Step 1: Stop allowing "refugees" from known terrorist countries

Step 1: Stop allowing "refugees" from known terrorist countries.
Step 2: Allow citizens to arm themselves.
Step 3: Stop admitting that Islam is a "great" or "peaceful" religion. It's not, and never has been.

Step 3 should be step 1, really. Western countries should be aware of what islam teaches and this should become common knowledge. If that happens, then muslims who come here will be confronted with their own religion (which they don't like, to put it mildly; they might want to cut your head off).

I know that I'm a bit too optimistic in this, but I really think that most muslims can't stand the test of a culture of criticism. If Western countries adopted only 10% of the criticism we have seen towards christianity to islam, then I don't think islam has much of a future in the west.

Just a reminder by the way, there are actually people between them that do need help. But yeah, why not in the neighbouring muslim countries?

New Creation wrote:Step 1: Stop allowing "refugees" from known terrorist countries.
Step 2: Allow citizens to arm themselves.
Step 3: Stop admitting that Islam is a "great" or "peaceful" religion. It's not, and never has been.

Step 1 - are all refugees extremist terrorists? 
Step 2 - there are over 300 million guns in the US. What amount of guns are required before you'd fell safer?
Step3 - Islam is "great" and "peaceful" if you're a moderate Muslim. Imagine how violent the Jews would be if they followed the OT to the letter!

Free777 wrote:

New Creation wrote:Step 1: Stop allowing "refugees" from known terrorist countries.
Step 2: Allow citizens to arm themselves.
Step 3: Stop admitting that Islam is a "great" or "peaceful" religion. It's not, and never has been.

Step 1 - are all refugees extremist terrorists? 
Step 2 - there are over 300 million guns in the US. What amount of guns are required before you'd fell safer?
Step3 - Islam is "great" and "peaceful" if you're a moderate Muslim. Imagine how violent the Jews would be if they followed the OT to the letter!

1. No. Too bad for the ones that aren't. You can't come here.
2. I was referring to guns in the UK, which are not allowed. But, as for here, the laws are too strict. In many states, you can carry, but only concealed and only with a license. I'm fortunate to live in Michigan where I can carry openly without a license, but most states don't have this.
3. Islam was never great or peaceful. It is founded on murder, terror, and rape. Muhammad was a terrible man who believed and taught a doctrine of demons. Show me peace in the koran, show it to me please.

New Creation wrote:

Free777 wrote:

New Creation wrote:Step 1: Stop allowing "refugees" from known terrorist countries.
Step 2: Allow citizens to arm themselves.
Step 3: Stop admitting that Islam is a "great" or "peaceful" religion. It's not, and never has been.

Step 1 - are all refugees extremist terrorists? 
Step 2 - there are over 300 million guns in the US. What amount of guns are required before you'd fell safer?
Step3 - Islam is "great" and "peaceful" if you're a moderate Muslim. Imagine how violent the Jews would be if they followed the OT to the letter!

1. No. Too bad for the ones that aren't. You can't come here.
2. I was referring to guns in the UK, which are not allowed. But, as for here, the laws are too strict. In many states, you can carry, but only concealed and only with a license. I'm fortunate to live in Michigan where I can carry openly without a license, but most states don't have this.
3. Islam was never great or peaceful. It is founded on murder, terror, and rape. Muhammad was a terrible man who believed and taught a doctrine of demons. Show me peace in the koran, show it to me please.

1. What a shame. Good thing Jesus doesn't hold to the same standards as you. I guess compassion is just a nice thought and not something to put into practice.
2. Yes, sure - lots of guns would have worked great in stopping that bomb from going off yesterday, huh? I hear of lots of mass shootings in the States - surely someone in the area had a gun - did they just not use it...? How would guns stop that? 
3. Guess you haven't read the OT in awhile - steeped in the same blood as the Koran yet you believe in God, no?

Like with all religious books, it all depends on which verses you pick. One can write a long list of verses in the Koran that ensure religious tolerance, peaceful coexistence, etc. It is up to each Muslim to "interpret" the Koran.

Here's one: [2:193] “You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.”

