TMF

You're right. I guess I thought the forum guidelines were for well thought out responses in the spirit of debate. I see that if your comments are well thought out and relevant to the topic it is only okay if you agree with the majority. I guess it's time for me to leave.

My post addresses specifically that article. I picked it apart to show that when you apply facts and reasonable assumptions the article becomes baseless speculation. I included passages from the Old Testament as I thought it relevant to put into perspective the passages from the Quran, which were used to show that Muslims must have murderous attitudes towards Jews. After that I was told "If you think the good Muslims sums up the total of them all, then your stuck in a bias and not reality." In fact, my opinion is that just because there are bad Muslims that doesn't sum up the lot of them. Then I was told this: "Maybe you should start researching past the crap you use for retorts and start looking at the proof on other side. There is a ton of proof right from the radicals mouths in their propaganda, videos, etc." Well I felt that my post showed that I did do research and put a lot of thought into my post, and it wasn't meant at all to be a "retort". In fact, I was responding to billyscott's request to prove my point; I put my money where my mouth is. Then you came along and wanted to make it personal. I was debating the issue (which was the article from the OP). I continue to stand my beliefs that the article is baseless and seeks to incite emotion rather than reason. I don't see you challenging anything from that original post; just coming here to stir the pot.

Johnny Walker was a fine and dandy legitimate target. The only reason he wasn't killed is because he surrendered like the coward he is. Once in custody he gets his due process. However, up to that point he is a combatant, and a valid target whether he's holding an AK or eating boiled goat meat on the side of a mountain. I understand laws of war and ROE just fine. There are plenty of dead enemy that we killed who weren't fighting at the time they were shot. You don't have to wait for them to pick up a gun and start shooting at you before you can kill them. Just because a restrictive ROE say not to, that doesn't mean it's illegal or a war crime.

I know exactly what I said and I meant it and continue to stand by it. My question is why are you bringing it up? Here I am making well thought out points that involved research and life experience, and here you come along and want to make a smart a$$ statement about something in another thread. To me that is personal. So, if you have something to say PM me instead of starting a personal pissing contest just because you happen to disagree with me. Understand?

.

I've never said anything of the like. If you read a few posts up I clearly state the following, "Yes, Islam has radicals." Is that not clear enough for you? There is no reading between the lines there and I don't think that makes me some kind of a Muslim lover. I've had plently more jihadists try to kill me than you, I can bet the bank on that. My position is that AMERICANS have a RIGHT to practice their religion. Last I heard that was the way things are done here. I'm a patriot, so I don't give a good damn what religion someone is, so long as they are American they get to have the same rights as me. Above I clearly state facts and reasonable assumptions based on facts. There is nothing personal or misleading there.

If you have a problem with me then send me a PM. I regard you making an issue of my opinions to be personal in nature. I still hold the same belief as I did before in regards to the Zimmerman shooting, but let's not derail the thread for that. I simply ain't participating in threads where the same few people just want to stroke each other and then get offended that someone has a different opinion. Besides, I never formed my opinion on the initial "facts" as you put it. I've explained my reasons very plainly.

That's what I'm thinking. This guy has had multiple run-ins with the law, so I'm assuming he has a pretty beligerant attitude towards LEO. Sprinkle a little booze on top and I can see where that leads.... getting a new butthole stomped into you for resisting. I don't condone police brutality, but I sure as hell don't have sympathy for criminal scum when they get a good lumping.

Even the Frogs would be dropping bombs on them before we had a chance to get a carrier off the coast. They're crazy, not stupid. Certainly could happen. It is the minor squabbles of the middle east that somehow seem to strain global politics between the East and the West. I wish it weren't so but it is. We don't need a warmonger in office to fix this, but we sure as hell don't need a limp wristed career politician in there either. Hmmm.... never heard of this "Israel" you speak of. I've heard of Occupied Palestine though.

I checked their website and the mag holders can be ordered for belts of different widths and thicknesses. Pretty neat as opposed to the usual "one size fits all".

Yes, Islam has radicals. That does not mean one has to assume they are all radicals by default? By that logic I guess all Catholic Priests like to rape little boys, so sayeth the Spider. A few speak for the many and all. Also, there IS absolutely NO facts in that article. There isn't one fact in there. The only reference links are to other anti-Islamic websites. I'm not sure how being a former communist or being Jewish somehow makes you a "respected" source of information. I don't see how one has to do with the other. I only respect journalists that use references that contain facts. This article contains no facts; only circumstantial speculation. I didn't come back with witty retorts. If you read my post above you see that there are facts and reasonable assumptions in there. I gathered these while doing research on the mosque on other sites than ones designed to paint the whole of Islam as terrorists.

Thanks for the review. I've been in the market for good horizontal mag pouch for a while and just haven't seen one I dig. I'm gonna go ahead and get one of these for my 1911.

