Evidence for God from Science

People post links here all the time.
If the intent of a link is for discussion then I don't see how the poster of the link is under any obligation to defend the link or even respond do it. They are infact able to post it and leave it for others to discuss even. If people want to read the link then it's on them to do their own reasearch to find out the truth. If they want to then challenge the article they are free to do so. But if you are gonna make a personal attack then you are actually the one who is obligated to say why you think you needed to do that. Just my 2cents worth.

Nessa wrote:People post links here all the time.
If the intent of a link is for discussion then I don't see how the poster of the link is under any obligation to defend the link or even respond do it. They are infact able to post it and leave it for others to discuss even. If people want to read the link then it's on them to do their own reasearch to find out the truth. If they want to then challenge the article they are free to do so. But if you are gonna make a personal attack then you are actually the one who is obligated to say why you think you needed to do that. Just my 2cents worth.

True dat! You go gurl!

It's good to see a blonde who makes some sense.

edwardmurphy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I really could careless if not all Muslims are terrorists,even though their history suggests otherwise.I just want America to be protected from Islamic terrorism and it is not my problem if terrorism does not represent real Islam,it is irrelevant.This is a Islam problem and they have a serious public relations problem and it is their problem,not mine.All I know is I really don't care,I want America to be safe from it and Muslims can sort it out.

I'm really trying, ACB, but you're just so obtuse...

The part that you're not grasping is that picking a fight with Islam as a whole doesn't make the United States safer. If anything it will further alienate Muslims in this country and increase the odds of Muslim lone wolf gunmen killing a bunch of people. It's stupid, irresponsible, and dangerous to universally condemn the world's second largest religion based on the actions of a tiny minority of its adherents. Doing that will make things worse.

Here's an example of unintended consequences -

Do you know what ISIS does after a US drone strike kills and injures a bunch of people? They go in, pay the survivors a death benefit, cover funeral expenses, and swear to avenge the dead.

This is a battle for the hearts and minds of 1.5 billion people, and morons like the Donald are going to lose it for us.

You seem to be implying that we cannot protect America from Islamic terrorism,which I totally disagree with.We can protect America from it but we have leaders that do not have the will to even try to.Trump does and this is the difference.Trump is just speaking the truth and yet is attacked for it and then the threat of Islamic terroristm is downplayed as if to make it seem he is exaggerating,when he is'nt.
Also nobody is calling for a total ban on Muslim immigration at least not yet.It is about having a temporary ban until we can figure out why we see Islamic terrorist attacks but also to put together a system to properly vet Muslims coming into America.It is about working with the Muslim community to turn in suspicious Muslims who have terrorist leanings and punishing them when they don't.It is about deporting Muslims that are terrorists.It eventually could come to a permanent ban but we are nowhere near that yet.It will depend on muslim cooperation to be determined.

Also your opinions about the AR-15 are irrelevant because just because it makes no sense to you why somebody would want one is just your opinion.People have a right to purchase any gun that is legal for whatever reason they choose,whether it is for defense or just to have such an impressive weapon.This lone terrorist used this kind of gun,but he would have used this gun or a suicide vest or much,much worse even if it was banned.However he could have been stopped much sooner had somebody in the club had an AR-15 also and had shot him.A lot less people would have died.It did not stop an Islamic terrorist in France where guns are banned and nobody had a gun to protect their self.Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer.More guns equals less crime too.

edwardmurphy wrote:Actually, I'm going to reopen this discussion and attempt to be civil about it. I have questions for Rick (and anyone else who feels like fielding it), and for B.W. and ACB (and anyone else, of course).

1) Rick, do you really think that it's unreasonable to institute stricter control on fire arms (for example, with an outright ban on high capacity magazines)? If so, why?

2) B.W/ACB, what do you think will be accomplished by framing the war on terror as a conflict between Islam and the United States?

It will send a message to Muslims that we are not going to tolerate Islamic terrorism in America and American Muslims agree.Liberals think Muslims will vote for them if we don't speak out about Islamic terrorism but this is a myth that Trump has proven wrong.Trump has exposed so much in this election and political correctness is just one of many things that the left and right have been caught up in.Trump has proven all of this political conventional wisdom totally wrong.For years both the left and right have been silencing each other based on a myth.Trump is proving that you can speak out about real problems effecting America and minorities will understand.We are moving into a totally new phase of politics while the old politics is fading away.

