terrorist attack in Orlando gay club - 50 dead, another 53 wounded

[Subyman]

They thought his coworkers were racist bigots (PC world and all that). Unless the FBI/Police have concrete evidence no one's constitutional rights should be taken away from them.

His wife could have reported him and the courts could have had him medically evaluated and based on this his ability to purchase guns and ammo could have be restricted. But no one did so hence no restrictions on him buying firearms/ammo.

I don't think many doctors report patients that are mentally ill to the government so it never gets into the background information on a person.

I'm not sure why that negates anything I said. Anyone previously investigated could be put on "the list" since it doesn't trample any constitutional rights. The bar would be much, much lower to get on the list than it would be to bring a court trial.

I don't claim that this new method would have 100% prevented Orlando, but it does add another layer that could help identify future terrorists without affected anyone's ability to purchase firearms. I think its win - win.

 

[Blue_Max]

So your problem is with the existence of both the Second and First Amendments, got it.

Hey, whoa, hold on there cowboy... I never proposed anything.

If you're a law-abiding citizen who can prove mental, emotional and basic financial stability you should have no problem in getting a gun (along with training and a license.)

We have to address, though, that freedom of religion only covers PART of what islam is, because it's far more than merely a religion. It's a political force, it's a military force, it's an entire culture in itself, and more. The USA (and everywhere else) has a right to protect itself from hostile invasion!

 

[buckshot24]

I'm not sure I'm 100% on board for background checks for ammo, but they could record the amount purchased and ping the server to alert the FBI if they are on the watch list. Again, the purchase would not be affected by this only an alert for those that are flagged to the FBI.

The watch list would stay secret because the purchaser would never know the FBI was flagged by the database.

Sounds good in theory but this would require a watch list which I'm not really comfortable with either. Political enemies could be put on it, I'd like there to be a day in court for people put on it where the government must prove beyond some standard that it is warranted.

I'm really uncomfortable giving more power to a central government to hopefully alleviate a problem that is relatively small in a country of over 300 million people. It isn't small to the victims by any means but more people die falling off ladders yearly.

I don't think just anybody should get a gun so I'm already down the path of "infringing" on the rights of people I guess.

Stricter background checks in exchange for the banning of "gun free" zones?

 

[bshole]

Just fucking stop! Guns will always be available for criminals, legal or not. The majority of legal gun owners shouldn't be paying the price because of some terrorist whack job. Let's be focused on Islamic extremism and how to curb it. Gun control has nothing to do with that.

Oh please. I don't hear any bitching and moaning about making MACHINE GUNS generally available. I believe they were outlawed (for all practical purposes) decades ago. When was the last time a mass murder in America was committed with a machine gun? I think we have to go back to the Prohibition Era for that. IF you are ok with the ban on fully automatic, why do you oppose semi-automatic so strongly? Your "rights" have already been abridged for safety reasons with respect to machine guns, this is just the logical next step.

If you want to keep and bear arms, perhaps we allow you to keep and bear arms akin to the arms that the writers of the constitution had. Give you a ball and some powder and you are good to go. Weapons that could kill hundreds in a manner of minutes were inconceivable to the founders of our country.



PS. Don't tell the Japanese that guns will always be available to the criminals seeing as gun violence and gun ownership is basically NONEXISTENT in that country.

 

[nixium]

Oh please. I don't hear any bitching and moaning about making MACHINE GUNS generally available. I believe they were outlawed (for all practical purposes) decades ago. When was the last time a mass murder in America was committed with a machine gun? I think we have to go back to the Prohibition Era for that. IF you are ok with the ban on fully automatic, why do you oppose semi-automatic so strongly? Your "rights" have already been abridged for safety reasons with respect to machine guns, this is just the logical next step.

If you want to keep and bear arms, perhaps we allow you to keep and bear arms akin to the arms that the writers of the constitution had. Give you a ball and some powder and you are good to go. Weapons that could kill hundreds in a manner of minutes were inconceivable to the founders of our country.



PS. Don't tell the Japanese that guns will always be available to the criminals seeing as gun violence and gun ownership is basically NONEXISTENT in that country.

