Over 59606

Hasan Politics

If a military base with hundreds of soldiers armed with hundreds of guns couldn't stop 'this guy', an American Terrorist armed with ONE gun... -

TAGS: gun control hasan more guns
Rating: 3.21/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - January 22, 2014, 12:52 pm
TRANSLATION(OTC/Arnnatz's sock): I hate when he does the translation thing... really pushes my b***ons.
OTC - January 22, 2014, 12:17 pm
This is similar to cranky's poster which had a long discussion about it. Obviously, someone wasn't paying attention, probably too busy bathering about translations
fauxnews - January 21, 2014, 11:44 pm
Four posts?!?!?!? This one he responds to himself. Does that mean his anger cracked him in half, like an online version of Gollum, and he argues with himself?!?!?!? HULK SMASH!!! GRRRRRR...PUNY LIBERAL!!! RAAAAWWWRRR!!! >X-D
fauxnews - January 21, 2014, 11:42 pm
Wow, now THREE separate posts. All in under a minute! Watch out....he's REALLY MAD NOW... haha.. Can't wait to see what you do for an encore? Let me guess, it has something to do with.....angry?
fauxnews - January 21, 2014, 11:41 pm
Wow, not one but two posts. Did I push a b***on, mate? :-) Why not just save yourself the trouble and just write "Angry, Angry, blah, blah, Angry!" Never have I seen someone waste so many words to express so small an idea, or so simple a base emotion.
JGalt - January 21, 2014, 11:41 pm
FauxPoster, thanks for trying to mislead, as usual...
JGalt - January 21, 2014, 11:40 pm
for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones
JGalt - January 21, 2014, 11:39 pm
Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible
JGalt - January 21, 2014, 11:38 pm
you really are kinda special thinking that they let soldiers have gun outside of combat. You might want to check on that... MP's might actually be the only ones with weapons. Thanks for playing

Can you spot the difference? -

TAGS: nidal hasan foxrecon12d stonetools cheney
Rating: 3.57/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - January 21, 2014, 9:45 am
Dead giveaway you lost a fight: you can’t let go of something long after everyone else has and made up. Also a dead giveaway you’re Arnnatz. You’re bitter, I get that. Now share with someone who cares. :-) No one here really seems to.
fauxnews - January 21, 2014, 9:43 am
Nah, you responded to something I said, in a thread I started. You're a terrible liar. Then again, you're the same sock who lied you're at least in your mid 50s to early 60s then didn't have the stones to own up to that ridiculous unbelievable claim..LOL
OTC - January 21, 2014, 8:16 am
Doesn't matter where you stopped reading, the comment was for everyone else.
fauxnews - January 20, 2014, 11:26 pm
I stopped reading at the word "win." X-D Thank you, Arnnatz! Okay, folks, thanks for coming tonight! Thank you. Thank you. Im hear Thursdays, Fridays and every other Wednesdays! Thank you everyone! Good luck and good night! X-D
OTC - January 20, 2014, 11:14 pm
Win by deception, who would have guessed
fauxnews - January 18, 2014, 8:37 pm
Add the score. (4.06/5) Guess that makes me the winner....Arnnatz. X-D
OTC - January 18, 2014, 6:13 pm
Game over
OTC - January 18, 2014, 6:11 pm
Not really vic, because voting is done by the number of 'Lions', there are no stars to vote with
fauxnews - January 7, 2014, 3:53 pm
Thank you. Thank you. Im hear Thursdays, Fridays and every other Wednesdays! Thank you everyone! And good night! X-D
JGalt - January 7, 2014, 6:32 am
how about zero stars for two descpicable ph**os? Two wrongs don't make a right.
vbattaile - January 7, 2014, 4:17 am
YOU "WIN" . . . EITHER WAY, Through Deception and Bluff
vbattaile - January 7, 2014, 4:06 am
you definitely put a lot of thought into this....
vbattaile - January 7, 2014, 4:03 am
this poster would have been very poorly rated had it not been for this childish "GAME"... what a way to get a high rating...


