Mass Shooting at LGBT Nightclub in Orlando

[VGThuy]

I'm not happy about anything related to this.

I agree that criminally charging the wife isn't likely to help matters, but I found her knowledge ahead of time shocking.

Happy was an inappropriate choice of words. I just wanted to express that I'm glad you're acknowledging both what her defenses are but at the same time looking at the whole picture with what little we know and trying to figure out the level of her voluntary involvement.

 

[Tavi]

That Amendments 15, 19, 24 and 26 are not part of the Bill of Rights no matter how you look at it (technically or not technically ).

I think the larger point that was being made is that the Bill of Rights is seen as more "untouchable" (and thus much harder to change) than other amendments. So the distinction (technically or not technically ) matters.

That said, I'd totally vote for repealing the 2nd amendment. Not that I'll ever get the chance...

Thanks for clarification. I guess I don't personally see the distinction - I mean is A 3 more untouchable than A 13-14-15? But that's just me.

As to the 2d, I'd settle for SCOTUS overruling Heller....

 

[MacMadame]

Or that you jump to conclusions based on couple of posts. Never did I say that was the main reason for Americans to have guns. I only discounted one of the reasons to have guns, one of others.

And, as we've said, it's not even one of the reasons.

 

[ballettmaus]

If the wife knew about the intent then I think she should be charged (if that is possible under the law). At the same time, it feels as if they're focusing on the wife so that they can distract from the actual issue - if they've had a law preventing anyone on a watch-list or under suspicion of having ties to terrorist groups or if the law would at least have required an extensive background check which would have raised a red flag with the authorities, this wouldn't have happened.
I feel this is on the lack of a law rather than the wife.

 

[attyfan]

I would also think that a lot would depend upon precisely what occurred -- and when. For example, if she took him to check out the place before he started abusing her, when the marriage had not broken, she might have given weight to what was otherwise some weak cover story or explanation.

 

[Prancer]

I don't think people have guns because their house is easy to break into. I think American houses are easy to break into and that Americans are lax about security. That is not the same as American homeowners think their houses are easy to break into. That is not the same thing. I never said that.

Okay; I was responding to MacMadame and what she said, not to you. But here is what you said initially:

if people are more used to homes that are built more for protection than comfort/aesthetics, perhaps they won't need guns.

To me, that is saying that people in the US need guns because their houses are easy to break into.

If that's not what you meant, well, I don't think you should be too surprised that that's what people THINK you meant it.

But in any case, my point was that the gun owners I know, for whatever that is worth, DON'T have houses that are easy to break into.

I would also think that a lot would depend upon precisely what occurred -- and when. For example, if she took him to check out the place before he started abusing her, when the marriage had not broken, she might have given weight to what was otherwise some weak cover story or explanation.

Are you talking about his current wife who went to the club with him or his ex-wife who left him because he abused her and hasn't seen him in seven years?

 

[MacMadame]

I think taking your husband to buy ammo and scope out a club in order to shoot it up is being an accomplice. So if those reports are accurate, the wife should be charged.

 

[genevieve]

I would also think that a lot would depend upon precisely what occurred -- and when. For example, if she took him to check out the place before he started abusing her, when the marriage had not broken, she might have given weight to what was otherwise some weak cover story or explanation.

Are you talking about his current wife who went to the club with him or his ex-wife who left him because he abused her and hasn't seen him in seven years?

When I first read the story, I thought it was about the ex-wife too. I didn't even know he was married again - the news reports have been surprisingly unclear on that.

This made me go look up details about Patty Hearst. Not the same, I know - but at that time, the fact of her having been kidnapped/coerced/brainwashed didn't prevent her from being tried and convicted for her actions.

 

[jlai]

If that's not what you meant, well, I don't think you should be too surprised that that's what people THINK you meant it.

But in any case, my point was that the gun owners I know, for whatever that is worth, DON'T have houses that are easy to break into.?

Compared to houses that have keys lying around? Because to me I don't consider anything less than a wall around your porch to be secure. And that is in addition to other items I would add to the house

 

[Prancer]

When I first read the story, I thought it was about the ex-wife too. I didn't even know he was married again - the news reports have been surprisingly unclear on that.

Yes, it's been really unclear, I think because the ex-wife got so much press coverage at first. But he remarried and had a child with his second wife, and she is the one who knew about but did not report the attacks.

 

[skatingfan5]

When I first read the story, I thought it was about the ex-wife too. I didn't even know he was married again - the news reports have been surprisingly unclear on that.

