America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by CWFoster. 210 replies replies.
5 Pages<12345>
Any outrage at the Sikh massacre in the Golden temple by the white man?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrMaddVibe Offline
#101 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
victor809 wrote:
We can only learn one fact per 100 deaths.


DATA POINT OUTRAGE!!!
sd72 Offline
#102 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:04 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Are those the "calming blue big letters"

Cinderella wants to know.
rfenst Offline
#103 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:08 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
bloody spaniard wrote:
Christian (Messianic) Jews do.


No such thing. One cannot be both. Either one believes Jesus was the Messiah or one does not. As wrong as I think they are, I am not knocking anyone who believes that one can be both a Jew and a Christian as long as it:1) works for them; and 2) Christian "Jews" don't try to surreptitiously hoodwink Jews.
rfenst Offline
#104 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:16 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
ZRX1200 wrote:
I don't care what color a victim ever is. Evil is evil!

Robert I'm glad I facinate and entertain don't forget to tip the waitress.........


If you don't see the difference in reporting of issues being done differently as a problem then I don't know what to say to you. This isnt a right vs left this is capitalizing on a political opportunity and that disgusts me whoever does it. Right now that's the media.

*shrug*


I find it disrespectful to the dead.


OK. So, then lets just not have news media.
bloody spaniard Offline
#105 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:22 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
rfenst wrote:
No such thing. One cannot be both. Either one believes Jesus was the Messiah or one does not. As wrong as I think they are, I am not knocking anyone who believes that one can be both a Jew and a Christian as long as it:1) works for them; and 2) Christian "Jews" don't try to surreptitiously hoodwink Jews.



You sound angry and threatened. These are Jews every bit as much as you. Difference being they embrace Judaic tradition AND also embrace Jesus Christ as Messiah.
Voila, they are Christian Jews.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#106 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
rfenst wrote:
No such thing. One cannot be both. Either one believes Jesus was the Messiah or one does not. As wrong as I think they are, I am not knocking anyone who believes that one can be both a Jew and a Christian as long as it:1) works for them; and 2) Christian "Jews" don't try to surreptitiously hoodwink Jews.



Hoodwinking?


No wonder you fall for the bamboozling!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU
rfenst Offline
#107 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:43 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
bloody spaniard wrote:
You sound angry and threatened. These are Jews every bit as much as you. Difference being they embrace Judaic tradition AND also embrace Jesus Christ as Messiah.
Voila, they are Christian Jews.


Not angry at all. Not even threatened by Christianity. Practicing Judaic law and tradition is not religion. Practicing Judaic tradition does not make one a Jew. Religion is a belief system concerning a supreme being or beings.
bloody spaniard Offline
#108 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 5:49 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
rfenst wrote:
Not angry at all. Not even threatened by Christianity. Practicing Judaic law and tradition is not religion. Practicing Judaic tradition does not make one a Jew. Religion is a belief system concerning a supreme being or beings.


No of course not (I agree), they are Christians (belief in Christ) who practice Jewish law/tradition but also happen to be Jews by maternal bloodline. Thus, they are Messianic/Christian Jews.

Alright Robert, it's your turn. Who's on first? lol
rfenst Offline
#109 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
bloody spaniard wrote:
No of course not (I agree), they are Christians (belief in Christ) who practice Jewish law/tradition but also happen to be Jews by maternal bloodline. Thus, they are Messianic/Christian Jews.

Alright Robert, it's your turn. Who's on first? lol



Doesn't matter whose on first because the chicken came before the egg.
DrafterX Offline
#110 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:03 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
rfenst wrote:
Doesn't matter whose on first because the chicken came before the egg.


did chickens crawl out of a pond too..?? Huh
victor809 Offline
#111 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So, I'm wondering... (half seriously, and half to poke the hornets nest)

What do you guys think the over-under will be on whether the NRA is going to use this as another pulpit to promote support for the 2nd amendment?

On one hand, this isn't significantly different from the movie theater shooting (how many times did we hear politicians and activists say "if only someone in the crowd had a gun"
On the other hand... that would suggest they want Sikhs (which to average joe the plumber are probably identical to Muslims) armed on the streets.

They really have a decision to make here. I'm eager to see the outcome. :)
wheelrite Offline
#112 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:23 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
These Sikhs look like Middle Eastern Hispanics
ZRX1200 Offline
#113 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:26 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
I suspect by the number of easily outraged sensitive folks they will simply choose to be respectful of this religious sect and attack any gun grabbers who come foward to use the situation to their "advantage".

