Mass Shooting at LGBT Nightclub in Orlando

[MacMadame]

I don't think we're going to repeal the 2nd amendment but I also don't think we have to. People say if we didn't do anything after Newton, that we'll never do anything, but I see public opinion shifting. It's just, like most things in this country, it's taking longer than you might expect to approach critical mass.

 

[NinjaTurtles]

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

Yes. I think for the US it is more to do with the "being necessary to the security of a free State" piece, culturally. The Bill of Rights is rooted in anti-federalism and it's not like there weren't legitimate concerns with the history of monarchy abuses.

The US is a relatively young country and doesn't have the distance from its beginnings that many other countries do; there is a culture of 'the more freedom, the better' that persists. This isn't the only issue either that vexes. Many people from other countries do not appreciate the US's devotion to freedom of speech when it comes to the likes of The Westboro Baptist Church, for example.

Personally I would never own a gun, but I find the scenario of prohibiting citizens from having something that the government could abuse troubling. Madison et al. had similar reservations, although whether that means individuals or States have the right to protect their freedom is clearly debatable.

 

[Susan1]

I see no problem in lowering the American flag half mast. Sorry but I don't see what
lowering flags has to do with the much more serious issues going on in the US.

Well, I said it was out of left field, didn't I? Just something that keeps popping up in my head every time it happens.

 

[BlueRidge]

Do or not do. There is no try.

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

IF you are talking about taking action against guns in the US, THAT'S BULLSHIT.

People have been working on this for decades. That doesn't mean they can make it happen. Shitting on them by saying trying isn't good enough is pretty shitty itself.

 

[PrincessLeppard]

How long until we have full-fledged claims that there were multiple shooters and there's a coverup and all the rest?

I've seen it on Facebook. Apparently, there is "no way he could've shot that many rounds" on his own, in "seven minutes." I'm not sure where the seven minutes comes from, given that it took three hours for SWAT to come in and he killed a lot of people later.

But we're just sheeple believing the main stream media and all....

 

[BlueRidge]

Well and its also a false flag operation and all those people were just actors and aren't dead. It was all staged to create a pretext to take our guns away.

As is every single gun violence incident according to some people...

 

[ballettmaus]

Do you honestly think nobody has?

I know that there are many who want to do something and I know there have been proposals but it seems that for each one person who wants to do something there are two who says "why bother it won't work anyway".
It may be a wrong impression but in the past days I've seen and heard more comments on the internet along the lines of "gun control is never going to work" than along the lines of "we have to keep trying" and it's also an impression that I get through media outlets. Reports contain a lot of "buts".

 

[Prancer]

I know that there are many who want to do something and I know there have been proposals but it seems that for each one person who wants to do something there are two who says "why bother it won't work anyway".
It may be a wrong impression but in the past days I've seen and heard more comments on the internet along the lines of "gun control is never going to work" than along the lines of "we have to keep trying" and it's also an impression that I get through media outlets. Reports contain a lot of "buts".

So when you read about something like this (if you read about something like this) through media outlets, what impression do you get? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-democrats-protest-after-moment-silence-orlando-victims

 

[Artistic Skaters]

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

I'm aware the suspect is currently living in Indiana. I was commenting about the original statement because there is no need to shame an entire state or its residents when someone commits a crime. In this case, one individual made the choice to commit crimes & violate his probation. There was no aiding & abetting by you or other citizens of IN.

ETA: This article about Orlando shooter has interviews with a previous teacher & classmates --

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...een-threatened-shoot-school-article-1.2673782

Before he was old enough to buy guns and commit mass murder, Omar Mateen was a mini-misogynist and violent bully who threatened a shooting rampage at his elementary school, people who knew him then say.

 

[BlueRidge]

So when you read about something like this (if you read about something like this) through media outlets, what impression do you get? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-democrats-protest-after-moment-silence-orlando-victims

Or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or Gabby Giffords, or Michael Bloomberg, and on and on. There's no silence in this country on the need to deal with our gun problem. But unless someone expects the Federal Government to marshall the troops to go out and forcibly take the guns from the people who own them, it can only be done through democratic processes. And there is a segment of the population who prioritizes stopping gun regulations over everything else and fights it tooth and nail.

