Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

[BleedBlueGold]

So the biggest mass shooting in this country's history happens, be it due to mental illness/radical Islamic terrorism/hate crime towards gays, and we're not supposed to talk about gun laws or anti-gay rhetoric that spans far and wide in America? Got it.

Prayers to the victims and families...

At what point are our prayers not enough? Seriously, what is it going to take?

 

[MNIrishman]

So the biggest mass shooting in this country's history happens, be it due to mental illness/radical Islamic terrorism/hate crime towards gays, and we're not supposed to talk about gun laws or anti-gay rhetoric that spans far and wide in Islam? Got it.

Prayers to the victims and families...

At what point are our prayers not enough? Seriously, what is it going to take?

FIFY

 

[BleedBlueGold]

FIFY

I'm ok with that correction in terms of "Radical Islam". But there is plenty of anti-gay rhetoric in this country as well.

There is plenty of hate in the world, bottom line.

 

[MNIrishman]

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

That's from the Hadith by Abu Dawud. There are similar sentiments in the other hadiths. Since Muhammad is considered sinless, it's s big deal that he actively ordered his followers to do what they do/did.

Don't know why the defense is always, 'But Christians...!' It's wrong regardless of what Christians do. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "Let he who is sinless cast the first stone." I don't know if the KKK were ever praised for their theological accuracy, since they basically did everything the NT said not to do.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The problem with the whole gun debate is that it is reported as one side "taking away everyone's guns," which is wholly inaccurate and causes paranoia among gun owners.

While I agree that gun laws won't impact the occurrence of mass shootings, it is absolutely ridiculous that politicians can't pass common sense gun laws. Civilians don't need AR-15s, guns shouldn't be sold at shady gun shows, people that are on the terrorist watch list shouldn't be able to buy a gun -- this is grade school stuff.

What is it about AR-15's that make you believe it should be banned? Is it capacity issues? Accuracy issues? You think they are military guns? Just curious b/c it's articles like this one that make me wonder. I was too young to recall the issues with AWB in the 1990's, but it seems that was largely a political play.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

FWIW, I get the capacity argument to some degree, but then you have shootings like the VT massacre where semi-automatic pistols were used with 10 and 15 round mags. He just carried lots of mags. Ditto for Columbine. Then you add in the logistical fact that there are literally millions of these magazines already out there, it becomes a logistical nightmare. Finally, when similar bans were proposed in NYC a few years ago, I remember a problem stemming from the fact the ban would apply to law enforcement too, which was fought heavily over be law enforcement, arguing it would make the officers less safe. That raises the question of it wasn't safe for them, why would it be safe for the average person looking to defend their house? Seems to me this is about limiting the damage (not the occurance) of mass shootings, which is honorable. It's just doubtful it would change anything and it might make others less safe.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

1. Gay marriage was never "illegal." "Illegal" means the police come in and arrest you for doing something. A gay couple has always been able to rent a hall, hire an officiant, and say some vows in front of family and friends. The "gay marriage" debate, such as it was, was about government recognition of gay marriage. It was never illegal, just legally meaningless.

2. Believing that marriage is between a man and a woman does not put you on the same "side" of the argument as ISIS.


I actually agree with your broader point. I have no problem with "political" conversations in this context. If you sincerely believe that gun control is the way to prevent this kind of thing, then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't talk about that. Same with getting tough on radical Islam.

What do you suggest in terms of gun control? The Left always talks about this gun problem but never present a solution. This guy passed background checks and Florida has a three-day waiting period for handgun sales. None of that made a difference.

The more I read about this guy, the more complicated this gets for me in terms of "prevention." I think it's a combination of getting stronger on fighting ISIS and other radicals, continuing to tweak gun laws, and forming a culture that is much more unified and accepting here on our own turf.

My thoughts are all over the place at the moment. There aren't any simple solutions, imo.

The government is fighting terrorism overseas. What are we doing to prevent radicalization here on our own turf?

