Terror Attack at Gay Club in Orlando

Looks like terrorist attack but not nailed down yet. Also looks a tragedy caused by a lone wolf versus affiliation and support by known group.

Might be some hate crime aspects, still early to tell.

Was born in America to Afghani immigrant parents. Not sure if they were citizens yet.

Assault weapons seem to have been used, easily obtained in FL where this guy lives.

Terrible loss of life, terrible tragedy. Prayers to the families and friends.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

From above: "Islamic extremists as always"

The first two words may be accurate; I don't think we know for sure yet.

The latter two words are not accurate.

This kind of thing more and more seems to be a curse of our time with seemingly little that can really be done about it.

jd2 ✉
Jun '16

Gonna stand on those bodies and make it about "common sense gun control" already SD? There's plenty of time to pick this apart in the coming days - lets at least let people get over the shock. Wow

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

The FBI is stating the shooter was on their radar as a Muslim extremist

skippy ✉
Jun '16

I think this is the time to console the families, discover the facts and leave the politics for later Skippy. That's all I did and will do for now.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

"This is clearly an act of terror," Florida governor Rick Scott said in a press conference on Sunday.
I think we can JUMP to conclusions now.

Jump
Jun '16

Good old USA where you can be on a watch list as a possible terrorist and still be allowed to buy guns thank you NRA

Oldred
Jun '16

There are actually 50 dead and 53 wounded, that is unless more die of their injuries. He was born in New York to immigrant parents, so was technically a U.S. citizen. He was also a security officer and while there was no active investigation ongoing (or so it's said), he was "on their radar", as a possible "person of interest". He was divorced from his wife after her family found out that he was physically abusive towards her and had obvious anger issues.

As a security officer, he was licensed to carry firearms, so it's not even like he was a member of the general public that just went in off the street to buy them, so Oldred's NRA issue is a red herring. A bill here in NJ years ago hat would have stripped those who've had domestic violence issues not be able to buy or carry a firearm was defeated, partly due to the police union reps., who stated that it would strip a number of officers of their firearms (as I recall - feel free to correct any error in that).

In any case, the sad thing to me is that a bunch of people who just wanted to get together and have fun listening to music and dancing have been deprived of their lives, simply because they were gay. What seemed to have triggered this was, according to his father, not so much religion (though we'll know later for sure), but the fact that he saw two gay men on the street kissing each other and it deeply offended and angered him. Apparently he also rented a car just to drive there, so it was definitely in the planning for a bit.

My condolences to all those who lost loved ones or friends in this mass killing and sadness that anyone should be targeted for any reason, including sexual orientation.

Phil D. ✉
Jun '16

A restraining order must not have been issued for the DV complaint because he would have lost his guns and CCW - that's part of the Brady Bill.

Secondly there's no burden of proof necessary for a TRO to be issued - just an affidavit of the victim - and New Jersey absolutely complies with that as does every other state - once there is an allegation of violence the accused loses the guns and has to go to court to get them back- in NJ you also lost your FID.

There is no burden of proof necessary to get on a watch list either - unfortunately- there were signs that this individual had issues but nothing actionable to prosecute.

There's going to be a lot to this - we will have to see how it plays out. This is clearly a premeditated act of senseless violence and a hate crime. Absolutely deplorable.

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Of course the gun of choice was an AR-15. A gun designed for military action to kill. I don't think it was designed for hunting or personal protection. I may be wrong and look to be quickly bashed and corrected by the 2nd amendment "experts". I read where we have about 5% of the world population and 42% of gun related deaths. More guns equal more safety? LOL!

Redwing
Jun '16

Redwing
I suggest you keep reading, until you find something that tells you that it is acceptable to Laugh out Loud, about anything when referring to this tragic loss of lives....

RealIty ✉
Jun '16

I say those who pontificate that gun ownership keeps society safe are fools.
Just look at the great United States of America's statistics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries

happiest girl
Jun '16

Skippy and Realty

My only "agenda" is to point out the truth. I only laugh at people like you two who have blinders on. You're cool so carry on. Oh you're so cool. That's all that matters.

Redwing
Jun '16

That's what I told Skippy when he punted this football. into the political arena.

Enough already.

Strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

SD, sorry but you were the one that punted the football. Skippy only tried to stop it.....

positive ✉
Jun '16

Skippy-I think we disrespect the victims by keeping quiet. I think we disrespected the children of Newtown when we did nothing after they were slaughtered. That's the right's plan. If anyone mentions better gun control after a mass shooting we should say how they disrespect the victims. I am not pushing anything political. I am a human who is upset that people let this happen by inaction. So I am sorry if you say it's disrespectful but I'm just upset as a human. Go back to your charade of caring for the victims now.

Redwing
Jun '16

People who want to do bad things will still find a way to do bad things. Removing guns only hurts the law abiding citizens.

"Well... if we have no guns, then he wouldn't have gotten a gun"

Yeah... says who?
Drugs are illegal and people still find them.

btownguy ✉
Jun '16

Skippy that is perhaps the most logical and accurate statement made in this thread thus far.

Greg ✉
Jun '16

I definitely don't advocate taking all the guns. But I do advocate reinstating the ban on assault weapons. We can try remove some of the tools that a majority of mass killers use to express their hate and intolerance. Assault weapons are meant for the military and hunting or personal protection. Of course all of the 2nd Amendment "experts" will argue that we are entitled to be a militia so we can have military weapons to kill multiple targets.

Redwing
Jun '16

I am not so sure about mental illness being the reason in all these disgusting acts that are being carried out. I think there are evil, hateful people who will continue to do this and as long as this hate continues, and assault weapons are available to them, the evil and the hate will win out. I wish the manufacturers of these guns and those making a profit off these guns would be held accountable. Though I am not a proponent of carrying guns, I do understand some have a need to carry, however, there is no need for anyone to be able to carry out their own war on others, especially innocent people.

justwondering ✉
Jun '16

Skippy --
So why are you still here ?
As for *support* ---- you don't have the support of several people here.
People are free to share whatever thoughts they have on this or any other thread, don't know why you feel you have the right to try to dictate otherwise.
Maybe the gun discussion is rubbing you the wrong way.

happiest girl
Jun '16

Btw - I'm watching the news and and Dr. qanta Ahmed is declaring this an example of Islamic jihadism. This event is designed to decide Muslims from non Muslims - anyone who discharges a firearm against unarmed people and engages in slaughter such as this is mentally ill - there is literally no possible justification of this act possible - I'm sorry. The reasonable person test fails in every regard. Any person who comes to this as a logical conclusion is broken.

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Agreed - I'm not a moderator but just trying to be the adult you mentioned

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Unfortunately the tools of mass destruction are plentiful and numerous - we can't allow ourselves as a populis to be short sited and fixated on the mechanics - we need to be fixated on the motivations of persons driven to kill innocent people. It's egregious to vast majority of us but why does a segment of the population elect to engage in this behavior in betterment of their political beliefs which are beyond comprehension that I do not grasp

skippy ✉
Jun '16

While you struggle to understand this they are using assault weapons. Not be be short sighted but maybe we can slow them down while we work on a solution. But no we must stick by our AR-15's and make fun of people who at least make an effort to try. Like I said before you can now continue your charade of caring for the victims. For you are the adult.

Redwing
Jun '16

Redwing, there are 5 to 10 million privately owned AR-15's out there in the U.S. alone... and who knows how many military, ex-military, black market, etc (perhaps from those our country has shipped to Syria, Afghanistan, etc over the years.)

Wishing them away is a fallacy. The vast VAST majority have not and will not ever be used in a crime, but the tiny percentage of people desiring to do evil will also never have a problem getting their hands on one.

If AR-15's *were* gone, how do you then propose to regulate/enforce your will on the Russian/Chinese/etc. manufacturers of AK style firearms? Or the next style, or the next...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

I want everyone to look up fpsrussia on YouTube. Note that any citizen with money and a background check can purchase nearly anything you could ever dream. Makes your "powerful" semi automatic rifles argument laughable. Have a nice day.

Jambone ✉
Jun '16

It is a terrible act of TERRORISM, and a horrible loss for the loved ones. It has not even been 24 hours and people are talking guns on this thread.....if it was the pro 2nd talking guns, they would be bashed. But here the pro-2nd are trying to keep this thread about what it is (Thank you skippy for fighting off the childishness and attempting to remain a respectable adult OVER and OVER again).......

whats wrong with you guys? Running your mouth that something needs to be done about guns every time something happens, then staying completely quiet for the other 50 weeks out of the year has helped your cause just exactly how?

This person was on the FBI's radar for years, yet they did not act.....don't see anyone questioning the FBI here......Had the FBI acted, this person would have not been able to legally buy arms......The FBI failed, the laws that are ALREADY IN PLACE.....FAILED!

This country cannot even make the laws they currently have work....yet this is not a problem, and the answer is that we need more laws.....The common sense here is that the laws that are already in place need to work as they are suppose to before the country makes more laws they cannot properly operate.

This morning on the news I heard Clinton saying she wants more laws.....Sorry, but I did not realise that terrorists follow laws.....Where is your common sense there?

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

how come they don't arrest thwt iman in Fla for hate speech? threatening to kill all gays out of 'compassion' is certainly a death threat, correct? Aren't death threats 'hate speech'?

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '16

For the record I didn't make fun of anyone - and secondly I agree about the impersonally and cowardice of a bombing - which goes to my point that this is about hate and intolerance.

skippy ✉
Jun '16

"You talked about bombings with pressure cookers. Well, in my opinion, setting off a bomb is very different from a shooting. A bomb is impersonal. It's a bomb, and then it's over.
But when you aim an assault weapon looking into the eyes of one person, after another person, after another person, ........... well, that is the epitome of violence and violation of human life."
Really...really...that's what you think? I just can't comprehend

Perturbed ✉
Jun '16

Even if this man couldn't get a gun, he could of just as well walked in with a suicide bomb like how many other terrorist attackers have?

I have said it a thousand times, when there is a will there is a way. If you work on the "way" part first we will have nothing left but the problem....and the problem will still be on going

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

"I have said it a thousand times, when there is a will there is a way. If you work on the "way" part first we will have nothing left but the problem....and the problem will still be on going."

The ole "can't walk and chew gum at the same time" dilemma.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

except it's really not.

Know why the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire? Even the DOJ found it ineffective.

https://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

"However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small." - Section 3.3

"... the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement...there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs." - Section 9.4

"all rifles combined account for 2% of all homicides and only 3% of all firearms related homicides" - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Hands and feet kill twice as many Americans and knives are used five times as often in homicides annually.


Aaaand we just sold 150,000 more AR-15's.

On behalf of the AR-15 manufacturers of America, I thank you Mrs. Clinton. We were a little concerned sales might dip a little, with the pending departure of our current Sales Associate of the year, Barack Obama, but we are encouraged by your willingness to promote our product. Keep up the good work!

skippy ✉
Jun '16

"An AR-15 is sort of a wild fantasy weapon." -Embryodad

well that is certainly a new one for me.

Joe Friday ✉
Jun '16

I think everyone in Hackettstown should have an AR-15 and at least a 100 round clip and a case of ammo. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Heidi ✉
Jun '16

So Redwing...Someone comes at you with an AK-47 or an AR-15 and you want to protect yourself from that with...what? A little 22 handgun? A knife? The poop smell from your (scared shitless) pants?

Maybe that's how you want to do it but not me, thank you. Don't be on here spouting off about what I should be able to do because you want to be a lame duck. You go right ahead and beg "please don't shoot" as they kill you and 50 other people. Leave me out of that $hit.

Heidi ✉
Jun '16

Define for me what constitutes an assault weapon - the government can't - they compiled some arbitrary features that describe what one looks like but there's no standard.

skippy ✉
Jun '16

I think the whole gun control argument is moot, in regards to what this thread is concerned about. Does anyone really believe that if we had stronger gun restrictions that this mass murder wouldn't have taken place?

Someone posted above, "The reason for this "event" as you put it --- is not important.
100 people are dead or injured because of a semi-automatic assault rifle"

100 people are dead or injured because of a sick, evil individual, not at all because of the weapon he used. Do you really think if he didn't have that weapon, he would have been like, "oh well, guess I'll just send them a nasty email?"

