June 13, 2016

Here's the full Hillary Clinton speech on terrorism.

Today, in Cleveland, Ohio:



I'm watching the Trump speech first, but I'll get to this and have something to say.

ADDED: She began in a storytelling, empathetic, and vaguely religious mode, speaking of the people who died and the need for prayer. Then she transitioned to policy with Trump-like statements about the need to be strong. ["Now we have to steel our resolve and respond... We must attack [terrorism] with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination and pride in our country and our values."] The policy itself seemed interesting, but her audience messed up the value of it by cheering to great excess when she got to gun control. ["I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets."] And the big question I had about all those policy ideas was: Why hasn't the Obama administration done these things and isn't she connected to those failures?

AND: Here's the full text of her speech.

I didn't like that she called Mateen "a madman." People with mental illness can be dangerous, but what basis is there for characterizing an Islamist terrorist as a "madman" (other than to set up an argument for gun control)?

It seems to me that the terrorist has deep belief in an ideology and has decided to use violence. I think true mental illness is a disability, and those with disabilities deserve respect and care (even as we need to protect ourselves from danger).

And religious devotion is also serious and can lead people to do some very terrible things, but it is not insanity, even when the particular ideas seem foolish or evil. There's a lot of religion out there in the world, and it's just too easy to say that the kind of religion we're seeing in Islamic terrorists isn't real religion but madness.

Just as some nonreligious ideas are dangerous and evil, some religious ideas are dangerous and evil. And we can say that without inserting this extra step of pretending it's not religion but madness. That's the failure to speak clearly that Trump was talking about in his speech today. I think this blurring is done out of a fear of criticizing or alienating other Muslims. That is a choice to be unclear, to cushion the harshness, and Hillary is making that choice.

She also used disease and poison as a metaphor (as if better health care might be the answer)
The Orlando terrorist may be dead, but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive.... The threat is metastasizing. We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires the so-called ‘lone wolves’....
But these are human beings with thinking minds who are embracing particular ideas (ideas that spur them to terrible action). Of course, ideas are "viral." We use that metaphor all the time, for good and bad ideas. But the person who comes to believe something isn't sick like someone with cancer or a fever. You can get lost inside your metaphors. 

197 comments:

HoodlumDoodlum said...

She's all "uh, hello, I asked for the BIG flag as a backdop, ok!?"

Nonapod said...

Thanks for watching this so I don't have to.

Watching her give a speech is cringe inducing for me. I'm glad that there are people who are willing to unpack it's content and parse out the highlights.

Todd said...

The only speech I want to watch Hillary! give is the one where she throws herself on the mercy of the court and completely admits and accepts her guilt for her criminal and treasonous acts.

gspencer said...

I'm reminded of Gary Larson and Ginger,

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/47/153603564_7281ad0588.jpg

"These reprehensile acts were blah, blah, blah, caused by white men, blah, racist, blah, blah, Christian, blah, blah, Islam stands for peace, blah, blah, . . ."

Limited blogger said...

Not watching. Know what she'll say. Not interested.

gspencer said...

Mmmmm, Oscar Meyer pork sausages and hot dogs,


Oh I wish I were a happy, happy Muslim

that is what I truly wish to be

cuz if I were a happy, happy Muslim

all the world would stand in fear of me

chickelit said...

I see a shocking! plurality of women in the audience, maybe 2 to 1. Good thing Trump doesn't have a similar problem.

jaydub said...

Why would anyone listen to anything she said about anything? You know it's been poll tested to ensure it hits the right buttons, it may or may be something she believes, and you know that most of it is a lie, even if the truth would work better.

EDH said...

A randomly picked a time @47:30 in the over one-hour video to get a sense of her tone, which seemed rather subdued.

"But today is not a day for politics...", she said.

A random sample of her speech and it's a lie!

madAsHell said...

Here's how I'm going to take advantage of this crisis!!

holdfast said...

Also, anyone under criminal investigation by the FBI should not be allowed to run for President, where, if elected, they would have constructive control over nuclear missiles, strategic bombers and other weapons of war. It's just common sense.

pm317 said...

Thanks, Prof. Althouse..

pm317 said...

I especially liked that fact that she called out the Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis and all those other sympathizers. I hope she is hawkish on this and puts a stop to their shenanigans.

David Begley said...

Pm317

She should have done that when she was Secretary of State. What was she waiting for?

Larry J said...

One good reason to elect Trump is to avoid having to listen to Hillary! for the rest of our lives. Let her lose and go on with her life of lies and corruption.

pm317 said...

@Begley, Obama (aka Jarrett) ruled. That is what stopped her. Obama wanted to say he put a stop to all evil.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coupe said...

That speech was so powerful I decided to go to 7-11 and get a bag of skittles and a root beer.

traditionalguy said...

That speech made it clear where Hillary has gotten her big donations. She is so committed to protecting Oil Wealthy Sunni Arab Muslims that she will never permit our waging a War on Islamic Terror that might offend their religion or, allah forbid, hurt a Sheik.

If Americans had ever offered her enough Cash, then she might be saying the same about you and me.

Shorter version: Money Talks. It speaks Hillary's only language.

AllenS said...

The times before that Hillary called out the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis, was to put their money into the Clinton Foundation account. How much money have these people given to Hillary?

WVFarmLife said...

According to former DHS agent Philip B. Haney in an article at wnd.com, which I found through drudgereport.com, FBI and DHS investigations of the mosque to which Omar Meetan belonged were twice shut down by the State Department and the DHS's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office which claimed that the FBI and DHS were unfairly singling out Muslims.

So even though the FBI and DHS had some evidence that there might be a connection between the mosque or some members of the mosque and terrorism they were not allowed to continue investigating because these were Muslims.

Since this was back in 2011 it would have been Hillary Clinton's State Department. Of course it as much or more Obama that is responsible.

I'm beginning to wonder just how much time and money the Obama administration spent investigating Republicans and the right-wing in the United States in general over the last seven years. Sounds like they were the only politically correct focus.

Just imagine the staggering difference in how the media would treat this if this were a Republican administration.

Bay Area Guy said...

If there were ever a sustained confrontation between radical Muslims and gays -- count me in with the gays. It's one thing to have policy differences with gay folks, but it's quite another to start shooting innocent people.

But that's not quite accurate, because it's one-sided. I haven't seen any gays criticize Muslims. It is Muslims attacking Jews, attacking Americans, attacking Europeans and attacking gays.

There are 2 problems, both related, on which Trump correctly touches: (1) political correctness, which the Left uses as a shield and sometimes sword to blunt any legitimate criticism of Islam as a whole or specific Islam murderers (Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, San Bernadino, now Orlando) in tragic, sporadic incidents. (2) Obama's policy to downplay any connection between strains of Radical Islam and these mass shootings/bombings.

If Catholics were shooting up gay nightclubs, trust me, I'd drop the Catholic church and join the gay nightclubs.

Trump cuts through this dangerous nonsense.

Perhaps, Obama is fearful of a US overreaction to these mass murders, but most sane folks are concerned about a US under-reaction, that enables these heartless primitives to continue committing these slaughters.

Sadly, I think Hillary will just do more of the same as Obama, trying not to rock the boat, never trying to get to the heart of the problem, which is radical Islam.

The question is whether the Left's commitment to ethnic diversity and multi-culture extends to 15th Century crazies who want to destroy what America and our culture has built. I say it should not.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

pm317 said...
I especially liked that fact that she called out the Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis and all those other sympathizers. I hope she is hawkish on this and puts a stop to their shenanigans.


The Clinton Global Initiative/Clinton Foundation still cashed their checks, though, right?
I mean, some things seem important, sure, but when it comes to $...

Jack Wayne said...

My view is that the first half of her speech was very detached and clinical in contrast to Trump's emotion. Her speech was not logical in that she proposed more - but better! - government as the way to stop radical jihadis. (Is that redundant?) No mention of immigration. The only time she became emotional was while talking about gun control. She described the AR-15 as an assault (automatic) weapon without acknowledging it is the single shot configuration that shooters are using. The odd thing is that she implied restricting first amendment rights as her plan's third leg by restricting Internet use by radical jihadis. My opinion is that Trump will score heavily with most Americans. She will score well with progs.

Lem said...

Will the FBI investigation into Hillary's improper handling of classified material come down to who the FBI feels will make the best president?

Unknown said...

Jus as a note, Bay Area Guy: at least one gay person has put the blame on Islam. Milo Yann-something or other. Tech guy at Breitbart.

Also public enemy number one to college campus leftists everywhere. They simply turn into feral baboons (and I mean that literally!--just watch the infamous "Trigglypuff" video to see that I'm completely correct here).

Gays are high on the liberal totem pole. Unfortunately for them, Muslims are higher. So the gays will all die and the left will just nod and clap for the Imams.

Lem said...

I wanted to tweet that but I'm shadow banned right now.

I using Althouse as a backup ;)

Paul Zrimsek said...

She lost me at "0:00/1:17:40".

Static Ping said...

Hillary has a track record of both (a) not taking Islamic terrorism seriously and (b) saying whatever she thinks voters want to hear. It is kinda like take marriage counseling advice from a womanizing used car salesman.

Bay Area Guy said...

I have a friend who says, in essence, "Yes, beware the Barbarians at the gates, but also beware the enablers who open the gates to let them in"

Barbarians at the gates = Radical Islam
Enablers = Democrat party officials

narciso said...

hence, you see the reason for the squirrel,

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/orlando-mosque-tied-to-case-hillarys-state-dept-scrubbed/

David Begley said...

