PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting



TopHatter
12 Jun 16,, 18:32
On June 12, 2016, multiple people were shot in Pulse, a gay bar, dance club and nightclub in Orlando, Florida. At least 50 were killed and 53 wounded. The gunman was identified as 29-year-old Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, an American citizen of Afghan descent. Law enforcement officials are treating the case as an act of domestic terrorism.
It is the deadliest mass shooting in American history (surpassing the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007) and the largest act of terrorism since the September 11 attacks in 2001.
_______

May they have peace in death that this savage denied them in life.

S2
12 Jun 16,, 20:36
A bad dude who'd physically abused his ex-wife and apparently had been previously investigated by the FBI without consequence back in 2014. Evidently found time to make a declaration of fidelity to ISIS while slaughtering innocents.

I can't think of any reasonable way a nation can be protected from one-off assaults of this kind. A semi-automatic weapon and a confined crowd of targets is a recipe for carnage.

TopHatter
12 Jun 16,, 20:38
I can't think of any reasonable way a nation can be protected from one-off assaults of this kind. A semi-automatic weapon and a confined crowd of targets is a recipe for carnage.
Ban all semi-automatic weapons.

Yeah, sounds pretty stupid when you say it out loud but that's exactly what people are clamoring for.

Aryajet
12 Jun 16,, 20:39
I was watching the NBC news and hearing these so called journalist I almost smashed my TV screen. The shooter calls 911 and pledge his allegiance to Al-Baghdadi the Islamic Khalifa of ISIS and Tsarnaev brothers mentioning he is following their foot-steps, then he proceed toward the club and start shooting the people in the club and these journalist immediately start talking about gun problem in US, pointing at the ease of availability, fairly cheap to obtain and blah blah blah.... but they either intentionally or out of pure ignorance fail to tell people that this muslim animal was a security guard and would have no difficulties putting his hand on an assault rifle.

I wonder when the Americans and people of Western world in general will open their eyes and realize/acknowledge how evil this stone age and extremely violent ideology is. Some islam apologists claim that these young muslims get radicalized because of the environment in which they are born and raised provide nothing but poverty, hopelessness and insecurities, but this guy was born and raised in New York city, world class center for culture, art, history, science, museums, libraries, theaters, world class universities and so on. So no it is not the environment it is the evil, violent and fascist ideology and should be dealt with accordingly.

BTW I watched the president Obama's speech, he mentioned that ever since Sunday morning he has been in meeting with FBI chief, secretary of DHS and had several conference call with city of Orlando's mayor and police chief, so he knew about the 911 phone call and was informed about the killer's background, during his speech he mentioned that the nightclub served LGBT community but never mentioned Omar was a muslim.

Officer of Engineers
12 Jun 16,, 20:51
God Bless.

surfgun
12 Jun 16,, 21:00
Oh yes O'bummer, is again complaining about Americans having easy access to weapons. Yes! That is the problem! What an imbecile!
From the administration that edits the French President!

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/01/conservative-media-push-conspiracy-that-obama-c/209705

drhuy
12 Jun 16,, 21:28
the shooter was registered as a democrat. Can you imagine that

citanon
12 Jun 16,, 21:40
He was also a security guard with a concealed carry permit.

Also early word is a heavy gunfight inside the club. Hate to say this but I wonder if any were actually shot by the police in the crossfire.

surfgun
12 Jun 16,, 21:46
The SWAT team as I understand took two hours to make entry. More probably died by bleeding out than would have been killed in a crossfire.

citanon
12 Jun 16,, 22:31
The SWAT team as I understand took two hours to make entry. More probably died by bleeding out than would have been killed in a crossfire.

Ahh, was different than the story I read. These initial accounts are pretty confused and conflicting, as always.

barangai
13 Jun 16,, 01:02
RIP

terrible loss

Aryajet
13 Jun 16,, 01:32
Some passages from the holly Quran in which all muslims are obligated to follow Allah's direct orders otherwise lest ignored they will be condemned to the fire of hell till eternity. The process of the insubordinate's flesh being BBQed in the fire is outlined in Quran in detail, that the charred flesh will be rejuvenated and submerged in a pool full of scorching hot tar.

Suraa 9, verse 5:

"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Sura 9, verse 29:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humiliated."
Note above verse includes Christians and Jews (as a matter of fact every non-muslim in the globe because they don't believe in prophet-hood of the Mohammad.)

Sura 2, verse 193:

" Kill them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they surrender, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Sura 47, verse 4:

" So when you face those who disbelieve , strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

Sura 9, verse 123:

" O you who believe! kill those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you ferocity; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Sura 5, verse 33:

" The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

I mean this book which explains the doctrine, rules, regulation and obligations of the religion of peass is brimming with these kind of orders and obligation and threatens the believers to be burn in eternity if they refuse to obey.

For the authenticity of my post you could check Quran.com , amazing source of Quranic teachings which is translated to every single major language of the world and the same time includes almost all of the famous translators of the world.

Regards
Rasoul

Aryajet
13 Jun 16,, 01:37
Apologies offered, it is:

WWW.quran.com

tbm3fan
13 Jun 16,, 06:17
Suraa 9, verse 5:

"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Forgiving and merciful. Hmm, go it




Sura 2, verse 193:

" Kill them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they surrender, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Sura 47, verse 4:

" So when you face those who disbelieve , strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

Inflict slaughter and kill them off. Hmm, got it.


Sura 9, verse 123:

" O you who believe! kill those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you ferocity; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Guard against evil. Hmm, got it.


You see my problem here. He claims to be merciful on one hand while the other is saying kill, kill, kill when offended or rejected.

He says guard against evil when he himself in the personification of evil. He is right up there with Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and Pol Pot. My way or you are dead.

On the other hand Jesus says turn the other cheek, he who is without sin throw the first stone and father forgive those who do not know what they do.

My only conclusion here is:

Allah = evil

Jesus = love

Oracle
13 Jun 16,, 08:42
Sad tragedy. RIP, and a speedy recovery to the injured.

Goatboy
13 Jun 16,, 09:24
A bad dude who'd physically abused his ex-wife and apparently had been previously investigated by the FBI without consequence back in 2014. Evidently found time to make a declaration of fidelity to ISIS while slaughtering innocents.

I can't think of any reasonable way a nation can be protected from one-off assaults of this kind. A semi-automatic weapon and a confined crowd of targets is a recipe for carnage.

I think his "pledge to ISIS" is meaningless frankly. ISIS' "theology" is merely a convenient ideology that would have been replaced by something else, perhaps the shooter's own psyche if need be.

Also, I agree that there's no way this nation can protect itself from one-off assaults like this, not for maybe +-10 minutes of shooting. But then again, we need to ask ourselves what the fuck is so fucked up about America that these shootings keep occurring. The typical NRA response is anything but our ally here.

drhuy
13 Jun 16,, 09:52
I think his "pledge to ISIS" is meaningless frankly. ISIS' "theology" is merely a convenient ideology that would have been replaced by something else, perhaps the shooter's own psyche if need be.

Also, I agree that there's no way this nation can protect itself from one-off assaults like this, not for maybe +-10 minutes of shooting. But then again, we need to ask ourselves what the fuck is so fucked up about America that these shootings keep occurring. The typical NRA response is anything but our ally here.

a convenient ideology called islam. It's that simple.

Oracle
13 Jun 16,, 10:33
Joe, banning gun is probably not the solution. Maybe a law that stops immigrants from buying guns, specially Muslim immigrants from Pak/Afghan. I somehow, well, like the idea of Trumph banning Muslim immigration. This terrorist is second generation right? Lived in prosperity, had a good career, but the call of homophobic Allah made him do it. If there are no trouble-makers, there'd be no trouble. Sometimes I don't understand US immigration, why take shit from Islamic hell-holes?

DOR
13 Jun 16,, 11:01
A bad dude who'd physically abused his ex-wife and apparently had been previously investigated by the FBI without consequence back in 2014. Evidently found time to make a declaration of fidelity to ISIS while slaughtering innocents.

I can't think of any reasonable way a nation can be protected from one-off assaults of this kind. A semi-automatic weapon and a confined crowd of targets is a recipe for carnage.

What if we remove the semi-automatic weapon from the equation ...?

Gun Grape
13 Jun 16,, 11:44
Joe, banning gun is probably not the solution. Maybe a law that stops immigrants from buying guns, specially Muslim immigrants from Pak/Afghan. I somehow, well, like the idea of Trumph banning Muslim immigration. This terrorist is second generation right? Lived in prosperity, had a good career, but the call of homophobic Allah made him do it. If there are no trouble-makers, there'd be no trouble. Sometimes I don't understand US immigration, why take shit from Islamic hell-holes?

This guy was born in America. So was the San Bernardino shooter.

James Wesley Howell , stopped sunday before he could do the same thing.is American by birth, white far right crazy person.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html

Maybe instead of focusing on religion, we focus on mental health.

Oracle
13 Jun 16,, 12:07
This guy was born in America. So was the San Bernardino shooter.

James Wesley Howell , stopped sunday before he could do the same thing.is American by birth, white far right crazy person.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html

Maybe instead of focusing on religion, we focus on mental health.

Your authorities have said this is a terrorist attack. There is no issue of mental health here.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jun 16,, 13:54
What if we remove the semi-automatic weapon from the equation ...?Molotov cocktails are easy to make and impossible to regulate. And if you graduated from highschool, you've got the knowhow for a black powder bomb.

Doktor
13 Jun 16,, 14:04
Your authorities have said this is a terrorist attack. There is no issue of mental health here.

Because, as we know, all the terrorists have perfect mental health.

GVChamp
13 Jun 16,, 14:41
His relatives describe him as unbalanced and bipolar. I'd chalk this up to mental illness more than I would enemy activity.

Dude just snapped and hated gays. I guess we'll find out more as the days come, but that's what it looks like.


Far different than the San Bernardino shooters, who definitely were Fifth Columnists. They had planned several attacks, amassed a stockpile, visited Saudi, were of sound mind, etc.

drhuy
13 Jun 16,, 17:14
This guy was born in America. So was the San Bernardino shooter.

James Wesley Howell , stopped sunday before he could do the same thing.is American by birth, white far right crazy person.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html

Maybe instead of focusing on religion, we focus on mental health.

this was just a hoax, James Wesley Howell is bi-sexual and has no problem with gay whatsoever.

drhuy
13 Jun 16,, 17:15
One question is why it took the police so long to storm the building. After all those attacks, it should have been dealt with much quicker.

surfgun
13 Jun 16,, 19:11
The father of the shooter is pro-Taliban. Obviously he and is son are/were radicalized.

Aryajet
13 Jun 16,, 19:32
One question is why it took the police so long to storm the building. After all those attacks, it should have been dealt with much quicker.

The shooter took hostages, police had to come up with a plan (negotiation?) to end it without more people getting killed.

tantalus
14 Jun 16,, 00:09
His relatives describe him as unbalanced and bipolar. I'd chalk this up to mental illness more than I would enemy activity.

Dude just snapped and hated gays. I guess we'll find out more as the days come, but that's what it looks like.


It can just be both. Plenty who commit these kinds of crimes are often mentally unstable, but the emergence and widespread coverage of ISIS and ISIS ideology can be the catalyst. Who knows? maybe without ISIS he would never have taken the final step. I think the probability of such events occurring increases, mental stability aside.

zraver
14 Jun 16,, 03:25
What if we remove the semi-automatic weapon from the equation ...?


He'd have used a shot gun and revolver, or maybe mowed down a gay pride parade in a car, set off a bomb, set a fire, flown a plane.... People bent on carnage will find a way.

More improtantly, what if we allowed people to defend themsevles? Now granted booze and guns don't mix, but how about letting anyone who gets wrist banded as a DD carry their CCW?