Free777 wrote:2. Yes, sure - lots of guns would have worked great in stopping that bomb from going off yesterday, huh? I hear of lots of mass shootings in the States - surely someone in the area had a gun - did they just not use it...? How would guns stop that?

Well... you hear about the shootings where people DIDN'T have guns to protect themselves with.  You might be surprised at just how many times the "good guy with a gun" has stopped something terrible.  The first example that comes to mind is the Oregon mall shooting from a few years ago.  The liberal media didn't say ANYTHING about what stopped the shooter, conveniently enough.  But it was a guy with a concealed-carry gun and permit who drew on the shooter.  Once the shooter was no longer in control, he took his own life.  Who knows how many people he would have hurt or killed had that man not been there.  If you dig a little deeper, you'll find that there are numerous other similar stories - none of which you'll hear about from the major [liberal] news stations.

Kerrick wrote:

Free777 wrote:2. Yes, sure - lots of guns would have worked great in stopping that bomb from going off yesterday, huh? I hear of lots of mass shootings in the States - surely someone in the area had a gun - did they just not use it...? How would guns stop that?

Well... you hear about the shootings where people DIDN'T have guns to protect themselves with.  You might be surprised at just how many times the "good guy with a gun" has stopped something terrible.  The first example that comes to mind is the Oregon mall shooting from a few years ago.  The liberal media didn't say ANYTHING about what stopped the shooter, conveniently enough.  But it was a guy with a concealed-carry gun and permit who drew on the shooter.  Once the shooter was no longer in control, he took his own life.  Who knows how many people he would have hurt or killed had that man not been there.  If you dig a little deeper, you'll find that there are numerous other similar stories - none of which you'll hear about from the major [liberal] news stations.

So... if everyone had a gun it would be beneficial because we could deal with the threat quicker, thus minimizing the casualties? Or this kind of event wouldn't occur because everyone knows everyone else is packing?

Free777 wrote:

New Creation wrote:

Free777 wrote:

New Creation wrote:Step 1: Stop allowing "refugees" from known terrorist countries.
Step 2: Allow citizens to arm themselves.
Step 3: Stop admitting that Islam is a "great" or "peaceful" religion. It's not, and never has been.

Step 1 - are all refugees extremist terrorists? 
Step 2 - there are over 300 million guns in the US. What amount of guns are required before you'd fell safer?
Step3 - Islam is "great" and "peaceful" if you're a moderate Muslim. Imagine how violent the Jews would be if they followed the OT to the letter!

1. No. Too bad for the ones that aren't. You can't come here.
2. I was referring to guns in the UK, which are not allowed. But, as for here, the laws are too strict. In many states, you can carry, but only concealed and only with a license. I'm fortunate to live in Michigan where I can carry openly without a license, but most states don't have this.
3. Islam was never great or peaceful. It is founded on murder, terror, and rape. Muhammad was a terrible man who believed and taught a doctrine of demons. Show me peace in the koran, show it to me please.

1. What a shame. Good thing Jesus doesn't hold to the same standards as you. I guess compassion is just a nice thought and not something to put into practice.
2. Yes, sure - lots of guns would have worked great in stopping that bomb from going off yesterday, huh? I hear of lots of mass shootings in the States - surely someone in the area had a gun - did they just not use it...? How would guns stop that? 
3. Guess you haven't read the OT in awhile - steeped in the same blood as the Koran yet you believe in God, no?

Like with all religious books, it all depends on which verses you pick. One can write a long list of verses in the Koran that ensure religious tolerance, peaceful coexistence, etc. It is up to each Muslim to "interpret" the Koran.

Here's one: [2:193] “You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.”

1. This is not a gospel issue. This is a national security issue. God commanded Israel to deal very strictly with foreigners and outsiders. There were very detailed and strict regulations. You couldn't just walk into Israel's camp and expect to have full rights and freedoms.
2. No, a citizen carrying a gun would not have solved yesterday's bombing. But, the proper carrying and use of a gun will handle many other terrorist incidents.
3. I read the OT all the time. Bloody times indeed. Israel were God's people, no other country was.