Pm317

As many have noted here, Hillary is NOT going to do a single thing against those ME countries. Too much money going to the Clinton Foundation. That's one of the biggest problems with electing her. She will put her personal interest ahead of the country's. That's the essential nature of the criminal scheme she is running. It is bribery.

Jason said...

Wow. She mentioned "radical Islam."

Poll results from Obama's risible speech must be in.

david7134 said...

I don't understand what people think will be accomplished by banning certain classes of weapons. You can actually make weapons in your garage that would be more powerful than those purchased in a shop. If someone wants to hurt people, even large numbers of people, it is very easy to do with a large number of readily available weapons or substances that can be changed into weapons. Banning assault weapons would have unknown consequences once it gets into the government. Take your health care, they were going to only do a little fix, then they destroyed health care for everyone. They banned alcohol because of abuse by a few, and resulted in increased crime and other issues. The fact is that banning guns will not fix the problem that we have with the Muslim religion and countries around the world have the same issue. We need to fix that problem and not harm law abiding citizens as happens every time the US starts restricting freedom for everyone because of a few.

rcocean said...

I don't have time to watch her speech, but I assume it consists of (1) we need to try harder to catch terrorists and (2) the evil NRA must be destroyed and Guns banned/regulated.

And possibly (3) we need to let in millions of more Muslims, since we believe in "Diversity".

ellamentary said...

rcocean, your assumptions are not borne out by the actual text of the speech, which, like Althouse, I did make time to watch. (and yes, I also make time to watch Trump's speech.) Yes on #1, not really on #2, and another wrong assumption on #3. No, she didn't say we should block Muslims from coming into the country, because 30 years later, their american-born children might become terrorists, as Trump proposed, but she did not rush to invite all and sundry to rush to our borders, either. She was measured and thoughtful in her approach. Some may call that 'poll tested' or 'predictable' or 'saying what she thinks voters want to hear.' I thought it was reassuring and statemanlike, which are not bad words in my vocabulary. Still not able to imagine ever being able to bring myself to vote for her, but nothing she said caused me to shake my decision that I will definitely never vote for Donald Trump.
'

MayBee said...

Interesting she didn't mention Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.

Jack Wayne said...

The hilarious part about the ban on "assault" rifles is that you can turn a lot of weapons into "automatics" with a "bump" style or grip/butt.

AllenS said...

There is a gazillion truly automatic weapons in the world. Just how hard would it be to carry some of them over the southern border? Who would know?

AReasonableMan said...

As the only moderate who posts here with any regularity, I agree with both sides. Ban the muslims and the guns. Let's make a deal.

Sydney said...

Not a bad speech. Not only mentioned radical Islam but called them "medieval." But she does think that gun control is one of the answers. I don't think that would stop a terrorist. I also disagree that we need to keep "working" with countries that are exporting terrorists. At some point in time, you have to stand back and realize the relationship isn't working.

n.n said...

Now it matters? Clinton, as Obama before her, is doctrinaire pro-choice.

n.n said...

Barbarians at the gates = Radical Islam

Resumption of abortion rites (i.e. debasement of human life), planned/clinical cannibalism (i.e. commoditization of human life), selective exclusion ("="), [class] diversity (e.g. racism, sexism), devaluation of capital and labor (liberal fiscal policies), progressive confusion (e.g. transgender spectrum disorder - homosexual, crossover), progressive dysfunction (e.g. female chauvinists' dysfunctional revolution), progressive corruption (e.g. Clinton), etc. did not begin with a foreign invasion. The degenerative condition of our civilization is a wholly owned outcome of progressive liberalism (i.e. monotonic variable or divergent process, amoral, unprincipled).

Fabi said...

ellamentary is a life long Republican. Just like Chuck.

rcocean said...

Congrads to anyone who got through it all. I tried to listen to it while working but man, she is such a dull uninspiring speaker.

You think she would've gotten better after 24 years in the national spotlight.

Fabi said...

Was Clinton wearing ivory-handled revolvers during that speech?

Quaestor said...

As the only moderate who posts here with any regularity, I agree with both sides. Ban the muslims and the guns. Let's make a deal.

Moderate? A moderate what? Compared to whom? Kim Jong-Un?

Quaestor said...

Was Clinton wearing ivory-handled revolvers during that speech?

Ivory? They're pearl. Son, only an ass-kickin' screwball cavalryman would wear ivory-handled pistols.

Rick said...

AReasonableMan said...
As the only moderate who posts here with any regularity


Everyone's the hero of their own story.

Bob Boyd said...

Hillary and ISIS both like to keep lists.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

I'm fairly sure that Althouse came away w/ a unique way of interpreting these two speeches. At least, I didn't think that HRC was Trump-like.

I thought that HRC seemed like someone who was thinking about a complicated world that requires a variety of efforts as well as the consideration of follow-on effects and actions. Trump seemed like someone who had easy answers to simple problems.

In some ways some of Trump's most harsh comments may be considered HRC-like. After all, it's been a long time since she suggested the obliteration doctrine in the Gulf.

EMD said...

Ban the muslims and the guns.

That's not moderate. That's authoritarian.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

I may have missed it, would Trump favor killing the family of this terrorist? Clearly he had an issue with the parents. Not sure they're the type of relatives he's previously suggested should die. Also, I didn't hear him say if it'd be a good idea to kill this guy's wife and kid.

Anywho, that seems less important than Althouse's discussion of metaphors.





Luke Lea said...

Doesn't the fact that so many Islamic terrorists are "home grown" second-generation Muslim immigrants indicate that Islam itself might the problem? For purposes of argument let us assume that is true. How could we deal with that truth within the confines of the 1st amendment? Ann teaches constitutional law. What are her ideas, if any? Or is the possibility constitutionally unthinkable?

Miriam said...

Her speech would've had more gravitas if only she would've used the word "bigly".

exiledonmainstreet said...

Blogger Larry J said...
One good reason to elect Trump is to avoid having to listen to Hillary! for the rest of our lives

My boyfriend told me that hearing Hillary laugh is like getting a bucket of ice water dumped on his balls. It's the cackle of the evil ex-wife, mother-in-law, or stepmother.

Which is why the womym with pink hair, excess flab and too many cats love her so much.

exiledonmainstreet said...


Blogger Miriam said...
Her speech would've had more gravitas if only she would've used the word "bigly".

No, I think "okey-doke" would have been better.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Btw,

Regardless of the actual number, i.e. 150 or 50 or whatever, doesn't it seem like the FBI, which doesn't have enough staff to track potential terrorists, may be wasting resources spending this much effort trying to figure out if HRC had a handful of emails w/ top secret info sent to the server in her bathroom, or wherever it was?

Just sayin.

Miriam said...

Yeah it really would put the fear of God into those Muslims if Trump would be able to authorize the wife and three year old child to be put to death. America would surely be viewed as powerful then, eh?

Freder Frederson said...

People with mental illness can be dangerous, but what basis is there for characterizing an Islamist terrorist as a "madman" (other than to set up an argument for gun control)?

What basis is there for calling him a Islamist Terrorist? He seemed confused about who he was supporting, claiming he was a supporter of Al Nusra Front, ISIS and Hezbollah. Those three groups don't like each other much and one of them is Shia.

If some crazed Irish person shot up a Gay nightclub while extolling the virtues of the IRA and UDA, I doubt we would seriously consider him a terrorist.

R. Chatt said...

Trump's speech is stronger and more to the point, although he stumbled several times reading his text. Seems like it's harder for him to read a speech than just talk. Clinton said essentially the same things as Trump about defeating ISIS, which was a major shift from Obama’s policy of denying any connection between terrorism and Islam. So that’s a positive.

However she was so incredibly long winded, and still she completely neglected to touch on immigration policy, how to adequately screen hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants for potential threats, their adherence to sharia and conflicting values, or how to deal with US mosques who sponsor radical imams. Clearly her audience suffers from left wing media disinformation and they just want to ban all guns. Hillary’s incoherent policy is bring in the Muslims and ban all guns! Huffington Post declares Trump as a Madman, rejects his common sense approach. I doubt there’s any way people will be brought up to speed about Islam by the election. If Orlando doesn’t do it what will?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Hillary also neglected to say that we were "wee-weed" up, like the master of the English (not Austrian) language who resides in the WH today.

Why, that's right up there with the Gettysburg Address.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Obama’s policy of denying any connection between terrorism and Islam"

BHO often ties this terrorism to a perversion of Islam. Are you suggesting that you wouldn't be satisfied until he ties this terrorism by to all Islam?

Idiot is as idiot does.

jimbino said...

...this extra step of pretending it's not religion but madness.

How much religious belief not grounded in reality (e.g. trinity, virgin birth, immaculate conception, assumptions, efficacy of prayer, unicorns, giants, angels, devils, talking snakes and donkeys) does it take for a person to cross over to the side of madness?

R. Chatt said...

A perversion of Islam -- you mean like they do it in Saudi Arabia and Iran? Because they don't practice true Islam?

Jason said...

What basis is there for calling him a Islamist Terrorist? He seemed confused about who he was supporting, claiming he was a supporter of Al Nusra Front, ISIS and Hezbollah.

Wow.

That there is some premium weapons-grade stupid.

An impressive effort, even for Freder.

Ann Althouse said...

"How much religious belief not grounded in reality (e.g. trinity, virgin birth, immaculate conception, assumptions, efficacy of prayer, unicorns, giants, angels, devils, talking snakes and donkeys) does it take for a person to cross over to the side of madness?"

