Gyroscopic Investing

14 dead and 17 wounded at a Christmas party by a devout Muslim and his Saudi wife dressed in body armor, masks, wearing Go Pros. It seems that they liked to make bombs too, which were found in three separate places. CAIR says it was terrible but it doesn't represent Islam. Something tells me that they may be wrong if not complicit. Should we stop bringing in more emissaries? Is Trump correct about closing mosques and deporting them? Is it racism or survival? Do you think that it's not a problem and that if we prevent global warming everything will be better?

"A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people."

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/ ... ed-farook/

Racial profiling is much worse than Islamic terrorism.
Just ask any progressive or Obama.

This one hit close to home for me.

I grew up near San Bernardino. My family lives out there. I personally know someone who works at the Inland Regional Center where the attack happened. Luckily, she happened to be out of the office when the shooting went down.

What a random city for terrorists to attack. The nearest big metropolitan area is Los Angeles, which is an hour away. San Bernardino is an impoverished, crime-infested city, like a mini version of Detroit in the desert. If terrorists can decide to attack that hell-hole, I guess no city or town in the U.S. is totally safe.

World War III, a.k.a. Hardcore Muslims vs. Everyone Else, is turning out to be a lot weirder than I originally thought.

Tortoise wrote: This one hit close to home for me.

I grew up near San Bernardino. My family lives out there. I personally know someone who works at the Inland Regional Center where the attack happened. Luckily, she happened to be out of the office when the shooting went down.

What a random city for terrorists to attack. The nearest big metropolitan area is Los Angeles, which is an hour away. San Bernardino is an impoverished, crime-infested city, like a mini version of Detroit in the desert. If terrorists can decide to attack that hell-hole, I guess no city or town in the U.S. is totally safe.

World War III, a.k.a. Hardcore Muslims vs. Everyone Else, is turning out to be a lot weirder than I originally thought.

I think that is exactly the point.

Gun people, did the WSJ get the details right? Just curious.

While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF.

The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.

Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used ... 57?tesla=y

dualstow wrote: Gun people, did the WSJ get the details right? Just curious.

While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF.

The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.

Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used ... 57?tesla=y

So since the modifications were already illegal, that means we need more gun control, right?
(Note:  )

California's laws are ridiculous. You can buy an AR-15, but in order to own it legally, you need to replace the magazine release with a more annoying one that makes it take longer to drop the magazine, which technically makes it legally considered a fixed-magazine rifle. Needless to say, because this modification takes place in the privacy of your own home, there is literally nothing at all to prevent you from reversing the modification or declining to do make it in the first place if you're building the rifle from parts, winding up owning a perfectly functional yet illegal detachable-magazine AR-15, since standard magazine release components are not regulated or illegal, so you can just buy one and pop it in.

The same is more or less true of magazines. Owning standard-capacity magazines is not illegal, but it is illegal to buy, sell, assemble, or transfer one. So all you need to do is buy them in the form of legal disassembled parts and assemble them. You've technically committed a crime (assembling the magazines) but again, it's not preventable since the crime takes place at home and nobody's there to see it, and furthermore, owning them isn't illegal, and there's no way to tell that you built them illegally vs bought them legally before they were illegal to buy.

It is also illegal to insert standard capacity magazines into your technically-fixed-magazine AR-15, but again, once you have them, what's gonna actually stop you from doing this? So you have a situation where people can legally acquire a whole bunch of stuff that is illegal to own or use or combine, but impossible to actually stop.

The idiocy and ineffectiveness of these laws is mind-boggling. If California wants to get serious about prohibiting the possession of AR-15 rifles and standard-capacity magazines, it actually needs to ban them outright and criminalize possession, and not just of the finished products, but of all components too, which is not politically feasible even in California. That's the elephant in the room. Only serious bans and confiscation would actually work to decrease the supply of these items, and without decreasing the supply, it's pissing in the wind. And the political will for such draconian laws is missing even in the most liberal strongholds.

Even if that happened, the supply would still remain high. The police own these rifles. Hollywood owns them. You can buy them legally in every stare bordering California. They can be smuggled in from any other U.S. state. They can be smuggled in from Mexico. Just not gunna happen.

Don't be fooled by the progressive's talk about gun control here. It's analogous to saying that the Nazi's had too many guns. The only issue of import here is that we have crazy, murderous followers of an intolerant cult amongst us that is part of a group of hundreds of millions of people worldwide who want to murder each and every one of us and our children. They are here and we are letting in more of them by the thousands. Each one of them is capable of murdering hundreds of us because they are animals. Obama is on their side and so called progressives are too.

Have you noticed the oddity that they are not releasing any pictures of the female emissary of peace? I've never seen this before. Is it out of some warped deference to the sensitivities of devout Muslims who believe that their women's faces remain hidden? What other possible explanation is there? Very odd!

They're now reporting that she claimed allegiance to ISIS not that long ago and that they were on the FBI's radar screen.

I tend to agree, Reub. People with murder in their hearts will find a way to do it, especially if they have clean records and look outwardly normal, like this couple did. Tinkering at the margins of what tools they can legally purchase ignores the really, really major problem of why there are people out there who want to kill a lot of innocents.

