Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Chilli Dipper]

27 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The old law just expired. Not enough people supported the ban, and there was no reason to reinstate it as it was found to be ineffective by hard data.

I hope these new proposals do not pass, but only because it will also prove to be ineffective.

Here's one of the biggest mass murders in recent history without guns.

 

What is the equivalency there? "A person in the United States can buy an assault rifle on a Friday and shoot up a place of business the following Monday, but because substandard building practices and lax security in Korea resulted in an arson that resulted in a higher death toll than the Orlando attack, we shouldn't even consider extended waiting times, or universal background checks?"

[Lihu]

18 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

What is the equivalency there? "A person in the United States can buy an assault rifle on a Friday and shoot up a place of business the following Monday, but because substandard building practices and lax security in Korea resulted in an arson that resulted in a higher death toll than the Orlando attack, we shouldn't even consider extended waiting times, or universal background checks?"

But they don't.

No one can get past the gate without training or practicing with the weapon. Think about getting your first set of golf clubs and expecting to make pars the first time out. Tragedies like this one are not accidents.

As for Korea versus USA built subways like in NYC which are still using tunnels built in the early 1900s, you can simply use more fuel to take down the "better" structures, and do you really think that security is better in this country? S. Korea has more lax security that the USA? That's funny. . .they're in a constant state of alert looking towards their northern neighbor.

I am not expressing any equivalency, just noting how ineffective any strict gun laws have on mass murder.

Also, showed how and with what weapon was used in a country with one of the strictest gun laws had the worst mass murder with guns in recent history with a single perpetrator.

Gun control laws don't work. Banning guns from law abiding citizens won't work.

Although, I can see where your viewpoint is coming from. I started watching the "two sides" of the argument. One is wanting to ban guns and the other banning Islam. I don't consider either of them acceptable nor effective solutions.

People who want to commit mass murders in the name of Islam will simple denounce their religion publicly and get into this country for "legitimate" businesses.

People who want to commit crime with a gun will do so no matter what laws are in place restricting or banning them.

The solution is not simply passing some unconstitutional set of laws in hopes that putting a shotgun to the constitution will prevent future tragedies like this one.

It's completely irrational.

[Chilli Dipper]

The Second Amendment does not say, "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the right to bear arms;" it says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms will not be infringed." The interpretation of exactly what that entails is up to debate, but it boils down to two truths: we can't ban guns entirely (which has never been my position), but also, while the right to bear arms cannot fundamentally be taken away, that right is not unlimited. I'm not of the belief that any attempt at gun control is going to inevitably lead to banning all guns; that's an absolutist position, and I don't read the Constitution in absolute terms on this issue.

I'm just trying to find a comfortable middle ground, but whenever I try to have a discussion to find that middle ground with someone on the pro-gun side of the issue, I'm left with the impression that the other side isn't interested in having an honest exchange of ideas.

[iacas]

Just now, Chilli Dipper said:

The Second Amendment does not say

Why are you talking about this?

And what I mean by that is… why are you talking about the second amendment? Quickly scanning, you're the only one talking about it. In the last page or two or three…

[Chilli Dipper]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why are you talking about this?

Because there was posited a dichotomy where one side wants to ban guns, and one side wants to ban Islam, but both sides are inherently unconstitutional. It's a false dichotomy on both sides, of course. As I read it, though, and as the Supreme Court has generally interpreted it, there's a difference between what the First Amendment says about religion (the government can neither ban, nor regulate it)  and what the Second says about firearms (the government can't ban them, but they can regulate them). 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Because there was posited a dichotomy where one side wants to ban guns, and one side wants to ban Islam, but both sides are inherently unconstitutional. It's a false dichotomy on both sides, of course. As I read it, though, and as the Supreme Court has generally interpreted it, there's a difference between what the First Amendment says about religion (the government can neither ban, nor regulate it)  and what the Second says about firearms (the government can't ban them, but they can regulate them). 

Okay. But where was this being discussed before you started talking about it? And even if that existed, why are you still talking about it? And if it's still relevant, why not quote where it was discussed before?

It feels out of left field. Straw man type stuff.

But I don't really follow these threads. So maybe there are actual and easy answers to those questions.

[Chilli Dipper]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Okay. But where was this being discussed before you started talking about it? And even if that existed, why are you still talking about it? And if it's still relevant, why not quote where it was discussed before?

It feels out of left field. Straw man type stuff.

But I don't really follow these threads. So maybe there are actual and easy answers to those questions.

There definitely are answers; they won't be found on a message board used mainly for blowing off steam.

It's tough to stay away from these threads, though. You can't fault people for caring, and we shouldn't get stuck in feedback loops where we shut off from anything that differs from our own worldview, but God, it brings out the worst in people.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

There definitely are answers; they won't be found on a message board used mainly for blowing off steam.

I clearly meant answers to the questions I asked you about why you're talking about the second amendment, seemingly out of the blue.

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The Second Amendment does not say, "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the right to bear arms;" it says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms will not be infringed." The interpretation of exactly what that entails is up to debate, but it boils down to two truths: we can't ban guns entirely (which has never been my position), but also, while the right to bear arms cannot fundamentally be taken away, that right is not unlimited. I'm not of the belief that any attempt at gun control is going to inevitably lead to banning all guns; that's an absolutist position, and I don't read the Constitution in absolute terms on this issue.

I'm just trying to find a comfortable middle ground, but whenever I try to have a discussion to find that middle ground with someone on the pro-gun side of the issue, I'm left with the impression that the other side isn't interested in having an honest exchange of ideas.

We're all trying to be honest about our points of view, while some of us depend upon emotional "evidence" some are trying to reinforce their views with specific and truthful examples.

