New York Times Editorial. Congress Should Secretly Suspend 2 A Rights

[hoichi]

well
here you go

as long as non e discusses the real issues, islamic radical adherents murdering people. its a o.k.

here is an editorial form he new York crimes ( times)
written by a law professor, who has some very dangerous ideas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/opinion/time-for-a-no-buy-list-on-guns.html?_r=0

 

[Jezie]

The issue I have with "potential terrorist" being restricted from buying guns is the wide brush it paints with. Sure after the fact sounds great, but if you stop and question what the government sees as a potential terrorist... well very few people would ever be allowed, veterans are already looked at as potential terrorist... seems wrong to paint with broad strokrs... but fear and high emotions will get something passed

 

[seb]

I think

well
here you go

as long as non e discusses the real issues, islamic radical adherents murdering people. its a o.k.

here is an editorial form he new York crimes ( times)
written by a law professor, who has some very dangerous ideas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/opinion/time-for-a-no-buy-list-on-guns.html?_r=0

So what proof do you have that the latest shooter was a islamic radical terrorist other than his 911 call while doing the shooting and ISIS claiming responsibility later in the day?

The issue has been discussed time and again and the NRA lobby has put pressure on the politicians that they own and stopped the discussions dead in their tracks. The NRA shoulders much of the blame for these shootings and the destroyed families they produce and no one else!

 

[hoichi]

I think


So what proof do you have that the latest shooter was a islamic radical terrorist other than his 911 call while doing the shooting and ISIS claiming responsibility later in the day?

The issue has been discussed time and again and the NRA lobby has put pressure on the politicians that they own and stopped the discussions dead in their tracks. The NRA shoulders much of the blame for these shootings and the destroyed families they produce and no one else!

what would take as proof?
you are dismissing the killers statements of allegiance, and dismissing the statements fron the state he pledged allegiance too
for the attacks

so

i want to know what you would consider proof?
if not a pledge of allegiance?

(that's proof for citizenship rights in canada you know when you stand and pledge allegiance to the queen)
but we can dismiss those canadians.(even though pledges of allegiance for citizenship hearings is a norm for most states i digress)

its not enough proof for you.
ok


we have the killers own statements. (yes you ignore them)
we have the statements from the state whom the killer stated he killed for (yes you ignore them)
we have the fbi who found "loads" their words of radical Islamic literature at the killers house (you prob will ignore that too)
we have people the killer knew state that they heard him make statements that were radical islamist in nature (yes you ignore them)
we know the killer went to saudi arabia multiple times (granted saudi arabia is a bastion of freedom and liberal free love in the world so i'm not sure if him visiting that utopia is relevant, after all anyone of any faith or orientation can go and have loads and loads of sinfull fun that paradise, so i figure that's why he went

we will ignore all of the above.

im curious though, though reluctant to ask any questions considering you never answer any, but i digress again

if i went out and killed someone. just one. "you can pick, lets make it a whaco open minded person (polite euphemism for a gun nut) who forgot the bullets this time...
and during the killing or after i called 911 and stated i am killing this person for you.

and you intern tell the cops yes indeed he killed for me and i told him too.

what actions if any, would the state bring against you or me?

and what would their reasoning be?

further
why is it different if i kill 49 people?
rather then just one?

im well aware i need to take baby steps with you here,so we can take it slow

 

[seb]

what would take as proof?
you are dismissing the killers statements of allegiance, and dismissing the statements fron the state he pledged allegiance too
for the attacks

so

i want to know what you would consider proof?
if not a pledge of allegiance?

(that's proof for citizenship rights in canada you know when you stand and pledge allegiance to the queen)
but we can dismiss those canadians.(even though pledges of allegiance for citizenship hearings is a norm for most states i digress)

its not enough proof for you.
ok

so what we have is this
we have the killers own statements. (yes you ignore them)
we have the statements from the state whom the killer stated he killed for (yes you ignore them)
we have the fbi who found "loads" their words of radical Islamic literature at the killers house (you prob will ignore that too)
we have people the killer knew state that they heard him make statements that were radical islamist in nature (yes you ignore them)
we know the killer went to saudi arabia multiple times (granted saudi arabia is a bastion of freedom and liberal free love in the world so i'm not sure if him visiting that utopia is relevant, after all anyone of any faith or orientation can go and have loads and loads of sinfull fun that paradise, so i figure that's why he went

we will ignore all of the above.

im curious though, though reluctant to ask any questions considering you never answer any, but i digress again

if i went out and killed someone. just one. "you can pick, lets make it a whaco open minded person (polite euphemism for a gun nut) who forgot the bullets this time...
and during the killing or after i called 911 and stated i am killing this person for you.

and you intern tell the cops yes indeed he killed for me and i told him too.

what actions if any, would the state bring against you or me?

and what would their reasoning be?

further
why is it different if i kill 49 people?
rather then just one?