This guy was on the FBI watch list twice. Why was he still able to purchase weapons legally? I don't have an answer for more gun control. I'm not in the camp of "get rid of all guns." But I also don't see why we, as a country, can't accept that mass shootings are a problem. The mentally deranged, psycho killers will always find a way to carry out their plans, but can't we just find some compromise and stop this Right-Left pissing match?

I don't understand what would make someone feel the need to pick up a weapon and start spraying bullets "in the name of ____." Regardless of religious beliefs of any kind, why is violence the answer here? I know it's unrealistic, but where is the love? Where is the tolerance and acceptance? An entire gay nightclub attacked because this psychopath felt the need to prove his allegiance to ISIS and show his hatred for homosexuals. It makes me sick to my stomach that we live in a world like this.

I don't know what to do.

 

[wizards8507]

The government is fighting terrorism overseas. What are we doing to prevent radicalization here on our own turf?

Eliminate illegal immigration and dramatically reduce legal immigration. The immigration cycle needs to have a period of assimilation or immigrants are going to segregate themselves into homogeneous communities and not assimilate to American culture and values.

This guy was on the FBI watch list twice. Why was he still able to purchase weapons legally?

Due process of law is messy, but it's a cornerstone of our legal system for a reason. You can't start clamping down on constitutionally-protected rights based on suspicion.

 

[MNIrishman]

The more I read about this guy, the more complicated this gets for me in terms of "prevention." I think it's a combination of getting stronger on fighting ISIS and other radicals, continuing to tweak gun laws, and forming a culture that is much more unified and accepting here on our own turf.

My thoughts are all over the place at the moment. There aren't any simple solutions, imo.

The government is fighting terrorism overseas. What are we doing to prevent radicalization here on our own turf?

This guy was on the FBI watch list twice. Why was he still able to purchase weapons legally? I don't have an answer for more gun control. I'm not in the camp of "get rid of all guns." But I also don't see why we, as a country, can't accept that mass shootings are a problem. The mentally deranged, psycho killers will always find a way to carry out their plans, but can't we just find some compromise and stop this Right-Left pissing match?

I don't understand what would make someone feel the need to pick up a weapon and start spraying bullets "in the name of ____." Regardless of religious beliefs of any kind, why is violence the answer here? I know it's unrealistic, but where is the love? Where is the tolerance and acceptance? An entire gay nightclub attacked because this psychopath felt the need to prove his allegiance to ISIS and show his hatred for homosexuals. It makes me sick to my stomach that we live in a world like this.

I don't know what to do.

Because Muhammad said so. Muhammad is sinless and his word is ethical paragon. Then, this happens.

 

[phgreek]

Relax, it's meant for every single person who decided to bring politics into this thread instead of honoring the dead.

...I am, thats why I asked first.

Maybe when we have these situations we can have a thread dedicated to the dead and injured, and then one which is created for discussing the surrounding issues...

...because these tragedies tend to be full of lessons and issues, some obvious and general (gun control), and some not so much (motive). I supposed someone could go to the politics thread and start talking the issues...but I think keeping the discussions contained under a concise relevant heading is also beneficial based on seeing years of really good discussions adrift somewhere in the politics thread.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

So the biggest mass shooting in this country's history happens, be it due to mental illness/radical Islamic terrorism/hate crime towards gays, and we're not supposed to talk about gun laws or anti-gay rhetoric that spans far and wide in America? Got it.

Prayers to the victims and families...

At what point are our prayers not enough? Seriously, what is it going to take?

Talk about whatever you want. I'm tired of people here telling everyone else what to do and how to feel.

I would personally think a thread dedicated to the senseless murder of people courageous enough to display their sexuality openly while preaching diversity and tolerance is the perfect place for all types of discussion.

