Terrorists - what do we do about em

[zx10guy]

This whole issue is around how messed up our current immigration system is. You have politics filtering into what becomes policy despite what is actually law or in the best interest of the country.

You have people that want to legitimize illegal immigration by calling these people undocumented. Undocumented is so much nicer to hear than illegal as these people crossed into the US without going through proper channels...hence are law breakers/criminals. The laws are there if people actually want to enforce them or to do the proper checks to weed out those that turn up in the system without proper documentation. You have states actually providing a support system for illegals such as giving them driver's licenses or providing in state tuition benefits.

Then on the flip side you have a single group of people which gets automatic special treatment to get into the US by allowing them to cut the line and get fast tracked. If you don't know who these people are...they're Cubans. This was left over policy from the whole US/Cuban conflict. This is why you find Cubans risk life and limb trying to cross the Ocean to get a chance to touch US soil. Because as the rule states, as long as a Cuban national is on US soil, they're going to get automatic asylum. This is why the Coast Guard works feverishly to prevent these migrants/refugees from reaching US soil.

With all the holes in our policies and enforcement along with the lack of emphasis on protecting our borders, do you really think doing a knee jerk exclusion of a specific group of people is going to protect us? People think a Muslim radical is some darker skinned person that covers their head and speaks a Middle Eastern language. As someone astutely mentioned, there's a huge Muslim population in Indonesia. Those Asians certainly don't meet the physical stereotype of a Muslim. Nor do those that come out of Africa or the Baltics.

In regards to arming everyone so we can defend against Terrorist activities, it's not that simple. All I have to point to was UCC mass shooting in Oregon. There was someone nearby with a legal CCW. Yet he chose not to respond at the time. I'm not going to second guess his decision as I was not there. He made a decision that was right for him at the time. But he did mention concern about responding and then what would happen when law enforcement arrives. Would he be mistaken as the mass shooter? And to be clear, I am a gun owner.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

This whole issue is around how messed up our current immigration system is. You have politics filtering into what becomes policy despite what is actually law or in the best interest of the country.

You have people that want to legitimize illegal immigration by calling these people undocumented. Undocumented is so much nicer to hear than illegal as these people crossed into the US without going through proper channels...hence are law breakers/criminals. The laws are there if people actually want to enforce them or to do the proper checks to weed out those that turn up in the system without proper documentation. You have states actually providing a support system for illegals such as giving them driver's licenses or providing in state tuition benefits.

Then on the flip side you have a single group of people which gets automatic special treatment to get into the US by allowing them to cut the line and get fast tracked. If you don't know who these people are...they're Cubans. This was left over policy from the whole US/Cuban conflict. This is why you find Cubans risk life and limb trying to cross the Ocean to get a chance to touch US soil. Because as the rule states, as long as a Cuban national is on US soil, they're going to get automatic asylum. This is why the Coast Guard works feverishly to prevent these migrants/refugees from reaching US soil.

With all the holes in our policies and enforcement along with the lack of emphasis on protecting our borders, do you really think doing a knee jerk exclusion of a specific group of people is going to protect us? People think a Muslim radical is some darker skinned person that covers their head and speaks a Middle Eastern language. As someone astutely mentioned, there's a huge Muslim population in Indonesia. Those Asians certainly don't meet the physical stereotype of a Muslim. Nor do those that come out of Africa or the Baltics.

In regards to arming everyone so we can defend against Terrorist activities, it's not that simple. All I have to point to was UCC mass shooting in Oregon. There was someone nearby with a legal CCW. Yet he chose not to respond at the time. I'm not going to second guess his decision as I was not there. He made a decision that was right for him at the time. But he did mention concern about responding and then what would happen when law enforcement arrives. Would he be mistaken as the mass shooter? And to be clear, I am a gun owner.

Good point about armed good guy.......minding your own business is good for you.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by Sara504

I'd rather be safe and alive then worry about my privacy invasion. Come search me. 24/7 monitor me. Just KEEP ME SAFE from a terrorist attack.

This is the exact attitude we need to avoid. By giving up all of our civil liberties and becoming a police state, we will have lost the things that make us great. Most of us don't want to give up our privacy even though it is slowly slipping away.

