Liberty University encouraging armed student body and Islamaphobia?

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Are you even paying attention? Which of the recent terror attacks took hostages? The perps killed indiscriminately until they met armed resistance, then they either killed themselves or were killed by police.

And of course most of us will rarely find ourselves in a situation where carrying a weapon will make a difference. However it is my choice to determine at what threshold it becomes prudent to carry a weapon, not yours.

And if you're ready to accept that chances are it'll only be negatively correlated with your life span or someone in your family, then have at it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Seth Joo]

To be fair, Liberty University and LUCOM aren't the same thing.

Its going to be hard to differentiate the two since LUCOM is part Liberty University. I honestly never liked the school. And this guy's comments are not good.

 

[NurWollen]

But theres also the fact that Bill Maher is purposely misleading/lying about Islam to paint a picture of them being violent. In lik 90% of his videos, about Islam, he talks about a significant number of Muslims believing that apostates should be killed. This suggests that if you are living in the US as a Muslim and your friend becomes an apostate then you should kill him. EVERY reputable Islamic scholar would tell you that that action would be explicitly impermisble. Killing an apostate is something that might happen if a Muslim living in a Muslim country aids an enemy which leads to the death of Muslims (i.e treason). And even then there would be a large trial. Theres a reason why Bill Maher never says the # of apostates killed every yr.

In other words, ISIS is precisely on the wrong side of what Islam teaches, in this case.

 

[hallowmann]

In other words, ISIS is precisely on the wrong side of what Islam teaches.

Fixed that for you.

The thing that bothers me the most about all discussions about ISIS is that it feeds into their own rhetoric. They're portrayed as religious zealots that seek to torture and kill non-Muslims, when the reality is that they've tortured and killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims. Their goal has to do with the same goal that all these types of organizations have had throughout history: money and power. They lost it when Saddam was ousted, and they want it back, and us and our media (and unfortunately our presidential candidates) are playing into their hands.

 

[NurWollen]

Fixed that for you.

The thing that bothers me the most about all discussions about ISIS is that it feeds into their own rhetoric. They're portrayed as religious zealots that seek to torture and kill non-Muslims, when the reality is that they've tortured and killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims. Their goal has to do with the same goal that all these types of organizations have had throughout history: money and power. They lost it when Saddam was ousted, and they want it back, and us and our media (and unfortunately our presidential candidates) are playing into their hands.

Yeah, sorry. The 'in this case' was just unnecessary verbiage. I don't think ISIS represents Islam, in any case.

 

[Mjolner]

Preface; I am very pro gun/concealed carry/2nd amendment...

That being said, it baffles me that in most medical schools, students with concealed carry permits are forbidden from carrying while attending lectures.
The demographic of med students ubiquitously consists of some of the most high-achieving, intelligent, and utmost law abiding members of society.... the background check that I took during my med school orientation was vastly more involved and thorough than any sort of NICS check I had to do to buy a firearm. Even the most die-hard liberal would likely conceded that the student body of virtually all medical schools in the US are the kind of people who could be prudently labeled as "responsible gun owners".

Edit: I disagree with any form of xenophobia. The anti-muslim aspect of the speech made at liberty university's forum is not one that I agree with. My classmates are of various religious and cultural backgrounds (christians, muslims, sikhs, atheists, white, black, asian, etc.) and I would feel more comfortable if I knew that we could all preserve our rights to have the chance to defend ourselves from a violent threat while attending class.

Wasn't the guy who shot up the theatre in Colorado a medical student?

 

[Mjolner]

This is simply false.
Up until recently, all Swiss males of fighting age were required by law to store a fully automatic SIG SG550 in their homes with a cache of government supplied ammunition. These rifles could be fired at shooting ranges or for hunting, but the owner's had to use their own store bought ammunition.
This system of their government issuing rifles still exists, but it is now voluntary. Also, if a citizen chooses to opt in, he may also choose to keep the rifle at a local swiss military armory, instead of keeping it at home.

To put this into perspective, let's compare 2 countries. Honduras & Switzerland.
Both have nearly identical populations (8 million).
Legal gun ownership in Switzerland is encouraged & common (ranked #2 in the world per capita).
Legal gun ownership in Honduras does not exist. Civilian firearm ownership is entirely banned.
Which of these 2 countries do you think has THE highest homicide rate in the world?