TAGS: major hasan fort hood
Rating: 2.67/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - December 1, 2013, 2:49 pm
Just for the record, if I've offended anyone, that wasn't my intention, and I apologize. Sincerely.
fauxnews - November 20, 2013, 11:46 pm
...Anyone who disagrees with this dishonors & disrespects those who were slain by such senseless violence. It's our job to make sure this never happens again.Saying that 'anyone' gets a gun is the same thing as saying it was okay for Hasan to have/use one
fauxnews - November 20, 2013, 11:44 pm
POINT OF THIS POSTER: If a Columbine style shooting can happen on a military base where well-trained armed men couldn't stop it,then the problem isnt 'not enough guns.' The problem is guns in the WRONG HANDS.We need better screening so wackos can't get'em
fauxnews - November 20, 2013, 11:40 pm
lol..So this is the poster that has Arnnatz and his socks' panties in a bunch? haha..
fauxnews - November 20, 2013, 11:40 pm
AMAZING POSTER...if for no other reason than look at all the attention it has gotten. If the haters really didn't like this poster, they wouldn't give it this much attention. Real men would ignore it if it was absurd or irrelevant. WIN
OTC - October 1, 2013, 7:54 pm
Sure, liberals never let a tragedy or crisis go to waste
StoneTools - October 1, 2013, 5:29 pm
and will that one be filled with bull**** like the hasan poster? Of course it will, that's your MO
StoneTools - October 1, 2013, 5:28 pm
oh, so you are saying that you are, once again, going to exploit a tragedy for a political statement?
OTC - October 1, 2013, 4:43 pm
You see, I CAN answer the question but WON'T, cranky WON'T answer the question because he CAN'T.
crankyhead - September 18, 2013, 5:22 pm
Except I've been defending it for weeks, and will continue to do so. I'm actually thinking of making another poster, just like this one, but instead of Hasan, it'll be a ph**o of Alexis, and instead of thirteen, it'll say twelve. Then what?
crankyhead - September 18, 2013, 5:18 pm
Still can't think of a single episode in history where a bunch of guys carrying guns got killed, huh?
StoneTools - September 18, 2013, 4:32 pm
I think he's stunned that we showed him how indefensible, and filled with bull****, his poster is.
OTC - September 18, 2013, 1:22 pm
ST, I'm surprised cranky hasn't called you an idiot for echoing facts, like I've been doing. I used to "think" cranky was an idiot, but thankfully, in this poster thread he has removed all doubt.
StoneTools - September 18, 2013, 12:45 am
I can just imagine cranky choking on that dinner of crow
OTC - September 17, 2013, 9:05 pm
Now ST, that article is filled with facts, like the soldiers being unarmed, mass shootings occur in gun free zones, that totally debunks this poster that a$sumed the opposite was true.
OTC - September 17, 2013, 8:53 pm
Certainly not by any soldier that you a$sumed was carrying a rifle. And I am not aware of any mass shootings where the majority of victims were armed. You also negated the last sentence of your poster since more guns was the solution to ending Hasan
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 6:54 pm
Remind us again how Hasan ended up with a bullet in his spine?
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 6:43 pm
Also: "Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood"
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 6:42 pm
Oh, noes! It was Clinton's doing!
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 6:41 pm
Check out the second paragraph of this article from 2009: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 6:22 pm
I may be crying about people using a tragedy to promote an agenda. I won't deny it. At least I'm not crying to the mods about it though. Please point out where I referenced a politician, or a political party, or political agenda in this poster, please.
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 6:19 pm
...blame liberalism for everything. As usual.
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 6:18 pm
The operative part of this sentence being "...possibly...", OTC. You're acting as though it should read "...certainly...", and the reason you're doing that, is lost on me. I can only guess that it's because you see an opportunity to use a tragedy to...
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 6:16 pm
The operative part of that sentence being "...could have...", OTC.
OTC - September 17, 2013, 5:21 pm
Sure cranky, I'll admit you're an idiot
Curlyrocks - September 17, 2013, 3:39 pm
They're still too busy investigating how Ed Snowden got clearance to care about how these psychos get the clearance they need to pull stuff like this off.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 3:01 pm

I know many US x military members through my job, most were in Vietnam. They all talk like it was yesterday and they're still in the military. That's just an observation, I'm not saying they're all like that. But yeah, how did this guy have clearance?
OTC - September 17, 2013, 2:58 pm
Its funny that the official Senate report on the shooting states -" "political correctness” inhibited Hasan’s superiors...from taking action... that could have prevented the attack". And this idiot thinks my comments are my opinion? Talk to the US Senate.
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 2:47 pm
calling themselves military might be a Canadian thing. I think active military would be pretty upset about a former reservist referring to himself as being in the military.
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 2:45 pm
I don't think he understands it even after all the lecturing he's received about the ignorance of the poster.
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 2:43 pm
But the more important question, after all of this chaffe, is how the hell did he hold a Secret clearance with the background that he had?
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 2:39 pm
The statement about Blackwater stands as is. They are former military and don't call themselves anything but former military. And they were the hardcore type, not a former wimpy navy reservist.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 2:33 pm

Every ex military member I have ever known identifies themselves as "military" for the rest of their lives. I thought the "ex" was unnecessary. ... When did I ask you to bow to me?
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 2:24 pm
that being said, you are correct that having him around was asking for trouble and his past, like that of hasan, should have raised all sorts of red flags.
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 2:23 pm
Just like the Blackwater guys, nobody refers to them as military, but they are referred to as former military, contractors, or mercenaries.
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 2:20 pm
You act like a pompous a** and expect others to bow to you? It's the principal behind the statement. You called him a "U.S military guy" but he wasn't in the military at the time of the shooting. Had you said EX-military, you would be correct
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 1:49 pm

But I don't expect you to understand that, you just disagree on principle at this point.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 1:45 pm

The point is that he enlisted and trusted with weapons even after he had his "blackout" and then discharged in 2011 for another gun related incident and no one saw that as an issue? It's like asking for a mass shooting.
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 12:42 pm
But then, I guess you could say he was also a child since at one time he was 2 years old, right?
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 12:41 pm
What's that have to do with it? He was a contractor, a civilian, a FORMER reservist, but you'd know that if you bothered to check before posting a childish response.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 12:40 pm

