[azdesertsnake01]

Originally Posted by RealityUnfolding ↗

How laughable is the international media? Pretty laughable. Someone can rip the video if they want. Apparently, there's "blood in every corner" of the US. And we'll just ignore that the shooters possessed the guns illegally already, as a result of California's gun laws, in which you can't give or sell a rifle without registering it with California. And murder is already illegal and IIRC, has been for quite some time.

Yes, but you're missing the real point. When they call for gun control, they aren't saying they want a longer waiting period or more paperwork. There is already an abundance of these types of measures in place.

What they are REALLY saying is that they want guns to be abolished altogether. That's why they say this only happens here, etc. In other words, if we had stricter gun laws like say for instance France, this wouldn't happen. Uh, I mean, uh.. never mind, lol.

As I have always said, we have to address why people do this rather than talk about gun control. I have news for these bleeding heart liberals, as 3d printing advances, it's absolutely inevitable that one day soon people will be able to print an ak-47 at home. So called gun control will be as useless as politicians themselves at that point.

In this case in CA, yet again the government has let us down. They spy on the every day activities of EVERY citizen in the name of protecting us, security, etc. Yet nut jobs like these somehow manage to slip through the cracks even though EVERY sign is there. Where was the NSA's mass surveillance in this case?

The truth is, the government could give a fuck less about anyone but themselves. The surveillance is about controlling the people, PERIOD! It's not about protecting us.

[TheFallOfTroyML]

dont know if they are in here yet, nothing special either

but linked to the event


chris, i cant contribute anymore, the upload just states failed

[guims79]

Originally Posted by azdesertsnake01 ↗

Yes, but you're missing the real point. When they call for gun control, they aren't saying they want a longer waiting period or more paperwork. There is already an abundance of these types of measures in place.

What they are REALLY saying is that they want guns to be abolished altogether. That's why they say this only happens here, etc. In other words, if we had stricter gun laws like say for instance France, this wouldn't happen. Uh, I mean, uh.. never mind, lol.

As I have always said, we have to address why people do this rather than talk about gun control. I have news for these bleeding heart liberals, as 3d printing advances, it's absolutely inevitable that one day soon people will be able to print an ak-47 at home. So called gun control will be as useless as politicians themselves at that point.

In this case in CA, yet again the government has let us down. They spy on the every day activities of EVERY citizen in the name of protecting us, security, etc. Yet nut jobs like these somehow manage to slip through the cracks even though EVERY sign is there. Where was the NSA's mass surveillance in this case?

The truth is, the government could give a fuck less about anyone but themselves. The surveillance is about controlling the people, PERIOD! It's not about protecting us.

I just want to say in addition, actually, in France government is trying to get another law to confiscate legal weapon owners's guns.( of course as quiet as possible) I'm not a pro about guns but my father is he talks about some categories(maybe some of you can add about that)...But the thing I can surely say after listening what he said is, soon( let's say next years) he will only be able to have "black powder" old guns. Why doing this? I mean, like everybody knows, a terrorist will not go to police headquarters to declare his AK... So yeah, this has absolutely nothing to do with our security. They just want use to turn into a kind of defensless goats:

https://www.change.org/p/council-of-...fb_ref=Default

[azdesertsnake01]

Originally Posted by guims79 ↗

I just want to say in addition, actually, in France government is trying to get another law to confiscate legal weapon owners's guns.( of course as quiet as possible) I'm not a pro about guns but my father is he talks about some categories(maybe some of you can add about that)...But the thing I can surely say after listening what he said is, soon( let's say next years) he will only be able to have "black powder" old guns. Why doing this? I mean, like everybody knows, a terrorist will not go to police headquarters to declare his AK... So yeah, this has absolutely nothing to do with our security. They just want use to turn into a kind of defensless goats:

https://www.change.org/p/council-of-...fb_ref=Default

Totally right. They test these types of anti gun laws in other countries to see how well they work before they put them in place in the U.S. The REAL agenda is about taking the arms of the average citizen, not terrorists.

