• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

San Bernandino, CA - Shootings

A spoon can be an assault weapon if you use it to gouge out someone's eye. Going after guns is ignoring the cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTC
remove the guns from the equation in CA.
and the dead bodies.

insert the intact IEDs and detonate them.

is there a problem there?

what is the common denominator in both guns and IEDs?
 
IndySteel said:
A spoon can be an assault weapon if you use it to gouge out someone's eye. Going after guns is ignoring the cause.
Click to expand...

goddammit. now we have to ban spoons?!?!
 
ark steel said:
The coming Ice Age, err, Global Warming, err, Climate Change?
Click to expand...

latest


a new one? dude just needs his own movie.
 
Troglodyte said:
Well, excuse me! Since you have so much sense, maybe you can explain why the attack had a personal aspect to it? If he was given orders from a group, why a relatively small target of people?
Click to expand...

Did you forget Chattanooga? Not all acts of terrorism are "large"

The size of the target population of victims doesn't define it as terrorism or not.
 
Superman said:
goddammit. now we have to ban spoons?!?!
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, libtards need to stop focusing on the weapon and instead focus on the cause. Otherwise they would eventually have to ban knives, bricks, hammers... anything that could be used to hurt someone. It's not the tool that does the killing, it's the person.
 
When the news reported that the guy SYED met his wife on a trip to Saudi Arabia, I told my wife immediately, that she was the one that got into that guys head. He married her, and enabled her *** to live here in the states. I guarantee you that the people SYED were in contact with that the U.S officials say were not considered a real threat, but were watching, set the whole thing up. I bet they promised him a wife. He flew to Saudi Arabia to meet the crazy ***** that they picked out for him.
 
Last edited:
21STEELERS21 said:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...child_labor_are_not_the_price_of_liberty.html

This guy has a point. Should the right to personal safety, outweigh the right to unlimited gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Link wouldn't open. I feel smarter already.

deljzc said:
This was a terrorist attack. I have no doubt. The planning and type of attack is clearly islamic extremist. Again, this shows our enemy is just a complete nut job. They have a 6-month old daughter and they decide to jihad themselves to Allah and take 15-18 people down with them? Think about that for a minute. Most fathers with a 6-month old are worried about how to get 6 hours of sleep, this guy was building bombs and stockpiling up ammo/weapons.

I still think there needs to be some honest gun talk. When you write "honest gun talk" I see " gun ban talk that agrees with my opinion." Why do we have assault weapons legal exactly? Define the term and I'll be happy to discuss. Does an arms race between the right-wing NRA and criminals really benefit anyone except gun corporations? Don't you see this is what they want so they can sell more guns? I buy the guns I want or need......despite your obvious contempt for the mental capacity of rural type gun owners I am perfectly capable of discerning my own wants and needs......no campaign to "sell more guns" (if there even exists such a thing other than a sweet sale at a local shop) has an effect on that. And the more guns in circulation (legal or illegal) just increases their use in crime and increases the effectiveness of killing. So much wrong there.....but explain how "legally" owned guns increase crime?

I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. Those terms don't make any sense to me. A gun is a tool. It's the most effective tool at killing that is "legal" and mentioned in our constitution. Our constitution doesn't mention bombs or nukes or chemical weapons. It just says "arms". I don't understand how "arms" as our forefathers understood them - single shot muskets - has translated into the idea it allows a keeping up with technology into machine guns and assault rifles. Using that logic, maybe bombs and nukes should be allowed into private hands. Do you believe that you, or anyone else today for that matter, are smarter, more forward thinking or have greater understanding of or faith in the potential of human development than the founders? Because I believe that they knew and understood that weapon technology would increase and develop exponentially over the life of the REPUBLIC.....and that their express intent was that whatever "arms" were available should be available to ALL....After all, the Constitution and the BOR's are SUPPOSED to be restrictions on government by the people, not the other way around.Why not? What is "arms"? And if the purpose is to be able to fight against an oppressive government, wouldn't bombs and nukes in the hands of civilians deter government oppression as much as assault rifles? Yes. They would.

The whole gun thing doesn't make sense.

I think the right-wing, NRA proponents don't want to admit how silly their argument of legal assault weapons against an oppressive government is. Please explain the silliness of that argument. Are you saying the people should have to defend themselves from government oppression with muskets? Now THAT is silly! We are WAY past that.

It really comes down to me on what gun ownership means and for what reasons. We have propagandized the ownership of guns into being "American" and we have decided owning a gun is what makes us separate and superior in our freedoms. It most certainly does make us "separate" but not sure what you mean by "superior in" our freedoms. The NRA and gun manufacturers have played the uneducated rural lifestyle and the ghetto gang lifestyle into glorifying gun ownership as a symbol of freedom and power and independence (when it really means none of those things). Thank you very much for equating us "uneducated rural" folks with those freedom loving patriot hood rat gang banging drug pushers.....I can't for the life of me figure out why the entire population of the sparsely populated township in which I reside hasn't been wiped out in the last week, since obviously we own lots of guns and given the nightly death toll in say, Chicago. And the more guns that get into circulation, the more they are used in acts of violence. Gonna have to back that up with some figures.....bet ya can't.