You ignoring some significant variables like poverty rate. Without those this can become a zoo.

In Switzerland there are far more homicides committed by people who speak German as a first or second language than in Honduras.

 

[Mjolner]

OK so we have 2 situations:
1) crazy bad guy walks in with a pistol and several magazines. Opens fire, reloads, opens fire, reloads. No one has a gun and he kills as many people as he pleases.
2) crazy bad guy begins to open fire. Empties one magazine and begins to reload. 3 people carrying open fire on bad guy.

In which situation were more lives lost? The answer is pretty obvious.

Are we considering all the lives lost when those three Med students start shooting wildly at the assailant in a panic? Hitting a target down range is not the same as killing a (potentially) moving human being.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Are we considering all the lives lost when those three Med students start shooting wildly at the assailant in a panic? Hitting a target down range is not the same as killing a (potentially) moving human being.

Lets also consider the fact that inciting someone with likely higher fire power to open fire is going to produce significantly more casualty.

 

[qwe1230]

Wasn't the guy who shot up the theatre in Colorado a medical student?

No, he wasn't.

You ignoring some significant variables like poverty rate. Without those this can become a zoo.

In Switzerland there are far more homicides committed by people who speak German as a first or second language than in Honduras.

Yes, exactly. We agree that there are many variables at play. Poverty, unemployment, demographics, education, government corruption, etc.
Like you said, the language difference is likely not one of the variables. Similarly, it's apparent that the rate of gun ownership is also not a contributing factor.

 

[jl lin]

There's another thread about this going on right now.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...hool-continue-to-exist.1172974/#post-17192094

Yea, how many concurrent topics can we have on this? Go to the SPF in The Lounge.

Bombarding the board w/ the same crap over and over.

 

[jl lin]

I read an article about a Muslim girl at lucom. If a president of my school said they wanted to end people of my religion and to bring guns I would be very frightened.
.

Not what he said; although I do think people should be a little bit smarter about what and how they say something, and if they can't make in clear and precise the first time, especially in this day and age of a certainly fixed liberal media, then they shouldn't say anything. Know why? Simple ideas of defending against Islamic terrorists like what was seen and Cali, Boston, Paris, and so many other places, and which WILL MOSTLY DEFINITELY be seen again, gets turned into "Bring your guns boys and girls, and let's shoot all those of Islamic faith."

So then it's an opportunity for anti-freedom propaganda--and the left has a field day. SMH.

 

[DoctorSynthesis]

Not what he said; although I do think people should be a little bit smarter about what and how they say something, and if they can't make in clear and precise the first time, especially in this day and age of a certainly fixed liberal media, then they shouldn't say anything. Know why? Simple ideas of defending against Islamic terrorists like what was seen and Cali, Boston, Paris, and so many other places, and which WILL MOSTLY DEFINITELY be seen again, gets turned into "Bring your guns boys and girls, and let's shoot all those of Islamic faith."

So then it's an opportunity for anti-freedom propaganda--and the left has a field day. SMH.

The quote literally said he wanted guns to end those Muslims before they walked in. Has he been misquoted?

 

[adamanteus]

I'd imagine that the people who are high achievers are likely to avoid environments where they would ever need a gun and or likewise understand their limitations in situations when they might need one.

You mean environments like schools, the workplace, a theater, restaurants, etc? Safe places like that? Seriously, what world do you live in? If you ever find yourself hiding in terror behind your desk as a crazed gunman 50 feet away is coming your direction blasting at anything that moves, I'm willing to make a bet that you'll wish you or someone with you had a way to defend yourself.

Oh wait, that won't be necessary, cause SWAT will be there to save the day in like, 10-15 minutes or so, tops.

 

[Tired]

Oh wait, that won't be necessary, cause SWAT will be there to save the day in like, 10-15 minutes or so, tops.

With a doctor on the point, apparently.

 

[jl lin]

The quote literally said he wanted guns to end those Muslims before they walked in. Has he been misquoted?

