At least seven killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.

@Ionus,

Welcome to the forum, Ionus.
Aberrations that u will note in my spelling now & hereafter
will be attributable to my advocacy of fonetic spelling.

Ionus wrote:

Kindergartens have been attacked. Do we arm teachers ?

We shoud restore the status quo ante of freedom; i.e., there shoud be NO LAW
as to whether the teachers or the butchers or bakers
or candlestick makers shoud be armed. Its a personal choice.
A wise man does not go around unprepared for emergencies.

In my country, from its inception in the 1700s thru the first 30 years of the 1900s,
we had little or no "gun control" (meaning discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your life).
We got along OK with that freedom.

Ionus wrote:

How old will you have to be to have a fire arm ?

No such thing as "have to be" when we are discussing the natural right
to defend your life from predatory violence.
Any person who has the strength to lift and aim a gun
is both old enuf and young enuf to defend his own life.
No person is too old or too young to have a natural right
to defend his life from predatory violence.
Imagine a father telling his child:
"no, no, u are too young to fight back; u shoud let him kill you."
I don 't think so.
(I expect u to reply that the father shoud intervene personally;
for the sake of my example, I assume that is not possible.)

I advocate returning to the free state of affairs before the advent of "gun control."
I don 't know the history of your country, but I suspect that there was a time
when people of any age were legally free to defend their lives and to possess
the means to execute the right of self defense.
If I am mistaken about that, and u actually HAD gun control
from the beginning of your country, I will look to u to correct me.

Ionus wrote:

If people settle arguments with punches,
wont they then use guns ?

Sometimes DOING THAT is necessary to the continuation of innocent life;
e.g., in Texas a few years ago, there was a vehicular collision,
as a result of which one of the parties thereto was beating the hell
out of the other one. It was a mismatch.

Fortunately, the loser shot and killed his assailant,
thereby saving his own life and making the world a safer place
for his fellow citizens. However, he will live with permanent severe personal injuries,
because he waited too long to begin shooting.

If I remember accurately, his permanent injuries include deafness
in one ear from a ruptured ear drum, partial blindness,
and other extremely grave permanent injuries that I don 't remember right now, but he remembers.

The same story with unarmed Reginald Denny in Los Angeles
who got stomped for the best part of an hour on national TV (every network)
with no assistance from any police, who had fled the scene.
He survives with grave, disabling personal injuries, including mental dysfunction.

I invite u to explain to him,
the merits of settling "arguments with punches".
A few years ago, I was hosptalized for several weeks
for abdominal surgery and its consequent infections.
I became so debilitated as not to be able to walk.
When I got out, it was the most I coud do to remain upright
and walk short distances. I shoud settle arguments with punches?

Ionus wrote:

What if there are many people who dont like YOU ?
If they all come a-gunnin' fer ya at once pardner,
will you need an M60 with explosive tip rounds ?

Years ago, I was driving home from my girlfriend's house around 12m,
alone on the road, except for an old car, hanging close on my rear.
After a while, it came abreast of me and put a bullethole in my left driver s door window.
I drew out my 2 inch .44 caliber stainless steel mirror revolver,
visible in low light conditions. Before I coud even try to return fire,
I heard a scream whereupon the old car, which had been continuing abreast of me,
abruptly accelerated and departed hence.
The mere sight of armed resistance ofen has that effect.
Predators frequently are cowards.
I saw a pack of lions flee a water buffalo who counterattacked them
instead of running away. That proved to be a good strategy.

Ionus wrote:

How old will you have to be before your firearms are taken off of you ?

Do u have an AGE fetish ?
Let me put it this way: I wish to be buried with my gun collection; (but not yet).

Ionus wrote:

Hell, me and you will have a shoot out.
I dont like you already.
Be prepared to die because I am very accurate.
Or maybe I will just shoot you in the back.

I don 't believe u,
but u gotta die from something; it might as well be that.

David

1 Reply

ARguing with DAvid on this issue always ends up at the same place. He refuses to accept that there is a place for gun ownership with reasonable limitations. David doesnt recognize any of these. He is , unfortunaltely, a shill for the gun lobby. Hes a poster child for almost every heated argument ending in gunfore. (Makes plotical debate exciting).

