Fox Fire

I beg to differ. Enough people willing to fight is all it takes, especially when there is support within the military. Just look at Egypt. A revolt in America would probably be quite similar in the sense that our military is highly respected and arguably has far more sway over the nation than a guy in a suit with a good political pitch.

You are correct. Running a business has to be run properly, or it fails. It's high time our nation be run like a business. You got it backwards. If we have to go in and destroy ISIS, we will not be expecting ISIS to pay us reparations because they will be dead... those that benefit from their removal, and want us to do it because they cannot, will pay, through cash or trade. Japan, South Korea, and anyone else that sucks off the free protection the USA has afforded them for decades, will have to kick in for a change. They are more than capable. Trump has made a very big deal about Mexico paying for the wall. There are many ways to accomplish this, and it doesn't have to be in the form of a cashiers check. I would like to see Trump get elected, and then he has 4 years to make that happen. If he fails, then you can say he was full of shit. Right now, all you have is your doubts. We didn't force Germany, Japan, Italy or Korea to pay for the war. In fact we basically rebuilt them for free and now they are all very close allies. I'm quite sure that if not for shoveling shit tons of cash into various nations, we would have zero support from local in our current wars. If all we do is destroy, there is no reason for anyone to locally support us. All our allies in the Afghan war exist because our initial invasion was made with suitcases full of cash. I don't even want a wall. Whether he succeeds at that or not IDC. I don't want it even attempted. In any case, Trump cannot do anything as president alone. He needs the support of the rest of the government and more importantly the people. If he's elected, he weill be like Obama where his policies are so opposed by the other side that anything he passes will be compromised to the point that it makes no difference. Example: Obamacare. He's just far too polarizing to ever have a productive presidency.

Running a nation is far different than running a business and Trump has already proven himself a hypocrite who has no solid policies but only says what gets him attention regardless of what that may be. Destroying nations and expecting them to pay for the war was already attempted in modern history. It got tens of millions killed in response. And nuclear weapons are horrid things that should never be used again. Under Trump, our foreign policy would not change and no foreign nation will ever pay him to enact his xenophobic policies. If he thinks Afghanistan, Iraq or Mexico would actually pay him, he's insane. Half our middle east allies are only our allies because we throw endless money at them. Reverse that and we'll have a number of very powerful enemies to add to our list of active enemies.

There are 25 guns for every 100 residents in Switzerland which has lax gun laws compared to it's neighbors and a very low gun crime rate. In any case, stricter gun laws wouldn't have done much here. For example, if we had laws similar to maybe Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc, this guy would have still been able to buy said guns because he had a legit reason and multiple weapons licenses. There was no reason to not sell him a gun other than the fact that he was on a terror watch list.

Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORAQ4pLkezs

Yeah Mr. Grand Artisan.

Well thinking back, I did live in Vegas for a while and security around there was pretty tight in all public places no matter what it was. Certainly not close to what you'd see where I live now. I suppose the rural/urban differences are just that. Different.

Not around here. Only the popular places even have bouncers. Of course I live in a small place where 100 people in one bar at the same time is considered a very busy night to say the least.

What do you expect an army? It's a night club not an airport. We're lucky to even have one armed security guard at a club around here. It's mostly roided out guys with enough muscle to scare just about anyone. Or in some cases it's even fat women that most guys back down from. Granted 300 people is a lot more than you'd see packed into any building here, but still. have we reached such a point that we need armed security at every bar? Yes. Its actually the law most places that have certain square footage or capacity that also sell alcohol. So yes, I do expect more, theres a lot of testosterone in a place like that. It is bound to get out of control at some point. Increased safety creates jobs too need I remind you. It's the law? Can you cite that? Because 9/10 bars around here have no security whatsoever. Just bartenders.

Just so you all know. I will no longer be taking any art requests. Fortunately, my old PC that has all my photo editing software is a piece of crap. By that I mean it's literally falling apart and I can't even move it without being uber careful because pieces are literally falling off..... Thankfully, I have decided to give it an early grave by punching it's screen out and throw it away after its lack of mobility and detachable pieces pissed me off. So I now officially have a legit reason to not make graphics for people. On one hand it's relieving. On the other, I already miss it. In any case. No graphics 4 you. Ask Davian.

