The Mall Shooter was....

[Slash27]

Originally posted by VOR
INTERNET PURSEFIGHT!!!!!

It is?

[VOR]

Argument Sketch

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by Viking
I’d rather not. I don’t swing that way.

Well at least you didn't try to deny you are an Ameri-hater, that would have really  been funny.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
...Ameri-hater...

im kind of PO'd that no1 has come up with a better term than that by now...we're supposed to be so ingenuitive & whatnot....

[Viking]

Originally posted by Bronk
So Timothy James McVeigh could not be charged with a law vilation that did not exist at the time he committed an "act of terrorism".

Like I said, that may be the case; I’m no expert on us law. Though I find it strange that the US didn’t have punitive laws against terrorism before 1996. I guess you really are new to this business.

[storch]

Originally posted by Viking
Like I said, that may be the case; I’m no expert on us law. Though I find it strange that the US didn’t have punitive laws against terrorism before 1996. I guess you really are new to this business.

except that we are like the big easy going guy with a high threshold for BS, but once that threshold is crossed.....  as usual the naivity of our people and the openess of our society leaves us vulnerable to these types of attacks.  sadly with each incident the real victim is all of our people due to the steady erosion of our civil rights.

what everyone seems to forget is that an attack on the WTC would not have been possible fifty years ago because even if the terrorists had been armed with firearms there would have been several passengers who would have fired upon them with their personal weapons.  perhaps everyone on the aircraft would have died but the islamic/arab homicidal maniacs would have accomplished nothing.

I'm glad that my state and several others get it.  I'm sorry that the feds do not.  the solution to terror is not the patriot act.  the solution to terror is a good offense (attacking afghanistan, iraq, iran nkorea, cuba and then china) coupled with good intelligence and sensible right to carry laws for the law abiding here at home.  

there are plenty of patriots going about their daily business who would forfeit their lives if need be to prevent such occurances, this has been amply demonstrated in each every event.

[Saintaw]

Good luck with attacking China

[storch]

Originally posted by Saintaw
Good luck with attacking China

we have a secret weapon. when hillary becomes president she'll teach them to cook and take care of their husbands.  they'll be gone in a generation.

[cpxxx]

Storch you have seriously distorted view of things. But as they say 'it's a free country'.

Fifty years ago the 9/11 wouldn't have happened for various reasons not least because the aircraft extant at the time could not have done the damage a large and fast jet airliner could do. As for the passengers shooting it out on the aircraft. I don't think I ever heard of it during a hijacking and there were many over the years. The reason people are no longer allowed to bring guns onto the aircraft is precisely because the hijackers were doing just that.

I'm not anti gun, but the solution to everything is not issuing guns to one and all. If that was true Iraq or Afghanistan would be the safest countries on Earth.  Israel issues UZI's to all who want them. If anyone knows how to deal with terrorists, Israel does. They still get hit.  

The solution to terror is not attacking all those countries on the current bad guy list. Iraq is an excellent example of why that doesn't work. The solution to terror is not simple as that. Attacking and occupying other countries doesn't remove terror it causes it!

Unfortunately the true solution to terrorism is to remove the reasons for it. Then you can defeat the terrorists either by them quitting the game or eliminating them as their supporters drift away. It's a long game, decades long.

No simple answers. No easy days.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Viking
Like I said, that may be the case; I’m no expert on us law. Though I find it strange that the US didn’t have punitive laws against terrorism before 1996. I guess you really are new .

I think you looked at a bunch of these. Then tossed them out in the hopes nobody would look them up.
But just in case someone did you cover your arse with  "I’m no expert on us law.".

Nice try bluffing your way through this.

I don't think it's the US is "new to this business".  As I'm sure people were charged with whatever crime they committed doing said "terrorism".

Just now "terrorism" is chargeable offense also.


But please don't let that stop you from adding you thinly veiled US insults.

Makes you look more and more pathetic.