If they're legal citizens I highly doubt they wouldn't encourage them to own guns. But hey what do I know I don't assume people are racist bigoted homophobes.........
wheelrite Offline
#114 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:28 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Witness' say there were 4 gunmen

A Conspiracy !!!!!!

http://www.infowars.com/eyewitness-4-man-team-behind-sikh-temple-shooting/
HockeyDad Offline
#115 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
ZRX1200 wrote:
I don't assume people are racist bigoted homophobes.........



You should try it sometime.....then you could play gay-homo rugby.
DrafterX Offline
#116 Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 6:35 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
or gay-homo Batman..!! ThumpUp
DrMaddVibe Offline
#117 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 6:17 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
sd72 wrote:
Are those the "calming blue big letters"

Cinderella wants to know.



Ya...I bet you do!



FACT ARE DATA POINTS

DATA POINTS ARE SHARP

BEWARE OF FACTS!!!



This remedial lesson on facts has been brought to you by the DrMaddVibe School of Verbosity. The DrMaddVibe School of Verbosity has provided thousands of inner-city school kids the opportunity to read. Their charter leads America towards civil discourse and NOT to some soundproof invisible box that intolerant buffoons with private agendas would place YOU!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#118 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 6:19 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
wheelrite wrote:
These Sikhs look like Middle Eastern Hispanics



That smell worse and can't use toilet paper without pictorial instructions!horse
DrMaddVibe Offline
#119 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 6:21 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
victor809 wrote:
So, I'm wondering... (half seriously, and half to poke the hornets nest)

What do you guys think the over-under will be on whether the NRA is going to use this as another pulpit to promote support for the 2nd amendment?

On one hand, this isn't significantly different from the movie theater shooting (how many times did we hear politicians and activists say "if only someone in the crowd had a gun"
On the other hand... that would suggest they want Sikhs (which to average joe the plumber are probably identical to Muslims) armed on the streets.

They really have a decision to make here. I'm eager to see the outcome. :)




If the Sikhs wudda armed themselves with Chick-Fil-A sammiches they would still be alive today. Instead they didn't and the ghey's with guns climbed over the ramparts. They killed them. If only they wudda known the sweet sweet goodness of a Chick-Fil-A sammich. I ate one and saw God!
HockeyDad Offline
#120 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 6:23 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
....Try the Chikin-Minis for breakfast! They're outstanding!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#121 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 6:32 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
HockeyDad wrote:
....Try the Chikin-Minis for breakfast! They're outstanding!



If only the Sikhs wudda heeded this advice!

Poor poor Sikhs.

If Owedumba wudda had a son...he wudda looked like Treyvon Martin crossed with a Sikh!


SMOKE A GURKHA!
victor809 Offline
#122 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 7:36 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
ZRX1200 wrote:
I suspect by the number of easily outraged sensitive folks they will simply choose to be respectful of this religious sect and attack any gun grabbers who come foward to use the situation to their "advantage".

If they're legal citizens I highly doubt they wouldn't encourage them to own guns. But hey what do I know I don't assume people are racist bigoted homophobes.........



I think you're being naive... it's an interesting conundrum. I remember within a day of the movie theater shooting there were talking heads (and internet "experts") on both sides of the issue shouting how this "tragedy" highlighted the need for either stricter gun laws, or a gun in every person's pocket) (depending on what side they were on).

So far, you hear the gun control people shouting... but the other side is quiet.

I'm betting (this is purely speculation) that the gun lobby side (generally right wing) is afraid to suggest that this tragedy could have been avoided if only the sikhs were armed. They're afraid of alienating the far right on a few points... 1 - the guy doing the shooting was an ultra far-right nutjob, 2 - They don't believe that their constituents can differentiate between Sikhs and Muslims, 3 - they don't think their constituents want to see armed Muslims.

Anyway, that's just speculation based on two very similar events and seeing a difference in how the groups that usually try to gain political ammunition (pun intended) have acted.
HockeyDad Offline
#123 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:12 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
....or there is a less jaded option.....

The notion of a bunch of Sikhs being armed in a church is stupid.

(This is another case of a well planned attack against what can be assumed would be a highly undefended target.)
DrafterX Offline
#124 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:15 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
HockeyDad wrote:
....or there is a less jaded option.....

The notion of a bunch of Sikhs being armed in a church is stupid.

(This is another case of a well planned attack against what can be assumed would be a highly undefended target.)




he worked hard to find a way to twist this around and you just messed it all up.... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#125 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:19 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
whip
victor809 Offline
#126 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:23 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
....or there is a less jaded option.....

The notion of a bunch of Sikhs being armed in a church is stupid.