Gun Grape
14 Jun 16,, 03:31
He'd have used a shot gun and revolver, or maybe mowed down a gay pride parade in a car, set off a bomb, set a fire, flown a plane.... People bent on carnage will find a way.

And less people would have died. More time between reloads allows people to either overwhelm the shooter or flee. Semi-auto and high capacity magazines means more people shot.




More improtantly, what if we allowed people to defend themsevles? Now granted booze and guns don't mix, but how about letting anyone who gets wrist banded as a DD carry their CCW?

No restriction in Florida. Anyone with a CCP could have been carrying in the club that night.



But the only CCP individual that engaged targets that night was the shooter.

zraver
14 Jun 16,, 04:05
And less people would have died. More time between reloads allows people to either overwhelm the shooter or flee. Semi-auto and high capacity magazines means more people shot.

Deadliest attacks in US history are bombs and planes...



No restriction in Florida. Anyone with a CCP could have been carrying in the club that night.



But the only CCP individual that engaged targets that night was the shooter.

even with a CWFL these weapons may not be carried concealed in the following places, pursuant to Section 790.06(12)(a), Florida Statutes:

Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.

Gun Grape
14 Jun 16,, 04:46
Deadliest attacks in US history are bombs and planes...

Single incidents. 9/11 and OKC bombing. Mass shootings in the US happen every week





even with a CWFL these weapons may not be carried concealed in the following places, pursuant to Section 790.06(12)(a), Florida Statutes:

Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.

I stand corrected. They tried to change that last election. I thought it passed.

DOR
14 Jun 16,, 10:10
He'd have used a shot gun and revolver, or maybe mowed down a gay pride parade in a car, set off a bomb, set a fire, flown a plane.... People bent on carnage will find a way.

More improtantly, what if we allowed people to defend themsevles? Now granted booze and guns don't mix, but how about letting anyone who gets wrist banded as a DD carry their CCW?

So, why not just make it easy for them?
Is that the argument you're trying to make?

Last time I checked, it was a whole lot more difficult -- lots more planning involved, many more uncertainties -- to kill lots of people with a car, bomb, fire, plane, etc than with a semi-automatic weapon.

So, why make it easier?
Doesn't make any sense.

Doktor
14 Jun 16,, 10:34
So, why not just make it easy for them?
Is that the argument you're trying to make?

Last time I checked, it was a whole lot more difficult -- lots more planning involved, many more uncertainties -- to kill lots of people with a car, bomb, fire, plane, etc than with a semi-automatic weapon.

So, why make it easier?
Doesn't make any sense.

Utoya, Norway.

How hard it is to make a bomb and obtain a firearm in Norway?

DOR
14 Jun 16,, 11:10
Utoya, Norway.

How hard it is to make a bomb and obtain a firearm in Norway?

I'd guess pretty hard.
So, how many times did something like Utoya occur in the past 12 months?

Another take---

Candidates React to Orlando Shooting as Generals Call for Gun Control
The U.S. presidential candidates offered different responses to Sunday's mass shooting in Orlando, while one joined with some retired military generals in calling for more gun control.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump put the massacre front and center in his campaign by reiterating his call to keep Muslims out of the U.S., while Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton and the longshot Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson said the killings shouldn't be politicized as investigators work to get all the facts.

Meanwhile, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent and still officially a candidate for the Democrat Party, called the killings further evidence of the need to regulate semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 used by the gunman, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen and Muslim who lived in Fort Pierce, Florida, and whose parents were of Afghan origin.

Mateen killed 49 individuals and injured 53 others in the rampage before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said.

Speaking to supporters in New Hampshire on Monday, Trump said "radical Islam" has arrived on American shores and that if Clinton is elected she would continue an immigration policy that would result in more attacks.

"What I want is a common sense," Trump said. "I want a mainstream immigration policy that promotes American values … designed to benefit America." He said Clinton would continue an "incompetent" policy "designed to benefit politically correct special interests."

During his speech, Trump warned that thousands of refugees slated to be relocated to the U.S. after fleeing the civil war in Syria represent a potential threat, and he reiterated his demand that no Muslims be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. without stronger background checks.

Speaking earlier in the day in Cleveland, Clinton said that in the aftermath of the deadliest shooting in American history and the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. needs unity.

"President Bush went to a Muslim community center just six days after the attacks to send a message of unity and solidarity," Clinton recalled. "To anyone who wanted to take out their anger on our Muslim neighbors and fellow citizens, he said, 'That should not, and that will not, stand in America.'

"It is time to get back to the spirit of those days," Clinton said.

Johnson, meanwhile, called the killings "clearly a tragic and despicable attack.

"Regardless of what the motivation is ultimately found to be, this violence against innocent people simply going about their lives is both cowardly and infuriating," he said. "We must allow the authorities to do their jobs, understand how this attack came about, and then respond accordingly. It is not a time to either politicize or jump to conclusions."

Sanders the Orlando killings is further evidence of the need to ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles such as the type used by Mateen.

In an interview Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet The Press" television program, Sanders didn't address Mateen's reported ISIS sympathies.

"I've got to tell you, for 25 years now, I've believed that we should not be selling automatic weapons which are designed to kill people," he said. "We've got to do everything we can on top of that to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them -- criminals and people who are mentally ill -- so that struggle continues."

Just days before the Orlando shooting, a group of 23 former military and intelligence veterans who belong to a group called the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense called on lawmakers "to close the loopholes in our background check laws that let felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill buy guns without a criminal background check."

The organization's members include retired NASA astronaut Navy Capt. Scott Kelly, whose wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, was shot and seriously injured by a gunman in 2011; retired Army Gens. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal; retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who also led the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency; and retired U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.

The group also said it is focused on strengthening existing laws and making sure "lawmakers and stakeholders have the resources and training they need to prevent gun tragedies" and "partnering with other groups in the veterans' community on suicide prevention and mental health."

Offering his own take on the Orlando killings during an interview Sunday on Fox News, Petraeus said it's time to get back to the "very clear, basic principles" to which the U.S. has always adhered.

"We have been an inclusive society," he said. "We have welcomed immigrants from around the world. Certainly, you should do the background checks. Certainly, you should safeguard against individuals who wish us ill will and also, by the way, safeguard against the extremist thinking that has been behind some of these attacks, it's quite apparent.

"But we don't do that by being exclusive, or by hate speech or other types of responses," he added. "I think you do that by pulling together."

Separately, the U.S. Army's top officer has said he opposes letting soldiers carry their own concealed firearms on U.S. military installations.

"I've been around guns all my life," Gen. Mark Milley said during an April 7 hearing on Capitol Hill. "I know how to use them. And arming our people on our military bases and allowing them to carry concealed privately owned weapons -- I do not recommend that as a course of action."

His comments came during an April 7 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in response to a question from Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, who asked about letting troops carry firearms at military installations abroad.

Congress last year approved language in the annual defense authorization bill to let commanders authorize more troops -- not just military police -- to carry guns on a military installation, reserve center, recruiting station or defense facility in the U.S. as a force-protection measure.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/14/candidates-react-to-orlando-shooting-generals-call-gun-control.html

Doktor
14 Jun 16,, 11:33
I'd guess pretty hard.
So, how many times did something like Utoya occur in the past 12 months?



I don't know, you tell me.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

tankie
14 Jun 16,, 12:04
RIP saddened ,,again.

RIP , when will we ever learn , the yanks can get guns like this one used over the counter , stopping the sales of these auto assault weapons will go someway to stopping these heinous acts IMO , im not wanting an argument over yank laws and acts ,, but !!!! this lowlife wanker was also licenced to carry weapons ?? ,,however these acts can never be stopped ,i mass killings don't need an auto rifle , petrol molotov cocktails and homemade bombs can be used as effectively ,,,but the cry to ban petrol which is used in many attacks is never ever sprouted Its one of a helluva vicious circle .

Maybe Trump is right ??

RIP the slain .

Parihaka
14 Jun 16,, 12:04
I don't know, you tell me.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Shhh, don't let reality get in the way of politics.

Gun Grape
14 Jun 16,, 12:23
Shhh, don't let reality get in the way of politics.

If you want the facts don't use the link Doktor provided then.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/

Doktor
14 Jun 16,, 14:04
If you want the facts don't use the link Doktor provided then.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/

Besides the political yada-yada, the numbers seemed sound. At least for the places I can check and compare.

GVChamp
14 Jun 16,, 14:04
I don't understand how banning semi-automatic weapons is a reasonable policy response.

The VTech perp used 2 pistols. He already was banned from buying those 2 pistols. Columbine was done with pistols (not even "high-capacity" pistols) and shotguns.


The only way to significantly reduce mass shootings is to ban guns, and you're still going to have occasional mass shootings.

It's a slippery slope, and it's not even a useful slippery slope because you're not addressing the results of gun violence (suicide and crime).

astralis
14 Jun 16,, 14:23
there's basic policy responses that can be done without banning semi-automatic weapons.

for instance, universal background checks-- with strictness like what we use for our security clearance system. an extremely heavy tax on ammo. ban weapon sales to people on terror watch lists.

none of this will cure the problem but it will at least reduce the shocking number of these mass murders.

Doktor
14 Jun 16,, 14:25
there's basic policy responses that can be done without banning semi-automatic weapons.

for instance, universal background checks-- with strictness like what we use for our security clearance system. an extremely heavy tax on ammo. ban weapon sales to people on terror watch lists.

none of this will cure the problem but it will at least reduce the shocking number of these mass murders.

Sounds like this guy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

Parihaka
14 Jun 16,, 20:38
Besides the political yada-yada, the numbers seemed sound. At least for the places I can check and compare.

Yes they are. The hit piece is just the usual 'we don't like the message so we'll attack the messenger' routine. Politifact backs him up, though with smaller samples.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
Never let the truth get in the way of a democrat political broadcast though....

Parihaka
14 Jun 16,, 20:41
there's basic policy responses that can be done without banning semi-automatic weapons.

for instance, universal background checks-- with strictness like what we use for our security clearance system. an extremely heavy tax on ammo. ban weapon sales to people on terror watch lists.

none of this will cure the problem but it will at least reduce the shocking number of these mass murders.
Omar Mateen was a security guard
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/12/news/companies/orlando-shooter-employer/

astralis
14 Jun 16,, 20:53
not the same as the process used for an official security clearance.

moreover, i did qualify that this will not "cure" the problem.

in any case, before this turns into a fullscale 2A thread, i'll just note that the modern understanding of the 2A with its militia clause controversy is a relatively new one, stemming largely from the late-70s. indeed, legally it was the 2008 SC case (DC v heller) where gun rights were detached from the militia clause.

regardless, there are certain limitations and policy actions that can be done to ameliorate the problem.

Parihaka
14 Jun 16,, 21:13
What limitations and policy actions can be done to ameliorate the war you're currently having with a large portion of Islam?

gunnut
14 Jun 16,, 21:39
there's basic policy responses that can be done without banning semi-automatic weapons.

for instance, universal background checks-- with strictness like what we use for our security clearance system. an extremely heavy tax on ammo. ban weapon sales to people on terror watch lists.

none of this will cure the problem but it will at least reduce the shocking number of these mass murders.

Why are we talking about restricting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

Why are we not talking about the 800lb elephant in the room?

We should talk about identifying and stopping the terrorists rather than restrict the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF every single law abiding citizen.

Is it OK to restrict and tax every single muslim in this country? No, and I will be the first to oppose that. So why is it OK to restrict and tax every single gun owners when they practice their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

Omar Mateen was a homosexual muslim who frequented the night club in question and used gay dating app. But homosexuals and muslims don't fit the agenda. So the talk is now restricting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT because that's what the left wants. It's not OK to demonize millions of homosexuals and muslims because of the act of one lunatic, but it's totally OK to demonize millions of rifles and owners who have never done anything other than punching holes in paper because of one lunatic. The hypocrisy is disgusting.