Well, that's my point. You could say we're all crazy, but what's the point of that? It's unhelpful. Religion is an extremely important part of human culture, and we've got to accept it as part of what people do with their brains. It's interesting to think about why we care so much about what we cannot see and know. But wanting something in that zone, needing something, doesn't make you insane.

Ann Althouse said...

I don't think it makes sense to decide that one version of a religion is a perversion. It seems to me there are a lot of versions of religions, and the idea that one is a perversion is itself a religious idea. I don't like deciding who the heretics are. I would prefer to tolerate the religious that aren't hurting anyone and reject the ones that are, but not because they aren't the true religion. It's especially absurd to talk about heretics within religions that are not even one's own.

David Begley said...

Platitudes. Meaningless platitudes.

Failed policies that will only continue under her.

She can't clearly face the problem because she wants the Muslim vote.

I puke when when she cites how she will go after Saudi Arabia if elected. She wants money from SA and Kuwait for the Clinton Foundation. She's a criminal.

Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

R. C.

When BHO mentions the perversion he's talking about the terrorists who kill folks in the West.

I'm not sure what BHO thinks about Muslim on Muslim terrorist killings, i.e. the vast majority of Islam terror. I know some righties think BHO is a closet Muslim terrorist rooting for his ilk, even though all evidence proves otherwise. As long as it doesn't affect us, he doesn't show a lot of interest in limiting Islam v. Islam. Maybe that's calculated wisdom. Maybe that's indifference to the suffering of others. Or something else. I dunno.


Francisco D said...

ARM,

You confuse moderation with political deal making between two extremes.

Banning Muslims and taking away (forcefully, to be effective) our Second Amendment rights are both extreme positions. Agreeing with both makes you sort of a bipolar extremist, not a moderate.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"It's especially absurd to talk about heretics within religions that are not even one's own. "

Then don't do it right before you type this sentence.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"What basis is there for calling him a Islamist Terrorist? He seemed confused about who he was supporting, claiming he was a supporter of Al Nusra Front, ISIS and Hezbollah. Those three groups don't like each other much and one of them is Shia."

Er, because all those groups are Islam and all have supported acts of terror against Israel, America and infidels in general? You know, it's not that difficult. He might have been confused over factions, but certainly identified as Muslim. Somehow, I think that if a theologically confused Christian terrorist had shot up the place you wouldn't be arguing that he couldn't possibly be a Christian terrorist because he called himself both a fundie and a Roman Catholic and those groups don't get along too well.

Any tiny straw to grasp at to keep from admitting the obvious...

AReasonableMan said...

Francisco D said...
ARM,

You confuse moderation


Not really. Most western countries restrict ownership of assault rifles, just as they have historically limited immigration from different regions.

Sebastian said...

"didn't like that she called Mateen "a madman."" Dislike it enough to lose you? Right. Didn't think so.

R. Chatt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
R. Chatt said...

"When BHO mentions the perversion he's talking about the terrorists who kill folks in the West." Obama, the Islam expert.

As opposed to the true Islam which supports gender apartheid, hatred of Jews, charging non-Muslims the jizya tax (protection tax), amputations for theft, stoning for adultery, etc. Obama is OK with all that. Trump is suggesting we take some time and sort this out.

pm317 said...

Why hasn't the Obama administration done these things and isn't she connected to those failures?


After 8 years and before of knowing (or not knowing) Obama's record, you still have to ask this question?

Paul said...

Hitler's henchmen were NOT madmen. Neither were Stalin's nor Mao's.

They were cold calculating 'true believers' who thought nothing of killing millions.

Sort of like Hillary and thinking nothing of lying to the public, grifting, shaking down people, stonewalling, etc...

That is what socialpaths do.

Harold said...

I don't have a test for the One True Religion. I do have a multi-step test for false religions. Scientology fits the bill.

But Islam hit's almost all the markers. Among them being:

1. requires killing those who leave the religion
2. requires killing those who don't believe in the religion

They do miss out on the one that rates Aztec and Mayan religion false:

3. Requires human sacrifice

The markers that make Scientology false are further down the list.

Birkel said...

Jason:

If only there were a unifying thread between those three groups. It would have to be so obvious that even Freder Frederson would understand it.

/sarc

n.n said...

Clinton is projecting. She can hear the telltale hearts beating from her closet.

He is not a madman. He is not insane. It was an elective abortion committed in pursuance of the principles recorded in the secular theory of evolution. He just happens to select a different reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives than his liberal counterparts. At most, he can be considered pro-choice. Selective, perhaps, but with greater integrity to a secular cause.

readering said...

I don't believe there's any passage in the Koran advocating for suicide missions into unprotected nightclubs against apostates and infidels armed with an AR-15 and as many rounds as one can carry. So he seems to have gone at least somewhat mad.

pm317 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Francisco D said...

ARM,

Please define "assault rifle." The definition you imply is Democratic propaganda.

It doesn't matter if countries that do not have our constitutional protections regulate guns. It is still an extreme position in America.

With all due respect, you strike me as a progressive trying to appear moderate. I am a libertarian trying to appear more tolerant of liberal nonsense from my artsy-fartsy girlfriend and psychology colleagues. We are both faking it, to some extent.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

R.C.,

"Trump is suggesting we take some time and sort this out."

So after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, it's still not obvious that the doctrine of taking some time and sorting this out is insane (even by the Althouse criteria).

Now, in the pursuit of justice, at a minimum, your nation building would need to sweep in all the ten countries in the WaPo story that lays out where gay folks can be killed.


Gahrie said...

the virus that poisoned his mind

...is Islam.

Gahrie said...

Most western countries restrict ownership of assault rifles, just as they have historically limited immigration from different regions.

That is because historically those countries had subjects, not citizens, and were not permitted to own weapons.

We deliberately created a nation of citizens, not subjects, who have the right to own a weapon.

By the way, some countries mandate the possession of automatic weapons.....

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

BTW, looking at the meta picture, how odd is it that in 2016 in America. We have something like 70% of folks taking meds and some more than 40% of some demographics are on anti-depressants.

Now, some sort of political correctness causes Althouse to avoid using "madman" as a description for a guy who shot more than 100 people a handful of minutes because we wouldn't want to attach a stigma to the term mental illness.

Also, is "madman" actually a diagnosis? I doubt that many pill poppers filling their mental med scrips are classified as "madman." I doubt that their feelings were hurt by HRC. And, if I'm wrong they can get over it by uping their meds.

R. Chatt said...

One thing I really can't stand and won't bother with is getting into arguments with people who have never read the Koran, concerning what they believe is in the Koran. They haven't read it and they assume neither has anybody else, so their opinions are all that matter. This is a common occurrence, compounded by apologetic and defensive Muslims, and dishonest and ignorant politicians and leaders. As Ann has said, religions (like families) may be nuts but we desperately need them to survive and we will defend them if attacked.

The jihad imperative exists. The death penalty for apostasy and other crimes like homosexuality exist. Instructions on how to treat women, including beatings are covered. All the non-Western things in the Koran are considered the perfect word of Allah, but not everything can be practiced at all times, especially when Muslims are living as a minority. That knowledge is also part of Muhammad's teachings.

The murderer in Orlando was cool and calm because he made a decision and he believed he would be rewarded by Allah for his actions. No one in the media will ever say that. We'll be told we don't know the motivation, can't be known.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

R.C.

If you're lucky Trump will win and then he can conquer all the Muslim countries that follow the Koran as you lay it out.

Of course, taking over and rebuilding all these Muslim countries would be terrible for America. But, that's not on your radar.

R. Chatt said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier -- Try representing Trump's position accurately. He said it today, he's totally against nation building.

AllenS said...

Obama and Hillary have tried nation building, not Trump. How'd that work out PB?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

R.C.

So, then he's just like BHO. He's not going to do anything about all the backwards, hateful Muslims in the world, as long as they're only run/ruining they're own lives.

Is he still in favor of killing the families of terrorists? Does he want to kill the wife and kid of the Orlando killer?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

they're should be their.

JAORE said...

"I don't believe there's any passage in the Koran advocating for suicide missions into unprotected nightclubs against apostates and infidels armed with an AR-15 and as many rounds as one can carry. So he seems to have gone at least somewhat mad."

An effective leader communicates the desired results, not the specific methods to employ.

furious_a said...

pm317 said...

I especially liked that fact that she called out the Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis and all those other sympathizers. I hope she is hawkish on this and puts a stop to their shenanigans.


Let me know when she stops taking donations and speaking fees from them and refunds (out of current funds) any donations made to date..

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Allen,

The most nation building that you can really pin on them was Libya. Obviously, that was a disaster. Of course, they really only went in to stop what was going to be a slaughter of the population. Sure, there's the you break it you buy thing. But, they didn't go in looking to rebuild, only to stop a massacre.

Would it have been better to allow the massacre? I dunno.

furious_a said...

Most western countries restrict ownership of assault rifles

As do we, starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934. Semi-automatic rifles are not "assault".

wholelottasplainin' said...

Miriam said...
Her speech would've had more gravitas if only she would've used the word "bigly".

*********

In contrast, Trump's speech embiggened us all.

furious_a said...

Freder Frederson said...

If some crazed Irish person shot up a Gay nightclub while extolling the virtues of the IRA and UDA, I doubt we would seriously consider him a terrorist.


The former is defunct going on 12 years and the latter dormant. Try again.

CWJ said...

Althouse wrote -

"But these are human beings with thinking minds who are embracing particular ideas (ideas that spur them to terrible action)."

