You nailed it. Modern Islamic sexual repression at odds with the liberated West has given rise to several generations of rabid oversexed freaks. Attacking women in riots in Europe, and I don't even want to begin to speculate on the level of closet sexual abuse and incest and domestic sexual violence, hetero and homo both, that goes on in that culture, with men and women so separated. Gotta be toxic. Why do you think they are so fired up all the time? Bunch of testosterone-addled maniacs.
They are not sexually repressed. They are encouraged to marry so that they can lawfully have sex. They are allowed to have more than one wife, to make sure they can have sex as often as they want to. In modern day Islamic teaching (particularly the Arabs) are taught that the wife "cannot" refuse the husband, it is a duty for her to be available to him. The Quran speaks about the problem of women not wanting to have sex with their husbands, it tells the husbands to speak "suasively" to the wives, which means charming and convincingly, but it also says if that still does not change her mind, to leave her alone in her bed and NOT to molest her. It has also been written in other teachings that the angels will curse her if she refuses her husband. Sex in Islam is for the reason of creating more children who will be Muslims, it is a furtherance of the religion. The more children someone has, the better it is for them. The Quran advises "women are like fields to you, so seed them as you intend, but plan for the future in advance".
In Islam, not having a job is no reason NOT to get married. The family will help other family members. Everyone is to get married to prevent them from falling into temptation and having illicit sex, which is a big sin in Islam.
They are not repressed, they are just mindful that there are laws regarding how they can express their sexuality, and they have to get married to do that in lawful ways.
[Edited on 6/14/2016 by gina]
TALLAHASSEE, Fla.: As in mass shootings elsewhere, the massacre of 49 people at an Orlando gay nightclub is raising questions about access to guns – and to assault rifles in particular. In Florida, buying one is no problem as long as you’re 18, a legal resident of the United States, aren’t a felon or a domestic abuser and have no documented mental health or substance abuse issues.
Here are the state’s basic rules:
All firearm purchases from federally licensed dealers require a background check, regardless of whether the buyer has a concealed weapons permit.
There is no waiting period to buy a rifle. There is a three-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and handgun buyers must be 21 or older.
People charged with or convicted of a felony can’t buy guns. Neither can people who have been convicted of two or more DUIs, have been involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital or have a restraining order against them.
Former Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Bronson, who ran the agency that issues the permits, doesn’t believe gun laws need to be changed. He said assault rifles like the AR-15 Omar Mateen used in the Orlando attacks also are used for legitimate purposes.
“People use AR-15s to hunt deer, to hunt hogs, to hunt all kinds of game,” he said.
“Think of the over 1 million people that have them and have never misused them, and they want to do away with certain aspects of the gun permitting or buying weapons because of one person’s lawlessness.”
Mateen bought his gun legally at the St. Lucie Shooting Center. The owner of a gun store, Ed Henson, said Mateen passed a full background check and that if he hadn’t bought the guns from him, he would’ve purchased them somewhere else. Henson told reporters during a news conference Monday outside his business that he is sorry this “evil person” bought the guns from his store.
REMARKS: So Mateen passed a FULL background check before obtaining his weapon. What more could the gun laws have done? Nothing. It is not the laws that are the problem.
REMARKS: So Mateen passed a FULL background check before obtaining his weapon. What more could the gun laws have done? Nothing. It is not the laws that are the problem.
Obviously the background check performed is not good enough. The fact that he was on the terrorist watch list twice perviously maybe should have kept him from being able to purchase firearms. That was a proposal before, but the Republicans blocked it. Maybe some of those people would be alive today if that law would have passed.
Once again you would think that we could all agree that those on a terrorist watch list need not be part of the "well regulated militia" as specified in the constitution. You have 2 DUI's, "no guns for you." You've been on the terrorist watch list twice, "how many guns and how much ammo would you like to buy sir?" Yeah, that's NRA logic for you.
LOL
i'm not sure how to express myself here.
i think we are making wild swings in emotion.....left and right.
back after 911 weird laws were passed to "spy" on americans. there have been calls for racial profiling. or religious profiling. the right used to hate that and support the concept. the left liked it and didn't support the concept.....or something like that.
some have said mass killings have become commonplace.....and we kinda just accept it.
i am not sure i have any answers other than we should all calm down. we all have the same goal.
life should be fun....we shouldn't hate anyone......enjoy yourself and don't be afraid
sh!t happens
So you guys see this as a gun issue, where we are just one more gun law away from solving this and living in harmony with isis and not a radical islam terrorist attack.
Don't be surprised. Their first reaction is usually to blame the object.
