« prev   random   next »

4
1

Turkey Airport Bombing - Ban Guns?

By joshuatrio following x   2016 Jun 28, 1:16pm 13,474 views   41 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


https://www.rt.com/news/348735-explosion-atatukr-reports-injured/

"A Turkish official has said that police approached two suspects and fired upon them before the suspects detonated their explosive devices.

The confrontation reportedly took place near x-ray machines inside the international arrivals area."

« First    « Previous    Comments 2 - 41 of 41    Last »

2   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2016 Jun 28, 2:24pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Obligatory:

3   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2016 Jun 28, 2:25pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Rew says

See how this whole background check thing works?

4   Strategist   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 28, 2:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

The count is zero everyday. Stop cheating.

5   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 28, 2:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@joshuatrio ... ohhh, I think you were making a point that even the security couldn't stop the attack while armed. I see. Yes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-ataturk-airport-attack-explosions-gunfire-latest-a7108241.html

6   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 28, 2:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

See how this whole background check thing works?

We regulate certain classes of arms. We background check those who want to buy firearms (but not as stringently as we check entry into the country). We background check those that want to enter the country.

Your argument is what zzyzzx? No background checks anywhere: firearms ownership or entering the country? You cannot stop everything, but we can at-least be as tough on gun acquisition as we are about getting into the country. Wouldn't you rather there were two checks in place before a potential threat legally entered the country, and then legally bought a fire arm? I sure would.

7   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 28, 4:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Maybe now turkey will think twice before letting Isis use their country as a springboard into Syria.

8   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 28, 4:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

These critical independent thinkers always manage to surprise us with original acts on all continents.

9   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2016 Jun 28, 5:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Happy BOMBADAN!!

10   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2016 Jun 28, 5:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Rew says

You cannot stop everything, but we can at-least be as tough on gun acquisition as we are about getting into the country.

Guns are a right, 2nd amendment. Yeah there is that little inconvenient thing, called the bill of rights, the one that liberals dislike when it gets in the way of their policy.

11   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2016 Jun 28, 6:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

And Trump now wants to allow Muslims into Murika.
Why does he hate America?

It's to bad that Rep/Con/Teas allow The 2nd Amendment to be infringed.
They have not removed the law that requires concealed carry permits.
Where's that be in the 2nd requirements? Stupid fucks even carry the piece of paper.
They won't let Americans carry "arms" onto public property that they pay taxes for.

Destroying the 2nd,what better description of enemy combatants?

12   someone else   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 28, 7:37pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says

The count is zero everyday. Stop cheating.

sadly, this is actually true:

http://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30

muslim terrorists deliberately murder unarmed civilians every day, all around the world, because they think that is what good muslims should do.

and they are correct. islam does command them to kill apostates, unbelievers, homosexuals, etc etc etc.

13   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 8:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Thinking about how to stop more of these, I think there's only one solution that will actually work. Decentralization. Stop bunching up in big cities, make them suicide bomb us house to house. Radical Muslims are far outnumbered, and if they have to start taking us one-on-on, and we all have guns, they will be wiped out within a year.

Also, we could stop making their ideology so appealing by bombing and droning them for 15 years non-stop...

14   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 8:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says

Guns are a right, 2nd amendment.

No, guns are not, arms are.

FortWayne says

Yeah there is that little inconvenient thing, called the bill of rights, the one that liberals dislike when it gets in the way of their policy.

I'm sure I could never find conservatives cherry picking issues to battle in states rights and the constitution, right? There are literally no examples, right? Which is why I post none here. (snicker)

I think the difference is, typically when I see the right at odds with the constitution, it's not based in any constitutional interpretation at all, it is simply "because". That's how the party of simple thinking absolutes works these days.

15   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 10:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Question in the thread title is wrong, it should be "Ban Bombs?" as I believe they caused most of the damage.

Wait, bombs are already banned?

16   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 10:13am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

No, guns are not, arms are.

Arms "being necessary to the security of a free State", I believe is the context.

It would be hard to support the preservation of a free state in the context that the amendment was written without firearms IMO.

(I say this as someone who doesn't own an AR15 btw, just enjoying the Pat.net debates again)

17   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 10:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PCGyver says

Crazy thing is a couple of box cutters has made the que at airport security an easy place to hit with a suicide bomber. We have given up our freedom and yet we are less safe than we were before.

You can argue where in the security point you want the soft target, but you simply move it from one location to another. Shall we move security to the curb? Shall we move it to the parking structures?