 

[tussin]

What is it about AR-15's that make you believe it should be banned? Is it capacity issues? Accuracy issues? You think they are military guns? Just curious b/c it's articles like this one that make me wonder. I was too young to recall the issues with AWB in the 1990's, but it seems that was largely a political play.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

FWIW, I get the capacity argument to some degree, but then you have shootings like the VT massacre where semi-automatic pistols were used with 10 and 15 round mags. He just carried lots of mags. Ditto for Columbine. Then you add in the logistical fact that there are literally millions of these magazines already out there, it becomes a logistical nightmare. Finally, when similar bans were proposed in NYC a few years ago, I remember a problem stemming from the fact the ban would apply to law enforcement too, which was fought heavily over be law enforcement, arguing it would make the officers less safe. That raises the question of it wasn't safe for them, why would it be safe for the average person looking to defend their house? Seems to me this is about limiting the damage (not the occurance) of mass shootings, which is honorable. It's just doubtful it would change anything and it might make others less safe.

I don't look at it as a comparison of handguns vs. assault rifles or anything like that. I just took a step back and asked, "Is this necessary? What practical purpose do assault rifles have for civilians?" I can't think of any. I get why people purchase handguns for personal protection, or various shotguns or bolt-action rifles for hunting --- but assault rifles have no practical place in a civilians hands (in my opinion).

If civilians can't purchase military tanks -- why should they be able to purchase military style guns?

 

[wizards8507]

I don't look at it as a comparison of handguns vs. assault rifles or anything like that. I just took a step back and asked, "Is this necessary? What practical purpose do assault rifles have for civilians?" I can't think of any. I get why people purchase handguns for personal protection, or various shotguns or bolt-action rifles for hunting --- but assault rifles have no practical place in a civilians hands.

If civilians can't purchase military tanks -- why should they be able to purchase military style guns?

Thank you for illustrating your ignorance, it makes this much easier.

An AR-15 is not "military-style," nor is it an "assault rifle." The only thing they have in common with the millitary-issue M4 carbine is that their silhouettes kind of look similar. Military M4s feature selective fire, with a switch that makes them fully automatic. That means you can press and hold the trigger while bullets fly out. Consumer AR-15s are semi-automatic. That means one trigger pull per shot.

Separately, people are equally ignorant if they say we need the second amendment for hunting or home defense. The second amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government, which means the citizenry needs to be as well-armed as our potential oppressors.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't look at it as a comparison of handguns vs. assault rifles or anything like that. I just took a step back and asked, "Is this necessary? What practical purpose do assault rifles have for civilians?" I can't think of any. I get why people purchase handguns for personal protection, or various shotguns or bolt-action rifles for hunting --- but assault rifles have no practical place in a civilians hands (in my opinion).

If civilians can't purchase military tanks -- why should they be able to purchase military style guns?

Some of my friends use ARs for hunting.

 

[phgreek]

Thank you for illustrating your ignorance, it makes this much easier.

An AR-15 is not "military-style," nor is it an "assault rifle." The only thing they have in common with the millitary-issue M4 carbine is that their silhouettes kind of look similar. Military M4s feature selective fire, with a switch that makes them fully automatic. That means you can press and hold the trigger while bullets fly out. Consumer AR-15s are semi-automatic. That means one trigger pull per shot.

Separately, people are equally ignorant if they say we need the second amendment for hunting or home defense. The second amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government, which means the citizenry needs to be as well-armed as our potential oppressors.

I agree...its like the guys who put a fiberglass hummer shell on a ford f-150 chasis...looks cool...not remotely the same.

I do struggle though with capacity, and management of access to guns. Seems like there is room to pen some changes there with VERY restrictive language about interpretation, and further manipulation by elements of the left...

 

[phork]

Thank you for illustrating your ignorance, it makes this much easier.

An AR-15 is not "military-style," nor is it an "assault rifle." The only thing they have in common with the millitary-issue M4 carbine is that their silhouettes kind of look similar. Military M4s feature selective fire, with a switch that makes them fully automatic. That means you can press and hold the trigger while bullets fly out. Consumer AR-15s are semi-automatic. That means one trigger pull per shot.