Nessa wrote:People post links here all the time.
If the intent of a link is for discussion then I don't see how the poster of the link is under any obligation to defend the link or even respond do it. They are infact able to post it and leave it for others to discuss even. If people want to read the link then it's on them to do their own reasearch to find out the truth. If they want to then challenge the article they are free to do so. But if you are gonna make a personal attack then you are actually the one who is obligated to say why you think you needed to do that. Just my 2cents worth.

You know what Nessa. People do posts links all the time. On here, on FB. They do a google search and the first site that pops up that supports their train of thought they post.
We have a personal responsibility to know what we are posting. We take time to sort out our opinions so that are a correct reflection of our views.
That same responsibility I believe lies with what we post on any social media, forum ect. I also believe that it also is true in our everyday lives.
There is a difference between posting a link as food for thought and posting a link in direct refutation of a previous claim.
To break that down I mentioned that Governments have in place a vetting process to which Rick responded not in America and posted a link to support his claim. A link taken from a Google search and from a conservative politicians webpage. It is a biased opinion.
Granted I probably should not have called him a right wing crackpot but this forum is hardly sensitive to over the top jabs when it comes to political interests. Leftards and the barrage of insulting innuendos towards those who side more towards the left run riot on this forum.
Without ever being questioned or a demand for an apology towards whoever it may be that are insinuating it against.
It is no secret that I am someone who thinks that in the environment we live in its very important to check all our sources. To try to find impartial journalists presenting the facts. It is a pet irk of mine that I have stated many times on this forum.
I have seen time and time again people post on FB articles and links that are not true. I have made a habit of looking into and researching many and they are time and time again bogus. But yet thousands of people are liking the article and commenting. I also noticed that it happens a lot on here as well.
They are forming opinions and so often towards Muslims from sources and stories that are not true.

I am of the opinion that when you post a link in direct refutation to back a claim that you are making then it's a personal responsibility to make sure that the info is factual and from a credible source.
It's like me stating that Muslims are stringently vetted more so than any other people and that no one with extremist ties has any chance of slipping through the cracks then posted a link from a Muslim webpage supporting it. It's not credible, it is coming from a biased source.
It wasn't personal against Rick I have made those claims in here often. I'm sure Allen West or whatever his name is doesn't need a personal apology from me for saying what I did. I thought it quite ridiculous to even suggest that.
Anyways that my two cents.
Let's hope we can all move on

But, we're not talking about Facebook posts Melanie, we're talking about our good friend here RickD. And all of us here now every single one of his 14000 or so posts are full of substance... well, at least those he does write in a more serious manner when he's not trying to make someone laugh.

So RickD posted a link, perhaps he agreed with most of what that guy wrote when he read it. So then you come along and call the guy a "right wing crackpot" RickD would feel what? The same way you'd feel if you posted a link to a page you largely agreed with, and then someone just dismisses it out of hand responding it is clear that the person who wrote the page has no brain and is a twit. Though any personal jab may be unintentional, it would still be personally felt.

Anyway, that's my two cents, so we've now got four.

melanie wrote:

Nessa wrote:People post links here all the time.
If the intent of a link is for discussion then I don't see how the poster of the link is under any obligation to defend the link or even respond do it. They are infact able to post it and leave it for others to discuss even. If people want to read the link then it's on them to do their own reasearch to find out the truth. If they want to then challenge the article they are free to do so. But if you are gonna make a personal attack then you are actually the one who is obligated to say why you think you needed to do that. Just my 2cents worth.

You know what Nessa. People do posts links all the time. On here, on FB. They do a google search and the first site that pops up that supports their train of thought they post.
We have a personal responsibility to know what we are posting. We take time to sort out our opinions so that are a correct reflection of our views.
That same responsibility I believe lies with what we post on any social media, forum ect. I also believe that it also is true in our everyday lives.
There is a difference between posting a link as food for thought and posting a link in direct refutation of a previous claim.
To break that down I mentioned that Governments have in place a vetting process to which Rick responded not in America and posted a link to support his claim. A link taken from a Google search and from a conservative politicians webpage. It is a biased opinion.
Granted I probably should not have called him a right wing crackpot but this forum is hardly sensitive to over the top jabs when it comes to political interests. Leftards and the barrage of insulting innuendos towards those who side more towards the left run riot on this forum.
Without ever being questioned or a demand for an apology towards whoever it may be that are insinuating it against.
It is no secret that I am someone who thinks that in the environment we live in its very important to check all our sources. To try to find impartial journalists presenting the facts. It is a pet irk of mine that I have stated many times on this forum.
I have seen time and time again people post on FB articles and links that are not true. I have made a habit of looking into and researching many and they are time and time again bogus. But yet thousands of people are liking the article and commenting. I also noticed that it happens a lot on here as well.
They are forming opinions and so often towards Muslims from sources and stories that are not true.