Any time the PD beat the crap out of a black man the comments are going to be as such. In fact, anytime the PD beats the crap out of anyone the comments are going to be anti-PD. I must be one of the few that is cheering on the cops as they beat the crap outa criminal scum.

Okey doke. Of course I can speak faster than I type, but you get the point. First off, consider the source or this "article". It is not some objective media source. Let's break down the article paragraph by paragraph and bring in a little logic: Okay, first I'd like to point out that there are no references to support the assertion that there are only 200-300 Muslim families living in the Murfreesboro area. I mean, how would he know? Do Muslims have to register or something? Is it like Selective Service where you go to the post office and tell them you're Muslim? Or did the local government issue them little cresent moons to wear on their clothing so they are easily identified? As I recall in one of the articles I read in the past the PR rep for the ICM said they have nearly 1,000 people that attend the current mosque which is why they are currently so cramped and have decided to build a new one. Furthermore, the ICM that already exists in a Murfreesboro business park has been in the area for 30 years. I would say that it's safe to assume that they can accrue the funds over 30 years to move some place better. On to the "active members". If you visit the ICM site you will see that active members must pay a monthly dues. In return you get voting/election rights. I'm assuming that "active members" is made up of some of the more well-to-do members of the mosque as $50 is pretty steep. The 45 active members probably only account for current operating costs of the mosque, but by no means are going to represent all the donations taken in over 30 years. Do you have to register at your church when they pass the plate around? Here is something else to think about, who funds these multi-million dollar mega-churches? Does anyone ask? Does anyone care? I don't. However they raise their money is their business so long as they aren't breaking the law.... and that has never happened before at any of these super churches, right? Another thing to consider is the fact that donations have most likely surged in the past few years from around the country and the world after this became a big story. Ironic that this Islamophobic lawyer has actually done more harm than good to his cause. They only need to raise 2 million to pay off their debts on this construction. I'm surprised they haven't ALREADY reached their goals considering the massive Muslim community that exists in middle Tennessee. Or perhaps we can pretend that doesn't exist. The 1,400 years of Islamic conquest? Is Christianity the only religion allowed to spread? I know folks hate talking about things like the Crusades, but damn. You can't argue about Islamic conquest without acknowledging that the same exists in Christianity. There was once a time that Christians were nothing more than an outcast cult in the Roman Empire. Over 2,000 years it has spanned the globe and dominated the western world. So, Islam spread across the iddy-biddy middle east while Christianity got an entire hemisphere. Once again, if you're gonna start throwing stones from your soapbox you should understand that Islam is not the only religion with a murderous past. I'm still not seeing what an opinion on a religion has to do with the 1st Amendment, but hey, I'm sitting here thumbing through the Old Testament here and seeing plenty of stuff that has nothing to do with "religion". I mean, I don't know how to classify what "religion" writing is. I guess a lot of it is meant to be a historical guideline, with guidance from God throughout, but certainly not more than 20 percent. In fact, I'm looking at nearly 30 pages that describe the proper construction of the Tabernacle. But let's see if this is what is considered "religious" writing or "guidance": Deuteronomy Ch 2 26. And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, 27. Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor the left. 30. But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day. 31. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32. Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33. And the Lord our God delivered hime before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Ch 3 3. So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. 4. And we took all his cities at taht time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. 6. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Of course, if I go back a few chapters I can find where our Lord smote tens of thousands of Jews for various offenses. So in terms of Jew-killing tally, I hardly believe that one can attack the Quran with such evidence while ignoring the entirety of the Old Testament. Well, I guess you can if you're a hypocrite. Like I've said before, I don't really care for the Islamic world for a number of reasons. I could care even less about Islam itself. What I do care is about rights as Americans. As you can see, this article contains no substance or even one fact. It is a bunch of nonsense and opinion. If you're really concerned about this Murfreesboro mosque situation, maybe do a little research that isn't soley on anti-Islamic websites. You would be surprised what you would find out. Of course, if your goal is to simply reaffirm your opinions by seeking news sources that are clearly biased towards your own beliefs, then you have no hope in reaching a conclusion with any more facts than what you can make up in your head. I prefer to diversify my information sources.

Probably more to the story. From the article: "It should be noted that King was previously arrested and not charged after recording police in April — a video he says showed an abuse of power. Additionally, he was acquitted of manslaughter in 2008 after his pit bull mauled to death his 7-year-old son." Sounds like someone who perhaps has given law enforcement a hard time. There is also the fact of having his son killed by his pit bull which shows the type of "responsible" person he is. Nothing against pit bull owners, but I haven't seen to many stories of children being killed by pugs after getting bit. If you have an animal breed that is predisposed to such behavior (just Google pit bull related deaths before getting defensive) it would be wise to take note of young children and look out for their safety. Something tells me that this isn't a case of police just losing their minds and beating up lawful handgun carrier; I'm guessing he did something to provoke such a response.