He was a dishonourably discharged reservist before he was a contractor. You'd know that if you bothered to check.
OTC - September 17, 2013, 12:28 pm
You finally admt your poster is BS and it took how long?
OTC - September 17, 2013, 12:27 pm
Fact: officers were afraid to report Hasan because of political correctness. Fiction: your a**umption that soldiers were carrying a$sault rifles.
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 12:25 pm
Pisspoor attempt at diversion. You cry about people using tragedy to promote an agenda on a comment thread about a poster that you made which exploits a tragedy for a political agenda. Not too smart are you?
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 12:24 pm
Assumptions are not facts, idiot.
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 12:22 pm
If I can prove that there are conservatives who also want gun control, does that mean you're going to admit you're an idiot?
OTC - September 17, 2013, 12:21 pm
Liberal political correctness kept officers from reporting him, thus possibly preventing the tragedy, idiot
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 12:17 pm
Since when are you conservative? YOu made the poster to seize on an opportunity to press for a liberal agenda: gun control. Hypocrite much or do you just not understand what you post?
crankyhead - September 17, 2013, 12:13 pm
No tragedy too large or too small that conservatives wont seize it to push their political agenda, eh OTC? Hasan killed those people. Not Liberalism. You ghoul.
OTC - September 17, 2013, 12:08 pm
who isn't white is racism, so we can't say anything, even if that person acts strange or seems a danger. Liberals call that being 'insensitive'
OTC - September 17, 2013, 12:06 pm
That's the disease of liberalism, lliberal political correctness kept officers from reporting Hasan for fear it may be racial. Political correctness is just as responsible for the deaths of these people because as we all know, disagreeing with someone
StoneTools - September 17, 2013, 11:59 am
He wasn't military, he was a contractor and worked for Hewlett Packard.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 8:15 am

I should be clear, I was talking about the most recent U.S military guy who went nuts and sh** a bunch of people...not the lunatic on the poster.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 12:12 am

..the signs?....Go home America....you're drunk!.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 17, 2013, 12:11 am