Oh yeah? I'll remember that....

What do you expect an army? It's a night club not an airport. We're lucky to even have one armed security guard at a club around here. It's mostly roided out guys with enough muscle to scare just about anyone. Or in some cases it's even fat women that most guys back down from. Granted 300 people is a lot more than you'd see packed into any building here, but still. have we reached such a point that we need armed security at every bar?

Seems reasonable. I think this did factor in in this case too.I haven't been following the news so it would be another thing entirely if the man was doing this as an attack sponsored by ISIS but for now I think it's more a case of a mentally ill person getting unrestricted access to a gun and going on a killing spree of people who he didn't like. His maritial abuse history certainly indicates he had temper issues. If Guns can't be regulated (as you said, it might be too late for that), there should be education programmes set up about them and their responsible use. Then again, there are more intelligent people working on solving this issue, so I think these kind of programs are already underway. I think this can be blamed on ISIS. Amaq News (ISIS media) announced: The police claim he called 911 and pled allegiance to ISIS before the shooting, so I'd certainly say ISIS was behind it.

I'm from a rural area and large cities probably shouldn't have our gun laws (we barely have any). In any case, gun control may work well in other nations where owning guns has not been a civilian thing since the birth of their nation and where gun regulation has always existed in greater amounts. Here in the US we are the worlds largest arms producer and we have countless guns that cannot be tracked. In my state you don't even have to register a gun and nobody has to know it exists. Now we actually have experimented with tighter gun regulations. Like in California and urban areas where gun control is far more strict than a rural area. However people in these urban areas still get guns and still kill people with those guns. Even felons as KH pointed out. Tighter gun regulation doesn't seem to prevent determined people from getting guns. At best it can stop someone with no street smarts or connections. Not only that but a determined person can kill with all sorts of shit. Like the Tsarnaev brothers or those two guys who hacked up that British soldier. If someone is determined that they are going to do a mass killing, they're gonna do it with or without guns. I think the real issue with most gun violence in the US is culture, lack of opportunity and lack of education. Perhaps not in this case though.

No the gun debate has evolved. Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting. Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach. it is absurd. That is not the same old argument. That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine. This was a hate crime and an act of terrorism. This is a man who committed domestic abuse and was on the FBI watch list, and his easily obtained assault weapons made the death of 50 human beings possible. Other countries, which have reasonable gun control laws don't have this kind of gun violence to this degree, maybe they're doing something we should be doing. Just looking out at what is working in the real world vs what gun lobbyists are selling to certain naive Americans. The cause of terrorism is hate, xenophobia, despair, and various mental illnesses. Would ISIL exist if we hadn't overthrown a government that was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Maybe, maybe not. The whole area is crazy and several countries located outside the region have been trying to manipulate things for years with mixed results. I don't know the solution, but I do know that hate begets hate so maybe we should seriously consider that. I don't understand all the machinations and manipulations that have been going on for decades, but as long as they continue, things are unlikely to improve. Then again, much of this crap has been going on since biblical times. It's not about laws, rather it's about the government not implementing them or making sure that the laws which enable citizens to buy firearms are mentally stable.. I sincerely hope the next govt. to come shall have better administration and regulation of laws. I'm not dismissing the fact that countries which have gun control laws which disable citizens from acquiring arms are more successful, but I don't think anyone would appreciate their constitution being impeached.. Here, this is what the 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ..Key phrase being "Well regulated"... and that is most certainly not the case here. But that is irrelevant. As the constitution is worded: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Is extremely clear. There is no requirement in that for a well regulated militia. Not at all. As it's worded, the people should be allowed nuclear arms and tanks. How is being well regulated irrelevant? It very clearly says that "a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state"... nowhere does it say that a militia can exist without any rules and regulations they have to follow... for a militia to be necessary for the protection of the state, it has to be well regulated.. Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO nuclear weapons and tanks. Further more, there is a legal definition of 'arms'. 'Bearing an arm' means carrying an arm; i.e. a weapon you can hold in one or two hands e.g. rifles, pistols etc. Tanks and nuclear weapons are NOT included in 'arms'...... It's irrelevant to the law. The "well regulated militia" is not a requirement. Just read it and consider how it's worded. The important part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's it. There is no requirement in there. And although the document was written long before modern weaponry, it's still the law and that's how it's worded. "Arms" is also short for "armaments", which refers to any weapon and the term as used in the constitution specifically refers to military arms.