So you guys see this as a gun issue, where we are just one more gun law away from solving this and living in harmony with isis and not a radical islam terrorist attack.
Don't be surprised. Their first reaction is usually to blame the object.
With everything reported in the media and everything that has been posted by both sides in here, you come to that conclusion? 😛
So you guys see this as a gun issue, where we are just one more gun law away from solving this and living in harmony with isis and not a radical islam terrorist attack.
Why can't it be both?
So you guys see this as a gun issue, where we are just one more gun law away from solving this and living in harmony with isis and not a radical islam terrorist attack.
Why can't it be both?
Too nuanced. Some people can only come to terms with black and white, nothing in between.
[Edited on 6/15/2016 by gondicar]
So you guys see this as a gun issue, where we are just one more gun law away from solving this and living in harmony with isis and not a radical islam terrorist attack.
Why can't it be both?
Too nuanced. Some people can only come to terms with black and white, nothing in between.
Apparently so. It's clear to me that a number of factors contributed to this incident including terrorist influence, homophobia, easy access to weapons, and probably mental health issues. One thing that does not appear to be a factor is immigration, yet this seems to be the primary focus of the response by certain politicians, I suppose because it plays well with the voters. Interestingly, Trump is now calling his proposed Muslim ban "pro-gay".
REMARKS: So Mateen passed a FULL background check before obtaining his weapon. What more could the gun laws have done? Nothing. It is not the laws that are the problem.
Obviously the background check performed is not good enough. The fact that he was on the terrorist watch list twice perviously maybe should have kept him from being able to purchase firearms. That was a proposal before, but the Republicans blocked it. Maybe some of those people would be alive today if that law would have passed.
Once again you would think that we could all agree that those on a terrorist watch list need not be part of the "well regulated militia" as specified in the constitution. You have 2 DUI's, "no guns for you." You've been on the terrorist watch list twice, "how many guns and how much ammo would you like to buy sir?" Yeah, that's NRA logic for you.
The facts do not support what you have said above.
So you guys see this as a gun issue, where we are just one more gun law away from solving this and living in harmony with isis and not a radical islam terrorist attack.
Don't be surprised. Their first reaction is usually to blame the object.
That would be crazy. Assault rifles had nothing to do with this in any way. The world would be much safer if everybody carried an assault rifle, hand gun, grenades and a giant combat knife.
In fact if you supply all street gangs with weapons and ammo, it will end all the murders, crime and make the neighborhoods much safer. Clean up the cities. All those kids will be back in school before you know it and likely on the Honor Roll. Perhaps issuing firearms at birth is the answer.
Eliminate all mass shootings with the Babies With Guns Program. Offer extra courses at Rifles R Us as a way to ensure no one ever fires. How Many Rounds Can You Fire contests. Create clips that hold even more rounds. That will limit the number of people that can be shot.
Supply everyone with their own Special launch Codes. If everyone has a Nuke then the World will be a safer place.
So obvious - why can't everyone see it. How does anyone think this is about guns at all? Has reality burned away the retinas?
This is quite a large concern if you ask me:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-g4s-idUSKCN0Z02QS
Daniel Gilroy, a former co-worker of Mateen at G4S, said he repeatedly complained to his supervisor about Mateen’s behavior, which included Mateen bombarding Gilroy with as many as 30 text messages a day, some of which made death threats.
"Everything he said was toxic," Gilroy told the Florida Today, "and the company wouldn't do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people."
The company said in a statement that it had “no record of any complaint by Mr. Gilroy about Mr. Mateen,” and that Gilroy said in June 2015 after leaving the company that his co-workers were “good men and women.”
Separately, the company said it had conducted two screenings of Mateen, once when he was hired in 2007 and again in 2013. Neither brought up anything of concern.
As part of his screening for G4S, Mateen underwent a psychometric test, an ID verification test, and a criminal record check, among other measures.
In 2013, G4S learned that Mateen had been questioned by the FBI, but the company was unaware of a subsequent FBI interview of Mateen in 2014, the company said. The company declined to comment on how it found out about the FBI investigation in 2013.
Wasn't there stuff that came out from the San Bernandino shooter where co-workers also said there were red flags and nothing came of them?
Of course Monday morning QB'g is an easy game, but maybe companies should pay better attention to their workers and especially complaints?
I think in all cases there would be people that had doubts about the eventual shooters. I'm sure that we have all met our share of people that we deemed as dangerous and on the edge. Varying degrees of course and I guess it is hard to tell who will go over the edge.