This guy was arrested before enlisting for shooting out the tires of a car during a road rage incident he called a "blackout" Again during his military career for discharging a firearm within city limits which he called an "accident"...and no one saw...
OTC - September 16, 2013, 6:01 pm
Isn't this where we jump to conclusions and say they "acted stupidly"?
Curlyrocks - September 16, 2013, 4:06 pm
So now what about todays Navy Yard shooting. This time it was a heavily secure facility with armed guards on stand by for just such an incident but they still managed to kill 11 people. Although there where 2 shooters and details are still sketchy.
OTC - September 16, 2013, 1:16 pm
When you say "I believe" as you did in 59689 that is an opinion, now you are saying it is a fact? Sounds like Kerry trying to justify striking Syria- 'I believe that to be true'. Not very creditable.
OTC - September 16, 2013, 1:01 pm
Where are your facts that the soldiers surrounding Hasan were armed with a$sault rifles? Or that more guns is not the solution?
OTC - September 16, 2013, 12:58 pm
So you really are that stupid. I went on record saying you propagandized a 'tragedy' which is that of Hasan murdering 13 soldiers, and, after giving you the answer to the questions, you still want to argue.
crankyhead - September 16, 2013, 12:02 pm
That's what the court determined is it?
StoneTools - September 16, 2013, 11:58 am
Did you notice none the charges against Hasan were for killing soldiers, they were for MURDERING soldiers. But, then, you are too ignorant to know that there's a difference.
crankyhead - September 16, 2013, 11:54 am
Is that what the court said?
StoneTools - September 16, 2013, 1:28 am
You just can't bring yourself to say murdered instead of killed can you cranky? That would destroy your narrative, wouldn't it?
crankyhead - September 15, 2013, 1:21 pm
Can't think of a single one huh?
crankyhead - September 15, 2013, 1:18 pm
No facts you say, OTC? Are you really going on record here saying that Hasan isn't guilty of killing 13 people? Because that, my dear little princess, WOULD be stupid.
StoneTools - September 15, 2013, 1:27 am
I disagree, Cranky really is THAT stupid.
OTC - September 14, 2013, 11:43 pm
2 possible out comes, the shooting would have ended as fast as it started saving lives, or it would not have happened. I don't recall any mass shootings where the majority or all the victims were armed. So your poster is BS
OTC - September 14, 2013, 11:39 pm
You can't be that stupid, but then again. In true liberal form, you propagandized a tragedy with no facts, which we have been asking for. The reason you can't answer is because unarmed soldiers surrounding the shooter were murdered. If they were armed...
crankyhead - September 14, 2013, 10:04 pm
P.S. Princess, I wasn't referring to you, when I said 'Colonel Clueless'.
crankyhead - September 14, 2013, 10:02 pm
You two carry on with the semantics all you want. You want answers? Me too.
OTC - September 13, 2013, 9:00 pm
"reciprocating the hypocrisy"? I forget, is this the diversion or the distraction? So, if you don't (or can't) answer my question, how about answering the others who asked the same question? Or are you trying to find an excuse to avoid them as well?
StoneTools - September 13, 2013, 5:34 pm
Nor does the poster use the word murder
OTC - September 13, 2013, 5:10 pm
of trying to crawfish out of it by defending this crap with more BS that clearly isn't true
OTC - September 13, 2013, 5:09 pm
'Clearly states'? No where do the words "I believe" appear which clearly states he did kill 13 soldiers and "carrying" a$sault rifles implies people had them in hand. What you should be saying is 'my poster is total Bravo Sierra' instead
crankyhead - September 13, 2013, 3:44 pm
Mmmmmm.... maybe later. We'll see.
crankyhead - September 13, 2013, 3:43 pm
... I believe he's responsible for thirteen murders. This was before the court made it's own decision, by the way. So, y'know, try getting your narrative to fit the facts, instead of the other way around for once.
crankyhead - September 13, 2013, 3:42 pm
...said Colonel Clueless. 10 minutes is an eternity in a firefight. You would know that, if you'd ever been in one. Also, I put a ph**o of Hasan on the poster, wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. The first sentence in the text, clearly states that...
crankyhead - September 13, 2013, 3:38 pm
I've only implied that there are guns on military bases, and the people who work there, have the training to use them.
crankyhead - September 13, 2013, 3:36 pm
Nope. Not bartering. Just being plainly open about reciprocating the hypocrisy, and giving you an opportunity to chastise me for doing the same thing that you do, ma'am.
OTC - September 11, 2013, 1:40 pm
And afterwards, hide all shiny objects before you log in, maybe you won't be as distracted to whats going on
StoneTools - September 11, 2013, 9:14 am
Well said. Cranky you should do yourself a favor and do exactly like WTFO said and go F yourself. Do it NOW!
WTFO - September 11, 2013, 2:23 am
13 families lost a son/daughter/mother/father/etc. 29 other families had one of their own wounded in this terrorist attack. This poster proves why its creator is 1 of the biggest POS's on this site. Ignorant little trolls should be ignored. Go F yourself!
WTFO - September 11, 2013, 2:20 am
The attack lasted 10 minutes total so there was no time to rush to the armory, draw arms and counterattack. Lastly, the moron who created this ignorantly blames guns for the violence instead of the radical Islamic terrorist (screaming Alluha Akbar).
WTFO - September 11, 2013, 2:17 am
The thread arguments set aside. This is a vile poster that completely misrepresents what happened at Ft Hood. The idiot creator implies that soldiers walk around post armed 24/7. Hasan attacked an area on post where guns are forbidden to be carried.
OTC - September 10, 2013, 9:34 pm
Bartering for an answer? Roflmao!
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 6:15 pm
So your answer is still, "Duh, I'm a bull**** artist and can't bring myself to grow a pair and admit my poster was bull**** and offensive to the victims"
crankyhead - September 10, 2013, 5:31 pm
Is the reason you don't drink because your I.D. says "McLovin"?
crankyhead - September 10, 2013, 5:28 pm
Really? Being unable to control your emotions betrayed that supposedly even keeled intellect you believe you possess? Who would have ever thought that could happen? #sarcasmforonetrickponies
crankyhead - September 10, 2013, 5:11 pm
Failed again ST. That's not what I'm implying at all. Nice to get a little insight into what your strawman thinks though.
crankyhead - September 10, 2013, 5:10 pm
No offense princess, but I already told you what I'm willing to trade for that information.
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 1:01 pm
man up and admit he was wrong.
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 1:01 pm
I think he's implying that either the military members cowered and couldn't fire the rifles that cranky fantasized or that they didn't know how to fire them. No matter how you look at it, cranky is full of crap about the poster and is too chicken**** to
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 12:39 pm
The bottom line is that I attack people who attack others and claim the moral high ground. Liberals do that repeatedly.
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 12:38 pm
that didn't come out at all like I intended.
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 12:37 pm
Also, I don't do drugs, but I have the audacity to complain about drug addicts. I'm not a politician, yet I complain about politicians. I'm not an illegal immigrant, yet I complain about illegal immigration. Wow, I'm really in denial now, huh?
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 12:34 pm
You have a lot of room to talk. You say I didn't attack you, then, in the same sentence, proceed to attack me. Hypocrite much?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 10, 2013, 12:11 pm

You don't drink but you thin you can criticize our beer. You're not religious but you only criticize atheists, never Christians. You're not conservative, but you only criticize liberals…you make this too easy. As I said, enjoy your denial.
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 11:27 am
and, calling me a liar, is attacking me. But then, deep inside, beyond all the layers of built up bull**** and chest pounding, you knew that, didn't you?
StoneTools - September 10, 2013, 11:25 am
That's funny, in the same sentence you say I never attacked you, then you attack me again. You need to get your meds adjusted.

These guys -

TAGS: nidal hasan dylann roof nra
Rating: 4.04/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - June 26, 2015, 6:00 pm
Your "troops" deserved better.
fauxnews - June 26, 2015, 6:00 pm
I dunno about the "trops" but if an armed military base isn't armed well-enough against this threat, then maybe the problem isn't 'not enough guns.' As for Clinton, lame scapegoat. Why don't you blame Al Gore while you at it too, for good measure? X-D
freasy - June 26, 2015, 5:43 pm
Other than the guards at the perimeter gates, 99% of trops are unarmed and required to be, thanks to Bill Clinton. So there were few firearms except for the MPs, to oppose your first perp.