My reply is posted here:http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ontinue-to-exist.1172974/page-9#post-17199051

See post 401, which is only a small taste of Islamic terrorism, to which he was definitely referring.

 

[jl lin]

No people will start to get it, when they get their heads out of their own butts and lives and realize how quickly and with what vigor this has been proliferating, and indeed, the rate of proliferation is getting to be so fast, we will NOT be prepared pretty much on any front, individual or national.

Sadly, 9/11/2001 and all that has happened before it and after it, listed on my post 401 on the thread noted above, has not been enough to wake us up. We are NOT a ready people, and with such lack of readiness, it is much easier to overcome the freedom we have, bit by bit, massive killing here, smaller attacks there, media in denial along with so much of the left intelligentsia and entertainment industry, which have an incredible influence over people.

We are going to suffer a lot, and even then, I seriously question, based on current trends in politics among Americans, if we will have the resolve to do what is needed.

 

[DoctorSynthesis]

My reply is posted here:http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ontinue-to-exist.1172974/page-9#post-17199051

See post 401, which is only a small taste of Islamic terrorism, to which he was definitely referring.

He didn't say radical Muslims, terrorists, criminals or anything of the sort. He said Muslims. Seems fairly clear to me. If he wanted to make a distinction he should have. He didn't and that probably was on purpose.

He should have just said terrorists if that was what he was referring to. Wouldnt he would want to defend himself against all terrorists regardless of their religion. He said Muslim so clearly he meant Muslims.

 

[Mjolner]

No, he wasn't.

You're right. I was mistake. He was just a phi beta kappa with a 3.949 gpa in undergrad and was in a neuroscience PhD program. So I'd say he is at least as high performing (or whatever term that was used) as your typical medical student.

 

[Mjolner]

Yes, exactly. We agree that there are many variables at play. Poverty, unemployment, demographics, education, government corruption, etc.
Like you said, the language difference is likely not one of the variables. Similarly, it's apparent that the rate of gun ownership is also not a contributing factor.

You're hiding the correlation of gun ownership to increase in gun crime rate behind dwarfing factors that upset the whole apple cart.

That's like saying nutrition and amount of exercise have nothing to do with building muscle mass because I am many many times stronger than my ten year old nephew who has three balanced nutritious meals forced down his throat every day by his mom and is going nonstop playing sports every moment he isn't eating, sleeping or in class.

You picked an example where one variable (age) can hide what would be deciding factor if the others (age) were accounted for.

That's such bad science it could be published in a homeopathic medicine journal.

Edit: I forgot to add that I'm a lazy bum who has a horrifically bad diet.

 

[Mehd School]

Ooof. Awful on multiple levels.

Thanks for dragging the osteopathic community down with you again, LU.

 

[cbrons]

Switzerland does not allow you to keep magazines at your house. Hence why no one is being killed from guns there.

False

 

[jl lin]

Now, let's be intelligent and look at his statements in context and relevance:

"RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. urged students, staff and faculty at his Christian school to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon on campus to counter any copycat attack like the deadly rampage in California just days ago.

"Let's teach them a lesson if they ever show up here," Falwell told an estimated 10,000 of the campus community at convocation Friday in Lynchburg. While Falwell's call to arms was applauded, his remarks also seemed to target Muslims.

"I've always thought if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in .," Falwell said. The final words of his statement could not be clearly heard on a videotape of the remarks.

However, Falwell told The Associated Press on Saturday he was specifically referring to Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the husband and wife who shot and killed 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino on Wednesday.

Falwell also said he believed the campus needed to be prepared in the face of the increasing frequency of mass killings. He cited, for example, the 2007 massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, and less than 100 miles southwest of Liberty.

"What if just one of those students or one of those faculty members had a concealed permit and was carrying a weapon when the shooter walked into Virginia Tech? Countless lives could have been saved," he said."

When taken in context to the timing of the SB event and the Paris event, he is obviously referring to those Muslims that would be seeking to kill people on campus. Special note, Look at "to counter any copycat attack like the deadly rampage in California just days ago.