This "article" is absurd. There is no fact here, just wild theories posed that can be logically reasoned or explained in 30 seconds. Also, quoting the Quran to show how extremist the religion is in regards to killing innocent women and children doesn't really work in the favor of this article when any half wit can pull out a King James and flip to the Old Testament.

Well, no there isn't. It is perfectly legal to kill an enemy combatant whether they are armed or not. The ROE restrictions we put on ourselves in Afghanistan (and formerly Iraq) is what has prevented us from fighting war the way it is legally designed. We can drop bombs on the lowest ranking chai boy in al-Qaeda while he pumps gas into his crappy Pugeot. Similarly, we can bomb the sh!t out of any high ranking member of that military organization. We nailed Zarqawi with a JDAM while he was probably balls deep in his mistress.... killer her too. Is that against the law of land warfare? Hell no it isn't. How is this guy any different? Because he was once American? Sorry, he is an enemy combatant; he doesn't have to be actively engaging us to be classified as such. We have Generals in our Army that haven't picked up a weapon in decades and have probably never fired a shot in anger. Are they legitimate targets to enemy fighters? Yes. That is how war works. We stopped fighting wars in straight lines 150 years ago.

How many American citizens of German decent did we kill on the battlefields of Europe in WWII who fought for the Nazis? Did we try to capture them first or did we treat them like any other enemy combatant? Were there cries from Constitutionalists about their due process? What has changed?

Please explain to me how cooperating with the police means I don't support the 2nd Amendment; I am so curious to hear. Last time I checked I have just as much right to cooperate as I have the right not to cooperate. I get to make choices that are right for me. If you don't want to cooperate with an LEO that is your business. By no means does that put you on some kind of a pedestal above the rest of us in regards to our belief in the 2nd and 4th Amendments. I make my voice heard through the votes I cast, NRA membership and letters to my elected officials. I see no logic behind the theory that my cooperation with LE somehow negates all that.

^^^^ Apparently if you cooperate with the police you are fundamentally opposed to the 4th Amendment. That is like saying someone is opposed to the 1st Amendment because they're not constantly speaking their mind in public. Perhaps some people prefer to be quiet. Perhaps some people prefer to be cordial with LEOs. God help us; folks like me will be the end of all our Constitutional rights..... I hear the FEMA choppers coming for me now!!!

Army troops are not going to be patrolling the streets to cut down on crime. They're doing their two week AT. Has nothing to do with policing or patrolling. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this videos are put out to monetarily benefit a few people who seek to exploit the niche market of folks who want to believe the gov is out to get them? Is blindly believing what some limey in his mom's basement says any different than blindly believing everything Rachel Maddow says?

When I was in the National Guard we would hold training in places such as the local fair grounds while old folks chipped golf balls in the dirt parking lot. Often times we had local law enforcement serve as role players in training events. All in public for everyone to see. Maybe some folks found it an odd sight, but only folks looking for something that isn't there would probably go off running like chicken little. On active duty I recall dozens of training events that went on in urban areas, especially cities, in order to bring some realism to the training and present challenges that are difficult to reconstruct anywhere else. We did all these training events with the cooperation of local/state and sometimes federal law enforcement so that they knew what we were doing in their backyard so there wasn't any incidents of mistaken identity and so that they could notify the community to prevent any concern. This goes on all the time and most time s folks don't even know. In fact, I've done several training events right there in downtown Nashville when I was still in the Army. All this was to better prepare us for our jobs downrange, and it did. Going out of your way to see something that isn't there IS tinfoil hat territory. Hardly do I think a reserve unit meeting their 2 week annual training requirements signifies the beginning of a sinister plot to subject Americans under a dictatorship come November. By all means, any of you can go to St Louis and observe the training and I bet once you see the swollen uniforms of a bunch of non-combat arms weekend warriors your concern will go out the window. Or the sky is falling. I'll resurrect this thread in November so I can say I told you so, but I'm sure by then they'll be 10 more conspiracy theories about how the gov is going to put you in concentration camps using street thugs from the ghetto. That sounds a whole lot more realistic than the explanation I gave you above.

Nope. I use my TV veto power in the household very wisely and Army Wives is one of those I use it on. Of course, my wife DVRs it and watches it when I'm not around, but it saves us both from an hour of me yelling at the TV for being so incredibly detached from reality.

Okay, didn't know that. Sounds about right though. As far as I know resident aliens have other rights too; don't see why possessing/carrying a firearm is any different.

The turmoil would last for a very, very short period. We wouldn't be the only ones involved either. Remember what Keanu Reeves said in Speed, "Crazy, not stupid."