Orlando: Worst Mass Shooting In US History

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well being friends with Saudi Arabia is somewhat simple. They allow us to control some Mideast politics by not caring if we store some troops there. For the previous administration, S.A. was beneficially in overthrowing Iraq. For the previous and current administration, S.A. is a powerful bulwark against Iran controlling the entire region.

Yeah, it's certainly easy to see why the relationship exists strategically, but it still seems worth constantly questioning/monitoring the relationship, whereas plenty of folks seem happy to leave our relationship with SA out of the Middle East/Islam discussion entirely. Especially in the case of presidential candidates who maybe shouldn't be peddling influence/concerns over areas that are strictly related to military strategy (especially outside of our own borders) until they've actually been selected to have that control.

[ISiddiqui]

Just about every woman I've known that's traveled to Rome has had their butt groped (anecdotal, but its responding to an anecdote). And there are quite a number of foreign nationals who live in Egypt, especially Cairo and Alexandria.

edit: What I'm trying to point out is that you are taking things that happen in other places and trying to use them as an example of why Islam is so bad. It's partially the "no True Scotsman" argument, when applied to Christians or Jews, and its partially shows that anything that a Muslim majority country will do is going to be judged far more harshly than if other countries' do them.

[RainMaker]

Would be interested to see what the texts say. Hard to believe she had no idea what was going to happen. Maybe she didn't know the exact moment it would take place but she had to know it would.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/us/orl...een/index.html

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That part of the world is a cancer to civilization and we should be calling it out any chance we get.

I guess this is just my problem. I see that quote as a massive generalization, lacking any nuance or empathy. It so easily creates the atmosphere for demagoguery that I wonder if it's just a necessary sociological evil. Maybe the part of the world that created monotheism and Zoroastrianism also provides the best environment for us/them, good/evil culture.

I wonder if Muslims said the same about USA in the 60's. Here we were claiming to be a Christian country while forcing young men to die for no cause, govenerers preventing people from being educated and Christians assassinating leaders preaching hope and love.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Christ was the new covenant. The whole point is to follow his teachings, not what came before or the interpretations that came before. The differences between the sects of Christianity is not the central tenet, it is the interpretations that surround the central core of the faith.

Christ was the new covenant, but that new covenant wasn't about setting aside the Law. It was about providing a way for Gentiles to be reconciled to God. Nowhere in the Gospels does he say "follow me and forget all that old Jewish stuff." Dude was a Jew. That was the context in which He lived and taught, and to try to divorce that from His teachings and say "don't worry about what came before" is problematic.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

My guess is:
It's first and foremost a poverty/ corrupt politicians problem. Once the regime changed and/or a middle class started things get better. I have a feeling these radicalized young men have more in common with radical political revolutionaries than they do with "true" religious warriors.

Yes yes yes. Reduce the poverty and give the young men there a chance at true social mobility and terror will lose its appeal.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Just about every woman I've known that's traveled to Rome has had their butt groped (anecdotal, but its responding to an anecdote). And there are quite a number of foreign nationals who live in Egypt, especially Cairo and Alexandria.

I don't know about groping, but ask just about any woman here and she'll probably say that she's been catcalled (and if she isn't receptive, then called a stuck up bitch, a whore, or a pig). For some it happens before they're even in high school. Just the other day on my way to work I witnessed a guy yelling out the window of a truck to a woman walking down the street.

[cuervo72]

dola - and see Trump, Donald on the marital rape thing. And Baylor, Vanderbilt, the Stanford swimmer, backlogs of rape kits, she was asking for it/drinking/dressed provocatively, etc. on how we are with it generally. No, it's not as bad as some places, but it's still not exemplary.

[CraigSca]

I'd often thought a worthwhile charity to give to would be a company responsible for testing the backlog of rape kits. Of course, that's the government's responsibility (I suppose). If someone said we're raising your taxes $x to remove the backlog, sign me up.

[thesloppy]

Maybe it's just me, but the narrative/cliches/gifs from my liberal friends seems to have switched from assault weapons to high-capacity magazines, is that my imagination?

A) I get the distinct impression that a lot of people I know think banning magazines of a certain size also means you're necessarily banning any and all of the weapons that can use magazines of that size, which is most definitely not the case.

B) I know folks calling for weird-ass ammo/magazine limitations, like 5 or 3. I have no idea how they think they would limit a 6+round revolver to 3 shots. Seems to me that as long as it's legal to use and sell guns built to take a 10-round clip as standard then you can't effectively limit magazines to below that size. We can't allow someone to buy a gun with a standard 10-round clip, if you're not going to allow him to also buy a magazine that fits. Let alone that high-capacity magazines already have been legally defined as 10+.

C) If someone/something succeeded in using gun control advocates' ignorance to switch the narrative from banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to just banning high-capacity magazines that would be some truly Machiavellian shit.