That definitely sets in apart w/o question--unless someone is merely looking for something that goes well beyond the context of his statements. And indeed that seems to clearly be the case. It also makes sense in light of the statement re: Virginia Tech that followed. He's talking about responsible gun ownership to carry and how that may indeed save some lives. Now, if you want to debate that, fine, but that is a different topic altogether, and sadly some like to purposely smear topics of controversy together with others to help propel their ideologies.

I don't BS and I am not one to suffer the foolishness of BS. Shoot. I should be a Texan after all!

Read more: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/30...s-for-an-armed-christian-campus#ixzz3thknQ7hA

 

[qwe1230]

You're hiding the correlation of gun ownership to increase in gun crime rate behind dwarfing factors that upset the whole apple cart.

That's like saying nutrition and amount of exercise have nothing to do with building muscle mass because I am many many times stronger than my ten year old nephew who has three balanced nutritious meals forced down his throat every day by his mom and is going nonstop playing sports every moment he isn't eating, sleeping or in class.

You picked an example where one variable (age) can hide what would be deciding factor if the others (age) were accounted for.

That's such bad science it could be published in a homeopathic medicine journal.

Edit: I forgot to add that I'm a lazy bum who has a horrifically bad diet.

I don't follow your analogy. That's not to say that I don't respect that the situation is indeed multi-faceted, but the comparison is becoming quite a bizarre stretch.

I feel strongly that we need to stop demonizing gun owners as a whole. Whether you're a high achieving graduate student, or a lowly disney world janitor... "Since 1987, the state of Florida has issued 2.5 million concealed-carry permits. Of those, only 168 people have committed a firearms crimes. That’s .00672 percent of the total amount issued."

 

[asdf123g]

Are we considering all the lives lost when those three Med students start shooting wildly at the assailant in a panic? Hitting a target down range is not the same as killing a (potentially) moving human being.

Most every person's most likely natural inclination is to run away from a shooter or get down and crawl- this is a predictable vector. People arent going to be criss crossing, running up and down the aisles, in random unpredictable directions. So accidental casualties are probably going to be lower than you think.
Either way, as soon as people start firing back, the shooter will be hit, be forced to take cover, and or flee. This reduces the # of deaths. The shooter doesnt even have to see the people firing back, as soon as he hears shots being fired at him and bullets whizzing by, he's going to stop; at the VERY least temporarily.

 

[Mjolner]

Most every person's most likely natural inclination is to run away from a shooter or get down and crawl- this is a predictable vector. People arent going to be criss crossing, running up and down the aisles, in random unpredictable directions. So accidental casualties are probably going to be lower than you think.
Either way, as soon as people start firing back, the shooter will be hit, be forced to take cover, and or flee. This reduces the # of deaths. The shooter doesnt even have to see the people firing back, as soon as he hears shots being fired at him and bullets whizzing by, he's going to stop; at the VERY least temporarily.

Trained members of the military tend to miss their targets the first time they're required to hit an actual human. I'm assuming that they typical Med student will miss as well.
Some crawl. Some flee. Some freeze. Panic acts different on everyone.

We've given every cop in the land guns and you know while 99.99999% of them are doing just fine with that responsibility we see a couple every year killing people that didn't deserve it. I'd rather not be in the first round of Med students killed by a stressed out Med student.

 

[Mjolner]

I don't follow your analogy. That's not to say that I don't respect that the situation is indeed multi-faceted, but the comparison is becoming quite a bizarre stretch.

I feel strongly that we need to stop demonizing gun owners as a whole. Whether you're a high achieving graduate student, or a lowly disney world janitor... "Since 1987, the state of Florida has issued 2.5 million concealed-carry permits. Of those, only 168 people have committed a firearms crimes. That’s .00672 percent of the total amount issued."

Picking Florida as an example of responsible gun use is like picking a fraternity as an example of responsible drinking.

A tiny percentage when multiplied by millions becomes a significant number. Also. Florida doesn't consider shooting, say, a kid in a hoodie walking home a firearm crime, so....

I can dig up stats where a use of a given, illegal, drug has similar fatality numbers I'm sure. Or chainsaw deaths by small children. When we're talking deaths sometimes one is enough. Will everyone having a gun cut down on gun deaths. Maybe. It'll cut down massacres, most likely, but random "screw you stop calling me names!!" Shootings will skyrocket. Everyone knows a hot head who could pass a background check who shouldn't be allowed a gun.