Pre-emotive warning time ......

This is a "hot button" thing.......tread VERY carefully when replying, folks.  

If you are upset when replying, STOP. 

take the time to cool off, and consider your words.

  People lacking in self control in their treatment of others in their replies are gonna have a VERY short leash.

Thanks......

New Creation wrote:

Free777 wrote:

New Creation wrote:

Free777 wrote:

New Creation wrote:Step 1: Stop allowing "refugees" from known terrorist countries.
Step 2: Allow citizens to arm themselves.
Step 3: Stop admitting that Islam is a "great" or "peaceful" religion. It's not, and never has been.

Step 1 - are all refugees extremist terrorists? 
Step 2 - there are over 300 million guns in the US. What amount of guns are required before you'd fell safer?
Step3 - Islam is "great" and "peaceful" if you're a moderate Muslim. Imagine how violent the Jews would be if they followed the OT to the letter!

1. No. Too bad for the ones that aren't. You can't come here.
2. I was referring to guns in the UK, which are not allowed. But, as for here, the laws are too strict. In many states, you can carry, but only concealed and only with a license. I'm fortunate to live in Michigan where I can carry openly without a license, but most states don't have this.
3. Islam was never great or peaceful. It is founded on murder, terror, and rape. Muhammad was a terrible man who believed and taught a doctrine of demons. Show me peace in the koran, show it to me please.

1. What a shame. Good thing Jesus doesn't hold to the same standards as you. I guess compassion is just a nice thought and not something to put into practice.
2. Yes, sure - lots of guns would have worked great in stopping that bomb from going off yesterday, huh? I hear of lots of mass shootings in the States - surely someone in the area had a gun - did they just not use it...? How would guns stop that? 
3. Guess you haven't read the OT in awhile - steeped in the same blood as the Koran yet you believe in God, no?

Like with all religious books, it all depends on which verses you pick. One can write a long list of verses in the Koran that ensure religious tolerance, peaceful coexistence, etc. It is up to each Muslim to "interpret" the Koran.

Here's one: [2:193] “You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.”

1. This is not a gospel issue. This is a national security issue. God commanded Israel to deal very strictly with foreigners and outsiders. There were very detailed and strict regulations. You couldn't just walk into Israel's camp and expect to have full rights and freedoms.
2. No, a citizen carrying a gun would not have solved yesterday's bombing. But, the proper carrying and use of a gun will handle many other terrorist incidents.
3. I read the OT all the time. Bloody times indeed. Israel were God's people, no other country was.

1. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be a compassionate individual and then say "oh well too bad" it's a national security issue. If you're prejudiced against Muslims and assume they're all terrorists, then maybe that's where the problem lies.

Should I assume that you, as an American Christian are a terrorist because of the Army of God or any other number of fringe Christian groups that interpret the bible differently than the mainstream? Again - you, as a US citizen should be glad the Jews don't follow OT law. Why do moderate Muslims not get the same treatment?  Because as much as you want to demonize them, by painting them ALL with the same brush as the fringe Muslims, the moderate Muslims are NOT the same. And there are more of them than the wackos.A moderate Muslim isn't going to kill infidels any more than a Jew is going to stone his wife for cheating on him.

2. I asked Kerrick so I'll ask you: So... if everyone had a gun it would be beneficial because we could deal with the threat quicker, thus minimizing the casualties? Or this kind of event wouldn't occur because everyone knows everyone else is packing?

3. Blood times, indeed. Not just bloody - rape-y too. So... it's ok because Israel was the chosen group?

exo wrote:Pre-emotive warning time ......

This is a "hot button" thing.......tread VERY carefully when replying, folks.  

If you are upset when replying, STOP. 

take the time to cool off, and consider your words.

  People lacking in self control in their treatment of others in their replies are gonna have a VERY short leash.

Thanks......

We haven't broken down to name calling.

NC - you wanna keep talking? I thought I was being rather civil....

Free777 wrote:

exo wrote:Pre-emotive warning time ......

This is a "hot button" thing.......tread VERY carefully when replying, folks.  

