U.S. right wing extremists more deadl...
Patriotic American

Shippensburg, PA

#25 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>You need to catch up. The thread and posts made were for gun control of U.S citizens. Nothing to do with terrorism. The post was a diversion of his other posts. Two deaths per year is not a problem or even grounds for any control of citizens rights. The post was to twist numbers to make them seem to be an issue. The deaths were not as important as trying to find ANY reason to claim guns in the hands of citizens is a danger to the population as a whole. Again twisting numbers makes it "seem" to be a big problem when more people by far will die slipping in tubs than by "domestic terrorist". The deaths only count in they fit the "agenda".
So you support the conservative terrorists. Got it.
Patriotic American

Shippensburg, PA

#27 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Can you show where I said such words? Wanting my government to act within the confines and limitations placed on them in no way supports anything. Your attempt to twist my words only shows your failing to support your stance honestly.
Lying control freak. Got it.
None responsive.

If you condemn the acts of conservative domestic terrorists, why won't you just say so?
Independent

United States

#28 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
So you support the conservative terrorists. Got it.
Is Dan your alter ego?
He pulls conclusions out of thin air like that too.

:^`P
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#29 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
<quoted text>
By trying to change the subject. By diverting from the issue of right wing domestic terrorism.
Why can't you just unconditionally condemn right wing domestic terrorism instead of diverting?
I can not condemn or support any group or person on the grounds of limited information. Under the claim of "terrorist" is subjective to each action by each subject or group. Each action would have to be examined as to reasoning and type of action. To group anyone or group under the term "domestic terrorist" is subjective to the person or group placing that term. The media and government tend to place that term on any situation where defiance of government action by citizens exist. Any time a citizens is active in defense of their rights the term "domestic terrorist" pops up.

Only a limited mind would simply support any action on just information provided by one side of any conflict.
Patriotic American

Shippensburg, PA

#31 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>I can not condemn or support any group or person on the grounds of limited information. Under the claim of "terrorist" is subjective to each action by each subject or group. Each action would have to be examined as to reasoning and type of action. To group anyone or group under the term "domestic terrorist" is subjective to the person or group placing that term. The media and government tend to place that term on any situation where defiance of government action by citizens exist. Any time a citizens is active in defense of their rights the term "domestic terrorist" pops up.
Only a limited mind would simply support any action on just information provided by one side of any conflict.
Wow. You just can't bring yourself to condemn them. Because they might have had good reasons to kill 34 people? Because they may have been legitimately aggrieved? I wonder why you've never extended the same benefit of the doubt to Islamist terrorists.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#32 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You just can't bring yourself to condemn them. Because they might have had good reasons to kill 34 people? Because they may have been legitimately aggrieved? I wonder why you've never extended the same benefit of the doubt to Islamist terrorists.
They may have a good reason. Do you know they don't? Where have I made a claim of not looking at both sides of Islamic terrorist? Opps Your trying to place words in my mouth again.

Desperation is showing.
Patriotic American

Shippensburg, PA

#33 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>They may have a good reason. Do you know they don't? Where have I made a claim of not looking at both sides of Islamic terrorist? Opps Your trying to place words in my mouth again.
Desperation is showing.
Look, you've already proven that you're sympathetic to the right wing domestic terrorists. You don't have to keep saying so over and over. I get it.
Patriotic American

Shippensburg, PA

#34 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>They may have a good reason. Do you know they don't?
There is never a "good reason" for domestic terrorism. If you think there is, you are part of the problem.

But please, since you're so sympathetic to terrorists, tell me about the "good reasons" foreign terrorists flew airplanes into skyscrapers twelve and a half years ago.
Patriotic American

Shippensburg, PA

#36 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>WOW really reaching now! Running out of ground to support your left wing frustrated control freak lies?
You're inability to unconditionally condemn terrorism says it all. The fact that you think terrorists might have "good reasons" for their terrorism only seals that fact.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#37 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
<quoted text>
There is never a "good reason" for domestic terrorism. If you think there is, you are part of the problem.
But please, since you're so sympathetic to terrorists, tell me about the "good reasons" foreign terrorists flew airplanes into skyscrapers twelve and a half years ago.
Hmmm. Well lets see. A group of people went through a lot of trouble and money and with the support of several nations and millions of people world wide, attacked the U.S. giving their lives in the process. I guess you believe they had no reason, they did it just for fun?

I don't have to agree with what they did to acknowledge they may have had a reason. I can even be angry with what they did but that in no way minimalizes they felt a need to do what they did.

Without further understanding of their culture or beliefs I can not condemn or condone their reasoning.

Regardless of if you support their actions or not, they fulfilled their objective. To strike "terror" into the U.S. and cause the government to infringe on our rights because of that terror. Police now stick guns in citizens faces with the threat of death out of simple fear of an action that remotely might be. They no longer have to threaten citizens lives, our own government does it for them.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#39 Apr 22, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Who on the right defends killers?
You are. Tray does.