 

[asdf123g]

Trained members of the military tend to miss their targets the first time they're required to hit an actual human. I'm assuming that they typical Med student will miss as well.
Some crawl. Some flee. Some freeze. Panic acts different on everyone.

We've given every cop in the land guns and you know while 99.99999% of them are doing just fine with that responsibility we see a couple every year killing people that didn't deserve it. I'd rather not be in the first round of Med students killed by a stressed out Med student.

i understand what you are saying however youre ignoring the fact that when people start returning fire, the shooter will flee, be shot, or be forced to take cover...it reduces the # of deaths either way.

 

[Mjolner]

i understand what you are saying however youre ignoring the fact that when people start returning fire, the shooter will flee, be shot, or be forced to take cover...it reduces the # of deaths either way.

Usually in these massacre type situations the guns aren't illegal ones off the streets. Their either legally purchased or legally purchased by a family member who didn't lock them up (which I believe the NRA is against mandatory laws for such measures).
The scenario we're arguing about is one that would almost certainly come about due to implementing your plan and hoping that it is both the cause and solution to the problem.

Now if we're talking some guy knocking over a 7-11, THAT gun was probably not purchased legally by him or someone he knows. I'll concede that.

 

[jl lin]

He didn't say radical Muslims, terrorists, criminals or anything of the sort. He said Muslims. Seems fairly clear to me. If he wanted to make a distinction he should have. He didn't and that probably was on purpose.

He should have just said terrorists if that was what he was referring to. Wouldnt he would want to defend himself against all terrorists regardless of their religion. He said Muslim so clearly he meant Muslims.

I doubt that you are obtuse, so I will just say that you are deliberating taking what he said out of context--but it's not just you. It's those that influence that started it. You have just gone along for the ride.

What's more, he and the school HAVE NOT been credited with any Islam hate speech. The man was referring to students and people being able to defend themselves in light of an Islamic terrorist attack--certainly no longer considered an improbability--at least one would be foolish to think so--or any attack, such at that which occurred at Virginia Tech. He's talking about students and people being able to defend themselves should it become necessary.

Again, if you think students or people in general should not have this right, then that is your opinion, but is is a different discussion. People w/ political agendas tend to stir and mix all kinds of things together to get a rally going.

If you think we should not be prepared and on the alert on all fronts for Islamic terrorism, yes, in particular, then apparently you haven't reviewed all the massive proliferation of Islamic terrorist attacks--I posted only a portion on the other thread, as I have said.

It would be wise to learn the lessons that Israel has had to learn--and always be ready to defend herself against destruction and annihilation.
Such reparation and self-defensive is neither unChristian nor does it contradict the tenets of Judaism.

Why people have trouble seeing the difference between defense and needless offensive aggression against massive numbers of people worldwide is utterly beyond me.

 

[qwe1230]

Picking Florida as an example of responsible gun use is like picking a fraternity as an example of responsible drinking.

A tiny percentage when multiplied by millions becomes a significant number. Also. Florida doesn't consider shooting, say, a kid in a hoodie walking home a firearm crime, so....

I can dig up stats where a use of a given, illegal, drug has similar fatality numbers I'm sure. Or chainsaw deaths by small children. When we're talking deaths sometimes one is enough. Will everyone having a gun cut down on gun deaths. Maybe. It'll cut down massacres, most likely, but random "screw you stop calling me names!!" Shootings will skyrocket. Everyone knows a hot head who could pass a background check who shouldn't be allowed a gun.

How so? The figures I quoted earlier literally showed that Floridian concealed carry permit holders commit crime less than the average American by several orders of magnitude. If "one death is enough, when we're talking deaths"... then do you suggest that we ban motor vehicles, alcohol, bathtubs, pocket knives, scissors, aspirin, and chainsaws?

The difference between firearms and chainsaws is that owning a chainsaw is not right guaranteed by the constitution. So if we feel so strongly about absolutely minimizing violent deaths in America (because even one death is enough), we need to quickly start having a conversation about "realistic chainsaw control".