If you are upset when replying, STOP. 

take the time to cool off, and consider your words.

  People lacking in self control in their treatment of others in their replies are gonna have a VERY short leash.

Thanks......

We haven't broken down to name calling.

NC - you wanna keep talking? I thought I was being rather civil....

It doesn't need to get that far to get my attention.  Snappy retort to me letting people know this thread is gonna be watched like a hawk does you no favors AND You've posted 4 times in 4 years before diving in to  this thread feet first.  Watch yourself.

Free777 wrote:So... if everyone had a gun it would be beneficial because we could deal with the threat quicker, thus minimizing the casualties? Or this kind of event wouldn't occur because everyone knows everyone else is packing?

I guess you'd need to define "everyone."  If by "everyone" you mean violent criminals, the mentally deranged, unsupervised children, etc... then of course not.  Obviously there needs to be some level of control over such things - and there is: background checks, safety tests, etc.  But to your question: yes, I do believe loosening restrictions and allowing good people to protect themselves from violent threats is the right thing to do - within the US.  I won't speak on behalf of other countries.  There is a distinct correlation between violent crimes here and restrictive gun laws which strongly suggests that restrictive gun laws just don't work here.  Another thing to consider: you mentioned the increasing amounts of mass shootings that occur in the US.  Gun availability and technology hasn't changed in the US much at all in the past 100 or so years.  It's not as if guns themselves have become more deadly or effective.  The most popular types were designed decades and decades ago.  And they've always been available to purchase by civilians.  So if availability and technology/effectiveness aren't factors, it would seem that the problem isn't the guns but the people.  I'd suggest it's due - at least in great part - to the effects of general secularization of the US and blatant/outright denial and rejection of God.

On a related note... *IF* it were possible to completely destroy every single last firearm in existence and somehow prevent another one to ever be made - with absolute certainty - then I would hand over my firearms gladly (though I'd miss them).  But as long as at least one firearm exists in this world, disallowing people to protect themselves is the wrong way to go IMO.  As the saying goes, "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away."

Kerrick wrote:

Free777 wrote:So... if everyone had a gun it would be beneficial because we could deal with the threat quicker, thus minimizing the casualties? Or this kind of event wouldn't occur because everyone knows everyone else is packing?

I guess you'd need to define "everyone."  If by "everyone" you mean violent criminals, the mentally deranged, unsupervised children, etc... then of course not.  Obviously there needs to be some level of control over such things - and there is: background checks, safety tests, etc.  But to your question: yes, I do believe loosening restrictions and allowing good people to protect themselves from violent threats is the right thing to do - within the US.  I won't speak on behalf of other countries.  There is a distinct correlation between violent crimes here and restrictive gun laws which strongly suggests that restrictive gun laws just don't work here.  Another thing to consider: you mentioned the increasing amounts of mass shootings that occur in the US.  Gun availability and technology hasn't changed in the US much at all in the past 100 or so years.  It's not as if guns themselves have become more deadly or effective.  The most popular types were designed decades and decades ago.  And they've always been available to purchase by civilians.  So if availability and technology/effectiveness aren't factors, it would seem that the problem isn't the guns but the people.  I'd suggest it's due - at least in great part - to the effects of general secularization of the US and blatant/outright denial and rejection of God.

On a related note... *IF* it were possible to completely destroy every single last firearm in existence and somehow prevent another one to ever be made - with absolute certainty - then I would hand over my firearms gladly (though I'd miss them).  But as long as at least one firearm exists in this world, disallowing people to protect themselves is the wrong way to go IMO.  As the saying goes, "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away."

I've bolded the crux of the issue.

How do you determine who's good and who isn't? What would the form or tests even look like? Would you have to screen these people forever to ensure they stay good? I can't imagine the bureaucracy in managing that.

In your last paragraph you mention you would hand over your guns. Do you carry one? Have you ever had to pull a gun on someone? If so, what was the circumstance?

exo wrote:

Free777 wrote:

exo wrote:Pre-emotive warning time ......

This is a "hot button" thing.......tread VERY carefully when replying, folks.  

