Random Politics & Religion #06

Ok we'll try again.

Liberals insist we accept men who identify as women, but refuse to accept Muslim terrorists as identifying as Muslim.

During the first elk season in some years here in WA a herd of elk were walking up a shallow river valley with trees set back on either side. And hunters in each treeline.

When the dust settled three hunters were wounded but not an elk was harmed in the making of this ironic spectacle.

I didn't know *** Cheney hunted elk.

Would you accept someone who blew up Notre-Dame Cathedral as a Catholic if that's what they claimed?

And again, it doesn't matter. a few thousand psycopaths doen't speak for the other billion+ people.

that would be an acceptable comparison if people were supporting a ban on all women using the bathroom to keep out the insanely small percentage of people who were born with a ***.

Nobody refuses to accept they identify as terrorists and there is no comparison between terrorists and transsexuals. This is epic bigotry.

*identify as muslim

Bigoted Transsexual Terrorists! More at 11 on your local news channel.


Nausi was trying to warn ya'll but yinz wasn't listeningz.

Well the problem is that the other billion people don't have the benign views you think they do.

Shall we pull out the 2k7 pew study again? I surprisingly large number of Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism, despite it not giving good feelz. Not to mention the whole stoning women for allowing themselves to be raped, and throwing gays off buildings.

What exactly is the "epic bigotry" part? Or are you just throwing out the charactured democratic response to people who don't agree with you?

You can stop lying about people and their beliefs at any time. No one your made up narrative.

No one fits*

In this country since 9/11? I really doubt it. Think you can find that article? It also really depends on what is defined as a "terrorist attack" and what is not. A lot of these mass shootings haven't even been called terrorist attacks. None of the Chicago murders have been referred to as acts of terror, not even when guys walked into a church and killed a bunch of nuns. We have only just recently started calling these lunatics terrorists, and its probably related to race/religion tbh.

You compared transsexual people to ISIS and called them perverts and sexual predators.

I think we as Americans should look back in our history how we dealt with Islamic culture. In principle Western and Islamic culture's idea of freedom is vastly different.

President Thomas Jefferson and President James Madison both dealt with Islamic culture.

When our nation won our Independence we had to establish trade routes for our American goods during this time period American ships and crews were attacked and enslaved by the North African caliphate nations including Tripoli. In order for the US to take back our sailors and to even sail unmolested in the Mediterranean Sea we had to pay Tributes most times almost exceeding half of what our trade goods were worth.

President Thomas Jefferson had enough of this and stopped paying Tributes to the Muslims. The North African caliphate nations near Tripoli declared war on the United States so in 1790s President Jefferson did the same and the Barbary wars happen until through battle we prevailed and had the King of Tripoli sign a treaty which was broken a few years later.

Enter President James Madison much like Thomas Jefferson he refused the idea of paying Tributes for trade and once again in the 1800-1816s our ships were attacked and crews enslaved once again in North Africa through the same Muslim nations.

President James Madison prevailed and we calmed the waters.

James Madison remarks on his dealing with Islam nations and any other.

"It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none."

Progressives still deflecting and playing word games, what else is new lol.

Nausi is still making things up, so nothing.

Perfect explanation of how this usually goes

We had the US marines created during our conflicts

Here's the few the proud and braves song

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.

Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in ev'ry clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job
The United States Marines.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

hue hue

What is it when the progressives refuse to see the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, because whatever that phenomenon is, it is very similar to when they refuse to acknowledge people who do things that happen to be of a certain faith vs those who do things in execution of their faith, usually whilst screaming "god is great" and/or "death to the infidels".

I say we start a campaign to ban all cars!

Ohh lets ban Marijuana, then it will be so difficult to find that very few people can use it.

I don't think anyone is asking to banish the second amendment, just maybe not sell automatic rifles so easily.

They most certainly are, hence all the misinformation present.

It's not legal to sell automatic weapons to unlicensed individuals. "Assault" is a *** term invented to make any weapon seem scary, most are semi-automatic requiring the pulling of the trigger for each round fired.

Take the "scary" AR-15, it's not automatic but I bet you didn't know that. Nearly any semi-automatic weapon can be converted into full-automatic by modifying the firing mechanism, it's also illegal to do this without possessing the proper license.

The individual of the most recent soap boxes already possessed all the required licenses. He also passed a far more stringent background investigation required to perform as a guard for federal facilities.

The only way to of prevented him from acquiring those weapons would of been to ban all private ownership of firearms.

Here is a quick description of the ban on "machine guns", which is any weapon that fires fully automatic.

https://thearmsguide.com/2349/full-auto-is-legal/

The full policy and regulations from the US Government.

https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa#nfa-firearms

In short, you have to go through a ridiculous licensing process by the ATF to be able to legally manufacture fully automatic weapons. Once made they can only be legally sold to the US Government, Police force, or it's authorized purchasers (defense contracting).

The movies made by Hollywood are complete ***. Fully automatic weapons are incredibly difficult to get hold of, most of those sold on black market are stolen from the Police or US Government, which regardless of the legal restrictions will possess them.

Instead the Progressives are going after what they call "Assault Riffles" which is any weapon that looks like it might belong in one of their Hollywood action movies. There is no actual technical definition, it keeps changing from year to year to encompass anything that looks "military" regardless of design, firing or operating mechanism.

To a Progressive this is an "Assault Rifle" and needs banned



It looks scary and "military like".

point is that it wasn't hard for the Orlando guy to obtain guns legally even after being on the FBI list twice, something is wrong here.

So were the 19 hijackers in 9/11 there was government knowledge of potential imminent threat. Same reasoning. No one questions why NORAD and USAF stood down.