Terrorists will ALWAYS have guns. They don't give a shit about gun laws. Do you think they say to themselves, I'm willing to commit suicide for allah, but I'm just not willing to break a gun law to do it? It's fucking laughable.

It's ironic how a country like France can do things like you are speaking of. France of all countries shouldn't follow in the footsteps of hitler you would think, but....

[TheFallOfTroyML]

Originally Posted by azdesertsnake01 ↗

Totally right. They test these types of anti gun laws in other countries to see how well they work before they put them in place in the U.S. The REAL agenda is about taking the arms of the average citizen, not terrorists.

Terrorists will ALWAYS have guns. They don't give a shit about gun laws. Do you think they say to themselves, I'm willing to commit suicide for allah, but I'm just not willing to break a gun law to do it? It's fucking laughable.

It's ironic how a country like France can do things like you are speaking of. France of all countries shouldn't follow in the footsteps of hitler you would think, but....

fuck gun laws in europe

[RealityUnfolding]

Originally Posted by azdesertsnake01 ↗

Yes, but you're missing the real point. When they call for gun control, they aren't saying they want a longer waiting period or more paperwork. There is already an abundance of these types of measures in place.

What they are REALLY saying is that they want guns to be abolished altogether. That's why they say this only happens here, etc. In other words, if we had stricter gun laws like say for instance France, this wouldn't happen. Uh, I mean, uh.. never mind, lol.

Actually, that was what I was addressing. Even if we banned all guns, it's impossible to be assured they don't exist without such imposing measures. Many countries in the world with extremely strict gun laws are beginning to renege on all the gun control because - shockingly *gasp* - violent crime has increased.

Britain, who went so far as to take guns away from the police are trickling lighter gun control conversations, while the armed division of the police is growing (that's why people love to use Britain as a marker, it's not the "local police" who carry guns, it's their version of a SWAT division, so they can say there were "no police shootings"). Well, now local constables are starting to carry in limited neighborhoods.

Make no mistake, all the gun control blabber in the 90's that got laws enacted, are being eroded worldwide. Only Germany is doubling down, and the citizens seem rather pissed off about it - especially with increases in crimes related to the refugees. Depiste Merkel's worldly one-love sentiments, local citizens are tiiiiicked. Especially now that they are kicking them out of their homes, to give buildings to refugees.

[RealityUnfolding]

FYI, latest news:

The shooter lived in a broken home with an allegedly abusive Dad. Had a dating website profile:

The profile, allegedly belonging to Farook, is on a dating site called iMilap.com -- and it says the then 22-year-old was living at home with his parents. In the "about me" section -- he lists things he enjoys like travel, religious books, and "just hang out in back yard doing target practice with younger sister and friends."

He also describes his family values and "Eastern and Western Mix."

And President Muslim-Lover, claims that it's "mixed" reasons, thus not terror as Obama-friendly media insists it's still "workplace violence".

President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had "mixed motives."

And two government officials said no red flags were raised when he'd gone to Saudi Arabia for several weeks in 2013 on the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at least once in their lifetime. It was during this trip that he met Malik, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States in July 2014 on a "fiancée visa" and later became a lawful permanent resident.

Officials had previously said neither Farook and Malik were known to the FBI or on a list of potentially radicalized people. Nor had they had any known interactions with police until Wednesday.

Yet Farook himself had talked by phone and on social media with more than one person being investigated for terrorism, law enforcement officials said.

...discovery of hundreds of rounds of ammunition in their rented black SUV as well as in their apartment.

Authorities also found 12 pipe bombs there, as well as hundreds of tools that "could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," the chief said.

"If you look at the amount of obvious pre-planning that went in, the amount of armaments (they) had, the weapons and the ammunition, there was obviously a mission here," added Bowdich. "We know that. We do not know why.

"We don't know if this was the intended target or if there was something that triggered him to do this immediately. We just don't know."

So the spin on this is, sure, they were gathering stuff for a large scale terrorist attack, and sure he was barely making enough money for himself while supporting his sister and mother... but since he didn't have ALL the bombs and such on them, it was "workplace violence" that triggered them to do it now rather than later... thus it's not reallllllly a terrorist attack...