What I had read talked about his having a 3 year old child (a son) and I knew that his ex-wife had left him quite a while ago, so assumed that he had remarried. A later article (or something on TV) had a more complete timeline of his history, including his two marriages, employment history, trips to Saudi Arabia, etc.

 

[kittyjake5]

The Boston Bomber's wife lived in the same small apartment where they built the bombs and she claimed innocence. The authorities did not have evidence to charge her. She lawyered up and kept her mouth shut. I have no knowledge of her guilt or innocence, just saying.

 

[snoopy]

Compared to houses that have keys lying around? Because to me I don't consider anything less than a wall around your porch to be secure. And that is in addition to other items I would add to the house

Americans love guns because we took over the country by gun point. I think there is a psychological fear that if we give up our guns, we'd have to give it back. It is a colossal case of projection. It's not the house but the land we're having fits over.

 

[AYS]

If the wife knew about the intent then I think she should be charged (if that is possible under the law). At the same time, it feels as if they're focusing on the wife so that they can distract from the actual issue - if they've had a law preventing anyone on a watch-list or under suspicion of having ties to terrorist groups or if the law would at least have required an extensive background check which would have raised a red flag with the authorities, this wouldn't have happened.
I feel this is on the lack of a law rather than the wife.

It's possible to consider the possible culpability of a wife as an accomplice at the same time we look - with the intent to improve - watch list laws. I don't see why these issues should be mutually exclusive. That said, I'm behind, as I haven't read much of anything about the current wife yet.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Because the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that includes access to private ownership of handguns and rifles. It's settled law. What happened in Australia cannot happen here.

The right to bear arms is an interpretation which is designed to suit a certain group of people. Constitutions and laws can be changed when there is enough desire to do so. We have the ability to do it in Australia. It is never settled law. That is just an easy excuse to say it can't change.

To say it can't be done technically is bullshit. It is just that no-one wants to do it because they are too much in someone's pocket or are afraid of losing power. That is the difficulty.

 

[genevieve]

The Boston Bomber's wife lived in the same small apartment where they built the bombs and she claimed innocence. The authorities did not have evidence to charge her. She lawyered up and kept her mouth shut. I have no knowledge of her guilt or innocence, just saying.

Noor, the wife in this case, has volunteered the information about having driven him to Pulse to "scope it out", to accompanying him buying ammunition, and having tried to talk him out of the attack. No idea if she had a lawyer when she made the statements, but she is cooperating.

 

[ballettmaus]

It's possible to consider the possible culpability of a wife as an accomplice at the same time we look - with the intent to improve - watch list laws. I don't see why these issues should be mutually exclusive. That said, I'm behind, as I haven't read much of anything about the current wife yet.

Sure it's possible. I was just meaning that with the attitude towards guns and all, I fear that saying if the wife had reported it, it could have been prevented (which is correct), they intend to leave it at that because they will consider it as having found the factor responsible for what went wrong and won't look any further. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, previous incidents and what happened afterwards don't inspire much confidence.

 

[Prancer]

Americans love guns because we took over the country by gun point.

Many white Americans are the descendants of people who were very anti-government and had a strong influence on the culture of this country.

The right to bear arms is an interpretation which is designed to suit a certain group of people.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is the language in the Constitution; it is not an interpretation.

What that phrase specifically means may be an interpretation, but the right itself is not an interpretation.

Constitutions and laws can be changed when there is enough desire to do so. We have the ability to do it in Australia. It is never settled law. That is just an easy excuse to say it can't change.

To say it can't be done technically is bullshit. It is just that no-one wants to do it because they are too much in someone's pocket or are afraid of losing power. That is the difficulty.

The US is not Australia. I realize that seems like an obvious point, but apparently it is not. We are not the same country nor do we have the same Constitution. Again, this seems like an obvious point, but apparently it is not.

 

[BlueRidge]

The US is not Australia. I realize that seems like an obvious point, but apparently it is not. We are not the same country nor do we have the same Constitution. Again, this seems like an obvious point, but apparently it is not.

Considering that we hear this repeated over and over and over after each horrible incident, it is apparently not an obvious point.

We have a completely different context to deal with in the United States. But otherwise sure we're just like Australia.

 

[rfisher]

And some people should review their 8th grade civics class. I excuse non Americans, but the rest of us learned the basics of government at some point. At least we did when I was in high school and college. The POTUS cannot overturn a constitutional amendment, nor can they make one. It is a long, long process and requires individual states to ratify. The ERA seemed like a done deal until it wasn't because the majority of states did not ratify. Getting the 2nd Amendment repealed could happen from a procedural point, but the odds of winning the lottery are probably higher.