And there's the rub! Identity politics robs all of us of agency. But that's the objective after all. To apply judgement to each situation is to be "judgemental" at best and racist etc. at a minimum. And that is bad. M'kay.

robother said...

In the Hillary Venn diagram of (1) Stuff my pollsters tell me I need to say to get elected, (2) Stuff I need to avoid to not piss off major donors/contributors to Clinton Foundation and (3) Stuff I actually believe/would do, how much overlap is there with this speech? My guess is (1) and (2) can account for everything in and out of the speech.

Rick said...

furious_a said...
Most western countries restrict ownership of assault rifles

As do we, starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934. Semi-automatic rifles are not "assault".


Bernie Sanders was quoted as saying no one in America should be able to sell automatic weapons. I read the quote in six different places starting with WAPO and not one noted this is already the case. Not only is Bernie ignorant, so is the media.

Yancey Ward said...

I feel sorry for Clinton in this regard- there is literally nothing she can do or say that will separate her from Obama and his policies. For the life of me, I can't begin to understand why she would have served in his administration in the first place. This speech, in its entirety, was nothing more than an attempt at that separation, and it failed. Why? Because there is nothing at all that change the fact that she served in the present government. She is between a rock and a rock.

cubanbob said...

What basis is there for calling him a Islamist Terrorist? He seemed confused about who he was supporting, claiming he was a supporter of Al Nusra Front, ISIS and Hezbollah. Those three groups don't like each other much and one of them is Shia.

If some crazed Irish person shot up a Gay nightclub while extolling the virtues of the IRA and UDA, I doubt we would seriously consider him a terrorist. "

Freder Think of Al Nusra, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah as Mob Families, just because they from time to time war among each other they still are what they are and have no problem working together when it suits them. And back in the seventies and eighties there was plenty of fund raising for the IRA in the US and to Britain's anger they were allowed to do so by the US Government thanks in part to Irish American support with Ted Kennedy running cover.

AReasonableMan said...

Rick said...
As do we, starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934.


You guys just want to quibble over the technical details rather than see the big picture. An historic accord is possible here, rivaling Reykjavik in national security importance. A grand alliance can be formed whereby muslim terrorism, the greatest existential threat of our times, can be eliminated. And in return you only have to give up some lousy rifles. Win-win. They are probably just cluttering up the place anyway.

rcocean said...

"Is he still in favor of killing the families of terrorists?"

Trump never said that. He said we have to get tougher.

The liberals have been lying about Trump for over a year. I've never seen such a MSM campaign of constant lies and distortions against one man.

buwaya said...

"That is because historically those countries had subjects, not citizens, and were not permitted to own weapons. "

True. Spain (or important parts of it) restricted weapons from the middle ages, and the policy was extended to its colonies. There was a very great deal of this. Philip II banned arquebuses in 1556 (an assault weapon!), an act repeated in many forms by many kings and governments in later centuries. At various times they even prohibited carrying knives, interestingly, at some points, only permitted if one also carried a sword!

Britain had no such laws until quite late, but very little need for them apparently as, other than for hunting of small game, there was little interest, and this very likely because unlike weapons, hunting was highly restricted by landowners and customary laws.
But in general restrictions in Britain and its colonies was an innovation.

The US was always very different, even in previous centuries.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives."

"And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families."

cubanbob said...

jimbino said...
...this extra step of pretending it's not religion but madness.

How much religious belief not grounded in reality (e.g. trinity, virgin birth, immaculate conception, assumptions, efficacy of prayer, unicorns, giants, angels, devils, talking snakes and donkeys and Marxism) does it take for a person to cross over to the side of madness?

6/13/16, 5:35 PM

FTFY

CWJ said...

Quaestor @ 5:07,

I can't believe that you of all people got this backwards much less cared enough to comment.

tim in vermont said...

Corpse man is way more suave than bigly.

Rick said...

AReasonableMan said...
An historic accord is possible here,


No accord is possible with the left. They will undermine their deliverable immediately upon agreement, nor can one winger with delusions of grandeur speak for them.

Big Mike said...

First of all, WELL DONE DONALD TRUMP!!! He succeeded in shaming Hillary Clinton into saying the words "Radical Islam." Well, okay, what she really said was "radical jihadists," but it's close enough to give full points to Donald.

Quaestor said...

Althouse wrote: It seems to me there are a lot of versions of religions, and the idea that one is a perversion is itself a religious idea.

Another problem is the Western post-Christian mindset which is ill-prepared to comprehend exactly what Islam is, which is much more than a religion in the terms we are culturally equipped apply to religion.

In its beginnings Christianity was a religion confined within the boundaries of a state which embraced many beliefs while at the same time offering itself as a member of that vast pantheon. Jesus left his followers without a state of their own, nor did he sanction the creation of such a state. He left no model of governance or rules of jurisprudence. Christians were to be within the alien state, but not belong to it. They were to bide their time and wait for the Second Coming. When said Coming didn't happen the Christians inherited a state which they were either obliged to operate or let fall into ruin. To cope with this new situation which their scriptures and prophecies did not anticipate, they invented a dichotomy — the temporal state and the ecclesiastical domain. They occasionally tried theocracy, e.g. the conflict between Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII, but each attempt failed with the temporal powers reclaiming their rights.

Islam is very different, and has been from its beginnings. Muhammad was absolute ruler of the community of believers in all things — religious, civil, judicial, military, what have you, Muhammad was the sole exemplar, the sole adjudicator, the sole authority next to god. The distinctions we routinely make between the various compartments of Western society simply don't exist in Islam. The separation of church and state is in fact incomprehensible in Islamic terms, which is why there are few Muslim majority states that functions bicamerally, with the temporal power functioning in parallel with the ecclesiastical. Many states have tried the Western model, particularly in the wake of WWII, when newly independent Muslim states tried phalangist -style authoritarianism, Qaddafy's Libya being the last man standing, as it were. All of these have fallen or are in danger of falling to theocracy. Today in the West, and indeed everywhere outside of the Muslim world, the ecclesiastical side has slipped to near insignificance in comparison to the secular state. Only in the Muslim world is theocracy welcome or even functional, the sole exception being North Korea.

In the West we can easily speak of X as a religious idea, or Y as a legal idea, or Z as an idea entirely private to the individual and his household, what we often apply the term "lifestyle choice" to. Muslims find this facility very difficult to master. Most don't even try, which is why places like Saudi Arabia are hellholes of tyrannical policing and barbaric punishments. That's not a consequence of being Arabs, that's a consequence of Islam. In Islam a religious idea as distinct from any other idea is nonsense.

Big Mike said...

@ARM, as long as there are folks like you and Miriam and Omar Mateen in this world, it seems prudent for people to hang onto their rifles. Just in case the two of you mean what you write.

Quaestor said...

CWJ wrote: I can't believe that you of all people got this backwards much less cared enough to comment.

I reversed it deliberately. The dialogue in the movie runs something like this:

War Correspondent: The folks back are curious about your pearl-handled pistols, General.

Patton: They're ivory. Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans cathouse would carry a pearl-handled pistol.

I was obliquely equating Hillary with the cheap pimp. My mind moves sideways with the aplomb of a Nijinski.

John said...

Who's that guy in back of whatsername leaping and mugging like KoKo the Monkey Boy?

John Henry

Rusty said...


Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Rick said...
As do we, starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You guys just want to quibble over the technical details rather than see the big picture. An historic accord is possible here, rivaling Reykjavik in national security importance. A grand alliance can be formed whereby muslim terrorism, the greatest existential threat of our times, can be eliminated. And in return you only have to give up some lousy rifles. Win-win. They are probably just cluttering up the place anyway.


You ask me to give up even more of a right and you give up nothing. Let's quibble about that.
Which inherent rights do you think are worth keeping?

AprilApple said...

Hillary is poison.

Michael K said...

"I don't understand what people think will be accomplished by banning certain classes of weapons."

A friend of mine today demonstrated that he (a Democrat who doesn't like Hillary) knows nothing about AR 15s and is afraid of all guns.

He asked, rhetorically, who would want an "assault rifle?" I asked him if he knew the difference. He doesn't. I offered to loan him mine so he could see what it was like and he was shocked that anyone he knew would have one of those weapons of mass destruction.

They simply don't know and know nothing about guns at all.

chickelit said...

I feel sorry for Clinton in this regard- there is literally nothing she can do or say that will separate her from Obama and his policies.

Never feel sorry for Clinton II. She is not an accident nor happenstance. She is where she is precisely because of cold-blooded calculation. There is nothing spontaneous about Hillary Clinton. Empathy yes, but sympathy? Never!

AprilApple said...

The face of evil

Terry said...

I know a fellow, I would call him a moderate liberal. He doesn't think people should be allowed to carry concealed firearms. He told me that if a lot of people carry concealed weapons, and one of them hears a gunshot, he will pull out his gun and start blazing away, and then everyone else will pull out their guns and start shooting at each other. Yes, he really believes this. Can't be convinced otherwise.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"It seems to me that the terrorist has deep belief in an ideology and has decided to use violence. I think true mental illness is a disability, and those with disabilities deserve respect and care (even as we need to protect ourselves from danger)."

In a general sense yes it is good to respect everyone, but to treat those with disabilities with respect any more than any other assholes out there is a true fuck you to the disabled, in many cases. Justice Thomas threw his Yale degree away if I recall aptly "My Grandfather's Son." The reasoning was because folks thought he hadn't earned every last single (singular of compensation) he got. His actual achievements were degraded and sullied by the worry/assumption/wonder that he didn't earn through manifestly hard dedication the same credentials of anyone not him.

