Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

The Progressives will now be demanding answers from the Orlando PD regarding their handling of the incident and the apparent delay to confront the attacker.

They need to create a smoke screen to hope and try and keep the truth away from Americans.

What steps should we take to find the few citizens among us, lone wolves apparently with indications of all kinds of issues (gay phobic, wife beating, etc) who are also from cultures or religions that have millions of law abiding citizens among them?

Answers please.

PS Obama saying certain words does not address the issue. It salves your political opportunism. Once again the grown-ups are obvious. Even Republicans decrying the naked opportunism of some of our worst players.

The time for common sense gun control is here. Even the great David Petraeus and Michael Hayden, former CIA directors, have signed on so how could the nutters object?They want to empower CIA to torture but object to this?

[Unregistered]

As the President said just ten days ago, he has the authority to prevent a know muslim terroist sympathizer from boarding an airplane, but he does not have similar authority to put the same person on a list of people forbidden from purchasing a gun because of the gun lobby and nuts fighting ANY common sense legislation. once again the guns were purchased legally. its you who are being dopey. this is just common sense. time to get behind your president taking such a simple step.

Has the authority....Just doesn't use it.

You used this point as a validation?

[Unregistered]

What steps should we take to find the few citizens among us, lone wolves apparently with indications of all kinds of issues (gay phobic, wife beating, etc) who are also from cultures or religions that have millions of law abiding citizens among them?

Answers please.

If he adheres to a mosque that preaches hate, investigate them.

If he belongs to a family that preaches hate, investigate them.

Before we let more in, investigate them.

Are you actually FOR Trump? You are playing right into his hands.

[Unregistered]

If he adheres to a mosque that preaches hate, investigate them.

If he belongs to a family that preaches hate, investigate them.

Before we let more in, investigate them.

Are you actually FOR Trump? You are playing right into his hands.

We already do. This man was questioned by the FBI and apparently nothing reached an actionable level HOWEVER....

that raises the question again (and note that your prescriptions, already done, will never prevent) why the nutters will not allow those already on the No-fly list to be put on a no gun list...

now watch the nutters either avoid the question posed by the following or tie themselves into incomprehensible knots...

the legislation would allow the attorney general to block individuals suspected of having terrorist ties from buying a gun. The legislation also includes an appeals process for those individuals who may argue they were wrongly targeted.

"Our priority this week should be this terrorist gap measure because it is linked so directly to the issue of terrorism and extremist violence in this nation and abroad," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said during the call.

Short of re-instituting an assault weapons ban, which Republican have repeatedly rebuffed, Democrats view this legislation as the most straightforward way to stop terrorism-related gun violence. Democrats also point out that the bill was written and supported by the George W. Bush administration in 2007, a fact they hope will convince Republicans to join them on the vote. And, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has also shown an openness to the law. In an interview on ABC's This Week in November,Trump said "if somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state, and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely."

[Unregistered]

Has the authority....Just doesn't use it.

You used this point as a validation?

Its Monday nutter so once again you are wrong.

[quote]On June 2, President Obama participated in a town hall sponsored by PBS in Elkhart, Indiana. Obama continued to answer questions from the audience after the broadcast was over.
One of those questions was from Doug Rhude, a gun shop owner. Rhude asked Obama why he wanted to “control and restrict and limit gun manufacturers, gun owners and responsible use of guns and ammunition… instead of holding the bad guys accountable for their actions?”
Obama’s answer was eerily prescient. He told Rhude that he had just come from the Situation Room and learned of citizens within the United States who were ISIS sympathizers. But because of the NRA, Obama said, “we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines” but not “prohibit those people from buying a gun.”
Now, any one of these ISIS-sympathizers could “walk in to a gun store or a gun show right now and buy as much — as many weapons and ammo as he can,” Obama said.

Keep dancing!

[Unregistered]

fixed for clarity

Has the authority....Just doesn't use it.

You used this point as a validation?

Its Monday nutter so once again you are wrong.

On June 2, President Obama participated in a town hall sponsored by PBS in Elkhart, Indiana. Obama continued to answer questions from the audience after the broadcast was over.
One of those questions was from Doug Rhude, a gun shop owner. Rhude asked Obama why he wanted to “control and restrict and limit gun manufacturers, gun owners and responsible use of guns and ammunition… instead of holding the bad guys accountable for their actions?”
Obama’s answer was eerily prescient. He told Rhude that he had just come from the Situation Room and learned of citizens within the United States who were ISIS sympathizers. But because of the NRA, Obama said, “we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines” but not “prohibit those people from buying a gun.”
Now, any one of these ISIS-sympathizers could “walk in to a gun store or a gun show right now and buy as much — as many weapons and ammo as he can,” Obama said.

Keep dancing!

[Unregistered]

What steps should we take to find the few citizens among us, lone wolves apparently with indications of all kinds of issues (gay phobic, wife beating, etc) who are also from cultures or religions that have millions of law abiding citizens among them?

Answers please.