Rich ✉
Jun '16

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/06/look-like-media-told-truth-ar-15s/

the truth about AR-15's

the shooter had 3 hours in the club before the swat team breached the wall - I think if he had any type of weapon in a "gun free zone" we would have seen 50 dead.

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Redwing, there are many reasons, hunting, target shooting, ergonomics of shooting a more comfortable gun, less recoil, better optic choices, best gun for long and short range shooting.......the list goes on, but your question can easily be compared to why do you need a suv instead of a minivan, why do you need a BMW instead of a civic, why do you need a V8 instead of a V6. Once you let the government regulate what you "need" they have you by the balls.

Redwing....do you even know what a AR-15 is? Do you know what the difference between a regular semi auto gun and a "assault" style weapon is?

It is no more than a semi-auto gun that shoots .22lr sized bullets. Oh yeah, and it looks "scary"

So if you can find a way to justify banning a AR because of it's "killing ability" which is no more then any semi-auto, you can justify banning just about every semi auto gun out there, there is no "starting with the AR"

IMO, in a club, this guy would of actually done much more damage with a bomb. But at the rate of 3 hours before he was stopped, he could of killed 50 people with a black powder muzzle loader.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

Flamethrower legal in 49 states - 0 fatalities last year - just sayin

http://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/what-states-are-flamethrowers-legal-in/

skippy ✉
Jun '16

How many times did I try to get you guys into the 2A thread - nope wouldn't happen so apparently were going to stay classy right here.

skippy ✉
Jun '16

So yea a hand gun only attack probably would have limited the casualties in that first few minutes

Darwin ✉
Jun '16

Where did this bug learn his hatred for gays? Anyone?? An American Islamic terrorist just murdered 49 gay people, injuring another 50. He was locked, loaded and ready to roll. He was on a mission to HUNT DOWN AND KILL GAY PEOPLE. Did he learn that hatred in the public school system he attended? His parents? His mosque? The internet? These are the questions we should be asking and looking into.The tools this sub human used are unimportant. Guns did not do this. A human being did this, the dead coward he is did this. Demonizing his tools used to HUNT DOWN AND KILL GAY PEOPLE will not resolve the real issue.

auntiel ✉
Jun '16

......

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '16

"So yea a hand gun only attack probably would have limited the casualties in that first few minutes"

How do you figure darwin? A handgun can shoot just as fast as a AR, has abilities for large capacity magazines just like a AR, and two can be shot at the same time......

There is a aftermarket company that makes 100 round drum mags for glocks....although I challenge someone to fill it and shoot it...that's gotta be pretty heavy.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

I don't know when this PSA was filmed, but the point of the matter is as true, if not more so than when it was filmed. I'm sure that sexual orientation would have been in there too if they'd have had the foresight to have seen how many people would react with hatred towards those "different" or of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. I give you the Master of the Macabre himself to give you the truth:

http://oneperfectshotdb.com/news/watch-listen-learn-vincent-prices-psa-on-racial-and-religious-hatred/

Phil D. ✉
Jun '16

Swat officer who took one to the helmet - thank goodness for Kevlar

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Yes, thank goodness for Kevlar . . .which a Florida store wouldn't sell to the shooter, because they only sell it to law enforcement. So, I suppose it's arguably a good thing the shooter wasn't wearing any . . . and arguably bad that nobody else in the club was.

An interesting thought to ponder. . . .

JerseyWolf ✉
Jun '16

"Yes, thank goodness for Kevlar . . .which a Florida store wouldn't sell to the shooter, because they only sell it to law enforcement"

Link please.....

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

" Link please....."

Buy some here... http://bulletproofme.com/

Some states (CT, NY) make it illegal to purchase, and felons are prohibited by Federal law. If he was denied, it was store policy (much like we have local police/firemen supply), not any law.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Kevlar is absolutely legal to purchase in Florida http://www.bulletsafe.com/body-armor-law-florida.html

skippy ✉
Jun '16

QUOTE>>>. Guns did not do this. A human being did this<<<

Just curious , when it is a suicide bomber do you say "The bomb didn't do this....."

CBGB ✉
Jun '16

Or if someone bombs and claims it was for Islam. Why then it is Islam that did it?

Aquarius ✉
Jun '16

GBGB...um every time???

Just curious, on September 11, 2001 did you blame the airplanes? That question extends to you happiestgirl

Or maybe it was the box cutters.......

Largest death toll in American history of terrorist attacks, 2,996 people to be exact.... and not a single firearm used.......yup, keep blaming the tool and not the real problem and let's see where that progresses us as a nation, good job working on the real problem btw

You would have to have this same attack 60 times to amount to the attack that killed those innocent people on 911.....

15 years and we as a country have still not done anything to correct the issue of terrorism on our own soil, maybe if you, who spit venom at gun owners every time something like this happens would actually expend some energy towards the real problem we would actually make some progress, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

Interesting that you should focus on 9/11 and completely ignore Oklahoma City.

Terrorism on our own soil, yes, yes, yes. Let's deal with that. Um, except when it's White Like Us.

Don't preach about who should be ashamed of themselves.

Aquarius ✉
Jun '16

Australia and gun control.

happiest girl
Jun '16

As usual, nobody can see the forest through the trees.

Calico696 ✉
Jun '16

auntiel, I agree completely about wondering where the hate comes from. I think that's the most important question. I think that's the question we're all avoiding because it's difficult and uncomfortable and goes beyond a black/white, good/bad blame model.

But I disagree with you in that I have often heard Islam blamed for acts of terror. I have often heard "It was Islam that did it."

No challenge, Calico, but honest curiosity. What do you see as the forest?

Aquarius ✉
Jun '16

"How many people were killed with those box cutters?"

2,996 to be exact CBGB

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

positive ---
There is no hate and destruction here.
Having an opinion about something does not divide us as a community.
It's called freedom of belief --- and freedom of speech.

Debates are healthy.
Surely you don't want us to live in a box and not think about and discuss anything?

happiest girl
Jun '16

This is True

Alfredo ✉
Jun '16

Phil D. ----

Switzerland has not been involved in an armed conflict since a standoff between Catholics and Protestants in 1847.

happiest girl
Jun '16

"Australia and gun control."

Australia and strict immigration policy. There, fixed it for you.

Also, they just prefer arson, etc now.

Speaking of which, up to this point the deadliest gay club massacre in the US (New Orleans, 1973) was accomplished with lighter fluid and a match. 32 dead, no guns.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

So you think 2996 people were slaughtered with box cutters.

CBGB ✉
Jun '16

"Debates are healthy.
Surely you don't want us to live in a box and not think about and discuss anything?"

Sure debates are healthy, spitting venom at anyone who doesn't agree with you, and calling them names is certainly NOT healthy

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

"Just curious, on September 11, 2001 did you blame the airplanes? " Yes, Darrin, we all blamed the planes and we worked together to enact new laws, new processes, to make this took safer.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

I asked a direct question. Your answer was 2996.

CBGB ✉
Jun '16

Oh no, a backhanded compliment from the non venomous one. Healthy :>)

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

SD "Yes, Darrin, we all blamed the planes and we worked together to enact new laws, new processes, to make this took safer."

No, no we didn't at all.....the terrorists were blamed, not the tools they used.

Yes, we enacted many new policies at airports that now affect our everyday lives because of these cowardly people. We live in fear because of these cowards. They want to affect us so much that our country laws down the common man that would never do such a horrible act.

Now we have to arrive at a airport 2 hours prior to flights, stand in crazy security checkpoint lines, etc, all because of what these people did. Mind you, I am not disagreeing with airport security, it is obviously necessary, but the point is, when there is a will there is a way, they happened to do it with box cutters, which at the time was allowed on planes. Now we can't even take nail clippers on a plane.

So okay, let's take away "assault" weapons, they will just use other weapons...let's take that away too, they will just use homemade bombs.....you guys are wasting your time talking guns, time and effort that could be used on the real problem.

Taking guns out of the hands of 99.99999% of innocent people is going to stop people who break laws anyway just exactly how?

"I think IMO this is blatantly wrong and Homeland Security, the FBI, and local police would differ."

Oh the issue has been corrected? News to me, and the 49 dead in Florida

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

Interesting choice of words. I didn't "demand" anything.

CBGB ✉
Jun '16

"Mind you, I am not disagreeing with airport security, it is obviously necessary, but the point is" we don't need any more stinking security for guns.... Perhaps putting words in your mouth, but not much.

"you guys are wasting your time talking guns, time and effort that could be used on the real problem." Uhhh, I say do both. The problem is not just "those" people. It's "those" people with guns.

And don't tell me if we removed the gun from the equation that the outcome would be the same. Statistically it would not. Sure, anything can kill. But there is no other tool with the kill ratio of the gun. Fill out a form, pick it up over the counter, point and click, bang your dead. No other tool has that level of lethal efficiency, effectiveness and ease of use whether homicide or suicide.

You can't tell me that your and your NRA's stand that people on the watchlist should have no constraints in freely buying weapons is right because the other 99.99999% of the people aren't on the list.

Heck, I say they shouldn't even board the plane.

You can't tell me that domestic abusers who are not married should freely buy guns when married one can't.

How can you say Universal Background Checks are a bad idea or conversely that some transfers of guns don't require a background check?

How can you say when we find a gun used in a crime that we should wait an average of weeks to determine that gun's history and who legally owns it?

I guess on mental health we agree that there should be Universal Mental Health Tracking but what is your other suggestion to attack the problem at the people end.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

"Do you think if the terrorists went into the planes empty handed they would of been able to successfully take over 4 airplanes, and kill 2,996 people?"

Yes Darrin, planes have been hijacked prior to 9/11 and as recently as a few months ago by nutjobs claiming to have a bomb.

happened just a few months ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/europe/hijacked-egypt-air-jet/

darwin ✉
Jun '16

Don't put words into my mouth SD, there is no reason to, yet again, mix actual quotes with your words.

"And don't tell me if we removed the gun from the equation that the outcome would be the same."

You mean to tell me, that if this guy walked into the middle of the dance floor with a suicide vest that you do not think more then 50 would of been killed?

As for your list, where have I ever fought any of that? And what on that list could have stopped this from happening?

Darwin, did you really just try to compare our country, our security, and our people to a flight out of and into Egypt?

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

SD, just to inform you, I have no issue with a terror list, and refusal due to being on it. But the issue I do have is the current system is so flawed. If your name happens to match a name on the watch list, and that is not you, good luck getting it fixed.

The point is, the current laws are so flawed and do not even work, why not correct them before trying to make more laws that you still cannot make work. We have discussed this before on more than one account.

My problem solely stands in making more laws before the ones you already have work as designed. If this country cannot handle the laws they already have, how is more going to fix the situation?

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

lol ianimal

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/964786396947748

happiest girl
Jun '16

ianimal - If you ever did that, I wouldn't ask for permission. ;-)

GC ✉
Jun '16

"Don't put words into my mouth SD, there is no reason to, yet again, mix actual quotes with your words." If you keep repeating this same lame lament perhaps your wish will come true.

I said: "Perhaps putting words in your mouth, but not much."

No, what I mean is statistically we would have less homicide, suicide, and mass murder deaths if somehow guns were magically erased from the planet. Although I am not suggesting that as a solution. It also does not mean that any given situation would not occur. It means that statistically there would be less.

"You mean to tell me, that if this guy walked into the middle of the dance floor with a suicide vest that you do not think more then 50 would of been killed?" Of course not but of course that's not relevant. It is not statistically valid to compare a single instance as proof of what would happen across the entire sample. And across the whole sample, the disappearance of guns would mean less homicide, suicide, and mass murder.

"As for your list, where have I ever fought any of that?" What are you saying here? That you agree or that you want me to tell you what you said your thought or something else?

"And what on that list could have stopped this from happening?" As I have said many times, it is improbable to stop someone from being in a crowded place and doing harm. Citizens with guns, excellent mental health precognition, cops everywhere, whatever. Most common sense gun laws are not even about that. They are about what I said they are about. Mostly with mass shootings, all you can do is reduce the carnage, not stop the occurrence. Too many guns to think otherwise.