Also. I can buy an AR-15 at Wal-Mart. Literally. Also, most pistols these days are semi-auto, just like assault rifles. In this particular incident, I really don;t think the guy was so far from his targets that a pistol or assault rifle would even matter. At his range, a pistol would have inflicted the same damage. Indeed. Sadly, in my experience, school security was tightened after 9/11, but I've personally seen school officers slack while I was in high school. But the security is tighter and getting into a school for more than a couple minutes without being stopped and questioned is certainly harder.

More violent crime is committed without firearms. Mostly knives. Should we ban knives? It's not just the violence, but also the scope of destruction that the modern automatic rifles can cause. A pistol will defend you just as well as a rifle, but you'll also be reducing the possibility of a person going berserk and killing many others because he had an automatic firearm that was made to kill many people. Plus, it'd be easier to contain him. The guns protecting people from their govt. is a joke. This might've been true in the 1800's but in the present times the militaryweapons vastly outclass what you can get in a gun shop and in any armed confrontation between civilians and state, the civilials have a verylow chance of doing any considerable damage. It is time the gun laws are made stricter, so that these kind of incidents can't happen in the future. At the end of the day the only people who stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. Whether they wear a police uniform is completely irrelevant. People are people. Hence police brutality. But yeah, gun control sure helped Paris from ISIS..... Atleast there that was one off. These kind of things, school shootings etc. happen frequently in the US. All because of extra lax gun laws and flawed ideas of liberty. Liberty is good, but not when it infringes on others' right to live. He purchased his firearms legally so it's entirely safe to assume they were all semi-auto. (Not only that but you can easily inflict the same damage with an AR-15 as an M-16 [same exact gun, one is only semi-auto]) You can go on about the right to live but how do you actually solves murder? Many, and I mean many gang related crimes (which arguably make up the majority of gun related crimes in the US) often involve firearms which are "copied" or "reproduced" in offshore homemade factories. Factories in the middle of the woods somewhere in Asia. Places where guns are half assed/copied and where the US has no authority. Those guns then come to America via smugglers where they are more than likely used in murders. And that only accounts for guns outside the US. Within the US there are plenty of safe places where guns are not registered (legally) and so there is no real way of knowing id said gun even exists. This is what happens when you are the single largest arms producer with such diverse gun laws according to place. Some people can own guns here, others cannot. Regardless, there is no shortage of guns available. A war on guns would be like a war on drugs. Criminals don't obey the law and they won't stop buying the massive industry of guns specifically aimed at US citizens. But more gun control does mean the people obeying said laws will not have them. I suppose we should just rely on the FBI to stop people they clearly know about before they kill people.... Because that's totally what happened here. Remember guys. Only cops know how to use guns. Despite how long they've been part of our history and the people that have used them.

At the end of the day the only people who stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. Whether they wear a police uniform is completely irrelevant. People are people. Hence police brutality. But yeah, gun control sure helped Paris from ISIS.....

