It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Should Have Been Done to Prevent this Mass Shooting?

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's a shame too. American's are too short term focused to stop, take a step back, and look at long term implications of things to recognize these trends. We tend to ignore history greater than 8 years and don't think about the future beyond 2 years. Then we sit and wonder why our kneejerk decisions always end up so disastrous and riddled with problems. Then we repeat the same damn mistakes we made originally to "fix" these new mistakes.


Even worse, I think too many of the American people are joining our "leaders" in total apathy toward the rest of the world and the chaos and horror that our actions cause to MILLIONS of people.

It's not so common a phrase anymore, but the American Right has never abandoned the "MY country, right or wrong" attitude.

... and I'm afraid it's the American people, rather than the power-brokers, that are going to b




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You may not like it but it is simple logic. If such a policy was in place it would have prevented it. Albeit back in the 1970s.

Useless you say because you don't like the answer. Such a policy now could possibly prevent future massacres.

I admit I don't like it much myself but such a policy may be on the cards the way things are going. Trump hasn't self destructed like I thought he would and could actually be president...



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And there is another dimension to the problem. While I was focusing on short-sightedness in the fourth dimension, you make a valid point about short-sightedness in the third dimension.

I think the biggest problem is that Americans are SO used to being number 1 that now that we have such competition in the world we can't handle it. We still want the world to be primarily US centric when the world has moved on from that paradigm.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

So what reality do you live in where we would have a valid reason to distrust the Muslims in the 70's when the US' sole focus was against Communism? I mean can you at least apply a LITTLE bit of reality to your deductive reasoning? You can't reinvent history to pitch your answer to my concern. I'm just going to dismiss you completely for trolling or being irrelevant.


I admit I don't like it much myself but such a policy may be on the cards the way things are going. Trump hasn't self destructed like I thought he would and could actually be president...

No it isn't. Trump can blather and yell all he wants about it, but at the end of the day it violates the 1st Amendment and I am confident the courts will bare that out.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

And there is another dimension to the problem. While I was focusing on short-sightedness in the fourth dimension, you make a valid point about short-sightedness in the third dimension.

I think the biggest problem is that Americans are SO used to being number 1 that now that we have such competition in the world we can't handle it. We still want the world to be primarily US centric when the world has moved on from that paradigm.


... even as the United States moving on from our classic demographics is causing equal if not greater distress here at home ...



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sadly, lacking an effective, controllable method of time travel, probably very little. The economic and social environment of the world as it is today contributed to a large degree to this obscenity.

However, if one did have effective time travel, here are some things that could have been done:

- Have the culture in the US be less enamored with violence as a means to solve problems.
- Have the colonization and exploitation of North Africa and the Middle East by western powers not happen the way it did.
- Have the "empire in all but the name" set up by the US post-WWII not happen quite the way it did. Hell, maybe WWII could have been prevented.
- Have the installation and support of very repressive regimes in the ME by various western powers not happen the way it did.
- Have a world-wide culture that actually does respect various faiths and philosophies, instead of pretending to while instead seeking to fully exploit those differences to breed fear and hate.
- Have an educational system that actually educates around reality and less so on myth than is the case.
- Have an economic system where the vast majority of the world's wealth is not concentrated in the hands of a very few, such that the general population is not scrabbling hand-to-mouth daily just to survive.

Just a few ideas. Things would be very different, and maybe, just maybe, better for almost everybody.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Clearly the internet revolution is leaving the people who are slow to adapt in the dust.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump has said it, political parties in europe are saying it. No immigration from muslim countries. This could very well become a policy of western countries in the future. Depends what the voters vote for... So far they seem to like Trump quite a bit.

I think in 10 or 20 years this could be a reality maybe even sooner.

There could be numerous reasons for such a policy in the 70s. Hypothetical answer for a hypothetical thread.

Public opinion is shifting rapidly, another 10 or 20 years things could be very different.


