The type of opinion the libs don't want to hear

[Greybeard]

Pretty well sums up some of the issues and the hazards of being unarmed - or disarmed.

"Frankly, the sexual “identities” of those killed does not really matter much. Followers of ISIS have not necessarily shown any favoritism to any particular target group. They’ll kill just about anyone, including their own comrades in arms if there is something to be gained by it."

http://personalliberty.com/orlando-vict ... -were-gay/

[Jusme]

Good read Greybeard,
Thanks for posting it. Every word he says rings true especially with members on this forum, we all realize that we are ultimately responsible for our own safety and security.

[Keith B]

Pretty well sums up some of the issues and the hazards of being unarmed - or disarmed.

"Frankly, the sexual “identities” of those killed does not really matter much. Followers of ISIS have not necessarily shown any favoritism to any particular target group. They’ll kill just about anyone, including their own comrades in arms if there is something to be gained by it."

http://personalliberty.com/orlando-vict ... -were-gay/

In this case it actually does matter as to a potential motive. As more information comes out it appears the gunman may have been a closet bisexual and frequented the club numerous times previously. He may have been torn with his following of Islam and his sexuality and the only way he thought he could get cleared of his sins was to take out others who were doing things that are prohibited by the faith and in turn he would be martyred by his death and allowed to receive his reward in the afterlife.

[Jusme]

Pretty well sums up some of the issues and the hazards of being unarmed - or disarmed.

"Frankly, the sexual “identities” of those killed does not really matter much. Followers of ISIS have not necessarily shown any favoritism to any particular target group. They’ll kill just about anyone, including their own comrades in arms if there is something to be gained by it."

http://personalliberty.com/orlando-vict ... -were-gay/

In this case it actually does matter as to a potential motive. As more information comes out it appears the gunman may have been a closet bisexual and frequented the club numerous times previously. He may have been torn with his following of Islam and his sexuality and the only way he thought he could get cleared of his sins was to take out others who were doing things that are prohibited by the faith and in turn he would be martyred by his death and allowed to receive his reward in the afterlife.

Maybe so, but what I took away from it was the same things we already know, and that is that, no government agency, police department, or a knight in shining armor can do a better job of protecting us than we ourselves can. But the left wing still lives in a fantasy world where they believe that they can somehow prevent attacks like this, regardless of motive, with more legislation, and "feel good" proclamations. The fact that this was an attack on a gay bar, targeting homosexuals is irrelevant, in my opinion, because the next jihadist may decide that since girls in short dresses wearing cowboy boots is an affront to his beliefs, it could have easily have been Billy Bob's in Ft. Worth.JMHO

[Scott B.]

Or, he simply went after a soft target that offered a high degree of 'success' for his mission. He and his wife also scouted Disney. The FBI is investigating the details. I don't put much stock on early witness claims or those of an angry ex. Could be true.

Contrarian theory: http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/14/wha ... le-at-all/

[Greybeard]

"Or, he simply went after a soft target that offered a high degree of 'success' for his mission."

There are probably not many targets much softer than a gun-free gay bar at 2:00 a.m.

[sugar land dave]

With the history of this administration and that of the anti-gun folks, I believe one thing firmly. They will tell any lie to the public in the furtherance of their agenda. As such, I feel that currently the media is just an extension of them and will dutifully repeat whatever they are given, true or not. Take disclosures with a grain of salt.

[Morbidrealities]

"Or, he simply went after a soft target that offered a high degree of 'success' for his mission."

There are probably not many targets much softer than a gun-free gay bar at 2:00 a.m.

I agree. They (terrorists) have been known to "Americanize" so as to fit in and scout potential targets. All is allowed to serve Allah for the Jihad. Even frequenting a gay nightclub and having a profile on a gay app. As the very smart fellow above me said in paraphrase "there ain't many softer targets than a gay nightclub at 2am".

Anything is allowed for a martyr to enter Mecca so they can have a turn at the 72 virgin (goats).

[Bitter Clinger]

"Or, he simply went after a soft target that offered a high degree of 'success' for his mission."

There are probably not many targets much softer than a gun-free gay bar at 2:00 a.m.

And here's an interesting development:

Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting

http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-su ... -shooting/

[joe817]

"Or, he simply went after a soft target that offered a high degree of 'success' for his mission."