 

[costales]

Yeah, we gotta control chainsaws. And puppies.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/wife-killed-in-chainsaw-accident-7081566.html

A woman was killed and virtually beheaded in a horrific chainsaw accident when her husband was knocked off a ladder by the family dog.

Roland Pudney, 56, had been using the chainsaw to prune bushes in his garden when the puppy ran into the stepladder while retrieving a golf ball, causing Mr Pudney to topple over.

His wife, Pauline, who had been holding the ladder steady, was killed instantly when the blade sliced into her neck.​

 

[DoctorSynthesis]

I doubt that you are obtuse, so I will just say that you are deliberating taking what he said out of context--but it's not just you. It's those that influence that started it. You have just gone along for the ride.

What's more, he and the school HAVE NOT been credited with any Islam hate speech. The man was referring to students and people being able to defend themselves in light of an Islamic terrorist attack--certainly no longer considered an improbability--at least one would be foolish to think so--or any attack, such at that which occurred at Virginia Tech. He's talking about students and people being able to defend themselves should it become necessary.

Again, if you think students or people in general should not have this right, then that is your opinion, but is is a different discussion. People w/ political agendas tend to stir and mix all kinds of things together to get a rally going.

If you think we should not be prepared and on the alert on all fronts for Islamic terrorism, yes, in particular, then apparently you haven't reviewed all the massive proliferation of Islamic terrorist attacks--I posted only a portion on the other thread, as I have said.

It would be wise to learn the lessons that Israel has had to learn--and always be ready to defend herself against destruction and annihilation.
Such reparation and self-defensive is neither unChristian nor does it contradict the tenets of Judaism.

Why people have trouble seeing the difference between defense and needless offensive aggression against massive numbers of people worldwide is utterly beyond me.

I'm pro gun and believe people have the right to defend themselves. I also can read and what he said was clear.


If a leader of a black university said everyome should get a gun to end christrains that would be alarming. (After roof attack). That's the same situation we have here. He said end Muslims not muslim terrorists. The whole quote is in 100% context it isn't editeted in the slightest.


Basically what your saying is that anyone that is saying kill Muslims just means the terrorists. Your basically saying Muslim is synonymous with terrorist. Insane. Please think about a) who your defending and b)what your defending and the mental games you have to pull to not make it seem completely genocidal.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Yeah, we gotta control chainsaws. And puppies.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/wife-killed-in-chainsaw-accident-7081566.html

A woman was killed and virtually beheaded in a horrific chainsaw accident when her husband was knocked off a ladder by the family dog.

Roland Pudney, 56, had been using the chainsaw to prune bushes in his garden when the puppy ran into the stepladder while retrieving a golf ball, causing Mr Pudney to topple over.

His wife, Pauline, who had been holding the ladder steady, was killed instantly when the blade sliced into her neck.​

The chainsaws and puppies are confounders. The real problem is the use of ladders...

 

[costales]

The chainsaws and puppies are confounders. The real problem is the use of ladders...

Well, gravity is the real culprit.

 

[asdf123g]

nvm

 

[IslandStyle808]

Well, gravity is the real culprit.

Touche...

 

[Goro]

Two can play at this game.

Compare gun crimes and murder rates in the US with:
Britain
Canada
Australia
China

Personally, I think it has something to do with the food. Compare the Middle east with the Scandinavian countries and I swear, it must have something to do with hummus or grape leaves.

To put this into perspective, let's compare 2 countries. Honduras & Switzerland.
Both have nearly identical populations (8 million).
Legal gun ownership in Switzerland is encouraged & common (ranked #2 in the world per capita).
Legal gun ownership in Honduras does not exist. Civilian firearm ownership is entirely banned.
Which of these 2 countries do you think has THE highest homicide rate in the world?

 

[costales]

Grape leaf eaters are prone to violence compared to fermented fish eaters?

The real solution to world peace is somnolence through sucrose.

 

[Mjolner]

How so? The figures I quoted earlier literally showed that Floridian concealed carry permit holders commit crime less than the average American by several orders of magnitude. If "one death is enough, when we're talking deaths"... then do you suggest that we ban motor vehicles, alcohol, bathtubs, pocket knives, scissors, aspirin, and chainsaws?