 

[jlai]

The US is not Australia. I realize that seems like an obvious point, but apparently it is not. We are not the same country nor do we have the same Constitution. Again, this seems like an obvious point, but apparently it is not.

That's not that much different from other discussions around here:

A: China should change its ways blah blah blah. Americans have these rights but they don't.
B: No, China is not America. We do things differently.
A: but you got stuck in this shit because China is China, if only it chooses to abandon its cultural practices and think outside the box
B; No China cannot just become America.

Or:
A: I have this problem blah blah blah.
B: I have this personal experience that may help (in detail)
A: But I am not you. I have my own situation.
B: But the situations have X in common, so my situation does apply to some extent.

Who is right? No one is, completely.

 

[ballettmaus]

And some people should review their 8th grade civics class. I excuse non Americans, but the rest of us learned the basics of government at some point. At least we did when I was in high school and college. The POTUS cannot overturn a constitutional amendment, nor can they make one. It is a long, long process and requires individual states to ratify. The ERA seemed like a done deal until it wasn't because the majority of states did not ratify. Getting the 2nd Amendment repealed could happen from a procedural point, but the odds of winning the lottery are probably higher.

Still, there are people who win the lottery and they win, because they give it a chance. They try. Whenever it comes to gun control and the 2nd amendment everyone seems to give up and dismiss it before trying. If the people who fought for the end of seggregation and slavery and women's right to vote etc would have given up before trying, those changes wouldn't have been made either. Yes, it's a long process and yes, it's a longshot. But someone needs to start somewhere and someone needs to try because if no one tries, it won't happen.

 

[Prancer]

Still, there are people who win the lottery and they win, because they give it a chance. They try. Whenever it comes to gun control and the 2nd amendment everyone seems to give up and dismiss it before trying. If the people who fought for the end of seggregation and slavery and women's right to vote etc would have given up before trying, those changes wouldn't have been made either. Yes, it's a long process and yes, it's a longshot. But someone needs to start somewhere and someone needs to try because if no one tries, it won't happen.

Yes, there is no one in the US fighting for gun control. No effort has ever been put forth on this issue. If only we understood how our own Constitutional process works and we weren't so passive.

 

[skategal]

Do or not do. There is no try.

(Sorry....it had to be said....)

 

[Japanfan]

I agree that criminally charging the wife isn't likely to help matters, but I found her knowledge ahead of time shocking.

It would highlight the importance of individuals' notifying the authorities when they believe that a spouse/family member/friend has become radicalized and could carry out an attack. Before it is to late. If this woman had notified authorities, 50 lives would have been saved.

Given this man's behaviour with his last wife, he may treat the current one just as badly. The may be terrified of him and totally under his control, but even so. . . .

Clinton has emphasized the need to work with communities to help them identify the signs of radicalization.

If the woman was too frightened to go to the authorities, such individuals should receive adequate police protection.

 

[rfisher]

Still, there are people who win the lottery and they win, because they give it a chance. They try. Whenever it comes to gun control and the 2nd amendment everyone seems to give up and dismiss it before trying. If the people who fought for the end of seggregation and slavery and women's right to vote etc would have given up before trying, those changes wouldn't have been made either. Yes, it's a long process and yes, it's a longshot. But someone needs to start somewhere and someone needs to try because if no one tries, it won't happen.

Do you honestly think nobody has? There are many anti-gun lobbies. There have been many proposed bills in Congress. There will continue to be. What some of us are saying, is that the 2nd amendement regarding the right to bare arms is extremely unlikely to be repealed. Now, will there be legislation that focuses on gun control at the state and federal level? Of course there will be. But, many non-Americans also forget that the 50 individual states can and do make their own laws. Some allow concealed weapons (my state just voted that in), some don't. Nobody is saying gun control laws won't be enacted, but repealing the right to bare arms is extremely unlikely.

 

[Sparks]

Democrats shout at Paul Ryan after moment of silence

 

[allezfred]

Nobody is saying gun control laws won't be enacted, but repealing the right to bare arms is extremely unlikely.

Long sleeves FTW!

 

[rfisher]

Long sleeves FTW!

They do hide those unsightly sagging triceps.

 

[LilJen]

I'm unclear about why you are hanging your head in shame for Indiana. According to the article you linked, the suspect is not to be in possession of firearms & is in violation of his probation. Do you believe his actions are sanctioned by the residents of Indiana or they have no LBGT residents in their state? The article says he previously lived in Louisville, KY - are you shaming them too?

No, the guy was FROM Indiana, the article said. We breed 'em good, yup!