It is much too late to get the cat back into the bag with guns. We have 1 out of every 4 guns in the world within our borders, yet no one cares. I care.....why are we so far behind? I'm going to have to up my game.....we should be at least 2-3 outta 4. We have no effective way of tracking them or knowing who has access or how. More bullshit.They are everywhere. For every man, woman and child you see in a day, there are that many guns "around". Hand guns, shot guns, assault rifles, hunting rifles, et. al.

I've voting for more gun regulation because I think we need LESS guns in circulation (I want that to be a republican, but oh well). That's me. We are a democracy so I am fine with voters disagreeing with me. The voters will decide. But I do think we'd be a better society with less guns in it. It's just how to do that now that is so convoluted.
Click to expand...

Del, you can come off at times with a well thought out post or comment. But the above has just completely destroyed any credibility you might have had on this particular subject....your knowledge of our history seems to have come from the biased, cleansed and disingenuously represented history syllabi of modern "academia." I don't expect you to reply to any of my comments or questions, because, well.......how could you without either fabrication of new comments or contradiction of the previous ones?
 
We don't have a gun problem, We have a RADICAL ISLAM problem.


Female attacker Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS leader

As the San Bernardino attack was happening, investigators believe the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, posted on Facebook, pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
 
deljzc said:
This was a terrorist attack. I have no doubt. The planning and type of attack is clearly islamic extremist. Again, this shows our enemy is just a complete nut job. They have a 6-month old daughter and they decide to jihad themselves to Allah and take 15-18 people down with them? Think about that for a minute. Most fathers with a 6-month old are worried about how to get 6 hours of sleep, this guy was building bombs and stockpiling up ammo/weapons.

I still think there needs to be some honest gun talk. Why do we have assault weapons legal exactly? Does an arms race between the right-wing NRA and criminals really benefit anyone except gun corporations? Don't you see this is what they want so they can sell more guns? And the more guns in circulation (legal or illegal) just increases their use in crime and increases the effectiveness of killing.

I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. Those terms don't make any sense to me. A gun is a tool. It's the most effective tool at killing that is "legal" and mentioned in our constitution. Our constitution doesn't mention bombs or nukes or chemical weapons. It just says "arms". I don't understand how "arms" as our forefathers understood them - single shot muskets - has translated into the idea it allows a keeping up with technology into machine guns and assault rifles. Using that logic, maybe bombs and nukes should be allowed into private hands. Why not? What is "arms"? And if the purpose is to be able to fight against an oppressive government, wouldn't bombs and nukes in the hands of civilians deter government oppression as much as assault rifles?

The whole gun thing doesn't make sense.

I think the right-wing, NRA proponents don't want to admit how silly their argument of legal assault weapons against an oppressive government is. We are WAY past that.

It really comes down to me on what gun ownership means and for what reasons. We have propagandized the ownership of guns into being "American" and we have decided owning a gun is what makes us separate and superior in our freedoms. The NRA and gun manufacturers have played the uneducated rural lifestyle and the ghetto gang lifestyle into glorifying gun ownership as a symbol of freedom and power and independence (when it really means none of those things). And the more guns that get into circulation, the more they are used in acts of violence.

It is much too late to get the cat back into the bag with guns. We have 1 out of every 4 guns in the world within our borders, yet no one cares. We have no effective way of tracking them or knowing who has access or how. They are everywhere. For every man, woman and child you see in a day, there are that many guns "around". Hand guns, shot guns, assault rifles, hunting rifles, et. al.

I've voting for more gun regulation because I think we need LESS guns in circulation (I want that to be a republican, but oh well). That's me. We are a democracy so I am fine with voters disagreeing with me. The voters will decide. But I do think we'd be a better society with less guns in it. It's just how to do that now that is so convoluted.
Click to expand...

Guns are not a "symbol" of freedom or being American. They are a vital instrument to protect freedom. When all weapons are in the hands of the government and the citizenry are helpless to resist, the government can do whatever it wants. Not only that, we are helpless to protect ourselves from criminals and foreign invaders. Why don't you comprehend this?

Your argument about "less guns in circulation" is utterly ridiculous. Do you think if we reduce the number of guns from 300 million to 150 million violent people won't be able to get them? How low do we go? The reality is the vast, vast majority of gun owners will never kill anyone. The few that do don't need a million guns to do it, they only need one.
 
How many well regulated militias exist in the United States today?

The 2nd amendment as originally written is obsolete.
 
I have a chinese SKS (30 round mag), my uncle has an AR15, M15, SKS, an AK47 and who knows what else. They are all semi auto. When I got my SKS my uncle bought it for me for my 18th B-day at a gun show in Monroeville. It was packed in grease and only $90. He would buy the ammo in the sardine cans and we would go out into my woods set up jugs, exploding targerts, and other targets, and just unleash hell on the trees. It was fun and a good stress relief. Both the price of ammo and the guns have more than trippled now and they have not been shot in over 15 yrs now. Due to regulation and prices he has moved onto collecting paintball guns now. I have never had the desire to go kill something or someone with them. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. People who want to inflict damage are going to find a way to get whatever they need regardless of the rules. Personally I dont care either way if assault guns are banned, but its not going to solve the problem.
 