The difference between firearms and chainsaws is that owning a chainsaw is not right guaranteed by the constitution. So if we feel so strongly about absolutely minimizing violent deaths in America (because even one death is enough), we need to quickly start having a conversation about "realistic chainsaw control".

True. It IS a constitutional right. In order to form a militia.
So, if Obama told you he needed you to take point on a suicide mission that would distract the enemy so the professional soldiers could succeed in an attack, you'd be down for charging in, armed with your glock?

 

[jl lin]

Now you've gone and done it. Here's my rant then, with a warning re: these vicious statements:

I'm pro gun and believe people have the right to defend themselves. I also can read and what he said was clear.


If a leader of a black university said everyome should get a gun to end christrains that would be alarming. (After roof attack). That's the same situation we have here. He said end Muslims not muslim terrorists. The whole quote is in 100% context it isn't editeted in the slightest.


Basically what your saying is that anyone that is saying kill Muslims just means the terrorists. Your basically saying Muslim is synonymous with terrorist. Insane. Please think about a) who your defending and b)what your defending and the mental games you have to pull to not make it seem completely genocidal.

I will, this once, thank you to cease and desist from now distorting my words and intentions of mind. Yea, I am not likely to tolerate such obvious distortions of my meaning. Whether JFJ will continue to do so or not is up to him. But don't ever imply and/or directly distort my words with the intentionality of presenting me as a racist, who is against freedom of religion and such. Such an accusation gets the hot button.You might as well call me a rapist and murderer out of the blue. How dare you deliberately misrepresent someone in such a vile manner! No, I never even intimated such. What utterly massive feces you have thrown about with such statements--and including genocide, no less. You have been warned. I will not tolerate being deliberately lied about and have my communications deliberately distorted. You have stepped over the line at this point.

jd on the other thread is right. There is no need to twist the intentionality of what the person said, unless you clearly have an agenda to do so; and make no mistake, there are plenty that want to twist, b/c it fits their agenda.

This is a deliberate act of taking the person's message out of context. Context clues. Read them.....in light of Paris and SB...in light of what he was saying about Virginia Tech, which wasn't even about Islamic terrorism as far as I know. He was talking about protection plain and simple. Could he have been more careful? Sure. Everyone has to be very careful b/c today the word police have their almighty, omniscient insight to (think) they know the true intent of what everyone is thinking--except when it is one of their own. Then it's a different story.

Please, I have friends and colleagues that are of the Islamic faith, who would so laugh in your face, so don't even go there with me.

Point is the guy was referring to terrorists--yes Islamic terrorist, and we must be honest and know that there is massive proliferation of Islamic terrorist, and if you or anyone can't see that, than God help you. If you can't see that they mean worldwide business, you are a lost, blind man w/o a guide, a walking stick, or braille.

The first order of business our free republic has is to protect itself and it's people. We think it's to tax the hell out of everyone for every little thing--and get all up in disturbing people's rights. NO, it's purpose is defensive and strong infrastructure from a military perspective for the sustenance of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' b/c the world isn't one big, happy family that will hold hands, share things, and sing Kumbaya. Socialism won't bring that.
Islam taking over of the world won't bring that.
Americans keeping their heads in the sand believing all the ridiculous nonsense from the left won't bring that.

The reality is, indeed sometimes the only thing that stands between continued life and liberty and its utter demise is a gun--is the power to defend and maintain survival of a free republic.

So the guy wasn't careful and eloquent. That's too bad that he gave others the opportunity to have his message distorted. He should know how the game is played by now. Yea. His bad on that. It in no way means he is anti-freedom of religion or against peaceful, caring, responsible Islamic Americans.

BTW, no. You can't read w/ context in mind--apparently not at all.