Albany Rifles
14 Jun 16,, 21:53
Gunnut, I am not denying you the right to own weapons.

But I want reassurances that you are going to be a reasonable gun owner. I want you to have to take a class. I want you to submit to a full background check. I want to be assured that you take care of and properly store your weapons. I want to make sure that if someone has been charged with domestic abuse/violence that they cannot get a gun.

Keep in mind...I am a gun owner. I used to have a Class III FFL. I personally don't think weapons like the AR-15 should be sold but since they are not illegal I am okay with it.

And as for the constitutionality of it...I am sorry, but I do not believe the Constitution is a document which is not to be interpreted or modified. The very 2nd Amendment you hold so dear is a modification of the base document. It was constitutional to own slaves at one time. It was also constitutional to say alcohol sales were illegal.

If you want to have the weapons, fine. But let's make sure LEOs can enforce laws which keep us safe...and to do that they need universal background checks as a start.

astralis
14 Jun 16,, 21:54
gunnut,


Why are we talking about restricting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

you realize that constitutional rights are restricted -all the time-?

IE, we have a right to free speech, but shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or blocking the road as part of a protest will land you in trouble with the law.

we have a right to a trial by jury...unless the sentence is for something six months or less. ditto things like "unwarranted searches".

so yeah, commonsense restrictions to the 2A is not a biggie. we do it today.

FJV
14 Jun 16,, 22:00
If the person himself claims it is an ISIS attack and ISIS kindof claims it as one of their attacks, then why wouldn't it be an ISIS attack?
The fact that there was no direct coordination from ISIS does not exclude leaderless resistance as the reason for the attack.

If you are at war with ISIS, you are gonna have counter attacks.

Changing gun laws will not do as much as people are expecting, it only changes the way ISIS uses to arm their operatives.
ISIS should have it well within their capacity to arm their terror cell even with changed gun laws.

If you can smuggle coke by the metric tons to the US, a few Kalashnikovs with ammo for those that are willing to die for the cause are no problem.
And getting those weapons in the hands of those people while staying undetected yourself is also "not that difficult".

surfgun
14 Jun 16,, 22:03
Rights are not issued by government. Regulation of immigrants is in the domain of government, meaning the pro-Taliban father should not have been permitted to immigrate.

astralis
14 Jun 16,, 22:10
FJV,


If the person himself claims it is an ISIS attack and ISIS kindof claims it as one of their attacks, then why wouldn't it be an ISIS attack?
The fact that there was no direct coordination from ISIS does not exclude leaderless resistance as the reason for the attack.

lone wolf attacks are going to be damned hard to stop, especially if the person in question is not really an "operative". directed attacks, though, are a different issue.


Changing gun laws will not do as much as people are expecting, it only changes the way ISIS uses to arm their operatives.
ISIS should have it well within their capacity to arm their terror cell even with changed gun laws.

If you can smuggle coke by the metric tons to the US, a few Kalashnikovs with ammo for those that are willing to die for the cause are no problem.
And getting those weapons in the hands of those people while staying undetected yourself is also "not that difficult".

harder than you think, or else given how the US seems to be the font of all evil for your average radical islamist, we'd see this type of thing-- or worse yet, something like Mumbai-- a good deal more often.

either way, though, stricter gun rules would make it more difficult for both lone wolves, operatives, and mentally deranged individuals alike to carry out such attacks. even discounting acts of terror, why is it that the US with 5% of the world's population must suffer through 30% of the mass shootings?

Dazed
14 Jun 16,, 22:21
Why are we talking about restricting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

Why are we not talking about the 800lb elephant in the room?

We should talk about identifying and stopping the terrorists rather than restrict the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF every single law abiding citizen.

Is it OK to restrict and tax every single muslim in this country? No, and I will be the first to oppose that. So why is it OK to restrict and tax every single gun owners when they practice their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

Does the Second Amendment overrule the other nine amendments and is the Second so black and white it forbids any restrictions ?

Omar Mateen should be able to purchase an AR-15 (Second) and be free of surveillance. (Fourth) To bad for the victims there was no Constitutional Right guaranteeing life. One man's Constitutional Rights is more important than the lives and rights of 49 other people?

gunnut
14 Jun 16,, 22:26
Gunnut, I am not denying you the right to own weapons.

But I want reassurances that you are going to be a reasonable gun owner. I want you to have to take a class. I want you to submit to a full background check. I want to be assured that you take care of and properly store your weapons. I want to make sure that if someone has been charged with domestic abuse/violence that they cannot get a gun.

Keep in mind...I am a gun owner. I used to have a Class III FFL. I personally don't think weapons like the AR-15 should be sold but since they are not illegal I am okay with it.

And as for the constitutionality of it...I am sorry, but I do not believe the Constitution is a document which is not to be interpreted or modified. The very 2nd Amendment you hold so dear is a modification of the base document. It was constitutional to own slaves at one time. It was also constitutional to say alcohol sales were illegal.

If you want to have the weapons, fine. But let's make sure LEOs can enforce laws which keep us safe...and to do that they need universal background checks as a start.

License and register all religion. Tax them. Monitor all religious gatherings.

I'm not saying you can't be a muslim or Christian. I just want to know who you are and what you are up to at your gatherings.

GVChamp
14 Jun 16,, 22:27
I don't see any "common sense" regulations that are going to stop mass shootings in the US. Any semi-automatic weapon in a dense setting is a disaster. There are already background checks in place for certain classes of weapons that should've stopped the VA Tech shooter, which didn't work.

A massive tax on ammunition is an unfair burden on average gunowners. Who is going to squeeze through more rounds, a responsible gunowner through decades of practice, or a mass shooter who has limited carrying capacity?

I support "common sense" regulations, but it's about trust, and the other side of the aisle is not trustworthy. I'll take my chances with the mass shooters.


EDIT:

One man's Constitutional Rights is more important than the lives and rights of 49 other people?
1. It's not "one man's" constitutional rights.
2. Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be wrongly convicted.

Most of these shooters are mentally ill. I think we should probably lock up all the mentally ill. Constitutional Right to Life.

gunnut
14 Jun 16,, 22:28
gunnut,



you realize that constitutional rights are restricted -all the time-?

IE, we have a right to free speech, but shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or blocking the road as part of a protest will land you in trouble with the law.

we have a right to a trial by jury...unless the sentence is for something six months or less. ditto things like "unwarranted searches".

so yeah, commonsense restrictions to the 2A is not a biggie. we do it today.

What is "common" sense restriction on the 2A?

gunnut
14 Jun 16,, 22:30
Does the Second Amendment overrule the other nine amendments and is the Second so black and white it forbids any restrictions ?

Omar Mateen should be able to purchase an AR-15 (Second) and be free of surveillance. (Fourth) To bad for the victims there was no Constitutional Right guaranteeing life. One man's Constitutional Rights is more important than the lives and rights of 49 other people?

Yes. Yes it is.

The 49 victims had their rights taken away by a lone individual. I can live with that.

What I cannot live with is the government as an institution taking the rights of the population away to "protect" us.

Dazed
14 Jun 16,, 22:31
License and register all religion. Tax them. Monitor all religious gatherings.

I'm not saying you can't be a muslim or Christian. I just want to know who you are and what you are up to at your gatherings.

Doesn't that impinge on the First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, and the Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

gunnut
14 Jun 16,, 22:33
Only law abiding people follow laws. Criminals don't care about "common sense gun restrictions."

How did the Paris shooter get his rifle? I didn't know one could walk into a corner gun store in Paris and buy an AK type rifle.

gunnut
14 Jun 16,, 22:34
Doesn't that impinge on the First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, and the Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

Are you against "common sense" restrictions on dangerous thoughts and gatherings?

gunnut
14 Jun 16,, 22:42
Again, why are we talking about restricting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT rather than going after the terrorists? The fucker actually swore allegiance to IS! He was investigated. FBI knew about him, just like FBI knew about the shooters in San Bernardino. What happened? No one connected the dots? Is Obama as incompetent as Bush at connecting dots? How many dots do we need to connect?

Dazed
14 Jun 16,, 23:17
Yes. Yes it is.

The 49 victims had their rights taken away by a lone individual. I can live with that.

What I cannot live with is the government as an institution taking the rights of the population away to "protect" us.

If the answer is yes to the question. "Second Amendment overrule the other nine amendments" Why is it the Second and not the First? If the answer to the question: is the Second Amendment so black and white it forbids any restrictions? . Yes it is. Than why can't I buy a surplus Scud, land mine, or grenades for my M-79 for protection of the families Idaho vacation home?

.[/QUOTE] The 49 victims had their rights taken away by a lone individual. I can live with that.[/QUOTE]
You or one of your family members was killed in this situation, you would be fine with it. No need to pursue change or compensation because Omar Mateen right to bear arms and the actions that follow are allowed by the Supreme Constitutional Right the Second.

US history says there are limits to all the US Constitutional Amendments.

Dazed
14 Jun 16,, 23:35
Are you against "common sense" restrictions on dangerous thoughts and gatherings?

Like maybe restricting access of firearms to people who shouldn't have them? Preventing the slaughter of civilians in their day to day lives, everything should be subject to review.

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 00:24
Commercial sales of the AR-15 goes back to at least 1963. The Dems have screaming about them since the 1980's. All of this screaming has increased AR-15 sales to the point that they are the most popular rifles in the land to the point that are over 8,000,000 in civilian circulation. They are not going anywhere. So, everyone needs to get over it!
Continuing to call for a ban will just increase sales.

troung
15 Jun 16,, 00:49
If the answer is yes to the question. "Second Amendment overrule the other nine amendments" Why is it the Second and not the First? If the answer to the question: is the Second Amendment so black and white it forbids any restrictions? . Yes it is. Than why can't I buy a surplus Scud, land mine, or grenades for my M-79 for protection of the families Idaho vacation home?

Time to stop pretending that the Second means nothing. The far left believes in divining rights out of the 14th, often concerning things illegal or no-go at the time those bills were passed, but wants to gut the 2nd. I'm not fine gutting the first over this issue, but it is damn indicative that immediately the regressives were out there calling to continue to chip away at the second.


Again, why are we talking about restricting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT rather than going after the terrorists? The fucker actually swore allegiance to IS! He was investigated. FBI knew about him, just like FBI knew about the shooters in San Bernardino. What happened? No one connected the dots? Is Obama as incompetent as Bush at connecting dots? How many dots do we need to connect?

Gay Muslim terrorist the FBI knew about and who struck a privileged minority group that another privileged minority group hates - yeah let's keep this one on guns.

Cactus
15 Jun 16,, 00:50
Is it OK to restrict and tax every single muslim in this country? No, and I will be the first to oppose that. So why is it OK to restrict and tax every single gun owners when they practice their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

Any federal taxes on arms, ammunition and reloading equipment will be through excise and import taxes -- i.e. taxes on the manufacturers and importers. Obviously they will bundle the tax-costs into the price and passed on to the customers, but the customer isn't taxed directly.

We effectively do the same with immigration via caps on immigration -- think of it as an opportunity tax if the immigrant is "manufactured" in China, India or Mexico -- and no one complains much about it because the taxing is done at the source. As Parihaka once very cuttingly observed, we in the West have become overly delicate about treating religious identities and dogma; there is no reason why they shouldn't be treated just like any other political ideology and identity, and dealt with in the same way as we deal with the latter factors when making immigration policy.

Dazed
15 Jun 16,, 00:56
Again, why are we talking about restricting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT rather than going after the terrorists? The fucker actually swore allegiance to IS! He was investigated. FBI knew about him, just like FBI knew about the shooters in San Bernardino. What happened? No one connected the dots? Is Obama as incompetent as Bush at connecting dots? How many dots do we need to connect?