This guy is no different from ........that guy. -

Common Sense -

TAGS: major nidal hasan ft hood nra
Rating: 2.5/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - March 28, 2015, 1:30 pm
Funny how you managed to quote something that isn't there.
fauxnews - March 24, 2015, 11:12 am
So……….I take it that hunt for a goldfish isn’t going well? :-/
fauxnews - March 24, 2015, 11:05 am
"Beating strawmen?" whuttt?!?! That sounds dirty - like something out of a Wizard of Oz p’orn. :-D Introducing,the scarecrHOw! *cue bad 70s music* nyuk nyuk nyuk What were YOU doing this weekend???? *gasp* =-0And why was I not invited??? ;-(
calron - March 23, 2015, 12:18 am
Well that is what is know as a Hypothesis Contrary To Fact, which is logical fallacy.
DebtToAmerica - March 22, 2015, 10:13 pm
based on the quality of the profanity filter, i'd say it has to either be the work of congress, or the people who made the obamacare website.
DebtToAmerica - March 22, 2015, 9:56 pm
how do you prove that something is a distraction?... the way i see it, if the soldiers on base were armed then hasan simply would have figured out another way to execute his terrorist attack.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - March 21, 2015, 4:24 pm

That's enough. Argue like adults if you expect to be treated as such.
RonaldReagan - March 21, 2015, 4:13 pm
You're full of ****. You're also dishonest about it to boot. Sorry, but those are the facts Cal.
calron - March 21, 2015, 4:00 pm
Sorry, your attacks do not make the fact that they soldiers where not allowed to be armed by both DoD policy and Fort Hood policy. No matter how much you feel otherwise, those are the facts that keep being ignored, not distractions.
RonaldReagan - March 21, 2015, 3:48 pm
I say,the issue as I see it is we shouldnt expect our armed forces to have to defend themselves from our own country when we're too caught up arming homegrown terrorists.You're so busy spamming and whining about others, you cant see your own distractions
RonaldReagan - March 21, 2015, 3:43 pm
I don't see that at all. He or she is saying it doesn't matter. Only an imbecile would suggest a military base isn't well-enough armed to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Since 9/11 they are on high alert.
calron - March 21, 2015, 3:36 pm
He actually told me that the fact that the soldiers on the base where not armed was a distraction and dodging his point. Despite bothering to prove this continues to clink to what he feels over facts.
OTC - March 18, 2015, 2:54 pm
I see, you stumble across your misconception but you still don't get it. Well, I tried to help you understand
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 2:22 pm
OK. If it makes you feel better to think that, go for it. :-) I'm not stopping you. Hold onto that if that's your security blanket, Linus.
OTC - March 18, 2015, 2:14 pm
Right, the military BASE, not the soldiers, is well armed
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 9:31 am
...everyone still gets this guns, again, they just have to wait a few days. The only punishment is, at worst, wounded pride. The law doesn't have to be perfect and won't prevent all tragedy. But as it exists now, it's far from perfect. My 2 cents. Cheers
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 9:30 am
...though it's not practical to arm teachers and everyone under the sun.All we are doing is INCREASING the likelihood that unstable people will have guns. It's not punishing people that can't handle the responsibility of guns to prohibit unstable peeps...
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 9:26 am
...but Hasan, an American and a soldier, was one of those people who thought in his sick evil head he was acting out in self-defense and thus need a gun to protect himself. The problem the creep was defending himself from his own inner demons...
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 9:24 am
As far as the victims being "unarmed", a military base is certainly WELL-ARMED...at least when compared to an Elementary school. Oh, I get it. The NRA has this fantasy of everyone carrying a weapon, thinking that will solve problems...
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 9:21 am
I'm clarifying, not changing my argument. I think a combination of MORE regulations and regulations aimed at forcing law-enforcement and local govt into actually enforcing their laws is needed. It's the classic case of feds vs. states BS.
OTC - March 18, 2015, 8:35 am
Lets punish everyone but the suspect. lets not have harsher punishment for the criminals, that might offend some politically correct bleeding heart liberal
OTC - March 18, 2015, 8:33 am
You still don't get it, the victims were "unarmed" NOT "well armed" And the Brady Bill had a 15 day waiting period but it didn't stop the Long Island shooter. So now your argument goes from more regulations to more enforcement, agree, but, as typical
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 2:09 am
So...can you follow along? I said:the Brady Bill.And you said,"we have regulations when buying guns already in place".And I said,but it is not enforced better which is why it's not working well at all.So your response is? Until then,g'nite mate. Cheers :)
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 2:06 am
The reason the Brady Bill doesn't work is that it is not enforced. It's treated with all the weight of jaywalking. However, more regulation aimed at enforcing background checks and waiting periods would reduce guns in the hands of n'utjobs.
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 2:04 am
As for the Brady Bill (thank you for at least responding to that part of the argument) if it has saved even a few lives, it's is worth it.Clearly it's not enough since[FACT>prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act,however,is extremely rare
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 2:01 am
No one in their right-mind would argue a military base is not BETTER ARMED than a grade school.It’s a lunatic point you're making;one I dont care to entertain anymore.So,AGAIN,my TRUE argument is in #73845,#73846,#73831,#73874
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 2:00 am
