So is it the first terrorist plot in Canada, and we don’t know much anything about it.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;482882”]
It wasn’t the main event, and it was an act of terror. Even liberals know you can’t ban guns from terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Crazy nuts got their hands on guns and used them to kill people… What’s the point of gun legislation if you just admitted we can’t keep them out of the hands of people willing to use them?
[QUOTE=“wigglez;482885”]
So is it the first terrorist plot in Canada, and we don’t know much anything about it.[/QUOTE]
It was a terror plot… Which invalidates your whole point that Canada has never been a target.
I’m not arguing against it. You can’t compare nutjobs who just snap, to organizations with a vast network. You can’t even argue gun legislation on such a ridiculous platform.
I know. This was my first time hearing about it. They apparently targeted a U.S. to Canadian bridge also.
We still don’t know why they targeted Canada. I’m quite curious now.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;482890”]
I’m not arguing against it. You can’t compare nutjobs who just snap, to organizations with a vast network. You can’t even argue gun legislation on such a ridiculous platform.[/QUOTE]
Sure I can… If the whole point of gun legislation is to keep guns out of the hands of those wanting to kill people… And if we both agree that’s impossible… Then we can agree there is no point to gun legislation.
The Connecticut shooter spent months preparing to shoot up the school, he didn’t just “snap” so we can easily compare him to the terrorists in that respect.
Just for a minute pretend you’re an anti-gun liberal. Try to argue banning guns will keep guns out of terrorists hands.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;482916”]
Just for a minute pretend you’re an anti-gun liberal. Try to argue banning guns will keep guns out of terrorists hands.[/QUOTE]
Define “terrorist”…
the argument was why libs aren’t jumping all over this. Not how I define terrorist. It fits the public definition of terrorism.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;482931”]
the argument was why libs aren’t jumping all over this. Not how I define terrorist. It fits the public definition of terrorism.[/QUOTE]
So is the Connecticut school shooter considered a terrorist by your definition?
He spent a great deal of time planning his attack… Sounds like a terrorist
Chose a target that would result in the greatest number of casualties … Sounds like a terrorist
Had no motivation besides just causing death… Sounds like a terrorist
Oh wait… He’s a white American and not a Muslim so therefore he’s not a terrorist right? Which also means guns are bad and more gun control is needed, whereas if he were Muslim then the media would be focusing on the terrorist story instead of gun control… Because we all know gun control is useless against terrorists huh?
Not really. The connecticut shooter was some kid with mental health issues.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;482959”]
Not really. The connecticut shooter was some kid with mental health issues.[/QUOTE]
Oh so Muslim jihadists don’t have mental health issues…?
He spent a great deal of time planning his attack… Sounds like a terrorist
Chose a target that would result in the greatest number of casualties … Sounds like a terrorist
Had no motivation besides just causing death… Sounds like a terrorist
Oh wait… He’s a white American and not a Muslim so therefore he’s not a terrorist right? Which also means guns are bad and more gun control is needed, whereas if he were Muslim then the media would be focusing on the terrorist story instead of gun control… Because we all know gun control is useless against terrorists huh?
Okay, so now we’re back to it doesn’t matter what you or I think. That kid doesn’t fit the general public’s description of a terrorist, but the guys who bombed Boston do. A politician cannot stand up there and tell everybody that a gun ban would’ve stopped terrorists from getting them.
I feel like we’ve already been through this. Either our wires are crossed or you keep circling back.
[QUOTE=“ArtVandalay;482816”]
That’s how you feel because you live in a bubble of fear. People with healthy psychologies don’t feel “naked” or “helpless” without a gun in their home.[/QUOTE]
Yeh… So the police tell you to stay indoors and not to answer your door to anyone besides a uniformed officer. Now you see the guy who just shot and killed a cop, blew up a marathon, and car jacked someone at gunpoint in your back yard… Tell me again how a healthy psychology is supposed to feel when you have no weapon and the guy in the back yard who DOES have a gun walks up to your back yard door, opens it and comes into your house where your kids and wife are? Sniffling and begging for your life is your only option at that point… Naked and helpless feeling indeed.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;482963”]
Okay, so now we’re back to it doesn’t matter what you or I think. That kid doesn’t fit the general public’s description of a terrorist, but the guys who bombed Boston do. A politician cannot stand up there and tell everybody that a gun ban would’ve stopped terrorists from getting them.
I feel like we’ve already been through this. Either our wires are crossed or you keep circling back.[/QUOTE]
Your definition of a terrorist is obviously “a Muslim on a killing spree” … The media wouldn’t cover a story about a Muslim mass gunman from the angle of gun control … That’s my point.
For some reason, we can accept that gun control would make no difference… Unless of course it’s a white male American… Then the liberals have a gun control fiesta because we can label it as a “nut job” instead of “terrorist”… Even if the white male shooter checks off every identifier of a terrorist except for “Muslim” … If he wasn’t white and was Muslim, then apparently he’s immune to gun control.
I can’t give you an exact definition. I label our government as terrorists also.
I think words like terrorist, and Weapons of Mass Destruction have been diminished.
They actually are calling the pressure cooker bomb a WMD. In my opinion a WMD is a nuclear or biological weapon. I suppose you could call it a WMD, but it’s a overstatement IMO.
I’m not even sure what terrorist means anymore. Cold you classify a serial killer as a terrorist? What about somebody like Chris Dorner?
When I think of terrorists I think of the 9/11 hijackers or Timothy McVeigh.
Any truly intelligent American would be emigrating right about now. Do it while other countries are still willing to accept you.
No one here is a 911 truther? All this stuff is BS these attacks are instituted by the ones in power so they can grow their power.
I agree with you on WMD.
In terms of serial killer question, the answer is no as to be classed as a terrorist the individual has to have a political motivation.