I cannot say for certain we are safer, or not. For the longterm trend in general aviation and flight, that is 100% true. For terrorist attack that is much harder and more obscured to measurement to be able to say. Post 9-11 we have become hyper vigilant as a nation, though.

18   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 10:17am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

sadly, this is actually true:

http://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30

muslim terrorists deliberately murder unarmed civilians every day, all around the world, because they think that is what good muslims should do.

and they are correct. islam does command them to kill apostates, unbelievers, homosexuals, etc etc etc.

People in Asia are far less PC about this, they in general don't support any Muslim immigration into their countries, in fact China has been fighting against islamic radicalist in their western provinces for many years, and is against anymore immigration of Muslims into the country. Koreans, and Japanese seem to all have similar reservations about letting muslims into their countries.

I wonder how the issue became so polarized in the United States.

19   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 10:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says

It would be hard to support the preservation of a free state in the context that the amendment was written without firearms IMO.

Prove to me that civilian firearm ownership in America today is in support of national defense. I see no well regulated militias anywhere.

20   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 10:28am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says

People in Asia are far less PC about this, they in general don't support any Muslim immigration into their countries, in fact China has been fighting against islamic radicalist in their western provinces for many years, and is against anymore immigration of Muslims into the country. Koreans, and Japanese seem to all have similar reservations about letting muslims into their countries.

I wonder how the issue became so polarized in the United States.

This is the difference in monocultures (Asia) versus multi-cultures (Europe/US/etc.). Since the US founding principals and mythos, is of a nation of religiously tolerant immigrants fighting for the democracy of oppressed people everywhere, you can see all sorts of conflicts when premise butts heads with national interest.

Goran you would like this ...
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-49-the-american-peril/

21   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 10:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

Prove to me that civilian firearm ownership in America today is in support of national defense. I see no well regulated militias anywhere.

How do you prove that exactly? That's like trying to prove that the United States would beat the EU in a non-nuclear conflict. You can only really model that type of situation.

I do believe that a hypothetical tyrannical government would have to deal with an armed citizenry in the United States, especially in more red states. Do you disagree with this premise?

As for well regulated militias, I see regulations all over the place (hundreds of regulations at the local level, and more once you consider the federal level). Remember, according to Washington, Adams, Madison, Jefferson, and many other authors of the Constitution, the militia was composed of "the people", or the irregulars and unorganized militia. The number of laws governing firearms is at least 900 (just in California), and much more once you consider the Federal level (ATF). So I believe the people are well regulated when it comes to firearms (though I agree with your point on mental health that you brought up in another thread).

22   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 10:41am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

This is the difference in monocultures (Asia) versus multi-cultures (Europe/US/etc.). Since the US founding principals and mythos, is of a nation of religiously tolerant immigrants fighting for the democracy of oppressed people everywhere, you can see all sorts of conflicts when premise butts heads with national interest.

Goran you would like this ...

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-49-the-american-peril/

I agree that asian cultures which are practically homogeneous (culturally and genetically) are able to come to consensus about issues much easier than say "melting pots" like the United States.

But why can't we discuss the issue in the U.S at all without "racism" or "bigot" being thrown around so nonchalantly. For once, I'd like to see the issue discussed without being side tracked by accusations of racism.

23   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 10:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says

I do believe that a hypothetical tyrannical government would have to deal with an armed citizenry in the United States, especially in more red states. Do you disagree with this premise?

Goran_K says

So I believe the people are well regulated when it comes to firearms (though I agree with your point on mental health that you brought up in another thread).

Yes, a tyrannical government would have to "deal" with an armed population. Yes, firearm ownership is the last resort insurance policy to preservation of the state.

Well regulated, as commonly understood in the English language of the time, meant properly functioning for its purpose. Do we have functional national defense militias today ready to oppose oppression from foreign or domestic sources? Is that the spirit in which firearms are owned and possessed today? I argue resoundingly no. They are irresponsibly owned by persons with little to no proven/demonstrated/tested ability to shoot and not organized with a national defense purpose at all.

24   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 10:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says

For once, I'd like to see the issue discussed without being side tracked by accusations of racism.

I can agree with that. Careless words do tend to move people toward violence, but that shouldn't mean we are prevented from discussing the issue, and I do agree the policing of language is a barrier to this discussion.

25   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2016 Jun 29, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

ohhh, I think you were making a point that even the security couldn't stop the attack while armed. I see. Yes.

because Euro Socialist Weenie education taught the self preservation gene out of him, plus the inherent wimpy-ness compelled him to run rather than putting a bullet between the guys eyes as he fidgeted with his Jihad Fun Jacket.