(This is another case of a well planned attack against what can be assumed would be a highly undefended target.)



^ Yet the last well planned attack against what can be assumed would be a highly undefended target STILL led to armchair gun supporters saying "if only!"

I may be wrong, but I bet that if the shooting happened in a christian church there would be groups trying to say "if only there had been conceal carry in the church!". Actually, I believe I recall individuals somewhere saying they carried in church.
HockeyDad Offline
#127 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
It is not really a question of "you may be wrong", you are wrong.

You could actually dig up the real threads on this topic here and you would see that basically anyone who knows anything about firearms all agreed that there was no way for armed citizenry to have been able to properly defend the situation in the dark movie theater.

As for concealed carry in a church, I can say under Florida law it is not prohibited but would still be a safe target to expect no concealed carry other than law enforcement. Where concealed carry is prohibited is schools and colleges among other places.
Stinkdyr Offline
#128 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:39 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
I have declared myself a Jewmuslim. It enables me to see both points of view.

BIG LOVE FOR ALL!!

Beer


^ ^and....I am allowed to drink beer in this new hybrid religion.
HockeyDad Offline
#129 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:41 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Stinkdyr wrote:
I have declared myself a Jewmuslim.



I predict that will end poorly!




Somebody's gonna hurt someone
Before the night is through
Somebody's gonna come undone
There's nothin' we can do

Everybody wants to touch somebody
If it takes all night
Everybody wants to take a little chance
And make it come out right

There's gonna be a heartache tonight
A heartache tonight, I know
There's gonna be a heartache tonight
A heartache tonight, I know
Lord, I know
teedubbya Offline
#130 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:43 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Hell end up blowing himself up because he was too cheap to buy the brand name chemicals.
victor809 Offline
#131 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:46 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
It is not really a question of "you may be wrong", you are wrong.

You could actually dig up the real threads on this topic here and you would see that basically anyone who knows anything about firearms all agreed that there was no way for armed citizenry to have been able to properly defend the situation in the dark movie theater.

As for concealed carry in a church, I can say under Florida law it is not prohibited but would still be a safe target to expect no concealed carry other than law enforcement. Where concealed carry is prohibited is schools and colleges among other places.


On what planet does the chance of actual success stop pundits from spouting off? I was on those threads, I was someone agreeing that it would have likely not helped at all. There were still talking heads all over the internet (I'm not talking about cbid here, I said at the beginning lobbyists, I meant lobbyists) saying "if only there was an armed citizen..."

Yet none of the pundits, lobbyists NRA spokesmen, anyone has suggested that this time.
teedubbya Offline
#132 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:48 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Huckabe landed a prime time speaking slot at the RNC convention! Not bad for an average Joe.
HockeyDad Offline
#133 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:51 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
victor809 wrote:
On what planet does the chance of actual success stop pundits from spouting off?



Stop getting so spun up over talking heads, pundits, and media whores. THROW AWAY YOUR TV!
HockeyDad Offline
#134 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:52 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
teedubbya wrote:
Huckabe landed a prime time speaking slot at the RNC convention! Not bad for an average Joe.



Will that be counted as "Job Creation" by Obama?!

(Technically Huckybee is under the Obama Cone of Protection!)
victor809 Offline
#135 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
Stop getting so spun up over talking heads, pundits, and media whores. THROW AWAY YOUR TV!


I'm not spun up.

I thought it would be fun to take bets on which direction they would go on this. Clearly there is a double standard in their talking points (otherwise they would be saying the same stupid crap they said after the movie theater shooting). I'm just pointing out the double standard. I wasn't trying to make any point at all about gun laws (I believe I said that earlier) but rather about the conundrum the talking heads might face at this point. I thought other people might find that funny as well.... and you simply decided to completely misinterpret my statement (as you tend to) and go off 180 degrees in the opposite direction to declare victory while running away (as you tend to)... :)
HockeyDad Offline
#136 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:57 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
How can you take bets when you can't recognize the dissimilarities in the situations? Maybe the pundits are more sophisticated in their reasoning than you are.
DrafterX Offline
#137 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 8:57 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#138 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 9:17 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
HockeyDad wrote:
How can you take bets when you can't recognize the dissimilarities in the situations? Maybe the pundits are more sophisticated in their reasoning than you are.



Nobody takes militant ghey extremists serious.
victor809 Offline
#139 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 9:23 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
How can you take bets when you can't recognize the dissimilarities in the situations? Maybe the pundits are more sophisticated in their reasoning than you are.


What dissimilarities do you see in the situations?
HockeyDad Offline
#140 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 9:28 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
victor809 wrote:
What dissimilarities do you see in the situations?