The right-wingers on here have already pretty much said they're OK with the blood price being paid so they can feel like real men. So what if some innocent adults or kids get mowed down, 300 lb fatties need their guns so they can fight a potential fictitious takeover by a government (without having any combat / physical training or whatsoever, so that even some lowly corporal with a 1960s revolver will probably take them out). Never mind that if the US Government really wanted to take over, they'd use tanks and drones and cluster bombs and god knows what else. But yeah, no background checks, no basic common sense procedures or responsibilities needed, and they're willing to pay the price in other people's blood for the lack of it.

Like I said. America = Apple Pie, French Fries, Christmas, and random massacres. USA! USA!

 

[buckshot24]

If you want to keep and bear arms, perhaps we allow you to keep and bear arms akin to the arms that the writers of the constitution had. Give you a ball and some powder and you are good to go. Weapons that could kill hundreds in a manner of minutes were inconceivable to the founders of our country.

Then we can restrict other rights based on this standard as well? No free speech in any medium not known to have existed during the founding.

There were weapons available that the founders knew about and didn't restrict that weren't muskets.

 

[nixium]

Hey, whoa, hold on there cowboy... I never proposed anything.

If you're a law-abiding citizen who can prove mental, emotional and basic financial stability you should have no problem in getting a gun (along with training and a license.)

We have to address, though, that freedom of religion only covers PART of what islam is, because it's far more than merely a religion. It's a political force, it's a military force, it's an entire culture in itself, and more. The USA (and everywhere else) has a right to protect itself from hostile invasion!

How dare you think that people from war torn theocratic countries raised with no concept of human rights, equality and freedoms, and non stop fundamentalist brainwashing can potentially become terrorists. You bigot. Vetting people from the middle east or being more careful with immigration is against American values of freedom, liberty, yadda yadda and paying a blood price of innocents is totally worth it.

 

[compuwiz1]

If you want to keep and bear arms, perhaps we allow you to keep and bear arms akin to the arms that the writers of the constitution had. Give you a ball and some powder and you are good to go. Weapons that could kill hundreds in a manner of minutes were inconceivable to the founders of our country.



PS. Don't tell the Japanese that guns will always be available to the criminals seeing as gun violence and gun ownership is basically NONEXISTENT in that country.

Where did the writers of the constitution specify what kind of arms we should own?

Don't compare Japanese culture to American culture, as far as firearms are concerned.

You are a typical liberal. If someone else doesn't like guns he or she simply doesn't buy one. The problem with the liberal brain defect is, if you don't like something, you believe no one else should be able to have it either.

 

[Ns1]

PS. Don't tell the Japanese that guns will always be available to the criminals seeing as gun violence and gun ownership is basically NONEXISTENT in that country.

didn't you read about the mass slaying last week there? The guy used an assault katana and just fucked up that club.

oh wait...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Swords and battle axes are legal and readily available and yet stabbings generally still involve knives. Every tool involves a tradeoff and the same usability and portability factors that make automatic pistols, semi-auto rifles in intermediate cartridge sizes, and short barreled shotguns so popular among hunters and other users would likewise apply in the case of someone in a psychotic episode looking to kill people. It doesn't really matter whether it's an Orlando night club or Norwegian youth camp, people still tend to prefer tools that are comfortable to use.

So, is sounds like the solution is not to ban the weapons but to make them very expensive to manufacture or import through legal controls and expensive to own through taxation. Make a yearly ownership licensing and registration fee a lot like you have with a car, make it large enough that it is not something that can be casually afforded, and put extremely hefty fines and asset seizure similar to what we do for drugs for being caught in possession of a weapon with out it being properly registered and licensed to you.

Sure the black market will sell them, but the black market cost of such weapons will raise as the legal price (The black market is a market after all and won't leave money on the table), the risk in selling them, and the expense of obtaining them increases. Done right they should no longer be a compelling weapon to most people.

It would take some time, but eventually that should lead to very few of these weapons in the hands of criminals, and them being so valuable that they won't be risked in suicide missions.