...but as you inadvertantly point out, it doesn't matter HOW WELL ARMED we are. The nature of this tragedy is it is not practically for everyone to be armed all the time, everywhere...even on a military base this is NOT the reality, as you point out
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 1:58 am
No,that wasn't my point. My point WAS/IS that the NRA (for instance) argues that the best way to deal with school shootings is to arm the teachers. MORE GUNS. Yet, a military base is certainly better armed than an Elementary school...
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 1:58 am
You're projecting.
OTC - March 18, 2015, 1:45 am
I thought we were discussing your two basic points, that being soldiers are not well armed just because they're on a military base, and we have regulations when buying guns already in place
OTC - March 18, 2015, 1:39 am
Wow, you just can't follow along, can you? Well, liberalism is a mental disease
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 11:33 pm
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 11:31 pm
ahem-You’re blaming the military?You're basically saying that they should've BETTER ARMED ITSELF and they only have themselves to blame because it’s not right to interfere w/the freedom of domestic terrorists to buy guns?Great argument you got going there
OTC - March 17, 2015, 9:34 pm
And my poibt still stands, had the soldiers BEEN well armed there would have been a different outcome. And the Brady Bill was pas.sed with regulations to keep guns out of the hands of nuts and criminals.
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 6:52 pm
Sorry, but as before,that's all I have to offer you on this. It's pretty straightforward and there's nothing dishonest about that.Either you'll meaningfully(and honestly)address that point,or you wont.Honest indeed ;-) Have a good afternoon,mate =) Cheers
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 6:48 pm
SO with that "ad hominem" ;-) distraction out of the way. Again,my main argument stands: MORE guns is not the solution. MEANINGFUL background checks and regulation aimed at enforcing laws that keep guns out of the hands of unstable fools IS the solution.
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 6:48 pm
SO with that "ad hominem" ;-) distraction out of the way. Again,my main argument stands: MORE guns is not the solution. MEANINGFUL background checks and regulation aimed at enforcing laws that keep guns out of the hands of unstable fools IS the solution.
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 6:43 pm
As far as "lying" goes,you cant even keep your gender straight because you like to be able to use that possible ambiguity as an edge in an argument (ie.by pretending to be one if you think it'd give you more cred.) So I'll consider the SOURCE on that one
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 6:35 pm
Nah,it's just you are using the word incorrectly at best,or projecting at worst.As far as the "Brady Bill" goes:prosecution & conviction of violators of the B.Act,however, is extremely rare.What's the point if it is treated w/all the weight of jaywalking?
OTC - March 17, 2015, 6:25 pm
Don't like falsehood eh? Then how about you're making an argument based on an untrue statement, a lie? Also, I guess you never heard of the Brady Bill? If regulations and background checks are the answer, why didn't it prevent the shooting?
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:53 pm
OK, that's all folks. You and the rest of the politifakers have a wonderful St.Patty's day, blokes! Slan leat! Slan go foill. =)
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:47 pm
in #73831. Otherwise, I'm content letting you concede the main argument covered in those points. ;-) In honor of that victory, on this lovely day, have a drink for me, mate. Unfortunately, like I said, I can't ;-) or I'd wear a lampshade by the nite X-p
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:44 pm
And that's the point I'm standing by, not the other one. Like I said, you can have it for argument's sake. I'm letting it go.You always have my curiosity,OTC, because it amusing me.But if you want my "attention" then address my points in #73845+#73846 or
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:41 pm
...then I'm thrilled if you go for the red-herring. Because, basically, by avoiding the REAL argument I just offered you (and you did, you completely ignored in favor of a petty point) you are basically conceding that point to me by letting it stand.
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:40 pm
...certainly, no one in their right mind would suggest a military bases is LESS armed than a grade school. LOL They're not called peace bases. ;-) But, like I told "you two" if you actually want to address my MAIN point then see #73831, if not...
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:37 pm
...but you are actually NOT addressing my very thoughtful argument. As I told "you both" before, I don't care about your red-herring. Keep it. Who cares if the reality is that military bases are not as well-armed as grade schools...
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:36 pm
But, despite the spirit of this drinking holiday on St.Pat's, I've actually quit.So as an alternative, I'll address your points,sorta. The fallacy YOU ARE COMMITTING is called begging the question ;-) You're basically saying I'm wrong JUST BECAUSE I am...
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:34 pm
Sorry to LOL but one of my friends here said as a drinking game, we should take a sh** every time you or your friend try to use a big word (incorrectly) like "ad hominem" or "falsehood." Why do I think that by the end of the day we'd be hospitalized :-/
fauxnews - March 17, 2015, 2:30 pm
"Falsehood?" bwahahaha... Soooo...all the cool kids start using words they don't fully understand like "ad hominem" and "falsehood" and now you do? ;-) Now-now..Like I said to your buddy, OTC, million dollar words don't get you off the hook...
OTC - March 17, 2015, 12:58 pm
Not surprised you're sticking to the falsehood that soldiers are well armed on a military base, since you're sticking to the falsehood of humans are warming global temperatures