Adam Lanza, Eric David Harris, Dylan Bennet Klebold not Muslim,

Problems are complex. It is easy to come up with knee jerk reaction that do nothing to solve the problem. This includes total or no prohibitions on fire arms. The solution will require a number of changes in many areas.

Plane crashes. The crews have thousands of hours. The make and model of aircraft has flown for years. It crashes, hundreds die. The crew f up no need to change anything. The crew is dead that won't happen again. No the incident is investigated, everything is looked at. Pandemics ditto. Mass shooting fall into the same category.

Constitutional Rights are very, very important but not monolithic or unquestionable. The Bill of Rights (1-10)did not prohibit slavery so the 13th Amendment. 21rst Amendment repeals the 18th. etc

tbm3fan
15 Jun 16,, 05:02
.

So why is it OK to restrict and tax every single gun owners when they practice their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?



Who said that so far? No one that I can tell. I am ok with handguns, shot guns and rifles. However, I believe assault rifles, which can be made automatic, should be heavily controlled like the Thompson machine gun. Or, are you going to argue that the Thompson shouldn't have any controls and be available to anyone because it is covered by the 2nd. Whether that would matter since the cat has been out of the bag so long I don't know.

tbm3fan
15 Jun 16,, 05:07
If the person himself claims it is an ISIS attack and ISIS kindof claims it as one of their attacks, then why wouldn't it be an ISIS attack?
The fact that there was no direct coordination from ISIS does not exclude leaderless resistance as the reason for the attack.



Mentally unbalanced people make all sorts of claims to justify what they do. The soup du jour of today would be ISIS.

As far as ISIS taking credit, why not? There is no downside to doing so for them and by doing so they can instill a little doubt and fear in others.

tbm3fan
15 Jun 16,, 05:18
Yes. Yes it is.

The 49 victims had their rights taken away by a lone individual. I can live with that.

What I cannot live with is the government as an institution taking the rights of the population away to "protect" us.

Whoa. You can live with 49 people getting killed that easily? Cold hearted aren't you? Would you say that if family members were lost? Can you say that to the face of all those families who lost loved ones?

What I find absolutely intriguing is your selective stance on rights. Sort of like I'm fine with taxes... on the other guy. I like my right to own weapons but I'd really like some others to lose their rights. I need to check my dictionary once again concerning hypocrite.

tbm3fan
15 Jun 16,, 06:03
Just what we need. A revival.

http://www.sfgate.com/local/politics/article/Bring-back-House-UnAmerican-Activities-Committee-8160109.php


The Cold War-era House Un-American Activities Committee should be revived to wage a war on Islamic extremism, according to ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is running hard to be Donald Trump's running mate.

"We're going to ultimately declare war on Islamic supremacists and we're going to say, 'If you pledge allegiance to (the Islamic State, or ISIS) you are traitor and you've lost your citizenship.' And we're going to take much tougher positions," Gingrich said Monday on Fox & Friends.

Gingrich was discussing the Orlando massacre, committed by an American-born U.S. citizen from Port St. Lucie, Florida, who called 911 during the killing spree at the Pulse nightclub to declare his support for ISIS.

The House Un-American Activities Committee was known for often-questionable "investigations" of suspected communists. The committee broadened its mandate to target civil rights groups as well as 1960s advocates for a ban on nuclear weapons testing.

Its tactics drew scathing criticism, such as a probe into the venerable ban-the-bomb group Women Strike for Peace.

A famous drawing by Washington Post cartoonist Herbert Block ("Herblock") showed a congressman arriving at the hearing and whispering to a colleague: "What's un-American today, women or peace?"

Gingrich noted that HUAC, as the panel was known, came into being in 1938 to ferret out both Nazis and communists operating in the United States.

"We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis," he said. "We're going to presently have to take similar steps here."

Gingrich is not the first to make the suggestion. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a loud opponent of immigration reform, was quoted by MSNBC voicing support for a new HUAC and saying: "I think that is a good process and I would support it."

Ex-Rep. (and 2012 presidential candidate) Michele Bachmann memorably said during the 2008 campaign that Congress should be investigated to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."

The hearings of HUAC were famous for demanding that witnesses name names. If they refused, a contempt sentence followed, and following that a place on blacklists of suspected communist sympathizers (or "Comsymps" in the parlance of the 1960s far-right). The blacklist meant becoming jobless and unemployable.

A similar panel in Congress' upper chamber, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, was chaired by Mississippi's arch-segregationist Sen. James Eastland and "investigated" communist influence in the 1960s civil rights leadership.

Four newly elected Washington Democratic congressmen took what was then considered a radical step in 1965 by voting against funding of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Only 53 colleagues had the courage to join them.

Eventually, the House made attempts to gussy up HUAC, in 1969 renaming it the House Internal Security Committee.

The post-Watergate Congress abolished the committee in 1975.

Parihaka
15 Jun 16,, 10:43
you purge all the time. Much of this is ongoing, whether racial, cultural or polical.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Media_Elite#Findings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States#1990_.E2.80.93_21 st_century this of course covers the Irish as well
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/irs-reveals-400-conservative-tea-party-groups-targeted-scandal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)#United_States

DOR
15 Jun 16,, 12:09
So, how are those laws restricting undesirables from gun ownership working out?
Pretty poorly, it seems.

Does that mean laws can't work, or that these laws -- varied by state -- are not working?
I'll go with the latter.

Those who believe in the sanctity of the original intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution, should recognize that "arms" were muzzle-loading flintlocks, bladed weapons and cannon. They should also accept that the phrase "for the purpose of a well ordered militia" was not tossed in as an after thought.

Guns kill more Americans than terrorists, including home-grown ones using guns.
It is a national health issue.
We need a vaccination program.

Doktor
15 Jun 16,, 12:33
Cars kill more Americans than guns.

Medical negligence kill more Americans than cars.

What you gonna do?

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 13:39
Where there is freedom and free will, there is the opportunity for evil.
Where freedom is stripped, evil will reign.

astralis
15 Jun 16,, 15:03
^ platitudes. Australia and Japan and the UK and Switzerland, oh my god what tyrannical hellholes.

seriously, as a gun owner, I recognize that having a right also means having responsibilities that go with such a right. one of these responsibilities is to ensure that there's a regulatory regime in place that will keep people with mental disorders and terrorists from having arms.

it's also pretty damned clear to me that a lot of my fellow gun owners don't recognize that-- let's not even talk about stuff like this, just go on youtube and type "gun safety fail", or think about all the accidental shootings every year from people whom didn't properly secure and store their weapons. i mean, the most basic tenements of gun safety and operation, the first responsibility of a gun owner. absolutely ridiculous.

Albany Rifles
15 Jun 16,, 15:07
Are you against "common sense" restrictions on dangerous thoughts and gatherings?

They already exist and are constitutionally legal. That is why hate speech is considered a crime as is violating someone's civil rights and dangerous gatherings are denied all of the time...protest permits. Restrictions on size, locations, etc. restrict gatherings all of the time.

It is not a crime to hold those beliefs. But society has decided for the betterment of all there is a limit to how far our rights extend.

I see no need for the requirement to register your religion....that is a thought, a belief. But if you join a religious hate group you have just abrogated you rights and placed yourself on societies radar.

You see the 2 A as an absolute...I do not. I absolutely agree that you are allowed to own weapons. But I also contend that society has a right to place certain requirements in place for you to possess those guns.

Doktor
15 Jun 16,, 15:14
41578

While all of you look at Australia, let's look at Russia with far lower guns per capita for a moment. Or Latvia. Or Estonia...

Doktor
15 Jun 16,, 15:18
^ platitudes. Australia and Japan and the UK and Switzerland, oh my god what tyrannical hellholes.

seriously, as a gun owner, I recognize that having a right also means having responsibilities that go with such a right. one of these responsibilities is to ensure that there's a regulatory regime in place that will keep people with mental disorders and terrorists from having arms.


What restrictions you have on voting? What background checks? For all I know you don't even need an ID card, unlike those hellholes you mentioned.

Doktor
15 Jun 16,, 15:22
Just so I don't get wrong, I am all for responsibility and checks and safety, but you can't have it on one group only.

What's the percentage of those who have guns legally and who committed a mass-murder or a homicide (suicide not included)?
How does this percentage compare to ___________ (add your group de jeur here)

GVChamp
15 Jun 16,, 15:25
Gay Muslim terrorist the FBI knew about and who struck a privileged minority group that another privileged minority group hates - yeah let's keep this one on guns.

Bingo. Multi-ethnic empires always have tensions like this.


BTW, another mass shooting with only pistols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting
Pistol, shotgun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre
Pistols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_post_office_shooting
Pistols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings
Shotgun, pistols(I am only skimming, but this appears to be a pump-action shotgun, which you might call "military," but no one is talking about banning pump-action shotguns):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting
Pistol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Fort_Hood_shooting


The majority of mass shootings can and seem to be accomplished with semi-automatic pistols, not arbitrarily defined "scary" rifles. Maybe we can talk about magazine restrictions, but even then you're not preventing mass shootings.
The conversation about AR-15s is entirely besides the point, IMO.

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 15:36
Additionally, how many feet of flesh can a copper solid bullet in .300 Winchester Magnum penetrate? Say the Muslim nut ball entered the tightly packed club with Browning BLR with a future government sanctioned 10 round magazine in a large magnum rifle caliber? Has anyone seen how fast cowboy action shooters can shoot a lever gun? The carnage would have been comparable.
Also remember the Henry Carbines of 1880's held 16 rounds.

Chunder
15 Jun 16,, 15:57
^^ It's more about changing gun culture .

Without going overboard :- Yes in Oz firearms are restricted... but they certainly aren't banned. You just need to have a valid reason (Your second amendment might suffice) and not have a criminal record.

Secondly, if you can afford a gun you can probably afford a locker or a safe or whatever.

Neither are onerous and yes retards can still slip through the cracks. They can also slip through the cracks of a test to obtain a drivers license too.

It won't stop people killing one another, but at least it might stop the mental fruit loops from exercising their right to freak the fuck out.
This guy. His missus said he was violent. In Oz, if she called the cops on him... they'd take his guns. The system invariable weeds the freaks out. No mental or even half the mental fruit loops running about = less of a threat to your 2A, or at least less of a risk of damned statistics governing underlying statistics.

Doktor
15 Jun 16,, 17:28
We have a stricter gun control than Oz, yet we have most gun-related homicides per capita in Europe.
It can be assigned to small population, so one incident with 5 deaths puts us high, but still.

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 17:41
The Happy Land club fire, 87 killed with a can of gas.
This feat is easily replicated with chains/pad locks to secure exit doors of a club, add fire and one has a pile of corpses.
No Dr. Feel Good bans required.

astralis
15 Jun 16,, 19:54
ah, which is why we hear about mass murders in other developed countries in such a fashion, at the same rate that the US seems to have shooting sprees...?

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 16,, 19:57
We do but we don't care. Just google car bombings.

Firestorm
15 Jun 16,, 20:15
We do but we don't care. Just google car bombings.

In developed countries? Car bombings causing mass casualties would be very rare (and a very big deal when they happen) in any developed country.

astralis
15 Jun 16,, 20:32
let's put this in context. we're about halfway through 2016 and there's been 133 mass shootings already (defined as 4 or more people shot).

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 20:42
let's put this in context. we're about halfway through 2016 and there's been 133 mass shootings already (defined as 4 or more people shot).

And how many of those are Chicago, gang related events?

Albany Rifles
15 Jun 16,, 20:45
And how many of those are Chicago, gang related events?

Too many...and that's the point.

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 20:52
So now the point is that Dr. Feel Good wants to fix the inner city organized crime/street thug (that uses stolen weapons including those stolen from Federal Officers) issues too?

GVChamp
15 Jun 16,, 20:57
Your policy proposals require restrictions on tens of millions of Americans. How many mass shootings do you claim your policy proposals will prevent? When your policy proposals fail, will sunset provisions eliminate them, or will you instead demand ever more draconian restrictions?

