[lomalinda]

Not that it counters the FUD spread about the FN pistol (and all firearms owned by civilians in general) but most of the comments attached to the link are by gunnies.

It's always the same old nonsense, though. "Cop killer" gun/bullets according to someone in the Federal ranks. Oh boy.

[.454]

Hasan the Islamist pig apparently had some issues with women. Avoided his female colleagues at work, wouldn't allow his picture to be taken as part of department photos because they included women, etc., and didn't fare much better with Muslim women either; apparently they were never devout enough for him or something. So I imagine he'd be quite distressed when he wakes up from the coma he's in and learns that it was a woman who took him out.

[bubbapug1]

I'm with both of you on this, but I also think the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were correct, not because of any racial intonation, because it has nothing to do with race, but with the saving of millions of american lives had we had to invade the island.

As to the Middle East, 9/11 was similar to pearl harbor, and the populations of Syria, Jordon, Iran, Palastine, Afganistan, Yemen, and especially Saudi Arabia supported and condoned the attack. We need to fight a real war, a war of destruction like sherman waged on the south to take the fight out of the culture, only than will we have peace....

Originally Posted by Bugei

I've quit caring why people do these things. It always seems to boil down to "he's nuts."

But with 500 people -- Army people -- present, it's just a damned shame that the problem wasn't resolved by 300 people drawing their weapons and cutting this guy to doll rags on the spot.

Can't blame the legislators for this one, though they're certainly holding people's arms everywhere else but military bases. In this case, though, standard military policy that you have given up your right to have a weapon on you at all times is at fault. So thanks, DoD, for the Fort Hood massacre.

And thanks to the California Legislature for all the future gun-free zone massacres in our state. You're doing a great job of looking out for us, and I'm sure that someday the citizens of California will reward you appropriately.

The next time someone goes nuts and shoots people in one of our California legislatively-mandated victim-disarmament zones, we should call it the "De Leon Memorial Massacre". The one after that could be called the "Roberti-Roos Killings." Perhaps a tasteful memorial should be placed in some public place.

I'm a little grumpy today.

Originally Posted by inbox485

I'm with you on this one. I'd rather have some terrorist's bullet in my head than to start locking up what ever race we want to call the boogie man these days. Too many have died for our freedom and robbing an entire race of their rights is no better than pissing on their graves.

[yellowfin]

Originally Posted by oldrifle

You're right... I'm with you on that. But don't you ever get tired of always taking the high road? Sometimes I get frustrated with taking the morally superior position when others have no qualms about exploiting such situations to further their causes.

What's frustrating is that our side doesn't take EVERY road, throwing 100% of everything possible at it when the other does. You can't beat an enemy playing nicer than them or playing less than full strength when they don't hold anything back. As if we don't want it as much as they do--and many on our side honestly don't and that just sucks.

[wellerjohn]

Originally Posted by gunn

Most of the muslims I know and work with are like every other American; they bust their *** working to send their kids to the best schools and to make a better lives for their families. They aren't particularly interested in blowing their asses up. It's the underclass, the ones that don't see a better future that are twisted and exploited. These are the ones that go all jihadi on people.


-g

I will give you that. But given there religion islam which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim and see them as just another person, I look at them as a liability. People are sheep and will stand around to be slaughtered.
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI

[technique]

Originally Posted by wellerjohn

I will give you that. But given there religion islam which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim and see them as just another person, I look at them as a liability. People are sheep and will stand around to be slaughtered.
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI

I agree with you 110%...

Here is my favorite quote of the day:

For the last 1400 years, Islam has sought to expand. Their religion commands them to convert the entire world to Islam. There is no religious tolerance in Islam. Ask any Muslim today if he/she is commanded to convert the world to Islam and they will affirm it.

Where this can be done aggressively, by military force, they have done so. Only naked force has stopped aggressive expansion. When they were not able to directly conquer territory, they have immigrated and converted. How do you think 1/4 of the world's population became Muslim?

Unless you want your descendants to be Muslim, living under Sharia law, Islam as a religion must be recognized as an enemy to every other religion and every non-muslim nation on the planet. Anything less and you are simply hiding your head in the sand. If you can find anything in their history that contradicts what I've stated, please present it. If you can't, you're really just hoping that somehow, someway, they are different now. That despite everything they've done for 1400 years, THIS generation is different. That this generation's actions in Lebanon 1983, Lockerbie Scotland, Somalia, USS Stark, Khobar Towers, NYC, etc., are somehow different. And lets not forget that they're hatred is not confined to the US. The London tubes and stations, Spain, etc.

We are long past the time when being a socially progressive and superior liberal was a viable alternative to a hard nosed realist.

Just remember...

November 4th 2009 Nidal Malik Hasan was just one of the "peaceful" Muslims we all hear about.