fauxnews - March 16, 2015, 10:21 pm
...only their pride. They ha e a warped idea of freedom. It is worth wounding their selfish ego if we can protect innocent men, women and children from being wounded. Even if it saves only a few lives, it is worth it. That IMHO is truly Pro-LIFE
fauxnews - March 16, 2015, 10:18 pm
In other words, you still get your guns...but after a waiting period and ONLY IF you pass a background check showing (A) you don't have a history of violent felonies and/or (B) a history of serious mental illness. It doesn't hurt lawabiding citizens...
fauxnews - March 16, 2015, 10:14 pm
That's besides the point. Why cant we do both? Better security at sensitive targets AND background checks aimed at keeping guns outta hands of unstable people.The only harm is the bruised egos of gun owners who worship a warped reading of the 2nd amendmnt
fauxnews - March 16, 2015, 10:11 pm
Maybe the problem is that we are TOO armed. Better regulation would address that.
fauxnews - March 16, 2015, 10:10 pm
It is a critique of the NRA and the idiotic argument that arming teachers would solve the problem (i.e. more guns). Again, if a place as well armed as a military bases can be hit by this kind of tragedy, then it doesn't matter how armed we are.
OTC - March 16, 2015, 10:07 pm
How many shootings have there been with intended well armed victims? (More guns) How many shootings involved unarmed victims? (Less guns) So you're point of more regulations only hurt those who obey laws, criminals don't care about laws or regulations.
OTC - March 16, 2015, 10:02 pm
Faux, you still don't get it, the victims were not well armed just because they were soldiers on a military base, so your argument that more guns is not the answer doesn't prove anything by using unarmed victims as an example.
calron - March 15, 2015, 8:49 pm
So in other words you consider the falsehoods in you mentioned comments that lay the foundation for your argument distraction. Pulling out the foundation of your beliefs is not a fallacy, but dodging with false accusations to avoid you mistakes is one.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 8:46 pm
...Sorry, mate, but that's all I have to offer you on this. I find the rest boring and uninteresting. Have a good night. Cheers =)
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 8:45 pm
My argument is represented well starting in comments #73806 thru #73812. If you care to actually respond to it, I'm game. I've no desire to waste time on your red herrings,which to me, concedes my larger argument by hiding from it behind your distractions
calron - March 15, 2015, 8:40 pm
Let's see, "tragedy can strike anytime, anywhere - even a place as well-armed as a military base." So those distractions are facts that contradict opinion but you wish to ignore the flaws in your argument and yet discuss it.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 8:37 pm
Not even. But what I'm saying that since is my opinion you are concerned with in the first place (since I can care less about yours) then you can either address my main point like in #73815 or expect me to ignore your distractions about MPs and DoD policy
calron - March 15, 2015, 8:32 pm
Who wrote this profanity filter software anyway?
calron - March 15, 2015, 8:31 pm
So you're calling people me***horically poopie heads instead of honestly denbating again. The facts are that the soldier at the base where not well armed in compliance to DoD policy and those that stopped the shooting where civilian police.
calron - March 15, 2015, 8:29 pm
Your wrong on the basic facts that your opinion is then built on. Notice how you keep dancing around that the official DoD policy that I directly linked from the Dod says that only MPs should normally be armed and no MP responded to the shooting.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 8:29 pm
ba***ity = b a n a l i t y
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 8:28 pm
No, OTC, we are not discussing something like your gender which admittedly you are confused about (though facts would be the final word). Your ba***ity on this issue doesn't hide my valid POV. You are missing the forest for the trees. Can't help you there
calron - March 15, 2015, 8:26 pm
Of course two civilian police officers responded to the attack after to occurred and stopped it with their pistols. That means the fort was well armed even though outsiders has to bring in the arms that stopped the attack. OX=
OTC - March 15, 2015, 8:22 pm
So your "opinion" goes against the facts, interesting. Who was it that said opinions don't matter when facts are presented?
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:55 pm
A better way of putting it,OTC:It’s as dumb as sayin that if everyone IN THE CITY did what the NRA wanted and ARMED themselves with a gun, there’d be NO shootings.In fact,w/o background checks,it would just INCREASE the likelyhood of ARMED UNSTABLE Hasans
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:54 pm
I never said that there would be no shootings. That’s YOUR contention, OTC. My point is that the nature of guns is: it will never matter HOW well-armed we are since this tragedy can strike anytime, anywhere - even a place as well-armed as a military base.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:52 pm
If a mentally ill person OR a guy with multiple DUIs shouldn’t drive, then why should people with certain criminally violent histories or mental illness be allowed a gun???? They shouldn't. That's my main point, if you actually care to address it. Cheers
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:52 pm
So MORE GUNS would make things worse SINCE it increases the chance of more unstable people having them! The solution obviously is more regulation, background checks, etc - aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:51 pm
The problem has more to do with the the nature of guns in that IN the wrong hands, society cannot react fast enough to defend itself. Not in these times at least with the dysfunction of society in full swing.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:49 pm