The question is - why?

Why does the right defend these extremists and their terroristic activities?

Why wouldn't they instead unconditionally condemn their actions?

The only explanation is that they support rightwing domestic terrorism.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#40 Apr 22, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>You do realize that "Law Enforcement" kill many more innocent citizens yearly than that don't you? Do you support removing weapons from cops to save those lives?
I can't wait for your answer to this one.
I have a dollar on him trying to dodge the question, any takers?
No I don't.

But you're changing the subject. Why are you doing that? Why won't you unconditionally condemn rightwing domestic terrorism?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#41 Apr 22, 2014
Well it looks like PA handled the pro-terrorism gunner pretty well yesterday. Good on you, PA.

The Bush administration identified rightwing extremists as a potential threat to this nation back in 2008. But Republicans pitched such a hissy that the whole thing was shut down.

Now we have had 15 acts of domestic terrorism by rightwing extremist, not counting the potential threat by armed insurrectionists in Nevada last week.

The only possible explanation for why this continues to go on is because the right in America supports domestic terrorism from within their ranks.

Why is that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#43 Apr 22, 2014
Tory II wrote:
What is a right wing extremist ?
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were left wing extremists.
Answer...
Tray

Plantersville, MS

#44 Apr 23, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't.
But you're changing the subject. Why are you doing that? Why won't you unconditionally condemn rightwing domestic terrorism?
Because I am not stupid enough to condemn anyone on just the word of someone else who has an agenda. Obviously you are.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#45 Apr 23, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Because I am not stupid enough to condemn anyone on just the word of someone else who has an agenda. Obviously you are.
If you can find ways to justify murdering Sikh and Jewish worshipers, kidnapping and murdering police officers, murdering abortion doctors, and plotting to bomb federal buildings, you are a terrorist sympathizer.

I'm not a terrorist sympathizer. Obviously you are.
Independent

United States

#48 Apr 23, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
If you can find ways to justify murdering Sikh and Jewish worshipers, kidnapping and murdering police officers, murdering abortion doctors, and plotting to bomb federal buildings, you are a terrorist sympathizer.
I'm not a terrorist sympathizer. Obviously you are.
"The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective, since one person's terrorist may be another's "freedom fighter", and vice versa depending on somebody's personal ideology of beliefs. A cynical definition may be that a terrorist is someone who murders or terrorizes more of those for whom the terrorist is fighting, than his supposed enemies."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist

"A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals;"

Since there is zero chance these murders will further any political goals, this is not terrorism.
I could go with hate crimes, even racially motivated hate crimes.

Terrorism is a bit of a stretch.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#49 Apr 23, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
"The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective, since one person's terrorist may be another's "freedom fighter", and vice versa depending on somebody's personal ideology of beliefs. A cynical definition may be that a terrorist is someone who murders or terrorizes more of those for whom the terrorist is fighting, than his supposed enemies."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist
"A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals;"
Since there is zero chance these murders will further any political goals, this is not terrorism.
I could go with hate crimes, even racially motivated hate crimes.
Terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
They were ALL efforts to further their political goals, whether they were so-called sovereign citizens, white supremacists, or anti-government separatists.

Now it may be true that there is zero chance that their political goals will be advanced, that doesn't change the intent of their actions. Terrorism is terrorism whether or not it succeeds.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#52 Apr 24, 2014
Oh my. What a surprise.

----------

A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas,“and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked.“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

----------

And I'll bet a paycheck that every gunner here completely agrees with Mr. Bundy's opinion about "the Negro."

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

#56 Apr 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
From CNN:
Since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology.
According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11.
By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.
----------
Since 9/11, jihadists have killed 21 people in five attacks in the US while rightwing extremists have killed 34 people in FIFTEEN attacks.
In the waning years of the Bush administration, Bush's DHS commissioned a study of the threat of rightwing extremist violence in the US. When that report was announced in the second or third month of 2009, the entire Republican party threw such a hysterical hissy-fit that the report was never released and DHS funds to continue studying the problem were re-allocated.
And the nation continues to reap the horrible consequences of those decisions.
Why do we overlook rightwing violence and refuse to call it terrorism? Why is the government prevented from even STUDYING it?
And how many more innocent Americans have to die at the hands of these domestic terrorists before we take this threat seriously?
All, please ignore this troll. He likes to try to stir up trouble. His home forum finally just ignored him, and he went away. You all do the same and you will be spared many headaches.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 1 hr Chilli J 1,623
News For Trump And The NRA, The 'Race Card' Is Alway... 2 hr FormerParatrooper 1
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... Aug 26 payme 4
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... Aug 23 JohnInLa 218
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Aug 21 Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Aug 21 RobertM 1
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
More from around the web