26   MMR   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 10:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

No, guns are not, arms are.

at the time the constitution was written, guns and arms were essentially synonymous. If you want to nitpick, you can include knives, swords and other sharp instruments.

27   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2016 Jun 29, 11:01am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

NuttBoxer says

Question in the thread title is wrong, it should be "Ban Bombs?" as I believe they caused most of the damage.

Wait, bombs are already banned?

Maybe the problem is that liberals didn't yet put up a taped up paper sign on the door stating "bomb free zone"? I hear that concept works really well as deterrent.

28   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2016 Jun 29, 11:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Maybe we should ban Turkish airports.

29   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 11:05am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

Well regulated, as commonly understood in the English language of the time, meant properly functioning for its purpose. Do we have functional national defense militias today ready to oppose oppression from foreign or domestic sources? Is that the spirit in which firearms are owned and possessed today? I argue resoundingly no. They are irresponsibly owned by persons with little to no proven/demonstrated/tested ability to shoot and not organized with a national defense purpose at all.

I disagree with your initial point. The irregular militia during the time of the revolution was organized from the pool of colonial men who lived in the colonies at the time and were not trained soldiers. It's actually one of my hobbies to read about pre-revolution America because of the amount of 1st hand accounts available (compared to say Eastern Byzantine political history which tends to be more "2nd hand" passed down history).

There was nothing organized or trained about the irregular militia (which seems to be your sticking point). It was not a "properly functioning" fighting force ready to fight the British Crown. In fact, quite the opposite. The irregulars were farmers, blacksmiths, leather tanners, etc, just everyday colonist who volunteered to join the militia (usually by signing up on a local parchment in the middle of the town or city they lived near) and happened to own a firearm. There's a plethora of 1st hand accounts and other data that describe who the irregular militia consisted of, and it wasn't people "pre-organized" for national defense. Many of them brought their own hunting rifles, and most did not have military training, or experience in the usage of a firearm as a weapon of war. Most of them had only shot game birds or squirrels before they answered the call to fight the Crown. By military standards the unorganized militia was considered inferior to the Continental Army of Washington who actually did consist of soldiers who had former military experience and received training before the conflict. As I said, there are hundreds of personal accounts by irregular militia, their thoughts, their beliefs, and most importantly, their own words that show they were not highly trained individuals ready for war with a professional army.

To put a more succinct point on it, Madison (Federalist 46) even makes the distinction between the irregular militia and the standing army and makes the point that the new national standing army (which was a contentious topic at the time) which was actually organized for the purpose for which you are trying to apply to the militia, could not hope to defeat the "people" militia due to the sheer number of the irregular militia and the 2nd amendment, so there was no need to worry about a standing army (sic). I think this makes it quite clear for what purpose and for WHO the 2nd amendment was written for IMO.

As for the "Spirit" of which firearms are owned today, I would say that differs from individual to individual, but I would step back from making sweeping statements that all citizens in the U.S who own firearms today are "resoundingly" not prepared to resist a tyrannical government, or have never owned firearms with the thought of eventually having to resist tyranny. I would even disagree with that assessment (after visiting 47 of the states in the U.S). I know many of them own firearms for exactly what Madison and other forefathers described as the purpose for private firearms ownership in the U.S.

30   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 11:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MMR says

at the time the constitution was written, guns and arms were essentially synonymous. If you want to nitpick, you can include knives, swords and other sharp instruments.

Or said another way, they didn't say "guns" to narrowly restrict the clause. Arms was carefully chosen to allow interpretation as to what types of weapons could be possessed.

31   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 1:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says

Maybe we should ban Turkish airports.

Are these in any way related to Turkish baths? If so, I'm strongly pro TurkPort.

32   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 2:41pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

At some point, Raqqa or whatever will be the capital of Isis will be nuked off the face of the earth. There's a clear precedent of what can happen when people have enough of this BS. The terrorists will have no one to blame but themselves when that happens, but I am sure that they will blame the infidels.