I am of the opinion that when you post a link in direct refutation to back a claim that you are making then it's a personal responsibility to make sure that the info is factual and from a credible source.
It's like me stating that Muslims are stringently vetted more so than any other people and that no one with extremist ties has any chance of slipping through the cracks then posted a link from a Muslim webpage supporting it. It's not credible, it is coming from a biased source.
It wasn't personal against Rick I have made those claims in here often. I'm sure Allen West or whatever his name is doesn't need a personal apology from me for saying what I did. I thought it quite ridiculous to even suggest that.
Anyways that my two cents.
Let's hope we can all move on

What I have realized is so many of the good links on Islamic terrorism have been removed from the internet during this election cycle.It is harder for us who understand Islamic terrorism to provide links.This to not upset Muslim sensibilities.Facebook closed down a page called stop the Islamization of America when this story first broke.Google has been exposed for censoring conservatives during this election in order to help Hillary.The liberal news media is one of the worst places to get ones news because it is totally biased to help liberals.

Kurieuo wrote:But, we're not talking about Facebook posts Melanie, we're talking about our good friend here RickD. And all of us here now every single one of his 14000 or so posts are full of substance... well, at least those he does write in a more serious manner when he's not trying to make someone laugh.

So RickD posted a link, perhaps he agreed with most of what that guy wrote when he read it. So then you come along and call the guy a "right wing crackpot" RickD would feel what? The same way you'd feel if you posted a link to a page you largely agreed with, and then someone just dismisses it out of hand responding it is clear that the person who wrote the page has no brain and is a twit. Though any personal jab may be unintentional, it would still be personally felt.

Anyway, that's my two cents, so we've now got four.

Six actually - sheesh, you aussies are bad at maths

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:But, we're not talking about Facebook posts Melanie, we're talking about our good friend here RickD. And all of us here now every single one of his 14000 or so posts are full of substance... well, at least those he does write in a more serious manner when he's not trying to make someone laugh.

So RickD posted a link, perhaps he agreed with most of what that guy wrote when he read it. So then you come along and call the guy a "right wing crackpot" RickD would feel what? The same way you'd feel if you posted a link to a page you largely agreed with, and then someone just dismisses it out of hand responding it is clear that the person who wrote the page has no brain and is a twit. Though any personal jab may be unintentional, it would still be personally felt.

Anyway, that's my two cents, so we've now got four.

Six actually - sheesh, you aussies are bad at maths

I was just counting the Aussie cents since I don't care much about Kiwi dollars.

abelcainsbrother wrote:You seem to be implying that we cannot protect America from Islamic terrorism,which I totally disagree with.

The Gun Violence Archive has logged 139 mass shootings so far this year, and it's only June. In 2014 there were 279, and in 2015 there were 330. That includes the two incidents of Islamic terrorism.

If we can't stop hundreds of non-Muslim lone gunmen from shooting up schools, businesses, their families, and the like, how are we supposed to stop Muslim lone gunmen from doing the same? And remember, both the San Bernadino and Orlando shooters were natural born citizens of the United States, not immigrants or refugees.

So...?

abelcainsbrother wrote:We can protect America from it but we have leaders that do not have the will to even try to.

It's immensely frustrating when you say things like that. Are you really that ignorant? The US has killed thousands of terrorists and/or Muslim fighters during the current administration, including such high profile figures as Osama bin Laden. Claiming that our leaders don't have the will to even try is a bald faced lie.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Trump does and this is the difference.Trump is just speaking the truth and yet is attacked for it and then the threat of Islamic terroristm is downplayed as if to make it seem he is exaggerating,when he is'nt.

Really? His proposed immigration ban wouldn't have stopped either of those guys. What's Trump's plan to prevent American citizens with no ties to any extremist group from becoming lone gunmen?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Also nobody is calling for a total ban on Muslim immigration at least not yet.It is about having a temporary ban until we can figure out why we see Islamic terrorist attacks but also to put together a system to properly vet Muslims coming into America.

