Mingle2 apple store icon
Try Mingle2 app for better experience
Community Recent My Topics
Community > Politics, Current News & Events
Topic: Breaking: Orlando Florida, Mass Shooting
Reply
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 11:53 AM





inconsistencies,,, do muslims yell 'god is great'? or 'allah'

does a citizen who pledges allegiance to a terrorist ideal or group automatically commit terrorism or is it expected that a terrorist act involves someone more than allegiant but actually a member of?

did the Swedish boy with a Nazi manifesto who killed those kids a while back get charged with 'terrorism'? ( I honestly do not remember)


is a crime against a group for their lifestyle an act of terrorism or a hate crime? can it be both, or do we have to choose one?

does it matter if one kills gay people because they were brought up christan to belive it wrong or because they were brought up believing someone or something else in believing it was wrong?


what now? do we use a mass shooting to unite in fear/hatred of muslims,, or in fear/hatred of guns?

I do believe a larger percent of mass shootings involve guns than muslims though,,,





And what about the Muslims chopping off peoples heads..in the name of their God... does that fall under " well, boys will be boys" in your world.







no more than Christians beating or cheating on their wives,,,

it falls under 'humans will by hypcorites/sinner,,, you name it'

and every religion has humans at its core,, good ones, bad ones, sane ones, and insane ones


How can You justify "Christians beating or cheating on their wives..."

WITH

Muslims chopping off peoples heads in the mame of their religion?

O.o

Seriously disjointed thinking...




no, not at all

if the argument is peoples individual actions are the fault of their religion

its right on point


extremists are called extremists because they aren't the norm

they are individuals who act outside of the norm for some political or social gains
eldarbeast's photo

eldarbeast

Tue 06/14/16 12:00 PM

As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.
Sojourning_Soul's photo

Sojourning_Soul

Tue 06/14/16 12:00 PM






inconsistencies,,, do muslims yell 'god is great'? or 'allah'

does a citizen who pledges allegiance to a terrorist ideal or group automatically commit terrorism or is it expected that a terrorist act involves someone more than allegiant but actually a member of?

did the Swedish boy with a Nazi manifesto who killed those kids a while back get charged with 'terrorism'? ( I honestly do not remember)


is a crime against a group for their lifestyle an act of terrorism or a hate crime? can it be both, or do we have to choose one?

does it matter if one kills gay people because they were brought up christan to belive it wrong or because they were brought up believing someone or something else in believing it was wrong?


what now? do we use a mass shooting to unite in fear/hatred of muslims,, or in fear/hatred of guns?

I do believe a larger percent of mass shootings involve guns than muslims though,,,





And what about the Muslims chopping off peoples heads..in the name of their God... does that fall under " well, boys will be boys" in your world.







no more than Christians beating or cheating on their wives,,,

it falls under 'humans will by hypcorites/sinner,,, you name it'

and every religion has humans at its core,, good ones, bad ones, sane ones, and insane ones


How can You justify "Christians beating or cheating on their wives..."

WITH

Muslims chopping off peoples heads in the mame of their religion?

O.o

Seriously disjointed thinking...




no, not at all

if the argument is peoples individual actions are the fault of their religion

its right on point


extremists are called extremists because they aren't the norm

they are individuals who act outside of the norm for some political or social gains


You mean like a POTUS or nominee blaming guns for the actions of people?

Or American citizens and their Constitutional rights for the actions of terrorists?

Obama: ‘We’ are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for massacre

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Tue 06/14/16 12:12 PM
eldarbeast's photo

eldarbeast

Tue 06/14/16 12:03 PM






inconsistencies,,, do muslims yell 'god is great'? or 'allah'

does a citizen who pledges allegiance to a terrorist ideal or group automatically commit terrorism or is it expected that a terrorist act involves someone more than allegiant but actually a member of?

did the Swedish boy with a Nazi manifesto who killed those kids a while back get charged with 'terrorism'? ( I honestly do not remember)


is a crime against a group for their lifestyle an act of terrorism or a hate crime? can it be both, or do we have to choose one?

does it matter if one kills gay people because they were brought up christan to belive it wrong or because they were brought up believing someone or something else in believing it was wrong?


what now? do we use a mass shooting to unite in fear/hatred of muslims,, or in fear/hatred of guns?

I do believe a larger percent of mass shootings involve guns than muslims though,,,





And what about the Muslims chopping off peoples heads..in the name of their God... does that fall under " well, boys will be boys" in your world.







no more than Christians beating or cheating on their wives,,,

it falls under 'humans will by hypcorites/sinner,,, you name it'

and every religion has humans at its core,, good ones, bad ones, sane ones, and insane ones


How can You justify "Christians beating or cheating on their wives..."

WITH

Muslims chopping off peoples heads in the mame of their religion?