That was already covered.
victor809 Offline
#141 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 9:29 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
That was already covered.


Where? Identify the tactical difference between shooting up a theater and shooting up a church.
HockeyDad Offline
#142 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 9:37 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
It was a church. The notion of a bunch of Sikhs being armed in a church is stupid.

That is why your pundits aren't reacting the way your preconceived notion told you they would react. You need less jaded, less preconceived notions. Life will surprise you if you let it.



Now if you want to limit it to just tactical, in the case of the Sikh attack it sounds like someone walked in with one 9mm handgun and opened fire.

In the case of the theater, it was well planned, multiple weapons, tear gas, body armor, and even a booby-trapped residence.
HockeyDad Offline
#143 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
teedubbya wrote:
Huckabe landed a prime time speaking slot at the RNC convention! Not bad for an average Joe.



You'll love this.....our douchebag Republican governor Scott will also be speaking. (He was the less douchbaggy of the candidates)

Also Condi Rice and "Maverick" retreads.

The only good thing is Jeb Bush will speak.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#144 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 9:51 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
HockeyDad wrote:
It was a church. The notion of a bunch of Sikhs being armed in a church is stupid.

That is why your pundits aren't reacting the way your preconceived notion told you they would react. You need less jaded, less preconceived notions. Life will surprise you if you let it.



Now if you want to limit it to just tactical, in the case of the Sikh attack it sounds like someone walked in with one 9mm handgun and opened fire.

In the case of the theater, it was well planned, multiple weapons, tear gas, body armor, and even a booby-trapped residence.



Don't YOU go to the movies looking for targets of opportunity? Do you get your popcorn with Center Mass Butter?

The guy just can't read.


Why is it that everythime we cowtow to the libtards we end up in a situation like this?

They LOVE to cry about gun control...lack of...more legislation...yet what they don't see is that a COP...SHOT THE GUY...WITH A GUN! Where did these last two attacks occur...in places where you'd NEVER think of guns being at! Perhaps we need to just drop all the silliness and adopt a pure open carry law across all states. These kind of idiots that want to shoot up places because they can will think twice knowing they'd had about 20 guns pointed at them for acting STUPIDLY!
victor809 Offline
#145 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 10:00 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
It was a church. The notion of a bunch of Sikhs being armed in a church is stupid.

That is why your pundits aren't reacting the way your preconceived notion told you they would react. You need less jaded, less preconceived notions. Life will surprise you if you let it.



Now if you want to limit it to just tactical, in the case of the Sikh attack it sounds like someone walked in with one 9mm handgun and opened fire.

In the case of the theater, it was well planned, multiple weapons, tear gas, body armor, and even a booby-trapped residence.


Why would the notion of concealed carry in a church be stupid?

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8290

Here's an entire forum discussion on carrying personal weapons in church:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/concealed-carry-self-defense/212548-concealed-carry-church.html

So the concept exists as a point of discussion. I don't believe the Sikh religion has any particular tenets of pacifism, so it would be up to the individual church (just as it was at the movie theater). Anyway, I just find it interesting that there is a big gaping silence there.
HockeyDad Offline
#146 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 10:17 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Why is it stupid?

First, it is illegal in some states even with a concealed carry permit.
Second, a church is not a place you expect to be threatened such that you would need to be armed. Any time you carry you create a safety issue to manage.
Third: There is a pretty good chance that the church prohibits firearms. This kinda goes with the whole sanctuary theme.

Why can you find a discussion thread about it.....people realize it is an easy target.
victor809 Offline
#147 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 10:37 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
Why is it stupid?

First, it is illegal in some states even with a concealed carry permit.
Second, a church is not a place you expect to be threatened such that you would need to be armed. Any time you carry you create a safety issue to manage.
Third: There is a pretty good chance that the church prohibits firearms. This kinda goes with the whole sanctuary theme.

Why can you find a discussion thread about it.....people realize it is an easy target.



It's not a non-issue. There are laws and news stories about carrying guns into church (with individuals on both sides bloviating about it)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-02-15-church_guns15_ST_N.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/in-georgia-a-lawsuit-over-guns-in-church.html
DrMaddVibe Offline
#148 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 10:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
All the way back to 2011???

My oh my...nothing says relevant like a good ol' fashioned shooting in public!
DrafterX Offline
#149 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 10:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Think
they should just ask God what he thinks about concealed & open carry...... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#150 Posted: Tue, Aug 7 2012, 10:40 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
DrafterX wrote:
Think
they should just ask God what he thinks about concealed & open carry...... Mellow



Operators are standing by!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>
Back to Top