Back to the sunshine!!!

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

Now the scuttlebutt is that his wife knew about (and accompanied him on) his preparations for the attack. Sounds like someone is about to have 49 murder charges (and then some) to answer to...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Strangerdanger,

"I said: "Perhaps putting words in your mouth, but not much."

So that makes doing it okay???? NO! If it is one thing I cannot stand is when you try to put words in people's mouths and summarize their feelings and opinions in your own words.

"And across the whole sample, the disappearance of guns would mean less homicide, suicide, and mass murder. "

How do you know that? These people would just find other means, not just say, "well guess I can't get a gun anymore, so I guess I can't kill myself, I will go get a cup of tea instead". That thought is not reality. When there is a will there is a way, work on the will part.

""As for your list, where have I ever fought any of that?" What are you saying here? That you agree or that you want me to tell you what you said your thought or something else?"

We have had this conversation multiple times, yet you list "How can you say".....so where did I say is my question?

Where you come up with an apparent "list" of things I am against is beyond me, because not a single thing you listed have I ever said I am against.

What I have made very clear, is my opposition to more laws until we can get current laws to work as they were designed.

I think we agree on more levels then you want to think, but work on getting what's currently in place to work correctly first.

I am definitely against bans simply because of scary features. This opens many doors for interpretation.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

They were rhetorical questions. But as Donald Trump would say, since you didn't answer, I guess we know what you think.... Would love to see your real thoughts though.

As to putting words in your mouth, I bet to differ. I did not.

Your opposition to any improvements or new laws until existing laws to work as designed is flawed on it's own merit. How can you make broken existing laws work if you don't enhance, improve or write new ones? Self defeating assumption.

Plus, most of my recommendations for common sense gun laws are just improvements or enhancements to existing laws to make them work instead of working as designed by the NRA. Yet you opted not to answer the rhetorical questions and instead choose to stand on a principle without actually telling us what you would recommend to make said principle practicable in the improvement of our gun issues in America. You got some do loops going here I think.

You're very good answering questions with questions though. Another Trumpism.

Your big a-ha: "How do you know that? These people would just find other means, not just say, "well guess I can't get a gun anymore, so I guess I can't kill myself, I will go get a cup of tea instead"." I have answered for you many times. It's just the gun is more efficient than other methods, the kill ratio is higher, so statically the numbers come down.

I'll redo the statistics around killing efficiencies by different tools in a moment but...back to the sun.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

@CBGB 1000% spot on. Another massacre in the name of Radical Islam, and it once again turns into a gun control debate. We'll keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

Denis ✉
Jun '16

There are accoounts that he frequented gay bars and was therefore possibly gay himself. With the upbringing he had, he was probably very conflicted. I guess more information will be surfacing.

happiest girl
Jun '16

Interesting opinion piece about the Dems blowing it over "radical Islam".

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html

I think it's fairly obvious that if the Dems keep making this about guns while ignoring the radical Islam elephant in the room, they're going to lose the centrists and the elections... especially if there's another attack between now and November (and there's really no reason to think that there WON'T be...) and they pull out the same "guns are the enemy and all Muslims are our friends" mantra. I think it's starting to wear very thin...

ianimal ✉
Jun '16

Get a grip on reality redwing it's not Christians beheading people, burning people alive, selling women into sexual slavery, and looking to murder the infidels. One so called pastor make ridiculous statement and its the crusades all over again LOL!!

Denis ✉
Jun '16

If you feel the need to say"radical Islam" you are asking for a reactment. It's "Christians" that are shooting doctors and blowing up churches. You can laugh all you want but this hatred is rampant and not just from radical Muslims. Keep those blinders on.

Redwing
Jun '16

Death of innocent people is pretty funny, right "Skippy"? They're only Muslims right?

Redwing
Jun '16

I don't think anyone being beheaded is funny at all - but that is what is going on every day in countries under Sharia law. When is the last time you saw someone other than a Muslim holding a head?

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Read Deuteronomy 20 Skippy.

CBGB ✉
Jun '16

And that was an extremely ignorant comment Skippy. American muslims typically coexist with other religions and even non-believers.

CBGB ✉
Jun '16

...................

Philliesman ✉
Jun '16

Ollie-I guess the Dems and others are sick of the hypocrisy the Repub's show with dealing with these tragedies. It's a hollow gesture that really means nothing except for their PR.

Redwing
Jun '16

Skippy-To answer your question the Repub's did nothing except offer a moment of silence and shelf a couple of gun control bills the Dems offered. Like I said it was a hollow gesture.

Redwing
Jun '16

More to the point of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle doing nothing.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/treasonous-politicians-selling-souls-nra-check-article-1.2673868

Redwing
Jun '16

What a surprise, an article from that Liberal rag, the Daily News.

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

Redwing, they could show the respect the families deserve. I would have been just as appalled if it had been the Republican's. Oh but wait, I never remember them doing anything so disgusting. Remember the Paul Wellstone memorial? Dem's made that into a political fiasco? Stop defending the indefensible.

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

Joe Friday-What am I doing that makes me a "troll"? Maybe I just don't know the definition. Can you help? I thought I was just expressing my thoughts on the victims and ways to try to solve this problem in the USA.

Redwing
Jun '16

Well said JIT.

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

SD, actually very good post and I mostly agree.

I am glad to see you admitting that assault weapon bans, magazine limits, or stiffer penalties for breaking the law would be mostly ineffective.

It troubles me that our leaders are so often the knee jerk reaction you speak of, taking any chance they get to spit gun control.

And it is not about "say Radical Islam" like both Hillbill and Obummer made it sound in their speeches, it's about admitting we have a problem and calling them what they are.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

Take a compliment where you can get it SD....really

and no, you did say "Statistically neither of these will have a positive effect; the numbers on mass murders are too low to yield a valid result for many, many years."

Taste of your own medicine and you spit it out......I didnt even change anything you said.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

darwin, Help did not actually arrive in the club for three hours, meaning those who were injured had to wait three hours before the SWAT team came in.

Here is the timeline, from the text messages:

Shortly after 2 a.m., Sunday, June 12:

Omar Mateen enters Pulse nightclub armed with an assault rifle, a handgun and multiple rounds of ammunition and opens fire.
An off-duty officer working security for the club opens fire and is soon joined by two other responding officers, but Mateen gets past them and pushes back toward the bathrooms in the rear of the club.
----
2:06 a.m.

"Mommy I love you," the first message said. It was 2:06 a.m.
"In club they shooting," he wrote.
At 2:07 a.m., he wrote: "Trapp in bathroom."
Then at 2:08: "I'm gonna die."
----
2:09 a.m.
Pulse nightclub posts a status on Facebook:
"Everyone get out of pulse and keep running."
----
2:39 a.m.
Eddie Justice texts his mom again:
"Call them mommy
Now."
He wrote that he was in the bathroom at Pulse.
"He's coming
I'm gonna die."
Mina Justice asked her son if anyone was hurt and which bathroom he was in.
"Lots. Yes," he responded at 2:42 a.m.
"Text me please," she wrote.
"No," he wrote four minutes later. "Still here in bathroom. He has us. They need to come get us."
---
2:49 a.m.
Mina Justice told her son Eddie that the police were there and to let her know when he saw them.
"Hurry," Eddie Justice wrote. "He's in the bathroom with us."
She asked, "Is the man in the bathroom wit u?"
----
2:50 a.m.
Eddie Justice texts his mom: "He's a terror."
---
2:51 a.m.
Mina Justice receives a final text message from her son, Eddie, a simple one word answer: "Yes."
She will not hear from him again.
---
3:29 a.m.
Orlando Regional Medical Center personnel receive an urgent message on their pagers: "Mass casualty is in effect due to active shooting more than 20 traumas."
---

3:58 a.m.
Orlando police say they are responding to a shooting at a nightclub in Florida.
A post on the department's official Twitter account said "multiple injuries" have been reported following the incident at the Pulse Orlando nightclub near Orange Avenue and Kaley Street. The department advises people to stay away from the area.

Then at 5AM the SWAT team came in

So, it was 90 minutes before the Medical center even received the message that there was a shooting. People were still getting killed 90 minutes later, according to those text messages.

Also what I haven't seen mentioned is if any of the casualties were from when the SWAT team finally came in and there was a shoot-out.

Rich ✉
Jun '16

First Rich when you copy and paste an article you are suppose to reference the link

Second. A cop was there pinned him into the bathroom so they were able to clear the dance floor. It then turned into a hostage situation. 3 hours of negotiations then they busted in

Third. Just becaus the local police didn't tweet until 3:58 that doesn't mean they weren't on the scence until then

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/crime/orlando-shooter-killed-by-police-in-hail-of-gunfire-as-he-was-trying-to-escape-through-hole-rescuers-382673091.html?d=mobile

Darwin ✉
Jun '16

Sorry Darwin, I usually do:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-omar-mateen-timeline/

Rich ✉
Jun '16

Right, Mark...too bad each and every person in the club wasn't carrying. What could have happened...imagine if they all had AR-15s. No worries then...

yankeefan ✉
Jun '16

"What could have happened...imagine if they all had AR-15s"

If that were the case, the shooter would of never walked in

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

"What could have happened had there been more than one..." There were three wise guy; how many do you need? Oh right, everyone... Women and children first!

"And those poor people in the club waited something like three hours for help to arrive - surely some of those who died did so because of their misplaced faith that the state can and will protect them when it really counts."

The first wave of wounded came in around 2am; the second wave was indeed three hours later. Nine were not able to be saved but not sure which wave they came in.

Yes the three hours was terrible but until someone completes a full audit we just don't know if that choice saved lives or lost lives.

Yeah Darrin, I should have acknowledged the compliment yet how to do that while disagreeing with your description of what I did not quite say. So sorry and thanks.

Yes, I did say "Statistically neither of these will have a positive effect; the numbers on mass murders are too low to yield a valid result for many, many years."

You did not include any of the clarifying thoughts in the very same paragraph where I also said:
- An assault weapon ban will in ineffective IMHO. Other allowed weapons are perfect substitutes (which negates any possible success of the AWB even if a good thing)
- Perhaps a better solution is to cap clip size to 10 bullets...with stiff penalties (for having a larger clip)...... if mass destruction plans can be proved.
- Statistically neither of these (AWB or clip size restriction) will have a positive effect; the numbers on mass murders are too low to yield a valid result for many, many years.
- However, while we might not lower occurrences, we may lower the number of deaths in a single occurrence. (this is solely due to clip size restriction).

So what I was trying to say was that the AWB is useless given the readily available near perfect alternatives. Clip size restrictions has a better possibility. But these two solutions, or frankly any solution, will not yield a positive statistical valid result for many, many years ---- the sample size is too small. That does not say clip size restrictions won't help. It says that if they do, you can't statistically prove that for many, many years.

I would avoid the AWB but push for clip size restrictions therefore.

But you knew that already.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

It's always funny to see people like SD who I'm guessing is not a Muslim decide in his mind that the Muslims who are killing people in the name of Islam, who are bent on establishing a Muslim caliphate, who will chop your head off if you draw a cartoon of Mohammad, who want to establish Sharia law, who view all non Muslims as infidels, who look to inspire fellow Muslims to perpetrate lone wolf attacks, who's group ISIS (ISLAMIC State in Iraq and Syria) gladly takes credit for this attack, who do everything in the name of Islam, are not really Islamic. Yes SD you know them better then they themselves do. Unreal! Live in denial much!

Denis ✉
Jun '16

"how many do you need?"

As many that choose to exercise their rights.

As with my reply to Yankeefan, you have never provided any real world examples (in this or other threads) to support the assertion that more armed citizens present has ever exacerbated a situation or had "friendly fire" (especially to any extent worse than everyone dying anyway...)

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

"Mixing alcohol and guns seems to be a dangerous mix."

And anyone who misuses them would be held accountable... just like those who drink and drive afterwards. But last time I checked, bars do still have parking lots (are they encouraging drinking and driving?)

"Maybe metal detectors at the door?"