O.o

Seriously disjointed thinking...




no, not at all

if the argument is peoples individual actions are the fault of their religion

its right on point


extremists are called extremists because they aren't the norm

they are individuals who act outside of the norm for some political or social gains


Beating and cheating do not compare to beheading.
Edited by eldarbeast on Tue 06/14/16 12:04 PM
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:11 PM


As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection




rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations


msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:12 PM







inconsistencies,,, do muslims yell 'god is great'? or 'allah'

does a citizen who pledges allegiance to a terrorist ideal or group automatically commit terrorism or is it expected that a terrorist act involves someone more than allegiant but actually a member of?

did the Swedish boy with a Nazi manifesto who killed those kids a while back get charged with 'terrorism'? ( I honestly do not remember)


is a crime against a group for their lifestyle an act of terrorism or a hate crime? can it be both, or do we have to choose one?

does it matter if one kills gay people because they were brought up christan to belive it wrong or because they were brought up believing someone or something else in believing it was wrong?


what now? do we use a mass shooting to unite in fear/hatred of muslims,, or in fear/hatred of guns?

I do believe a larger percent of mass shootings involve guns than muslims though,,,





And what about the Muslims chopping off peoples heads..in the name of their God... does that fall under " well, boys will be boys" in your world.







no more than Christians beating or cheating on their wives,,,

it falls under 'humans will by hypcorites/sinner,,, you name it'

and every religion has humans at its core,, good ones, bad ones, sane ones, and insane ones


How can You justify "Christians beating or cheating on their wives..."

WITH

Muslims chopping off peoples heads in the mame of their religion?

O.o

Seriously disjointed thinking...




no, not at all

if the argument is peoples individual actions are the fault of their religion

its right on point


extremists are called extremists because they aren't the norm

they are individuals who act outside of the norm for some political or social gains


You mean like a POTUS or nominee blaming guns for the actions of people?

Or American citizens for the actions of terrorists?

Obama: ‘We’ are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for massacre

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/



people, humans, kill humans


'we' are humans,, 'we' are to blame as humans for disregarding human life



and people with guns commit mass shootings, so caution where guns are concerned is also logical and rational


msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:13 PM







inconsistencies,,, do muslims yell 'god is great'? or 'allah'

does a citizen who pledges allegiance to a terrorist ideal or group automatically commit terrorism or is it expected that a terrorist act involves someone more than allegiant but actually a member of?

did the Swedish boy with a Nazi manifesto who killed those kids a while back get charged with 'terrorism'? ( I honestly do not remember)


is a crime against a group for their lifestyle an act of terrorism or a hate crime? can it be both, or do we have to choose one?

does it matter if one kills gay people because they were brought up christan to belive it wrong or because they were brought up believing someone or something else in believing it was wrong?


what now? do we use a mass shooting to unite in fear/hatred of muslims,, or in fear/hatred of guns?

I do believe a larger percent of mass shootings involve guns than muslims though,,,





And what about the Muslims chopping off peoples heads..in the name of their God... does that fall under " well, boys will be boys" in your world.







no more than Christians beating or cheating on their wives,,,

it falls under 'humans will by hypcorites/sinner,,, you name it'

and every religion has humans at its core,, good ones, bad ones, sane ones, and insane ones


How can You justify "Christians beating or cheating on their wives..."

WITH

Muslims chopping off peoples heads in the mame of their religion?

O.o

Seriously disjointed thinking...




no, not at all

if the argument is peoples individual actions are the fault of their religion

its right on point


extremists are called extremists because they aren't the norm

they are individuals who act outside of the norm for some political or social gains


Beating and cheating do not compare to beheading.



if it leads to death, it does'

dead is dead,,,people mourn and miss their loved ones
Sojourning_Soul's photo

Sojourning_Soul

Tue 06/14/16 12:13 PM



As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection




rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations





My Declaration of Independence says my rights are "unalienable" and my Constitution that they "shall not be infringed".....

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable

I don't know whose you are reading from! slaphead
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Tue 06/14/16 12:20 PM
eldarbeast's photo

eldarbeast

Tue 06/14/16 12:19 PM



As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection





rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations





True. That is why States are making limits on things like gun ownership.

Just as true is some States allowing some religions to overrule their own States Constitution..

While other States are reinforcing their State's constitution.
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:20 PM




As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection




rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations





My Declaration of Independence says my rights are "unalienable" and my Constitution that they shall not be infringed".....

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable

I don't know whose you are reading from! slaphead





the same one that says,,'a well regulated militia',,and goes on to talk about militia organizing,, not private ownership


Sojourning_Soul's photo

Sojourning_Soul

Tue 06/14/16 12:21 PM




As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection





rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations





True. That is why States are making limits on things like gun ownership.

Just as true is some States allowing some religions to overrule their own States Constitution..

While other States are reinforcing their State's constitution.


