Author Topic: Orlando massacre  (Read 99047 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #50 on: June 14, 2016, 03:52:09 PM »
Well lets see if anyone calls me or anyone else that wants to lay the blame at a problem with Islam a bigot.  There is absolutely no doubt that Islam is abusive of homosexuals in virtually every place it holds sway.

Define abusive, because it is clear that in many places Christianity itself tends to be rather abusive towards Gays in many parts of the world where it holds sway. Although, there is a big difference between what Christians will do when compared to the typical Islamic response to finding an openly homosexual individual. They have a decent chance of continuing to live in the hands of a Christian, even with the Westboro types. A confirmed homosexual in the hands of a Muslim in much of "the Islamic world" however... I'm not putting good odds on their continued longevity.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #51 on: June 14, 2016, 04:03:46 PM »
Quote
Take me up on my challenge, show me the majority Muslim country where you would recommend you gay friends could move safely.  It's trivial to find majority Christian countries where they could do so.

How about Lebanon?  They even have an LBGT center in Beirut.

It is also trivially easy to find a majority Christian country where your gay friends wouldn't be safe.

So what does that prove?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #52 on: June 14, 2016, 05:03:28 PM »
So the federal government says there are about 800,000 people on the terror watch list.  And now the Dems are proposing that in addition to being denied their right to air travel without a showing of probable cause, they should also be denied the right to bear arms.  Hard to understand how those who believe in civil liberties (or claim they do) can continue to expand such an unconstitutional act on behalf of the government.  Of course, traitors in both parties still continue to rationalize the issuance of general warrants with respect to internet communications.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #53 on: June 14, 2016, 05:08:12 PM »
Ya, this one has always struck me as a, "Well they stop people from flying why not stop them from buying a gun?"  Then you stop and think, "Oh right, it's total BS that they can stop people from flying with out any due process."  :(

I'm honestly surprised it took this long for the idea to gain traction though. 

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #54 on: June 14, 2016, 09:23:41 PM »
That's the problem with a broad-brush approach, like banning Muslims and targeting whole groups of people because a small minority of their members do reprehensible things.  The no-fly list should be cleaned up, but I do think that guns are far too easy to come by and some shouldn't be purchasable at all.  Seriati, you never said whether having *any* gun laws is justified. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2016, 08:49:42 AM »
Lists of citizens are almost never a good idea. Government is terrible at getting it right, whether it is incorrectly expunging thousands of voters from registration rolls, making lists of known communists under HUAC, or putting people on a terror watchlist. It's like they have a secret room where they decide "let's make sure we err on the side of screwing people over".


AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2016, 08:56:38 AM »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2016, 11:02:51 AM »
We can expect to have more revelations about the Orlando shooter that will add nuance to our understanding of what led up to the massacre.  One new bit is that he did more than "case the club", but participated on gay chat sites.  It's hard to correlate that with any kind of research toward the killing.  More disturbing is that his current wife was at least aware of his general intentions to do something violent toward gays, though she has so far insisted that she didn't know of his specific plan to shoot up the club that night.  She also said that she wasn't sure that he wasn't gay.  Every new piece of information adds to the disturbing aspects of what took place.

Some "ifs".  If he had a history of violence against his first wife, if he had been twice investigated by the FBI for possible terrorist links or sympathies, if he had a history of hateful speech against gays, women and ethnic groups, if he had previously declared solidarity with both Hezbollah and ISIS, and if his current wife knew in some way that he was prone to violence and had just bought an AR-15...couldn't this have been prevented?  Dunno, but I think it's important to understand why with all of that it still happened.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2016, 12:15:18 PM »
I tried to wait a while before commenting on this so as not to be like Trump and (mixing metaphors) go off half baked. Unfortunately waiting a while didn't help me any so here goes. I'll just put it all in one post so like taking off a band-aid it will be more painful but it will be over more quickly. Warning: Some people may feel micro-aggressed and safe spaces may be invaded so just be prepared in advance but I felt the same way about some of the comments I've seen as well so...

I somewhat agree with Obama that an attack like this shouldn't be blamed on radical Islam. The fact is this isn't radical Islam. Executing gay people is just your run of the mill Islam, nothing at all radical about it. If that's not the case then what is the explanation for all the non-radical Islamic countries that have the death penalty for gays? Well some of these are radical Islamic countries but many of them supposedly are not. Would Hillary Clinton allow Saudi Arabia to fund 20% of her election campaign if it was a radical Islamic country?

Yemen; Iran; Iraq where the penal code does not expressly prohibit homosexual acts, but people have been killed by militias and sentenced to death by judges citing sharia law; Mauritania; Nigeria (48% Muslim, 36% Christian where federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment, but several states have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men; Qatar where Sharia law in Qatar applies only to Muslims, who can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation (so maybe that's fair but not really since I'm pretty sure gays can't get married there);  Saudi Arabia; Somalia where the penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed sharia law and the death penalty; Sudan: where three-time offenders under the sodomy law can be put to death; first and second convictions result in flogging and imprisonment while Southern parts of the country have adopted more lenient laws;  United Arab Emirates where lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law proscribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned. Keep Discovering and Fly Emirates. Hello Tomorrow.

I think there is at least one majority Christian African nation that has the death penalty for gays so any Christophobes can have that one if you want to make some sort of point about it. I just looked for it but couldn't find it though.

But anyway, the point is this is pretty much par for the course for Islam. Nothing radical about it. And there are plenty more Muslim countries with very harsh penalties for gays too even if they don't execute them outright.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-scrutiny-shouldnt-buy-gun/story?id=39814942

Hillary Clinton: Those Under FBI Scrutiny ‘Shouldn’t Be Able to Just Go Buy a Gun’

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One weird thing that Hillary Clinton just said is that she thinks people under FBI investigation should not be allowed to just go and buy guns.

Well for starters this guy wasn't under investigation. They cleared him. That has to make you wonder how good they are going to be at vetting immigrants from civil war zones not knowing a darned thing about them or their backgrounds when they couldn't even vet this guy when they were all up in his privacies for years and then cleared him anyway.

The other even more weird thing about what she said is that she just disqualified herself from just going and buying a gun since she IS under FBI investigation.

Is someone who isn't even legally qualified to just go and buy a gun really qualified to put their finger on the nuclear trigger? How does that make any sense?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/anderson-cooper-pam-bondi-lgbt-000000813.html


Liberals are hell bent intent on using the bodies of these gay victims of a Muslim terrorist attack to attack anyone who is against the promulgation of their gay agenda. They've made that very clear and aren't the least bit ashamed of themselves. But then they are never ashamed of themselves, now are they? This is a disgusting display of agenda advancing over the bodies of the dead and dying by this here fellow Cooper. Whether or not anyone in America is for or against the gay agenda doesn't have a blessed thing to do with what this Muslim terrorist just did and it is patently ridiculous to claim that a Muslim terrorist isn't solely to blame for this but some or perhaps even most of the blame must be shared by every patriotic American who was against gay marriage who also participated in this massacre; in fact pretty much pulled the trigger themselves with every bite of their hot and delicious Chick-Fil-A sandwiches.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And of course since this guy was an American citizen who was born here then Trump's Muslim ban wouldn't have done anything to prevent this since his parents came here decades ago.

Or in other words, It would have taken a Muslim ban thirty years ago to have stopped this.

If that's the case then it will take a Muslim ban now to stop an attack thirty years later, won't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-trumps-yapping-about-islam-helps-isis-181844244.html


So really, in the final analysis who is most to blame for this attack?

Some people say gun manufacturers. A guy at the ACLU said it's Christians. Some may blame people who don't want their little girl sharing a restroom with a man. Obviously many people blame Islam and Muslims.

But apparently none of those answers are correct because the smartest guy in the universe just found the real culprit for all of these ISIS and al-Qaeda attacks from the Mumbai massacre to the attacks in the Philippines, Paris, Israel, Brussels and of course 9-11. The responsible party has been right in front of our noses the whole time. It's Donald freaking Trump! Dun-dun-dun...

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #59 on: June 15, 2016, 01:39:57 PM »
Quote
But apparently none of those answers are correct because the smartest guy in the universe just found the real culprit for all of these ISIS and al-Qaeda attacks from the Mumbai massacre to the attacks in the Philippines, Paris, Israel, Brussels and of course 9-11. The responsible party has been right in front of our noses the whole time. It's Donald freaking Trump! Dun-dun-dun...

Huh?  That's strange.  From what I've heard, the smartest guy in the universe is Donald Trump.

I know this for a fact.  He told us himself.

Maybe I should get a second opinion... :)

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2016, 03:19:30 PM »
OK, got a second opinion.

He says he's also the most handsome guy in the universe.   ;D

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #61 on: June 15, 2016, 03:21:32 PM »
Meanwhile, FiveThiryEight crunched some numbers and discovered that "single-bias hate crimes" are much more frequent against the LGBT community than any other group (including whites).  :(

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #62 on: June 15, 2016, 03:41:57 PM »
Quote
* Why do we tolerate this pattern of extreme violence?

Dumb question.  Why do we tolerate Tsunamis?  An acquaintance of mine asked me how I "tolerate" my son's disability and situation ... apparently she meant why don't I opt for her personal solution to intolerable situations, which was to attempt suicide at least twice a week.  I don't think  my suicide would improve my situation and I don't think that sweeping gun control is the solution for present day violence in America.  Bloody idiots in the leftysphere are pretending that the alternative to gun nut violence would be knife nut violence, while anyone with an honest brain knows that the American nut jobs would go for something like fertilizer-motor oil bombs.

Quote
No one here wants to ban guns.

On the contrary, you and quite a number of others want to ban guns.

Quote
Does this event change anyone's mind about allowing people to buy and own AR15's?

Not mine.  I was against a public right to buy AR15s before this happened, and remain against it.  I also oppose a blanket ban on "assault weapons" because any honest person with a brain realizes that that's a loaded term prone to obfuscation an revision.  By some definitions, a 6 shooter semi-automatic 22 pistol is an "assault weapon."   I also oppose legal enshrinement of gibberish terms, and since any weapon is inherently capable of "assault", designing a special class of "assault weapons" is at the onset an exercise in obfuscation.

Quote
Does anyone believe that support of ISIS is the reason he did this?

Does anyone believe that ISIS and Al Qaeda had no influence in his decision to do this?  Does anyone believe that ISIS and Al Qaeda have not spent millions of man-hours soliciting this precise kind of act?

If major world christian leaders had put out the same sort of messages that Al Qaeda and ISIS have, to encourage this sort of violence, AND the killer had been quoting said sources, would you now be playing stupid about the causal connection?
Quote
Should we believe what a mass killer says about himself or instead try to figure out what mental illness drives him to act out in this bizarre way?

Says the guy who takes Hitler and Goebbels' word that they were "Christians" because of their public statements, ignoring statements they made in private denying that they were Christian.

"What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?"

Ban manufacture an sales of automatic weapons that use the same bullets as semi-automatics and others.  Track bullet sales for automatics.  Make mental health care more accessible. 

"Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?"

No.  But I can't think of any *premediatated* mass shooting of strangers, outside a war context, that is not an act of terrorism.  There's clearly a public relations dimension here.  In the "mass shooting" that crippled me, it might have been straightforward revenge motive against the judge, but it turned into a mass shooting when the killer realized he couldn't get to his target and started shooting guards, in a vain and unplanned attempt to get to the judge.  But here, as best I can tell, the killer premediated to kill all the targets, and there appears to have been a hate crime motif.  A hate crime by definition is a type of terrorism.  Like the KKK lynching blacks.  It's "to send a message."  Sending a message via innocent blood is terrorism per se.

Mental illness does not preclude terrorism.  I suspect that most terrorists are mentally ill.  I think Hitler was mentally ill.  That doesn't mean that World War II wasn't an appropriate response.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #63 on: June 15, 2016, 03:58:42 PM »
And in light of the rantings of this depraved fool, I think that every legislative jurisdiction in America should pass blanket legislation nullifying every law that contains the word "sodomy", a hateful and prejudicial word derived from a false and obfuscatory misreading of Genesis.  Let laws specify oral or anal sex, etc.  Our law should not propagate the hateful religious illiterate meme that any consensual sex act involves a supernatural wrong which can be remedied by mass homicide. 

Read by a literate human being with a brain, the "sin of Sodom" was attempted gang rape.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #64 on: June 15, 2016, 05:02:56 PM »
Quote
On the contrary, you and quite a number of others want to ban guns.
I'm not going to debate this with you for the umpteenth time, just ask that you stop lying and misrepresenting what I've said repeatedly.

Quote
Does anyone believe that ISIS and Al Qaeda had no influence in his decision to do this?  Does anyone believe that ISIS and Al Qaeda have not spent millions of man-hours soliciting this precise kind of act?
He's also sworn allegiance to Hezbollah.  Kinda plays the field.

Quote
Says the guy who takes Hitler and Goebbels' word that they were "Christians" because of their public statements, ignoring statements they made in private denying that they were Christian.
Is it absolutely necessary that you pop back up and continue with the bull*censored* statements about what I believe?  Your post subtracts from the conversation more than adds to it.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #65 on: June 15, 2016, 05:53:06 PM »
Quote
Says the guy who takes Hitler and Goebbels' word that they were "Christians" because of their public statements, ignoring statements they made in private denying that they were Christian.

Pete, who are you to say that Hitler and Goebbels weren't Christian?  Christians do all sorts of things.  They lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, sodomize infants, torture, just about every God-damned thing (literally, not a swearing) in the Book.  You know that if you think about it for half a minute.  I remember one guy who sent a woman's husband into battle to get killed, just so he could marry the babe.  And he was called "a man after God's own heart."  ::)

Why?  Because Christian is just a label.  It just means someone says they accept Jesus as their savior.  No more, no less.  They may not mean it, but who are you to say they don't?  What makes you think Hitler and Goebbels weren't lying in private when they said they weren't Christian?

What it means to be a Christian differs with each person.  There is no one definition that fits them all.  Hell, sometimes I think I'm the most Christian person on this board, and I haven't gone to church in decades.  I'm not even sure if God exists.  But sometimes it feels that my morals are closer to God's than any of you other guys. ;)

Christians are warming, loving and forgiving.  Christians are also bigoted, hateful, and selfish.  Everyone is their own Christian.  And you can't decree who is or isn't one.  Only God can.

Which applies to Muslim, too.  Otherwise, how can you reconcile cherry's list of Muslim countries that ban homosexuality and the Pew survey that shows that Muslims in America are more accepting of homosexuality than Mormons?  Because Islam means different things to Muslims, too, depending on their culture, their upbringing, and their individual personality.

So stop freaking out over what Christian means, and who is or isn't one.  It doesn't matter.  It's a label that you nor anyone else has control over.  Only God himself can clarify what it means.  And so far, He hasn't deemed it necessary to come down and clean up the mess.

And stop thinking that all Muslims are alike.  They are as much alike as The Church of Latter Day Saints and the Westborough Baptist Church.  Just because one is a bunch of idiots doesn't mean they all are.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #66 on: June 15, 2016, 08:05:01 PM »
I haven't gotten into the gun aspect of this but I will say for the sake of clarity that anyone who starts talking about the militia in relation to the 2nd Amendment is to every regular gun rights type of person such as anyone in or supportive of the NRA for all practical purposes as far as they are concerned, definitely wanting to ban guns.

If you talk about the militia and the 2nd Amendment and don't think you want to ban guns then everyone else is just very confused at what exactly you are trying to say.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #67 on: June 15, 2016, 08:16:04 PM »
I guess I will state my position on this in relation to guns and it's the same as it was years ago.

A gun ban could very well have prevented this if we had a well controlled police state like Singapore with borders that were almost impossible to breach but...

Historically the risks of this type of all powerful control of the government over the citizenry have resulted in tens of millions more deaths to innocent civilians than a thousand years of honoring our 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms ever will.

And I think I also mentioned that it's weird and ironic that the same people telling us that the fascist and racist police officers are running around murdering unarmed innocent black men at will and our military is a bunch of baby killers and rapists then turns around and tells us that the only people who should be trusted with firearms are our government's military and police.

In short, the solution is worse than the problem, however horrific the problem is. So there may be no real solution. The best we can do is do our best to try to prevent and mitigate the violence and death without opening a door to even more of it by disarming the citizenry.

How powerful do the weapons the citizens are allowed to have need to be? Well since their purpose is to put a check on a tyrannical government, the weapons need to be powerful enough to do exactly that. If you argue that our military is so powerful right now that there is no way the weapons allowed to be in the hands of civilians could stop them, then you are making the case that civilian weapons need to be even more powerful than they are right now. I don't go that far though because I think what we have is enough to give potential tyrants pause at least.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #68 on: June 15, 2016, 08:30:20 PM »
Quote
Says the guy who takes Hitler and Goebbels' word that they were "Christians" because of their public statements, ignoring statements they made in private denying that they were Christian.

Pete, who are you to say that Hitler and Goebbels weren't Christian?  Christians do all sorts of things.

Wayward, why are you playing stupid?  I did not say that Hitler and Goebbels aren't Christians because they did bad things.  Lots of Christians do bad things.  I said they aren't Christian because THEY said that they are not Christian, in contexts where they were speaking to themselves (e.g. Goebbels in his journal) or to their intimates (Hitler to the leaders of the SS).   Please don't play the lefty, always responding to your pre-made stereotypes rather that to what was actually said.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #69 on: June 15, 2016, 09:40:03 PM »
Quote
If you talk about the militia and the 2nd Amendment and don't think you want to ban guns then everyone else is just very confused at what exactly you are trying to say.
Very simple.  Gun regulations exist, but are too weak and don't have sufficient funding or staffing to enforce them.  I'll ask you the same question I asked Seriati, but he's too shy to answer: If the 2E is absolute, should there be *any* gun laws?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #70 on: June 15, 2016, 09:46:55 PM »
Quote
Wayward, why are you playing stupid?  I did not say that Hitler and Goebbels aren't Christians because they did bad things.  Lots of Christians do bad things.  I said they aren't Christian because THEY said that they are not Christian, in contexts where they were speaking to themselves (e.g. Goebbels in his journal) or to their intimates (Hitler to the leaders of the SS).   Please don't play the lefty, always responding to your pre-made stereotypes rather that to what was actually said.
I read (Wikipedia) that Goebbels considered becoming a priest upon graduation from Gymnasium.  Without insulting me for asking, can you show some statements where Goebbels said he was not a Christian?  That would be different than attacking the Church for its influence and trying to reduce the role of Christian institutions in Germany.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #71 on: June 15, 2016, 10:19:22 PM »
Quote
How powerful do the weapons the citizens are allowed to have need to be? Well since their purpose is to put a check on a tyrannical government, the weapons need to be powerful enough to do exactly that.
No, according to the 2E, the purpose is to maintain a well-regulated militia for the security of the state.  It boggles me how people like you can take an amendment consisting of only one sentence and completely ignore the part that provides the purpose and then insist that your right is guaranteed by looking only at the dependent clause of that single sentence.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #72 on: June 15, 2016, 10:33:30 PM »
Quote
How powerful do the weapons the citizens are allowed to have need to be? Well since their purpose is to put a check on a tyrannical government, the weapons need to be powerful enough to do exactly that.
No, according to the 2E, the purpose is to maintain a well-regulated militia for the security of the state.  It boggles me how people like you can take an amendment consisting of only one sentence and completely ignore the part that provides the purpose and then insist that your right is guaranteed by looking only at the dependent clause of that single sentence.

"For the state." Not "for the Federal government." It is to protect each state from a centralized military force. The clause in question is tied directly to the fact that the Federal government was outlawed from raising a national standing permanent army. That clause was beaten to death in WWI and then WWII for good. But the amendment cannot be understood outside of its context. So the argument about it being for the people to defend against the Feds is accurate, except I suspect it was meant to be more at the municipal/state level rather than down to individuals or small clubs.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #73 on: June 16, 2016, 12:51:52 AM »
Quote
Wayward, why are you playing stupid?  I did not say that Hitler and Goebbels aren't Christians because they did bad things.  Lots of Christians do bad things.  I said they aren't Christian because THEY said that they are not Christian, in contexts where they were speaking to themselves (e.g. Goebbels in his journal) or to their intimates (Hitler to the leaders of the SS).   Please don't play the lefty, always responding to your pre-made stereotypes rather that to what was actually said.
I read (Wikipedia) that Goebbels considered becoming a priest upon graduation from Gymnasium.
  Given his infamous instructions to fellow propagandists on the "big lie," and other statements he made (see below) he obviously viewed religion as a route to influence.

Quote
Without insulting me for asking, can you show some statements where Goebbels said he was not a Christian?

Got Netflix? Look up the documentary that does exerpted readings from Goebbels' personal journal.  He explicitly rejects Christianity and states that Naziism is his religion, and explains what that means to him.  IIRC it's read to you in the voice of Kenneth Branaugh.   It's just excerpts, and not IIRC the juicier stuff, but it's on Netflix right now, ergo low hanging fruit for me, since my better half has a NF account.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 12:54:14 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #74 on: June 16, 2016, 01:09:03 AM »
Quote
How powerful do the weapons the citizens are allowed to have need to be? Well since their purpose is to put a check on a tyrannical government, the weapons need to be powerful enough to do exactly that.
No, according to the 2E, the purpose is to maintain a well-regulated militia for the security of the state.  It boggles me how people like you can take an amendment consisting of only one sentence and completely ignore the part that provides the purpose and then insist that your right is guaranteed by looking only at the dependent clause of that single sentence.

It's not just "people like" Fenring.  It's any honest person with an education in the law.  The militia clause is "precatory language."  Google that phrase if you care to understand; I've explained it to you before.  Also, the "one sentence" you speak of is simple and absolute language.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is the strongest and broadest possible phrasing as far as contractual, statutory, or constitutional law.  To treat it otherwise is either lack of legal understanding, or intentionally playing stupid. 

The militia clause might be used to determine what sort of weapons can or cannot be protected by the 2nd amendment. For example, I think we can agree that machine guns, cannons, and nuclear weapons aren't the category or class of weapons that citizens need to have to defend their community in case of an emergency (which is what "militia" means in the constitutional context).  Militia means anyone who might be deputized, or reasonably stand in defense of the community in case of an unforseen threat.  But it's pure dishonest or ignorance to pretend that "militia" refers to police officers or military reserves or other modern institutions that weren't contemplated by the constitution. 

The bill of rights should be read expansively.  If the meaning of words change, we might consider expanding a right, and the 9th amendment leaves that open.  What we cannot do, what's a betrayal and prostitution of the principles that sustain our liberty, is to use newspeak to erase the meaning of part of the Bill of Rights.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2016, 01:19:12 AM »
Quote
And stop thinking that all Muslims are alike. 

Stop pretending that I think that, when I've repeatedly told you otherwise.  You're the one that ignores the pleas of decent and moderate Muslims to use the term "islamists" to refer to bastards like AQ and ISIS and Khomeini.  I'm unemployed with very little income, and the only money I've given to charity all year was to a Muslim organization, helping hands, to help Syrian refugees.

Quote
They are as much alike as The Church of Latter Day Saints and the Westborough Baptist Church. 

I agree with that analogy.  Why do you think I would not? 

I'm the one who has argued on this forum that Muslims as a group tend to value their word more than other groups.  I'm the one that pointed out that even Bin Laden expressed revulsion at the betrayal of the Fort Hood shooter.  Khomeini and ISIS are the exception when they issue fatwas saying it's halal to falsely swear loyalty in order to harm their enemy.  But when I've brought this up, it's you and Greg that counter-argued against my parole-based security measures, using the few dishonest Muslims to argue that one cannot obtain any benefit by appealing to Muslim honesty in any context.

In short, sir, you seem to have mistaken me for yourself.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #76 on: June 16, 2016, 01:52:54 AM »
http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/

Quote
So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

That’s just disgusting. There’s no other word for it.

America’s national attitude toward LGBT people didn’t shoot up the Pulse nightclub. This country’s national attitude has undergone a sea change in the past 20 years, by the way, in case the president hasn’t noticed.

An Islamist terrorist waging war against the United States killed and injured 103 people on our soil. We Americans do not bear collective responsibility for this attack. Quite the opposite.

Obama's got his head up his ass to blame Americans for the act of someone who preaches hatred of America and of the West;  In this he's no better than a holocaust denier or one who blames a victim for being raped. 

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2016, 08:00:58 AM »
That statement by Obama seems to be saying that if we were the gayest country on the planet that could have prevented this attack.

I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing how ridiculous Obama is.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2016, 08:07:08 AM »
Yes, the NY Post is the definitive source for deep analysis of a Democratic President. Yes, yes they are.  Do either of you think that - maybe, just maybe - this country has a problem regarding tolerance for LGBT?  If it does, do you think Obama might be aware of it and - might, just might - comment on that after someone goes into an LGBT nightclub and kills 50 people because they are LGBT?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2016, 08:23:36 AM »
Quote
"For the state." Not "for the Federal government." It is to protect each state from a centralized military force.
At least you acknowledge that the 2E is about maintaining a militia.  So, how does that translate into unrestricted gun rights?

Quote
The militia clause is "precatory language."  Google that phrase if you care to understand; I've explained it to you before.  Also, the "one sentence" you speak of is simple and absolute language.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is the strongest and broadest possible phrasing as far as contractual, statutory, or constitutional law.  To treat it otherwise is either lack of legal understanding, or intentionally playing stupid.

The militia clause might be used to determine what sort of weapons can or cannot be protected by the 2nd amendment. For example, I think we can agree that machine guns, cannons, and nuclear weapons aren't the category or class of weapons that citizens need to have to defend their community in case of an emergency (which is what "militia" means in the constitutional context).  Militia means anyone who might be deputized, or reasonably stand in defense of the community in case of an unforseen threat.  But it's pure dishonest or ignorance to pretend that "militia" refers to police officers or military reserves or other modern institutions that weren't contemplated by the constitution.
Make up your mind. How can the 2E be absolute *and* be constrained by the "militia clause" (Article 1, Section 8, which gives the power to the federal government to call up the "militia" in defense of the United States)?  Why can't whatever right the federal government has to restrict access to machine guns, etc., also be applied to restrict access to AR-15's?  BTW, I never said what militia refers to.  Your last sentence (highlighted) seems to go the opposite way from Cherry and Fenring and say that the federal government is now the upgraded militia, in which case they do have jurisdiction over the kinds of weapons (aka arms) people can have.

This topic is always fraught with competing interpretations, since different states did different things in their original Constitutions and some people insist that the Constitution has to be interpreted according to circumstances at the time it was written.  I'm tired of rehashing it all at this point, since we never get anywhere.  Perhaps when Hillary appoints a flaming liberal SCJ to replace Scalia the pendulum will swing back in the direction it was for the first 150 years of the country's existence.  If she has Democratic House and Senate control, maybe she can reinforce the lax laws and give the ATF and other agencies adequate funding to enforce them.  The way Trump is going, that's looking more and more likely.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2016, 09:19:04 AM »
What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

It is to maintain a credible deterrent by the citizens to act as a check against a tyrannical government.

Don't get caught up in the weeds of federal versus state. The state governments we have right now are almost certainly more powerful than the government of any country in the world at the time the Constitution was written and they have the potential to act with just as much tyranny against the citizens especially when you consider a climate like today where the state government, for instance of California, can hardly be depended upon to act as a check against a federal government ruled by the likes of Obama or Hillary. They will certainly be acting in cahoots against the citizens.

As for Obama and others blaming Christians who don't approve of gay marriage for this, as long as we are going to blame the victims now there is a better case that it is exactly the other way around and America's acceptance of the gay lifestyle is much more likely to be a motivating factor for an attack like this than the reluctance of some Christians to embrace it. Isn't that what Osama bin Laden said in his open letter to Ameirca? He is fighting against the hedonism, corruption, and immorality of Western culture and especially fighting against allowing it to gain a foothold in Muslim societies. Every indication is that ISIS feels exactly the same way but even more strongly about it. And finally to take it to the opposite extreme, the last bit of "proof" is that if Orlando had been a Sharia compliant city already instead of a focal point for the gay night life then this attack almost certainly would not have happened.  Supporters of what we're calling radical Islam (though I just call it regular Islam and think the exact opposite is true and that the radicals are the Muslims who truly believe in peace and tolerance) are fighting against our freedoms and our way of life and they want no part of it. Most of all they are fighting to keep it from spreading into the countries they consider their own and the more we try to push it the harder and more brutally they will try to inflict this type of violence and death upon us. That's why if we insist on pushing our way of life on them we have to go in there and conquer them first. Otherwise don't be shocked to see this continue and stop blaming Christians for it because they've got nothing to do with this. In fact if you look at ISIS the Christians are suffering worse than the gays so stop blaming the victims but if you insist on blaming the victims stop blaming the wrong ones.

Look at the Koran and look at the Bible and what they both say about gays. Which one is more emphatic? Leviticus is of course Old Testament which was fulfilled and now we have the New Testament which in some ways abrogates the Old. Jesus gave Christians several ways to justify avoiding violence against gays. Did Mohamed give Muslims any at all?

If you look up the way abrogation applies to the Koran it goes exactly in the opposite direction with the more violent parts coming later and therefore taking precedence over and supplanting the peaceful parts we often see cherry-picked. The peaceful parts of the Koran are earlier on when the Muslims were fewer in number and weak in power. Later after they achieved power you get more of the violence and what we'd call Islamofascism. And that still works today. Muslims will by and large be very peaceful as they set about making a beachhead into a country and that process may continue for centuries until they finally achieve the numbers and power to institute Sharia Law. The peaceful Muslims, if we want to give them the benefit of the doubt, may not even know how they are acting as part of a very long term process. Perhaps they believe with all their heart that they will always support a tolerant and secular society that embraces gays and Jews, Wiccans and atheists but it very, very rarely if ever stays that way after the society is Muslim dominant. They may tolerate other "people of the book" (Jews and Christians only) and that's only if all the stars stay aligned but don't expect to see a Mormon or Hindu temple go up in Turkey any time soon even as mosque after mosque is allowed to be built in America and throughout Europe. When the tolerance only goes one way it's probably already gone too far. If the vast majority of the Muslims in the world were so peaceful and tolerant then when was the last time a non Muslim place of worship was allowed to be built in one of their countries even as they build however many they want in ours? I probably got off on a bit of a tangent but the point is Islam in not as tolerant a religion as many people would have you believe, and the liberals who believe it are the most deceived of all.

“War is deceit.” - Mohamed (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269)

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2016, 09:22:21 AM »
Quote
It is to maintain a credible deterrent by the citizens to act as a check against a tyrannical government.
That's *one* reason, which was intended to appease people fearful of interference such as the King of England had the power to exercise.  That fear should have been assuaged quickly but the BoR was never updated.  There never was and is not government tyranny, nor is there any possibility that a citizen uprising could topple the government. Get over it, you're just playing a video game in your head if you think otherwise.

Quote
The state governments we have right now are almost certainly more powerful than the government of any country in the world at the time the Constitution was written and they have the potential to act with just as much tyranny against the citizens especially when you consider a climate like today where the state government, for instance of California, can hardly be depended upon to act as a check against a federal government ruled by the likes of Obama or Hillary. They will certainly be acting in cahoots against the citizens.
:D :D Now all of a sudden you are worried about states themselves being too powerful?!  You've spent years railing against the federal government arguing for state's rights, and now you're arguing for what, exactly?  Do you seriously think the citizens of California will rise up and overthrow their very popular Democratic Party government?  And if they do, do you seriously think the federal government will stand idly by?

I won't finish reading your post, my stomach hurts from laughing already.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2016, 09:32:39 AM »
Quote
It is to maintain a credible deterrent by the citizens to act as a check against a tyrannical government.
They why doesn't the amendment *say* that? Instead it explains the point is to maintain the militia, which might be raised by the People or the State but is still under the authority of the Feds. Nor where the founders likely to have many illusions about the viability of militia in defeating a regular army.

As Pete points out, the only relevant bit is "shall not be infringed." Then you have to decide what "bear arms" means. Like the commerce clause, the context and ramifications are completely different than when it was written. Ideally, you lot would just re-write the amendment but it's harder to that than the founders probably figured, too. Bloody paper king.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2016, 10:14:47 AM »
If you want to go back to what the Founders might have meant by "bear arms", here is a relevant definition from Webster's Dictionary of 1828 (there are earlier, but this is readily available online), relevant portions only:
Quote
'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility.

To be in arms to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.
To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
To take arms is to arm for attack or defense.
...
Sire arms are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.
Them's your arms, take your picks.

Another definition that the Founders were undoubtedly aware of and very likely had in mind when they wrote the 2E (from etymonline):
Quote
arm (n.2)
    "weapon," c. 1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, war, warfare," mid-13c., from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join" (see arm (n.1)).

Looking for the phrase "bear arms" you have to go elsewhere.  Note that the full phrase is "keep and bear arms".  The significance of "keep" is usually overlooked, but it is part and parcel of the intended meaning. Some states (Massachusetts and I think Pennsylvania, maybe others (but my books are all in storage so I can't check)) wrote into their state Constitutions that individuals were *not* to keep military weapons in their houses, but were permitted to have weapons suitable for hunting.  "Keep" (verb) could well have meant to store in an armory ("keep" as a noun was a commonly understood word meaning an enclosed and guarded area within a larger space; in this usage the noun form is synonymous with armory) under the control of "the people", which really meant the state or local officials. 

The second portion, "bear arms", meant to carry them for military purposes, though with an implied ability to carry them while hunting or for personal safety.  An AR-15 would fit the military usage, but not the hunting or personal safety ones.  At the time of the writing of the Constitution, every able-bodied male had to own a suitable arm (musket) and bring it to muster.  Beginning with the War of 1812, the federal government began issuing weapons and had a standard code of arms.  In other words, soldiers were *not* to bring their personal weapons when mustered, if the government could supply them with one. 

There is no right to own military-grade weapons, in other words, only those suitable for hunting or protection.  The right that shall not be infringed means no able-bodied man shall be be denied the right to own a musket for militial use (now obsolete), and there is no implicit right to have any weapon you want for private use with no governing laws for what they might be or whether anyone can have one.

Seriati and Cherry: But if I'm wrong, how can there be any laws restricting access to guns?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 10:19:30 AM by AI Wessex »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2016, 10:43:55 AM »
Quote
an AR-15 would fit the military usage, but not the hunting or personal safety ones.
  Why?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2016, 12:09:05 PM »
Quote
an AR-15 would fit the military usage, but not the hunting or personal safety ones.
  Why?
Overkill, like seriously overkill.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2016, 01:02:07 PM »
In the context of just having engaged in a successful revolution, the patently obvious reason for the 2nd Amendment is to allow future generations the ability to execute just such a revolution against their own government should it ever fall into tyranny. That's the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If you don't think American civilians could pull that off against our current government then like I said, that means the weapons that civilians should be allowed to possess should be even more powerful than they are now. But if Obama can't even beat 50,000 or fewer ISIS fighters I'm not sure how he's going to beat a hundred million or more armed Americans. If even a small fraction are anything like old man Jack Hinson it's going to be tough not to mention the civilians may have some support from parts of the military. But this nonsense about a militia being organized and that being an effective deterrent against governmental tyranny is just absurd. All that would amount to is an effective target for a drone strike.

For solutions to gun violence the most effective approach is as just about always, exactly what people like Obama and Hillary hate the most. The overwhelming majority of gun violence is from handguns, not long guns like the AR15. And I don't have the numbers but I'd be willing to wager a huge percentage of that is from criminals who have been in and out of the prison system many times including after using a gun during a crime. Stop the catch and release. Mandatory life sentences for any criminal using a gun in a crime where there is no argument for self defense, such as robbery, burglary, mugging, car jacking, rape, and so on. No second chances at more victims. Go after the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens. It wouldn't have stopped this guy but so far nothing Hillary has come up with would have either. He wasn't on a no-fly list and he wasn't being investigated by the FBI. He was a security officer for a company working for the Department of Homeland Security. The only thing that would have stopped someone like him is the Trump approach if instituted thirty years ago. And there's no reason not to help Muslim refugees either. It's five times cheaper or something to resettle them in safe places in the Muslim world than it is to bring them over here. And just like with that Mexican citizen who just earned class valedictorian at an American high school, Mexico needs good smart people like her now more than ever just like the Muslim world needs these freedom loving secular Muslims now more than ever too. And I wish them all the very best.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2016, 01:13:06 PM »
AI,
What, in your opinion, makes the AR-15 or other weapons that fall under "assault weapon bans", overkill?

If you ALSO include hunting rifles which also have removable magazines, are also semi-automatic, and fire the same rounds; then fine. 

As long as you understand that these weapons are functionally identical (IMO) to most modern hunting rifles that lawmakers do not propose banning; then fine.

If you believe the ergonomic advantage of a pistol grip over a more traditional long gun stock makes these worth special attention / restrictions, I'd like to know why.

If you believe a collapsible or folding stock does so, I'd like to know why.

If you believe these weapons should be singled out because they happen to be highly popular and feel that you can make the biggest impact on new rifle sales by taking out a very narrow criteria which just MAY be achieved when casting a wider net that would have an actual impact would fail; then fine, just be honest about it.

I want to be sure you aren't falling for propaganda and scare tactics and have a logical basis for your evaluation of why THIS weapon and this class of weapon deserve special attention / legislation.  Many of my friends are anti-gun or for "common sense" gun laws.  A lot of them exhibit a total lack of common sense however in their support for restrictions however (or are just uninformed).  They almost constantly make statements which are based on a flawed understanding of what they are asking for.  I'd say most (if not all before being corrected) believe they are asking for a ban on fully automatic machine guns that are used by our armed forces.  You know (or maybe you don't), the type of guns that are already banned* by federal law.  "Assault Weapon Ban's" have zero to do with automatic weapons.  That problem is already taken care of.

*or at least regulated so tightly as to be banned in all but name. 

FWIW, I can think of several reasons to be against "assault weapons" but don't see them as compelling enough to support a ban.  If you have any arguments that aren't spoon fed to you as party line / cause talking points, I'd love to hear them.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 01:18:19 PM by D.W. »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2016, 01:20:06 PM »
Quote
n the context of just having engaged in a successful revolution, the patently obvious reason for the 2nd Amendment is to allow future generations the ability to execute just such a revolution against their own government should it ever fall into tyranny. That's the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If you don't think American civilians could pull that off against our current government then like I said, that means the weapons that civilians should be allowed to possess should be even more powerful than they are now. But if Obama can't even beat 50,000 or fewer ISIS fighters I'm not sure how he's going to beat a hundred million or more armed Americans. If even a small fraction are anything like old man Jack Hinson it's going to be tough not to mention the civilians may have some support from parts of the military. But this nonsense about a militia being organized and that being an effective deterrent against governmental tyranny is just absurd. All that would amount to is an effective target for a drone strike.
A couple of things to clear up:

* Apparently you see Obama having failed in Syria despite having deployed the full strength and power of the US military, not to mention that we're talking about a sovereign nation other than our own.

* You think that the weapons that US citizens should own should be "even more powerful than they are now".  What weapons are you suggesting?

* Do you see 100,000,000 armed citizens ready to rise up against Obama?  Don't forget, they'll have to act fast, since he leaves office in 7 months.

* If it would be absurd to think that an organized militia would be ineffective against government tyranny, what kind of organization would those 100,000,000 people (mostly armed with handguns) use to overwhelm the highly organized military of the US government?

Wouldn't you really be suckering poor sheep to join you in a rush at the barricades?  Would you actually join them or being smart enough to know what would happen, would you instead be one of the people back in the underground bunker giving orders?  Let's pretend that you and the other 99,999,999 people go ahead and do this and somehow win.  What will the Day After look like?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2016, 01:23:13 PM »
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/16/gay-muslim-islam-is-no-religion-of-peace.html

An interesting perspective from a gay Muslim.

Obviously gay Muslims face harsh persecution in Muslim countries so of course they should be exempt from the Trump ban. I don't know how you determine if they are really gay or not but as a matter of policy they should be allowed to seek refuge in non-Muslim countries because of course it probably won't help them any to resettle them in most Muslim ones. Of course it's extra weird if this shooter was in fact a gay Muslim as this writer claims may be the case.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #90 on: June 16, 2016, 01:33:17 PM »
Quote
* If it would be absurd to think that an organized militia would be ineffective against government tyranny, what kind of organization would those 100,000,000 people (mostly armed with handguns) use to overwhelm the highly organized military of the US government?

Wouldn't you really be suckering poor sheep to join you in a rush at the barricades?  Would you actually join them or being smart enough to know what would happen, would you instead be one of the people back in the underground bunker giving orders?  Let's pretend that you and the other 99,999,999 people go ahead and do this and somehow win.  What will the Day After look like?

This misses some important points.  The theory (near impossible to prove unless it actually happens) is that the existence of an armed citizenry prevents armed oppression of that citizenry by the standing military.  These are people enlisted from the citizenry.  They themselves ARE part of the other group.  You would be ordering them to fire on the very people most of them signed up to defend.

So once you dealt with all the turncoats (if that's even the right word anymore) you still have to have a military willing to execute that order.  Let's give this argument the benefit of doubt and say you retain... I don't know 80% who are loyal and prepared to "do what is necessary". 

Now you need rules of engagement to deal with "insurgents" intermixed with "loyal Americans".  All while being scrutinized by the press and private individuals using their smart phones.  Oh wait?  Did we already black out the media and cut ALL internet / communications? 

The will to fight is a HUGE if not THE reason that the theory of an armed population has validity.  Not to mention WTF happens if the rest of the world sees our attention turn inward and our society / government placed in total chaos.  Anyone who thinks we need military parity with our standing army to "prevent tyranny" is hopelessly naive. 

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #91 on: June 16, 2016, 01:37:45 PM »
DW, this could turn out to be a longish reply, so instead I'll give you just some of the high points.  The AR-15 was developed for the military, not for civilian use.  It is designed for rapid fire military situations and has been used by the US military ever since Vietnam.  Mateen is reported to have fired at a rate of 45 rounds a minute, but there now triggers that allow almost fully automatic fire.  You simply don't need that kind of rapid firing to hunt.  There are lots of web sites that talk about "tweaking" the gun or ammo to improve accuracy or get around limitations or deficiencies when hunting large game (e.g, deer), but I'm not going to regurgitate what they say.  If you go to the American Rifleman web site they list the 10 most popular hunting rifles, and the AR-15 is not on the list.  In other words, it's one of the most popular long guns sold in the US, but not a particular favorite among hunters.  Much better to massacre large groups of people or defend against being rushed by zombies.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #92 on: June 16, 2016, 01:38:49 PM »
If Obama had any plans to execute a coup his massive failure to reduce gun ownership caused him to change them. The one thing you have to give him credit for, and everyone rightfully does all across the political spectrum, is that he has been the best salesman for the gun industry in American history.

Yes a 100,000,000 armed citizens would pose a challenge, at least. There are too many variables to account for them all. Are we talking about the government being ruled by someone who is literally like Hitler and is sending train loads of people to gas ovens so your only choice is to fight or get hunted down and killed anyway? Then would you rather have that AR15 or would you rather have a Derringer with which to fight back?

"You think that the weapons that US citizens should own should be "even more powerful than they are now".  What weapons are you suggesting?"

Actually that sounds more like you. I think we have a credible deterrent as it is. You think the civilians don't have a chance. So what more do we need to authorize for civilians?

"If it would be absurd to think that an organized militia would be ineffective against government tyranny, what kind of organization would those 100,000,000 people (mostly armed with handguns) use to overwhelm the highly organized military of the US government?"

Guerilla tactics obviously. Terrorist tactics. Fighting while blending in with civilians. Tactics that would be much more effective if the government didn't know who was armed and who wasn't as they would easily enough with an organized militia with a database of all its members so the government could raid all their homes and take their families hostage or kill them all outright.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #93 on: June 16, 2016, 01:42:10 PM »
Quote
If Obama had any plans to execute a coup his massive failure to reduce gun ownership caused him to change them.
Man, you drink kool-aid out of a firehose!  Let's see, he tried to get the UN to take away your guns, he co-opted vacant Walmart stores in Texas to round up citizens after he declared martial law during the Jade Helm exercises last summer, he's a Muslim agent planted in the White House preparing to overthrow the government and turn the US into a Caliphate.  What else?  Did he kill Vince Foster all by himself, or did he have help from Bill and Hillary?  As I've said before, any man who can fake his own birth is capable of anything.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #94 on: June 16, 2016, 01:51:33 PM »
Al, perhaps you can be the first to explain exactly what the heck Obama meant by something he said that the media, as far as I know, has never asked him about and he has never clarified:

Obama’s calls for a private standing army was made at a 2008 appearance in Colorado Springs.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set,” Obama said at the time. “We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #95 on: June 16, 2016, 01:56:05 PM »
Cherry, better not wait: Trump’s poll numbers sink into death spiral on the one-year anniversary of his campaign’s start!

Quote
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set,” Obama said at the time. “We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Why do you have a problem with that?  I think he's saying that the military can't always act on behalf of citizens.  If we did have a national service corps trained to respond to various threats, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

<<No more time to play with you today.>>

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #96 on: June 16, 2016, 01:59:32 PM »
No it sounds like he's calling for a military force but doesn't want to call it a military force so he can do an end run around the Posse Comitatus Act. Either that or he has a shill buying Glock stock and is making a killing in the market. 

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #97 on: June 16, 2016, 02:04:26 PM »
Here you go, cherry.  In context, Obama was calling to expand the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and the Foreign Service.  His point was that community service, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy will help bolster our national security. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

I know it's embarrassing to be caught repeating a lie like that Obama wanted to create a private standing army, carrying water for anti-Obama demagogues, but you can avoid it in the future if you use google and a tiny fraction of the skepticism you direct toward Obama himself.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #98 on: June 16, 2016, 02:08:59 PM »
My reading, and it’s not extensive, is that the “military” version (also known as the M16) is select fire.  The semi-automatic, while based on the same design, is the civilian (AR-16) model.  If the semi-automatic rifle (without select fire) is a standard issue weapon for the military, that’s news to me.

That said it does not discredit your description as “developed for the military”.  I would use the phrase “adapted from a military design”, but that may be semantics for you even if I find it an important distinction.  (or I'm wrong, in which case, thanks for the correction.)

I’m aware of the modifications you are referring to which emulate “fully automatic” performance.  Were any of those used by the shooter?  I’m all for banning those modifications.  (the ones that aren’t already illegal)  If you are suggesting that the “ease of implementing” these modifications on this class of weapons makes them higher risk and worthy of tighter regulations / bans; again, fine but make that argument specifically.  I don’t believe that would have (yet) prevented or limited a rifle related murder or murders. 

I’m with you on it being a poor hunting choice.  The shorter barrel and collapsible / folding stock exist for a reason.  They were adopted by the military for a reason.  I don’t think that the distinction is significant enough to save lives if we leave the hunting rifle alternatives alone however.  I tend to agree with your last statement that the manufacturers are selling a fantasy to their customers.  Maybe those reasons are enough to warrant more careful scrutiny.  I’m not convinced but there are some (what I consider to be) legitimate points of concern with this class of weapon. 

I have no problem with people arguing for an “assault weapon ban” as long as they are informed and know what that actually means and in what ways it could fail to have a significant impact.  Particularly considering the statistics on deaths per weapon type in this country.

Also, as an aside, I believe I read the other day that the AR-15 wasn't the weapon used in the Orlando shooting.  It was a similar "assault weapon" the Sig Sauer MCX.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 02:14:36 PM by D.W. »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Orlando massacre
« Reply #99 on: June 16, 2016, 02:45:29 PM »
Okay, you are absolutely correct SciFi and that's why I like hanging out here because you people are on the ball. That's a stupid name for it though. That's not a national security force at all. And it's hardly as strong and powerful as our military and not even mathematically possible for it to be just as well funded unless we cut our military budget by 80%. But clearly that part of the quote was taken out of context and I'm grateful you put it back in. I actually agree that it's a very good idea though and have even suggested something along those lines myself though I would keep service voluntary.

Although I'm hardly embarrassed about doubting the "greatest and most trustworthy politician since honest Abe with the most transparent administration in history" (sarcasm) because Obama is a proven liar many times over starting with his Grubering of America and even up to now with his deceitfulness on the Iran deal with Rhodes. Obama deserves all the skepticism everyone in their right mind heaps upon his name. And more.