I'm sure the guns were just there so they could protect themselves from unwarranted retaliation....leave those peaceful people alone....
 
Well there's your problem, time to start investigating mosques!


FRANCE SHUTS DOWN MOSQUES AFTER POLICE FIND GUNS

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve says three mosques have been shut down in France since the Paris attacks as part of a crackdown on extremist activities.

During the searches in the mosque, police officers found jihadist literature and a hard drive hidden in a wall, French media report. An undeclared Koran school was also discovered.

The mosque was consequently closed for fostering what the minister described as “Islamist radicalization.” Cazeneuve told reporters it was the first time mosques are being closed in France “on grounds of radicalization.”

One person was placed in custody following the raids, with 22 others banned from leaving France. Nine others were put under house arrest.

Cazeneuve says police have seized 334 weapons since the Nov. 13 attacks that left 130 people dead in Paris.

https://www.rt.com/news/324354-france-close-radical-mosques/
 
Female attacker Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS leader


Turd Ferguson said:
So there you have it....workplace violence.
Click to expand...


This just in...

CAIR: U.S. Responsible for California Massacre

The director of CAIR just announced that "the United States is partially to blame for the California massacre because the U.S. interferes with the affairs of other countries."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cair-director-on-cnn-u-s-partly-responsible-for-islamic-terrorism/

-----------------------------

CAIR is a terrorist organization!

Obama's fault!!!
 
Last edited:
21STEELERS21 said:
How many well regulated militias exist in the United States today?

The 2nd amendment as originally written is obsolete.
Click to expand...

See, I interpret it as "the right of the people to bear arms" was to regulate the militia....
 
IndySteel said:
That's what I'm saying, libtards need to stop focusing on the weapon and instead focus on the cause. Otherwise they would eventually have to ban knives, bricks, hammers... anything that could be used to hurt someone. It's not the tool that does the killing, it's the person.
Click to expand...

You are on fire. I agree with your post 100%
 
21STEELERS21 said:
How many well regulated militias exist in the United States today?

The 2nd amendment as originally written is obsolete.
Click to expand...

There are more than you are aware.
 
Tim Steelersfan said:
Did you forget Chattanooga? Not all acts of terrorism are "large"

The size of the target population of victims doesn't define it as terrorism or not.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't terrorism, only that I thought the guy was a lone wolf, not part of a larger group.

The latest reports are that its looking more and more like self-radicalization, and communication with others was infrequent and months ago. It's Also being reported he had heated political arguments with a Jewish co-worker in the past.
 
Troglodyte said:
I never said it wasn't terrorism, only that I thought the guy was a lone wolf, not part of a larger group.

The latest reports are that its looking more and more like self-radicalization, and communication with others was infrequent and months ago. It's Also being reported he had heated political arguments with a Jewish co-worker in the past.
Click to expand...
These are the kind that scare me the most. Almost impossible to track or get a read on. They will attack a mall at Christmas time. They will build a suicide vest, and explode it while in a crowd waiting to get into Heinz Field on gameday. It is coming.
 
Vincent said:
Amendment II..... A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It is amazing how unambiguous that which frames our every liberty is. It is succinct for a reason - to prevent the usurpation of said liberties for the duration of the Republic, and lend to its own defense against the arguments of those who would usurp. In honest consideration, it leaves no room for debate. Every word of the amendment is readily understandable to any literate, and should be even to those whose minds have been ravaged by modern "education".

Note that types and classes of weapons are not prescribed, but rather the amendment is framed, again succinctly, no, air tightly as "shall not be infringed". To modern readers, this translates to mean any weapon of any kind is available by right to the people without any consideration by the damn gubmint in order that they may defend their free state. It is so stated because the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the Republic by giving advantage to the people to defend it against would-be tyrants and their apologists. Had it been written for another purpose, it might have read "A well organized hunting club, being necessary to the recreation of rich white folk, the right of white people to have registered shotguns with approved storage, shall be granted as long as they pass all gubmint regulations, are not on the 'no fly' list, and said rich white folk have greased the requisite palms.". But it wasn't, and it doesn't. In fact, one might infer that the framers framed it to be idiot proof, albeit modern idiots find such deliberation absorbing.

"Shall not be infringed" seems to elude moderns. What that means is that the gubmint has no right, real or imagined to regulate, license, contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach, restrict, limit, curb, check, or say **** about weapon a citizen chooses to defend his free *** with, and by extension the free state. In consideration to moderns, and in terms they would find usable, that means if I can afford to buy an MRAP, an F-16, or even an evil "assault rifle", I get to damn do so and would-be tyrants, even black ones, and their courtiers have nothing to say about it.
Click to expand...

If it's so unambiguous then can black people in the ghetto and Muslim Americans own javelin rocket launchers and land mines?

Just curious.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top