How is an open-ended ban on all Muslim immigration not a "total ban"? That's exactly what it is. And you really need to get past this idea that we have no earthly idea why we're seeing Muslim terrorist attacks. You and Donald might not know, but that doesn't mean it's a mystery.

Regarding vetting, I don't know why I'm wasting the key strokes, since I've given you links to the vetting process multiple times, but refugees are thoroughly vetted. Yes, a handful have subsequently been charged with crimes, but it's still a very small percentage. No vetting process is ever going to be perfect, so if that's your standard then forget it. It's a pipe dream. The Vulcan mind-meld isn't real...

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is about working with the Muslim community to turn in suspicious Muslims who have terrorist leanings and punishing them when they don't.It is about deporting Muslims that are terrorists.It eventually could come to a permanent ban but we are nowhere near that yet.It will depend on muslim cooperation to be determined.

Do you have some sort of evidence that those things aren't already being done? Remember, there have been TWO recent Muslim terrorist attacks. Not 2,000 or 200 or 20, just 2. I'm not trying to downplay the horror of either of those events, but the fact remains that either there aren't nearly as many Muslim terrorists going after us as you claim there are, or the current administration is doing a much better job protecting us than you're willing to admit.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Also your opinions about the AR-15 are irrelevant because just because it makes no sense to you why somebody would want one is just your opinion.People have a right to purchase any gun that is legal for whatever reason they choose,whether it is for defense or just to have such an impressive weapon.

So are you saying that the law is the law, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, so I should just shut up? If that's the case then please shut up about abortion, marriage equality, the separation of church and state, and all of Obama's executive orders...

abelcainsbrother wrote:This lone terrorist used this kind of gun,but he would have used this gun or a suicide vest or much,much worse even if it was banned.

Maybe, maybe not.

Also, what's much, much worse than a compact, high-powered rifle with a high-capacity clip that's also realistically obtainable to a civilian with no connections to terrorist organizations?

abelcainsbrother wrote:However he could have been stopped much sooner had somebody in the club had an AR-15 also and had shot him.A lot less people would have died.

Why would anyone, anywhere, ever take an AR-15 out clubbing? Why would any club allow the patrons to bring rifles inside? What responsible person would mix darkness, hormones, alcohol, and firearms? If there were a dozen people in the club with guns how would they have been able to tell which shooters were good guys and which were terrorists?

abelcainsbrother wrote:It did not stop an Islamic terrorist in France where guns are banned and nobody had a gun to protect their self.

True enough, but then France hasn't had 748 mass shootings in the last 3 years, either. Here's a quote from a NY Times article illustrating my point:

International comparisons help highlight how exceptional the United States is: In a nation where the right to bear arms is cherished by much of the population, gun homicides are a significant public health concern. For men 15 to 29, they are the third-leading cause of death, after accidents and suicides. In other high-income countries, gun homicides are unusual events. Last year’s Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States.

It gets worse:

We focused on the rates of gun homicides; the overall rate of gun deaths is substantially higher, because suicides make up a majority of gun deaths in the United States and are also higher than in other developed countries.

Again, I'm not trying to downplay the horror of the Paris attacks, but for the sake of perspective I'd like to point out that in the US in 2015 there were 13,340 gun deaths, and 27,002 gun injuries.

abelcainsbrother wrote:More guns equals less crime too.Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer.

I've seen (and posted) evidence that more guns equals more gun deaths. I've never seen any evidence supporting your claim. Citation, please.

Ok, so in response to this:

Me wrote:2) B.W/ACB, what do you think will be accomplished by framing the war on terror as a conflict between Islam and the United States?

You said:

abelcainsbrother wrote:It will send a message to Muslims that we are not going to tolerate Islamic terrorism in America and American Muslims agree.

That makes no sense. How is framing the conflict as being between America and Islam going to make it clear that American Muslims are also anti-Islam? If you, personally, had to choose where to align yourself in a conflict between your faith and your country which side would you pick?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Liberals think Muslims will vote for them if we don't speak out about Islamic terrorism but this is a myth that Trump has proven wrong.

Huh...

Noted liberal Paul Ryan wrote:"Muslims are our partners. The vast, vast majority of Muslims in this country and around the world are moderate. They're peaceful. They're tolerant. So they're among our best allies, among our best resources in this fight."

Prominent liberal Lindsey Graham wrote:“Donald Trump has done the one single thing you cannot do — declare war on Islam itself …To all of our Muslim friends throughout the world, like the King of Jordan and the President of Egypt, I am sorry. He does not represent us.”