There's also the likelihood that if guns become prohibitively difficult to acquire, terrorists will switch to explosives and arson, which are far more deadly than guns and much more difficult to control or prevent. Whaddaya gonna do, require a license to buy matches and fertilizer?

Have you noticed the oddity that they are not releasing any pictures of the female emissary of peace? I've never seen this before. Is it out of some warped deference to the sensitivities of devout Muslims who believe that their women's faces remain hidden? What other possible explanation is there?

They're now reporting that she claimed allegiance to ISIS not that long ago and that they were on the FBI's radar screen. I'm sure that the FBI must have thousands on their radar screens by now in all 50 states and they are becoming overwhelmed by these terrorists among us. Plus we must always guard their rights over ours. Right?

We will quickly be overwhelmed by these animals in all of our cities as the cancer grows. Obama can't leave office soon enough! We need Trump!

Tortoise wrote: This one hit close to home for me.

I grew up near San Bernardino. My family lives out there. I personally know someone who works at the Inland Regional Center where the attack happened. Luckily, she happened to be out of the office when the shooting went down.

What a random city for terrorists to attack. The nearest big metropolitan area is Los Angeles, which is an hour away. San Bernardino is an impoverished, crime-infested city, like a mini version of Detroit in the desert. If terrorists can decide to attack that hell-hole, I guess no city or town in the U.S. is totally safe.

World War III, a.k.a. Hardcore Muslims vs. Everyone Else, is turning out to be a lot weirder than I originally thought.

It seems ISIS is less tightly organized than say AQ is/was.  ISIS primarily is using social media to recruit, and it seems there is much less formality and central planning.  Consequently it has a wider net.

I think you will see "more random" targets, rather than huge symbolic targets such as the WTC or Pentagon, etc. 

Once someone is radicalized and willing to die, their short list will probably be made up of soft targets in their area. 

As more and more details come out, it sounds like this was a combination of work place violence and terrorism.  These two apparently had a greater target in mind, but may have went by the office meeting to settle a grudge with a fellow employee that Farooq had recently had a disagreement with, over (ironically) whether Islam was a peaceful religion or not.  Then they wanted to go to potentially another area target, but police responded and identified them too fast, leading to a shootout where they were killed.

Sorry, posted this in the wrong thread earlier.
-----------------------------------------------------
Thaks for the gun info, PS.
And Reub, here's your picture. At least I think this is her. Some websites are saying the name Tashfeen Malik is a nom de guerre, btw. I haven't really looked into it.

Moving my reply from earlier...

Devout enough to mow people down, but not devout enough for a head covering?

This the worst terrorist attack in the US since Sep 11th, 2001. But mark my words that this is the very tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately there will be many more Islamic terrorist attacks in every state of the Union and on a much larger killing scale. This will result in a great diminishment of our freedoms and will be absolutely necessary to fight the treacherous enemy that is now within. We need to stop letting them in immediately if we even have a chance to survive.  Fighting global warming won't help, Barry, Bernie, and Hillary.

Oh yes. Please remember that the female Islamic terrorist was completely vetted just last year by our government and allowed in.  I'm surprised that Obama and other bleeding heart liberals weren't there to meet her at the airport.

dualstow wrote: Sorry, posted this in the wrong thread earlier.
-----------------------------------------------------
Thaks for the gun info, PS.
And Reub, here's your picture. At least I think this is her. Some websites are saying the name Tashfeen Malik is a nom de guerre, btw. I haven't really looked into it.

Very pretty picture, is that a pelican? 

... M

I understand that the press has descended on the terrorist's home and probably saw this picture there. Not put out by our government. Why?

Tortoise wrote: This one hit close to home for me.

Hillary sure was quick to politicalize the incident with her babble about more gun control.  Disgusting.

Gun control matters.
Global warming matters. 
Black lives matter.

Global Islamic terrorism?  Nah!

Reub wrote: I understand that the press has descended on the terrorist's home and probably saw this picture there. Not put out by our government. Why?

Maybe because they don't want to broadcast worldwide that they are looking for anybody who was associated with this women so they can go about destroying all the evidence?

Mountaineer wrote:

I was a LOT older than Sayeed at the time and my wife was a good bit older than Tashfeen, but I have a very similar picture on my computer from around the time my wife came over on a K-1 fiance visa - just on the opposite coast of the U.S. It was probably the happiest time in my life. We even thought about having a baby which seems like a silly idea now given our ages although it was still possible.

How you go from such a promise of a happy life to where they ended up is something beyond comprehension.

Sorry to say it if it offends you, but I believe the answer involves religion.

Fred wrote:Sorry to say it if it offends you, but I believe the answer involves religion.

Um...  Duh?  Don't we know that's why they did this?

Xan wrote:

Fred wrote:Sorry to say it if it offends you, but I believe the answer involves religion.

Um...  Duh?  Don't we know that's why they did this?

To me "Um ... Duh?" suggests that you think I made a stupid remark.

My suggestion that some people might be offended by my observation is because some people here probably think the only problem is that they chose the wrong religion which I tend to agree with as far as current events go.