There are probably not many targets much softer than a gun-free gay bar at 2:00 a.m.

And here's an interesting development:

Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting

http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-su ... -shooting/

I'd think that the "Shoot Back" posters that are popping up all over the country is contributing to that somehow.

[JALLEN]

I am slowly exploring the views that:

1. There should be no gun free zones, and

2. Islam is incompatible with Western democratic Judeo-Christian culture, actually any other culture that I can think of. If that is so, I don't see how a devout Muslim can sincerely swear an oath to hold office, pledge allegiance etc.

Any light anyone cares to shine on these ideas will be welcome.

[Liberty]

I am slowly exploring the views that:

1. There should be no gun free zones, and

2. Islam is incompatible with Western democratic Judeo-Christian culture, actually any other culture that I can think of. If that is so, I don't see how a devout Muslim can sincerely swear an oath to hold office, pledge allegiance etc.

Any light anyone cares to shine on these ideas will be welcome.

1: I agree that we have too many. But I think a few might important to keep, and some aren't much to get excited about. Some gun free zones we might want to keep are: Political events. With the political climate now does anyone doubt that Trump would still be alive if folks were allowed into these venues with guns. Would it be possible to protect controversial people without using the highest security, including denial of otherwise licensed people. The thing is the security does somewhat protect the people, or at least its supposed to. I also wonder about such places as concerts. I also believe that own the propery have rights also on who attends and what they bring into their property. I think the 30.06 and 30.07 laws and signs are genius, protecting the rights of the property owner and LTC carrier.

2: I recognize that Jihadism and extremist are a real problem, that it can be difficult to tell the difference between them and the moderate. Moderates can turn. I also believe that there is no room for Sharia law. But I also feel uncomfortable with laws that regulate or control religion or religious people. Most Muslims in this country and particularly in Texas, are not looking for trouble. Most are scared to death of a major purge or something. Denying people jobs or a role in government simply because of their religion seems very unAmerican.

[JALLEN]

I am slowly exploring the views that:

1. There should be no gun free zones, and

2. Islam is incompatible with Western democratic Judeo-Christian culture, actually any other culture that I can think of. If that is so, I don't see how a devout Muslim can sincerely swear an oath to hold office, pledge allegiance etc.

Any light anyone cares to shine on these ideas will be welcome.

1: I agree that we have too many. But I think a few might important to keep, and some aren't much to get excited about. Some gun free zones we might want to keep are: Political events. With the political climate now does anyone doubt that Trump would still be alive if folks were allowed into these venues with guns. Would it be possible to protect controversial people without using the highest security, including denial of otherwise licensed people. The thing is the security does somewhat protect the people, or at least its supposed to. I also wonder about such places as concerts. I also believe that own the propery have rights also on who attends and what they bring into their property. I think the 30.06 and 30.07 laws and signs are genius, protecting the rights of the property owner and LTC carrier.

2: I recognize that Jihadism and extremist are a real problem, that it can be difficult to tell the difference between them and the moderate. Moderates can turn. I also believe that there is no room for Sharia law. But I also feel uncomfortable with laws that regulate or control religion or religious people. Most Muslims in this country and particularly in Texas, are not looking for trouble. Most are scared to death of a major purge or something. Denying people jobs or a role in government simply because of their religion seems very unAmerican.

There are varying levels of devotion and enthusiasm in every denomination. Baptists and Methodists who drink, some even dance and gamble, Catholics who wink at some of that church's teachings, etc. It wouldn't be surprising to find Moslems who "go through the motions" without any real devotion, who maybe sneak a snack during Ramadan, skip a couple of 5 daily prayers, etc.

When Utah sought statehood, the Mormons were forced to quit polygamy, outlaw it, not that all gave it up then and there. That guy who "married" underaged females by the dozen in an offshoot of LDS didn't receive much leeway in freely exercising his religion.

I imagine that if you started up your own sect, with your own word from God, rites, holidays, beliefs, one of which prescribed human sacrifice of non-believers, you would not get very far, free exercise of religion notwithstanding.

[Liberty]

The act of sacrificing nonbelievers would be illegal. Implementing Sharia law is illegal. Nothing wrong with making objection acts or behaviors illegal. But outlawing a specific religion is unconstitutional. We have made exception for certain Indians though for certain actions .. Eagle feathers, and peyote come to mind.