Pretty sure it didn't take a genius to "detect" that this guy had a gun after he passed through the door. Guess what is usually posted right behind most metal detectors (at court houses, government facilities, etc...) Numerous armed individuals.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

"I'm sure a bunch of armed people in a bar drinking alcohol would have helped."

It was a club, with a bar. Chances are, not everyone was drinking.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

From what I understand the weapon used has a foldable stock so it easier to conceal. So it may take a genius to see he was armed. I also understand that unless you are actually trained to handle this type of situation, having a gun would probably not make a difference. What a joke you three make saying a few people armed with handguns in a crowded and loud bar would really have helped stop a crazy man with a assault weapon.

Redwing
Jun '16

Happiest, there are plenty of people who go to bars/clubs and don't drink.

If state law (like where I live) permits carrying in bars as long as you aren't drinking then "chances are" you would be wrong because some people believe the right and responsibility of being able to defend their (and possibly other's) lives is more important than tossing back a Mic Ultra if doing so were illegal.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

You didn't answer my question Red Wing. What would you have them do?

And, now I will extend this challenge to a third person in this thread (you)... please find any examples of armed citizens making a mass shooting situation worse. Until you (or yankee fan or strangerdanger) do, that "argument" has zero merit.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Tossing back a Mic Ultra? Is the weapon in question a Hello Kitty .22 with pink mother of pearl grips?

ianimal ✉
Jun '16

I meant to imply that only teenage girls drink Michelob ultra. Why would you think that gay people are into Hello Kitty?

ianimal ✉
Jun '16

Redwing you're all over the place... if you're problem isn't licensed CCW then what's your concern about having everyone in there carrying a firearm (legally)?

Handgun vs. AR-15 = Not a good situation, but better than nothing.

"nothing" vs. AR-15 = Have you seen CNN lately?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

So SD, are you saying that the term Radical Islamists is politicizing these events. The shooters are deranged individuals who have no religion. Really, then why do all of the yell Allah Akbar when starting their rampage. You also stated that the use of that term would inspire more people to join the cause. What has not using the term caused, only a handful of these events. If you can't define your enemy, your chances of beating them become much harder. Obama looked like a angry little boy when this was brought up at the news conference.

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

I guess my opinion is more guns don't make us safer. I have seen many reports stating that. Yeah I don't think people should be able to carry in bars, if you drink or not. Use your guns for hunting or protecting your family and property. Oh and forgot, use those guns when the government comes to take them from you. LOL!

Redwing
Jun '16

Darrin, shoots just as quick?

The standard magazine for a Glock, like the one Mateen carried, is 15 rounds. The Sig Sauer MCX rifle Mateen used had double that capacity: 30 rounds. A Snapchat video taken at the scene in Orlando illustrates its devastating power: the shooter can be heard firing more than 20 shots in a single nine-second stretch.

There is only one reason this gun exists...to kill people and kill as many as possible.
Mark thinks he's Wyatt Earp and Rambo with a side of Annie Oakley...

yankeefan ✉
Jun '16

They're both semi auto and fire as fast as you pull the trigger

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Redwing-

I really think you are arguing from emotion and not knowledge, especially not firsthand.

Have you ever fired a weapon?

If so, recreational at a friends house, or have you had actual training?

Have you ever held, much less fired an AR15?

While they do have aftermarket options for *foldable* stocks, it is extremely uncommon. More than likely it was a collapsible stock, which only shortens the weapon a few inches.

The reason for my post? You make it sound like this is some magical evil tool of death that someone stuck in their pocket and walked in unnoticed. Complete lack of any real world experience. Even with a collapsed stock, an AR15 is still a sizeable object that would be easily seen.

My experience? U.S. Army veteran- during the transition from M16 to M4 carbine. Qualified expert on M16 (40/40, prone & fox) 9mm sidearm and grenade. Never fired a shot in anger- but am 100% mentally OK if I had to. I was a medic. My job was to keep the troops in the best shape I could, in whatever situation we found ourselves in.

That being said, being a medic on range coverage all the time gave me opportunity to fire lots of stuff- stuff that truly falls into assault weapons (understatement). You have no idea. An AR15 is a toy. Any firearm can kill. The media witchhunt has no idea what the scale is.

I can see the fun some people find in it. To each their own- I haven't fired a weapon since I got out 16+ years ago. But I like motorcycles, powerful cars, fireworks, and lots of other stuff you probably do not agree with.

Bottom line-

In an 'ideal world' there is no need for ANYONE to have a weapon.

Guess what- this isn't an ideal world- the same reason the cops need guns- bad guys - is the same reason there needs to be freedom to defend yourself- the cops won't always be there.

And even though I worked for and supported our government, I clearly 100% understand human nature and the reality that there can be, and are, corrupt government and cops. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant fool.

It is in the governments best interest to have an obedient, peaceful, quiet society that just goes to work, pays taxes and obeys the rules. Problem is, the rules, taxes and oversight is getting more and more strong handed as time passes- again anyone paying attention can readily see that. Where does it end? And at what point does the common man say enough? When the time comes that he does say enough- what keeps him from being suppressed when the government is the only one with power (force - weapons)?

Just like prohibition failed - alcohol is legal - with restrictions in the best interest of the public. I have no problem with those restrictions.

There needs to be a balance of power (force) between all of the following- cops/criminals, criminals/citizens and government/cops/citizens- just for the occasions and possibility of shit going wrong.

A responsible gun owner never uses it other than when and where allowed. Nothing any different than a responsible beer / wine drinker. Make the punishment harsh for offenders.

All this BS expecting to lessen the few idiots doing wrong by restricting the rest of the population is either ignorant & narrow minded, or grandstanding & self serving for personal gain. Unless you are a politician- you are in category A by wanting 'gun control'...and again this is coming from someone who have experience on both sides.

Josh ✉
Jun '16

Thank you Josh for putting it layman's terms. Thank you for your service.

auntiel ✉
Jun '16

do you have a proposal?

skippy ✉
Jun '16

"suspected terrorist equals no gun"

Suspected, investigated, and cleared...

The government can deny guns to anybody it wants with this little thing called "arrest and conviction".

Just being a "suspect" in a crime (especially a crime that has not yet occurred) should have no bearing on one's rights... heck, you can even still run for president.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Redwing, I don't know how I can make this any clearer to you...

*HE WAS NOT ON THE FBI TERROR WATCH LIST*

Even if the no fly list WAS a no buy list, HE WAS NOT ON IT! That law would not have stopped him.

...and no, when it comes to fundamental rights, these are not "different times". The government has just sold you hook, line, and sinker on their desire to take away rights for people they don't "like". If someone is dangerous enough not to own a gun, they are dangerous enough to either A) have eyes on them full time (i.e. surveillance) or B) be arrested and removed from society.

The burden (via due process) is on the government to *prove* that someone's rights should be affected, not take them away unilaterally and then have you prove yourself to get them back.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

I KNOW HE WAS NOT ON IT!
Like I said before with better background checks and to have all of these law enforcement data systems talking to each other we could start to get a handle on the illegal gun trade. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Why these systems are so antiquated I don't know. But you guys want someone on the no fly list to still buy a gun. Sounds you are supporting these terrorists to me. We have to start somewhere. I think dealing with paranoid people who are so worried about the govt taking your "baby" aka gun is also a problem.

Redwing
Jun '16

How come we are told these terrorists don't represent all muslims (which I believe is true) but yet we are told they do represent all gun owners?

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

"...and no, when it comes to fundamental rights, these are not "different times". The government has just sold you hook, line, and sinker on their desire to take away rights for people they don't "like". If someone is dangerous enough not to own a gun, they are dangerous enough to either A) have eyes on them full time (i.e. surveillance) or B) be arrested and removed from society.

The burden (via due process) is on the government to *prove* that someone's rights should be affected, not take them away unilaterally and then have you prove yourself to get them back."

Thank you Mark. But you are communicating with people that, at times, I believe do see everyone who disagrees with them as "guilty", even though the group-at-large has done no actual harm. And when a member of the disagreed-with-group does commit a crime, that crime is used as justification that *everyone* in that group must also be guilty. "I feared this would happen, and it did! Listen to me when I tell you that everyone in that group is guilty and must be punished without a lick of proof and only on my say-so!"

Sadly, that's where we find ourselves as a society. We've allowed the mindset of fear to permeate our thoughts, twisting our perceived reality to make things look much worse than they appear, not comprehending that there will always be a certain percentage of us who will act out and commit crimes, regardless of ideology.

We really, really do need to get a hold of this crazy mindset that everyone is guilty and arrest (pun intended) its spread before it leads to large scale violence.

justintime ✉
Jun '16

different angle on the subject: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/world/americas/control-and-fear-what-mass-killings-and-domestic-violence-have-in-common.html?_r=0&referer

4catmom ✉
Jun '16

Ollie,

The premise of your question is patently false.

gadfly ✉
Jun '16

Here's a more uplifting story, and one we need to read more of.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/15/what-happened-when-an-orthodox-jewish-congregation-went-to-a-gay-bar-to-mourn-orlando/

The "sentiment" displayed by this monster in darwin's article is precisely what is wrong in this world. It's not about ISIS, it's not about guns, it's not about religion. It's about the hate and intolerance of people that are "different" than us. This is what we need to fix. How do we fix that?

Tracy ✉
Jun '16

It terrifies me that people like that pastor (who has followers) exist in this world. What a hate filled little excuse of a human being.

In other news I see that John McCain says Pres. Obama is "directly responsible" for the shooting in Orlando. It's time for McCain to be put into mandatory retirement.

eperot ✉
Jun '16

Why can I not get on a plane but I can buy a gun if I'm on this so called watch list? So you don't care if a possible terrorist gets on a plane but you want to protect this same person from so he can buy a gun? And this stems back to a group of people who are paranoid about the govt. I isn't this paranoia a mental disorder that should disallow you from buying a gun? There is no proof the govt wants to take ALL of your guns but you still believe the crap that the NRA puts out. Wow!

Redwing
Jun '16

Just as I expected. The President in Orlando dancing on the graves of those lost in the terrorist attack. Can't he just give it a rest for once and not make a political freak show out of everything.

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

Any other president since and including FDR would have declared war on ISIS by now, changed the rules of engagement to a wartime footing, and engaged them as such.

DannyC ✉
Jun '16

agree Eperot -

4catmom ✉
Jun '16

Yes Eperot, no connection to ISIS, in spite of his pledge to ISIS, ISIS continually encouraging Muslims to commit lone wolf attacks inside the US, and this statement from ISIS

"With facilitation from Allah the Almighty, the brother Omar Mateen, one of the soldiers of the Caliphate in America, carried out a security raid in which he was able to enter into a gathering of Crusaders in a nightclub for followers of the people of Lot in Orlando, Florida. Allah enabled him to subdue the impure Crusaders, killing and wounding more than a hundred of them before he was killed — may Allah accept him. It should be pointed out that this invasion is the largest in America in terms of the number killed."

What possible connection could there be?

Denis ✉
Jun '16

Keep sticking your head in the sand. That's worked out so well in the last 7 and a half years.

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

Be careful - I got accused of ignorance when I uttered the same opinions

iSIS took responsibility for the attack
The shooter was a member
His religious leader lauded him as a hero

That happened

skippy ✉
Jun '16

"Keep sticking your head in the sand. That's worked out so well in the last 7 and a half years."

Ollie, was that meant for me? If so, man are you wrong. I'm not saying ISIS is not a threat...I'm simply saying that in this particular case, you have an American citizen, obviously mentally disturbed, more than likely homosexual and yet belonging to a religion that views homosexuality as an affront to god...so in some kind of internalized struggle he claims allegiance to ISIS and decided to kill. Of course ISIS is going to claim responsibility because they want the notoriety, but it doesn't mean they are any more responsible for this than dogs are for the murders of Son of Sam. One moron decided to do this. One religious moron.