The best moment of that reporter's life was/is Trump's mocking.

Finally treated as man, not a condition.

I base my trolling on drunkened blather soon forgotten, which is based on real life people afraid to treat (disabled as Grant) men as men.

Michael said...

buwaya

I believe that you could provide every man woman and child in Japan with a handgun and ammunition and the murder rate would not budge. Culture, not the gun, is the problem. and the solution

AprilApple said...

Terry- He's not alone. Many on the left think that way. They made a cartoon about it once.

AprilApple said...

cartoon = animated movie. can't remember the name.

ellamentary said...

Fabi, as a matter of fact, I am a life-long REpublican. What's your point? Every republican must think alike? Every republican must support Donald Trump if/when he becomes the party's candidate? Every republican must reject every word out of hillary clinton's mouth? Or are you simply expressing skepticism that I am truly a republican?

I have voted in every presidential election since 1980. I voted for Reagan twice (because I adored Bush senior, and Reagan grew on me). Then I voted for Bush senior twice. I voted for Bob Dole, again largely making a choice based on the v-p pick. (yes, some of us actually take the vp candidate into consideration when deciding for whom to vote) Then it was George W twice, McCain, and then Romney. I have contributed money to the campaigns of George W, McCain, and Romney. This election cycle, I donated to three Republican candidates for president, NONE of them named Donald Trump.

Moderate Republicans may be rather rare these days, but trust me, we exist.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

M.K.

Why do you have the AR? Isn't it a showy thing for a lot of folks?

I have two friends that have them. One's is totally customized and was purchased as individual parts. The other guy's is off the shelf.

The off the shelf guy has told me that I should try it. According to him, firing it is good fun.




AReasonableMan said...

I am disappointed. I have outlined an historic accord, backed with the full and complete authority of all the moderates who post here regularly, and yet I am refused. Pedants quibble about latches and terminology, wasting precious time when we could, together, rid ourselves of this scourge of domestic muslim terrorism. Even in acknowledging my deepest disappointment I can only express the weakest shadowing of the emotions that now course through my soul. I question the very foundations of what I have read here at Althouse. Forgive me, for so deep is my anguish that I have begun to question whether the posts I have read for so long declaiming the existential threat of terror have any meaning whatsoever or whether they are just the empty posturings of men and women too long removed from reality. And yet, even now, I faintly hear a repetitive chant 'guns make us safer, guns make us safer' echoing, forever echoing within the chamber.

Big Mike said...

@ARM, not quite correct. It isn't that guns make one safer, it's that not having a gun when one needs to have a gun makes one deceased.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"I believe that you could provide every man woman and child in Japan with a handgun and ammunition and the murder rate would not budge. Culture, not the gun, is the problem. and the solution"

Does this work in reverse? If you take every gun from Americans, would the almost 90 people in America who die each day by gun (murder, suicide, accident) still die? Would the almost 200 who are shot each day but survive, still be injured with something other than a bullet, e.g. a knife your noose?

buwaya puti said...

Michael,
I believe you are right. The mode of suicide may change somewhat though.
But Americans arent Japanese.
I recall an anecdote frim the 70s - the Shah of Iran was talking of a bit of policy with King Faisal, saying it was a great success in Sweden. King Faisal answered - "but you arent the King of the Swedes".

Rick said...

AReasonableMan said...
I am disappointed. I have outlined an historic accord, backed with the full and complete authority of all the moderates who post here regularly, and yet I am refused.


This reminds me of various Tsarina pretenders wandering the globe enticing fools into marriage with the promise of their becoming the Tsar.

Freder Frederson said...

He said it today, he's totally against nation building

If he is totally against nation building, and bent on alienating all Muslim nations with his exclusionary policies, how exactly is he going to wipe out ISIS? His proposed solutions, by any rational analysis, will exacerbate the problem, not fix it.

buwaya puti said...

PBandJ
Suicide, yes I think so, it will be the same, there are too many more convenient ways. The US suicide rate is about the same as the EU average and below the G7. I dont see this changing.
Accidents, that will be reduced.
Murders will likely fall somewhat though the slack may be taken up with knives. Those can be much more dangerous. Part of the problem is that losing the intimidation factor of guns makes the rate of personal violence higher, this can be seen in Europe, normalizing by race and age distribution.
The true comparison is the US WHITE murder rate vs, say, that of Canada, to normalize cultural factors, though note that Canada has some rather lax gun laws by California standards. Using this comparison one can expect a marginal reduction.

Anyway, banning "assault rifles" will have a negligible effect. It is largely a symbolic act meant to enrage their owners, a deliberate insult and an ongoing weight of oppression. The social and political cost in hate and bitterness will be terrible. You all hate each other too much as it is.

The one policy that would save the most lives, by far, will be taking handguns away from black men. Thats defining the problem precisely. But good luck making a policy that achieves that.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

What a repugnant woman she is. Hillary lied about terrorists attacks in the past. Who would listen to anything that oozed out of her mouth now?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Anyway, banning "assault rifles" will have a negligible effect. It is largely a symbolic act meant to enrage their owners, a deliberate insult and an ongoing weight of oppression."

If my two friends w/ ARs are any measure, a lot of the appeal of owning these is that it's a way to stick it to the gun control folks and there's some sort of cache among other guy folks.

As you and others note, people can do plenty of damage w/ guns that don't look like an AR (e.g. I've been told that a FiveSeven w/ a big clip(s) and hollow points can be nasty, but I don't know anything about guns.) Of course, as much as this points out the uselessness of banning ARs, it also proves that gun folks don't really have a functional need that can't be satisfied w/o an AR.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"The one policy that would save the most lives, by far, will be taking handguns away from black men. Thats defining the problem precisely. But good luck making a policy that achieves that."

Trump may be for that. But there would need to be an exception for his African American.

buwaya puti said...

As far as deadliness, ARs are good only for one special case in the criminal killing department, that of shooting a large number of people as fast as possible, under circumstances that are the opposite of private, and not survivable. They are the American equivalent of the suicide bomb. If your goal in what remains of your miserable life is to kill fifty people instead of a mere dozen, before getting a bullet in the head yourself, then the AR is your ticket.
They are not popular for general criminal mischief or even intimidation, much more convenient guns are readily available. The cheap handgun is what makes the US death rate from firearms what it is.

Terry said...

" . . . I faintly hear a repetitive chant 'guns make us safer, guns make us safer' echoing, forever echoing within the chamber."
My having a gun certainly makes me feel safer. ARM, are you one those strange people who would want not to have access to a firearm if a criminal has broken into your home and threatened your family?

buwaya puti said...

On the other hand, the AR is an excellent machine for the constitutional purpose of threatening the government.
These are just the things the US founders intended, just the kinds of things Philip II had in mind when he banned arquebuses.
Behind the humanitarian sentiments, one hears the royal imperative to make it as difficult as possible to revolt.

Robert Cook said...

"I didn't like that she called Mateen 'a madman.' People with mental illness can be dangerous, but what basis is there for characterizing an Islamist terrorist as a 'madman' (other than to set up an argument for gun control)?"

What basis is there for characterizing a madman as an Islamist terrorist?

Actually, new reports suggest what I had half-suspected: the killer may have been a conflicted, closeted gay man. The entire atrocity may have been motivated by his own hidden/repressed desires.

EMD said...

"@ARM, not quite correct. It isn't that guns make one safer, it's that not having a gun when one needs to have a gun makes one deceased."

You can't count on the other guy NOT having a weapon. You can, however, count on yourself to provide your best defense for you and your loved ones. Taking that particular right away from everyone due to the horrendous actions of so few is not acceptable. To sacrifice my right as a human being to provide simple defense for myself is frankly despicable. It's nearly the same as silencing my voice to speak my mind. Defense to me is an intrinsic right that should not be infringed upon.

Police, while they often do their best, are inadequate protectors. The confused dichotomy of the modern left to leave gun ownership strictly to those who have shown time and again their deficiencies in the proper use of such (too busy gunning down unarmed black men) is remarkable to behold.


EMD said...


What basis is there for characterizing a madman as an Islamist terrorist?


Well, he did take time to pledge allegiance to ISIS like the SB killers. And don't act like jihadis have hearts of gold when it comes to homosexuality.

Terry said...

It would be really helpful if the anti-gun people would take an NRA course in gun safety or a certified course in conceal carry. You have to cut through a lot of bullshit with most anti-gun types before you can seriously discuss what can be done to reduce gun crimes. They believe all kinds of crazy shit that is passed on to them by Lefty 'thought leaders.'
I would like to debunk the extremely common idea among the anti-gun types that anyone can walk into a gun store anywhere in America and legally buy as many guns of whatever type they want. This is simply a lie, even if journalists, politicians, and university professors repeat it over and over. The best definition of a bigot is that a bigot is a person who has strongly held opinions about a topic about which they know very little. Most anti-gun people are also anti-gun bigots.

Terry said...

Robert Cook wrote:
"The entire atrocity may have been motivated by his own hidden/repressed desires."
So it's society's fault?
There is this weird thing that Lefty's do. They think that a person is not responsible for their own actions, but every one who is not that person ("society") is responsible for that person's actions.
There are lots of closeted gay people. Being a closeted gay person (or sex addict, or racist), does not make a person the worst mass shooter in American history.

cyrus83 said...

I will go with the Occam's Razor explanation that the conflation of religious zeal with mental insanity makes perfect sense to Hillary. People who do not themselves have religious zeal really cannot understand those who do, nor can those with that zeal explain it to those who do not have it. It really does seem like madness to the agnostic, the atheist, and the apathetic.

