San Bernardino Atrocity, an Attempt by Radical Islamists to Push for Gun Control?

a reply to: CollisioN

I'm not sure if English is your first language so I'll cut you some slack on this mostly nonsensical post. However I'll answer this question from you:

Why are you there so obsessed with guns and have fear of losing them? Don't you have police that can do everything for you as they have all the means to stop whoever?

I live in the country, a rural area where cops are anywhere from 5 minutes to 15 minutes away when I dial 911. Several years ago the mere sight of one of my guns caused an attacker with a chainsaw to run like a scared rabbit as he saw me with a gun when he was approaching my Beloved. My Beloved is handicapped---bad leg and can't run---so the sight of me walking onto the porch with a shotgun in my hand sent this dude scampering away as fast as his truck would take him. Do you think he would have run away if I'd gone outside to confront him with a phone in my hand?

My Daddy taught me not to be a victim and trained me with firearms to defend myself. His motto was: Gun control is a steady aim and a secure holster. That's why neither you nor any other anti-gun nut will ever take my firearms while there are still bullets in them. That's as plain as I know how to say it. The Constitution for the United States of America protects my human right to be able to protect myself. This makes anyone who would seek to take away my ability to protect myself my enemy.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Meanwhile left-wing politicians, and the left-wing media have their own reasons to disarm Americans, they are still playing right into part of what Islamic radicals want for America.

Completely utterly wrong. Read what ISIS want and learn! They want you to be armed to the teeth attacking them this is their ultimate aim, the end game, the worldwide jihad.

The problem with folks who get all animated when their "right to bear arms" is threatened is that you lose the plot, forget to take step back and goddam THINK.

originally posted by: charlyv

Well, they did not attack the disabled children center, they attacked a room for hire that the center leases out to the public. That does not change some of the logic of the OP or posts on it, however it is not the same as if they attacked the administration, personnel or patients there.

You are right on that. Thanks for the clarification.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Meh. You worked too hard on creating a narrative, you sure you don't work for the MSM?

Gun control is a goal of the owners of this country - Left and Right. Islamic radicals are their pawns to push ANY agenda they wish - gun control, reduction in freedoms, mass surveillance, etc.

1. Why did the NSA fail? ...Why is our data being collected if they can't stop terrorists in California where AK-47s and making bombs are already illegal?
2. Why did the FBI fail to catch these people? ...They are Johnny at the Rathole when an American citizen posts on Facebook.
3. Buying all these illegal guns as Middle Easterners and no one bats an eyelash?

You are asking the wrong questions and point fingers in the wrong directions.

Disarming Americans means we further become servants - that's the desire of the owners/masters - NOT Islamic Radicals.

Left vs. Right... blah, blah, blah... learn who your masters are, unless you are currently working for them with this silly post.

originally posted by: snarky412

They personally bought their 2 handguns
And a 'friend' bought the assault rifles, which they are looking into...purchased legally

A friend who is linked to the investigation is what reporters on several newspapers wrote, but according to Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, what was said by the ATF is that "they believed the two weapons were bought on behalf of the police department, and somehow the guns got into the hands of Syed, through his friend."

In fact, here, i just searched what CNN wrote about it 2 days ago.

...
ATF tells CNN that one of the guns used in the shooting was legally purchased and traces back to someone believe to be connect with the shooting. The agency would not disclose the name of the purchaser.
...

www.cnn.com...

Yet Fiorina said directly on her interview something different which the CNN interviewers didn't deny.

ATS member Deny Arrogance gave us this link earlier in this thread.

During the CNN interview Fiorina even said to her CNN interviewers "this was what the ATF told your CNN reporter" and the CNN interviewer (Joe Scarborough) didn't respond except to say "...alright".

You can watch this starting at 4:50 in this video which ATS member Deny Arrogance also provided in this thread.



So it appears that even though the ATF told this to the CNN reporter, CNN is not writing it this way in their website newspaper. Probably because the White House attache asked them not to reveal that much but just to say that Syed's friend was tied to the investigation which is what other newspapers are reporting, but CNN went beyond that and simply stated his friend seems to be connected to the shooting...

The U.S. government as well as the JIHADISTS know that we will be more vulnerable to attacks, if we are UNARMED.

Act of Terrorism | Barack Hussein Obama II | Jihadists | Natural Born Killers = (180) + (165) + (99) + (222) = 666.

AFRICAN-AMERICAN MUSLIMS = (222) = NATURAL BORN KILLERS. "Islam is the fastest growing religion among African-Americans".

a reply to: diggindirt

Hi!
English is not my first language, so I apologize in advance

I used to live in a rural area too and I can understand the fact that you need a weapon for your self protection.
But from my point of view it shouldn't mean that assault rifle should be available for sale to anyone.

In my country (France), you can buy a "large" amount of guns without any difficulties. Only automatic weapon required a background check (basically, I've no judicial record so I'm allowed to buy an AK47).
But nobody does, unless for hunting or sport purpose.