[RainMaker]

Some interesting news. Apparently a gun store owner reported him.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/us/orl...een/index.html

Title of this article is a bit inflammatory but it's weird that his brother bought the home for so cheap.

Orlando shooter Omar Mateen's brother-in-law REFUSES to say if he knew about terror plot | Daily Mail Online

[molson]

There's one new thing I've seen pop up in the response to this mass shooting - the mocking of people who know about guns, in that they're they're "mansplaining" the definition of assault weapons and what firearm was used here, etc, which is now apparently a bad thing to do. I feel like if an assault weapon ban is on the table, there needs to be knowledge of these weapons utilized so that the restrictions aren't meaningless and easily circumvented. Also, the whole mocking and villainization of people use lawfully own weapons doesn't help I don't think. That's not going to get the gun control side where they want to be.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

Also, the whole mocking and villainization of people use lawfully own weapons doesn't help I don't think.

Sometimes it's hard not to mock when you are trying to converse with dropouts whose main argument is HUR DUR LIBTARDS! If someone offers a cogent argument that makes me stop and think, then fine. But like you said, if it's about how stupid people are because a gun is or isn't a particular model or is semi-auto vs full auto etc. and if you don't know that then you're not qualified to participate in a conversation, then screw that. I know that whatever gun was used was lethal enough for one person to kill fifty. I don't care what gun that is, there's no need to have it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

There's one new thing I've seen pop up in the response to this mass shooting - the mocking of people who know about guns, in that they're they're "mansplaining" the definition of assault weapons and what firearm was used here, etc, which is now apparently a bad thing to do. I feel like if an assault weapon ban is on the table, there needs to be knowledge of these weapons utilized so that the restrictions aren't meaningless and easily circumvented. Also, the whole mocking and villainization of people use lawfully own weapons doesn't help I don't think. That's not going to get the gun control side where they want to be.

I have this exact same issue. I have a ton of friends who claim to be very passionate about gun control who are demanding an assault weapons (and/or high capacity magazine) ban, but willfully don't understand the specifics of what any of that means. When they contradict themselves ("I'd like to see it be limited to rifles under 3 shots!") and I try to explain that these terms have very clear and specific legal definitions that have already been set in stone, they want to insist that I'm trying to confuse the issues, or spin the legislation into something that it's not.

After beating my head against the same walls, with so many different people, I can only come to the conclusion that they just assume assault weapons legislation is defined after the fact. They think we'll decide to ban assault weapon, and then we'll hash out what that means, accounting for all these tragedies. If only that were true. But even if that assumption excuses some flawed logic, it certainly doesn't excuse how many folks seem to INSIST on staying willfully ignorant about the basic terms of something they will tell you they are very, very pationate about, and I can't see how every possible ending doesn't result in disappointment for gun control advocates, completely regardless of whether the legislation passes or fails. Which will just lead them to being even more angry and exacerbating the issue.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Sometimes it's hard not to mock when you are trying to converse with dropouts whose main argument is HUR DUR LIBTARDS!

Maybe, but in the U.S. you'll have to get plenty of gun owners on your side to effectuate change. So far insults/blaming gun owners for violence hasn't led to results. And that seems to be the only strategy being attempted. Like I've said in these threads a million times, the gun control side needs the Bill Clinton approach of actual compromise and respect for gun rights, and a willingness to concede on other tough-on-crime issues. Clinton got an assault weapon ban by funding tens of thousands of new officers and limiting federal habeas review of state court convictions.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Sometimes it's hard not to mock when you are trying to converse with dropouts whose main argument is HUR DUR LIBTARDS! If someone offers a cogent argument that makes me stop and think, then fine. But like you said, if it's about how stupid people are because a gun is or isn't a particular model or is semi-auto vs full auto etc. and if you don't know that then you're not qualified to participate in a conversation, then screw that. I know that whatever gun was used was lethal enough for one person to kill fifty. I don't care what gun that is, there's no need to have it.

I will offer that this argument sounds entirely cogent & logical now, but if you could time travel back to all of 5 days ago, the worst mass shooting in US history would've been one carried out with handguns and standard magazine (Virginia Tech, with 32 casualties), and this same paragraph would be absolute nonsense (at least in regards to assault weapons).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

They think we'll decide to ban assault weapon, and then we'll hash out what that means, accounting for all these tragedies. If only that were true.

I dunno, that was basically the model for health care deform.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I dunno, that was basically the model for health deform.

Heh. I can not deny that. Point being both 'Assault Weapons' and 'High Capacity Magazines' already have established definitions in federal and state law, so any following legislation that is purposely confined to those terms has essentially already been defined.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe, but in the U.S. you'll have to get plenty of gun owners on your side to effectuate change. So far insults/blaming gun owners for violence hasn't led to results. And that seems to be the only strategy being attempted. Like I've said in these threads a million times, the gun control side needs the Bill Clinton approach of actual compromise and respect for gun rights, and a willingness to concede on other tough-on-crime issues. Clinton got an assault weapon ban by funding tens of thousands of new officers and limiting federal habeas review of state court convictions.