[imserious]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

In regards to arming everyone so we can defend against Terrorist activities, it's not that simple. All I have to point to was UCC mass shooting in Oregon. There was someone nearby with a legal CCW. Yet he chose not to respond at the time. I'm not going to second guess his decision as I was not there. He made a decision that was right for him at the time. But he did mention concern about responding and then what would happen when law enforcement arrives. Would he be mistaken as the mass shooter? And to be clear, I am a gun owner.

Besides the fact that I don't trust everyone's judgement or their ability to aim their weapon, rules of engagement and interacting with law enforcement during an active shooter situation is a big deal.

I don't know if this is the case, but I would hope that any concealed carry permit comes after training is complete that covers rules of engagement, shooting in public spaces and law enforcement interactions.

I know a cop who himself feels the value of self policing questionable due to the high likelihood of confusion when law enforcement steps in.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

In regards to arming everyone so we can defend against Terrorist activities, it's not that simple. All I have to point to was UCC mass shooting in Oregon. There was someone nearby with a legal CCW. Yet he chose not to respond at the time. I'm not going to second guess his decision as I was not there. He made a decision that was right for him at the time. But he did mention concern about responding and then what would happen when law enforcement arrives. Would he be mistaken as the mass shooter? And to be clear, I am a gun owner.

Yeah I grew up around guns and are very comfortable with them and around them. Dad taught me how to shoot when I was 12, much to my mom's chagrin.

With that said, I think you hit the nail on the head. If I had a legal CCW, I'd only use it if I felt that I was in imminent danger and I had no other viable alternative, not just for the reason you described but God forbid I shoot someone else, while it's unlikely I'd face criminal charges, I'm sure I'd be in for a fun time in civil court as the family sues the shit out of me.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by catcher22

No.

1) This will make the US much less safe. We'll effectively tell 1.6 Billion people around the world that we hate them, and it would create more hate within and outside of the US.

2) This is unConstitutional

3) We need Muslims on our side to win the war on terror. It's as much as an ideology we are trying to defeat as anything else.

4) This idea is absolutely stupid and unenforceable.

Whatever you may think about Trump's plan (brilliant, offensive, impractical, etc.), it's probably not unconstitutional. That's not to say that the Supreme Court couldn't overturn centuries of precedent, but it's not likely.

http://ericposner.com/is-an-immigrat...onstitutional/

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

I'm sure I'd be in for a fun time in civil court as the family sues the shit out of me.

Good Samaritan laws protect me if I try to do Heimlich maneuver on you and end up busting your ribs, or if I try CPR and puncture your liver, AS LONG AS I'VE had proper training. I would think with a CCW, it could be defended the same.

[carve]

Originally Posted by bimmette

This may help a bit but it's difficult to use the threat of punishment against people who are willing to blow themselves up.

The punishment is against those who vet.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Good Samaritan laws protect me if I try to do Heimlich maneuver on you and end up busting your ribs, or if I try CPR and puncture your liver, AS LONG AS I'VE had proper training. I would think with a CCW, it could be defended the same.

I wouldn't think so. The Good Samaritan Law covers activities related to life saving and not taking of a life. We covered the Good Samaritan Law in some detail in my EMT training. What constitutes coverage under the Good Samaritan Law, what constitutes negligence, and what constitutes gross negligence. The Good Samaritan Law also covers some classes of health care professionals such as first responders and not just lay people.

If the Good Samaritan Law covered situations of application of deadly force, you would see that as a defense in many cases of lay people and more importantly law enforcement personnel.

[carve]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

In regards to arming everyone so we can defend against Terrorist activities, it's not that simple. All I have to point to was UCC mass shooting in Oregon. There was someone nearby with a legal CCW. Yet he chose not to respond at the time. I'm not going to second guess his decision as I was not there. He made a decision that was right for him at the time. But he did mention concern about responding and then what would happen when law enforcement arrives. Would he be mistaken as the mass shooter? And to be clear, I am a gun owner.

He's not responsible to protect everyone else. It'd be nice if he did, but we're only responsible to protect ourselves.

If the shooter would've come to the classroom he was in, I'm sure everyone else in the room would've been grateful he was carrying.