Its ridiculous for people to suggest that if we really just cared about it we'd get it done. I'm not sure what jollies people get out of berating us with that when we have these horrible incidents but its really aggravating.

 

[skategal]

The populous needs to vote out the politicians who are in the pocket of the NRA and are letting the NRA control the government agenda on gun legislation.

Yes it needs to be a democratic process, but until the US populous cares enough to do that, it's not going to happen.

 

[rfisher]

And, I don't own a gun, although pretty much all my family does. None of them belong to the NRA. None of them take pictures of their guns. Nobody I know has ever shot anybody. None of them own assault weapons. In fact, the one brother who is an avid hunter prefers his bow. They don't have issues with the laws regarding gun purchases. Even though I don't own a gun, I do believe in the Democratic process and would be opposed to any attempt to circumvent it as would most people in the US. I would not vote to repeal the 2nd amendent. And, the biggest boost to gun sales is a lot of people ranting that we need to eliminate guns. So, a calm discussion and a well drafted Congressional bill is more likely to be passed than ranting. It would be simpler if all the Jihadists were focused on thier job and just commited acts of terrorism. We could say, OK. Got it. Now, we get you. But, this shooting was done by a man with multiple issues: likely a closeted gay man trying to prove to himself he wasn't gay who latched onto religious fanatics. The complexity of the situation is astounding. This guy was a ticking time bomb who finally went off. Unfortunately, nobody who could or would do anything to diffuse it did.

And, given the 24 hours media coverage, the next time bomb is ticking away just waiting for their chance to be bigger than Orlando. Everybody wants to be the best.

 

[Anita18]

"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.

It's also important to consider the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote that. They also mention a "well regulated Militia...necessary to protect the security of a free State." To me, that wording is pretty clear in its intent - the "right" of a private citizen to gun down tens of people at a time by himself surely was not part of it.

Here's an interesting article from Slate about how the interpretation of the intent has changed: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html

 

[IceAlisa]

It's also important to consider the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote that. They also mention a "well regulated Militia...necessary to protect the security of a free State." To me, that wording is pretty clear in its intent - the "right" of a private citizen to gun down tens of people at a time by himself surely was not part of it.

I think it's obvious that private citizens do not have the right to murder ten people at a time or fewer, whatever the means?

 

[BlueRidge]

The populous needs to vote out the politicians who are in the pocket of the NRA and are letting the NRA control the government agenda on gun legislation.

Yes it needs to be a democratic process, but until the US populous cares enough to do that, it's not going to happen.

Yeah you're right we just don't care. None of us. But you are so righteous!!! Impressive!!!

 

[skategal]

Yeah you're right we just don't care. None of us. But you are so righteous!!! Impressive!!!

I didn't say no one cared. I said the populous needs to rise up and use their voting rights democratically to solve it.

But keep twisting my words and insulting me if it makes you feel better.

 

[VGThuy]

Let's also keep in mind that a lot of people who support practical gun control aren't necessarily wanting to repeal the Second Amendment either.

Also, one exercise we did in Con Law was to talk about the "well regulated milita . . . in order to protect the security of a free state" clause and how if one wanted to really go into the language (textual meaning), that may mean that people may be entitled to weapons to fight actual armies who now have advanced weaponry.

 

[Prancer]

It's also important to consider the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote that. They also mention a "well regulated Militia...necessary to protect the security of a free State." To me, that wording is pretty clear in its intent - the "right" of a private citizen to gun down tens of people at a time by himself surely was not part of it.

Here's an interesting article from Slate about how the interpretation of the intent has changed: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html

Yes? Is there really anyone here, even posters here from other countries, who are unaware of the well-regulated militia argument?

Well, maybe there are. I don't know.

I think it's obvious that private citizens do not have the right to murder ten people at a time or fewer, whatever the means?

No; it's a straw man argument.

 

[Anita18]

Yes? Is there really anyone here, even posters here from other countries, who are unaware of the well-regulated militia argument?

Well, maybe there are. I don't know.

No; it's a straw man argument.

Maybe not here, but in other places, I've had to explain that the intention as written was protect the security of the state, not private citizen's homes from burglars or whatnot. The argument usually comes back to personal security.

Wording was bad - what I meant was, is there a right for one individual citizen, not part of a well-regulated militia, to own the capability of killing tens of people at once?