November 5th 2009 Nidal Malik Hasan KILLED innocent people screaming الله أكبر

[.454]

George W. Bush Visits Fort Hood, Wounded Soldiers
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) ― Former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, visited wounded soldiers and their families near the site of the worst mass shooting on an Army post in the United States.

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood's Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night. Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in an e-mail that the couple thanked Fort Hood's military leaders and hospital staff for the "amazing care they are providing."
------------
Link

President Bush went to Ft. Hood with his wife to offer the families of the murdered soldiers his sympathy and support. Where is Obama?

And why was Obama so quick to condemn police officers and call them "stupid" when they arrested Mr. Gates but not quick to condemn Nidal Malik Hasan by calling him what he is: an Islamic terrorist?

[Two Shots]

Originally Posted by .454

Where is Obama?

Pushing his Agenda.

President Barack Obama made a rare visit to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to meet with members of the House Democratic caucus and push forward proposed the health care measure.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...ef=igoogle_cnn

[.454]

Originally Posted by Two Shots

Pushing his Agenda.

Exactly. Here is a video of what the Commander In Chief is doing today instead of being with the families of the Ft. Hood victims.

[cortayack]

[QUOTE=gunn;3323928]We did lock up the German citizens but not those of german ancestry (unlike with Japanese). Did these people of German ancestry start an insurgency? No.

Actually your wrong. Germans of ancestry where lockup or put into camps. They where also held 2 years after the WW2 was over as well....U.S Government also lockup/camps the Nazis(those who believed in it) with the NON-Nazis...Which didn't help either...

[Mike d'Ocla]

Originally Posted by wellerjohn
"But given there [sic] religion islam [sic] which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers [sic] in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim [sic] and see them [sic] as just another person, I look at them [sic] as a liability."

"For the last 1400 years, Islam has sought to expand. Their religion commands them to convert the entire world to Islam. There is no religious tolerance in Islam. Ask any Muslim today if he/she is commanded to convert the world to Islam and they will affirm it."

Wow! I guess I should be shocked that some posters here have never heard of The Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan, the pro-lifers who shoot doctors in the name of Jesus. How about the Lehi (Stern) Gang?

Folks, please read a little history. All the Abrahamic religions have their murderous factions, while their scriptures celebrate love and peace. The Koran is worth reading because it is especially celebrates peace and kindness.

The evidence is pretty strong that most Muslims as well as most Jews and Christians are not murderous fanatics.

The real problem is tolerance. People who think that they are always right and the other guy is always wrong are well on the road to fanaticism. A good book to read on fanaticism is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Hoffer, by the way, was an ordinary guy, a longshoreman. But he knew a fanatic when he saw one. Read his book before you become one yourself.

[wellerjohn]

Originally Posted by Mike d'Ocla

Originally Posted by wellerjohn
"But given there [sic] religion islam [sic] which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers [sic] in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim [sic] and see them [sic] as just another person, I look at them [sic] as a liability."

"For the last 1400 years, Islam has sought to expand. Their religion commands them to convert the entire world to Islam. There is no religious tolerance in Islam. Ask any Muslim today if he/she is commanded to convert the world to Islam and they will affirm it."

Wow! I guess I should be shocked that some posters here have never heard of The Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition, etc. How about the Lehi (Stern) Gang?

Folks, please read a little history. All the Abrahamic religions have their murderous factions, while their scriptures celebrate love and peace. The Koran is worth reading because it is especially celebrates peace and kindness.

The evidence is pretty strong that most Muslims as well as most Jews and Christians are not murderous fanatics.

The real problem is tolerance. People who think that they are always right and the other guy is always wrong are well on the road to fanaticism. A good book to read on fanaticism is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Hoffer, by the way, was an ordinary guy, a longshoreman. But he knew a fanatic when he saw one. Read his book before you become one yourself.

I have heard time and again about islam being about love. The book itself tells another story about death and conversions under the treat of death. We don't speak arabic and don't fully understand the book, luckily others do. I would encourage you to watch the movie FITNA. As for the crusades that was 200 years ago and mainly catholics from England. Currently, right now, today the islamic people are terrorizing and killing all over the world. Been going on every since oil was found in the middle east, just as soon as they had money they started killing and conquering.

[Mike d'Ocla]

Originally Posted by wellerjohn

As for the crusades that was 200 years ago and mainly catholics from England. Currently, right now, today the islamic people are terrorizing and killing all over the world. Been going on every since oil was found in the middle east, just as soon as they had money they started killing and conquering.

Nope, absolutely.

Just a little bit of knowledge of history would be so helpful to you. The date of the English Reformation, January 15, 1535, was the end of the Catholic Church in England. Ever heard of Henry VIII? I guess not.

And you must have cut all those high school civics classes where they tell you that those Englishmen who first settled our country were fleeing just the same kind of religious intolerance that you avidly espouse.