You have the right to like guns, but don't pretend it is to save yourself from a so called tyranny. Ask yourself who benefits from these tragedies...

a reply to: diggindirt

5 minutes to 15 minutes? That's very fast. Well, not really if someone is breaking into your house, but if you live in any major metropolitan area it can take 30 minutes to an hour for the police to arrive. If a patrol car is close to your house it will take less time for them to arrive of course, but this is not always the case.

If you are reporting vadalism on your property they don't even come... They just ask you "are you in any danger", if you say no, they tell you, ok, we will be sending a patrol car... You wait...you wait...you wait... for hours and nothing, not even a call back.

So yeah, you can't count on the police on most situations. Not to mention the fact that even if your life is in danger, it is policy of LEOs not to enter your house so not to put their lives in danger. After one patrol car arrives in 30 minutes to an hour, sometimes less, if they see a threatening situation they call backup so you have to wait at least another 15+ minutes. So depending on the police is the stupidest idea i have ever heard.

I am not trying to demean our police officers, there are many officers that will try to help even if their lives is in danger, but there are others that will follow procedure to the letter, and will simply wait for backup. But are you going to risk your life, or that of your family on a chance that the police officer who will arrive anywhere in 30 minutes or so is willing to risk his life and not follow procedure to the letter?

originally posted by: Logman
I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you but

I'm from Australia, never owned a gun and have no desire to do so.

I do however, spend a few months per year in the US (as I work for a US company) and have lots of mentally stable law-abiding gun owning American friends and I also do not trust the US government - at all, ever. I have come to appreciate the US constitution as being the last bastion of defense against the rise of the New World Order.

originally posted by: schonbret
...
In my country (France), you can buy a "large" amount of guns without any difficulties. Only automatic weapon required a background check (basically, I've no judicial record so I'm allowed to buy an AK47).
But nobody does, unless for hunting or sport purpose.

You have the right to like guns, but don't pretend it is to save yourself from a so called tyranny. Ask yourself who benefits from these tragedies...

First of all, I don't think you even understand what automatic weapon means. Automatic weapon means that you just need one finger pull on the trigger for the weapon to fire several rounds in succession. These guns are really bad for hunting.

I can imagine French people in the woods with fully automatic weapons trying to hunt venison with them. "?qu'est que c'est? ?est cela une venaison? ratatatatata ?l'ai-je frappé ? ;P Just kidding. Automatic weapons are not for hunting.

In the United States most Americans can't have automatic weapons. Just because a weapon is an assault rifle it doesn't mean it is a fully automatic weapon. Most assault rifles available to the public are "semi-auto" which means for each finger pull on the trigger one bullet is ejected from the barrel.

There are websites where you can buy automatic weapons but you have to be a Law Enforcement Officer, or a Federal agent with the clearance to have one. Otherwise it is illegal for most regular Americans to buy such weapons.

Second of all, there is no pretending when we are talking about protecting ourselves from tyranny... Sorry, but there isn't... Another government, the British, once tried to ban all American colonists from having weapons, and they even confiscated them. This is why the American founding fathers stated it is the right of every American to own and bear arms. It is no joke, and it certainly isn't a pretension.

a reply to: schonbret

Humm. You actually gave me an idea that will verify if these assault rifles that Syed had were acquired by a Law Enforcement Officer, or a federal agent. brb.

Anyway, I am trying to find pictures of the assault weapons because if they were bought on behalf of the police department it should say on the handguard "MILITARY & POLICE".

This is one of the only photos I could find.

heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com...

Can't see if it says anything on their handguard.

originally posted by: schonbret
a reply to: diggindirt

Hi!
English is not my first language, so I apologize in advance

I used to live in a rural area too and I can understand the fact that you need a weapon for your self protection.
But from my point of view it shouldn't mean that assault rifle should be available for sale to anyone.

In my country (France), you can buy a "large" amount of guns without any difficulties. Only automatic weapon required a background check (basically, I've no judicial record so I'm allowed to buy an AK47).
But nobody does, unless for hunting or sport purpose.

You have the right to like guns, but don't pretend it is to save yourself from a so called tyranny. Ask yourself who benefits from these tragedies...

Please show me in my post where I said anything about saving myself from tyranny. I saved my Beloved from a crazed guy with a chain saw. Twenty minutes later the sheriff's department showed up to take a report. Had I waited for them to come and take care of the bad guy I would most likely been making funeral arrangements. Had the guy kept advancing on my beloved once I stepped onto the porch---his family would have been handling funeral arrangements.
The guy wasn't a tyrant or a government official, he was a meth-crazed stranger that showed up in my driveway! But he wasn't so crazy as to think his chain saw would trump my shotgun!

Who benefits from these tragedies? The funeral homes, cemeteries, and hospitals. The media. The government can point out the vast problems (that they've managed to create all on their own) and say they need more funding.