[UncleWede]

Shooting at somebody who is spraying a room full of unarmed people, as defense counsel I could convince jurors that this was a life-saving incidence, I think.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Good Samaritan laws protect me if I try to do Heimlich maneuver on you and end up busting your ribs, or if I try CPR and puncture your liver, AS LONG AS I'VE had proper training. I would think with a CCW, it could be defended the same.

Different set of laws would apply, i.e. doctrine of justifiable homicide.

[bimmette]

Originally Posted by carve

The punishment is against those who vet.

I know, but i'm saying those who vet may be involved too.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Good Samaritan laws protect me if I try to do Heimlich maneuver on you and end up busting your ribs, or if I try CPR and puncture your liver, AS LONG AS I'VE had proper training. I would think with a CCW, it could be defended the same.

It could be (although I'm not sure you'd win), you still have the time and money suck to argue that in court even if it were hypothetically a slam dunk defense.

[bbbbmw]

Originally Posted by Needbmwpartzz

In my country they do....and I disagree(immigrants definitely do grow gov't and tax base as both of our countries are founded upon such migrations)......yes the power is part of it but immigration is the foundation as many are successful people with kids that buy everything you or I do and work.....most are an investment in our economy here,sure it may take them a couple years to assimilate and get good paying jobs but once they do they flourish as do their kids....so I would think again!

2/3 of the Syrians entering Germany are illiterate. Of the ones under 25, who can still be educated, 70% of them have dropped out of the education programs. There will be a permanent underclass of these immigrants at least for decades to come.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I see Ms. Bleeding Heart didn't vote, since I'm the only No at the moment. But definitely No.

How does it prevent anything really - doesn't their religion say to lie to infidels (genuine question, I'm not sure, heard someone else say it) - so then the ones who really want to do some harm to the great white satan will just claim to be Jews, or Christians, or Hindus or whatever.

And then what - do we then ban all Christians? All Jews? Where does it end.

I guess atheists and liars will inherit the earth.

[catcher22]

I'll give you guys this complicated scenario and let me know if you would ban me and my family from entering the US. According to the poll question, half the people here would ban me. But would you really?

I am a 30 something American service member who identified as Muslim when enlisting. I am actually agnostic, being I do not practice any religion at all - I don't pray, fast, go to the mosque, etc. But my parents and family do. My parents are well aware I am agnostic and they support me while they are more religious. I was born here, only know English and have no desire to visit my parents' birth countries. They, however do. They go once every few years to visit their parents. My job actually relates directly to combating terrorism (I work for the dept of defense)

Would you ban me and/or my family from entering the United States?

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by catcher22

I'll give you guys this complicated scenario and let me know if you would ban me and my family from entering the US. According to the poll question, half the people here would ban me. But would you really?

I am a 30 something American service member who identified as Muslim when enlisting. I am actually agnostic, being I do not practice any religion at all - I don't pray, fast, go to the mosque, etc. But my parents and family do. My parents are well aware I am agnostic and they support me while they are more religious. I was born here, only know English and have no desire to visit my parents' birth countries. They, however do. They go once every few years to visit their parents. My job actually relates directly to combating terrorism (I work for the dept of defense)

Would you ban me and/or my family from entering the United States?

See what happens when you lie.

[David70]

For those that are for Trump's "ban on allowing Muslims into the U.S." -

With a large portion of Africa and SE Asia being Muslim, then with Christians and every other religion also living everywhere, for those that support banning Muslims, how exactly do you do it? Just ask them?

[catcher22]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

See what happens when you lie.

You can believe what you want or not about my story, but don't deny that my same scenario exists for almost 6,000 other American service members.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by catcher22

You can believe what you want or not about my story, but don't deny that my same scenario exists for almost 6,000 other American service members.

I'm not sure what there is for me to believe or not. You said you are agnostic but put muslim on the form, so you lied on the form. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Fundguy1]

Give it a rest people.
1 it won't happen.
2 not even if Trump is elected
3 it can't happen to service members or people here legally already.

He's doing his art of the deal. Say more than you want, then compromise and get what you want. At the same time get free publicity and win the election. Stop being rubes.