I don't necessarily blame them for the violence, but I do blame some of them for feeding into the culture and machismo behind them. I've had an acquaintance post that you're not a man if you haven't fired a gun. Bushmaster had an ad campaign which tied the idea of a "man card" to firearms. There's the "you don't know I'm here but I have a gun and I'm protecting you" meme, which implies that hey, I - a real man - have a gun and can protect your wimpy ass which you can't. Which I think is bullshit.

I think there are some truly responsible gun owners out there who would be willing to compromise. I welcome them speaking up. Some of them are. They're not all reasonable or responsible though. Some are dumbasses.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I don't necessarily blame them for the violence, but I do blame some of them for feeding into the culture and machismo behind them. I've had an acquaintance post that you're not a man if you haven't fired a gun. Bushmaster had an ad campaign which tied the idea of a "man card" to firearms. There's the "you don't know I'm here but I have a gun and I'm protecting you" meme, which implies that hey, I - a real man - have a gun and can protect your wimpy ass which you can't. Which I think is bullshit.

My opinions are definitely colored by not being exposed to many dudes like this, for better or worse. Portland is not a very diverse place.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe, but in the U.S. you'll have to get plenty of gun owners on your side to effectuate change. So far insults/blaming gun owners for violence hasn't led to results. And that seems to be the only strategy being attempted. Like I've said in these threads a million times, the gun control side needs the Bill Clinton approach of actual compromise and respect for gun rights, and a willingness to concede on other tough-on-crime issues. Clinton got an assault weapon ban by funding tens of thousands of new officers and limiting federal habeas review of state court convictions.

That's basically what Obama offered after Sandy Hook and he got exactly zero GOP support. They wouldn't even discuss negotiating any part of the bill. Roughly 90% of Americans favor universal background checks and that can't even get a hearing.

The problem is lack of compromise, but it isn't lack of compromise by Dems.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's basically what Obama offered after Sandy Hook and he got exactly zero GOP support.

What exactly did he offer? I'm not finding anything in a quick google search. Edit: Most Dem "compromises" I read about are offering to get only half of what they want. Which isn't really a compromise. I don't see a lot of Dem pitches to forward Republican concepts in exchange for things they really value. Though I wouldn't be surprised if even the latter would be DOA in the current climate. (though that climate isn't exactly helped by rhetoric here and elsewhere about how gun owners generally are responsible for violent crime. Treat people like the enemy, they're going to respond defensively).

[cuervo72]

Here's a plan. Citizens have the right to vote and the right to bear arms. Dems want it to be easier to be able to vote. Reps want it to be easier to have guns. So, we should give a free gun to everyone who comes out to vote!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: Most Dem "compromises" I read about are offering to get only half of what they want.

Boehner got 98% of what he wanted from a budget negotiation and was pilloried for compromising.

So if "getting half of what you want" isn't a compromise, what IS?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So if "getting half of what you want" isn't a compromise, what IS?

I want all of youthe money and worldly possessions with nothing given to you in return.

So if I get half of your belongings and give you nothing, you are OK with that, right?

[Dutch]

Nice one!

[larrymcg421]

Well sure, if you phrase it that way. But I can't comprehend how someone could realistically think that describes Dem compromises over the last 8 years.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well sure, if you phrase it that way. But I can't comprehend how someone could realistically think that describes Dem compromises over the last 8 years.

It probably mostly depends on if you see the Dems (or GOP) as protagonists or antagonists to your personal beliefs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So if "getting half of what you want" isn't a compromise, what IS?

Actually giving up something that the other side values. (and something the other side actually values as much as or more than rights you're asking them to give up - which would be a steep price.)

[NobodyHere]

So the Democrats are staging a sit-in on the house floor until there's a vote on gun control. Speaker Ryan is trying to make it so that no cameras are allowed to film the house floor while this goes on.

I'm not sure what exact bill the Democrats want but surely some compromise can be found? Even the NRA has suggested barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns as long as there's some sort due process involved. Isn't that a good place to start?

I'm not liking this tactic to be honest, because you know Republicans are going to use it too on their pet issues like not funding Obamacare or whatever. I fear this will just lead to more obstructionism and even the more mundane bills won't get voted on and we get even more gridlock.

[digamma]

The Senate Republicans blocked all background check bills over the weekend, after the Senate filibuster last week. The only two Yea votes from the Republican side were from Senators in danger of being voted out in November.

So the strategy is two fold. Force a vote to get it on the floor, but also to get contested Reps on the record for use in November.

[JPhillips]

I feel like the GOP is making a big mistake by trying to keep people from seeing this. Let C-Span stay on, let people in the gallery, etc. Pretty soon nobody will care.