Separately, people are equally ignorant if they say we need the second amendment for hunting or home defense. The second amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government, which means the citizenry needs to be as well-armed as our potential oppressors.

... Its more assault rifle than it isn't I am sure a minor modification exists to make it fully auto. But I digress. An AR15 has a firing rate equal to that of how fast can you pull a trigger. Theorectically it can shoot up to 800rounds a minute. So say I pair that up with an extended clip and carry 5 or 6 clips with me, I suddenly become a lot deadlier than if I had, say, a bolt action rifle.

For $500 you can have almost full auto:
New trigger makes AR-15s nearly full auto - Grand View Outdoors

 

[NorthDakota]

... Its more assault rifle than it isn't I am sure a minor modification exists to make it fully auto. But I digress. An AR15 has a firing rate equal to that of how fast can you pull a trigger. Theorectically it can shoot up to 800rounds a minute. So say I pair that up with an extended clip and carry 5 or 6 clips with me, I suddenly become a lot deadlier than if I had, say, a bolt action rifle.

For $500 you can have almost full auto:
New trigger makes AR-15s nearly full auto - Grand View Outdoors

I fail to see the problem? Do you not believe in the Second Amendment?

 

[phork]

I fail to see the problem? Do you not believe in the Second Amendment?

I believe in not having to worry that someone idiot has access to a gun like that and is going to kill my family and 10 other families in the process.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I fail to see the problem? Do you not believe in the Second Amendment?

How do you interpret the "well regulated" and the "militia" parts of the second amendment?

 

[NorthDakota]

How do you interpret the "well regulated" and the "militia" part of the second amendment?

It just says that is necessary for the security of a free state. The meaningful part, to me, is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[tussin]

Thank you for illustrating your ignorance, it makes this much easier.

An AR-15 is not "military-style," nor is it an "assault rifle." The only thing they have in common with the millitary-issue M4 carbine is that their silhouettes kind of look similar. Military M4s feature selective fire, with a switch that makes them fully automatic. That means you can press and hold the trigger while bullets fly out. Consumer AR-15s are semi-automatic. That means one trigger pull per shot.

Yes, I am aware of the differences. Focus less on my admittedly poor verbiage and more on the practicality of the gun itself. Why should civilians have the right to own semi automatic rifles?

Separately, people are equally ignorant if they say we need the second amendment for hunting or home defense. The second amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government, which means the citizenry needs to be as well-armed as our potential oppressors.

This is so ridiculous that I literally got a headache reading it. The authors did not have modern assault rifles in mind when the second amendment was drafted. They were referring to these bad boys:

I'm not even going to address the absurd justification of "protection from a tyrannical government," which is entirely asinine in the context of modern society.

 

[wizards8507]

... Its more assault rifle than it isn't I am sure a minor modification exists to make it fully auto. But I digress. An AR15 has a firing rate equal to that of how fast can you pull a trigger. Theorectically it can shoot up to 800rounds a minute. So say I pair that up with an extended clip and carry 5 or 6 clips with me, I suddenly become a lot deadlier than if I had, say, a bolt action rifle.

For $500 you can have almost full auto:
New trigger makes AR-15s nearly full auto - Grand View Outdoors

It's called a magazine, not a clip.

I agree...its like the guys who put a fiberglass hummer shell on a ford f-150 chasis...looks cool...not remotely the same.

I do struggle though with capacity, and management of access to guns. Seems like there is room to pen some changes there with VERY restrictive language about interpretation, and further manipulation by elements of the left...