 

[Ns1]

So, is sounds like the solution is not to ban the weapons but to make them very expensive to manufacture or import through legal controls and expensive to own through taxation. Make a yearly ownership licensing and registration fee a lot like you have with a car, make it large enough that it is not something that can be casually afforded, and put extremely hefty fines and asset seizure similar to what we do for drugs for being caught in possession of a weapon with out it being properly registered and licensed to you. .

Chris Rock already went through this:

 

[chucky2]

Oh man the guys that shoot cast will have a field day with that one...

Next CA law: You need a license to buy any form of lead!

It never ends with the Grabbers...never...lol...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Chris Rock already went through this:

Sorry, my work blocks that image site, so maybe make a argument?

Edit: Also, you are confusing a comedian with a philosopher.

Oh man the guys that shoot cast will have a field day with that one...

Next CA law: You need a license to buy any form of lead!

It never ends with the Grabbers...never...lol...

You made no argument, just an ad hominem attack. Does this mean you have no argument, you just don't want to admit that we have to do something about our gun problem?

 

[flexy]

Oh please. I don't hear any bitching and moaning about making MACHINE GUNS generally available. I believe they were outlawed (for all practical purposes) decades ago. When was the last time a mass murder in America was committed with a machine gun? I think we have to go back to the Prohibition Era for that. IF you are ok with the ban on fully automatic, why do you oppose semi-automatic so strongly? Your "rights" have already been abridged for safety reasons with respect to machine guns, this is just the logical next step.

I, as probably many others, have watched that video the girl shot inside the club, right the moment when the shooting started.

Listening to the rapid BAMM!!-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM was terrifying me and also made it totally irrelevant whether the weapon used was an actual "assault weapon" or "automatic weapon" or not. (It obviously isn't, but this discussion would be like arguing whether it's better to be rolled over by a train or truck)

I find VERY LITTLE reason why such types of weapons would be freely available to anyone, even if I can see the "enthusiast aspect" of it. As said previously, Walmart could well start carrying grenades or bombs, this would be about the same.

* re: "rights"

Why should anyone have the right to easily obtain weapons that are designed for nothing else than producing mass casualties? A pretty fucked-up right, if you ask me. The gun in question isn't a squirrel hunting gun and neither would it be needed for effective self-defense. It's a "military grade" weapon (whatever this entitles) that should not be in the hands of "normal" people/nutters/whatever.

 

[Ns1]

Sorry, my work blocks that image site, so maybe make a argument?

Edit: Also, you are confusing a comedian with a philosopher.

you are confusing my reply with a serious one.

 

[Ns1]

I find VERY LITTLE reason why such types of weapons would be freely available to anyone, even if I can see the "enthusiast aspect" of it. As said previously, Walmart could well start carrying grenades or bombs, this would be about the same.

don't you know, putting "assault weapons" into the hands of the public is the #1 way to stop mass shootings.

How's that working out for us again?

 

[UglyCasanova]

PS. Don't tell the Japanese that guns will always be available to the criminals seeing as gun violence and gun ownership is basically NONEXISTENT in that country.

So is petty theft, yet they all still have hands.

 

[chucky2]

Sorry, my work blocks that image site, so maybe make a argument?

Edit: Also, you are confusing a comedian with a philosopher.



You made no argument, just an ad hominem attack. Does this mean you have no argument, you just don't want to admit that we have to do something about our gun problem?

What would you like me to say? We don't have a firearm problem, we have a social problem that is manifesting itself in people, causing them to actually think of these sinister acts and even worse carry them out. You want to what, make firearms so expensive that only who can afford them, the rich? That's what amounts to a poll tax: People having to shell out money they shouldn't need to shell out to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms; unless one wants to make the argument that being able to keep and bear arms doesn't cover purchasing them (I don't doubt Grabbers have or will try this).

And CA would likely be the first to attempt something in my quoted post, they're already doing nutty shit like no pistol grips, mag limits, who knows what else. None of that is going to stop these shootings, so it's all just BS to placate the Grabbers and get that inch in the hopes of reaching that mile.

You want to stop these murders? Find out what social shit is causing people to think this stuff up and carry it out. Then you'll be onto something. In the meantime, can you get the Grabbers to go limit their own shit and leave us 2A folks alone? Thanks...