So how can true insanity be distinguished from religious fervor? Generally, a religious outlook is external, seeking meaning beyond the individual, often tending toward the metaphysical, attempting to explain the "why" of existence. Insanity tends to look inward, often tending to explain nothing outside of that individual's perception. These views tend to have problems with the other 4 W's but frequently don't explain anything about the why except that something or someone told them to do it.

This attack was not done by a madman. He was quite sane, although quite wrong about what he thought was right. And there's the problem. I think it is quite plain that this attack was motivated by the man's Islamic religion. The question is, how many others share his views? Is this a mainstream view or is it a comparative minority? Is the view gaining ground or is it dying out?

The followers of this particular strain of radical Islam that is down with mass murder of infidels are probably going to have to be destroyed in order to end the threat. I don't know how that gets done, but it'd be nice to hear a plan that tries to deal with this threat instead of proclaiming that the men in white coats can save us (or could if we hadn't already closed down so many public mental institutions). Waiting until people are dead before we take action isn't going to cut it.

Achilles said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"If my two friends w/ ARs are any measure, a lot of the appeal of owning these is that it's a way to stick it to the gun control folks and there's some sort of cache among other guy folks."

Mid range ARs go for 900$. You can really spiffy them up with free floating barrels, hydraulic buffers, 7075 aluminum etc. and rails for around 1500$. Most other equivalent semi auto rifles are 1500-3000. They give poor schmos a solid weapon that is affordable.

"As you and others note, people can do plenty of damage w/ guns that don't look like an AR (e.g. I've been told that a FiveSeven w/ a big clip(s) and hollow points can be nasty, but I don't know anything about guns.) Of course, as much as this points out the uselessness of banning ARs, it also proves that gun folks don't really have a functional need that can't be satisfied w/o an AR."

The 5.7 is my favorite side arm. It is difficult to conceal as it is a full size pistol but in pants and coat it is no big deal. Standard magus are 20+1 and I have several 30 round mags but they make it too big to holster so I have them for reload. Ammo is expensive. I think it is the most accurate 4 inch barrel pistol. Opinion. It is more expensive than an AR. The standard muzzle velocity is 1800 fps and the ammo is designed to minimize over penetration.

Banning ARs would just make it harder for poor people. Par for the course with progressives.

OldManRick said...

A rock climber I knew told me that the reason many people didn't climb is that they were inwardly afraid that they would let go (and fall to their deaths). If you can overcome that fear, climbing becomes easier.

I have come to believe that the reason many are afraid of guns is similar. They feel that if they had a gun, they might go off and kill people around them. If they feel that way, then they assume that everyone else is the same. Having handled rifles, shotguns, and pistols from my youth, I have no such fears. I understand how they work and the responsibilities that go with them. But I do understand that because of this fear, owning a gun is not for everyone. If you don't trust yourself, then I shouldn't trust you.

Achilles said...

I Read Hillary's speech. She didn't say anything.

It will not hurt her. In a normal race. She glossed over gun control as much as she possibly could. She tried to deflect the blame from Islam as much as she could. It is obvious where the polls really are from her speech.

The problem for Hillary is Trump is smashing the overton window again. He went straight at the PC rules Hillary uses to protect her vacuous shmap. The ground is being yanked from under her feet and she does not have the skill to adjust.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"It is difficult to conceal as it is a full size pistol but in pants and coat it is no big deal."

What's the best option when wearing less bulky clothes?

buwaya puti said...

A Colt Detective Special or similar. Some nice light ones from S&W, I have been tempted, but I have no use for a gun at all. Its just an urge. Weapons have a magic attraction.
If you are going to walk around with a gun in a civilized place its most unlikely you will be called on to mow down armies.
Six shots for one man at no range at all, that will be how it goes.

buwaya puti said...

I used to shoot a great deal, much of my income back when I was young went for ammo and expenses (not rich). Its a fine absorbing sport. I used to carry (said Colt) when commuting in Manila late at night. Can be a scary town.
But San Francisco, its very hard to shoot for fun here, and the town is so tame there is no practical need.

Mrs Whatsit said...

If it's so darned easy to get a gun in the US today, then why don't more people carry? Why do we so rarely hear about somebody shooting back in these situations?

JAORE said...

"If it's so darned easy to get a gun in the US today, then why don't more people carry? Why do we so rarely hear about somebody shooting back in these situations?"

Lots more carry than you know. But, as has often been described, these "mad" killers are grounded well enough to seek out those oh-so-safe gun free zones. Several of my friends carry routinely. But, being law abiding types they either do not carry at, or do not frequent, places labeled "gun free".

Robert Cook said...

"'The entire atrocity may have been motivated by his own hidden/repressed desires.'
"So it's society's fault?"


WTF?! I'm completely at a loss how you read that into my remark. How do do you interpret a suggestion that the killer was motivated by psychological conflicts as meaning "it's society's fault"?

Rusty said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
I am disappointed. I have outlined an historic accord, backed with the full and complete authority of all the moderates who post here regularly, and yet I am refused. Pedants quibble about latches and terminology, wasting precious time when we could, together, rid ourselves of this scourge of domestic muslim terrorism.

So. No logical response. Can't say I'm disappointed.
Well. Maybe a little. I expected a little more than the current left talking points. Banning, restricting, outlawing, shaming firearm owners isn't going to stop the "scourge of domestic muslim terrorism". By denying the rest of the country a right means that the domestic muslim terrorists have won. It would mean that we have altered our society to their advantage.
It's a shame that you have no more concern for the dead and injured than to make political propaganda off their suffering. That's on you.

Curious George said...

"Terry said...
I know a fellow, I would call him a moderate liberal. He doesn't think people should be allowed to carry concealed firearms. He told me that if a lot of people carry concealed weapons, and one of them hears a gunshot, he will pull out his gun and start blazing away, and then everyone else will pull out their guns and start shooting at each other. Yes, he really believes this. Can't be convinced otherwise."

Wisconsin was the 49th state to pass concealed carry. This sentiment was shared by our liberal population. Despite the fact that nothing like that had happened in the previous 48 states.

Rush is right. Liberalism is a mental disease.

damikesc said...

Regardless of the actual number, i.e. 150 or 50 or whatever, doesn't it seem like the FBI, which doesn't have enough staff to track potential terrorists, may be wasting resources spending this much effort trying to figure out if HRC had a handful of emails w/ top secret info sent to the server in her bathroom, or wherever it was?

PB says that Hillary's stonewalling led to the deaths of 49 people at a gay club.

AReasonableMan said...

Mrs Whatsit said...
Why do we so rarely hear about somebody shooting back in these situations?


This is the kind of pure, rarefied and long distilled BS that one can only get at the Althouse blog. In reality, as the news reports made clear, there was an armed off-duty cop who engaged the shooter before he had killed anyone and two other cops arrived soon after.

Apparently, 'guns everywhere' doesn't actually make us safer. Who knew?

Think, for a minute, about the kind of shit-hole the US would be if the 'guns everywhere' crowd had their way. Everyone in the club would be armed, but also they would have to be barricaded, with their arms drawn and aimed at any entrances into the room and they would also need a flak jacket and a Kevlar helmet. This is the only way they would have been safe in that club when this lunatic, legitimate gun owner arrived. The alternative to this nightmare is to limit the availability of assault weapons. Yet the 'guns everywhere' crowd dismiss this as unreasonable.

AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said...
That's on you.


And their blood is on your hands.

damikesc said...

Apparently, 'guns everywhere' doesn't actually make us safer. Who knew?

The killings seemed to ramp up a lot when those two were dealt with.

So, yeah, everybody having guns does make you safer.

One man shooting at over a hundred armed people isn't going to kill many of them before he dies.

damikesc said...

Think, for a minute, about the kind of shit-hole the US would be if the 'guns everywhere' crowd had their way. Everyone in the club would be armed, but also they would have to be barricaded, with their arms drawn and aimed at any entrances into the room and they would also need a flak jacket and a Kevlar helmet. This is the only way they would have been safe in that club when this lunatic, legitimate gun owner arrived. The alternative to this nightmare is to limit the availability of assault weapons. Yet the 'guns everywhere' crowd dismiss this as unreasonable.

Provide a clear, precise definition of "assault weapon".

You'd be the first who did so, but you're gung-ho about banning them, so I'm interested in how much you've considered it.

Bruce Hayden said...

Imagine being restricted to owning a 1960 vintage automobile because fewer people were being killed by cars then. Of course, if that were true, the reason would be a much smaller population and not the actual death rate. Any time you hear people trying to ban AR type firearms, that is exactly what they are trying to do - restrict rifles and carbines to 1960 or earlier technology. And, obviously, phrased like that, it is never a reasonable limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. The current result of 60 years of technology is a highly modular and customizable firearm that is ergonomic, accurate, and has low recoil. It is comparatively much easier for novices to shoot accurately. Much of that is because technology continues to evolve, and ARs are the primary platform in rifles and carbines where the advances are implemented. The part that has the serial number is the lower receiver. Everything else can be, and often is, switched out. An AR may start one day at the std .223 caliber, be switched out to .17 the next, and .50 BMG (suboptimal because rounds that big require side feed) the next. Maybe a shorter carbine barrel one day, and a longer rifle barrel the next. Different shrouds. Iron sights one day, red dot the next, and telescopic the next. Foldable stock one day, solid the next. The only part that is constant is the lower receiver with the serial number that everything else is essentially attached to - unless you build your own lower receiver, which doesn't (yet) need a serial number. These firearms are very much like personal computers in the 1990s, where it was relatively easy to build them from scratch, customizing as you go. And that is the absurdity of trying to ban them, because attempts to do so either list specific makes and models, which is easily sidestepped, or through banned features, which can be easily swapped out for parts easily acquired over the Internet. That is part of the absurdity - you can't buy an AR over the Internet (unless you have it delivered to a local FFL, after a background check), but you can easily buy all the rest of the parts to put one together. Why didn't the San Bernadino Islamic terrorists have the CA required low function magazine releases on their AR-15s? Duh! AR-15s are highly modular. 30 round magazines? Standard size in neighboring AZ and NV, freely available and dirt cheap, cheaper than the reduced capacity magazines required in a half dozen states.

