isn't much help. Obviously, survival in a gun attack is not related to calling the police.

Having a gun makes killing (yourself or somebody else) much more convenient than using a knife or a club, but merely having a gun does not make you a murderer. Being without a gun in the middle of an armed attack makes you almost completely helpless. Disarming the entire population of honest citizens to, "make them safer" means that only the dishonest ones will have guns. Can you imagine something is wrong with this theory?

#12 I do get the every civilian armed argument but the cancer lies deeper than that. Plus a guy with a bomb in his backpack...A gun ain't a help there...

The disarming that I mentioned earlier was pointed against those people that we are at war with. Sorry if I did not make it clear enough.

 

With respect to Luby's,

I believe one patron, who was dining with her parents, left her weapon in her vehicle. She testified that if she were allowed to carry in that restaurant, her parents and other patrons might have lived because she would have shot the armed shooter. I believe her.

 

By nature, people adapt to circumstance to achieve their goals. Thinking that an armed society is safe is delusional. Simple solution - large scale attack on the infrastructure, plus armed civilians will not stop all suicide bombers

Makes me think of modern airport security - stripping people of their privacy rights in the name of perceived safety is unacceptable.

BTW, who is making money on all of this?

 

With respect to Luby's,

I believe one patron, who was dining with her parents, left her weapon in her vehicle. She testified that if she were allowed to carry in that restaurant, her parents and other patrons might have lived because she would have shot the armed shooter. I believe her.

I saw an interview with the mother that left her gun in the car. (It has been a while.)
The reason she did not bring her gun into the Ludy's was due to pressure from her daughter. Afterwards, the mother was grief stricken that she didn't have it when she needed it.