 

[DoctorSynthesis]

Now you've gone and done it. Here's my rant then, with a warning re: these vicious statements:



I will, this once, thank you to cease and desist from now distorting my words and intentions of mind. Yea, I am not likely to tolerate such obvious distortions of my meaning. Whether JFJ will continue to do so or not is up to him. But don't ever imply and/or directly distort my words with the intentionality of presenting me as a racist, who is against freedom of religion and such. Such an accusation get the hot button.You might as well call me a rapist and murderer out of the blue. How dare you deliberately misrepresent someone in such a vile manner! No, I never even intimated such. What utterly massive feces you have thrown about with such statements--and including genocide, no less. You have been warned. I will not tolerate being deliberately lied about and have my communications deliberately distorted. You have stepped over the line at this point.

jd on the other thread is right. There is no need to twist the intentionality of what the person said, unless you clearly have an agenda to do so; and make no mistake, there are plenty that want to twist, b/c it fits their agenda.

This is a deliberate act of taking the person's message out of context. Context clues. Read them.....in light of Paris and SB...in light of what he was saying about Virginia Tech, which wasn't even about Islamic terrorism as far as I know. He was talking about protection plain and simple. Could he have been more careful? Sure. Everyone has to be very careful b/c today the word police have their almighty, omniscient insight to (think) they know the true intent of what everyone is thinking--except when it is one of their own. Then it's a different story.

Please, I have friends and colleagues that are of the Islamic faith, who would so laugh in your face, so don't even go there with me.

Point is the guy was referring to terrorists--yes Islamic terrorist, and we must be honest and know that there is massive proliferation of Islamic terrorist, and if you or anyone can't see that, than God help you. If you can't see that they mean worldwide business, you are a lost, blind man w/o a guide, a walking stick, or braille.

The first order of business our free republic has is to protect itself and it's people. We think it's to tax the hell out of everyone for every little thing--and get all up in disturbing people's rights. NO, it's purpose is defensive and strong infrastructure from a military perspective for the sustenance of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' b/c the world isn't one big, happy family that will hold hands, share things, and sing Kumbaya. Socialism won't bring that.
Islam taking over of the world won't bring that.
Americans keeping their heads in the sand believing all the ridiculous nonsense from the left won't bring that.

The reality is, indeed sometimes the only thing that stands between continued life and liberty and its utter demise is a gun--is the power to defend and maintain survival of a free republic.

So the guy wasn't careful and eloquent. That's too bad that he gave others the opportunity to have his message distorted. He should know how the game is played by now. Yea. His bad on that. It in no way means he is anti-freedom of religion or against peaceful, caring, responsible Islamic Americans.

BTW, no. You can't read w/ context in mind--apparently not at all.

If you don't want appear racist

a) don't say racist things
b) don't defend racist people

I really don't have time to read your rubbish. I go to medical school. I could basically sum it up from reading the first bit that you feel your a victim. Your not. You probably mentioned you had Islamic friends so its ok to be racist. The "I have a black friend I'm not racist" rubish.

"Word police" is funny. Ofcourse we are going to say racist words are racist.


What you said wasn't distorted. You claimed someone saying they wanted to "end Muslims" is talking about Muslim terrorists. Therefore what you are saying is that Muslims are synonymous with terrorists. What exactly has been distorted? You have to make a distinction between Islamic terrorists and Muslims. Fallwell is a well known bigot. He didn't make that distinction on purpose.

 

[jl lin]

If you don't want appear racist

a) don't say racist things
b) don't defend racist people

I really don't have time to read your rubbish. I go to medical school. I could basically sum it up from reading the first bit that you feel your a victim. Your not. You probably mentioned you had Islamic friends so its ok to be racist. The "I have a black friend I'm not racist" rubish.

"Word police" is funny. Ofcourse we are going to say racist words are racist.


What you said wasn't distorted. You claimed someone saying they wanted to "end Muslims" is talking about Muslim terrorists. Therefore what you are saying is that Muslims are synonymous with terrorists. What exactly has been distorted? You have to make a distinction between Islamic terrorists and Muslims. Fallwell is a well known bigot. He didn't make that distinction on purpose.

Nothing I have said is racist or against freedom of religion. And I will definitely speak out about purposeful distortions.

So you continue in your hateful obstinance then. Your accusation of me in this light is utterly disgraceful. How convenient for you that you can hide behind an avatar on the Internet to attack a person in such an egregious way.

You sir, were warned.

 

[AlteredScale]

Since you all can't play nice I have to close this thread. Keep it professional please.