The state of PA recently tried to pass legislation re the reporting of lost or stolen guns (the gun lobby arguments against this were totally contrived yet surprisingly scripted) and limit the number of guns purcheasable each month for straw purchases. (At present we have straw purchase agents that buy and sell hundreds of guns a month , and these guys arent gun dealers) Many of those guns wind up in the "system".
Those laws, reasonable by anyone other than a rabid gun nut, were defeated by the rabid gun nut lobby who exercise great $ control over the both sides of the aisle in the legislature.

I feel that nothing in the 2nd Amendment guarantees UNCONTROLLED AND UNLIMITED ownership and carry "rights". The 2nd amendment will, in future generations, hopefully be interpreted in order to have it better aligned with the times.

As a gun owner, I feel that having unlimited access to a gun is more often not a deterrent to violence, but a pre requisite to violence. In philly several years ago, there was a crime in which a driver, ticked off at another dreiver, drove up and shot the [percieved offender. The perp wound up with a heavy prison sentence and the victim was dead. In another situation, two drivers, in a similar confrontation , opened fire on each other and one was killed by the other and the second was shot by a cop.
We really cant give out vibes of being a "civilized " nation with crap like that being condoned.

The laws of punishing gun crimes have also been watered down by legislatures that are submissive to this well funded indutry and its minions like Dave.

DAve is old, hes all used up, and soon will die. AT that point we have another generation in which we can try reasonable control legiuslation. (Sorry Dave , but thats the only reso;lution that I see to your case of gun rabies)

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Here are the NPR stories about Hasan. I think they meet your story a day criteria: http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=hasan

That said, I don't disagree that the FBI should investigate people who appear to be acting strangely in ways that could threaten national security. At the same time, the FBI should also be discrete and not spread rumors unless they have evidence of a threat.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Thank you for the welcome.

I cant help but feel you live in fear and your gun is your security blanket. When I asked how old someone should be before their guns are taken off them, you are aware that there is such a thing as senility ? Should insane people be allowed guns ? How young should you be before being allowed to shoot someone in the playground ? Should drug addicts be allowed to carry firearms ? If everyone is going to have a handgun, shouldnt the Police have a tank ?

Why dont you be honest...you are terrified and live your life in fear. The only solution is for you to have a gun so you feel like a man again. Well a lot of women already live in a fearful situation, and most do not carry guns. Tell us why you are more afraid then most women and are far smaller than most women so you need a gun ? But most importantly, tell us why you are afraid ?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

If I hear of a Christian fundamentalist killing a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, I blame religion.
If I hear of a Jewish fundamentalist who shoots people in a mosque, I blame religion.
If I hear of Muslim findamentalists flying into the Twin Towers, I blame religion.

I'm quite aware of the passion evoked by religion.

But Finn is focused on one religion. He apparently believes that any Muslim is a terrorist waiting to spring.

He doesn't seem to understand that any sufficiently large population (and I would argue that 1/5 of the world's population is sufficiently large) is going to contain murders, mass murderers, cult leaders, etc.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Actually I did take note of and was surprised by NPR's honest coverage of the event but they don't constitute the mainstream liberal media.

A long time listener, I was quite pleased with the way they covered the story. Apparently Steve Inskeep doesn't have as much editorial influence as I thought.

The reality is, however, that NPR was the exception, and not the rule:

Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.

ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.

Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

<br /> http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2009/20091111085058.aspx

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

As usual, DrewDad insists on arguing against points not actually made.

It's, obviously, easier to do so: He doesn't have to spend time reading what I have written and he gets to regurgitate the leftist cant of which he is so fond and so rehearsed.

I am focusing on Islamists, not Islam and it's not surprising that DrewDad cannot appreciate the difference as he so desires to wrap the former in the objective blanket which should be afforded the latter.

I would focus on Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Jewish extremists if any of them had declared war on America, and had been responsible for the number of worldwide attacks, deaths and wounded to which Muslim extremists can lay claim.

There are between 2.1 and 2.2 billion Christians in the world
There are between 1.3 and 1.6 billion Muslims in the world
There are between 950 million and 1.4 billion Hindus in the world
There are between 250 and 500 million Buddhists in the world
There are between 20 and 30 million Sikhs in the world
There are between 12 and 18 million Jews in the world

These are the six largest religions on earth.

Which one has attached to it a gang of extremists (irrespective of their relative size) that threatens world peace?