Let's also keep in mind that a lot of people who support practical gun control aren't necessarily wanting to repeal the Second Amendment either.

Also, one exercise we did in Con Law was to talk about the "well regulated milita . . . in order to protect the security of a free state" clause and how if one wanted to really go into the language (textual meaning), that may mean that people may be entitled to weapons to fight actual armies who now have advanced weaponry.

Right. There's no way any state will be allowed to own a nuclear weapon in case the feds decide to invade. So that intention is also antiquated as well.

 

[once_upon]

As after everyone of these mass shootings, gun sales soared today.
because Clinton, Obama, Bernie and mainstream media wants to take away your second amendment rights
And iif they had that concealed weapon, well he would have been dead before anyone else was killed

 

[IceAlisa]

Wording was bad - what I meant was, is there a right for one individual citizen, not part of a well-regulated militia, to own the capability of killing tens of people at once?

OK. I am no military historian but at the time of writing the Bill of Rights, were the semi-automatic guns/guns with assault capability in existence for the Founding Fathers to take/not take them into account?

 

[BlueRidge]

I didn't say no one cared. I said the populous needs to rise up and use their voting rights democratically to solve it.

But keep twisting my words and insulting me if it makes you feel better.

No you insulted those of us in the United States. We really could use some empathy, not what we always get which is this, "why don't they do something. What is wrong with them?"

I don't know why it is when there is a tragedy a whole host of people just want to rub it in rather than commiserating and perhaps wishing for things to get better and for gun control advocates to have success.

Most of us right now are in mourning. We don't really need to be told that if we would just do something things like this wouldn't happen.

 

[skategal]

Well something needs to be done. And like in every democratic country, things only change through voting. Yes, people need to rise up and vote to change things.

And for what it's worth, you have no idea about me and my relationship with the USA, including having family there. So stop assuming I am up here smirking at you all saying "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah."

I care deeply. I care more than you know. I've experienced financial losses due to needing to liquidate property in the USA because we don't feel it is safe for my family to be there anymore due to situations like this.

Besides my own personal ties to the US, we are all global citizens and we care that the US has this problem. Something needs to be done. It can't come from outside the country to fix this.

Sorry, if that is offensive but it is the truth.

 

[Allskate]

K. I am no military historian but at the time of writing the Bill of Rights, were the semi-automatic guns/guns with assault capability in existence for the Founding Fathers to take/not take them into account?

No. They had to reload. http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

Assault weapons have been banned in the past. That ban was not struck down as unconstitutional. The law merely expired.

 

[manhn]

If you truly believe that people outside the US are just rubbing it in, I would suggest you Google the images of the many vigil sights taking place around the globe.

 

[IceAlisa]

No. They had to reload. http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

Thanks. I was wondering is there was a 18th century Uzi I didn't know about...

 

[BlueRidge]

If you truly believe that people outside the US are just rubbing it in, I would suggest you Google the images of the many vigil sights taking place around the globe.

If you are referring to my post you need to read again, I was referring to specific people posting particular t hings about gun issues in the US. There was nothing in my post that could possibly be construed beyond this to anyone else.

 

[judiz]

Just wanted to say kudos to Anderson Cooper. Not only has he been reporting non stop a story that had to hit close to home for him, but he just interviewed the mother of one of the victims, held her hand and hugged her at the end.

 

[BlueRidge]

Well something needs to be done. And like in every democratic country, things only change through voting. Yes, people need to rise up and vote to change things.

And for what it's worth, you have no idea about me and my relationship with the USA, including having family there. So stop assuming I am up here smirking at you all saying "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah."

I care deeply. I care more than you know. I've experienced financial losses due to needing to liquidate property in the USA because we don't feel it is safe for my family to be there anymore due to situations like this.

Besides my own personal ties to the US, we are all global citizens and we care that the US has this problem. Something needs to be done. It can't come from outside the country to fix this.

Sorry, if that is offensive but it is the truth.

Well just think about it then. Maybe immediately after a horrible massacre isn't the time to tell us your offensive truth.

 

[skategal]

Well just think about it then. Maybe immediately after a horrible massacre isn't the time to tell us your offensive truth.

I assumed this was a discussion board....you know, to discuss things....even offensive things...things that are hard to read and hear about.

I guess I was wrong