As for the last 7 years, you are obviously laying all of the troubles with ISIS at the feet of President Obama. The trouble extends much farther back than that. I can't help you or anyone else if you don't have the ability to understand blowback from our military and diplomatic incursions into foreign lands. Unless you intend on permanent occupation, at some point you have to bring the troops home. Why they were there in the first place, (George Bush) and how our actions in picking favorites among Sunni and Shiite groups when setting up a new Iraqi government and army have everything to do with where we stand today.

eperot ✉
Jun '16

Eperot-agreed, we encourage violence by our actions, no matter our justifications. Drone strikes are all the rage because remotely killing in the name of US justice feels good to us but surely those in countries on the receiving end feel quite different about it.

Denis-true, there's some pretty nasty stuff being done under religious justification, and we have been dealing with it forcefully. Retaliation is part of it though, and I think that's eperot's point. Just know that if you initiate force to push people to change their ways then force in return is nearly always the result. Basic human nature here.

justintime ✉
Jun '16

Eperot, sounds like you have this guy all figured out. A mentally disturbed homosexual. I bet if you look further I'm sure he had a terrible childhood. Or maybe it was all a front to fit into gay world so he could kill then according to his belief system.

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

orlando is a hotbed of anti-american radcial islamic activity. from the linked article above:

While tourists from around the world soak up sunshine and dreams at Disney World, Islamic extremism festers around them.

Schools: The Muslim Students Association, founded by the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood whose stated purpose is to wage “grand jihad” on America, is active at the publicly funded University of Central Florida in Orlando.

The group defiantly brought un-indicted terror co-conspirator Siraj Wahhaj to campus. He’s the black Muslim convert and inflammatory imam tied by federal prosecutors to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and New York City landmarks bombing plots.

Wahhaj served as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheik), called for replacement of America’s “constitutional government with a caliphate” and roots for our nation to “crumble” so Muslims can take over.

UCF 9(University of Central Florida) funded a Muslims “da’wa” (conversion) seminar and with an endowment by the Saudi-supported International Institute of Islamic Thought sought to create an Islamic Studies chair to “help the Ummah regain its intellectual and cultural identity and re-affirm its presence as a dynamic civilization.”

The IIIT, (International Institute of Islamic Thought ), also a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, donated at least $50,000 to a “think tank” run by Sami al-Arian that served as a front group for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While al-Arian, a Muslim Brotherhood member dating back to the 1980s, served as a computer science professor at Tampa’s University of South Florida, he toured the country raising money for terrorism overseas. Investigative reporters and the feds caught al-Arian on tape inciting his attendees against, America, Israel “and their allies until death.” The left-wing academic pleaded guilty to a terror-fundraising conspiracy charge in 2006.

Al-Arian brought Palestinian-born Ramadan Shalah to teach at the University of South Florida and head his “think tank” for a spell. Shalah left the school in 1995 and resurfaced as head of Syria’s Islamic Jihad. He remains one of the FBI’s most wanted indicted terrorist fugitives.

Apologist officials at the University of South Florida, first exposed by counter-jihad researcher Steve Emerson as America’s “Jihad U,” turned a blind eye to the terror helpers among them.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '16

And so can you happiest girl... It's an excellent weapon to fight back with.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

If this control issue is such a big issue for the president why didn't he pass a bill in his first two years when he had control of both houses? I guess it's easier now because he can blame the republicans. And now we've reached such a point with being PC people are afraid to say something if they see something.Or if they do say something it seems like it has fallen on deaf ears.

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

Such childish talk from Skippy & Mark.
A couple of Annie Oakleys for sure!!
LOL

happiest girl
Jun '16

Keep in mind that 700 rounds would be ~23 magazines, at 1 pound each when loaded.

Certainly not impossible to carry, but generally even soldiers only carry 200-300 rounds, and they have vests/rigs specifically designed to hold and support the weight. Not something you can just throw more than 1 or 2 of in a pocket.

So, I'm guessing he had a few hundred rounds, and since the shooting continued for more than 1 minute (or even 5 minutes), the sustained rate of fire was significantly slower than even the 45-60 rounds per minute that semi-auto's (and a human's trigger finger) are capable of.

Which means the choice of weapon was inconsequential - especially because he *could* take his time once the victims were cornered and defenseless.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

As to those other weapons: almost every other weapon considered has less lethality than the gun because of either operation, distribution, manufacture, transportation, or all of the above. Guns are super easy to access, to conceal and transport, and super easy to use: point, click and bang, they’re dead. Chances are you will not shoot yourself either preparing, transporting, or using the gun. Might even be legal to carry concealed. The more crowded and close, the easier to do the job. Bombs take a certain amount of skill to build, to safely transport and detonate; many of the materials are on some sort of watch list so much more difficult to obtain than just a gun. Try buying three pressure cookers in one transaction and see who’s watching you. Many of the other weapon choices are very personal in operation and therefore prone to error. You have to be in someone’s face to use a knife for example. And knifing 50 people to death in a bar probably aint’ gonna happen.

However, IMO, the gunnies are correct that all the gun laws in the world won’t make a dent in the low number of mass murders by people who are hell bent on revenge, hate, mayhem or whatever mental defect drives them. Where there’s the will, there’s a way to try. Leftist AWB’s are indeed a silly knee jerk reaction to mass murder since there will still be so many perfect alternatives in the gun shop to choose from. Five shells in a sawed off will clear much of the room for example. And AWBs won’t make a dent in crime guns; they aren’t used much in homicide, that’s the hand gun.

In mass murder, most of these nuts got their guns legally. Universal Background Checks would be ineffective, they will pass. Most mass murderers are not under mental health judgements by the court, so improving mental health tracking would not change things. They would pass. And forget about my desire to improve crime gun tracing --- they guy is already dead and the guns were probably legal. Most mass murders result in death or suicide death.

But how many mass murders do we need to stop to claim success? And what is the harm in trying? Frankly, we need common sense laws not for ending mass murder but for lowering our homicide rate and more importantly, homicide by gun rate where we rank as a third world nation with active warring factions. If this slows a mass murderer down or stops one or two occurrences, hey, added value for being common sense. But to enact common sense gun laws just to stop mass murder is a fool’s mission and detracts from the real reason we need them: homicide by gun.

IMO, there are two things that might help reduce the carnage from mass murders. Restrict the clip size. Most mass murderers with guns who are stopped by citizens are done so during clip exchange. Adrenaline rush, fumble fingers, jams, or just the normal clip exchange time has allowed folks to jump in. So 30 round clips mean up to 30 dead before exchange; 10 round clips can increase the chance that the shooter is stopped during clip exchange before there are 30 dead. Clip size restrictions would never stop an occurrence of mass murder but might lower the volume of dead per that occurrence. Again, versus to total death count in a given year and the averages, it will always be a nit. Might be good enough to make us feel like going to large bars again though.

Second, if you’re on the terrorist watch list, you can’t have a gun. Period. We have already crossed the restrictions on liberty chasm by having the watch list so let’s take it full circle. Don’t like it, well there’s a process for removal. And maybe if enough people challenge the watch list, challenge the process, we will make that better for liberty as well.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#title

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mass-killings-common/1778303/

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

not just him, but many others:

the university of central Florida in orlando has a group on campus, (The Muslim Students Association), founded by the radical Egyptian Muslim brotherhood whose main purpose is to wage "grand jihad" on America

really?

why they are allowed to proliferate openly like this in the face of such tragedy is a mystery,

so let me get this straight, obama can't protect us and now he doesn't want us to protect ourselves, really?

it's not the weapon, it's the ones who practice jihad, time to call out those who are in complete denial,

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '16

lets keep the hardware on the 2A thread - I agree with Darrin..

skippy ✉
Jun '16

I don't care how many laws you have there are people who are going to break them.

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

It's rebuttal day!

"All Muslims are evil."
"SD I don't really want to beat this to death. Yes the US is number 4 for the death penalty and I have no problem with that." Too late for both of us :>) And that's the point. Somewhere in the world someone might feel as vehement about our death penalty as you do about Sharia law penalties. I do not condone them, or our death penalty as it is written, but do you suggest it means we need to vanquish all Muslims, physically force them to change, or that somehow this makes them equivalent ISIS? I mean it's their country, they all want Sharia law, what do you propose beyond debate, discussion and persuasion?

"Yes, ISIS is a different type of Muslim"
I think we now agree that ISIS is a different beast practicing a form of ISLAM not seen anywhere else for centuries. Muslims overwhelming hate ISIS and, in the scheme of things, there aren't very many ISIS members. Less today than yesterday. Like Jones/Koresh, they are a dangerous cult of brutality --- albeit a large one --- but a cult ostracized by the rest of the world, Muslims and Christians alike.

"Russia Rules"
"As far as Putin goes he has done far more to degrade ISIS ( enemies of Assad) in Syria than we have" Like to see the source on this. Yes, Putin put a crunch on ISIS and scored a big win against them, the rebels fighting Assad, and us. And he did it on the cheap, from the air and sea. Obama and our generals got played and we need to rethink what the heck we are doing there and what is our strategy because this one is not working and we just got played --- big time. Bottom line was Putin killed about 1,500 ISIS, 1,500 rebels fighting ISIS and Assad, and 2,000 civilians. Because he propped up Assad, Assad's troops could retake territory held by either ISIS or the US supported rebels.

The US coalition has killed well over 20,000 ISIS fighters. We've reclaimed huge territories, 50% of ISIS territory in Iraq and 20% in Syria. We laugh at Russia (except when getting played like Putin's recent Syrian move.)"

========================
"Restrict the clip size."
"And how on Earth would you ever be able to enforce that (for someone who has already decided that they are going to break the "murder" laws)? Seriously... do you know how many millions of 30 round magazines are "out there"? The horse has left the barn on that one."

Yeah, I think the metric for any law is: "the law is no good if someone breaks it."

For plain ole homicide, does it really matter? No real effect if huge clip used or not. Most acts of homicide or gunplay lucky to exceed 6 bullets total.

For mass murder, I think you are believing your own urban gun legend. Drinking that NRA Kool-Aid. If you check the history, it's amazing how many mass murderers buy their guns just before the shooting. This last guy was days. The South Carolina shooter purchased 2 months before the act. Others have gotten them from "good guys" who comply with the laws. Like Sandy Hook. Makes it sound like a great idea, huh?

Sure, it will take time. Many good things in life do require time and effort. You are right, there's a lot of them out there and criminals might decide to keep theirs. However, they are criminals. They don't exactly have a long shelf life. As such, how long do you think they will last before dead or incarcerated and we reclaim the clip? Of course there's always the good guy who hoards them on behalf of Amerika and then sells you yours in the Burger King parking lot.....

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

You act as if we never have discussed this Mark... You know I have said it's amazing that good guys with guns rarely miss; there are scant accounts of an ooops. That does not say that good guys with guns don't go bad. They do every day popping off at kids playing the music too loud, knocking at their door late at night asking for directions, or talking back at the wife with a loud bang. So while good guys with guns rarely miss, good guns with guns go bad every day.

So I have no problem with carry given within the guidelines of the law. I would like to see harsher penalties for premature unholstering, but that's another point.

But I can multi-task and work both sides of the equation especially when I see no special advantage for LCMs. No good for hunting, not that much of a burden to change clips for sport shooting; nope it comes down to protection and threats of government overthrow. Given time the first will be a level playing field and the second is just ludicrous.

Now to your specific example, I can not find whether the larger clips used in Columbine were actually banned or banned only from sales by gun shops. However the Columbine gun sales were conducted only months before the shooting, were done by strawman, and were done as private sales outside the jurisdiction of Federal Laws. Can you say LOOPHOLES? So sure, poster child for my point except to clarify when I mean ban, I mean BAN --- like you can't have em, sell em, inherit em or gift em. I mean gone.

You gotta read this and ask yourself ---- does the NRA really stand for responsible gun ownership? "Restrict the clip size." https://riversong.wordpress.com/the-guns-of-columbine/

Because these gun shop guys and gun worshippers that sold these guns sound more like used insurance salesmen trying to squeeze a buck by reselling a dead man's policy at a Burger King parking lot, a more slimy group of people is hard to come by.

Thanks for providing a prime example for all the other common sense guns laws for protecting us from homicide by gun which mostly are ----- close the LOOPHOLES DUMMIES.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

"No good for hunting, not that much of a burden to change clips for sport shooting"

As much as it may scare you, and no matter how many times you try to ridicule people for saying it, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with (or at least makes no specific exclusions for) hunting or sport.