No the gun debate has evolved. Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting. Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach. it is absurd. That is not the same old argument. That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine. This was a hate crime and an act of terrorism. This is a man who committed domestic abuse and was on the FBI watch list, and his easily obtained assault weapons made the death of 50 human beings possible. Other countries, which have reasonable gun control laws don't have this kind of gun violence to this degree, maybe they're doing something we should be doing. Just looking out at what is working in the real world vs what gun lobbyists are selling to certain naive Americans. The cause of terrorism is hate, xenophobia, despair, and various mental illnesses. Would ISIL exist if we hadn't overthrown a government that was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Maybe, maybe not. The whole area is crazy and several countries located outside the region have been trying to manipulate things for years with mixed results. I don't know the solution, but I do know that hate begets hate so maybe we should seriously consider that. I don't understand all the machinations and manipulations that have been going on for decades, but as long as they continue, things are unlikely to improve. Then again, much of this crap has been going on since biblical times. It's not about laws, rather it's about the government not implementing them or making sure that the laws which enable citizens to buy firearms are mentally stable.. I sincerely hope the next govt. to come shall have better administration and regulation of laws. I'm not dismissing the fact that countries which have gun control laws which disable citizens from acquiring arms are more successful, but I don't think anyone would appreciate their constitution being impeached.. Here, this is what the 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ..Key phrase being "Well regulated"... and that is most certainly not the case here. But that is irrelevant. As the constitution is worded: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Is extremely clear. There is no requirement in that for a well regulated militia. Not at all. As it's worded, the people should be allowed nuclear arms and tanks.

More violent crime is committed without firearms. Mostly knives. Should we ban knives?

I like everything but the font.

They claim. They can say someone is a terrorist and put them in the terrorist column. Suddenly that village they bombed and killed 20 innocents to kill the 1 guy they thought might be a terrorist becomes 15 terrorists dead and 6 women. And let me be very clear, even 1 civilian casualty caused by us against a country we are NOT at war with is unacceptable. This is not for our defense, this is creating future terrorists and not helping us. ^ Dozens of sheep were once bombed because they were thought to be Taliban. Reason being, they were white and the Taliban were believed to wear white. So one day a flock of sheep was mistaken for a congregation of Taliban and bombed. Dozens were killed. They were all sheep. That should give you an idea of how precise our bombing really is.

MitiS - Life; because it's such a beautiful song.

No I meant the largest terrorist attack on the US, ever. But hey ignoring pieces of history to over vilify someone is always smart. While I agree that would be a terribly difficult thing to handle, he went about handling it in a completely backwards way. AQ laid out their strategy for our government and then our response was to play exactly into their strategy and more. I guarantee you that Bin Laden was celebrating when we invaded Afghanistan and partying like no other when we invaded Iraq. In fact I think our invasion of Iraq just blew his and everyone else's minds. And in case you haven't noticed, the entire plan with 9/11 was to: Provoke an over-reaction. Check. Bog down the US in a war that will never end. Check. Drive the US into crushing debt. Check.I mean it probably wouldn't be so bad if we didn't literally play into their hands with literally every god damn thing we did. Especially when said strategy was no secret. Over-reaction? Of course but everyone was wanting it. Congress, the House of representatives and even the public. You cannot honestly blame that on one man, especially when no one spoke against the action until we were way too back. The fact that we reelected him after is proof of that. Now I am not justifying his presidency especially with how much I hate "no child left behind" and the "patriot act" but there were no innocent parties in government back then, and a good bit of them still hold office. Fair enough. I suppose that's also why Trump will be elected. Thankfully, Americans seem to put more thought into invading nations after Iraq. Well sorta.

No I meant the largest terrorist attack on the US, ever. But hey ignoring pieces of history to over vilify someone is always smart. While I agree that would be a terribly difficult thing to handle, he went about handling it in a completely backwards way. AQ laid out their strategy for our government and then our response was to play exactly into their strategy and more. I guarantee you that Bin Laden was celebrating when we invaded Afghanistan and partying like no other when we invaded Iraq. In fact I think our invasion of Iraq just blew his and everyone else's minds. And in case you haven't noticed, the entire plan with 9/11 was to: Provoke an over-reaction. Check. Bog down the US in a war that will never end. Check. Drive the US into crushing debt. Check.I mean it probably wouldn't be so bad if we didn't literally play into their hands with literally every god damn thing we did. Especially when said strategy was no secret.