Bruce Hayden said...

ARM - I live in a part of the country where most everyone is either armed, or has a firearm back in the parking lot. It is far safer from human predation than the streets of the cities with the harshest gun laws. And much friendlier. There is a saying that an armed society is a polite society. You really don't appreciate the truth behind that until you do live in an armed society.

JAORE said...

Bet gun manufacturing stocks are way up today. Bet there are thousands of magazines holding higher numbers of rounds being bought today.

Each time this blame the gun fever hits, sales skyrocket. When bans are implemented on sales of new AR type guns or high capacity magazines costs of existing guns and magazines rise rapidly.

There is money to be made thanks to the POTUS and (former) SOS.

Hell the gun manufacturer's association needs to give President Obama a lifetime achievement award when he leaves office.

JAORE said...

"And that is the absurdity of trying to ban them, because attempts to do so either list specific makes and models, which is easily sidestepped, or through banned features, which can be easily swapped out for parts easily acquired over the Internet."

Even way back before the AR boom the absurdity took place. The Walther PPK (think James Bond in the early movies) was so small that it was banned from import. Saturday Night Special (remember that crap) type concerns. The Walther PP was fine because, apparently the fraction of an inch difference in barrel length made the PP hunky Dorey. Walther, recognizing a market remained, introduced the PPKs. IIRC it had the PP frame and the PPK barrel. Voila, a legal import. The PPK is now available again, S&W manufactures them in the good ol' USA. Feel safer now?

Bruce Hayden said...

I know a fellow, I would call him a moderate liberal. He doesn't think people should be allowed to carry concealed firearms. He told me that if a lot of people carry concealed weapons, and one of them hears a gunshot, he will pull out his gun and start blazing away, and then everyone else will pull out their guns and start shooting at each other. Yes, he really believes this. Can't be convinced otherwise."

The problem there is that most states require a class before allowing you to carry concealed, and one of the things that they beat into you is the legal requirement/justification for civilians to use deadly force (in self defense or defense of others), and that is that they must have a reasonable (objectly and subjectly) fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to themselves or an innocent third party. You hear a gunshot, pull out a firearm, and start blazing away, you will fail a couple of the prongs of that test. Unless you are a cop, and then it is apparently legal most places for them to start blazing away. Note that in most states, you also can't legally point a gun at someone unless you have qualified under the self defense standard above (and some states still make it easier legally to shoot someone than merely point a gun at them). Bottom line is that if you start blazing away because someone else did, you have probably committed a major firearms related violent felony, which could easily get you locked up, sent to prison, and deprived for the rest of your life of ever being able to own, possss, or even handle a firearm. Most with concealed carry permits know this. Apparently, many/most gun grabbers do not.

AReasonableMan said...

Bruce Hayden said...
ARM - I live in a part of the country where most everyone is either armed, or has a firearm back in the parking lot. It is far safer from human predation than the streets of the cities with the harshest gun laws. And much friendlier. There is a saying that an armed society is a polite society. You really don't appreciate the truth behind that until you do live in an armed society.


This is some of the saddest shit I have ever read. Think about it. You are basically saying that you are surrounded by sociopaths and you need a gun at all times because no one would be 'polite' if they didn't think you were armed.

I live in an area with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the country. I feel safe at all times, unarmed. On the other hand, I am not surrounded by sociopaths.

The people you live with are completely fucked up if everyone needs to armed to ensure that they are polite. Most people learnt how to be polite in grade school.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
That's on you.

And their blood is on your hands.

As I said, no logical response. Do you need a tissue? Would you like us to call someone?

AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said...

As I said, no logical response.


It is perfectly logical. You are a sociopath unconcerned about the safety of others.

Todd said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"It is difficult to conceal as it is a full size pistol but in pants and coat it is no big deal."

What's the best option when wearing less bulky clothes?

6/13/16, 11:52 PM


That is always a personal preference sort of thing as each person has a different frame and size and can support a different configuration in less cloths / more casual cloths. A common choice is one of the smaller .380 pistols. They are typically single-stack, supporting 8 rounds (plus one in the "pipe"). They can be carried inside the belt/pants, outside the belt, in a rear pocket, in a purse, etc. For men, it is not uncommon to get a "wallet holster" that "prints" on the pants like a wallet would so as to add additional comfort and concealment while allowing quick access should the need arise.

Getting one with a polymer frame greatly reduces the weight and allows for more comfortable carry.

There are many to choose from ranging in price from the mid $200 to over $800.

These don't carry many rounds nor are they very accurate over distance. They are intended for "close quarters" use (i.e. defending against muggers, rapists, etc.).

Jack Tors said...

In the wake of an Islamic terrorist atrocity, Hillary, Obama and other progressives reflexively condemn the act as "senseless" violence. Actually, to jihadis and their supporters it's far from senseless; quite to the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

Robert Cook said...

"In the wake of an Islamic terrorist atrocity, Hillary, Obama and other progressives reflexively condemn the act as 'senseless' violence. Actually, to jihadis and their supporters it's far from senseless; quite to the contrary, it makes perfect sense."

In this particular case, it was not an "Islamic terrorist atrocity," (though it was an atrocity), and the perpetrator was not a jihadi. It was the act of an emotionally disturbed loner, very possibly dealing with feelings of repressed or thwarted (i.e., unrequited) homosexual desires. This was a senseless outburst of rage and loathing (of self and others), as is true in most cases of mass killings by disbturbed loners.

Bruce Hayden said...

ARM - I can pretty well guarantee that you will find a lot higher rate of sociopaths in the inner cities with the harshest gun laws. Far, far, higher. No drive by shootings here. No murder, or at least it has been quite a few years since the last one in this county. Few burglaries, since that very well might be a fatal experience. Why is everyone armed? Because we have most every North American preditor in the county, as well as the biggest herbivores. Black and Brown bear, mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, moose, bison, etc. Plus many/most augment their larders through hunting - primarily deer and elk, but also moose, black bear, etc. also, county is maybe 100 miles long, and maybe up to 40 wide, with maybe one deputy working many late nights. When minutes count, law enforcement may literally be more than an hour away.

Why would anyone want to live here? Nice friendly people and beautiful nature. We live amid thick pine trees towering better than a hundred feet in the air. The deer are friendly enough that they take food from my partner's hands. Should be starting to see the fauns pretty quickly - often a mother and her young child or children will snooze in the front yard in the later summer. Flock of turkeys (maybe 20 or so, depending on time of year) can be often seen cutting behind the house across the street. We get some of the best beef and pork around, with good bison, elk, and venison readily available. I could go on. Having to worry more about big horned sheep, deer, or geese (and their new flocks this time of year) in the roads, instead of other vehicles or pedestrians. My partner doesn't handle cold well, so we head south in Nov every year, and I really don't look forward to relearning how to live in a big city again every year. Plus, I don't really like shoveling snow any more. I would ask just the opposite question - why would anyone want to live in a big city? Smelly, noisy, crowded with rude people. Dangerous. Filled with many more sociopaths than you find here. Many more.

Bruce Hayden said...

RC - you are just being silly here. His Islamic faith was at least partially driving his shooting rampage. It is not a peaceful religion, despite your best efforts to portray it as such. The stricter the Islamic interpretation in a community, the stronger and more violent their response to male homosexuality. In this country, Muslims have to keep their homophobia under control. Not in countries with large Muslim majorities, where homosexuality is often a capital crime. It surprised few when ISIS took credit for his autrocities. Maybe you, but few others.

Robert Cook said...

"RC - you are just being silly here. His Islamic faith was at least partially driving his shooting rampage. It is not a peaceful religion, despite your best efforts to portray it as such. The stricter the Islamic interpretation in a community, the stronger and more violent their response to male homosexuality. In this country, Muslims have to keep their homophobia under control. Not in countries with large Muslim majorities, where homosexuality is often a capital crime. It surprised few when ISIS took credit for his autrocities. Maybe you, but few others."

I don't know enough about Islam to be able to claim it is peaceful or violent. I do say that most self-proclaimed Christians know very little about their faith or its holy book or that book's pronouncments; they're Christian by default: it's their family and/or culture that determines their religion. I do suggest that it is little or no different for most Muslims. (In fact, I read something a few months ago that stated most Islamic extremists were woefully ignorant of Islam.)

As for ISIS taking credit for his atrocities, or his alleged dedication of himself to ISIS, so what? They're opportunists and will claim credit to lend themselves greater power to terrorize us without their even having been involved, and he--a violent, emotionally-imbalanced loner and probable closeted gay man--by dedicating himself to ISIS, lends himself the aura of being a "holy warrior" rather than being merely a pathetic loser and killer.

This was an act of personal rage and loathing, an act of emotional disturbance; it was not an act of Islamic terrorism, much as so many claim or wish it to be to suit their respective agendas.