im well aware i need to take baby steps with you here,so we can take it slow

His rambling call to 911 had him pledging allegiance to more than one group or cause. [“During the calls, he said he was doing this for the leader of ISIL, who he named and pledged loyalty to. But he also appeared to claim solidarity with the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing and solidarity with a Florida man who died as a suicide bomber in Syria for Al-Nusra Front, a group in conflict with the so-called Islamic State,” Comey said. “The bombers at the Boston Marathon and suicide bomber from Florida were not inspired by ISIL, which adds a little bit to the confusion about his motives.” ]

We also have family members and an ex wife as well as his online wife and co workers saying Mateen was mentally ill or crazy, so how do we dismiss this and keep everything else as being factual? Crazy people do crazy things and make crazy comments or statements.

How do you know that the FBI found "loads" of radical islamic literature in the killers house? I haven't heard nor seen anything to what they found in his house. The only thing I have heard or seen in print that names or shows an actual FBI employee saying anything about Mateen is that they investigated him twice and couldn't confirm the statements and allegations made by him to others, so both cases were closed.

In answer to your question. If you killed someone and said you killed the person for someone else, they would arrest you for murder and then question the person you claimed you killed for and see what they had to say. If they in fact said that yes, I hired them to kill the person, they would have them arrested too and then that person would probably be given a battery of tests to see if they were mentally well and after that they would be charged with whatever charges they could file based on that persons mental well being. However, if that person were to say, I never asked him to do anything, they wouldn't be able to do anything unless they had some evidence that confirmed what the killer had said. The same will happen in this case because unless they find the "smoking gun" showing a direct link between Mateen and ISIL it will go down as unconfirmed or no link between the two. Even with people claiming responsibility you still end up needing proof.

Killing one or 49 is no different in the eyes of the law, but the punishment is going to be more severe with the later. It will most likely end up with a death sentence.

 

[Cappy]

Here is a small tibit of information, for those of you wishing to gut the 2A. And take away guns. So, only the police will have guns: Supreme Court of the United States, declares: the police have NO duty to protect you. You are responsible for your own protection.

Police NOT Obligated to Protect Citizens…Supreme Court Rules ‘You’re On Your Own’
http://minutemennews.com/police-not...tizens-supreme-court-rules-youre-on-your-own/


Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

“The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes, Really.”

In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”

 

[Steinhauer]

The liberals are trying to deviate from the real problems, shift blame, and promulgate their agenda of zero tolerance for those they disagree with. They are going to dismiss reality, in other words.

This was a radical Islamic terrorist attack. The shooter was not a repressed homosexual that went on a rampage. He was a radical Islamic terrorist.

 

[hoichi]

His rambling call to 911 had him pledging allegiance to more than one group or cause. [“During the calls, he said he was doing this for the leader of ISIL, who he named and pledged loyalty to. But he also appeared to claim solidarity with the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing and solidarity with a Florida man who died as a suicide bomber in Syria for Al-Nusra Front, a group in conflict with the so-called Islamic State,” Comey said. “The bombers at the Boston Marathon and suicide bomber from Florida were not inspired by ISIL, which adds a little bit to the confusion about his motives.” ]

what is the ideological commonality to all those groups?

one can and one often enough does have solidarity with multiple groups or orgs in any given cause.
the lgbtqa movements strength just that, why is then uprising if one person who has allegiance to one orga or state in one religion will also support or ostensibly by voice support the actions of multiple groups fighting for a given cause?

We also have family members and an ex wife as well as his online wife

my ex wives statements hsould be taken as seriously as my statement that im the king of spain.....
believe what you..(i am the king of spain, really..i could prob even get my ex to state so..)

and co workers saying Mateen was mentally ill or crazy, so how do we dismiss this and keep everything else as being factual? Crazy people do crazy things and make crazy comments or statements.

what are the qualifications of his co workers for you to take them so seriously in judging those to be mentally ill or crazy? crazy people do do crazy things. so do cold hearted dedicated killers for an ideological and religious cause....

(i know you have a hard time accepting that, and i sympathize, i do.)

How do you know that the FBI found "loads" of radical islamic literature in the killers house?

its a fairly old invention called television, a newer invention was the cable tv station named cnn, which was on(fbi was making a statement, the footer under the fed stated it)and even newer one is something called the net.."

I haven't heard nor seen anything to what they found in his house. The only thing I have heard or seen in print that names or shows an actual FBI employee saying anything about Mateen is that they investigated him twice and couldn't confirm the statements and allegations made by him to others, so both cases were closed.

homework..will set you free..

In answer to your question. If you killed someone and said you killed the person for someone else, they would arrest you for murder and then question the person you claimed you killed for and see what they had to say. If they in fact said that yes, I hired them to kill the person, they would have them arrested too

so the cops wouldn't be wondering if i truly meant it, (there is a body after all)or that i was just yankin their chain? they wouldn't be dismissing me would they? they would be taking me at my word right?
and then having you tell them "yep i told the bastard to do that open midned (gun nut) in for me, i told him to, and am proud of the wee Deafie.."
they wouldn't be scratching their balls asking eachother stating..