(In fact, hunting is one area where the government CAN legally limit magazine sizes...)

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Happy Sunday Denis, hope you can enjoy the sun.

I think we are reaching an accord; hopefully you accept my repeated "ISIS is Muslim" comment as I your agreement on "ISIS is an brutal ISLAM we have not seen since Medieval times." I hope we both agree ISIS must be eliminated and rest assured, I am not in favor of nation-building. I am also not in favor of propping Assad up especially in the self interest of Russia. Unfortunately, ISIS is squeezing out of the trap into Libya and Nigeria for now so it will take time. It will take longer if we continue the tactical bombing while reducing civilian casualties. And Assad being stronger thanks to Russia slows our allies down as well. Like I said, we got played as need to re-jigger our strategy never to be played again.

If you don't want nation building, Libya and Egypt can be the result. If you like nation building, Afghanistan and Iraq can be the result. It's tough no matter what you do but I choose the path of less death to American youth.

Normally I am in favor of carpet bombing, leveling the infrastructure and coming home Gulf War I style. However, when there is no infrastructure combined with our enemy intermingled with a non-combatant, non-supportive indigenous population, so far the best way is to tactically degrade the terrorists with the least harm to our soldiers and civilians. This is a mess of an arduous task and more so when you toss in an a-hole like Assad gumming up the works.

I do take some issue with your links. The first one actually agrees with me indicating attacking our allies, the Syrian rebels, is a priority of the Russians helping Assad. "He acknowledged, however, that other military operations, such as the major offensive in Aleppo province, are a priority." Priority is weasel-words when you look at the death numbers.

I discount the numbers for the second PR piece from a Russian Army guy.

The third piece from the CIA director was blown up as news but really, did you we expect to degrade their terrorist capabilities overnight by limiting them in their home base? Terrorism is a cheap deal, does not take much money, just takes having dedicated people in the right places. That won't die overnight if you bomb home base. Quite the opposite, home base will look to terrorist assets in place to act to prop up their flagging PR efforts. ISIS has lost their capitol city; they have lost huge territories, they have lost a lot of finances and much of their ability to recruit in the Middle East (except for "inspired" nut jobs on the web.)

Unlike Al Qaeda who existed and was financed in the ether and did not require land to exist and thrive, ISIS requires land to exist. Without it they have little resources, they only can advertise in the ether, they can't finance or bank on the net. So as we squeeze them on the land, to succeed they will have to find a way to exist in the ether and that will be tough for them given our resources. But they have figured out how to export their terror and that needs to be closed down and not allowed to expand. Otherwise we will be chasing them from one fertile cache of resources to the next as they hop from dysfunctional country to dysfunctional country.

None of these convince me that Russia outgunned us or that their goal was nothing short of propping Assad up which hurts our efforts against ISIS.

The numbers are starkly clear that:
- we have killed more ISIS than Russia did
- we have killed many more ISIS leadership than Russia, if they killed any
- we have taken more ISIS land back than Russia
- Russia has killed many more civilians, thousands, than we have. A couple of thousand.

Where Russia succeeded was in a inexpensive quick hit so on a per-dollar-killed they probably win. But not in the totals. And they cost us dearly by propping up Assad. It was a brilliant tactical move by Putin making him look tough, good at home, screwing up American and adding to our bill, and keeps the Syrian oil flowing to Russia while not costing much in lives, time and money.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

Ban, increase penalties for ownership, and buy back. Get em off the street and out of the closet.

Bear in mind I have said that good guys will guns rarely miss. The only issue most bad guys with guns were good guys just before they capped someone so we should be sure the penalties for premature unhosterling are severe.

For mass shootings, the statistics show that most of the time the shooting is over by the time the police or anyone can do anything about it. So one answer is we can't do better.

Good guys with guns have stopped some however when you examine the stories, you find that in many cases the shooting was over and anyone could have stopped it. Also a number of these cases are not just a good guy with a gun but instead a very well trained good guy. But like I said, they rarely miss

"A 2013 FBI analysis of active shooter events between 2000 and 2013 found that 49 percent of active shooter events ended before police arrived (51 instances out of 104 attacks). Of 51 instances, victims stopped the attacker 17 (33 percent) times. Three times, a victim shot the attacker, and another 14 times, the shooter was physically subdued. Of those active shooter events, a gun was used by the victims to end the attack .03 percent of the time."

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/10/07/civilians-stopped-mass
shootings/#SDo2RlHXei9DisKa.99

However, most times civilians stop mass shooters is not by the gun but by physically subduing them. And many times, this is during clip exchange. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013

My point: do both. No issue with CCW given the caveats above. We just have to be sure we severely punish CCW offenders. Ban LCMs above 10 rounds; help armed and unarmed subdue these nut jobs. Reduce homicides by guns. Just check the gun transfers, trace the crimes and restrict the mentally ill from getting guns.

All of this will statistically not do anything immediately. However, if death toll is reduced, if a single occurrence is thwarted --- I think it is worth it.

Speaking of worth it, come on Skippy, if it only stopped 1 mass murder every two years, wouldn't you be will to change clips at ten shells when you're plinking? Are you mousing me again or are you just that lazy.... And thinking of it, if LCMs are "precisely for target shooting," then there's millions of Shongum wannabees buying them but not using for target practice......

2A no hunting clause. But NRA big clause though. And by the way, the 2A is all about militia ---- join one yet?

"(In fact, hunting is one area where the government CAN legally limit magazine sizes...)" Well, glad you see the light about the legality of government gun restrictions :>) Actually the federal government, and more easily the states, can restrict any Constitutional right they want to. Can you say Supreme Court decision?

Matter of fact, it's hard to find one they don't restrict.

Man, you guys forget the government takeover angle. Saving that for round two?

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

"And by the way, the 2A is all about militia ---- join one yet?"


The 2A is not all about a militia either... it's about citizens. That's it.

Oh, and this "interpretation" was also part of the Heller decision, since you love to talk about the Supreme Court so much.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Happy Sunday to you SD,

"If you don't want nation building, Libya and Egypt can be the result. If you like nation building, Afghanistan and Iraq can be the result. It's tough no matter what you do but I choose the path of less death to American youth." I choose the path of as I said before let them sort themselves out. I agree bomb and drone ISIS when ever we can. Yes the view from Russia is not doubt slanted, but I believe the news from our own media is as well. I try to get my news from multiple venues, and like I said the truth usually lies in the middle somewhere. As far as Assad goes, yes he is a brutal dictator, but I don't think he is going anywhere, it would would be better for all concerned to let the inevitable happen, instead of prolonging a futile effort at the cost of more live, and the further displacement of civilians.

I think we have some meeting of the minds for term Muslim now. This I find very scary however from our own government, clearly they will do what ever they can do downplay the ISLAM connection.
In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage. “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch said. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].”

Denis ✉
Jun '16

"I choose the path of as I said before let them sort themselves out. I agree bomb and drone ISIS when ever we can." I think I agree but statements kinda run counter to each other and I am not sure ISIS can be removed with Assad in the way. But removing Assad means someone has to nation build or we leave a vacuum. Sucks dealing with tribal nations.

"The 2A is not all about a militia either... it's about citizens. That's it." Now that's an interpretation that completely disavows the word militia much less the prefatory clause that includes it. Certainly hacks the hell out of the 2A :>) And that's exactly what Heller said and that's the 2A law of the land as defined by SCOTUS....today. Bear in mind that SCOTUS also confirmed the state's and fed's right to restrict as well.

Yes, 10 rounds should be OK for self defense on average. Most often far fewer shots are fired: http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html However you make a point that firepower escalation to tip the balance may occur. This is true whether the level playing field is 1 bullet, 6 bullets or more. So where do you stop and why do you feel greater than 10 is the magic number?

Yes, armed services and police can carry whatever they want. I think they prefer the 9mm or .40 caliber and 15-round clips, probably more the 9mm. Personally I would think cops would like a variety of weapons to handle a variety of situations. In the dark ages of the early 70's, I rode with cops who told me anecdotally they preferred the shotgun when feasible since "if I have to shoot, I want them down and nothing worse than a small caliber wound turning the perp into an adrenaline fueled superhuman...."

I could compromise to a 15-round restriction if that is more feasible given the current supply and manufacture.

I agree that this will not necessarily stop one occurrence of mass murder. The goal is to reduce the gun carnage per occurrence which I think this will help.

"Once you cross the line of telling people what they "should" have to protect themselves and their families is when you loose your support." There is a line already, always has been, so we are talking moving it to protect families from the higher death tolls by gun in mass murder.

Other guns laws aimed at stemming gun homicide can also have affect in mass murder as well but their main intent is gun homicide in general.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

World-wide our homicide rate, driven by the gun, rates us as a third-world nation in the middle of the pack of over 100 nations. If we look at developed nations only, we are usually 5 times the homicide rate of other countries. No wonder we don’t report the homicide news anymore. Houston I think we have a real problem here.

Again, on the weapon lethality index, if the gun disappeared magically, we would have less homicides. Might have more injuries, but less homicides. But that’s not going to happen.

Enough stats. The concept of guns disappearing from America is just not viable. I personally think that no overall or major ban will ever pass nor will it do much to stem the amount of gun deaths we have. The AWB is useless just because of the availability of viable alternatives. Because of our heritage we will not accept giving up our guns no matter what benefits might result or whatever protection alternatives we provide. What I have proposed is not new laws, but instead, basically make existing laws work to fulfill their original intent:

- Universal Backgrounds Checks for all transfers, sales or otherwise of all gun – no loopholes

- Universal Mental Health tracking including involuntary commitments, DR’s danger assessments and domestic abuse cases including those with close relationships, not just married couples

- Automated crime gun tracking system instead of current paper and file cabinet process

- Ban on any LCM above 10 bullets

Will this stop the carnage? No. But it will lower the homicide rate, lower the death rate and it will convict more people before they commit their next homicide.

To me, the gunnites defense against this smacks in the face of responsible gun ownership. They should be pursuing making these laws work as responsible citizens in defense of the 2A. The anti-gunnites desire for bans defocuses us from things that might work in favor of vain attempts at things that won’t pass by either party --- Dems or Repubs. The should be pursuing things that help that might pass rather than basically just baying at the moon. I just wish we could all focus on improving the laws we have and making what we have work better to keep us all safer and reduce our third world

My gun manifesto: mass murder/shootings, suicides, and homicides is over! Yea :>)

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

One good thing to come of this...

The LGBT community is starting to increase their awareness/participation in the exercise of firearm rights (as they should, as should all women and men).

Guns: Not just for old fat white guys anymore...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

One bullet in the pocket Barney

skippy ✉
Jun '16

"the 2-5 seconds it takes to change out a magazine"

Also note... (this video showed a LOT of info)... that just because a magazine is being changed does not mean the weapon cannot fire.

Watch closely, they didn't fire until empty (where the bolt/slide usually locks back) for the first few magazines. They changed magazines with a round still in the chamber so that they didn't need to release anything before firing again. That round could have just as easily been fired with no magazine in the firearm. Hope you counted while being shot at...

So, in the words of Dirty Harry...

"Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?"

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Danny, they should either release it in its entirety or not release it at all. Anything else is just them releasing what they want you to hear. I bet they leave in any references to "guns" though...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

"I bet they leave in any references to "guns" though..."

I guarantee it comes off as a PSA for gun control that Bloomberg couldn't have written any more biasedly if he made it up himself...

ianimal ✉
Jun '16

the doj/fbi doesn't get to 'redact' 911 tapes. i guess they can publish whatever spin they want and the MSM will drink it up like water and support their anti-ar-15 agenda, but aren't 911 calls to local police department public information?

can't wait for a group/news outlet to file the OPRA request to get the unedited tapes directly from the Orlando Police dept. then it will look even worse for the administration which is absolutely co-enabling Islamic extremism at this point. it's exaclty having a drunk in the family that no one wants to talk to about their addiction. by not talking about they co-enable the drunk in his drunkeness. by lying for him, and defending him they delay any chance at rehabilitation.

this article sum up the hypocrisy of the Loretta Lynch biased DOJ:


FLASHBACK: A.G. LYNCH EMPHASIZED DYLANN ROOF’S MOTIVATION IN CHARLESTON AFTERMATH

‘Roof conceived of his goal of increasing racial tensions throughout the nation and seeking retribution for perceived wrongs he believed African Americans had committed against white people’


Sunday Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the Department of Justice/FBI would redact from the Orlando terrorist's 911 call any references to Islamic terrorism. The announcement is notable in how sharply it contrasts with Lynch's handling of the Dylann Roof's killing of nine black parishioners at a Charleston church.