Liberal Mitch McConnell when asked about a Muslim immigration ban wrote:"This suggestion is completely and totally inconsistent with American values."

But you're correct that liberals disagree, too.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Trump has exposed so much in this election and political correctness is just one of many things that the left and right have been caught up in.Trump has proven all of this political conventional wisdom totally wrong.For years both the left and right have been silencing each other based on a myth.Trump is proving that you can speak out about real problems effecting America and minorities will understand.We are moving into a totally new phase of politics while the old politics is fading away.

Trump is viewed unfavorably by about 80% of Blacks and Hispanics and 60% of Asians, if the polls are to be believed. So, yeah...

edwardmurphy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:You seem to be implying that we cannot protect America from Islamic terrorism,which I totally disagree with.

The Gun Violence Archive has logged 139 mass shootings so far this year, and it's only June. In 2014 there were 279, and in 2015 there were 330. That includes the two incidents of Islamic terrorism.

If we can't stop hundreds of non-Muslim lone gunmen from shooting up schools, businesses, their families, and the like, how are we supposed to stop Muslim lone gunmen from doing the same? And remember, both the San Bernadino and Orlando shooters were natural born citizens of the United States, not immigrants or refugees.

So...?

abelcainsbrother wrote:We can protect America from it but we have leaders that do not have the will to even try to.

It's immensely frustrating when you say things like that. Are you really that ignorant? The US has killed thousands of terrorists and/or Muslim fighters during the current administration, including such high profile figures as Osama bin Laden. Claiming that our leaders don't have the will to even try is a bald faced lie.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Trump does and this is the difference.Trump is just speaking the truth and yet is attacked for it and then the threat of Islamic terroristm is downplayed as if to make it seem he is exaggerating,when he is'nt.

Really? His proposed immigration ban wouldn't have stopped either of those guys. What's Trump's plan to prevent American citizens with no ties to any extremist group from becoming lone gunmen?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Also nobody is calling for a total ban on Muslim immigration at least not yet.It is about having a temporary ban until we can figure out why we see Islamic terrorist attacks but also to put together a system to properly vet Muslims coming into America.

How is an open-ended ban on all Muslim immigration not a "total ban"? That's exactly what it is.

Regarding vetting, I don't know why I'm wasting the key strokes, since I've given you links to the vetting process multiple times, but refugees are thoroughly vetted. Yes, a handful have subsequently been charged with crimes, but it's still a very small percentage. No vetting process is ever going to be perfect, so if that's your standard then forget it. It's a pipe dream. The Vulcan mind-meld isn't real...

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is about working with the Muslim community to turn in suspicious Muslims who have terrorist leanings and punishing them when they don't.It is about deporting Muslims that are terrorists.It eventually could come to a permanent ban but we are nowhere near that yet.It will depend on muslim cooperation to be determined.

Do you have some sort of evidence that those things aren't already being done? Remember, there have been TWO recent Muslim terrorist attacks. Not 2,000 or 200 or 20, just 2. I'm not trying to downplay the horror of either of those events, but the fact remains that either there aren't nearly as many Muslim terrorists going after us as you claim there are, or the current administration is doing a much better job protecting us than you're willing to admit.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Also your opinions about the AR-15 are irrelevant because just because it makes no sense to you why somebody would want one is just your opinion.People have a right to purchase any gun that is legal for whatever reason they choose,whether it is for defense or just to have such an impressive weapon.

So are you saying that the law is the law, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, so I should just shut up? If that's the case then please shut up about abortion, marriage equality, the separation of church and state, and all of Obama's executive orders...

abelcainsbrother wrote:This lone terrorist used this kind of gun,but he would have used this gun or a suicide vest or much,much worse even if it was banned.

Maybe, maybe not.

Also, what's much, much worse than a compact, high-powered rifle with a high-capacity clip that's also realistically obtainable to a civilian with no connections to terrorist organizations?

abelcainsbrother wrote:However he could have been stopped much sooner had somebody in the club had an AR-15 also and had shot him.A lot less people would have died.

Why would anyone, anywhere, ever take an AR-15 out clubbing? Why would any club allow the patrons to bring rifles inside? What responsible person would mix darkness, hormones, alcohol, and firearms? If there were a dozen people in the club with guns how would they have been able to tell which shooters were good guys and which were terrorists?

abelcainsbrother wrote:It did not stop an Islamic terrorist in France where guns are banned and nobody had a gun to protect their self.