"mmmmm well, did he really mean it? maybe he was joking, or..mmm he woudlnt do such a thign, mmm nah...besides what evidence do we really have...mmm(scratch scratch)

would they?
woudl they?

and if not
why is it different if i killed 49 for you?

and then that person would probably be given a battery of tests to see if they were mentally well and after that they would be charged with whatever charges they could file based on that persons mental well being.

However, if that person were to say, I never asked him to do anything,

you are aware isis declared war on gays mere weeks prior to thsi attack right?
(having thought about it, i guess you dont)

they wouldn't be able to do anything unless they had some evidence that confirmed what the killer had said. The same will happen in this case because unless they find the "smoking gun" showing a direct link between Mateen and ISIL it will go down as unconfirmed or no link between the two. Even with people claiming responsibility you still end up needing proof.

we have, ladies and gentleman,

(raising hand fingers spread, then closed only one index finger visible)

a killer who pledged allegiance to a foreign state and its leader..

(pauses, letting all present look)

we have

(two fingers now visible, (in the uk it would mean go f yourself, here its to illustrate a point)

a cold blooded killer who left a stack of bodies

(three fingers now visisble as we do three in asl,)

we have..

a cold as steal killer who had in the bosom of his own home loads of radical jehad trash for reading material..

(four fingers now visible, other index finger touches each finger showing at the tips)

we have the state he pledged allegiance to accept and state he did it for them

(pause..)

we have..

(five fingers now visisble, palm towards the jury, other finger resting on thumb)

that same state declaring war on gays mere weeks prior to the attack..

(fingers close into fist..)

proof as solid as a rock...

(fist moves to sign for stone)

proof....


(im starting to sign like a D.A...(smacks face two times, shakes head)

continuing..

Killing one or 49 is no different in the eyes of the law, but the punishment is going to be more severe with the later. It will most likely end up with a death sentence.

this has no barring on the discussion at hand,
the killer goat 70 goat vergins with allah...

 

[seb]

what is the ideological commonality to all those groups?

one can and one often enough does have solidarity with multiple groups or orgs in any given cause.
the lgbtqa movements strength just that, why is then uprising if one person who has allegiance to one orga or state in one religion will also support or ostensibly by voice support the actions of multiple groups fighting for a given cause?




my ex wives statements hsould be taken as seriously as my statement that im the king of spain.....
believe what you..(i am the king of spain, really..i could prob even get my ex to state so..)




what are the qualifications of his co workers for you to take them so seriously in judging those to be mentally ill or crazy? crazy people do do crazy things. so do cold hearted dedicated killers for an ideological and religious cause....

(i know you have a hard time accepting that, and i sympathize, i do.)



its a fairly old invention called television, a newer invention was the cable tv station named cnn, which was on(fbi was making a statement, the footer under the fed stated it)and even newer one is something called the net.."



homework..will set you free..

Funny, I have watched the news and seen the FBI on the news and all they have talked about is they investigated him twice. I haven't seen any FBI person saying anything about what they brought out of his house. Maybe you have different news on Mars than we have here on Earth.

He only swore allegiance to ISSL while he was mowing down his victims, prior to that he had been a raving lunatic to his wives and co workers and some of them turned him in to the FBI. He was a dedicated killer, but ISSL was only a convenient excuse to carry out his cowardly attack and a way for him to justify what he did.

Please check your spelling, syntax, spacing and punctuation, it will help in understanding the point you are trying to convey.

I'm done with the discussion, it won't solve anything so therefore it is pointless.

 

[hoichi]

Funny, I have watched the news and seen the FBI on the news and all they have talked about is they investigated him twice. I haven't seen any FBI person saying anything about what they brought out of his house. Maybe you have different news on Mars than we have here on Earth.

i have no doubt cnn is from mars.
we do agree.

He only swore allegiance to ISSL while he was mowing down his victims,

and this negates his allegiance how exactly? does his subsequent actions not confirm it rather then negate it?

F
prior to that he had been a raving lunatic to his wives

wives well...weve been through it and im the king of spain..

and co workers and some of them turned him in to the FBI.

did they turn him in for seeing roggerrabit and mickymouse?
what did they turn him in for?

He was a dedicated killer, but ISSL was only a convenient excuse to carry out his cowardly attack and a way for him to justify what he did.

what evidence do you have that demonstrates it it was a convenient excuse rather then a calculated deliberate attack for his ideology and cause?

Please check your spelling, syntax, spacing and punctuation, it will help in understanding the point you are trying to convey.

ill do no such thing. thanks for asking.
(thats better in sign)

I'm done with the discussion, it won't solve anything so therefore it is pointless.

you where done before you even participated.