...is not armed in the sense that the NRA would like it. The truth is, as you inadventally point out, even a military base can't prepare for this kind of tragedy.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:48 pm
You think you are refuting me. You are actually making my point for me beautifully. That the idea of everybody being armed is a fantasy. The reality you are exposing is that even a military base, which you'd expect to be armed at all times (and is)...
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:47 pm
However it will never matter HOW well-armed we are since this kind of all-too-common tragedy can strike anytime, anywhere - even a place as well-armed as a military base.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:46 pm
My point is, if you care to actually address it, is that the NRA foolishly criticizes the schools after a shooting. Saying the problem is not enough guns...teachers should be armed...that sort of thing.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 7:45 pm
Wrong? On what? On my opinion vs your opinion on what is essentially a moral issue? lol I admit, I might be fuzzy on the distinction between what kind of police officer this soldier was (inactive or otherwise, MP or not). You are missing the larger point
calron - March 15, 2015, 7:22 pm
So basically you are confirming that they are not active members of the military and then revising the definition of soldier to retroactively define them as soldiers. Every source including Oprah say they where civilian police. Therefor FN is wrong.
OTC - March 15, 2015, 2:33 pm
That's as dumb as saying cities are guarded by well armed police officers, so there should be no shootings in the city
OTC - March 15, 2015, 2:31 pm
And as you point out, the base is "guarded" by well armed soldiers, who are at the gates. I doubt the shooter made it known he was bringing a weapon on base
OTC - March 15, 2015, 2:24 pm
The shooter was taken down by a "civilian" officer responding to the scene, not by a "soldier".
OTC - March 15, 2015, 2:00 pm
Where did I say you were put in your place? Soldiers are issued weapons, but they do not carry them around. If soldiers are not cleaning or training with their weapons, they kept loccked up.
RonaldReagan - March 15, 2015, 1:39 pm
Of the two officers that brought down the killer, they were interviewed on Oprah.Both spoke of their military service. I don't know of a single vet who doesn't still consider himself a soldier even after his time served.A soldier got him.You are wrong Cal
calron - March 15, 2015, 1:34 pm
Pardon, from "guarded by well armed soldiers" to later two people with pistils showed up. Only after people who where armed arrived was Hasan stopped. Meaning the exact opposite of your preconceived notion is bared out by the facts.
calron - March 15, 2015, 1:25 pm
And even then, I said up the page that MPs where the only ones allowed to have guns, but you also ignored that to beat your strawman and moved the goal post from surrounded by to that later two people with pistols showed up.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 1:17 pm
...Nice try, tho, at your "ad hominem" in red-herring sheep's clothing ;-) OK,hope ur day is as beautiful there as it is here.Wasting it on online shenanigans would be the TRUE crime hereX-p Off to enjoy my bike ride.And this day.You do the same.Cheers =)
calron - March 15, 2015, 1:15 pm
calron - March 15, 2015, 1:14 pm
Actually he was a civilian police officer. You false a**umed that because he was a sergeant that he was military. This also required you to once again ignore that facts given to reach your falsehood,
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 1:11 pm
Oh, rubbish. SERGEANT Mark Todd sh** Hasan.Yes, SERGEANT Mark was also MP. But to suggest he wasn't a soldier;or that he wouldn't consider himself a soldier first, a police officer second, like most soldiers would is simply a "falsehood" on your part ;-)
calron - March 15, 2015, 1:01 pm
calron - March 15, 2015, 1:00 pm
Actually he was sh** by a police officer with a pistol. So your "proof" is yet another falsehood. Not only that you are ignoring the already presented facts to justify your falsehood and covering with insults and ridicule.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 12:49 pm
But it will have to wait: I'm off for my weekly day-long bike ride home. Remember? My mountain bike I ride that I accidently called my mountain "mike." Now THAT you can make fun of me for. ;-) Embarrassing fo sho. X-D Have a good day, mate. Cheers =)
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 12:47 pm
...that's a MUCH better example of what I think you are going for here. ;-) lol.. But I've officially disagreed about this. So, sure, what to debate it? I'll bite. Look at #73776,#73777,#73778 & #73779 for my position on this now...
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 12:45 pm
...Sooooo...no one "put me in my place" over this, OTC. X-p This isn't like the time when you were "put in your place" for pretending to be a women hoping to get a leg up in argument - only for ya to still backpedal about it...
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 12:38 pm
...in fact,you ironically make my point for me - that if even a well-armed military base can be surprised attack by these random shootings then maybe the NRA's contention "More Guns is a the solution" is actually a crock of ****.That attitude's the prob
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 12:36 pm
Suggesting that a military base - which is a**igned with the task of preparing men for combat - would be on alert most of the time in wartime following 9/11 is not the smoking gun you think it is.lol...
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 12:32 pm
...At least for my position I can provide actual proof you are wrong: the shooter Hasan was taken out in this case was by guess who? a soldier carrying a gun. He was sh** - which kinda disproves the contention that there were no soldiers carrying guns.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 12:29 pm
...And, I still disagree with the nonsense that "soldiers don't have weapons on military bases" - the debate about it a year ago didn't settle anything other than people strongly disagree on this strange point here one way or another...