True enough, but then France hasn't had 748 mass shootings in the last 3 years, either. Here's a quote from a NY Times article illustrating my point:

International comparisons help highlight how exceptional the United States is: In a nation where the right to bear arms is cherished by much of the population, gun homicides are a significant public health concern. For men 15 to 29, they are the third-leading cause of death, after accidents and suicides. In other high-income countries, gun homicides are unusual events. Last year’s Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States.

It gets worse:

We focused on the rates of gun homicides; the overall rate of gun deaths is substantially higher, because suicides make up a majority of gun deaths in the United States and are also higher than in other developed countries.

Again, I'm not trying to downplay the horror of the Paris attacks, but for the sake of perspective I'd like to point out that in the US in 2015 there were 13,340 gun deaths, and 27,002 gun injuries.

abelcainsbrother wrote:More guns equals less crime too.Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer.

I've seen (and posted) evidence that more guns equals more gun deaths. I've never seen any evidence supporting your claim. Citation, please.

The Gun Violence Archive has logged 139 mass shootings so far this year, and it's only June. In 2014 there were 279, and in 2015 there were 330. That includes the two incidents of Islamic terrorism.

If we can't stop hundreds of non-Muslim lone gunmen from shooting up schools, businesses, their families, and the like, how are we supposed to stop Muslim lone gunmen from doing the same? And remember, both the San Bernadino and Orlando shooters were natural born citizens of the United States, not immigrants or refugees.

So...?

That is considered normal crime,it does not in Noway compare to what a group of Islamic terrorists can do and it is time we take steps to prevent gangs of Muslims who carry out attacks 10 times worse than what you're brining up.Have you forgot about 911 and what a group of Muslims can do?
Also you're wrong his family migrated here from Afghanistan and were immigrants.Like I've said before Islamic terrorism will follow when we you allow Muslims into our country.You are implying Islamic terrism is not a big enough threat yet to want to do something,We've only seen two attacks, but we don't want to allow it to get as bad as you think it should before it is too late.

It's immensely frustrating when you say things like that. Are you really that ignorant? The US has killed thousands of terrorists and/or Muslim fighters during the current administration, including such high profile figures as Osama bin Laden. Claiming that our leaders don't have the will to even try is a bald faced lie.

No.You're wrong the fact is ISIS has grown under the Obama administration and because of his policies which Hillary was also apart of as Secretary of State.The US funded ISIS and armed them.
Not enough has been done to weaken ISIS like taking the oil they control which they use to fund themselves.

Really? His proposed immigration ban wouldn't have stopped either of those guys. What's Trump's plan to prevent American citizens with no ties to any extremist group from becoming lone gunmen?

It is just one part of it.Like I've said before its going to get worse before it gets better because of the Obama administration allowing so many Muslims to come in.It is inviting terrorism into our country and we should expect to see more attacks.I bet there will be more before this election is over and even after Trump is President.Liberals created this mess and its going to have to be cleaned up,now.

How is an open-ended ban on all Muslim immigration not a "total ban"? That's exactly what it is.

Regarding vetting, I don't know why I'm wasting the key strokes, since I've given you links to the vetting process multiple times, but refugees are thoroughly vetted. Yes, a handful have subsequently been charged with crimes, but it's still a very small percentage. No vetting process is ever going to be perfect, so if that's your standard then forget it. It's a pipe dream. The Vulcan mind-meld isn't real...

This is only a temporary ban which is much different than a permanent ban.If Muslims are vetted properly then how come this attack happened?These were Muslim refugees.You are believing the liberal news media which down plays Island!ic terrorism,which is what they've been doing since Trump first ran and they continue to,then are appalled when a terrorist attack happens and Trump points it out.Obama uses it to punish law abiding citezens by taking their guns away and is more angry at Trump than this gunmen who carried out this attack.This is Obama flooding our country with Muslims to create chaos in order to take guns away.We read him like a book.They are not vetted and there is no documentation on Muslim immigrants.

Do you have some sort of evidence that those things aren't already being done? Remember, there have been TWO recent Muslim terrorist attacks. Not 2,000 or 200 or 20, just 2. I'm not trying to downplay the horror of either of those events, but the fact remains that either there aren't nearly as many Muslim terrorists going after us as you claim there are, or the current administration is doing a much better job protecting us than you're willing to admit.