In fact, there are many who would argue that the scriptures and teachings of Islam encourage violent extremists, but I am not one.

It is a cultural, not religious flaw that has lead to the worldwide threat posed by some followers of Islam.

If you are someone that cannot distinguish between religion and culture, then perhaps you are someone who believes it is Islam that fosters violent extremists.

Declaring oneself a Muslim, a Christian, or a Buddhist, in no way gives any credence to the notion that one adheres to the teachings of one's professed faith.

If simply identifying oneself as a Muslim, a Christian, or a Buddhist means that one’s actions can be imputed to the religion one claims, then, unfortunately, Islam must bear the fact that it has a greater number of extremist followers than any other major faith.

DrewDad's argument that drawing any connection between terrorists and the faith they claim to represent is obvious evidence of bigotry, is a typical and tired liberal effort.

Worse, it is a self-indulgent expression of ignorance that puts the rest of us at risk.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

DrewDad's argument that drawing any connection between terrorists and the faith they claim to represent is obvious evidence of bigotry, is a typical and tired liberal effort.

I do think that pointing to his religious affiliation, and saying "aha! I knew it! Another Muslim murderer!" is bigoted.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Worse, it is a self-indulgent expression of ignorance that puts the rest of us at risk.

I do agree that bigotry is a self-indulgent expression of ignorance. It increases our danger by being simplistic.

A randomly sampled Muslim is no more likely to be a murderer than a randomly sampled Christian. Identifying someone by their religion is meaningless.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DrewDad's argument that drawing any connection between terrorists and the faith they claim to represent is obvious evidence of bigotry, is a typical and tired liberal effort.

I do think that pointing to his religious affiliation, and saying "aha! I knew it! Another Muslim murderer!" is bigoted.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Worse, it is a self-indulgent expression of ignorance that puts the rest of us at risk.

I do agree that bigotry is a self-indulgent expression of ignorance. It increases our danger by being simplistic.

A randomly sampled Muslim is no more likely to be a murderer than a randomly sampled Christian. Identifying someone by their religion is meaningless.

At least you remain true to your inane dogma.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Inane? Really?

This from someone who's main contribution is "ZOMG! Muslims!"

LOL

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Muslims want to expand their numbers just like Chrisitians. If you live in a Christian society, Christians arent a problem with their expansionist ideas, Muslims are. Here we have Muslims who want women to cover up and not wear bikinis on the beach. They also want polygamy marriages only in mens favour, of course. Under their law, in some Muslim countries a person can be executed for converting to Christianity unless they are insane.

What happened to all the other religions that used to be in Christian and Muslim countries ? Religions do not mix, they eliminate.

0 Replies

Quote:

Alleged Killer?
Jay Starkman has had it with NPR after listening to coverage of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who has been charged with killing 13 people at Ft. Hood on Nov.5.

"I can't take you any more! NPR is so PC, it insists on calling Hasan "alleged" and the name of his unnamed contact abroad is an "alleged" terrorist," wrote Starkman, of Atlanta, GA. "Wake-up! This was a TERRORIST act on U.S. soil, not unlike Timothy McVeigh." [McVeigh was behind the Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 in 1995.]

Another listener from Louisville, KY wrote: "Is there one shred, scintilla, mote, or nit-sized piece of evidence that Major Hasan did NOT shoot those people? If you have one, please share it. If you don't, please delete the word "allegedly" from your stories about him. If he is found not guilty because he was insane, that still does not mean he was not the killer, obviously."

I understand the frustration because, to listeners, it may seem clear that Hasan is responsible for murdering 13 men and women who have families. But in the United States, since our country's founding, a person is legally considered innocent until proven guilty.

Until Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty, for example, the press referred to him as the alleged mastermind of the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Right now, short of a confession or conviction in a court of law (rather than a court of public opinion), Hasan is still considered innocent.

Journalists use the word "allegedly" both to protect the suspect and honor one of the most important underlying premises of our nation's legal system. They also use the word to protect their news organizations.

There are plenty of cases where someone was accused of a crime and it seemed obvious that they did it, and then it turns out they didn't.

Slate has a good explainer on why journalists use allegedly.

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/11/how_can_you_say_alleged_for_th.html?sc=nl&cc=omb--20091121

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

I don't doubt that there are lawyers behind the use of the word "alleged," but I have a tough time buying the argument that its use is intended to honor the legal doctrine of innocent until proven guilty.