Edit: So you dismissing a hypoythetical answer for a hypothetical question thread because you don't like it, OK lol.

OK then how about better surveillance by the FBI, NSA, CIA whatever on suspect gun purchases.
Armed guards at the club.
Complete ban on firearms. That one doesn't go down well in USA.
edit on 17-6-2016 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump has said it, political parties in europe are saying it. No immigration from muslim countries. This could very well become a policy of western countries in the future. Depends what the voters vote for... So far they seem to like Trump quite a bit.

I think in 10 or 20 years this could be a reality maybe even sooner.

There could be numerous reasons for such a policy in the 70s. Hypothetical answer for a hypothetical thread.

Public opinion is shifting rapidly, another 10 or 20 years things could be very different.


Not that I want to chime in here ... but a quick question. How is it that you think that the United States government can discriminate against anyone (domestic or international) based on religion.

I mean, have you heard of the First Amendment???

(Thanks, sorry to interrupt)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And who exports Wahhabism?

Saudi arabia our allies.

Meanwhile iran is our enemy.....



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

USA and numerous other countries have had restrictions on immigration in the past. I don't know if it would work just saying a lot of politicians in US and europe are talking about it. It could just be reducing immigration which the government can do.
It may not even be applicable to waht you said at all since not in US or US citizens.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They cant discriminste on muslim us citizens.

But there is nothing to stop them from denying immigration rights from islamic countrys

USA does reserve the right to deny non citizens entry with or without reason.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Gryphon66

They cant discriminste on muslim us citizens.

But there is nothing to stop them from denying immigration rights from islamic countrys

USA does reserve the right to deny non citizens entry with or without reason.


Denial based on nationality yes (not unlike President Carter in the late 70s).

Denial of entry based on religion? I'm not so sure you're correct on that one.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Gryphon66

USA and numerous other countries have had restrictions on immigration in the past. I don't know if it would work just saying a lot of politicians in US and europe are talking about it. It could just be reducing immigration which the government can do.
It may not even be applicable to waht you said at all since not in US or US citizens.


Why yes, we have had limitations on immigration in the past. I hesitate to add "duh" LOL. (Trying to joke with you.)

Can you point out anytime in US history that the Federal government has legislated against a given religion?

edit on 17-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it could be based on nationality or country of origin not religion.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

Just because people are saying doesn't mean it will ever become a reality here. Like I said, the 1st Amendment stands in the way. Even if such a policy came about, it wouldn't take much for the courts to overturn it.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And who exports Wahhabism?

Saudi arabia our allies.

Meanwhile iran is our enemy.....

Now careful, pointing out the obvious isn't allowed around here. We need to point and yell at all the scapegoats instead.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it could be based on nationality or country of origin not religion.


Indeed. This is the fundamental issue with Mr. Trump's proclamation.

Perhaps he'll learn more about the Constitution as the Presidential race continues ...




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think you are confusing immigration with travel. You have to apply to immigrate to a country and they can reject it. I can't just turn up to America and say I'm living here now bro it's cool man.

I think you'll find immigration law in most countries and the US is very complicated and has long lists of clauses and ways to reject applicants like a character test... and the immigration depts can be quite secretive and closed leaving little or no legal re course for foreign citizens.
edit on 17-6-2016 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

First, we are off topic. Banning Muslims immigration has been thoroughly disproven as an effective possible solution to how we could have prevented this tragedy, so talking about it is quite irrelevant. However, toning down immigration is just going to increase the number of illegals in the country.

I wonder if you realize that the fastest growing method of illegally immigrating to this country is done through getting a student or other temporary visa, coming here, then letting it expire and never leaving. This is also a method used by people not from the American continents (in fact it is likely to overtake Mexican illegal immigration in the future). Thus closing immigration isn't going to solve the problem of these people being in the country. We've already proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt with the huge illegal immigration problem we have.

New Pew Report Confirms Visa Overstays Are Driving Increased Illegal Immigration



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join