Lynch told Chuck Todd Sunday she was redacting the 911 call because "we're not going to ... further this man's propaganda. ... We're not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance and all that."

On CNN, Lynch told Dana Bash, "The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts is to avoid revictimizing those who went through this horror." Yet last July, when Lynch announced federal hate crime charges against Roof, Lynch expressly emphasized his motivation.

“Several months prior to the tragic events of June 17, Roof conceived of his goal of increasing racial tensions throughout the nation and seeking retribution for perceived wrongs he believed African Americans had committed against white people," Lynch said during a press conference.
https://news.grabien.com/story.php?id=359


What a complete and utter phony hypocrite she is. Just shameful. she's just a propaganda tool who does the bidding of obama

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '16

SD, the statements really don't counter each other. Yes bomb ISIS when ever possible, wherever possible. As far as let them sort themselves out, that goes the people in middle east battling each other for power. We interfered in Iraq, how did that turn out, we interfered in Libya how did that turn out.

"But removing Assad means someone has to nation build or we leave a vacuum." Why do we need to remove him, why is that our business? It will just create more chaos removing another dictator. How does him being there help ISIS his enemy? Once he gains control again it will be much more difficult form them to operate in Syria. So many Americans have the false notion that toppling a dictator from power is somehow going to lead to true democracy in the middle east. Recent history suggests it leads to the more evil of two evils gaining control of people and territory.

Denis ✉
Jun '16

The terrorist watch list bill just mathematically failed to pass the Senate.

Several more to vote on.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Cornyn's amendment, yet another watch list bill, has failed to pass.


...


Last but not least, Feinstein's amendment failed to pass.

The people have spoken.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

good catch Darrin - he used a double barrelled shotgun, here's a snippet from CNN which thinks it was a '12 caliber' size. proving once again that the MSM has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to firearms

"Ybarra allegedly went to the campus armed with a 12-caliber double-barrel shotgun with 50 rounds in his pockets. But the gun malfunctioned, rendering the double-barrel shotgun into a single-barrel one, the prosecutor said.
Ybarra allegedly fired only two shots -- killing one student and wounding two others -- before student security guard Jon Meis pepper-sprayed Ybarra's eyes and took away the shotgun, Satterberg said."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/seattle-campus-shooting-charges/

Brother
Jun '16

"The people have spoken" -----Mark Mc

How's that for Irish Malarkey?? ........ when it was the paid-off Republican Senate that voted it down.

The latest poll found 71% of citizens favor restrictions on gun sales.

happiest girl
Jun '16

Mark Mc --
Don't pretend you don't know the answer to your question.
Cornyn's plan only stipulates an 'alert' when suspected terrorists try to buy guns. Of course his plan is backed by the NRA & the Texas State Rifle Association.

The Cornyn plan is the Republican alternative to a Democratic proposal by Feinstein which would have DENIED gun sales to people on terror watch lists or others whom authorities believe might be likely to engage in terrorism.

happiest girl
Jun '16

Did you even read the first sentence of his bill Happiest Girl? Pretty sure the word "deny" is right there...

The truth is, the Democrats could have given you what you wanted, the Republicans *offered* it (with some due process additions, like proving the threat and having an appeals process - you know, a "compromise") and the Democrats voted *against* it.

The scary question you need to ask is why are the Democrats so hell bent for unchecked unilateral power that they voted down the very thing they were asking for because it gave citizens a path to legally challenge the removal of their rights?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

How do you define under the bus Dog? Like saying "I support you, I stick with the people" right before you fire the guy? Glad you support "now playing on an ISIS channel" support tapes. Can't wait to see their recruiting video. Did you forget this was a war and in war there are information blackouts........

But back to the guns :>)

“the Republicans *offered* it (with some due process additions, like proving the threat and having an appeals process “ Wow, talk about gilding the lily.

When you look at the bills, you can see why they failed according to party lines. Mark's "the people have spoken" and look at those Dems voting gun control down is pure hogwash. First they required the 60-vote minimum to pass. Second, anyone voting against the NRA will face massive negative ads within the next voting cycle. So a few Dems from gun-ho states voted with their State. And Kirk a Republican from IL faces a tough race in the Fall so that’s why he crossed party lines since he could care less about the NRA in his do or die race.

But once again this was a partisan piece of political theater with Dems pushing for further controls and restrictions and Repubs either pushing against or putting up useless straw bills.

Basically Dems put up some stronger bills and Repubs put a weaker alternative as political theater (look, we’re doing something!) and a crazy one, literally. So Repubs just said no and Dems said that’s not good enough or wow, that one is freakin crazy. The crazy one was a mental health bill which essentially provided a path to guns to those adjudicated by the court mental defectives while doing nothing to address involuntary incarcerations or DR’s threat assessments. It actually meant more guns, not less. Freedom, liberty!

So we continue saying: good enough not to fly but still can buy, look at the loopholes you can use to avoid NICS background checks on gun transfers, hey you look like a terrorist, wanna buy a gun. And we did not allow mental defectives an easier route to get back to purchasing weapons.

And that makes Mark happy and responsible for each of the terrorists that buy guns that could have been blocked by these bills and all those criminals avoiding NICs checks via the loopholes. Congratulations.

A summary (provided by USA Today). Where Mark sees the people have spoken, I see more of the same. NRA gun manufacturer tools turning you into death puppets.

"An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list."

Obviously a Democratic bill opposed by NRA, 47 yea 45 Dems, 2 Repubs and 53 nays, one Dem, ND. Repubs voting yea were IL and NH.

"An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale."

53 yea, all Repubs, 47 nay, 44 Dems and 3 Repubs from ME, IL and AZ

"An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination."

53 yea, one Dem, 47 nay, 2 Repubs and 45 Dems

"An amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, and to expand the background check database."

44 yea, 1 Rep IL supporting, 56 nay with 3 Dems, ND, MT and WV.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

"And that makes Mark happy and responsible for each of the terrorists that buy guns that could have been blocked by these bills and all those criminals avoiding NICs checks via the loopholes. Congratulations."


You keep (intentionally) forgetting one very important word... "suspected"... with no tangible burden of proof, not even "reasonable belief" which as you admitted above is already a lower standard than "probable cause".

The only one responsible for a terrorist's actions are the terrorist him/herself.

If you guys were creative enough to draft legislation that would only affect terrorists I'm all for it, but that's not what is being presented... and the mask slips a little bit when Dianne Feinstein in her pre-vote debate yesterday called the NRA a "reign of terror"... hmm where could THAT train of thought lead?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Mark, the Cornyn bill was voted down by Democrats because it was political theater that would have resulted in a waste of money with no tangible results. It was a no-action bill.

Essentially the bill would give the government three days to prove probable cause when a person on the terrorist watch list went to buy a gun. If the government could prove probable cause in three days or even a month ----- the person would be on their way to jail........ But instead the law would force the government to spend our tax dollars to dance every time a watch list suspect went to buy a gun. Waste of time and our money.

Now I can understand innocent until proven guilty but this is a war, a war on terrorism. Perhaps we should be leaning towards ----- hey, if you want a gun, then get yourself OFF the watch list erring on the side of safety. Instead we want to err on the side of, well, we think you might be a terrorist, but we can't quite prove it, but we're watching ----- want to buy some guns?

That's not compromise, that's a waste of time. Again, if the government can show probable cause, buying guns would not be the targets issue, he would be on his way to jail.

The Feinstein version erred the other way saying, if we have a reasonable belief, not probable cause, you can't buy guns. No fly, no buy. And if you have a problem with that or think its in error, get yourself off the watch list. It's a terrible unconstitutional process to be removed, but there is one. Given we are at war, that make common sense to me.

It comes down to do we believe we have potential terrorists in the US and if the government has a reasonable belief a person might be a terrorist should that person buy guns (Democrats) or we believe we have potential terrorists in the US and the government has a reasonable belief a person might be a terrorist but unless the government can show probable cause that person can't board a plane but they can buy all the guns they can carry (Republicans). The Dems err on the side of not letting suspected people buy guns, the Repubs err on the side of selling guns to suspected people. That's not a compromise.

And Skippy, that was just plain rude. Chill pill my friend.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

well it is true I play on ignorance and emotions, but you just gots to consider your audience :>)

but if you were talkin DC, then yes, this was indeed political theater on both sides. Not wanting to looking wanting for the third mass murder in a row, the Dems filibustered and floated things they knew wouldn't pass just because they wanted to show a vote, the Repubs wanting to look like they actually want to help and not just obstruct floated a couple of poison pills they knew wouldn't pass. And once again, no one worked across the aisle to actually try to make law. However, I do have to give the Repubs extra credit in trying to get more crazy people guns. Now that's freedom talkin! Sassy.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

What amazes me if that the AG tried to edit out the killer's multiple statements of his allegiance to ISIS. Tells me something about where the press gets their talking points from...the top. A redaction of a redaction, thanks to the American people, who are not as dumb as some might think. Remember Susan Rice on Benghazi?

DannyC ✉
Jun '16

S D " but this is a war, a war on terrorism" The best statement made on this subject. If the congress would declare war, they would have many options with it being done for the war effort and national safety. That makes it temporary and it should be reviewed and extended every year. You could even get profiling in under that cover. IMHO

Old Gent ✉
Jun '16

I don't apologize for my statement - I apologize that I was not clear and didn't mean SD - I meant DC. Thanks BD

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Is paranoia a mental disease? Just worried about some of theses posters on here. So paranoid that they would let anyone,with no restrictions, have a gun. Now I know why they don't want background checks and keep the gun show loophole. How else could they buy a gun?

Redwing
Jun '16

There you go SD, case in point w/ Redwing's post......

People want guns.....What are they so paranoid about???......Paranoia must be some sort of mental illness......why can people who have mental illnesses get guns.

Even though redwing's comment was made up of false accusations, based solely off his internal anger built from people expressing a different opinion than him, you can clearly see the slippery slope we speak of when you allow things to open to interpretation.

Thank you redwing for single handedly proving our point.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

"So it's not a sliver, it's put up or shut up."

Otherwise known as innocent until proven guilty. How awful we ask the government to "put up" when it comes to terrorism.


"Do you really feel that a person who the FBI has a reasonable belief is a terrorist should be able to buy guns?"

No, I believe that a person whom the FBI has a reasonable belief is a terrorist should be arrested and tried - or at the VERY least more closely (physically) *watched*. This doesn't even touch upon the fact that the list doesn't contain "people" it contains "names", which may or may not even BE a real person, or it could be a DIFFERENT person (one who clearly isn't a suspected terrorist - such as, oh I don't know... "T Kennedy").

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

"And therein lies the rub. The "sliver of due process" you refer to is probable cause. People on the terrorist watch list are under "reasonable belief." Like I said, if the AG had probable cause, the perp would be on his way to jail. So it's not a sliver, it's put up or shut up. "

"Probable cause" isn't the standard to get a conviction; it's the standard to obtain a search warrant or wiretap surveillance. If they don't have at least THAT much, why is the guy on the list at all?

ianimal ✉
Jun '16

Is it possible to shift the discussion from the gun control diversion back to the source of the atrocity, ISIS? Plus the gubmint's feeble attempts to cover up the facts in this case?

DannyC ✉
Jun '16

ISIS inspired. They didn't communicate directly, they didn't train, they didn't plan..... He pledged allegiance and they took the credit. IMO that's where this will end up. Like I said, we need to push these guys off the web, paint them black, make them go dark.