[lomalinda]

Mike,

What do you suppose the Englishmen to whom you refer would do with radical Islamic terrorists?

Your attempt to liken their unwillingess to accept religious intolerance fails big-time here because it's the Islamist's intolerance that is at issue. The Crusades are very old news, so it's time to let go of Christian intolerance and deal with what we have on our plate.

[inbox485]

Originally Posted by lomalinda

Mike,

What do you suppose the Englishmen to whom you refer would do with radical Islamic terrorists?

Your attempt to liken their unwillingess to accept religious intolerance fails big-time here because it's the Islamist's intolerance that is at issue. The Crusades are very old news, so it's time to let go of Christian intolerance and deal with what we have on our plate.

+1. This absolute crap pile of tolerating Islamofascist terrorism just because it is there religion to kill non muslims and even those muslims not of the same sect as they are is nauseating. I don't know of any Judeao/Christian/Abrahamic scripture that advocates beheading non believers unless they convert. Calling worship of violence and hate a religion does not somehow purify their vile acts nor does it make intolerance of their vows to rape, torture, plunder, and kill non-believers a bad thing. I get real intolerant when people swear to kill me at their first convenience.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by inbox485

I don't know of any Judeao/Christian/Abrahamic scripture that advocates beheading non believers unless they convert.

You've never read Exodus? That's a pretty important part of the Old Testament, it's surprising you missed it.

There are several examples of exactly that in Exodus. Exodus 32:26-29 is the first that comes to mind, and Exodus 31:15 can easily be interpreted the same way.

[inbox485]

Originally Posted by Mitch

You've never read Exodus? That's a pretty important part of the Old Testament, it's surprising you missed it.

There are several examples of exactly that in Exodus. Exodus 32:26-29 is the first that comes to mind, and Exodus 31:15 can easily be interpreted the same way.

I was tempted to simply ignore your smug comments, but I'll answer you this once. Don't expect follow ups to anything with a similar tone.

Exodus 31:15 applied only to those under the law of Moses up until the completion of the law of moses. The law of Moses was a covenant between those entering into it and the lord wherein those penalties were known and agreed upon.

Exodus 32:26-29 involved the wide scale application of the death penalty to those non-repentant under the law of moses for acts of idolatry per the law of moses. It was not a crusade or jihad against those of non conforming religions.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by inbox485

I was tempted to simply ignore your smug comments, but I'll answer you this once.

My "smug comments" were cites refuting your blanket statement. And I was surprised by the statement because the Old Testament is full of examples of religious intolerance. Mostly in Exodus, but I'm sure a bit of Bible surfing can dig up a lot of examples from Leviticus, Genesis and other parts of the Pentateuch.

Your replies simply insist that Moses' advocacy of killing those not a part of his covenant is somehow different from his advocating killing those of a different religion.

How you square that circle I can't possibly imagine.

[inbox485]

Originally Posted by Mitch

My "smug comments" were cites refuting your blanket statement.

My reply demonstrated that your refute was lacking.

And your replies simply insist that Moses' advocacy of killing those not a part of his covenant is somehow different from his advocating killing those of a different religion.

In neither example was somebody outside of Moses's covenant killed. If some emom made certain acts within his sect punishable by death and made agreement to those rules a condition of entry to the sect and enforced them only on members of the sect, I wouldn't give a flying rats whiskers about the executions that resulted.

How you square that circle I can't possibly imagine.

How you fail reading at an elementary level escapes me.

[inbox485]

Originally Posted by Mitch

And I was surprised by the statement because the Old Testament is full of examples of religious intolerance. Mostly in Exodus, but I'm sure a bit of Bible surfing can dig up a lot of examples from Leviticus, Genesis and other parts of the Pentateuch.

You'll find plenty of examples of people living under the law of moses being executed under the law of moses, and chronicles of territorial wars, but I've never seen a single verse where people under the law of Moses were told to kill another people simply because of a difference in beliefs. In fact the house of Isreal was warned at times to be tolerant of outsiders as they had previously been the outsiders. And by no stretch of the imagination will you find a blanket commandment to demand either the head or the conversion of non believers.

I think my point is reasonably settled, and seeing as this is a gun forum, consider me checked out of this squabble.

[inbox485]

Originally Posted by lomalinda

Mike,

What do you suppose the Englishmen to whom you refer would do with radical Islamic terrorists?

Your attempt to liken their unwillingess to accept religious intolerance fails big-time here because it's the Islamist's intolerance that is at issue. The Crusades are very old news, so it's time to let go of Christian intolerance and deal with what we have on our plate.

More importantly, the crusades were a secular matter not supported by canonized texts. The blame for those deeds lie squarely with the clergymen that committed them, and anybody who persists in believing they were acts of God (assuming any such persons still exist).