[ajgeastwood]

Originally Posted by RealityUnfolding ↗

Britain, who went so far as to take guns away from the police are trickling lighter gun control conversations, while the armed division of the police is growing (that's why people love to use Britain as a marker, it's not the "local police" who carry guns, it's their version of a SWAT division, so they can say there were "no police shootings"). Well, now local constables are starting to carry in limited neighborhoods.

What planet, alternate universe or time period are you from??
Britain has not "taken guns away from police" - the British police force has NEVER carried firearms with the exception of this officers on armed response, anti-terror or Royal Protection duties.
The reason they can say there were no police shooting is that, shock horror, our police force does not respond to every litter lout or drunk and disorderly by calling in guns guns guns and shooting everything in their way.
There have been 57 fatal police shootings in England, Scotland & Wales in THE LAST 25 YEARS!!!
In 2012 alone the US police killed 440 people.
Finally, no "local constables" are carrying firearms in the UK again except for those officers detailed above in ANY neighbourhood.
Please don't try and paint us in the same light as the US to suit your argument I'm afraid we've evolved beyond the cowboy mentality.

[RealityUnfolding]

Originally Posted by ajgeastwood ↗

What planet, alternate universe or time period are you from??
Britain has not "taken guns away from police" - the British police force has NEVER carried firearms with the exception of this officers on armed response, anti-terror or Royal Protection duties.
The reason they can say there were no police shooting is that, shock horror, our police force does not respond to every litter lout or drunk and disorderly by calling in guns guns guns and shooting everything in their way.
There have been 57 fatal police shootings in England, Scotland & Wales in THE LAST 25 YEARS!!!
In 2012 alone the US police killed 440 people.
Finally, no "local constables" are carrying firearms in the UK again except for those officers detailed above in ANY neighbourhood.
Please don't try and paint us in the same light as the US to suit your argument I'm afraid we've evolved beyond the cowboy mentality.

Wrong. While the large as a whole was never armed, senior officers DID carry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. With the public whinings, they reigned that in. From there, they spun off the police chosen to carry into a different division so they could maintain that general police do not carry. From there, in the last few years, those divisions have been tasked with handling calls that routine police would typically handle, while being given entire police control in several "hot zones" of criminal activity. Restrictions on access, but not carry have been eased in several locations and now they carry on their person.

The point is, just because you name the division something different, so you can say "eh, the police don't carry", doesn't mean that members of the force aren't carrying.

*Given all that, sounds like you don't know a whole lot about your own country. Perhaps you should, before telling someone they are twisting things around and looking like a moron. FWIW, if you are going to parse statistics, less people in Britain shoot at the police in general and many in interactions aren't carrying or if they are, drop it readily/immediately. That's not the reaction of criminals here, so comparing stats on how the police react to entirely different situations is rather stupid.

[azdesertsnake01]

Originally Posted by RealityUnfolding ↗

Actually, that was what I was addressing. Even if we banned all guns, it's impossible to be assured they don't exist without such imposing measures. Many countries in the world with extremely strict gun laws are beginning to renege on all the gun control because - shockingly *gasp* - violent crime has increased.

Britain, who went so far as to take guns away from the police are trickling lighter gun control conversations, while the armed division of the police is growing (that's why people love to use Britain as a marker, it's not the "local police" who carry guns, it's their version of a SWAT division, so they can say there were "no police shootings"). Well, now local constables are starting to carry in limited neighborhoods.

Make no mistake, all the gun control blabber in the 90's that got laws enacted, are being eroded worldwide. Only Germany is doubling down, and the citizens seem rather pissed off about it - especially with increases in crimes related to the refugees. Depiste Merkel's worldly one-love sentiments, local citizens are tiiiiicked. Especially now that they are kicking them out of their homes, to give buildings to refugees.

So true. There is something else I found interesting while doing a self study on the subject not long ago. I don't remember all the numbers, but found them on google. Basically mass stabbings in china for instance kills more people per year than guns do in the U.S.

Also, the largest mass stabbing in china took more lives than the largest mass shooting in the U.S. so should we ban steak knives? Something to think about.