Meanwhile.....you all keep lambasting the redactions and the glory of playing the full tape. It was not like anything held back was unknown to you. But in your conspiracy-warped, government is out to get us fervor, somehow you think leaving them in is helpful to your cause. Was it that important or enlightening to you? Did you learn something you didn't know?

It is helpful for ISIS to be able to create their next inspired global killer and for recruitment propaganda. That's all you got for leaving them in.

Freedom of speech gauntlet my billydoots. Let's not support the enemy any more than we have too.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

If ISIS doesn't exist, does this guy still shoot up that place? My guess is yes.

ianimal ✉
Jun '16

We got the full transcript of the 911 call but why not the audio? Seems to me that every other 911 call that's put out to the public we hear the audio. I for one would like to hear the terrorist take claim for what he did. Hearing something is much more effective than just reading it.

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

"One of the problems is that we will never get all the truth about this atrocity from this administration" Give me one thing that you think you didn't learn.....

"Hearing something is much more effective than just reading it." Especially if you're making inspirational messages and recruiting messages. Which side are you on?

"Surely - can we agree that this was ISIS?"
I believe as Iman alludes to --- ISIS inspired or maybe just a gender conflicted sickie looking.

Wait I have it. It was Wayne LaPierre's and Donald Trump's brilliant conspiracy scheme to sell more guns and take the Presidency. It has to be true, it's working on the guns already.

Geez.....

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

"this case was pretty obviously motivated by ISIS allegiance. No?"

As much as Jodie Foster was to blame for the assassination attempt on Reagan anyway. Actually, she was even MORE to blame, because I actually believe that Hinckley did it in a delusional attempt to impress her.

This other scumbag was going to do it anyway and just wanted to increase his notoriety by "name-dropping", essentially. No fundamentalist Islamic Radical is going to go "deep cover" and live like a homosexual for several years. What would be the point?

ianimal ✉
Jun '16

" The problem for you Constitutional scholars is that the majority of Americans feel this way." not true it is split pretty evenly down the middle

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

"If commonsense reforms to American gun laws are to have any chance, thoughtful gun owners need to be treated with more respect – and split from the fundamentalist leaders of the NRA"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/22/gun-rights-supporters-national-rifle-association-nra

Have I stumbled into Bizarro World? First the New York Times, and now the Guardian, running fair coverage of the debate. Who would have thought..

skippy ✉
Jun '16

ianimal - At least you referred to the killer as "scumbag"...well said, very articulate. With his father affiliated with the taliban, three times on the FBI watch list, trips to the middle east, irrespective of his sexual orientation, he was planning his murderous rampage for months. There are others in the US doing the same thing, even as we speak. When will people wake up to the barbarians at, or within, our gates?.

DannyC ✉
Jun '16

"You can't yell fire under the first amendment but we can't stipulate you can't " Exsqueeze me...... I don't think there's any right in the Bill of Rights that does not have limitations, restrictions or both.

"not true it is split pretty evenly down the middle"
McFly, is anybody in there.... Are we reading the same poll?

"If commonsense reforms to American gun laws are to have any chance, thoughtful gun owners need to be treated with more respect – and split from the fundamentalist leaders of the NRA" No joke. So when are you guys gong to respect thoughtful gun owners who demand UBC's, no-fly/no-buy, and enhanced mental health tracking?

From the article... “I think a lot of gun owners feel demonized.” No joke. That's because the NRA leadership has their heads up their barrels with stands that most gun owners don't approve (see poll).

I love the part about crying there's no good guy with guns stories. Well, there's no suicide by gun or homicide by gun stories either unless 50 people die. The rest is just everyday life, get used to it ---- oh wait, we already are :>(

You're one weird dude Skipster. With all the bashing, and then all the pro-gun thrashing, suddenly you pop out a gem like this: "I agree that this was an afterthought of Isis to claim responsibility for the attack but it is certainly their (and groups like them) premeditated strategic forethought that created an environment on us soil where normal Muslims are turned into martyrs for their cause. These hate groups should be treated like the KKK aryan brotherhood etc." Spot on Skippy. Now add it gives this gender conflicted passive aggressive evil subhuman a cause celeb and we're off.....

Meanwhile ---- let's share his audio messages with ISIS so they can "claim responsibility for the attack" and further "creat(ed) an environment on US (us) soil where normal Muslims are turned into martyrs for their cause." Why, because "the gubmint's feeble attempts to cover up the facts in this case?" "must be shown" "The gubmint is still holding back the evidence." "I for one would like to hear the terrorist take claim for what he did." You know, "Hearing something is much more effective than just reading it." You flippin can't make good inspirational tapes and recruiting films with just a text message.

The preceding paragraph was a blatant cut n paste from a variety of sources and should be seen as anything but strangerdanger completely losing it, popping his cork, and heading to the fridge for beer. It's happy hour somewhere :>)

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

auntiel - Sure are a lot of people with blinders on. And the gubmint is supplying dark sunglasses for them with misinformation and lies. "See something, say something" yields no results today from handcuffed law enforcement, including the FBI.

DannyC ✉
Jun '16

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Isis

Just a friendly reminder to folks that "ISIS" became a household name a little over two years ago. Before that where were they on the national radar? Nowhwere to be found.

Is ISIS a nasty group? Yup. But these people have been around much longer than the current bogey man of ISIS, and al Qaeda before them, so as the emotions flare and the "urgency" of dealing with Isis is pondered just remember they are just another boogey man in a never-ending line of boogey men to be paraded in front of the current "media generation".

Just sayin' for a bit of perspective...

justintime ✉
Jun '16

So SD, we shouldn't be allowed to hear the 911 tapes because it will create more terroists? Should they not have shown the 9/11/01 highjackers boarding the planes that fateful morning for the same reason? What a load of BS.

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

And hearing a 911 tape does?

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

We should send ISIS a strongly worded letter. Problem solved.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

That's right words are poweful. Loretta Lynch today said " Our most effective response to hatred and terror is compassion, its unity and it is love". That type of thinking is going to get a lot more Ameicans killed.

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

Man claiming to be Omar Mateen’s former lover steps forward

http://fusion.net/story/317373/univision-report-man-claiming-to-be-omar-mateens-former-lover-steps-forward/

The King of Funny Fa ✉
Jun '16

Darrin --

You failed to understand because YOU "just want to hear what you want to hear"
My response to kb2755 was in reference to what s/he said about Loretta Lynch.
You're the rude one.

happiest girl
Jun '16

flit, did you actually say flit?

"fans" - except maybe for a couple others with the same MO." Markian logic: if you're a fan of HG, then you have the same MO as in you are rude, have few fans, call someone a fool or some other childish quip and then disappear for several days....

Well, maybe you got me that this was a childish quip, got to consider the source, but disappear ---- NBL!

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

SD - Where did I direct anything in my last response towards you (as far as childish quips and disappearing)?

HG - Thanks for proving my point.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

Seriously!

Ollie ✉
Jun '16

You castigated all happiest girl fans as having the same MO which you said was "to flit in occasionally, read one or two posts just to call someone a fool or some other childish quip, and then disappear for several days. I believe your rude style is quite well known and don't think it's earned you many "fans" - except maybe for a couple others with the same MO."

You need to read what you write if you don't really mean what you say. "Seriously!"

And lighten up.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

SD, after reading your post a few times I have concluded that you must be talking about HG, not putting her under your wing. There is no way you would discredit yourself that much by doing so.

Darrin ✉
Jun '16

JIT: think we need to invent "the flitter." Works like the clapper letting you see or block the current flitter simply by snapping your fingers. With the ad song: "flit on, flit off, the flitter...."

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

"SD - Where did I direct anything in my last response towards you ..." ------ Mark Mc.

That's hysterical, considering that after I wrote to Darrin, it was *Mark Mc.* who replied with his usual nasty comments.

Plenty of people are laughing at you, Mark!!

happiest girl
Jun '16

Nice way to quote only half of my comment HG... hearing what you want to hear again.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '16

I do not know how to feel about this

from a Law Enforcement standpoint, the country would not want to publicize the beliefs this terrorist had towards the country and embolden other Muslim extremists.
Case in point - Norway's stupid court system basically gave Breivik a pulpit for him to spread his hate when he made court appearances and appeals.

That being said - I am a libertarian and huge advocate of open public records and transparency - If someone makes an official records request they have to provide the record - not "scrubbed" records.

now - when some idiot shoots up a church - the 911 tapes get released

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chilling-police-911-logs-reveal-horror-of-charleston-church-shooting/

As of now this terrorism stuff goes through the judicial process which gives the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists. The courts are not equipped to handle terrorism.
this is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

More and more people will get killed by violent Islamic homophobics in terror attacks, and still we continue to bring in more Muslims from areas of the world that hate the American way of life and kill gay people where their from.

Mateen didn't mention ANY other motive than his allegiance to the islamic state.

skippy ✉
Jun '16

I guess the Sarnaya(sp) brothers wouldn't have decided to go on their rampage if we just decided not to show or release tapes of any prior terrorist attacks. We shouldn't have released the tapes of Seal Team 6 taking out Osama bin Laden because that would just create a new breed of terrorists. Today is the 20th anniversary of 19 US serviceman and many many others killed by Hezbollah terrorists at the Khobar Towers. I guess they decided to kill all those people after hearing some tapes we released. And yes I want to listen to the tapes so I and others can see and hear what sick rat bastards these people are. While you think otherwise, I on the other hand believe we need to see and hear from the people that want inflict their sick form of their religion on all of us.

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

"Mateen didn't mention ANY other motive than his allegiance to the islamic state." Well, we can take that to the bank as the gospel truth.....

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

in a time of war shouldn't the imams comments be considered a treasonous act? Why is Mateens wife not going for conspiracy and treason? It can't be both - get this stuff out of the courts and before military tribunals and start treating it for what it is - acts of war

skippy ✉
Jun '16

skippy - Is it not true that congress is the only body that has the power to declare war? What are the chances that this congress will declare war on ISIS? Short of that, there is no official war, even though there really is a war. How strange and dangerous is this?

DannyC ✉
Jun '16

Extremely - I think potus can deploy marines and special forces for a limited time without authorization

skippy ✉
Jun '16

Nah, the administration is using the 2001 AUMF created post World Trade Center bombing.

strangerdanger ✉
Jun '16

I am with you -

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/21/1899231/top-conservatives-admit-boston-bombing-suspect-cannot-be-tried-in-military-tribunal/

Mateen was a citizen. Not sure about his wife and the imam. If they are as well they cant be brought before a military tribunal. But they can be declared an enemy combatants. We can question them for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that they have knowledge of, and that evidence cannot be used against them in trial

skippy ✉
Jun '16

36 dead and approx 100 injured by 3 suicide bombers at Istanbul airport. I wonder if they were driven to do this by listening to 911 tapes or are just hell bent on killing innocent people in the name of Islam.

kb2755 ✉
Jun '16

On the motivation for this attack:

"The FBI has found no evidence so far that Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people and wounded more than 53 at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, chose the popular establishment because of its gay clientele, said U.S law enforcement officials.

“While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted pulse because it was a gay club,” a U.S. law enforcement official said."

"The assessment is based on interviews and an examination of his computer and other electronic media.

After the attack, speculation surfaced that Mateen was gay as people came forward to say they had seen him at the club previously and had contact with him on gay dating apps. One man told the Spanish-language television network Univision that he had slept with Mateen.

Even Mateen’s first wife, Sitora Yusufiy, raised the possibility that Mateen was possibly gay but conceded it was just a suspicion and nothing more. His current wife did not think he was gay, according to a person familiar with the case.

The FBI, however, has been unable to verify that Mateen used gay dating apps and instead has found evidence that Mateen was cheating on his wife with other women.

Officials said there is nothing to suggest that he attempted to cover up his tracks by deleting files. They also added he did not make gay slurs during the shooting spree inside the club, based on witnesses.

In a 911 call, Mateen pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State and did not make any homophobic comments. FBI Director James B. Comey has said Mateen was radicalized and previously been the target of a terrorism investigation."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-evidence-so-far-to-suggest-orlando-shooter-targeted-club-because-it-was-gay/2016/07/14/a7528674-4907-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html

Rich ✉
Jul '16