And just so you understand, our local law enforcement is fully supportive of the the 2nd Amendment. They won't be cooperating in any gun-grabbing. They are smart enough to realize that being armed is good when there are armed bad guys out there. We often shoot with them at the range.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Yes, I do have deputies living within a couple of miles of my house but if they are on duty they might be as much as 30 minutes away. The five minute response time would be if they were actually at the department and drove here like a bat out of hell.
When there was an attempted home invasion at a friend's house just down the road it took deputies 20 minutes to arrive. Lucky for my friend, she had a gun handy. When the perp broke the window in her back door and she saw his hand coming through to open the door (she wouldn't go to the door because she was alone and didn't recognize him) with her gun in her hand she yelled, "Get the hell out of here or I'm going to shoot you!" and racked a shell into the chamber. He ran like a scared rabbit but not so quick that she wasn't able to get the license number of the plate on his car. Another meth-crazed idiot! When he and his accomplice (a female) were caught breaking into another house just down the road---less than an hour after the attempted break-in at my friend's place---she was armed but he wasn't.
So yeah, we "country-girls" know how to defend ourselves because we must.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

But we have seen left-wing politicians and media push for "more gun control in America" using tragedies like this one to disarm Americans.

And on the other side of the coin we have the NRA and other assorted gun nuts using these tragedies to push an everyone should be armed and guns should be less regulated agenda.

Call me crazy but when mass shootings happen every few weeks maybe it does have something to do with the fact guns are everywhere, just a thought

But guns aren't everywhere...These killings are taking place in gun free zones...That's not a coincidence...

I am not an NRA member...It doesn't take the NRA to convince me that it would be smart if I had access to weapons for self defense...You even consider that most or many in that building were wishing they could have been legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon when the shooting started, especially those who were wounded??? It doesn't take the NRA to etch that little idea into one's mind...

a reply to: Iscool
I live in Australia. I can only own a gun for hunting or target shooting. You cannot own a gun for self defence. 25 years ago a guy killed 46 people. All semi automatics and pump action shotguns were banned. The media represented anyone who owned a gun was a potential mas murderer. All guns are registered and each year police home to your home and check your safe and your guns. A Police officer has the right at anytime to demand to see you guns. It has taken 25 years of shooting organisations in Australia to stop the left trying to ban all guns even for the police. I cannot carry a gun for self defence. I have friends who a senior police and they are expecting a similar type of shooting as happened in San Bernardino. if that happens in Australia the response from the community will be sever against the Muslims. The government is so worry that Muslims will be persecuted if they say they are at fault they will allow a mass shooting rather than have vilification of Muslims. I am suspicious that all the mass shootings in the USA are at places were people do not carry guns. Does that fact raise any alarm bells with any of you? I believe the mass shooting are orchestrated by your government to cause civil unrest and to try and take you guns. The consensus in Australia is even if we don't have a gun we will not be shot hiding under tables but we will attack the bastards and take their guns and shot them. There is something very wrong with this terrorist threat and the western governments lack of action in preventing it. We know who are the threat, radical Muslims. You interned the Japanese in the second world war but will do nothing about enemies living in your own country. Your FBI has successfully infiltrated extremist like the KKK then why not do the same with Muslims? The lack of action suggest an ulterior motive.

a reply to: diggindirt

Sir, I respect your right to your opinion. I'm only guessing, but I bet most of the people you talk with are probably a lot like you. No disrespect to the, or you. But, most American, including the ones you don't know, are in favor of stricter gun laws.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: diggindirt

Sir, I respect your right to your opinion. I'm only guessing, but I bet most of the people you talk with are probably a lot like you. No disrespect to the, or you. But, most American, including the ones you don't know, are in favor of stricter gun laws.

You mean "most" American Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists right?

They may not necessarily be the majority of citizens.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: diggindirt

Sir, I respect your right to your opinion. I'm only guessing, but I bet most of the people you talk with are probably a lot like you. No disrespect to the, or you. But, most American, including the ones you don't know, are in favor of stricter gun laws.

And I respect your right to believe what msm tell you about what most Americans believe. Yes, the people in my community are a lot like me. We were raised to be responsible gun owners and citizens, knowing that the government cannot protect us from bad guys. But we also know that the founding fathers put us in charge of self-defense and we take that duty seriously.

originally posted by: TownCryer

Sir, I respect your right to your opinion. I'm only guessing, but I bet most of the people you talk with are probably a lot like you. No disrespect to the, or you. But, most American, including the ones you don't know, are in favor of stricter gun laws.

Really?... Show us the proof... BTW, showing polls made of 1,000 -2,000 people do not represent 322 million. Sorry but it does not... Polls can be easily rigged to be biased in favor of your argument...

Oh, and btw, even if there ever was a majority of Americans who wanted to heavily restrict firearms, or even ban them. The U.S. Constitution gives the right to each person. The majority cannot deny a minority ANY RIGTH...