Largest mass shooting in US history, atleast 50 dead 53 injured

That was probably true in the Dark Ages maybe. But that was hundreds of years ago. I think the bigger issue is with what has happened in the last few decades. One must be fair.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

You get what I mean. It's meant within the implied context: Muslims = Terrorism. If that's so, he'd have blown up something by now.

The fact remains there's a significant demographic of Muslims in the country already and it's only a fraction of that which are violent. If the the overwhelming majority of Muslims are non-violent then you're banning a lot of innocent people because of a select few. A select few which do not necessarily come from outside the country, and again, religion is unreliably verifiable ANYWAY so it's not as if you could credibly impose an effective filter to strain out the radicals.

I was thinking that too.

Social media background checks is a ridiculously implausible measure to implement.

Applicants can lie and there are millions of possible sites they could have access to. Either all computers would be under globalized surveillance at all times or the application process would require the applicant to turn over their computer for inspection.

Which they can lie about.

Which would require a home inspection.

Which would require such a gargantuan amount of resources---It ALREADY takes YEARS for some people to get approved.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

I mean, what are we talking about here? A little checkbox on a sheet of paper that asks me if I have or have ever had a Facebook account? What if I WAS a radical and I only texted my terror plans through a second-hand phone? You can't turn over something you sold or "lost".

And even if I was rejected on those grounds then I wouldn't admit to having a phone in the first place!

And I can delete/proxy anything I don't want seen! This is insane!

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said it would be "an issue of manpower", though I didn't elaborate.

It does sound like a common sense idea, but like you said it's completely impractical. I thought some form of it might have already been implemented in the extensive background check involved in the current immigration process, but I guess not? But like I said later in that post, I don't think it would really be that effective any way. But if it somehow could be feasible, it would be nice to have in the few instances where it might detect something from people too stupid to hide it.

Touché. I was going to say something about it being in a broader context/time period, but didn't bother. But you're right, modern Christians are nowhere near as physically violent as their ancestors. Many Christian groups do still spread hate and incite others to violence, but in general (and especially with the current Pope) I think the Church is much better off.

When the immigrant is a legal immigrant it is part of the process, but we have all these illegals coming in. And Obama has passed executive action to significantly protect unauthorized or illegal immigration, link. There were 11.3 MILLION unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014!

According to numbersusa, link

Immigration into the United States fluctuated throughout the 20th century because of varying economic conditions. But the changes made by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 drastically increased the number of immigrants allowed into the United States. This in turn has had a negative impact on the quality of life of many Americans today due to the mass increase in population.

Worse, the United States has mass illegal immigration because successive Congresses and Presidents have decided they want it. In one action after another over the last decade, they have declined to approve measures known to be effective to slow the flow of illegal immigrants, they have decided to end various kinds of enforcement that had been effective, and they have approved a series of rewards to those who violate immigration laws.

Unfortunately this just raised more questions with me then it answered. If the problem is illegal immigrants and not legal ones, then how is putting a stop to the legal immigration process going to stop illegal immigration?

How are illegal immigrants even getting into the country, and how will putting a temporary ban on legal immigrants coming in even stop the illegal ones if they're already circumventing the process? Now the first article you posted mentioned that half of all illegal immigration is from Mexico, and since they're so close it's easy to imagine how they're getting across the border, but what about the other 50%?

Bear in mind that the first time anybody accesses the internet, about the only relevant thing a website can pick up is the IP address. That could direct you to specific computer, but it could also direct to a modem, or a network, or even a proxy. In the most ideal circumstances you could maybe crosscheck with Internet Service Providers to get a location of the computer, but the location can always change and there's no certainty who's actually using it.

If it's a satellite-based smartphone or laptop you've virtually no chance of tracking it down (especially in populated areas where devices are easily hidden or commonly used).

All this is only considering personal computers. Public computer terminals can and are specifically abused because anyone can access them.

Aren't violent ancestors the whole basis of the argument though? We're back at that degrees of influence thing.

Yeah but those groups are about as Christian as Saddam Hussein was a Can Can dancer.

And now that image will never leave your mind.

The same could be said for radical Muslims.

Yeah I still think Christians should be included in a temporary ban based on previous religious violence if we're going to exclude other faiths for the same reason. I was just agreeing that in the last few decades they've been much more peaceful.

I've talked about that Immigration policy of 1986, many times on different boards. That was Ronald Reagan's doing. When he was governor of California, Cesar Chavez organized a farm workers union known as the UFW, to insure decent wages and working conditions for Mexican American and Filipino American farm workers (the people who picked the crops). Governor Reagan was opposed to this as he wanted cheap labor to work the fields so that produce prices would be cheaper. When he became President he circumvented the gains made by the UFW by his 1986 reform act of immigration which insured that there would be a large number of unskilled Mexicans coming into America who could be paid sub standard wages for their work, thus bypassing the UFW union workers.

So you can thank Ronald Reagen for the mass influx of legal and illegal immigrants.

And we have know this. I even said so much earlier in the tread.

One much inject SOME humor in this sometime uber serious thread.

Oh, you. I got a little carried away.

Oh I'm ready to begin with the Orlando shooting jokes whenever you want them. Immediately when I learned that it was a shooting at a gay club, I thought..... I'm gonna eventually say something everybody will hate me for.

Did you know that Shaq is now visiting Orlando shooting survivors in the hospital?



All of you Kazaam fans -- don't you wish you were gay and an Orlando shooting victim right about now? You could be meeting Shaq!

Attachments

 

Shaq is some serious black meat coming all up in there in that hospital full of wounded gay Hispanic dudes, who, thanks to that crazy Muslim shooter, now have even more holes they need to fill.

OKAY TOO MUCH.

A few decades? Come on dude lets be serious. I am pretty confident that our problems are cultural and not religious and am not for immigration bans based on faith. We have to stop with the rhetoric though, it's nonsense. It would be the equivalent if when racism comes up in political debates as saying Democrats owned slaves so they should be lumped in with any racist groups.

__________________
Letterboxd

I think you've been reading my posts in a very serious tone that I certainly did not intend. I was only talking within the context of the proposed ban on Muslim immigrants from this post. My posts were supposed to be a very tongue-in-cheek response to that idea, but I guess it didn't come across that way. I don't actually support discriminating against immigrants based on religion at all.

The only time I was entirely serious was in my post about asking how illegal immigrants get into the US. I legit don't know that and am curious as to how it works. Also I don't understand at all how nostromo's proposal of temporarily stopping legal immigration is supposed to help the illegal immigration problem, which again is why I asked how the whole process works.