 

[Subyman]

Where did the writers of the constitution specify what kind of arms we should own?

Isn't that the key to the entire debate? They didn't say "any" arms. Its up to us and the current society what "arms" means and how far it extends.

 

[chucky2]

I thought that was ruled on and it's whatever light arms the military has?

 

[Ns1]

We don't have a firearm problem, we have a social problem that is manifesting itself in people, causing them to actually think of these sinister acts and even worse carry them out.

not mutually exclusive.

 

[SMOGZINN]

We don't have a firearm problem, we have a social problem that is manifesting itself in people, causing them to actually think of these sinister acts and even worse carry them out.

I would say we have both. We definitely need to address the social issues that are causing people to do these sort of things.

You want to what, make firearms so expensive that only who can afford them, the rich?

Mostly so that owning one requires real dedication. We are talking seriously about banning them altogether, I think this is a better option.

That's what amounts to a poll tax: People having to shell out money they shouldn't need to shell out to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms; unless one wants to make the argument that being able to keep and bear arms doesn't cover purchasing them (I don't doubt Grabbers have or will try this).

Like we don't already do this all over the place. You poll tax is a good analogy, and I agree that it is a bad solution, but I have not heard a better one. No matter how you cut it these weapons are a problem. We are not going to solve the social problems anytime soon, so we need to work on the end we have more control over.

You want to stop these murders? Find out what social shit is causing people to think this stuff up and carry it out. Then you'll be onto something. In the meantime, can you get the Grabbers to go limit their own shit and leave us 2A folks alone? Thanks...

The social shit causing these people to think this stuff and carry it out is exemplified in your use of the term Grabbers. It is just such extremist opposition to discourse that tells people that it is okay to attack those that are being simplified into a scary term.

You and your extreme views are the reason people like Marteen think that it is okay to kill people so hated. That is the social problem we need to fix.

 

[werepossum]

Now words on the street are the shooter did NOT use an AR15 but Sig Sauer MCX.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/13/narrative-fail-orlando-islamic-terrorist-use-ar-15/

Sig MCX = http://www.sigevolution.com/sigmcx

Sorry, the only two choices recognized by the mainstream media are AR-15 and AK-47. This rifle was black; therefore it is an AR-15.

But he didn't. He bought a gun because it was easy, accessible, and did the fucking job. FFS they had two boston "bombers" and they only killed 3.

How many mass shooting events have been prevented by easy access to assault weapons vs how many have been enabled?

Just think how many more could be prevented if we also allow government to search houses whenever they wish and monitor all phone calls and Internet messages! Then we'll also stop bombings, hijackings, stabbings, burglary rings, etc.

If you wish to exchange freedom for security, there are already many nations to which you may flee.

However, the FBI would have had ammo to go after the guy if he was trying to obtain a gun illegally. Not saying I agree with gun bans, but these laws do give law enforcement more leeway to act when someone is suspected as a terrorist so it likely would have an effect.

IMO a good middle ground would be a terrorist watch list where a gun purchase FLAGS the FBI to investigate the person but does not stop the purchase. That way the FBI would know if this man was stockpiling guns and ammo. This wouldn't trample 2nd amendment rights.

I am certainly not on board with more gun control, but your last idea sounds remarkably common sense. We've been told that being on a terrorist watch list does not stop a gun purchase, but surely it could at least trigger an immediate re-examination of the case. Ditto with mental illness.

 

[Subyman]

I think pricing guns out of certain classes is a cowards way to ban guns. We either agree that every citizen that can legally obtain a fire arm should be able to get one at a market based cost or we need to step up and ban specifically. Making it so only the wealthy can own guns is horrible IMO.

 

[Paratus]

You want to stop these murders? Find out what social shit is causing people to think this stuff up and carry it out. Then you'll be onto something.

Wow an intelligent thought. Somehow I don't think you'll like dealing with the social shit that is causing this.

It's likely a mixture of:

• The fringe of fundamentalist religions
• Social stigma of mental illness
• Poverty
• Racism (by society and individuals)
• General Intolerance (by society and individuals)

Couple those with easy access to firearms and there you go.