About 50 people killed at gay nightclub in Florida

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Seems to be a bi-partisan effort brewing to reject gun applications from people on the "no-fly" and/or "terrorism watch" lists. That would certainly be a step forward, apparently they are just haggling over which restricted watch lists to include.

You mean what Obama has been asking for as a small but significant step forward?

They've had these bipartisan efforts all the time but like the rest it'll fall apart once the NRA and Tea Party get involved.

Sad to say but the only time this is going to change is when most of the House and Senate are populated by people who grew up having lost friends to a school or similar shooting.

[GirlySports]

I see one group of people castigating the easy access for bad people to get guns, but I see the pro-gun people regularly voicing the straw man that all gun owners themselves are being vilified by the left. I think the NRA promotes this bunker mentality, to shift the argument away from "who should have access to guns" to "they want to take away your guns", and people eat it up. And, by effect, positions "we do want to take everyone's guns" as some outlandish position. The democrats dicked this one up a very long time ago.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I could have sworn the US is a democracy?

you'd be wrong.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by ernie

You mean what Obama has been asking for as a small but significant step forward?

Another gem from the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/article/frus...sman-abo-53087

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Seems to be a bi-partisan effort brewing to reject gun applications from people on the "no-fly" and/or "terrorism watch" lists. That would certainly be a step forward, apparently they are just haggling over which restricted watch lists to include.

I'd expect the Supreme Court to strike down any such effort, if and when it is enacted into law. The "no-fly" and "terrorism watch" lists do not provide for due process, and then there's that pesky 2nd Amendment issue.*

Of course, a Clinton-packed Supreme Court would likely rule differently than the Court's current make-up, which is an issue I fully expect the RNC et al. to highlight over the next few months.

* On this issue, look for strange bed-fellows, like the NRA joined with the ACLU. The ACLU's objections to the list (even in the context of gun rights) can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-free...oples-freedoms

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I could have sworn the US is a democracy?

Oligarchy according to Cambridge

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Seems to be a bi-partisan effort brewing to reject gun applications from people on the "no-fly" and/or "terrorism watch" lists. That would certainly be a step forward, apparently they are just haggling over which restricted watch lists to include.

In other words, the same thing that the NRA spent millions on buying congresscritters to reject just two years ago.

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. - Winston Churchill

[Stay Golden]

With the reports coming out that the freak was on Tinder or Grinder whatever that he could have been gay himself.
Also the frequency he went this club.
But I am thinking that this psyco was over a long period of time plotting and stalking his prey. Perhaps lurking on these dating sites finding where they all go then just getting hammered in hatred watching them have fun while he stewed until he recently purchased the AR 15 semi auto and 100's of rounds to act on his consuming rage fantasy of mass murder.
Once he crossed that line he went and hunted them down like animals instead seeing them as people that were out enjoying themselves. Truly a murderous degenerate. Maybe he was not a "terrorist" but his crime was one of terror.

[Thor]

I get the feeling he was at least bisexual if not gay, and he would go to the club regularily to fill that need, but all the time being deeply ashamed of it considering his family's strict religious belief, sounds like the father was really strict about his beliefs.

Him telling his father how angered he was seeing two men kiss, all the while going there regularily and even using a gay hook up app, guessing Grindr?

The shame finally pushed him to act out, because he could not live with his double life and his guilt and shame blew up as violence because he never had a chance to square it with his family or himself. But of course this is just guess play at this point, so sad he acted out like this instead of just accepting who he was.

[Stay Golden]

Same I'm just guessing. It is pretty hard to make sense of madness.
The Father made some telling comments that support what your saying. He was practically blaming the gay community for his son going all loonie tunes. Saying something like they drove him to this.
Anyways just weird.

[SebC]

Kinder Suprise: banned.
AR-15: not banned.

'Murica.

[CaptainCrunch]

I can tell you for certain that he wasn't gay, but his boyfriend sure was.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by SebC

Kinder Suprise: banned.
AR-15: not banned.

'Murica.

Kinder Surprise being banned isn't something new. The actual law dates back to 1938.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Kinder Surprise being banned isn't something new. The actual law dates back to 1938.

Oh, It makes sense now!

[nik-]

Originally Posted by SebC

Kinder Suprise: banned.
AR-15: not banned.

'Murica.

You can choke on a Kinder Surprise. An AR-15 makes more breathing holes.

[Northendzone]

i have to admit that i did not get the father's comments to the media - why not just stifle your personal beliefs and show empathy towards the victims and their families. to me his comments likely made people want to find him and extract a pound of flesh.

another aside, i saw a story written by a reporter out of Philadelphia where she told about how it took her 7 minutes to buy this type of assault rifle - to me that was a sobering story

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Kinder Surprise being banned isn't something new. The actual law dates back to 1938.

Deadly weapons not being allowed to be banned dates back to 1791...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Deadly weapons not being allowed to be banned dates back to 1791...

Actually it was the right to assemble a militia which was not allowed to be banned (what a bizarre sentence).

It's very similar to the right to assemble.

If you read the constitution chronologically it makes sense. The first amendment is the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for grievance, which was basically what the revolution was about.

The second amendment secures the right of citizens to assemble in armed militias in order to secure amendment 1 should it be threatened.

The Third amendment follows the second and the first. As an american citizen you are no longer forced to quarter military/militia forces in your home/property as colonists were forced to do under british rule.

The fourth amendment is about unlawful search and seizure, which reflects amendment 3. Not only can you refuse quarter to a soldier, you can ALSO refuse entrance to a soldier or other actor/agent of the state without a judicial decree (later a warrant, probably cause).

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Actually it was the right to assemble a militia which was not allowed to be banned (what a bizarre sentence).

It's very similar to the right to assemble.

If you read the constitution chronologically it makes sense. The first amendment is the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for grievance, which was basically what the revolution was about.

The second amendment secures the right of citizens to assemble in armed militias in order to secure amendment 1 should it be threatened.

The Third amendment follows the second and the first. As an american citizen you are no longer forced to quarter military/militia forces in your home/property as colonists were forced to do under british rule.

The fourth amendment is about unlawful search and seizure, which reflects amendment 3. Not only can you refuse quarter to a soldier, you can ALSO refuse entrance to a soldier or other actor/agent of the state without a judicial decree (later a warrant, probably cause).

No. The founding fathers wanted citizens to have AR - 15's

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

another aside, i saw a story written by a reporter out of Philadelphia where she told about how it took her 7 minutes to buy this type of assault rifle - to me that was a sobering story

She bought a semi-auto rifle, not an assault rifle. And you can buy the same thing in Canada in the same time frame.