PS Obama saying certain words does not address the issue. It salves your political opportunism. Once again the grown-ups are obvious. Even Republicans decrying the naked opportunism of some of our worst players.

The time for common sense gun control is here. Even the great David Petraeus and Michael Hayden, former CIA directors, have signed on so how could the nutters object?They want to empower CIA to torture but object to this?

" few citizens among us '
We clearly don't know how many there are. Presently , there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals under Investigation by Federal , State and even local Authorities. Perhaps the resources could be used better, however at this point we have to the Justice Department work on having Americans use the right bathroom, and we also have a Presidential nominee under investigation.

Political Correctness is preventing us from monitoring and observing certain aspects of people lives, as the ACLU will step in and attempt to right the ship of fairness. Even at these early stages of the investigation, we are hearing from people that had clues as to what this person may be capable of. This was also the case in California.

The fear of being accused as a " hater" , not being " tolerant " enough , or violating someone's perceived " rights" have contributed to the modern American mindset of individualism. That is, I am entitled to do whatever the hell I want, as long as I don't say anything perceived as racial, bigoted or hateful. But if it is said , it depends upon who is saying it , and where it is being said.

The Progressives have been both Judge and Jury when it comes to the interpretation of what is PC or not. A candidate like Trump may say things, and that is sold by many in the media as being worse than the many violent reactions by Anti-Trump supporters . The " inflammatory " nature of the speech is deemed to be more harmful than the violent response.

We have gun control. The control is the Second Amendment. What is out of control is behavior. As horrible as the killings in Orlando were, every week on a smaller basis the killing goes on and on in major cities. Most of it has nothing to do with ideology, or foreign JIHAD or whatever, it is just violent behavior. Much of it happens in Democratic strongholds, but Progressives refuse to accept the root cause of the mayhem. They refuse to accept their culpability in the endless cycle of poverty and despair that they have encouraged through their policies and ideology.

Common sense would have us look back to when the same Second Amendment existed , and why there weren't the killings that are occurring now. That was before the tampering of the human fabric with the ideology of Liberalism. That was before when much less than 40 % of the children in America had fathers in the home. That was before 70 % of children in inner cities were not born out of wedlock.

If Progressives spent more time on the real problems, and attempted to unite people, instead of dividing them by victim status, perceived racism, perceived Police brutality , and many of the " social Justice " issues they think need to be solved, we may see some light at the end of the tunnel.

" Torture" ?. Well it is now fact that some of the former prisoners of Gitmo are responsible for the killing of Americans since they have been released. And to be fair, some were released under Bush. Those Americans that have been killed are a direct consequence of the campaign by leftist lawyers to run down to Gitmo to make sure they have their Koran, prayer rugs and soccer balls in good order, and to make sure they can spring them the first chance they get. if only Leftist lawyers were that willing to defend the rights and liberties of innocent American who have been killed.

[Unregistered]

We already do. This man was questioned by the FBI and apparently nothing reached an actionable level HOWEVER....

that raises the question again (and note that your prescriptions, already done, will never prevent) why the nutters will not allow those already on the No-fly list to be put on a no gun list...

now watch the nutters either avoid the question posed by the following or tie themselves into incomprehensible knots...

Nothing reached to an actionable level..... What exactly would that level be?

As for if someone were a threat, I'd be OK with putting them on a no-gun list. Sure. I think we have that today, don't we though?

[Unregistered]

" few citizens among us '
We clearly don't know how many there are. Presently , there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals under Investigation by Federal , State and even local Authorities. Perhaps the resources could be used better, however at this point we have to the Justice Department work on having Americans use the right bathroom, and we also have a Presidential nominee under investigation.

Political Correctness is preventing us from monitoring and observing certain aspects of people lives, as the ACLU will step in and attempt to right the ship of fairness. Even at these early stages of the investigation, we are hearing from people that had clues as to what this person may be capable of. This was also the case in California.

The fear of being accused as a " hater" , not being " tolerant " enough , or violating someone's perceived " rights" have contributed to the modern American mindset of individualism. That is, I am entitled to do whatever the hell I want, as long as I don't say anything perceived as racial, bigoted or hateful. But if it is said , it depends upon who is saying it , and where it is being said.

The Progressives have been both Judge and Jury when it comes to the interpretation of what is PC or not. A candidate like Trump may say things, and that is sold by many in the media as being worse than the many violent reactions by Anti-Trump supporters . The " inflammatory " nature of the speech is deemed to be more harmful than the violent response.

We have gun control. The control is the Second Amendment. What is out of control is behavior. As horrible as the killings in Orlando were, every week on a smaller basis the killing goes on and on in major cities. Most of it has nothing to do with ideology, or foreign JIHAD or whatever, it is just violent behavior. Much of it happens in Democratic strongholds, but Progressives refuse to accept the root cause of the mayhem. They refuse to accept their culpability in the endless cycle of poverty and despair that they have encouraged through their policies and ideology.

Common sense would have us look back to when the same Second Amendment existed , and why there weren't the killings that are occurring now. That was before the tampering of the human fabric with the ideology of Liberalism. That was before when much less than 40 % of the children in America had fathers in the home. That was before 70 % of children in inner cities were not born out of wedlock.

