SoutheasternOhioPreps.com

So....the White House (Obama) is trying to claim the mass shooting yesterday in San Bernardino could have just been "workplace violence".. Anyone that supports that jackass is as big of an idiot as he is. The suspects have radical muslim ties. They had tactical gear. They had an arsenal in their vehicle. They had a what law enforcement is calling a bomb (IED) factory in Farooks house that they raided. The attack was planned out. The killers had BIGGER plans than what they pulled off yesterday. And all the President can do is call for "tougher gun laws? GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! And anyone that thinks they are is just as stupid as those currently sitting in the White House The world will much better off when he is gone.

Agree 100%. We need to get these liberal hippies out of office before they destroy our great country for good.

This guy had such an arsenal it makes you wonder who else he has given things to. This guy may have just a "follower".

Put the clamps on these PEOPLE who have the weapons. The cops have said Farook was not on any watch list, BUT there is no doubt the government positively know who many of them are. Why wait until something happens?

Bring back the Gestapo!

Runner wrote:This guy had such an arsenal it makes you wonder who else he has given things to. This guy may have just a "follower".

Put the clamps on these PEOPLE who have the weapons. The cops have said Farook was not on any watch list, BUT there is no doubt the government positively know who many of them are. Why wait until something happens?

Runner, who are "these people"? Who decides? Plenty of right wing and deranged idiots also "have the weapons". Are you ready for them ALL to be controlled? This government that you would like to not "wait til something happens" to act is the same government you would see castrated. Unless you're referring to a private entity. As OAF would ask, Gestapo? Heil Runner. Mein Kampf!

These people he is referring to are the terrorists living in our country either under Visas or illegally that the CIA and FBI have under surveillance waiting for them to do something. Why not deport them before they can do any harm to America?

dazed&confused wrote:

Runner wrote:This guy had such an arsenal it makes you wonder who else he has given things to. This guy may have just a "follower".

Put the clamps on these PEOPLE who have the weapons. The cops have said Farook was not on any watch list, BUT there is no doubt the government positively know who many of them are. Why wait until something happens?

Runner, who are "these people"? Who decides? Plenty of right wing and deranged idiots also "have the weapons". Are you ready for them ALL to be controlled? This government that you would like to not "wait til something happens" to act is the same government you would see castrated. Unless you're referring to a private entity. As OAF would ask, Gestapo? Heil Runner. Mein Kampf!

ah the beauty of open debate

Opps, almost forgot.....

TC answered the question for me. His answer is as good as what mine would have been.

Tigercannon71 wrote:These people he is referring to are the terrorists living in our country either under Visas or illegally that the CIA and FBI have under surveillance waiting for them to do something. Why not deport them before they can do any harm to America?

If you think about it, anyone with half a brain would agree.

Runner wrote:TC answered the question for me. His answer is as good as what mine would have been.

Tigercannon71 wrote:These people he is referring to are the terrorists living in our country either under Visas or illegally that the CIA and FBI have under surveillance waiting for them to do something. Why not deport them before they can do any harm to America?

If you think about it, anyone with half a brain would agree.

Oh, I'm sorry. I have a full brain. Must be the problem. I think for myself too much.

No....I am sorry. I should have said that anyone with "any brains at all" would agree. The rest are just sheep.

dazed&confused wrote:

Runner wrote:TC answered the question for me. His answer is as good as what mine would have been.

Tigercannon71 wrote:These people he is referring to are the terrorists living in our country either under Visas or illegally that the CIA and FBI have under surveillance waiting for them to do something. Why not deport them before they can do any harm to America?

If you think about it, anyone with half a brain would agree.

Oh, I'm sorry. I have a full brain. Must be the problem. I think for myself too much.

those pesky full brains.

Runner wrote:TC answered the question for me. His answer is as good as what mine would have been.

Tigercannon71 wrote:These people he is referring to are the terrorists living in our country either under Visas or illegally that the CIA and FBI have under surveillance waiting for them to do something. Why not deport them before they can do any harm to America?

If you think about it, anyone with half a brain would agree.

For the record, I adhere responsibly and respectfully to the 2nd amendment. However, not everyone can be trusted to do the same. I don't know what the answer is but I do not believe disarming law abiding citizens of their right to arms is the solution. It looks simple, no guns = no crimes but we all know that's nonsense. If I didn't have a gun and wanted to hurt someone a hammer would do quite nicely. See what I did there?

I agree Oaf. No one in their right mind would suggest taking away someone's right to own guns. I have a couple myself. My problem is when we DO talk about tracking "those people" or restricting certain groups from owning guns, a fine line can become a broad slippery slope. I'm fine if we want to monitor certain activities or restrict certain liberties. I thought all the hubub about the NSA collecting data points (not conversations) to discern patterns was prudent. But the Libertarians got their panties in a bunch over it. Bring back surveillance of questionable people but don't just limit it to some people you have a major beef with. That's the point I was making. There are some right-wing militias that need monitoring, too. And the loners who shoot up elementary schools and Planned Parenthood clinics.

dazed&confused wrote:I agree Oaf. No one in their right mind would suggest taking away someone's right to own guns. I have a couple myself. My problem is when we DO talk about tracking "those people" or restricting certain groups from owning guns, a fine line can become a broad slippery slope. I'm fine if we want to monitor certain activities or restrict certain liberties. I thought all the hubub about the NSA collecting data points (not conversations) to discern patterns was prudent. But the Libertarians got their panties in a bunch over it. Bring back surveillance of questionable people but don't just limit it to some people you have a major beef with. That's the point I was making. There are some right-wing militias that need monitoring, too. And the loners who shoot up elementary schools and Planned Parenthood clinics.

As usual, your points ring with validity. That fine line is indeed a slippery slope. Comes back to who gets to decide what constitutes as "questionable people." I'm sure everyone that posts here would have a different answer for that one and I'm just as guilty as the next tax paying voter in regards to that albatross.