If you are upset when replying, STOP. 

take the time to cool off, and consider your words.

  People lacking in self control in their treatment of others in their replies are gonna have a VERY short leash.

Thanks......

We haven't broken down to name calling.

NC - you wanna keep talking? I thought I was being rather civil....

It doesn't need to get that far to get my attention.  Snappy retort to me letting people know this thread is gonna be watched like a hawk does you no favors AND You've posted 4 times in 4 years before diving in to  this thread feet first.  Watch yourself.

Seriously - what did I say to deserve such a reponse?

Free777 wrote:

exo wrote:

Free777 wrote:

exo wrote:Pre-emotive warning time ......

This is a "hot button" thing.......tread VERY carefully when replying, folks.  

If you are upset when replying, STOP. 

take the time to cool off, and consider your words.

  People lacking in self control in their treatment of others in their replies are gonna have a VERY short leash.

Thanks......

We haven't broken down to name calling.

NC - you wanna keep talking? I thought I was being rather civil....

It doesn't need to get that far to get my attention.  Snappy retort to me letting people know this thread is gonna be watched like a hawk does you no favors AND You've posted 4 times in 4 years before diving in to  this thread feet first.  Watch yourself.

Seriously - what did I say to deserve such a response?

I gave a simple GENERAL reminder for people to be on their absolute best behavior, and you felt the urge to toss a snappy retort back about it.  That's more than enough.  Now, go ahead and return your focus to the actual matters being discussed rather than turning this into a confrontation about things.

Meh. I have better things to do with my time than have my behaviour dictated to me. You used to be cool, exo. I had a lot of respect for you back in the glory days of this board, when you weren't as uptight as you are now. And we're talking longer than 4 years ago. 

Facism. It's a hell of a way to live, ain't it?

New Creation. You seriously need to figure out what compassion means. 

And with that, I'll gladly take the ban hammer.

 


Four-plus years of watching people interact on online forums is PLENTY of time to recognize patterns.  “Cool” or not, Exo identified a thread that could easily stir up peoples’ emotions which oftentimes leads to ugliness.  His preemptive warning was simply to remind folks to keep it respectful.  Your defensiveness coupled with post history is a red flag because we’ve seen this type of thing before and it usually doesn’t go well.  Chill out, be respectful, and stop trying to play the victim here.  It’s not a big deal.

Free777 wrote:Meh. I have better things to do with my time than have my behaviour dictated to me. You used to be cool, exo. I had a lot of respect for you back in the glory days of this board, when you weren't as uptight as you are now. And we're talking longer than 4 years ago. 

Facism. It's a hell of a way to live, ain't it?

New Creation. You seriously need to figure out what compassion means. 

And with that, I'll gladly take the ban hammer.

Kerrick said it well enough, other than the fact that I have not changed my methodology as a moderator one single iota since I came on board as staff a decade ago.  You wanna play a martyr card, might wanna make sure you're playing from the same deck as everyone else.  You haven't created a ban worthy problem....YET.....so feel free to get over yourself.

Oh,  also:  I've never been cool.  Not at any point in my life 

^Heh, I was going to ask if that meant you’ve ALWAYS been cool or NEVER… but no need to ask now.

Every time I see/hear of a radical Muslim terror act I always wonder where is the response from the "moderate Muslim" community.  Why don't they flood the news and internet with protests to the heinous acts of terrorism from a people claiming to share their faith?

Andreas89 wrote:Step 3 should be step 1, really. Western countries should be aware of what islam teaches and this should become common knowledge. If that happens, then muslims who come here will be confronted with their own religion (which they don't like, to put it mildly; they might want to cut your head off).

I know that I'm a bit too optimistic in this, but I really think that most muslims can't stand the test of a culture of criticism. If Western countries adopted only 10% of the criticism we have seen towards christianity to islam, then I don't think islam has much of a future in the west.

Just a reminder by the way, there are actually people between them that do need help. But yeah, why not in the neighbouring muslim countries?

 To step away from the brouhaha a bit.....I can not argue against a single thing you've said.  

Well put.