Albany Rifles
15 Jun 16,, 21:20
Who the fuck is DR Feelgood? Are you okay with all of these people getting killed?

And I am not saying you can't have the weapon. I am saying there should be a solid vetting process to make sure you do not have a violent history, a mental health problem or on the FBI watch list. And that you have a responsibility to make sure the weapon is used responsibly.

Parihaka
15 Jun 16,, 21:22
History is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings#1970s

Firestorm
15 Jun 16,, 21:35
History is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings#1970s

Between 2000 and now, the only car bombings causing mass casualties in developed countries were one in Spain, 2009 and one in Norway in 2011. You have to go all the way back to 1991 to find one in the US.

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 21:35
Dr. Feel Good is those that think they can legislate away societies problems. Evil doers belong in prison or dead. A society that continually release violent SOB's back onto the streets, must come to certain amount of peace with the garbage that we are forced to live with. It is far from a panacea, and a few more laws for the law abiding is not the solution.

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 21:36
Between 2000 and now, the only car bombings causing mass casualties in developed countries were one in Spain, 2009 and one in Norway in 2011. You have to go all the way back to 1991 to find one in the US.

I seem to remember a little event in Oklahoma City.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 16,, 22:04
Between 2000 and now, the only car bombings causing mass casualties in developed countries were one in Spain, 2009 and one in Norway in 2011. You have to go all the way back to 1991 to find one in the US.A developed country is one that is defined as industrialized. Pakistan and India qualifies.

GVChamp
15 Jun 16,, 22:25
Between 2000 and now, the only car bombings causing mass casualties in developed countries were one in Spain, 2009 and one in Norway in 2011. You have to go all the way back to 1991 to find one in the US.

Just because it's not a problem now, doesn't mean it won't become a problem. High profile mass shootings have jumped in the last 10 years or so.
http://fox6now.com/2015/12/03/the-30-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history/

Dazed
15 Jun 16,, 23:40
Dr. Feel Good is those that think they can legislate away societies problems. Evil doers belong in prison or dead. A society that continually release violent SOB's back onto the streets, must come to certain amount of peace with the garbage that we are forced to live with. It is far from a panacea, and a few more laws for the law abiding is not the solution.

The Nightclub was ordered closed and was operating illegally. There has been worse fire Boston's Coconut Grove, but guess what the following changes have been made to night club due to the carnage. Sprinklers, Fire Alarms, emergency lighting, no longer allowing aluminum wiring, etc. It is not about legislating away society's problems. There can be improvements through education, legislation and technology. Think drunk driving the rate of drunk driving death has been cut in half over the last 30 years.

They will always be violence, but as a society we should be able to respond to an epidemic of gun violence. This does not mean government action only. I am a gun owner, but it I think it stupid to leave an unsecured unattended firearm lying around for a child to find and make the local news.

Dazed
15 Jun 16,, 23:46
Cars kill more Americans than guns.

Medical negligence kill more Americans than cars.

What you gonna do?

Well we improve cars. Seat belts airbags, ABS, back up cams, etc. The death rate has dropped from the 1960s while the driving population has increased. Through education, legislation and technology we have cut drunk driving fatalities by over 50%, Don't you think we could try that with gun violence

surfgun
15 Jun 16,, 23:47
Open the fire hydrant outside the club and let us see how well those sprinklers work?

Dazed
16 Jun 16,, 00:09
Open the fire hydrant outside the club and let us see how well those sprinklers work?

Well if built in CA in the last 10 years pretty good. The point is there was an effort to increase public safety in a public place. It works. No one claims death by fire was a constitutional right, and there is really nothing we can do about it.

troung
16 Jun 16,, 02:22
And I am not saying you can't have the weapon. I am saying there should be a solid vetting process to make sure you do not have a violent history, a mental health problem or on the FBI watch list. And that you have a responsibility to make sure the weapon is used responsibly.

An FBI watch list which would expand to the millions if that becomes a manner to block 2nd Amendment rights.


let's put this in context. we're about halfway through 2016 and there's been 133 mass shootings already (defined as 4 or more people shot).

Maybe it's time to deal with the crime problem in these horribly run urban areas. Longer sentences, more policing, less leniency for drug or violent crimes... or yeah we could just point the finger at law abiding people in the suburbs and their pesky Constitutional rights.

zraver
16 Jun 16,, 02:59
So, why not just make it easy for them?
Is that the argument you're trying to make?

He passed a background check, more importantly because the Obama administration, you know the people supposed to vet incoming salafist refugees gutted the FBI's ability to interrogate suspects, he passed not one but two FBI checks.


Last time I checked, it was a whole lot more difficult -- lots more planning involved, many more uncertainties -- to kill lots of people with a car, bomb, fire, plane, etc than with a semi-automatic weapon.

You would be wrong, cars are very easy to come by, fire only takes a match. Bombs take barely any effort at all if you know what you are doing. The only one that requires a lot of planning is using a plane, in part because after decades of hijackings and thousands of dead we now spend billions to prevent them.


So, why make it easier?
Doesn't make any sense.

Who said anything about making it easier? Getting rid of gun free zones would make it harder. There is a reason they target gun free zones after all- easy pickings. These people are cowards looking for infamy. They don't target kids and club goers to prove their machismo, they don't have any. Giving the law abising citizen the means to defend himself and his fellows makes it that much harder for a would be infamy seeker to find a soft target.

zraver
16 Jun 16,, 03:07
Cars kill more Americans than guns.

Medical negligence kill more Americans than cars.

What you gonna do?

If it was really about saving lives, the anti-gunners would be anti-abortion and pushing to make interlock devices mandatory on all cars.

Look, the number of guns is going up, the number of murders is going down. The most heavily armed group on the planet is white males are who under represented in every category of murder except maybe self murder. If more guns= more crime this would not be possible. Yet this is fact.

Mass shootings have increased in part because of instant media infamy and I suspect because gun free zones create a target rich but low threat environment for evil doers to prey on. I'd also point out that the only terror attack using guns on an armed group able to shoot back failed in spectacular fashion. There have also been at least 4 terror attacks directly tied to immigration and foreign visitors, including both the deadliest mass shooting in US history and the deadliest terror attack anywhere. But hey, lets keep blaiming white guys and Christians while Salafist shoot us up in public spaces and minority males with extensive criminal records who cannot legally have guns already wax each other in urban centers.

At what point do we wake up and admit its not a gun problem, its a heart problem.

Doktor
16 Jun 16,, 07:01
Well we improve cars. Seat belts airbags, ABS, back up cams, etc. The death rate has dropped from the 1960s while the driving population has increased. Through education, legislation and technology we have cut drunk driving fatalities by over 50%, Don't you think we could try that with gun violence

Are you saying the MDs are uneducated and use old tech?

Parihaka
16 Jun 16,, 10:30
Those who believe in the sanctity of the original intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution, should recognize that "arms" were muzzle-loading flintlocks, bladed weapons and cannon.
And the 1st Amendment allows you to use one of these
41595
to press various libels at your pleasure. How is it relevant in the age of the web, television, or mass print of thousands of copies a second?

DOR
16 Jun 16,, 11:14
Cars kill more Americans than guns.

Medical negligence kill more Americans than cars.

What you gonna do?


If your argument is that cars, like guns, are specifically designed with the sole purpose of killing, I disagree.
If you argument is that bad doctors are specifically trained in the art of killing, I disagree.

If another argument made here about car bomb or petrol bombs is meant to suggest that those things are specifically designed to kill, ...

Well, I think you get the point.

Guns are unique in their design function.

Doktor
16 Jun 16,, 12:25
If your argument is that cars, like guns, are specifically designed with the sole purpose of killing, I disagree.
If you argument is that bad doctors are specifically trained in the art of killing, I disagree.

If another argument made here about car bomb or petrol bombs is meant to suggest that those things are specifically designed to kill, ...

Well, I think you get the point.

Guns are unique in their design function.

The point is people kill people, not the guns or cars, but you deliberately missed it.

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 14:25
doktor,


The point is people kill people, not the guns or cars, but you deliberately missed it.

and guns, especially modern ones, are designed to assist in the killing-- and do so very efficiently.

if bombs and fires and such could substitute for guns at a pinch, the question then becomes why do we not see a mass firebombing at the same level in other cities that we see mass shootings in the US.

conversely, if gun-free zones mean a huge pool of insta-sheep and that gun laws don't do anything against the bad guys, one wonders why we don't see veritable rivers of blood in places where guns are extremely rare.

what people refuse to see is that (lower case l) liberal gun rights means a trade-off. you accept a higher level of gun violence, accidents, etc in exchange for the freedom of having guns. all the data we have in regards to guns per capita, population density, etc show this to be the case.

it is quite similar to motor vehicles, after all. we understand the convenience of cars but also know there's a trade-off involved with a higher level of car accidents or road rage.

so we put licenses and restrictions and tell people how fast they can drive, etc. a balance.

and so it should be, and is to SOME DEGREE, with small arms. only clearly the balance is off-kilter.

Doktor
16 Jun 16,, 14:31
doktor,



and guns, especially modern ones, are designed to assist in the killing-- and do so very efficiently.

if bombs and fires and such could substitute for guns at a pinch, the question then becomes why do we not see a mass firebombing at the same level in other cities that we see mass shootings in the US.

conversely, if gun-free zones mean a huge pool of insta-sheep and that gun laws don't do anything against the bad guys, one wonders why we don't see veritable rivers of blood in places where guns are extremely rare.

what people refuse to see is that (lower case l) liberal gun rights means a trade-off. you accept a higher level of gun violence, accidents, etc in exchange for the freedom of having guns. all the data we have in regards to guns per capita, population density, etc show this to be the case.

it is quite similar to motor vehicles, after all. we understand the convenience of cars but also know there's a trade-off involved with a higher level of car accidents or road rage.

so we put licenses and restrictions and tell people how fast they can drive, etc. a balance.

and so it should be, and is to SOME DEGREE, with small arms. only clearly the balance is off-kilter.

You have a easy access to guns, places with more efficient control see knive stabbing, bombs, etc. I have a friend who can blow your entire house with a soap (a bit exaggerating, but you get the point)

And again, the worst spree was in Norway, with over 70 casualties.

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 14:39
yes, of course you'll see "substitutes". but as far as I know, there's no place on earth outside of an open war zone wherein we see mass bombings, mass knifings, etc at the same level as mass shootings in the US.

yeah, there was a horrible spree in Norway. but it's shocking not just because of the body count but because it rarely happens. can anyone say with a straight face that reports of a mass shooting in the US shocked them on account of how rare it is?

Doktor
16 Jun 16,, 14:48
yes, of course you'll see "substitutes". but as far as I know, there's no place on earth outside of an open war zone wherein we see mass bombings, mass knifings, etc at the same level as mass shootings in the US.

yeah, there was a horrible spree in Norway. but it's shocking not just because of the body count but because it rarely happens. can anyone say with a straight face that reports of a mass shooting in the US shocked them on account of how rare it is?

No, it doesn't surprise me. Just as if something bad in Paris happens doesn't surprise me.

13 killed by a pistol in a school in Finland? 11 more the next year?

Most people never heard of those.

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 15:03
sure. now replicate that level of slaughter approximately 3-5 times a year and a lower level of slaughter almost every other day (again, 133 mass shootings in 164 days)... and that's the reality of the US.

given that the US has the highest level of guns per capita in the world, one would think we would be better protected by all the Good Guys with Guns.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 16,, 15:05
yes, of course you'll see "substitutes". but as far as I know, there's no place on earth outside of an open war zone wherein we see mass bombings, mass knifings, etc at the same level as mass shootings in the US.

yeah, there was a horrible spree in Norway. but it's shocking not just because of the body count but because it rarely happens. can anyone say with a straight face that reports of a mass shooting in the US shocked them on account of how rare it is?Replace the word "shooting" with "violence" and you're not that different from Russia and China. Hell, the Chinese had to use helicopter gunships against Xinjiang crime lords. And when did the US ever had a Beslan?