If Progressives spent more time on the real problems, and attempted to unite people, instead of dividing them by victim status, perceived racism, perceived Police brutality , and many of the " social Justice " issues they think need to be solved, we may see some light at the end of the tunnel.

" Torture" ?. Well it is now fact that some of the former prisoners of Gitmo are responsible for the killing of Americans since they have been released. And to be fair, some were released under Bush. Those Americans that have been killed are a direct consequence of the campaign by leftist lawyers to run down to Gitmo to make sure they have their Koran, prayer rugs and soccer balls in good order, and to make sure they can spring them the first chance they get. if only Leftist lawyers were that willing to defend the rights and liberties of innocent American who have been killed.

Let's treat it like kiddie porn (heard this idea on the radio over the weekend). If you are on banned websites, or have internet conversations, you get arrested. Simple. If you are in any way involved, you go to jail. End of discussion.

Journalists and academics would be licensed and exempted. That is a start.

I think limiting gun purchases is a red herring. There are so many out there that a motivated murderer is not going to be deterred for long. The Boston bombers used a pressure cooker. I haven't seen anyone suggest banning those.

That being said, why make it easier for some nut? I would welcome a more stringent background check for certain weapons.

[Unregistered]

Been tied up recently, but had to make sure I popped in here today. I was wondering if the Grand Instigator would at least look at this equally as he did with Roof, or the PP shootout whacko. After all, guns were a secondary issue to the rants then, it was all about the Religious Right. If someone doesn't want to bake someone a cake, it's about the Religious Right.

Now, during the MIDDLE OF COMMITTING THESE CRIMES, HE COMES OUT AND ADMITS WHY, yet you STILL cannot use the I-word, can you?

That's why you aren't taken seriously. You can only see the bad when it comes in one direction, and refuse to even consider it otherwise.

Until that time, you are nothing more than a mindless instigating troll with no real purpose. Reminds me of my neighbor growing up. Just got off on disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, antagonizing and laughing when the rest of the street wanted to pummel him.

Safe places indeed.

With full adulation-

Sock Puppet

[Unregistered]

We already do. This man was questioned by the FBI and apparently nothing reached an actionable level HOWEVER....

that raises the question again (and note that your prescriptions, already done, will never prevent) why the nutters will not allow those already on the No-fly list to be put on a no gun list...

now watch the nutters either avoid the question posed by the following or tie themselves into incomprehensible knots...

Was this guy on the no fly list?

[Unregistered]

Let's treat it like kiddie porn (heard this idea on the radio over the weekend). If you are on banned websites, or have internet conversations, you get arrested. Simple. If you are in any way involved, you go to jail. End of discussion.

Journalists and academics would be licensed and exempted. That is a start.

I think limiting gun purchases is a red herring. There are so many out there that a motivated murderer is not going to be deterred for long. The Boston bombers used a pressure cooker. I haven't seen anyone suggest banning those.

That being said, why make it easier for some nut? I would welcome a more stringent background check for certain weapons.

It isn't that simple. Kiddie Porn is a crime . Internet sites are extensions of free speech, and as long as behavior is within certain parameters, you can't be arrested for your opinion.

Journalists and Academia should not be granted anything that the common person does not have the same opportunity to do so.

I would agree though that more stringent background checks would be helpful. I don't have any problem with that. Legislators may pass Laws, but it will be up to the Courts to decide what is " infringement" and what is not. Regardless, it is the behavior that needs to be identified on an ongoing basis. However as long as Progressives keep attempting to divide Americans according to their opinions of what is fair and right, we will never accomplish much. It is troubling that before the blood is even cleaned up, Democrat politicians were clear to establish the need for more gun control, laws and whatever. They have had the problem in their hands for quite some time, but just can't bear to look in the mirror and understand that they have let America down, this time and many times.

[Unregistered]

Trump supporter gets beat up by an immigrant, the right-wing loonie must've asked for it.

Gay gets killed by a fanatical Islamic, the right-wing loonie's love of guns allowed it to happen.

[Unregistered]

a refresher course on terrorist watch lists and the no-fly list...
from Wikipedia

In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[19] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).[20]

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Democrat, repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts did not succeed.[19][20][21] Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[19] Republicans in Congress, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, oppose this measure, citing due process concerns and efficacy, respectively.[19] Republicans have blocked attempts by Democrats to attach these provisions to Republican-backed measures.[22]

[Unregistered]

a refresher course on terrorist watch lists and the no-fly list...
from Wikipedia

In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[19] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).[20]

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Democrat, repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts did not succeed.[19][20][21] Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[19] Republicans in Congress, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, oppose this measure, citing due process concerns and efficacy, respectively.[19] Republicans have blocked attempts by Democrats to attach these provisions to Republican-backed measures.[22]

Trump supporter gets beat up by an immigrant, the right-wing loonie must've asked for it.

Gay gets killed by a fanatical Islamic, the right-wing loonie's love of guns allowed it to happen.