10th amendment
Sojourning_Soul's photo

Sojourning_Soul

Tue 06/14/16 12:20 PM





As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection




rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations





My Declaration of Independence says my rights are "unalienable" and my Constitution that they shall not be infringed".....

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable

I don't know whose you are reading from! slaphead





the same one that says,,'a well regulated militia',,and goes on to talk about militia organizing,, not private ownership





BS! That has been run thru the SCOTUS already as BS!

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Tue 06/14/16 12:27 PM
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:22 PM




As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection





rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations





True. That is why States are making limits on things like gun ownership.

Just as true is some States allowing some religions to overrule their own States Constitution..

While other States are reinforcing their State's constitution.


I am noticing 'states rights' back on the rise,,,
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:24 PM






As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark:

Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals;

Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual.

Rights overrule privileges.



but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW

for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law

if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection


the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law



if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection




rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations





My Declaration of Independence says my rights are "unalienable" and my Constitution that they shall not be infringed".....

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable

I don't know whose you are reading from! slaphead





the same one that says,,'a well regulated militia',,and goes on to talk about militia organizing,, not private ownership





BS! That has been run thru the SCOTUS already as BS!



and separate but equal was once run through as reasonable,,,, justices are human too


mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Tue 06/14/16 12:24 PM



and he (obarry) blamed the American people as well...:angry:
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:29 PM




and he (obarry) blamed the American people as well...:angry:



when did isis attack the US and the president blamed americans?

cause, America has struck isis over 3000 times so far,,,lol

how many times have those other countries hit isis?
Edited by msharmony on Tue 06/14/16 12:30 PM
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Tue 06/14/16 12:28 PM





and he (obarry) blamed the American people as well...:angry:



when did isis attack the US and the president blamed americans?

cause, America has struck isis over 9000 times so far,,,lol



two days ago...whoa
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Tue 06/14/16 12:33 PM






and he (obarry) blamed the American people as well...:angry:



when did isis attack the US and the president blamed americans?

cause, America has struck isis over 9000 times so far,,,lol



two days ago...whoa



an individual attacked gay club goers and was killed, two days ago


I asked when did "ISIS' attack?
eldarbeast's photo

eldarbeast

Tue 06/14/16 12:33 PM








inconsistencies,,, do muslims yell 'god is great'? or 'allah'

does a citizen who pledges allegiance to a terrorist ideal or group automatically commit terrorism or is it expected that a terrorist act involves someone more than allegiant but actually a member of?

did the Swedish boy with a Nazi manifesto who killed those kids a while back get charged with 'terrorism'? ( I honestly do not remember)


is a crime against a group for their lifestyle an act of terrorism or a hate crime? can it be both, or do we have to choose one?

does it matter if one kills gay people because they were brought up christan to belive it wrong or because they were brought up believing someone or something else in believing it was wrong?


what now? do we use a mass shooting to unite in fear/hatred of muslims,, or in fear/hatred of guns?

I do believe a larger percent of mass shootings involve guns than muslims though,,,





And what about the Muslims chopping off peoples heads..in the name of their God... does that fall under " well, boys will be boys" in your world.







no more than Christians beating or cheating on their wives,,,

it falls under 'humans will by hypcorites/sinner,,, you name it'

and every religion has humans at its core,, good ones, bad ones, sane ones, and insane ones


How can You justify "Christians beating or cheating on their wives..."

WITH

Muslims chopping off peoples heads in the mame of their religion?

O.o

Seriously disjointed thinking...




no, not at all

if the argument is peoples individual actions are the fault of their religion

its right on point


extremists are called extremists because they aren't the norm

they are individuals who act outside of the norm for some political or social gains


You mean like a POTUS or nominee blaming guns for the actions of people?

Or American citizens for the actions of terrorists?

Obama: ‘We’ are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for massacre

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/



people, humans, kill humans


'we' are humans,, 'we' are to blame as humans for disregarding human life



and people with guns commit mass shootings, so caution where guns are concerned is also logical and rational





No, it's not. Before 1990, mass shootings were a rare thing. Several changes took place in that year that have enabled massacres to occur:

The creation of gun free zones

The restriction upon the right of self defense

The adoption of the policy of widespread use of psychotropic medicines designed for adults to be used on children

These three main events have contrihuted more to mass shootings than anytime before 1990.

Semi-automatic firearms have been with the population for nearly 90 years at that point. And, with the exception of adult criminal use for personal gain, rarely used to kill more than one person.
Sojourning_Soul's photo

Sojourning_Soul

Tue 06/14/16 12:34 PM





and he (obarry) blamed the American people as well...:angry:



when did isis attack the US and the president blamed americans?

cause, America has struck isis over 3000 times so far,,,lol

how many times have those other countries hit isis?


Obama: ‘We’ are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for massacre

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/