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 15:09
^ being like Russia and China is not where I want the US to be.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 16,, 15:11
Then you won't be who you are. Canadians didn't build this great nation. Your country was borned of violence, matured through violence, and earned your freedoms through violence. And spread your freedoms through violence.

surfgun
16 Jun 16,, 15:23
16+1 capacity, 19th century style firepower.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle

Cowboy Action speed of shooting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 15:35
Then you won't be who you are. Canadians didn't build this great nation. Your country was borned of violence, matured through violence, and earned your freedoms through violence. And spread your freedoms through violence.

quite true, but we certainly have changed over the years.

back in the late 1800s, decades after the Europeans had established police forces, most Americans were still suspicious of even the existence of policemen.

I don't think even the most enthusiastic gun-rights advocate will think that an unpoliced Wild West would be better for the US today.

by the way, this idea that gun rights are sacrosanct is a relatively new one. in 1968, the NRA was vehemently FOR the Gun Control Act of that year. the GOP party platform -explicitly- called for "enactment of legislation to control indiscriminate availability of firearms."

and a certain Ronald Reagan once said: "There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

surfgun
16 Jun 16,, 15:35
On a side note, some may find the West Virginia Coal Wars of interest? Lots of weapons including Thompson sub-machine guns, not whole lot of killing.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh50-1.html

GVChamp
16 Jun 16,, 16:16
Most Republicans support some gun control. It's even Constitutional. You can just look at the majority opinion of DC vs. Heller. The idea of an individual right to own weapons does not contradict reasonable gun legislation.

So it's not a question of "gun control."

The relevant problem is that 4 liberal justices do not believe there is an individual right to own weapons. There is a large cadre of liberals who believe "appropriate" Gun Control is "ban all guns" and the Democratic Presidential Candidate has expressed glee at the prospect of seizing tens of millions of American firearms like in Australia. Since the liberal justices have a habit of inventing their own Constitution whenever Social Justice is at stake...

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 16:42
only problem is, I think there's considerably more evidence that Republicans do not support any gun control vs Democrats want to "ban all guns".

look at the legislative docket. after newtown, what was the great liberal push? to ban all guns? uh, no, it was for universal background checks. and we all know what happened to that push.

or before newtown, aurora. Colorado responded by requiring universal background checks and a ban on large-capacity magazines, which is not exactly close to "ban all guns" territory. and less than two years later the GOP tried to undo both.

so I fail to see where Republicans have by and large supported "some gun control", or where Dems have actually seriously proposed to "ban all guns". the most Dems have been able to do in the last 30 years was one temporary and very leaky "assault weapons ban", which was pretty much the high-water mark of modern day gun control.

Albany Rifles
16 Jun 16,, 17:23
^ being like Russia and China is not where I want the US to be.

I cannot like this enough.

Exactly my sentiments, Astralis.

GVChamp
16 Jun 16,, 18:02
Where's the evidence that Republicans support zero control? Can I go buy a machine gun from Wal-Mart?
Even Texas says you can't carry guns in a bar.

Regarding Colorado, that might be because reasonable people might disagree on the need for magazine restrictions.

There's plenty of evidence that the measures Democrats support have absolutely nothing to do with the gun violence we experience. If Dems didn't really want to ban guns, DC vs. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago never would have materialized.


Note obviously not all Dems, just enough to create islands of insanity within the nation. And I don't care if Colorado restricts magazine size, that's not a Constitutional Issue.

Doktor
16 Jun 16,, 18:41
I cannot like this enough.

Exactly my sentiments, Astralis.

You can't be like Finland, France, Norway, either. This ain't bad, you are who you are because of your ways and traditions. Abolish 2A if that's who you think you are now. Tighten the control, throw all your arms with over 6 bullets capacity...

The argument is still if guns kill people. I have few and they killed 0 people so far.

Albany Rifles
16 Jun 16,, 19:45
You can't be like Finland, France, Norway, either. This ain't bad, you are who you are because of your ways and traditions. Abolish 2A if that's who you think you are now. Tighten the control, throw all your arms with over 6 bullets capacity...

The argument is still if guns kill people. I have few and they killed 0 people so far.

We have grown beyond much of our past and need to do more.

And I don't understand that folks seem to think I want to get rid of guns or take them away.

Hell no. I own guns.

I just don't want criminals and the mentally disturbed get weapons.

I get folks are passionate about this.

But we cannot just say its an absolute right with no interpretation or management.

So we most assuredly can keep the 2A.

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 20:01
GVChamp,


Where's the evidence that Republicans support zero control? Can I go buy a machine gun from Wal-Mart?
Even Texas says you can't carry guns in a bar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/upshot/policy-changes-after-mass-shootings-tend-to-make-guns-easier-to-buy.html




In states where a mass shooting happened, 15 percent more gun-related bills were introduced in state legislatures, three Harvard Business School professors found in a working paper published last month. But in states with legislatures that were led by Democrats or divided between the parties, a mass shooting wasn’t followed by any statistically significant increase in gun laws enacted.

It was different in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. After a mass shooting, the number of laws passed to loosen gun restrictions rose by 75 percent. In other words, in places where mass shootings lead to any legislative changes at all, it tends to be in the direction of guns becoming more easily available, like lowering the minimum age to buy a handgun to 18 from 21 or eliminating a waiting period for a gun purchase.

...

It’s easy to see why laws in Republican-controlled statehouses enacted in the aftermath of a mass shooting tended to loosen gun restrictions. Gun advocates and many conservative politicians have argued that more widespread availability of firearms is a key to stopping mass shootings.


====


Note obviously not all Dems, just enough to create islands of insanity within the nation. And I don't care if Colorado restricts magazine size, that's not a Constitutional Issue.

as you know, I'd flip that around. of course, there is some exaggeration to a statement like Republicans want no gun control. however, it is -certainly- no exaggeration to state that Republicans and the NRA have conducted a far more directed effort at loosening gun laws than Dems have to make them tighter. the political effects of the 1994 ban was not lost on anyone.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 16,, 22:55
quite true, but we certainly have changed over the years.

back in the late 1800s, decades after the Europeans had established police forces, most Americans were still suspicious of even the existence of policemen.

I don't think even the most enthusiastic gun-rights advocate will think that an unpoliced Wild West would be better for the US today.

by the way, this idea that gun rights are sacrosanct is a relatively new one. in 1968, the NRA was vehemently FOR the Gun Control Act of that year. the GOP party platform -explicitly- called for "enactment of legislation to control indiscriminate availability of firearms."

and a certain Ronald Reagan once said: "There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”You're actually missing the point. Guns are the symptoms. Your culture of violence is the disease. Discipline is the answer, not legislation.

That being said, how you achieve this? I have no idea.

astralis
16 Jun 16,, 23:46
col,


Guns are the symptoms. Your culture of violence is the disease.

i don't think so. there's nothing intrinsically broken or extra-violent about American culture. some conservatives will blame this on "diversity" (dog-whistle for minorities/blacks), but your average New Yorker or Floridian or San Franciscan isn't more prone to violence than, say, someone from Manchester or Berlin or Beijing.

it's simply that guns allow for a much easier expression of sudden unthinking anger than other weapons. building a bomb means deliberation. even knifing someone requires that person to be so wild with anger that they're going to physically stab or cut a person at close quarters.

pulling a trigger is much easier than all of the above.

it's not an accident that the rate at which mass shootings are happening has increased since the 1970s.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 16,, 23:54
i don't think so. there's nothing intrinsically broken or extra-violent about American culture. some conservatives will blame this on "diversity" (dog-whistle for minorities/blacks), but your average New Yorker or Floridian or San Franciscan isn't more prone to violence than, say, someone from Manchester or Berlin or Beijing.You're proving my point. Except the difference in tools, you're no more and no less violent than Russia or China.


it's simply that guns allow for a much easier expression of sudden unthinking anger than other weapons. building a bomb means deliberation. even knifing someone requires that person to be so wild with anger that they're going to physically stab or cut a person at close quarters.Xinjiang "rebels" uses blades above anything else.


pulling a trigger is much easier than all of the above.Actually, no it isn't. It is not aimed fire. It's mass fire.

GVChamp
17 Jun 16,, 00:20
GVChamp,



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/upshot/policy-changes-after-mass-shootings-tend-to-make-guns-easier-to-buy.html



====



as you know, I'd flip that around. of course, there is some exaggeration to a statement like Republicans want no gun control. however, it is -certainly- no exaggeration to state that Republicans and the NRA have conducted a far more directed effort at loosening gun laws than Dems have to make them tighter. the political effects of the 1994 ban was not lost on anyone.
I wouldn't disagree that parts of the nation wouldn't be crazy if there were no federal legislation. I am sure Texas would legalize fully automatic weapons without a license and some province in Idaho would legalize MANPADS.
But they can't because the federal legislation is in place to prevent that, and the current national consensus says this is correct.

The similar national Democratic consensus is that there is no limit to what the government should be allowed to do and that at a minimum we need to ban weapons on cosmetic features and permanently register everyone who owns a weapon. This will be ratcheted up every single time there is a crisis, because there will ALWAYS be a crisis.

I mean obviously there has been political pushback in recent years, but who cares? Just deal with your local state government and move to a state that mirrors your preferences. Do you want asinine gun laws? Illinois is open for you!



some conservatives will blame this on "diversity" (dog-whistle for minorities/blacks),
Southern whites are also more violent and criminal than similar whites. Surprisingly people descended from the "Border Reavers" are a bit more violent than the Puritans and the Germans.
It can be a dogwhistle, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. The US would have a higher homicide rate even if we banned guns, and, yeah, that's largely driven by the black community (but we would still be an outlier even if we were an all-white nation, too).

troung
17 Jun 16,, 00:50
it's not an accident that the rate at which mass shootings are happening has increased since the 1970s.
Inner city crime is not a worthwhile reason to surrender my rights to the state. Maybe they could try to throw the gangbangers in prison for a few decades. I like how the inner city crimes get merged in to try to take rights away from people in the suburbs and rural areas, I guess those lives only matter when used to try and restrict the rights of others.

====
Criminals would be armed anyways.


Homemade ‘Carlo’ Gun Becoming Weapon of Choice for Palestinian Attackers
By Jack Moore On 6/11/16 at 4:00 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/homemade-carlo-gun-becoming-weapon-choice-palestinian-attackers-468813
After two Palestinian gunmen opened fire on diners in central Tel Aviv’s Sarona market Wednesday, killing four Israelis, a hashtag was being widely posted by Palestinian social media users: #CarloSalvo.

The hashtag is a morbid tip of the hat to a homemade sub-machine gun version of the Swedish military’s World War II Carl Gustav rifle, nicknamed the “Carlo.” The firearm was used by the two cousins from the West Bank village of Yatta who staged Wednesday’s attack and by other Palestinian gunmen who have launched numerous attacks since October 2015. The hashtag was accompanied by posters praising the gun as a weapon worthy of a “hero.”

Carlo gun Palestinians attackers used the Carlo sub-machine gun, a cheap, homemade weapon, to kill four Israelis in central Tel Aviv on Wednesday. Israeli Police

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

What had been termed the ‘Blade Intifada’ by the international media because of a series of stabbing attacks, the wave of assaults by Palestinians against Israelis since October 2015 is now being characterized by a series of deadly gun attacks. Palestinians are turning to a much-cheaper alternative to a Kalashnikov. The rise of the “Carlo” poses a unique challenge to Israeli security services. While a Kalashnikov can be bought for up to $20,500, a “Carlo” can cost as little as $780.

These guns are composed of separate parts, such as scrap paintball guns and pipes, then filled with ammunition to turn it into a live and deadly weapon. Amateurs can make such guns with ease and blacksmiths, some of whom have been raided by Israeli forces in the West Bank for their involvement in weapon-making, can easily put such a weapon together. The parts are welded together, and blueprints for making the weapons can be easily found on the web.

“It’s easy to make and cheap,” says Gonen Ben Itzhak, a former senior Shin Bet intelligence official who oversaw the Ramallah section of the Israeli military’s Operation Defensive Shield during the Second Intifada, or uprising. “This is why also youngsters can even get hold of this kind of weapon. The West Bank is full of weapons. It is easier for youngsters to get this kind of weapon, easier than getting a Kalashnikov or an M-16.”

Three Palestinian attackers committed a similar attack to that of Wednesday’s shooting in February, when they arrived near Jerusalem’s Old City and shot 19-year-old Israeli border police officer Hadar Cohen in the head.

These weapons are low-quality, due to the ability of anyone to make them, as shown in CCTV released from the Tel Aviv attack when one gunman’s “Carlo” seems to jam before he throws it to the floor in anger. But it is the accessibility and the ease of creation that is attracting Palestinian gunmen to the weapon, meaning that security experts believe further Carlo-led attacks are to be expected in Israel in the future.

“Even if Israel will be successful in not letting those terrorists to go out [into Israel], they still can go into settlements or to main roads in the West Bank,” Itzhak adds. “I won’t be surprised if in the near future we see more people using it.”

The “Carlo” chain, from manufacture to attack, is a process that Israeli security services have yet to disrupt successfully. Arms can be smuggled in from Jordan or other surrounding countries but these are easier to intercept than someone constructing a weapon at home.

The attackers in Wednesday’s Tel Aviv attack traveled from Yatta to Tel Aviv without the relevant permits. Where they picked up their weapon is unknown, but it is unlikely that the pair manufactured their own guns, Itzhak adds.

“They went and bought it somewhere. The fact that we don’t know about the chain of manufacturing, then the selling of it or the distributing of it, means there is a gap here,” he says. “I guess that the Shin Bet is working now to close it but right now we have a proble

Doktor
17 Jun 16,, 09:28
We have grown beyond much of our past and need to do more.

And I don't understand that folks seem to think I want to get rid of guns or take them away.

Hell no. I own guns.

I just don't want criminals and the mentally disturbed get weapons.

I get folks are passionate about this.

But we cannot just say its an absolute right with no interpretation or management.

So we most assuredly can keep the 2A.

Besides the feelgood moment, what's gonna change?

You gonna register every piece? How this gonna work?

Goatboy
17 Jun 16,, 10:14
I have far more respect for the 2nd Amendment than I have for those Americans that insist that restrictions on collecting as many AR-15 rifles as they want is "ok". We can go round and round discussing the "Constitutionality" of possession of these weapons, but that's an insanely lengthy "excerpt quote war". In short, I have no problem that you love guns, or even collect a few. I have a problem that you think you, who happens to be collecting lots of rapid-fire guns, is immune to public concern and oversight. The public's right to feel safety UTTERLY overrides your (gun loving persona's) right to carry an assault rifle into Taco Bell.

DOR
17 Jun 16,, 11:19
The extremists who promote guns
Firearms have their valid uses, but we should keep them out of the hands of violent people.
by Nicholas Kristof

Over the past two decades, Canada has had eight mass shootings. Just so far this month, the United States has already had 20. Canada has a much smaller population, of course, and the criteria that researchers used for each country are slightly different, but that still says something important about public safety.

Could it be, as Donald Trump suggests, that the peril comes from admitting Muslims? On the contrary, Canadians are safe despite having been far more hospitable to Muslim refugees: Canada has admitted more than 27,000 Syrian refugees since November, some 10 times the number the United States has. More broadly, Canada’s population is 3.2 percent Muslim, while the United States is about 1 percent Muslim — yet Canada doesn’t have massacres like the one we just experienced at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, or the one in December in San Bernardino, California. So perhaps the problem isn’t so much Muslims out of control but guns out of control.

Look, I grew up on a farm with guns. One morning when I was 10, we awoke at dawn to hear our chickens squawking frantically and saw a fox trotting away with one of our hens in its mouth. My dad grabbed his .308 rifle, opened the window and fired twice. The fox was unhurt but dropped its breakfast and fled. The hen picked herself up, shook her feathers indignantly and walked back to the barn. So in the right context, guns have their uses.

The problem is that we make no serious effort to keep firearms out of the hands of violent people. A few data points:

More Americans have died from guns, including suicides, since just 1970 than died in all the wars in U.S. history going back to the American Revolution.

The Civil War marks by far the most savage period of warfare in U.S. history. But more Americans are now killed from guns annually, again including suicides, than were killed by guns on average each year during the Civil War (when many of the deaths were from disease, not guns).

In the United States, more preschoolers up through age 4 are shot dead each year than police officers are.

Canada has put in place measures that make it more difficult for a dangerous person to acquire a gun, with a focus not so much on banning weapons entirely (the AR-15 is available after undergoing safety training and a screening) as on limiting who can obtain one. In the United States, we lack even universal background checks, and new Harvard research to be published soon found that 40 percent of gun transfers didn’t even involve a background check.

We can’t prevent every gun death any more than we can prevent every car accident, and the challenge is particularly acute with homegrown terrorists like the one in Orlando. But experts estimate that a serious effort to reduce gun violence might reduce the toll by one-third, which would be more than 10,000 lives saved a year.

The Orlando killer would have been legally barred from buying lawn darts, because they were banned as unsafe. He would have been unable to drive a car that didn’t pass a safety inspection or that lacked insurance. He couldn’t have purchased a black water gun without an orange tip — because that would have been too dangerous.

But it’s not too dangerous to allow the sale of an assault rifle without even a background check?

If we’re trying to prevent carnage like that of Orlando, we need to be vigilant not only about infiltration by the Islamic State, and not only about U.S. citizens poisoned into committing acts of terrorism. We also need to be vigilant about National Rifle Association-type extremism that allows guns to be sold without background checks.

It’s staggering that Congress doesn’t see a problem with allowing people on terror watch lists to buy guns: In each of the past three years, more than 200 people on the terror watch list have been allowed to purchase guns. We empower the Islamic State when we permit acolytes like the Orlando killer, investigated repeatedly as a terrorist threat, to buy a Sig Sauer MCX and a Glock 17 handgun on consecutive days.

A great majority of Muslims are peaceful, and it’s unfair to blame Islam for terrorist attacks like the one in Orlando. But it is important to hold accountable Gulf states like Saudi Arabia that are wellsprings of religious zealotry, intolerance and fanaticism. We should also hold accountable our own political figures who exploit tragic events to sow bigotry. And, yes, that means Donald Trump.

When Trump scapegoats Muslims, that also damages our own security by bolstering the us-versus-them narrative of the Islamic State.

The lesson of history is that extremists on one side invariably empower extremists on the other.

So by all means, Muslims around the world should stand up to their fanatics sowing hatred and intolerance — and we Americans should stand up to our own extremists doing just the same.

Nicholas Kristof is a columnist for The New York times.

Seriously, lawn darts, but not AR-15s?

Parihaka
17 Jun 16,, 12:11
So, what do we know about the shooter?
Well, when he tried to buy guns his attitude and questions were enough for one gun shop owner to call the FBI. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-turned-gun-store-suspicious/story?id=39901107)

The FBI had enough evidence in 2014 to keep him on a watchlist but decided to close it anyway, for as yet unexplained reasons (http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/06/14/did-the-fbi-fail-and-are-they-failing-to-admit-it/)

Mihais
17 Jun 16,, 13:01
Good Lawd,as if the FBI is God.Any security service is first and foremost a bureaucracy.It processes information on industrial scale.The system works well enough if given proper tool.Ours,for example,has no problem like the FBI or the Brits or the French .If in the file of any of the tens of thousands under observation each year comes a hint of sympathy towards islamic radicalism,no case officer will waste time and resources investigating the personal motives or whether the subject suffered childhood trauma.Instant expulsion.More attention is directed to his contacts.If any is dubious,out with him.Rinse and repeat.
When you have hundreds of thousands of cases,when you cannot expel them,cannot jail them because they have done nothing yet,limited resources and time,the marvellous thing is not that nutters escape thorough investigation,but how many attacks are prevented.

Doktor
17 Jun 16,, 13:22
So, how is this newer and improved backcheking gonna work?

Let me guess, way better.

Parihaka
17 Jun 16,, 13:41
That he was violent and threatening at school, constantly using his faith as a excuse (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640621/Orlando-shooter-Omar-Mateen-threatened-bring-gun-kill-students-elementary-school-former-classmates-reveal.html)

That his father is a vocal Taliban supporter (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-orlando-shooters-afghan-roots/2016/06/13/d89a8cd0-30e4-11e6-ab9d-1da2b0f24f93_story.html)

That his wife knew of his plans, helped him scope the club and buy ammunition, but failed to report him to the FBI or police (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051)

astralis
17 Jun 16,, 14:48
GVChamp,


But they can't because the federal legislation is in place to prevent that, and the current national consensus says this is correct.

I think this has more to do with whom has greater control over the levers of power than a national consensus, IE the end of the assault weapons ban in 2004. this is also true at the state level, as my earlier article pointed out.


This will be ratcheted up every single time there is a crisis, because there will ALWAYS be a crisis.


much like our earlier conversation on the future of the political parties, I think you're mirror-imaging here.

IE, how many crises have we had since the demise of the AWB? and how much has the national Democratic gun consensus changed since then?

in fact, the Dem -asks- have gotten a lot smaller over time as it becomes clearer that their consensus is a pipe dream in the current political context. OK, so no AWB...how about universal background checks? no? how about no guns for people on the terror watchlist?

here's another way of looking at it. say you were to wave a wand and suddenly Republicans had veto-proof control over the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. I'd say there would be a far greater loosening of federal gun laws than the opposite situation, if Dems suddenly had control over the levers of government.

and that's true simply because the Dem coalition is more ideologically diverse. I'm OK with universal background checks and even a gun registry. I'd be OK with the silly AWB. but if Dems suddenly started talking about confiscating -all guns- as you imagine they would in this scenario, the Party would crack, because people like me and AR and a significant number of moderates would be at the barricades with you.

GVChamp
17 Jun 16,, 16:42
The two sides are not symmetrical.

Assuming Republicans get veto-proof majorities, it’s because blue-leaning and swing states are electing Republican representation.

So you’ll get Mark Kirk(R-IL), who supports the Assault Weapons Ban. Which is stupid, but besides the point. You will not see roll-back of long-standing gun control laws in Congress. The kind of Republicans you elect won’t stand for it, anymore than the Democrats would stand for a total weapons ban.

That means Texas cannot get around federal law no matter how much it might want to.

The states are also more than free to pass their own onerous restrictions.


Assuming Democrats get veto-proof majorities, they will immediately implement legislation similar to the more draconian states. Total AWB, magazine restrictions, extreme background checks with no due process, etc.
At the state and local level, this will be magnified. There is no end to what CAN be passed, because Democrat Leadership does not believe in an individual right to own weapons. This means if San Francisco wants to ban all guns, a-okay! That doesn’t mean EVERY Democratic state will ban guns.

The Democratic asks at the federal level are growing smaller because they cannot get anything passed, not because they are staunch gun right supporters.
The concern is that the Democratic leadership is increasingly influenced by an ultra-left, coastal elite value-set that abhors guns. The last gun shop in San Francisco closed up shop and the government grinned.
Your relevant red-line is a total ban of guns. Which isn’t meaningful. San Francisco didn’t ban guns. They are making ownership and commerce dramatically more onerous with ostensibly “reasonable” safety measures. Whether they actually save lives is irrelevant, and none of this stuff makes the liberal media echo chamber despite it being friggin’ ridiculous and a much more insidious threat than scary-looking rifles.
Obviously there is the possibility of stopping them elsewhere. Slippery slope arguments aren’t really correct. But the correct red-line is the AWB, because the AWB doesn’t do anything to protect us. Registrations are also bad because if the political consensus changes, you’re screwed and might need to give up your weapons (as happened in Australia, has happened in the US, and Hillary salivates at the chance to replicate).


More broadly speaking, I talk mostly to white-collar young Bobos, so that’s coloring where I am coming from. If those people vote for more Republicans, you’ll get more Republican Senators like Scott Brown and Mark Kirk. You’ll get more Presidential candidates like Kasich.
If they vote Dem, you’ll get more Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens. *shudder*

troung
17 Jun 16,, 23:09
That he was violent and threatening at school, constantly using his faith as a excuse

That his father is a vocal Taliban supporter

That his wife knew of his plans, helped him scope the club and buy ammunition, but failed to report him to the FBI or police

Entirely the fault of the NRA.


So in the right context, guns have their uses

It is not a right limited to hunting.


Canada has admitted more than 27,000 Syrian refugees since November, some 10 times the number the United States has. More broadly, Canada’s population is 3.2 percent Muslim, while the United States is about 1 percent Muslim — yet Canada doesn’t have massacres like the one we just experienced at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, or the one in December in San Bernardino, California. So perhaps the problem isn’t so much Muslims out of control but guns out of control.

Clearly thy should all go to Canada then.


The Civil War marks by far the most savage period of warfare in U.S. history. But more Americans are now killed from guns annually, again including suicides, than were killed by guns on average each year during the Civil War (when many of the deaths were from disease, not guns).

Four years and some 200k Americans died in the field or of wounds after battle...


e also need to be vigilant about National Rifle Association-type extremism that allows guns to be sold without background checks.

Little shit is prepared to blame all of the NRA members for the attack and yet none of this guys community.


The Orlando killer would have been legally barred from buying lawn darts, because they were banned as unsafe. He would have been unable to drive a car that didn’t pass a safety inspection or that lacked insurance. He couldn’t have purchased a black water gun without an orange tip — because that would have been too dangerous.

We don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car.


A great majority of Muslims are peaceful, and it’s unfair to blame Islam for terrorist attacks like the one in Orlando. But it is important to hold accountable Gulf states like Saudi Arabia that are wellsprings of religious zealotry, intolerance and fanaticism.

Need that roll eyes icon.


We should also hold accountable our own political figures who exploit tragic events to sow bigotry. And, yes, that means Donald Trump.

Lame.


More Americans have died from guns, including suicides, since just 1970 than died in all the wars in U.S. history going back to the American Revolution.
Unlike France, Russia, or Germany we haven't lost millions in a single conflict.


[B] When Trump scapegoats Muslims, that also damages our own security by bolstering the us-versus-them narrative of the Islamic State.

That tired narrative which seeks to shift blame away from the terrorists.

==========
I figure him and his badly educated easily scared readers probably squat to piss.

Parihaka
17 Jun 16,, 23:42
Oh, Mateen was a registered democrat.

Best expression I've heard so far?


Of course, the reality that several of the most notorious Muslim terrorists of recent years have been brought up here or even born here is an extremely bad argument for more pedal-to-the-metal immigration policies. Instead, it suggests that America’s Magic Dirt doesn’t automatically assimilate Muslims. That Muslim immigrant terrorism is likely to go on for at least a generation is, rationally speaking, an argument for heightened prudence, not an argument for increased negligence. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

And apropos of my job of pointing out that you've been perfectly happy going postal on any group, race, culture or ideology in the past and indeed still do


And yet, the United States has been plagued before by immigrant terrorism, and completely solved the problem.

How? Largely by selective deportations of radical immigrants and cutting back on future immigration.

Immigrant terrorists committed many of the most heinous crimes during the anarchism plague of the first third of the 20th century. Anarchists are largely forgotten today, but they were a spectacular annoyance a century ago.


Even Marxists despised anarchists as childish show-offs who only provoked bourgeois reaction with their vicious antics. When communists and anarchists nominally teamed up during the Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s, Joseph Stalin devoted far more energy to murdering his anarchist allies than to fighting the right.

http://takimag.com/article/anarchy_in_the_usa_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4BsJyVLc8

surfgun
18 Jun 16,, 00:49
I love the tag line that the left uses, if a ban saves just one life, isn't it worth it?
This from the party that encourages illegal immigration, to swell the ranks of their party. It has been documented that illegal aliens manage to kill 7,500 American Citizens per year (mostly in auto wrecks).

Doktor
19 Jun 16,, 18:52
This just in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/17/every-two-days-a-suspected-terrorist-buys-a-gun-in-the-u-s/?tid=sm_fb

So, you don't need more checks, you just need a better process

troung
20 Jun 16,, 01:13
Being placed on a federal terrorist watch list is no barrier to passing a gun background check.

Found guilty of nothing.


Gun-rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association, are opposed to the idea of denying citizens a fundamental right — to bear arms — on the basis of their placement on an extra-judicial watch list that they say is exceedingly broad and riddled with errors. The NRA says that if a terror suspect attempts to purchase a gun, authorities should be notified and the purchase put on hold to allow authorities to investigate.

How fascist.


The FBI's terror watch list had about 800,000 people on it as of 2014. Roughly 40,000 of them, or 5 percent, were U.S. citizens.

Almost a million people. List would be five million strong if this gave the democrats a way around the second amendment.


ecent Huffington Post-YouGov poll found that 86 percent of Americans support a law preventing individuals on the watch list from buying guns. Democrats and Republicans are united on the question, with 87 percent of each group supporting such a ban.

Fuck me the Huffington post...

Doktor
20 Jun 16,, 07:59
Question,

Can Hillary buy a gun?

Parihaka
20 Jun 16,, 11:28
Entirely the fault of the NRA.
Don't forget the Catholics


It is not a right limited to hunting.
.
Hunting isn't a right. Bearing arms is.

Officer of Engineers
20 Jun 16,, 21:35
Hunting isn't a right. Bearing arms is.It's classified under the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ... only not for the animal.

Doktor
20 Jun 16,, 22:14
It's classified under the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ... only not for the animal.

Same as fishing

Parihaka
21 Jun 16,, 08:16
It's classified under the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ... only not for the animal.


Same as fishing

Like(s)

Parihaka
21 Jun 16,, 08:22
Meanwhile


The one thing that has been transparent (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436852/orlando-shooter-transcript-911-fbi-doj-redacted-isis-backtrack?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=June20Tuttle), over the course of this entire mindless episode, is that we are governed by contemptuous morons. The calculated judgment of this administration was to censor information, to concoct fantastical explanations about why it was censoring the information — then, when it was forced to backtrack, to provide further ludicrous rationales for why it was backtracking. The administration was so determined to forward its preferred narrative about Orlando — and so confident that it would succeed — that it perpetrated, and announced in advance that it would be perpetrating, an obvious fraud on the country.

They really are morons. Obama's studied gravitas had me wondering for a while but no more. The tech industry has a saying, A's hire A's, B's hire C's. Obama is at best average, his administration are frankly on the very bad side of the bell curve.

tbm3fan
21 Jun 16,, 08:34
Meanwhile


They really are morons. Obama's studied gravitas had me wondering for a while but no more. The tech industry has a saying, A's hire A's, B's hire C's. Obama is at best average, his administration are frankly on the very bad side of the bell curve.

Damn, an expert on American politics who reads the National Review and lives half way around the world.

Parihaka
21 Jun 16,, 08:42
Damn, an expert on American politics who reads the National Review and lives half way around the world.

Damn straight. Stupid is as stupid does..............

surfgun
21 Jun 16,, 12:32
I wonder if the "free World" will get a glimpse of Barrack's grades before 2099?

Doktor
21 Jun 16,, 12:53
I wonder if the "free World" will get a glimpse of Barrack's grades before 2099?

Privacy.

Which president released them?

surfgun
21 Jun 16,, 17:14
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

Doktor
21 Jun 16,, 17:32
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

Leaked, not released. Subtile difference

Parihaka
22 Jun 16,, 08:26
Stupid is as stupid does..............
Ummmm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n98Urhcde_A

yeeeaaahhhh...... Nah.

Wooglin
22 Jun 16,, 18:04
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/22/after-orlando-senate-bill-seeks-to-allow-fbi-web-searches-without-court-order/


The Senate is set to vote Wednesday on a measure to let the FBI access a person’s Internet browsing history, email account data and other electronic communications without a warrant in terrorism and spy cases.

The measure would also permanently extend the government’s right to conduct surveillance over potential “lone wolf” attackers.


Earlier this year, FBI Director James Comey said that giving the government the ability to collect information about electronic communications — such as a person’s email account, how much time a person spends on various websites, and their Internet protocol address — without obtaining a court order was the bureau’s top priority.

Limits on their ability to collect such information without a court order “affects our work in a very, very big and practical way,” Comey told Burr’s committee earlier this year.

[FBI wants access to Internet browser history without a warrant in terrorism and spy cases]

Many senators cited Comey this week while making the case for why such a court order is essential in the wake of the Orlando attack.

“I have great sympathy for [privacy advocates], but I respect more the view of Director Comey, who has said it’s his number one priority,” McCain told reporters Tuesday. “It’s his job to protect the country.”

“Our failure to act to grant this authority, particularly in the wake of this terrible tragedy in Orlando, would be inexcusable,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “This is something the FBI director appointed by President Obama had said he needs. He said this is their number one legislative priority. … We owe it to those on the front lines of our counter-terrorism efforts to get them what they need.”

Hell no. I'm so disgusted with McCain, and any other dumb shit that would vote for this.

Doktor
22 Jun 16,, 18:49
What's wrong in asking for a warrant?

Parihaka
22 Jun 16,, 20:26
I have to admit, National Review really is on a roll. Or the FBI's on a roll. Or they're both in a role. Or both. You decide....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436922/remain-calm-loretta-lynch-fbi-and-dhs-are-watching-our-backs?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=June22Geraghty

tbm3fan
23 Jun 16,, 01:48
What's wrong in asking for a warrant?

??? I believe McCain wants to look without a warrant.

Doktor
23 Jun 16,, 22:55
??? I believe McCain wants to look without a warrant.

My question was why this novelty, something was wrong with how it was?

Burnet
27 Jun 16,, 23:31
My question was why this novelty, something was wrong with how it was?

Not a damn thing. The FBI can't even investigate terrorists that are handed to them--like the Orlando shooter, et al--why should American citizens give up their rights for no reason? Idiots! John McCain is and always has been a supreme POS.

bonehead
29 Jun 16,, 07:06
I have to admit, National Review really is on a roll. Or the FBI's on a roll. Or they're both in a role. Or both. You decide....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436922/remain-calm-loretta-lynch-fbi-and-dhs-are-watching-our-backs?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=June22Geraghty

Sadly, that is par for the course.

We have hundreds of thousands of criminals that "no one knows" where they are. Some of which we had but let out early on parole or on "house arrest" etc. We have over 10 million illegals that "disapeared like a fart in the wind" because the feds simply cant find them. Obama is trying to force thousands of Muslim refugees into the country yet there is no way to vet them. Then we are supposed to believe the whopper that they can make a list of 800K suspects and be able to watch them all...... not take them in give them due process and incarcerate the guilty ones....just sit back and watch them. "Just turn in your guns and the government will take care of you" Ask the native Americans how well that worked out. Is it any wonder that gun sales are skyrocketing. Even some democrats are starting to fugure out that their most holy government is powerless to protect the citizens. What is worse is that the government just doesnt care that its incompetancy and insane policies are putting its own citizens at risk.