It is known in both the San Bernardino attack and it is even coming out in this attack that people knew things and did not report it.We are not going to let it get as bad as you seem to think it should be until we take action.It would be too late.We will take action now to keep it from getting that bad.Why are you continually ignoring the fact that everywhere Muslims live in the world we see Islamic terrorist attacks.Also why do you ignore the fact that the reason Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries will not take these refugees is because of the threat of Islamic terrorism,yet you have no problem with them coming here? Are you suicidal?How can you ignore all of the terrorist attacks we see around the world and then say well it only effected that country,it is not effecting America like it is in that country?

So are you saying that the law is the law, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, so I should just shut up? If that's the case then please shut up about abortion, marriage equality, the separation of church and state, and all of Obama's executive orders...

I thought you were for freedom? I am and I do think it is none of your business why somebody wants to own and AR-15 or any gun as long as they don't have a criminal background.I refuse to punish the good guys because of the bad guys.You're all for freedom when it comes to same sex marriages yet not when it comes to guns.I'm against same sex marriages because the Supreme Court does not have the right to write new law and it was forced onto America against its will.I would have no problem had the American people voted it in,but that did not happen.

Maybe, maybe not.

Also, what's much, much worse than a compact, high-powered rifle with a high-capacity clip that's also realistically obtainable to a civilian with no connections to terrorist organizations?

Islamic terrorists have been known to carry out much,much worse kinds of attacks than even this one.We have sleeper cells in America right now as we speak and they do or have had connections with terrorist organizations,just like this one.ISIS will fund much worse kinds of attacks than this kind.I want to know how you can ignore all of the terrorist attacks we've seen and trust Muslims so much,like you do.How can you ignore them?

Why would anyone, anywhere, ever take an AR-15 out clubbing? Why would any club allow the patrons to bring rifles inside? What responsible person would mix darkness, hormones, alcohol, and firearms? If there were a dozen people in the club with guns how would they have been able to tell which shooters were good guys and which were terrorists?

I was not implying that but let's say that security guard that first fired at him had an AR-15 in some gun case and had access to it,things could have been much different,when he fired at this terrorist.

True enough, but then France hasn't had 748 mass shootings in the last 3 years, either. Here's a quote from a NY Times article illustrating my point:

That is France's loss.We are not France.Also these mass shootings happen in gun free zones because the criminals know it.It is a no-brainer if you are a criminal.We should do away with gun free zones and have signs saying heavily armed facility instead.

I think a better definition of an 'assault' rifle should be left to those who know the differences in the affects of weapons, such as the surgeons who responded. One of the surgeons said:

Well, this was an assault rifle. And so this is a military weapon, so those bullets have a lot more energy to them, a lot more speed, and so they cause more tissue injury.

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-pul ... goes-away/

Now, let's also be informed that injuries from assault weapons happen all the time, on a very frequent basis, throughout the entire USA.

Abel the vetting system in place is adequate, keeping in mind that a tiny percentage will slip through who shouldn't. There is no such thing as a perfect system but countries like the US and Australia are very prudent when it comes to asylum seekers and refugees. Much more so than many other countries, especially when screening people from the Middle East.
The next measure save what is already in place would be to just put a blanket ban on any at all coming through. When you do so only to a specific race or religion there begins a very slippery decline into the type of society that I would do everything in my power to stop.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11 ... ted-states

melanie wrote:Abel the vetting system in place is adequate, keeping in mind that a tiny percentage will slip through who shouldn't. There is no such thing as a perfect system but countries like the US and Australia are very prudent when it comes to asylum seekers and refugees. Much more so than many other countries, especially when screening people from the Middle East.
The next measure save what is already in place would be to just put a blanket ban on any at all coming through. When you do so only to a specific race or religion there begins a very slippery decline into the type of society that I would do everything in my power to stop.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11 ... ted-states

So,it seems that you're implying that they cannot be vetted properly and yet despite this,you're willing to tolerate the threat that always follows Muslims wherever they live in the world,allow them to come in anyway regardless of the threat.Meanwhile Islamic countries will not allow them in their countries for this very reason.I'm willing to ban one religion if it keeps America safe.I think it would cause a change in Islam,if not? It still doesn't effect us. I'm all for freedom of religion,but it is not a suicide pact.

I looked at the link about the vetting process but I do not trust this government and I wonder why you do.also I see nothing in that vetting process that would stop a terrorist and especially the more that are allowed in when the FBI is already over burdened to investigate terrorist threats in the US.