There's a kind of passive gun control that happens as a result of these regulations. They all have to be paid for. The fees associated to buy, possess, and carry a handgun in the state of Connecticut are prohibitively expensive. They've effectively disarmed me, a law-abiding citizen, without officially infringing on my second amendment rights. Note that these fees are prohibitively expensive for me, a sole breadwinner with a toddler and a mortgage. If my goal in life were to join ISIS and slaughter a bunch of people in a suicide mission, I'd go ahead and pay the fees. So the bad guys intent on doing harm still get the guns while the good guys are frozen out.

I'm not even going to address the absurd justification of "protection from a tyrannical government," which is entirely asinine in the context of modern society.

What the actual fuck, are people really that clueless when it comes to modern history? I don't give a shit about Godwin's law, Nazi Germany isn't that long ago. One of the world's major religions is waging a holy war today, in 2016. There are race riots on the streets of Chicago, San Jose, and Baltimore. Don't give me that shit about "the founders were talking about different gun technology." There are evil people and oppressive regimes in the world TODAY. Are you really that fucking ignorant that you think we're so safe from oppression in our cushy little bourgeois bubble?

 

[phork]

It's called a magazine, not a clip.

Nice rebuttal! And I apologize for the error in my ways. How about then 5 or 6 magazines with 5 or 6 clips added for convenience? All extended of course.

 

[ND NYC]

what a world we have created for our children

 

[NorthDakota]

Yes, I am aware of the differences. Focus less on my admittedly poor verbiage and more on the practicality of the gun itself. Why should civilians have the right to own semi automatic rifles?



This is so ridiculous that I literally got a headache reading it. The authors did not have modern assault rifles in mind when the second amendment was drafted. They were referring to these bad boys:

I'm not even going to address the absurd justification of "protection from a tyrannical government," which is entirely asinine in the context of modern society.

Semi-automatic weapons have been around for like a hundred years. Most of my friends(many hunters) own several of them. Some have semi-auto shotguns...etc. If you are going to take away semi-automatic guns, you'll end up with the collapse of the Federal gov't.

 

[wizards8507]

Nice rebuttal! And I apologize for the error in my ways. How about then 5 or 6 magazines with 5 or 6 clips added for convenience? All extended of course.

It's pretty simple, really. People who don't know jack shit about guns shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us on guns.

I'm no expert by any means, but people should at least develop a basic vocabulary before they start spouting off. I can't count how many times I've read about clips, assault rifles, and military-style weapons from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[phork]

Semi-automatic weapons have been around for like a hundred years. Most of my friends(many hunters) own several of them. Some have semi-auto shotguns...etc. If you are going to take away semi-automatic guns, you'll end up with the collapse of the Federal gov't.

...... Not sure if serious... Just in case you weren't aware sarcasm is generally put in italics on this site.

 

[tussin]

It's pretty simple, really. People who don't know jack shit about guns shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us on guns.

I'm no expert by any means, but people should at least develop a basic vocabulary before they start spouting off. I can't count how many times I've read about clips, assault rifles, and military-style weapons from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

People like you are the worst. Following that logic, you should probably only offer opinions on accounting and Disney World.

 

[NorthDakota]

...... Not sure if serious... Just in case you weren't aware sarcasm is generally put in italics on this site.

100% serious.

 

[phgreek]

How do you interpret the "well regulated" and the "militia" parts of the second amendment?

really depends on what was meant when it was written. When it was written, I do not think there were many armories...so its hard for me to apply well-regulated and militia as a limit to ownership of any kind. I think those words stress allowance for training not limits to ownership because the assumption was you had your own gun. The bigger concern I think was the Federal government limiting smaller groups to organize and train to defend against Tyranny in the future...this government included.

 

[phork]

It's pretty simple, really. People who don't know jack shit about guns shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us on guns.

I'm no expert by any means, but people should at least develop a basic vocabulary before they start spouting off. I can't count how many times I've read about clips, assault rifles, and military-style weapons from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

No, you aren't. In multiple threads you have made that clear. But can you give me a legitimate reason to own a fully automatic AR15?

Why does this exist for civilians?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jxeCukiFNBM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>