33   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 2:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@Goran_K

Guns are overwhelmingly owned for personal protection, not for any militia creation intent ...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx

The nation's new relationship with firearms is one of estrangement, glorification of violence, ignorance, and fear. The NRA is no longer a gun club, and certainly not training potential civilian marksmen and militiamen. Yes, they will offer you courses, but they are truly just a legislative body pushing a gun ownership/sales agenda. If they were for responsible ownership they would be at the forefront of helping shape sensible regulation and helping enforce general firearms safety and competency. Instead we have ownership devoid of responsibility and sensationalist fear mongering fund raising by one of the most powerful legislative groups in the country: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bushnra.asp

As you stated, the controversial creation of a standing professional army has obviated much of the need for the original intent of the what the 2nd allows : the formation of militias. Point taken on the fact that a militia is an irregular force but historically they became well regulated through training post formation. Your argument may be that simple ownership is enough to qualify as the "for the purpose of" ... but again, I say, people are not owning guns today for that purpose at all. That was the primary reason we allowed ownership and today I think it rates as one of the weakest reasons for actual ownership.

Goran, do you think there is any current measures in place in the path to ownership, which ensures it is done in the spirit of the 2nd? I sure don't.

Maybe the survey is unfair though? If they included "National Defense", replaced the 2nd Amend Rights line with that, do you think it would change the statistics? Again, I don't think it changes anything.

All our gun regulation acts were put in place because the nation overwhelmingly believed, and still believes as proof of this week's supreme court decision, that gun ownership is and should be regulated beyond the 2nd. The balancing act is now not to arm a potential citizen militia forces to fully resist and defeat a modern professional army, but instead allow enough of a voice backed by force, without allowing the capacity for citizens to inflict mass murder.

34   Rew   ignore (0)   2016 Jun 29, 2:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

In short, our gun culture is screwed up.

35   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2016 Jun 29, 3:52pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

Guns are overwhelmingly owned for personal protection, not for any militia creation intent ...

I don't understand this statement. Is your logic here that since some people don't own weapons for the expressed purpose of resisting government tyranny, then they shouldn't own firearms at all? Just trying to figure out your thought process here since this is the second time you mentioned it.

Rew says

The nation's new relationship with firearms is one of estrangement, glorification of violence, ignorance, and fear. The NRA is no longer a gun club, and certainly not training potential civilian marksmen and militiamen. Yes, they will offer you courses, but they are truly just a legislative body pushing a gun ownership/sales agenda. If they were for responsible ownership they would be at the forefront of helping shape sensible regulation and helping enforce general firearms safety and competency. Instead we have ownership devoid of responsibility and sensationalist fear mongering fund raising by one of the most powerful legislative groups in the country: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bushnra.asp

This I am confused by. The NRA is a public advocacy group. It takes no public dollars, and is fully funded by voluntary donations. I'm not some rah-rah NRA type (I'm not a member), but I think to say that they are a "legislative group" only existing for the "glorification of gun violence" is unfair, and leftist sensationalism. The NRA has 5 million voluntary paying members. If that's not one of the best examples of a public, aka PEOPLE, advocacy rights group, then what is?

I do think the NRA pushes an agenda, all advocacy groups do. That being said, and examining what happened in 2008 with DC vs Heller, if the NRA did not exist, I firmly believe the 2nd amendment would have been repealed or greatly weakened by now. The NRA has done its job of protecting the 2nd Amendment, and it's done so with the power of it's millions of citizen members who have done that through the power of their own wallets. I can respect that, even if I am not a supporting member.

Rew says

All our gun regulation acts were put in place because the nation overwhelmingly believed, and still believes as proof of this week's supreme court decision, that gun ownership is and should be regulated beyond the 2nd. The balancing act is now not to arm a potential citizen militia forces to fully resist and defeat a modern professional army, but instead allow enough of a voice backed by force, without allowing the capacity for citizens to inflict mass murder.

I'm not sure what "beyond the 2nd" implies in your statement. Clarify?

As for "balancing" an armed irregular militia, aka the PEOPLE, and disallowing the capacity for evil people to inflict mass murder, I think that's a losing battle in the way it's being fought by the left. Calls for banning of semi-autos, no due process blocking of purchases, etc, taxing ammo purchases. Etc. Do you really believe Australian type bans are going to stop mass shootings? I thought Paris or Charlie Hedbo would have convinced most of the left that gun bans are fruitless.

36   jazz_music   ignore (7)   2016 Jun 29, 5:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

We should ban airports in Turkey ;-)

37   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2016 Jun 29, 7:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Rew says

Your argument is what zzyzzx?

For starters, we could ban assault Muslims.

dublin hillz says

At some point, Raqqa or whatever will be the capital of Isis will be nuked off the face of the earth

« First    « Previous    Comments 2 - 41 of 41    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions