Terror attack at Orlando gay club

As someone posted on another site- Dont be messing with my consensual writes.

Quote: onalinehorse

Face, pay no attention to the black helicopter that will soon be circling above your house.

Hard not to when it's just 300' off the deck. But they're after the grows. There's farmers that desperately need to be locked up so we can stop all these unnecessary deaths from weed overdoses

Quote: rxwine

Okay, some gun owner tell me why you need to purchase more than one gun a year? And if you buy a second why the ATF shouldn't bury you up to your head in sand and put you under hot lights and grill you on that second purchase for 3 days while you drink your own piss for water.

This ain't me, I'm too poor. But I can think of some reasons.

1 - Money. If I hit it big, I'm getting everything I ever wanted. I have a passion for them not unlike cars. Also on money comes sales. I might buy a gun cuz I need it, like my recent 442. But then a sportsman show rolls in, and they have an M1 for just $800, damn right I am buying it on the spot.

2 - Circumstance. I buy the Del-ton cuz I want a new toy. Week later the Fed calls out of the blue and invites me on an elk hunt the following year. I won't shoot an elk with 5.56, and I can't wait months for a 7.62 because I need to practice out to 600yds NOW. If I want that hunt, I need another gun.

3 - Because America =p

Now perhaps an anti will indulge me. In this room here there are... 8 firearms. Pistols, rifles, shottys. One of them ain't for nothing but varmints, another punches holes clean through 0.5" plate steel and keeps going, and the other 6 fall between. Forgive me for not pulling them all out and checking, but all told there's an ammo capacity of about 50 between them. I could kill any animal in all of America, disable just about any non-milatarized vehicle, even punch through any body armor that I know of.

My question is - How many hands do you think I have?

Quote: Face

My question is - How many hands do you think I have?

I don't know. Maybe I'd ask your last girlfriend.

Quote: TigerWu

...Devil's advocate: What freedom is being taking away by banning high-cap magazines/assault rifles/AR-15 type weapons? Is it simply the freedom to own that specific weapon? You already don't have the freedom to own lots of things...

Americans are funny people. If the gov comes out one day and says, "alrighty then, you have absolutely no rights, we own you", well that would piss a few of them off. Maybe enough to do more than occupy some friggin park somewhere. But as long as the ptb take a little at a time, and everyone is fed, we will gladly turn the whole kit and caboodle over to the bankers, with hardly a word.

Now that, is how it's done. One cut, one drip, one little hard to even recognize part at a time. It's like taxation. A dime here, a dime there, a few % here, pretty soon, they got it all, every lil bit.

Take the 4th for instance. The feds back in the day needed a search warrant to bust in your door and shoot your dog. They can and do record every single piece of digital data transmitted. Read the NDAA, maybe that don't bother you either? Within the doc is the proclamation that the gov can terminate any Americans life, they choose. Obama has even bragged about it. Poof, your dead, no one held to account.

Put you on a no fly list, for smoking to many cigarettes in Orange county and can't get off the list? Well, it is a matter of national security, ain't it? Do you think all that airport granny frisking stuff at the airport makes you safer? How'd that help all those in the club? It didn't.

You think it's ok, for the feds to devalue the money under your mattress? Each to their own, but each time the citizens capitulate to an overreaching police state, they lose more and none of it's coming back. Remember people died for these rights that you are so willing to give away.

Let me ask you this? If I agree and the rest of the true owners of the country agree, to stop all high capacity magazines, will you stop there? The last rule was 10 rounds. Is that enough? Would you then want to go to 6 rounds? Will you stop then? The problem for all time, is if you don't stick up for what you got, somebody is going to take it. Way of the world.

So is what is so horrific, is it that someone walks into a bar and shoots a hundred people? Would everyone feel better if the whack job only went in and shot 15, or 10? Then it wouldn't be so bad would it, if some bastard just shoots 15 people? Then we wouldn't have to change the mag size. What if he just walked in with a 12 gauge pump and a can of gas, wasted 10 people and lit the gas on fire, and waited outside with another full mag in the 12 gauge? MO better? Do you want to go from 5 gallon cans to one gallon cans, and single shot mags on shot guns? Would then double barrel shotguns hold to many rounds?

Take away your rights the same way you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.

Thanks Face! You can't fix stupid, but you gave it your best "shot"

Quote: Face

You assume we haven't already?

Some of the comments here are astoundingly ignorant, and I mean the dictionary definition of ignorance, not the colloquial insult. It's like watching a Catholic priest teach a course on sex ed. Paradigm's on track. He gets it. Others? Come with me for a sec...

I own one of those fully automatic do-jobbers. It began its life as a perfectly legal Del-ton Echo, and with a few bills and a little know-how, it now fires 800rds p/min. That's a bit more than a typical mil-spec rifle that does ~600rds p/min, so let's stay with the mil-spec as the math is easier.

Even I can figure out that 600rds p/min is 10 a sec. PRRRRRAT! There's your ten. It's no MA-Deuce where you can count each individual CHOW-CHOW-CHOW, it's too fast. PRRRRRAT!, and 10 are down range. To YOU, this is "more deadly". But use your head, man.

My toy is is 5.56. To me, this ain't much more than my .22 plinker. I'd teach my 7yr old son on this rifle, it is positively gentle. But regardless of its complete lack of kick, and my relatively stout platform of self, I can't hold it on target in full auto. Just like every single auto out there, it tracks up and to the right (right handed). If I put those ten rounds into the line outside of First Niagara before a Sabres game, I am, at an absolute max, hitting 2 people. And I'm damn good with a rifle. I flick that tab and go back to one round per pull, those same ten rounds are hitting all 10.

A "machine gun" is not the "most deadly weapon". It's purpose is to lay down fire to allow units to advance. You're at A, need to get to B, but there's fire between the two points. So you rip out a SAW and lay down fire. The enemy necessarily ducks, which necessarily stops them from firing, allowing your units to proceed. And once in position, all the SAWs go back into semi-auto or burst fire because that's what you kill people with.

Of all the guns out there, I would not say a "machine gun" would be my first choice to face. However, I damn sure would rather be shot at by one of those than a whole host of perfectly legal firearms because of what they are. You think they're scary because you've gotten all your gun knowledge from Michael Bay. In reality and practical use, they are catastrophically inefficient. I think it was rxwine that stated he wanted all guns to weigh 80lbs or some such, the idea being that they should be harder to wield and therefore less likely to amass heavy casualties. Well, the machine gun does just that. It is complete garbage, and come the revolution, mine would never see combat. It's complete junk. It's only purpose is to make noise, burn my money, and stand as a big F#$% You to the governor of the People's Republic. As a useful firearm? Lol, my 5rd Remington 870 is a hundred times more deadly. And if you think I can't find no 50rd drum for my boom stick, I'll have to ask you to stop. I've laughed far too much for one day.

And this is just on the topic of how a gun works. We haven't even broached how people work. You want more laws? As Sancho pointed out, it's already against the law to kill people. I'll point out it's also against the law to travel in a vehicle with that type of weapon loaded, ditto for having it on the street, ditto for taking it into a place that serves alcohol. All of your papers with all of your words completely covered 100+ gay revelers that night. How'd that work out for you and them? Oh, but you want a full ban? Well, my auto is so far beyond legal I haven't even figured out how many charges I'd face if caught. Between the full auto capabilities and all the 30rd mags, that one device could put me away for the rest of my life. But I still got it, don't I? And I'm not even a "bad guy"! And when the SAFEAct got rammed in, I had no problems acquiring another M4 rifle and more 30rd mags for my sheriff buddy, even during the panic when everything gun was flying off the shelves. I think I've bought exactly one box of ammo since SAFEAct, because it's a righteous PITA. So I got a guy now. Makes em right in his basement. Ain't a single round in my house that I've acquired via background check.

There's 300mm privately owned firearms in this country, and more mags than you could possibly count. The only way you're getting the ban you want is by door to door confiscation. You want to send your brothers and sisters out knocking door to door? When there's a million of them and 30mm of us? You want to engage your police in a war with the American people? Have you not gotten your fill from the War on Drugs?

What you are calling for has already happened. There are myriad examples all over the country of its success. Prostitution, recreational drugs, prohibition, all "banned" by paper, every single one an abject failure. Yet you continue to clamor for more.

As your fellow citizen, I beg you to stop. You can opine that I'm just in it for myself and I won't be able to cope with my tiny penis without my .44, but you'd be wrong. You already passed your laws and I'm already ignoring them. One or ten more ain't gonna change my life, and even if you sent the SS to take them, well, I have guns. I don't care. I beg you to stop because you waste time, mind, and energy on a "fix" that does nothing. The best way to fight cancer is not newer poison or sharper knives, nor by "outlawing" cancer, it's best fought by prevention. It's best fought by attacking the source. That's where this battle needs to be fought. That's how you get a REAL fix. How come I never hear anything about that?

Change your way of thinking. Stop reacting with your heart and use your GD head. Banning guns is no more an answer than arming everyone is. The problem is not the result. The problem is the cause. Find it, and fix it.

What happened? A deranged mind? An infectious/incurable cancer? Or is it genetic? I'll get back to this later.

I envision the idiotic/stupidity in your ramblings because your ramblings only help the gun control side of the gun debate, and I envision the angriness in your ramblings because of the violent “CHOW-CHOW-CHOW” and “PRRRRRAT” sounds in your ramblings.

I honestly wish that all the politicians who are in bed with the NRA will repeat your idiotic & angry ramblings on the Senate and House floors. Those idiotic & angry ramblings about your weapon experiences/collections contribute NOTHING to the gun control debate, and it surely will provide ammunition (no pun intended) for tighter gun control regulations. What are you trying to achieve with those idiotic & angry ramblings? Are you trying to convert Paradigm? I believe you succeed, and I want to congratulate you for a job well done in bringing Paradigm to your side (your success in converting Paradigm reminds me of David Koresh).

I do believe that at present time you are a responsible & law abiding citizen and gun owner and you are not an idiotic person (perhaps angry, but not stupid!). However, your idiotic & angry ramblings and your "militia" attitude are a reason for everyone to worry. As a concern citizen, I do care about your FUTURE state of mind, and I sincerely hope that your future is full of success and happiness.

A wife leaving her husband for another woman because of his tiny penis, a financial failure, or any other bad/adverse event(s) in one's life can turn an once responsible and law abiding citizen into a monster in the like of Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Adam Lanza, Omar Mateen, or other mass murderers. And I sincerely hope that an aforementioned bad marriage due to your tiny penis, or the other bad events will NOT happen to you because I don't want to watch another mass murder in the news in which you, are the one who do the actual “CHOW-CHOW-CHOW” and “PRRRRRAT". Can you imagine a mass murder where the main focus is on the mass murderer's tiny penis instead of his Del-ton Echo, MA-Deuce, 5rd Remington 870, 5.56, .44, .22 plinker, etc...?

For the betterment of our society, I DO care about Paradigm and your well being. And I'm praying the cancerous tone in your ramblings is not genetic, because the one person that I care about the most in this debate is the well being of your 7-year old son.

P.S.
I thought about reporting you to the FBI and the US Department of Homeland Security on the advice of "if you see something, say something," by various law enforcement agencies but I decided not to because I'm afraid they will laugh at me and will not take me seriously on the basis of your tiny penis.

Quote: Calder

Your assumption is if the gun were banned, he wouldn't have the gun?

Here is an excerpt from Gen. Stanley McChrystal Op Ed in NY Times on 6/16/2016:

Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and therefore that taking steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership.

Just as something as complex as a combat operation in a war zone meant that we could not eliminate every enemy combatant or prevent every American casualty, we cannot prevent every dangerous person from getting a gun, and we cannot prevent every gun tragedy. But wouldn’t preventing many of them be worth it? I believe it would.

Wow, 777, that was quite an attack on Face...oh wait...Face's writing. Your writing was pretty condescending; that is typical of the "government knows better" crowd out there. All this government, all these laws, and we are still unable to stop a crazy idiot with a gun (or other weapon). Any guesses why? Mainly because we spend so much time thinking we need new laws when perhaps some time spent figuring out which ones work, using them effectively, and changing them to make them better or getting rid of unnecessary ones might actually help more.

I agree. The ISIS dimwit knucklehead should not have been allowed to buy ANY gun. Not one. Not a pistol. Not a rifle. Not a shotgun. Not a bazooka. NOTHING. What happened that he fell so far between the cracks? What is the process for slowing down the buying of guns by people who may be known wackos (there will always be some unknown ones...)? Do we talk about how to fix that? No. The first thing Obama and his minions want to do is NOT talk about Islamic Radical Terrorists, his freakin' JV team that he has not allowed our varsity to beat, and to use this disaster to pass more laws that will impact law-abiding citizens much more than they will terrorists and their ilk.

Quote: RonC

Wow, 777, that was quite an attack on Face...oh wait...Face's writing. Your writing was pretty condescending; that is typical of the "government knows better" crowd out there.

I will admit I am just as bad. There's something about gun control debates that get my very hype.

I don't understand why gun sounds are violent. I was just making a point. You've seen movies, the news, perhaps have seen one live. The rate of fire for full auto small arms is incredibly fast. So fast that in full auto, many rounds are wasted. Even if you swung the rifle as fast as possible, you could not do so fast enough that each bullet hits a separate target, making it a less deadly option despite its "scariness".

The anger you perceive, 777, is exactly that. Perhaps the majority class of America are urbanites. But there's still a great many of us that hold to the old ways. There are many of us for whom a firearm is necessary. The last time I contacted the police it took 35 minutes JUST TO FIND ONE. After getting no answer, being redirected to county Sheriffs, then redirected to the other country, then redirected to the Troopers, I had to hop in my truck and physically track down the local constabulary. 45min from time of issue until I found 5-0. You ever had your ass kicked by 4+ dudes at one time? Or had some s#$%head bust into your house and threaten to kill you for an hour and a half? Ever been within <10' of a 300lb bear while your 3yr old clings to your leg?

I'm not an 18yr old made of rubber and invincibilium anymore. I got a long history of serious brain injuries and limbs that pop out of socket during menial tasks. My combat usefulness is all but gone, all bark and no bite. And though I respect our men in women in uniform, most of my friends and half of my hockey team are on the force. And every single one, even the ones who want to, will tell you - they are not our personal bodyguards. You ever been in the s#$%? Even were I an urbanite with 5-0 on every block, they'll show up just in time to help clean my blood off the street. The protection of me and mine does not come from others. It comes from self.

You want to take that from me. You can say you don't, and TigerWu even commented "who said all guns", but I see it happening. YOU may only want this or that taken, but what happens is this, that, and the other get taken down with it. When .gov rams through a gun ban in the wee hours of the morning, with none of the typical deliberation and hearings, bases the act on falsities like "you don't need 10rds to kill a deer", and does it so ass backwards that they made our own policemen FELONS even while performing their jobs on duty, you cannot ask me to be reasonable and have faith in our legislators. And that's not doomsday hype, that's what actually happened and continues to happen here in the People's Republic. So yeah, I get pissed.

You're holding me responsible for the actions of men I aim to stop. You're putting me at a disadvantage whensoever a bad guy and I happen to meet. And though I am wise and more trained than most, and quite often and at any opportunity will avoid trouble when possible, when trouble comes, I am powerless to standby. I am a defender. I don't choose it, I don't take pride in it, it just is. It's the way I was made and who I have become. We could be toe to toe saying all the s#$%ty things to each other as we are, and if someone popped in and meant you harm, I would be standing right in front of you to defend you regardless. When that happens, and it does happen to guys like me, I want at my disposal the thing which I am most comfortable with. NOT some thing that some urbanite asswad politician with his own personal security force decrees I should be allowed.

And finally, I eschew illogical arguments. If someone cuts their hand off at the mill, you don't make cutting your hand off a workplace infraction. You don't attack the result. You attack the SOURCE. You educate your force on the machinery, you install safety practices, you install shields and bars on the cutting tools. Not only does it make sense, but it works. When you support .gov and ask them to take - take - take, you are attacking the result. We see how attacking the result is working on the War of Drugs. A bunch of people are godly rich, we piss away 40trillion dollars, and my cousin is still dead from a heroin overdose. When I hear "gun ban", every asinine action, like the WoD, hits my brain all at the same time, and I hear you saying "Yup, I like the way that's working. I want more." I can't help but freak the f#$% out.

If my passion and anger went as wayward as some #8 out of Cheney's shotgun and caused some anti casualties, I do apologize. When gun talk happens, I generally try to be the educator. I can see that this time I got a little extremist. But the world is a scary place, and I've happened upon too much of that fright to sit here in a relaxed state. I think of how absolutely random some of my worst encounters were, how I had absolutely no part in any reason to be attacked and violated as I have been, and then think of replaying all of that with my kid at my side. Thinking of him watching his dad get pounded by a whole crew of guys, or having him witness some monster in his own house threatening to kill his dad... and you want to leave me helpless all because of the actions of some low life POS.

It ain't right. And my refusal to be a victim and desire to stand as my own man has made me a felon.

It ain't right.


PS - 855-GUNSNYS for anonymous reporting of NYS SAFEAct violations. GUNTIP if texting. If you think that's going to help, you can easily find out exactly who I am in 30min of perusing DT. One of my closest friends is in DHS, I'm sure I could get you a number if you prefer the federal route. Then again, I'm quite sure they're already aware of me as I'm not exactly a shrinking violet. Do what you must. At least the visit will take my mind off my POS racecar =p

Wow...I don't feel "converted" :-p.

I am informed about what a "machine gun" really is and the legal ability of an individual to acquire a weapon that will "spray" bullets into a crowd. Tough to give much credibility to arguments on common sense gun control from someone who doesn't, but carry on 777.

Why doesn't the gun control lobby argue for annual psychological exams instead of magazine capacity laws? Or required marksman tests or other gun education requirements on the use of deadly force? Sure, pass the No Fly/No Buy laws, that one is tough to argue, but you better take seriously any case of someone on that list erroneously, layout the appeal process and make it expedited. Think about domestic abuser's rights as they relate to legally buying a gun...and I am sure a dozen other psych profile type examples where you can say, look if you have behaved this way in the past, your legal gun buying abilities or ownership abilities are going to be limited.

And yes, I can see an America where you fail you annual gun psych/marksman/etc test and you are required to turn in your registered guns. We have a driver's license requirement in this country and when you fail that test, you don't get to drive either.

Those are all discussions that are worth having about attempting to keep mentally unstable people from having easy access to legally purchasing guns. That is the problem people, not the style of gun or magazine capacity.

Time for the gun control lobby to pivot their efforts to changes that could actually make a difference in avoiding another Orlando & Sandy Hook.

"Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”

Cited article: “The Mentally Ill,” The American Rifleman (Sept. 1966).

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms#_ftnref

This would be a good way for everyone to go at the issue--figure out what we aren't doing "right" and try to make it work better. The NRA is on board, but the gun banning crowd only wants to ban something; they talk about this but I have not heard much about fixing the issues that everyone seems to think need fixed. I am not surprised--our whole government is failing miserably at that...they won't even agree on the things that they say they agree on...

I don't see the need for an annual exam; if that became some kind of an acceptable thing, which I do not support at this point, it would seem that something more like a driver's license process would be better and less burdensome. We give people licenses to drive 3,000+ pound vehicles of mass destruction for as many as 12 years without even stepping in a license office in Texas. Far more people would be saved by taking unsafe drivers off the road more quickly than have been killed in the recent gun incidents...there is a bit of a point in the statement about our own murders (non-terrorist ones) are more deadly than the terrorists to...the difference between those murderers and the terrorists is that the latter follows an ideology that seeks the destruction of our culture. Naturally, we should work to stop both of them...

Quote: Face

I will admit I am just as bad. There's something about gun control debates that get my very hype.

I don't understand why gun sounds are violent. I was just making a point. You've seen movies, the news, perhaps have seen one live. The rate of fire for full auto small arms is incredibly fast. So fast that in full auto, many rounds are wasted. Even if you swung the rifle as fast as possible, you could not do so fast enough that each bullet hits a separate target, making it a less deadly option despite its "scariness".

True but in a packed room where your target is anyone and everyone it's seem to do what people are scared of.

Quote: 777

See District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

If we don't like our Congress and Supreme Court actions on gun control, then yes we can start forming a militia and start a civil war to protect/defend our absolute & unlimited 2nd Amendment right.

The supreme court stated the 2nd amendment isn't absolute. None of them are when people are involved.

So you are simply stating you have your own 2nd amendment rights to uphold? Because it's tough to know when people are being sarcastic or serious.

Quote: FleaStiff

"Downtown Orlando has no bottom. The entire city should be leveled. It is void of a single redeeming quality. It is a melting pot of 3rd world miscreants and ghetto thugs. It is void of culture. If you live down there you do it at your own risk and at your own peril." – Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis (Now suspended from office for making that comment).

But but it has Disney world......... ... ...

Quote: RonC

All this government, all these laws, and we are still unable to stop a crazy idiot with a gun (or other weapon). Any guesses why? Mainly because we spend so much time thinking we need new laws when perhaps some time spent figuring out which ones work, using them effectively, and changing them to make them better or getting rid of unnecessary ones might actually help more..

Are you eating baloney Ron? I smell baloney. You know who doesn't want to know what's going on? People opposing studying gun violence. Not my side.

I'm not opposed to finding the truth. Many on your side are afraid of it apparently.

Quote: sammydv

But but it has Disney world......... ... ...

Disney World in NOT in Orlando!

Quote: DeMango

Disney World in NOT in Orlando!

And Mandalay Bay is not in Las Vegas.

Speaking of which, just today I went out the back gate of my condo for the first time. On the corner opposite us is a sign saying welcome to Paradise.
Missed it by that much.

Quote: rxwine

Are you eating baloney Ron? I smell baloney. You know who doesn't want to know what's going on? People opposing studying gun violence. Not my side.

I'm not opposed to finding the truth. Many on your side are afraid of it apparently.

I'm not afraid to find the truth. What is happening here is not finding the truth. President Obama talked about banning guns before he talked about Islamic Terrorist Extremists. The NRA supports keeping crazy people from having guns. Perhaps some on "my side" are afraid of research, just as many on "your side" could care less about the Second Amendment. Hopefully, neither of those groups are the majority of a particular side...

It seems bureaucracy is an issue in getting studies done...

"What emerged instead was the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which stipulated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-violence-research-ban_us_56606201e4b072e9d1c4eaaa

So we have a government agency that is not willing to study gun violence when the amendment clearly says that they cannot "advocate or promote gun control". That seems like a stretch of the amendment to me--studying gun violence itself does nothing but give folks information. As long as the CDC issues the research and takes no "official position" on the results, it seems that they would not be violating the amendment. I doubt that the NRA can stop them from just doing research; I am sure that the agency should not let them do it without pushing the issue.

The US continues to sell cluster bombs that 119 countries have voted to stop. Horrific weapons.
Our congress votes to keep selling them to Saudi Arabia, a large contributor to HRC, and home of 15 of the 9-11 hijackers.
And here we are discussing how to make America safe by taking large mags away from law abiding Americans.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/16/worried-about-stigmatizing-cluster-bombs-house-approves-more-sales-to-saudi-arabia/

Doesn't the duopoly ever get to you, disarmers?

Quote: RonC

I'm not afraid to find the truth. What is happening here is not finding the truth. President Obama talked about banning guns before he talked about Islamic Terrorist Extremists. The NRA supports keeping crazy people from having guns. Perhaps some on "my side" are afraid of research, just as many on "your side" could care less about the Second Amendment. Hopefully, neither of those groups are the majority of a particular side...

It seems bureaucracy is an issue in getting studies done...

"What emerged instead was the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which stipulated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-violence-research-ban_us_56606201e4b072e9d1c4eaaa

So we have a government agency that is not willing to study gun violence when the amendment clearly says that they cannot "advocate or promote gun control". That seems like a stretch of the amendment to me--studying gun violence itself does nothing but give folks information. As long as the CDC issues the research and takes no "official position" on the results, it seems that they would not be violating the amendment. I doubt that the NRA can stop them from just doing research; I am sure that the agency should not let them do it without pushing the issue.

As it was explained to me, the wording is so nebulous that researchers are afraid to start a study for fear of getting all their funding cut for one small mis-step. Universities and large medical research facilities are not known for taking risks.

Editing out all references to radical Islamists. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

Dept. of Just us. hehe hehehe

Quote: DeMango

Disney World in NOT in Orlando!

What? Really? Had me fooled.

Quote: petroglyph

Editing out all references to radical Islamists. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

Dept. of Just us. hehe hehehe

Subscribing to numerous internet radical news sources who write their own stories to fit their agenda should be looked at with a leery eye. But I do wonder why obama uses the isil instead of isis which everyone else seems to use.

Because Its not a state.

Google says:

ISIS = Islamic State in Iraq & Syria
ISIL = Islamic State in Iraq & Levant [which is like palestine, lebanon, west jordan, syria, egypt, etc.?)

Quote: RS

Google says:

ISIS = Islamic State in Iraq & Syria
ISIL = Islamic State in Iraq & Levant [which is like palestine, lebanon, west jordan, syria, egypt, etc.?)

So saying isil is a way to stay clear of the term Islamic extremist?

Quote: RS

Google says:

ISIS = Islamic State in Iraq & Syria
ISIL = Islamic State in Iraq & Levant [which is like palestine, lebanon, west jordan, syria, egypt, etc.?)

Whatever the heck Obama calls them, they sure as hell are not the JV.

They are Islamic Radical Terrorists and they want to end our way of life.

Call them whatever you want, make all nicey nice, but they don't want YOU to live. Or ME, None of us, unless we submit to their laws.

What the hell is so hard to get about an enemy wanting our total destruction? Oh maybe a total gun ban slows them down for a millisecond. Guess what...they have determination...and someone determined to kill us will figure out many different ways to do it....

Quote: rxwine

You know who doesn't want to know what's going on? People opposing studying gun violence. Not my side.

What is there to "study" when thousands of global terrorists take daily oaths and daily actions to exterminate us infidels?

Quote: sammydv

What? Really? Had me fooled.

Like Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up"!

But if you don't want to, here;
Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830

"“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch told NBC. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].”"

"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giluiani, also on Fox and Friends Monday, said it does not help law enforcement to try to bury the motivations or allegiences of criminals and terrorists.

"Why didn't they do this with the Mafia, to spare Italian-Americans?" Giuliani asked. "Why? Because if you did, you would never make the connection [which ultimately] brought them down.""

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/20/fbi-to-release-partial-transcript-between-orlando-nightclub-gunman-and-police.html

So...why bother releasing it at all if you are going to sanitize out the part where he pledges allegiance to ISIS?

Quote: SanchoPanza

What is there to "study" when thousands of global terrorists take daily oaths and daily actions to exterminate us infidels?

The idea of the left seems to be to make attempts to further gun control here more important than attempts to kill ISIS/ISIL/Radical Islamic Terrorists. There is a legitimate issue with how this guy was able to buy the gun, as I have talked about here--but the left is sanitizing language in releases and talking more about gun control than terrorism. What is the old saying about never letting a crisis go to waste...

Quote: RonC

The idea of the left seems to be to make attempts to further gun control here more important than attempts to kill ISIS/ISIL/Radical Islamic Terrorists. ...

Yup, when they used planes we talked about the whole process of becoming pilots and boarding planes.

And if they start killing us with plastic forks, we'll be talking about that.

Quote: RonC

There is a legitimate issue with how this guy was able to buy the gun, as I have talked about here--but the left is sanitizing language in releases and talking more about gun control than terrorism. What is the old saying about never letting a crisis go to waste...

With the Attorney General censoring mentions of ISIS in the terrorist transcripts, it is no surprise that from the hallowed New York Times to right here, we have normally intelligent people proclaiming that there is hardly evidence of anything more than the wild use of firearms and a problem with with gays in the Orlando shooting. There has also been a closing up of discussion of how the terrorist's global security employer falsified his background application. If these ostriches keep trying to hide their heads in the sand, more of them are going to get their backsides shot off.

Quote: petroglyph

Take away your rights the same way you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.

I don't know... that sounds like a "slippery slope" argument to me....

The people in charge at the Federal, State, and Local levels are there to ensure the American Dream. Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. Many of them are elected officials, they ran campaigns presenting themselves as the 'best' to ensure that 'Dream'. Most will run again for office.

But there is a problem Houston. We noticed that people kill our fellow Americans with guns. We remember you promising you were the guy/gal to ensure that Dream, remember? How are you going to fix this?

Those in charge have an obligation, let's just assume they realize that, assume they strongly desire to provide a remedy to the problem. But what to do? It is very easy to say we need more gun control, we should pass some gun control laws. That makes sense. But does it work? How well has it worked so far?

Please remember that those 'shooters' are criminals already, they already broke the law. Forget self-defense cases for the moment. They would probably be willing to break any proposed 'gun sale law' as well. The gun genie is out of the bottle, no way to put it back. The criminals have guns, will always have guns. I have a fighting chance against a criminal gunman. A bomb at close proximity I'm not sure I'd even notice the blast. Arson, radioactive materials, etc, we live in a dangerous world.

Make guns illegal, the price just goes up, some criminals get very wealthy selling them. Oh, and you just made me a criminal for owning one, which I will. I'm sure some common sense improvements can be made in our 'regulation', I know it sounds like an oxymoron given our history of regulations. But the No Fly/ No Buy makes sense maybe ( I wonder how well that even keeps people off our planes though ). The secondary gun market is a huge loophole, gun shows, private sales. I have a friend (cough) that is a convicted felon for some relatively minor drug charge in the seventies that cannot walk into a gunshop and buy. But he does buy and sell dozens of guns each year as a slightly profitable hobby thru an online semi-local gun club. (Vintage S&W revolvers is his specialty ;-) Limit clip size, Meh. Assault rifles, Meh. I'm willing to listen to any idea.

It's problem, a tough one, a permanent one. There will continue to be a clamor for more and/or better gun laws. The people in charge ( which is actually all of us BTW ) need to address the issue. I think alot of politicians will be quick to endorse any dumb idea. They NEED to be able to claim they tried something, some of them actually believe themselves.

I accept part of the protection of myself and my family as a personal responsibility. I think you should too. That fact is the reason I own a gun or two, and always will, legal or not.

Good luck to us all.

<edit, yes always an edit> Make people illegal and eliminate them. The gun violence problem will be solved ,-)

Quote: rxwine

Yup, when they used planes we talked about the whole process of becoming pilots and boarding planes.

And if they start killing us with plastic forks, we'll be talking about that.

...but they also did not try to censor references to terrorism. That is the difference.

Try to make whatever laws you think will work, I get it...but don't forget those who don't want to kill a bunch of gays...

--a bunch of the people in the gay bar might not have even been gay...
--they don't want "US" in our current form to exist...
--they want those of us they let live to live their stone age lifestyle
--they punish women for reporting rapes

All we need is gun control. That will fix it. never need to mention terrorists again.

They Who Shall Not Be Named...

Quote: gamerfreak

Does anyone here notice that three of the four did these things when they were in state government? The whole idea was for us to be a group of "states" operating as individual countries almost. The "states" could then do things differently. Some of those things could violate the Constitution; then they could be taken to the Federal level. The supporters of "Obummercare" tried the same argument about "Romneycare", but it made little sense than and it makes little sense now.

I don't know if Obama wants "ALL" our guns it is a very cute little meme; I do know that he is doing what he can to deflect attention from "terrorists" to "gun control" of some sort. As usual, he is treating all of us like idiots...only some people like him and they fall easily for what he is doing. We're not idiots; we can do two things at once. We can talk about gun issues and bomb the living crap out of every known "JV" target.

Quote: RonC

I do know that he is doing what he can to deflect attention from "terrorists" to "gun control" of some sort.

What should he be doing to combat terrorism?

Quote: TigerWu

What should he be doing to combat terrorism?

Combat terror.

Up the game. Subject terrorists to terror unleashed upon them. Hit them hard. Then hit them hard again. Take out leaders; take out rank and file.

Does anyone really think that he has done enough?

Quote: RonC

Up the game. Subject terrorists to terror unleashed upon them. Hit them hard. Then hit them hard again. Take out leaders; take out rank and file.

But what exactly do you want him to do, policy-wise? Your answer is just "kill terrorists." But HOW? Deploy another 200,000 troops to get involved in another decade-long ground war? Level their cities with complete disregard to civilian casualties? If you were Obama, what would you be doing, and what would you be ordering your generals to do?

Quote: RonC

The idea of the left seems to be to make attempts to further gun control here more important than attempts to kill ISIS/ISIL/Radical Islamic Terrorists. There is a legitimate issue with how this guy was able to buy the gun, as I have talked about here--but the left is sanitizing language in releases and talking more about gun control than terrorism. What is the old saying about never letting a crisis go to waste...

I get what your saying, but all of the post 9/11 attacks driven by radical Islam have been carried out by U.S. citizens. ISIS is very effective at utilizing the internet and social media to radicalize sympathizers or susceptible/mentally ill people that have lived in the U.S. their entire lives.

I think that is one of the reasons why the current administration uses weak language when approaching the issue, they believe anti-muslim rhetoric would add fuel to the fire in terms of U.S. citizens becoming radicalized.

Quote: gamerfreak

ISIS is very effective at utilizing the internet and social media to radicalize sympathizers or susceptible/mentally ill people that have lived in the U.S. their entire lives.

They may have born in the U.S. and lived in the U.S., but they most definitely did not become Americans, thanks to religious/cultural practices. Their trips to radical training grounds in the Middle East, not all of which our experts cannot even track, prove their lack of allegiance to their supposedly adopted country.

Quote:

I think that is one of the reasons why the current administration uses weak language when approaching the issue, they believe anti-muslim rhetoric would add fuel to the fire in terms of U.S. citizens becoming radicalized.

That is not much more than a cover story, not borne out by reality.

Quote: RonC

Combat terror.

Up the game. Subject terrorists to terror unleashed upon them. Hit them hard. Then hit them hard again. Take out leaders; take out rank and file.

Does anyone really think that he has done enough?

Given what he's working with, yes, I think he's doing what it's possible to do from his position.

The terrorists are not a nation. They have some geography that can be defined, but changes daily. They have no civic structure to negotiate with, no trade needs, no relationship with 3rd parties that can assist.

They operate from within schools, hospitals, and other structures filled with innocents and hostages. This constrains their enemies like us who place a value on those lives.

We are operating in conjunction with many other entities, MidEast, European, global partners, many with different needs and agendas, some that do not coincide with our priorities. Russia comes to mind.

The terrorists, though our primary enemies in the area, are not the only enemies. There are several factions looking to play the middle and use the ISIS situation in their best interests, not ours.

We are getting mixed messages and less than full cooperation from our allies and friends in the area, and yet those relationships are important to trade, strategic bases, and a post-ISIS world, so we can't just go in there indiscriminately. Iraq is a good example of why that doesn't work over there.

In many ways, this is the most complex and difficult war ever fought. What seems like a clear, singular objective (kill ISIS, both their leadership and the movement itself) has no clear course of action and no straightforward path to victory.

Obama is willing to do what can be done within those constraints. Pinpoint and take out leadership, starting with Osama bin Laden . Support and train locals. Approach other factions and help those whose goals appear to reflect ours. Work with other nations, most geographically closer and more affected overall by events there, in step-by-step elimination of terrorists and repudiation of their values.

If there were an easy way to fix this. If simply throwing money, manpower, and military at it. If we were acting in a vacuum. If wishes were horses.

Quote: TigerWu

What should he be doing to combat terrorism?

First thing to do today is to start calling it by its own self-proclaimed real name. Second is to assemble the country's own top tactical and strategic experts to work out short- and long-range plans and programs to eradicate the virus and vermin. Of course, after five years of sitting on one's hands and depending on drones guided by a not-so-secret air base in Las Vegas, the entire world sees clearly how that strategy has failed, accompanied by pitiful denials about what is the cause of the war.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Given what he's working with, yes, I think he's doing what it's possible to do from his position.

The terrorists are not a nation. They have some geography that can be defined, but changes daily. They have no civic structure to negotiate with, no trade needs, no relationship with 3rd parties that can assist.

They operate from within schools, hospitals, and other structures filled with innocents and hostages. This constrains their enemies like us who place a value on those lives.

We are operating in conjunction with many other entities, MidEast, European, global partners, many with different needs and agendas, some that do not coincide with our priorities. Russia comes to mind.

The terrorists, though our primary enemies in the area, are not the only enemies. There are several factions looking to play the middle and use the ISIS situation in their best interests, not ours.

We are getting mixed messages and less than full cooperation from our allies and friends in the area, and yet those relationships are important to trade, strategic bases, and a post-ISIS world, so we can't just go in there indiscriminately. Iraq is a good example of why that doesn't work over there.

In many ways, this is the most complex and difficult war ever fought. What seems like a clear, singular objective (kill ISIS, both their leadership and the movement itself) has no clear course of action and no straightforward path to victory.

Obama is willing to do what can be done within those constraints. Pinpoint and take out leadership, starting with Osama bin Laden . Support and train locals. Approach other factions and help those whose goals appear to reflect ours. Work with other nations, most geographically closer and more affected overall by events there, in step-by-step elimination of terrorists and repudiation of their values.

If there were an easy way to fix this. If simply throwing money, manpower, and military at it. If we were acting in a vacuum. If wishes were horses.

That rationale does not stand the test of time or history. The failures to uphold the many so-called red lines, the undermining of allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, the phony pronouncements of mission accomplished and victory in places like Somalia, Yemen, Egypt and Libya. Why would he be so concerned, for instance, about importing what his administration's own top experts like Brennan and Comey call thousands of unscreened immigrants from terrorism hotbeds? And why would a candidate like Clinton want to increase that 500 percent?

Quote: SanchoPanza

First thing to do today is to start calling it by its own self-proclaimed real name.

Something more specific than the "Global War on Terrorism?"

Quote:

Second is to assemble the country's own top tactical and strategic experts to work out short- and long-range plans and programs to eradicate the virus and vermin.

How do we know this isn't being done? How do we know there isn't a short and long term strategy already on the books that is being implemented even as we speak?

Quote:

Of course, after five years of sitting on one's hands and depending on drones guided by a not-so-secret air base in Las Vegas, the entire world sees clearly how that strategy has failed, accompanied by pitiful denials about what is the cause of the war.

Sending in a conventional ground force failed, too... what else should we do? Are you referring to the invasion of Iraq as the cause of the war? What is the Obama administration saying the cause of ISIS is?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Given what he's working with, yes, I think he's doing what it's possible to do from his position.

I figured some would think he was doing enough.

Quote: TigerWu

But what exactly do you want him to do, policy-wise? Your answer is just "kill terrorists." But HOW? Deploy another 200,000 troops to get involved in another decade-long ground war? Level their cities with complete disregard to civilian casualties? If you were Obama, what would you be doing, and what would you be ordering your generals to do?

1)Stop importing thousands of unscreened immigrants from Terrorism Central. 2)Take out Raqqa. 3) Support our allies like the Kurds. 4)Stop releasing tens of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants into the general population. Additional steps on request.