What I did not know is that there is a lot of extreme opposing views on banning either. That is, wanting to ban a religion or banning guns.

I find both of them reprehensible, and cited why and how neither would help our current situation. On top of this, the shooter in this case would not have been stopped by anti gun laws for normal citizens, simply because of his chosen profession.

[newtogolf]

I saw on the morning news Loretta Lynch state they are going to release the 911 tapes but they will be edited to remove any references to the actual reasons for his mass shooting;

Quote

A partial transcript of the conversations between authorities and Mateen, who killed 49 and wounded 53 in the June 12 attack at a Florida gay nightclub, is set to be released on Monday. But Lynch, who appeared on numerous Sunday talk shows, said the transcripts will not include Mateen's oath of loyalty to ISIS or any other religious justification for the attack.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch told NBC. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].

This has nothing to do with furthering his propaganda, it's about Obama refusing to acknowledge that Radical Islam is our enemy and this is the reason 50 people died in Orlando.  This regime has constantly rewritten history, especially regarding radicalized Muslims, over the last 8 years.  

Obama preaches about the importance of women's rights and LGBT rights but is protecting Muslims who practice Sharia law and wish death to gays and treat women as possessions.  How many more people have to die from these radicals before he and his supporters wake up and realize who the real enemy is.  

[saevel25]

47 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Obama preaches about the importance of women's rights and LGBT rights but is protecting Muslims who practice Sharia law and wish death to gays and treat women as possessions.  How many more people have to die from these radicals before he and his supporters wake up and realize who the real enemy is.  

How does it protect Sharia Law supporting Muslims? Who do you think people think is the real enemy here? How does allowing us to hear this guy proclaim his allegiance to ISIS stop any of this from happening? 

Honestly, I think it's a smart move. I always thought that all names of mass murderers should be stricken from the news as policy by the news networks. Clearly we can't force them to do it.

Their names should be forgotten by history. They should not get the notoriety that they wanted. They should go down in history as a nameless murderer. 

Why should we give ISIS free publicity by allowing this guy to grandstand through his talks with the police during the hostage situation and mass murdering of people? 

[Elmer]

On 6/18/2016 at 9:57 PM, 14ledo81 said:

I think Boston has the best drivers in the world.......

@boogielicious, still not a fan of Boston streets, drivers, sports, fans Same Adams or accents.
I do like Larry Bird & NE chowder!

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

1. How does it protect Sharia Law supporting Muslims? Who do you think people think is the real enemy here? How does allowing us to hear this guy proclaim his allegiance to ISIS stop any of this from happening? 

Honestly, I think it's a smart move. I always thought that all names of mass murderers should be stricken from the news as policy by the news networks. Clearly we can't force them to do it.

Their names should be forgotten by history. They should not get the notoriety that they wanted. They should go down in history as a nameless murderer. 

Why should we give ISIS free publicity by allowing this guy to grandstand through his talks with the police during the hostage situation and mass murdering of people? 

It protects them because it obfuscates the actual reason and motivation behind the mass shooting.  

I agree that names shouldn't be used.  

The shooters intentions are important to understand, otherwise it just becomes another story that Obama and democrats get to use as justification for banning AR-15's.  

[Gunther]

25 minutes ago, Elmer said:

 

Haha, OK Elmer, we've found some common ground.  That is classic, never seen that meme.  I'm from NE and everyone there knows Boston drivers are brutal, including my myriad of relatives who live in and around the city.  But it also happens to be one of the greatest cities in the world too.

[Elmer]

2 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Haha, OK Elmer, we've found some common ground.  That is classic, never seen that meme.  I'm from NE and everyone there knows Boston drivers are brutal, including my myriad of relatives who live in and around the city.  But it also happens to be one of the greatest cities in the world too.

Next to NYC, Boston is the 2nd greatest City in the States!

On topic, the Supreme's are refusing to take cases of regarding bans on firearms.
Might be a sign of things to come.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-again-refuses-to-consider-weapons-bans/2016/06/20/d108abf6-34b7-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, Elmer said:

@boogielicious, still not a fan of Boston streets, drivers, sports, fans Same Adams or accents.
I do like Larry Bird & NE chowder!

Thanks for posting this!

 

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

Haha, OK Elmer, we've found some common ground.  That is classic, never seen that meme.  I'm from NE and everyone there knows Boston drivers are brutal, including my myriad of relatives who live in and around the city.  But it also happens to be one of the greatest cities in the world too.

Yeah! I'm still laughing, but I have to be careful not to get anyone upset.

 

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

Next to NYC, Boston is the 2nd greatest City in the States!

Agree, and that totally includes @boogielicious, and all my relatives and coworkers from the Boston Area! I like them a lot!

 

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

On topic, the Supreme's are refusing to take cases of regarding bans on firearms.
Might be a sign of things to come.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-again-refuses-to-consider-weapons-bans/2016/06/20/d108abf6-34b7-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

This is where I think the Supreme Court is making the proper decision. I hope they continue to stop us from putting shotgun holes in the constitution every time we react to such tragic events. We should not divert off course just because it is popular at the moment to do so.

This tragedy is testing our beliefs, our faith and our country.

[boogielicious]

Guys! Back on topic please.

[jamo]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

This is where I think the Supreme Court is making the proper decision. I hope they continue to stop us from putting shotgun holes in the constitution every time we react to such tragic events. We should not divert off course just because it is popular at the moment to do so.

This tragedy is testing our beliefs, our faith and our country.

I don't know if you're understanding. The Supreme Court not taking the case meaning they're deferring to the lower court's ruling, which upheld Connecticut's assault weapons ban.