In the years that I did security, most of the guys that I worked with scared me more than the public. There were times where the job called for force or violence depending on how you word it. Those little skinny guys that want to take on a half dozen huge guys, he is crazy. They didn't get that way in a minute but over a life time. Those are the guys that worry me.
Reporting the behavior at work was good but likely would have only lead to him being fired and not really stopping the shooting.
I think in all cases there would be people that had doubts about the eventual shooters. I'm sure that we have all met our share of people that we deemed as dangerous and on the edge. Varying degrees of course and I guess it is hard to tell who will go over the edge.
In the years that I did security, most of the guys that I worked with scared me more than the public. There were times where the job called for force or violence depending on how you word it. Those little skinny guys that want to take on a half dozen huge guys, he is crazy. They didn't get that way in a minute but over a life time. Those are the guys that worry me.
Reporting the behavior at work was good but likely would have only lead to him being fired and not really stopping the shooting.
I think that people often don't really perceive others as dangerous until after they have committed an act of violence. Then it it easy to look back and say, yes, the red flags were there all along. Everything becomes more clear when viewed through the lens of hindsight. Having a history of prior complaints is one thing, but people who only come forward after the act don't have much credibility with me.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
[Edited on 6/15/2016 by alloak41]
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
No, it was Ed Koch's fault.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
No, it was Ed Koch's fault.
Never enough blame to go around. Sheesh.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
Of course it was. Kind of goes without saying by now. Are we to expect any other conclusion?
If someone opposes the ban on assault rifles because "it's not the object", I try to figure out why that is.
By blaming the object, we could destroy personal accountability and responsibility.
I could own an AR-15 and not kill anyone, so why should law-abiding citizens allow our rights be eroded away because of a few bad apples?
To me, this response is the worst type of selfish narcissism. The topic becomes about me me me me. Why should I be inconvenienced? I am law-abiding. Me me me. When 20 kindergarteners and countless other law-abiding Americans are massacred, and the right can only think of themselves, it seems pretty clear where the problem lies.
I still have yet to hear from pro-gun people why they oppose measures to prevent ISIS sympathizers to buy guns.
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
Of course it was. Kind of goes without saying by now. Are we to expect any other conclusion?
I was being a smarta$$. I doubt you were, though.
some have said mass killings have become commonplace.....and we kinda just accept it.
I saw on CNN the other day that mass killings include all shootings of 4 people or more. How many of those crimes were committed with a pistol?
I would imagine all of them, which is why we need to make sure guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people. If guns were treated like a drivers license, in addition to police dept mental exams, I believe we could prevent some and isn't that the whole idea? If not, what's a better improvement?
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
his political leanings are a lot more recent. He is pledging allegiance to the Taliban so they should be deported. Unfortunately the MSM is not digging too hard because he is politically connected to the current WH and Hillary's State Dept. Looks like he got a "special WH tour" too, not something you or I can expect.
[Edited on 6/15/2016 by OriginalGoober]
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
his political leanings are a lot more recent. He is pledging allegiance to the Taliban so they should be deported. Unfortunately the MSM is not digging too hard because he is politically connected to the current WH and Hillary's State Dept. Looks like he got a "special WH tour" too, not something you or I can expect.
The shooter was born here and was a US citizen. How do you deport a US citizen? And you want to deport him, but are against restrictions for people like him to be able to buy firearms?
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
his political leanings are a lot more recent. He is pledging allegiance to the Taliban so they should be deported. Unfortunately the MSM is not digging too hard because he is politically connected to the current WH and Hillary's State Dept. Looks like he got a "special WH tour" too, not something you or I can expect.
[Edited on 6/15/2016 by OriginalGoober]
Here is another photo from the same story. Can anyone else spot the obvious Photoshop?
How do the Afghani parents who are pro-Taliban become US citizens in the first place? This seems like it was an abuse of the immigration policy, that should be looked into to determine if this was standard protocol to let Taliban settle in the US or a political favor granted with monetary donation or bribe.
Taliban or no taliban, a persons likelihood of voting for Democrats probably moves you to the front of the line. That's our current immigration policy in a nutshell.
The Orlando shooter was born in New York City in 1986. Obviously this was the fault of the Reagan Administration and every Republican since.
People forget that Reagan once referred to these now terrorist organizations as freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet occupation. The old notion that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
his political leanings are a lot more recent. He is pledging allegiance to the Taliban so they should be deported. Unfortunately the MSM is not digging too hard because he is politically connected to the current WH and Hillary's State Dept. Looks like he got a "special WH tour" too, not something you or I can expect.
[Edited on 6/15/2016 by OriginalGoober]
You are a bit gullible aren't you?