But it might take off a bit if it becomes a story about the GOP hiding the events in the chamber.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by digamma

The Senate Republicans blocked all background check bills over the weekend, after the Senate filibuster last week. The only two Yea votes from the Republican side were from Senators in danger of being voted out in November.

So the strategy is two fold. Force a vote to get it on the floor, but also to get contested Reps on the record for use in November.

Not exactly true. The Republicans voted for the bills sponsored by Republicans and the Democrats voted for the bills sponsored by Democrats. Very partisan.

[digamma]

Of course. The real bill though was the Universal Background Check bill, which only Ron Kirk and Kelly Ayotte supported on the Republican side.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I feel like the GOP is making a big mistake by trying to keep people from seeing this.

Damned if they do or if they don't, really. If they let people see it, it lends the impression that they can't keep Congress from devolving into chaos.

If they don't let people see it, it lends the impression that they're afraid people might agree with what the Democrats have to say.

Either one could potentially harm them in November.

They're probably banking on what people CAN see being more powerful/retentive than what they CAN'T.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ah yes, the good ol Ds on the Hill.

Makes ISIS look worth a damn by comparison.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ah yes, the good ol Ds on the Hill.

Makes ISIS look worth a damn by comparison.

Wrote to all my congressmen in support, tired of inertia when it comes to protecting all American lives (even yours Jon).

At least Dems are showing some balls...when was the last time a Republican showed it?

[Julio Riddols]

Our politicians are no better than school children jealous of each others toys.

[CraigSca]

The Democrats Are Boldly Fighting For a Bad, Stupid Bill

Read the same thing on 538 - basically this bill that everyone is fighting for won't do a ding-dang thing.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

The Democrats Are Boldly Fighting For a Bad, Stupid Bill

Read the same thing on 538 - basically this bill that everyone is fighting for won't do a ding-dang thing.

It might help the weapons sale boom gun manufacturers have been enjoying the last 8 years.

Gun Store Sells 30,000 AR-15's Since Orlando Shooting | Fox Business

[digamma]

The universal background check bill is a good bill with a proven track record in a number of states. The terror watch list bill is a side show.

[Logan]

Where have Republicans been on fighting for the rights of suspected terrorists before they became attached to a potential gun bill?

[kcchief19]

Looks like old FOFCer Cam Edwards has stepped in it ...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57...b0c0252e786979


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexB]

I've just worked out how everybody can get what they want. Let the Democrats pass all the guns and ammo laws they want in one batch, and have a one month amnesty period for people to hand in their now illegal items

The day after the amnesty when all of the law abiding folks have handed in their weapons, the NRA and the Republicans can stage an armed takeover against minimal resistance, form a dictatorship and make their own laws as they wish.

Win win, foolproof.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Looks like old FOFCer Cam Edwards has stepped in it ...NRA Radio Host Compares Congressmen Staging Sit-In Over Gun Control To 'Criminals And Terrorists'

More like stepped up, and called those pieces of trash what they are.

ISIS represents far less of a threat to the U.S. than those vermin.

[rowech]

Even though I would like some changes, this is the most childish thing I've seen in from Congress which is saying something. It's a horrible way to go about doing this.

[ISiddiqui]

Would you have said the same thing for sit-ins to dismantle segregation in the South? Why or why not?

[JPhillips]

I don't know if you're asking rowech, but I'm pretty sure Jon would have said worse about the sit-ins to dismantle segregation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Would you have said the same thing for sit-ins to dismantle segregation in the South? Why or why not?

I'm assuming this was for me.

With regard to any that involved private businesses, absolutely. Thou shalt not trespass is a rather consistent position for me, not much need to even touch on any other concept before answering that one.

And once you get into interrupting the flow of conducting government business (let's say, for example, a sit-in in a courtroom or functioning office, etc) then you're pretty much on the same ground. You are unlawfully occupying a space, denying the taxpayer the right to the services rendered.

Now let me stand my position on its head for a second, just to see if it holds up. No "civil rights protestor" in history abhorred whatever institution they sat-in any more than I abhor, say, the Democratic Party. Have I ever once considered occupying their office space to disrupt their activity as a legitimate tactic? Nope.

No "protestor" has ever abhorred anything more than I abhor the likes of Obama, HC, et al. Do I consider a sit-in on their office floor appropriate? Again, nope.

So, yeah, I think I'm pretty consistent in my application of the basic principle here.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Would you have said the same thing for sit-ins to dismantle segregation in the South? Why or why not?

Had they done this outside of the Capitol building, I wouldn't care. Doing it in the chamber is what makes it bad to me.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by rowech

Had they done this outside of the Capitol building, I wouldn't care. Doing it in the chamber is what makes it bad to me.

The fact that they are actually present at work is an improvement.