Terry said...

WTF?! I'm completely at a loss how you read that into my remark. How do do you interpret a suggestion that the killer was motivated by psychological conflicts as meaning "it's society's fault"?

Why were his [homosexual] desires repressed and/or hidden, Robert Cook?

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...

As I said, no logical response.

"It is perfectly logical."

Really? No it's not. Seething emotionalism totally lacking in logic.


"You are a sociopath."

Arguing facts not in evidence again.

"unconcerned about the safety of others."

Again arguing facts not in evidence. Probably has something to do with your lack of reason.

Would you like some facts to deal with? There seems to be a dearth of them in your ,... whatever that "proposal" was.

Todd said...

Robert Cook said...

...

I don't know enough about Islam to be able to claim it is peaceful or violent. I do say that most self-proclaimed Christians know very little about their faith or its holy book or that book's pronouncments; they're Christian by default: it's their family and/or culture that determines their religion. I do suggest that it is little or no different for most Muslims. (In fact, I read something a few months ago that stated most Islamic extremists were woefully ignorant of Islam.)

...

This was an act of personal rage and loathing, an act of emotional disturbance; it was not an act of Islamic terrorism, much as so many claim or wish it to be to suit their respective agendas.

6/14/16, 11:32 AM


Sorry but that first bit there would be so outright funny if I did not know that you meant it.

The other bit runs a close second.

Why is it that so many continue to refute what Muslims actually claim? I did this cause the Quran tells me to. No you didn't. I can show you where it says so. No you can't. I did this because my Imam told me that my god wants me to. No you didn't.

Try educating yourself at least a little bit maybe? You may think they don't know their own religion and holy book but they do and they do their best to follow it to the letter.

That is the CURRENT difference between Islam and Christianity. The Holy Bible contains things that don't sit well with "modern" sensibilities and are generally not practiced / followed any more. Islam has yet to go though that sort of "reformation" to tone down the "hard liners".

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.


Feel free to discount this site and what it says about the Quran. There are plenty of others that will show the same as these come from their book, not anyone's "interpretation" of their book.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx

Islam goes beyond merely disapproving of homosexuality. Sharia teaches that homosexuality is a vile form of fornication, punishable by death.

Mrs Whatsit said...

"Think, for a minute, about the kind of shit-hole the US would be if the 'guns everywhere' crowd had their way." You've come up with quite a parade of horribles to frighten everybody with, not to mention a nifty little straw man argument with your "guns everywhere" characterization. So let me come up with my own extreme counter-example for you, only I'll leave the mischaracterizations of your position out of it. Let's say it's you in that nightclub bathroom with a killer stalking the place. Or no, not you. Let's make it your daughter, holed up in a toilet stall with her feet pulled up on the toilet in the hope that the shooter won't see her and her muscles starting to cramp and ache. Granted that the fact that she had the gun on her didn't keep the shooter out of the club altogether and didn't save other people that he killed before he got to the room where she is. Still, wouldn't you rather that she had a gun on her and knew how to use it, just in case the shooter does yank that door open and find her there?

That's my question - not your exaggerated nonsense about guns everywhere in a barricaded, Keflexed, dystopian world. Why aren't more reasonably cautious individuals here in the world that we actually live in protecting themselves by getting some training and taking advantage of their right to carry? It's not just the odd mass terrorist, but the muggers, the carjackers, the rapists that most people are more likely to encounter. You'll get no disagreement from me with your blanket claim (another straw man argument BTW) that even if more people did carry, it wouldn't make anyplace perfectly safe. There's no such place on this sad Earth. But don't you think your daughter might be just a little bit safer in that bloody bathroom if she has some way to fight back than if she doesn't?

Mrs Whatsit said...

"This is some of the saddest shit I have ever read."

Just because it's sad doesn't mean it isn't true.

Robert Cook said...

"Why were his [homosexual] desires repressed and/or hidden, Robert Cook?"

That would be for him to answer, if he were alive. Probably for the same reason so many Americans hide or repress homosexual desires: shame, fear of rejection or sanctions by friends and loved ones, etc. (Male prostitutes report that among their biggest customers are married, middle-aged businessmen with children at home.)

Of course, he may not even have been repressing his desires--after all, he had been to the gay club numerous times, and he had gay dating apps on his phone--but may simply have been angry he wasn't getting any takers, a la Elliot Rodger.

Robert Cook said...

Uh,Todd...I don't pretend to refute anything you might say about what Islam "commands" it's adherents to do. My point is: most self-proclaimed Christians are so by default--they were raised that way by their families in societies that were predominantly "Christian." They don't don't much about the theological particulars of their faith and few read the Bible. My bet is that, humans being humans, most self-proclaimed Muslims are no different and have no more devout or attentive relation to their faith than is true of Christians. (This is not to deny there are avid, devout Christians who know their Bible and try to follow what they believe their faith requires, but they are in the minority, and the same, I'm guessing is true of Muslims.)

Rusty said...

Apparently, 'guns everywhere' doesn't actually make us safer. Who knew?

Think, for a minute, about the kind of shit-hole the US would be if the 'guns everywhere' crowd had their way. Everyone in the club would be armed, but also they would have to be barricaded, with their arms drawn and aimed at any entrances into the room and they would also need a flak jacket and a Kevlar helmet. This is the only way they would have been safe in that club when this lunatic, legitimate gun owner arrived. The alternative to this nightmare is to limit the availability of assault weapons. Yet the 'guns everywhere' crowd dismiss this as unreasonable.

Quite the cartoon, Thanks for sharing.
Approx 1/3 of the population of the United States has a firearm. Since there are 300 million firearms in private hands in this country that means some of those people own more than one. Think about it. One out of every three people in this country owns a firearm. That means you probably hang out with a few of them. You should shun them. They are sub-human. Probably filthy conservatives. Or worse. Republicans.

Todd said...

Robert, you said:

(In fact, I read something a few months ago that stated most Islamic extremists were woefully ignorant of Islam.)


I was simply showing you that wish as you might, that an't so. The "extremists" are most definitely NOT ignorant of what their holy book says. It is unfortunate that those extremists take what it says all too literally.

We might all be better off if they were more ignorant of its contents or were not so devout.

Robert Cook said...

"We might all be better off if they were more ignorant of its contents or were not so devout."

(We are not really much at risk from Islamic extremism. Those most harmed by it are other Muslims in Muslim countries.)

Also, you make the mistake of believing Islamic extremism is primarily religiously driven. I don't believe this to be so. I believe most Islamic extremism to be politically driven. That said, and even if I'm mistaken, the "soldiers" among the Islamic extremists do not have to be and--as I read--apparently aren't knowledgeable about the particulars of their faith, but are simply following the orders of the higher ups who plan the actions that are to be taken. (You know, just as many or most American soldiers are ignorant of the political realities behind "why we fight"...they just follow orders and fight. As the poem has it: "Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do or die.")

Gahrie said...

My bet is that, humans being humans, most self-proclaimed Muslims are no different and have no more devout or attentive relation to their faith than is true of Christians.

You are forgetting the fact hat Islam requires public devotion five times a day, and the fact that every facet if a Muslim's life in an Islamic country is ruled by Islam. Islam is not something you practice on the Sabbath and on holidays.

Todd said...

Robert Cook said...
"We might all be better off if they were more ignorant of its contents or were not so devout."

(We are not really much at risk from Islamic extremism. Those most harmed by it are other Muslims in Muslim countries.)

Also, you make the mistake of believing Islamic extremism is primarily religiously driven. I don't believe this to be so. I believe most Islamic extremism to be politically driven. That said, and even if I'm mistaken, the "soldiers" among the Islamic extremists do not have to be and--as I read--apparently aren't knowledgeable about the particulars of their faith, but are simply following the orders of the higher ups who plan the actions that are to be taken. (You know, just as many or most American soldiers are ignorant of the political realities behind "why we fight"...they just follow orders and fight. As the poem has it: "Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do or die.")

6/14/16, 2:15 PM


Read this: http://thedeclination.com/the-problem-isnt-the-deity-the-problem-is-the-priests/

Where you are making your logic error is you are treating Islam as "simply a religion". It is not. Unlike in western countries where we strive to separate the religious from the political, in Islam religion is politics and politics is religion. They are one and the same. If you "allow" Islam to flourish in a place, the adherents will eventually impose sharia law. The term means "way" or " path"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islam. Islam is both politics and religion. It is not the first religion to do this but it is the largest and bloodiest in existence today.

Robert Cook said...

Why ISIS is not Islamic.

Todd said...

Robert, cute article there. Yet again, you [and Obama, and the author(s) of that article] are claiming to know Islam better than its members. As I said above, not all followers are "strict" followers of the Quran nor do they all take it literally but it says what it says and those that practice violence in its name are not misreading that text. Did you not bother reading anything I posted or linked to? Or did you just choose to ignore it all because you "feel" that can't be right?

Talk about the "No true Scotsman"...

Todd said...

Also, I find it somewhat amusing that Obama is quite willing to take a man at his word when he says that he is really a woman but when a Muslim terrorist says he is doing it for Islam, that just can't be true...

Unknown said...

“No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim,” Obama said. I'm not well versed in the Q. but I'm pretty sure it condones killing those who commit a number of sins that no one who is not Islamic would consider a crime.

Unknown said...

holdfast said...
Also, anyone under criminal investigation by the FBI should not be allowed to run for President, where, if elected, they would have constructive control over nuclear missiles, strategic bombers and other weapons of war. It's just common sense.

Or own a gun.