Bronk

[lazs2]

cpxx.. You could not arm everyone in a free country...  there would be a majority who would not have the skill or courage to go armed.   They would not take the responsibility.  you could not force them to nor would it be the right thing to do.

Only about 10% would be armed in a truly free society.   That would be enough to make a difference tho.   1 in ten would be plenty to deter mall attacks such as this or to stop them much more quickly.

I would feel much better knowing that one in ten of my fellow citizens, no matter where I went... were armed and willing to risk their lives to protect me and themselves.    It is also, as I have said many times... a human right.. it is the choice of the individual not the tyrant.

I also believe that the world is getting smaller and that there is a large segment of islamofacists that will never be happy and always be a problem...  how big or how much we contribute to it is debateable but they exist and won't go away unless they are killed or imprisoned.  nothing will make them happy but our deaths or their domination over us.   They have a form of religion that is not compatible with ever living in harmony with anyone.

lazs

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Viking
but while you guys hate to admit it you know I’m right, and that’s enough for me.

Better sprinkle some sugar on these Viqueen, as they might taste bitter while you eat them.

As per my previous post.

Bronk

[storch]

CPXXX types:

"Fifty years ago the 9/11 wouldn't have happened for various reasons not least because the aircraft extant at the time could not have done the damage a large and fast jet airliner could do. As for the passengers shooting it out on the aircraft. I don't think I ever heard of it during a hijacking and there were many over the years. The reason people are no longer allowed to bring guns onto the aircraft is precisely because the hijackers were doing just that."

A super connie fully fueled would do the same amount of damage if not more.  IIRC 707's were just around the corner.  I agree with you, I also have never heard of a shootout on an airplane.  however I contend that had a few members of the flight or it's tripulation been armed the outcome would have been far different on 11 sep 2001.

"I'm not anti gun, but the solution to everything is not issuing guns to one and all. If that was true Iraq or Afghanistan would be the safest countries on Earth. Israel issues UZI's to all who want them. If anyone knows how to deal with terrorists, Israel does. They still get hit."

how many EL-AL flights get hijacked today?

[firbal]

This has gotten off track. The shooter was Muslim. These days it seem that they all are or support this type of stuff. If there are any that don't, they are quiet. That means that they are afraid to say something to defend their faith because they would be murder. Not killed, but murdered by their radicals.

My long time best bud lives in the Salt Lake valley. His daughter was going to Trolley Square after work to buys some stuff at a couple of card shops there. But her some to be husband(cann't spell the word) called her up and asked her to met him somewhere else. If she had stayed with her plan, who knows what could of happened to her.

The shooter's Mom was screaming that they are Muslim and not terriorists. Well, since the late '60s, that releigon  has been the center of more terrior attacts than any other group. They are a threat to the world. Till they can strighten out their leadership and radicals, I wouldn't allow any more into the country. I read the US Government wants to let about 7000 into the country. How do we know that none of these people will turn around and bit us in the butt?

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by lazs2
cpxx.. You could not arm everyone in a free country...  there would be a majority who would not have the skill or courage to go armed.   They would not take the responsibility.  you could not force them to nor would it be the right thing to do.

Only about 10% would be armed in a truly free society.   That would be enough to make a difference tho.   1 in ten would be plenty to deter mall attacks such as this or to stop them much more quickly.

I would feel much better knowing that one in ten of my fellow citizens, no matter where I went... were armed and willing to risk their lives to protect me and themselves.    It is also, as I have said many times... a human right.. it is the choice of the individual not the tyrant.

I also believe that the world is getting smaller and that there is a large segment of islamofacists that will never be happy and always be a problem...  how big or how much we contribute to it is debateable but they exist and won't go away unless they are killed or imprisoned.  nothing will make them happy but our deaths or their domination over us.   They have a form of religion that is not compatible with ever living in harmony with anyone.

lazs

I knew a Swedish guy a long time ago.  He said that all males had to serve two years in the army, and then they took their rifle and uniform home with them.  I’m not sure if it’s true or not.