The doctrine doesn't need the media to honor it.

Since "murder" has a legal definition, it would be presumptive of a reporter to call Hasan a murderer, and I suppose we can really, really stretch things and suggest it's possible that there was another gunman involved and that he or she actually killed all the people who died, but there is zero doubt that Hasan stood in Ft Hood and fired off round after round, and so he is at least A Shooter and not An Alleged Shooter.

Whether or not reporters should insist on using "alleged" in this case, I can appreciate the frustration expressed by listeners and readers when they hear it. It is yet another example of defying common sense to meet a politically correct dictum, which, we can all see helped lead to this catastrophe.

Let's be clear: While our system of justice must, fundamentally, assume a defendant's innocence until he or she is proven guilty, there is no requirement that the press bend over backwards and deny known facts to follow suit, and there certainly isn't such a requirement of internet forum posters.

Journalistic ethics should be enough to keep reporters from making accusations based on flimsy evidence, and libel laws will help enforce those ethics. If reporters are scared of libel litigation in which the truth is an absolute defense, they can rely on the use of "alleged," but it is grating when they claim that when they use it, they are being noble.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Politically correct, my ass.

Until someone is convicted, they are indeed "alleged" to have committed the crime.

Quote:

Main Entry: al·leged
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈlejd, -ˈle-jəd\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century

1 : asserted to be true or to exist <an alleged miracle>
2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called <bought an alleged antique vase>
3 : accused but not proven or convicted <an alleged burglar>

It's a perfectly good word, and the press has first amendment rights to free speech. Why do you hate America?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Why do you keep posting the same nonsense? Why do you hate intelligent debate? Why do you hate A2K?

Trying reading what I wrote.

It would be presumptuous of journalists to refer to Hasan as a murderer since that indeed must be decided by a court.
It would be far less but possibly so to refer to him as a killer, but there isn't an iota of doubt that he was shooting at least one gun at fellow soldiers in Ft Hood on the day in question.

He is not the "alleged" shooter, he is the known shooter, and the one known to be shouting "God is Great!" as he shot.

We, thankfully, rely on a legal system to determine whether or not someone is guilty of a statutory crime, and that legal system must presume innocence until guilt can be proven, but only to a degree.

If someone is charged with a crime they can be incarcerated until such time as a court determines whether or not they are guilty. Not exactly the way you would expect an innocent person to be treated, so the presumption of innocence is, obviously, not absolute.

We do not rely on our legal system to determine truth. There is abundant evidence to determine that the truth is Hasan was, at least, repeatedly firing a gun at his fellow soldiers. We don't need a court of law to tell us whether or not this is so.

There is almost as much clear evidence that Hasan actually hit and killed some of the people he was firing at. We don't need a court of law to tell us whether or not this is so.

We do need a court of law to tell us if Hasan is guilty of the specified crime of murder, and so at best, until he is tried, Hasan is an "alleged" murderer, but very arguably, a shooter and a killer.

We can, should, and for a long time have relied upon ethical journalists to report reasonably confirmed facts that can allow us to decide what we believe is the truth and what is not.

If they want to use the adjectives "alleged," "apparent" or "God damned," they of course can (your bleating about the First Amendment is entirely immaterial), but when they insist on using "alleged" when it is not called for, they are revealing gaps in their journalistic integrity or courage.

The simple truth of the matter (which every Liberal in America is committed to pointing out - when it suits them) is that our legal system is not perfect: Innocent people are found guilty, and, yes, guilty people are found not-guilty.

In such cases, the truth has not been decided, and I seriously doubt you believe it has.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I'm just trying to understand. Your MO is to whine about some aspect of American culture that doesn't agree with your narrow little viewpoint.

Seems like you really, really dislike America.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

What about his alleged victims? Has that one come up yet?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

It would be presumptuous of journalists to refer to Hasan as a murderer since that indeed must be decided by a court.

ALLEGED MURDERER. Seems kind of stupid we have him ferom many eyewitnesses and several security cameras. All circumstantial evidence is on him, but yes, he must be found officially guilty.

I am pleating my rope.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Would he be deemed a murderer if a jury found him to be insane?

1 Reply

@spendius,

The executioner is also an alleged murderer.
I know this for a fact, as I allege it.

0 Replies

At least seven killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know