# It never f******ng stops! (Gun violence USA) (apologies to rgray)



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Dylann Roof, suspected gunman, caught after 9 churchgoers fatally shot in Charleston*

A tip from a childhood friend helped police identify the suspected gunman in a *shooting at a historic black church* in Charleston, S.C., *that left nine people dead*, police say.

The suspect, Dylann Storm Roof, 21, of Lexington, S.C., was arrested during a traffic stop late Thursday morning in Shelby, N.C., and will be taken back to South Carolina.

* * * 

*The pastor of the church, state Senator Clementa Pinckney, was among those killed.*​
(CBC)


*Charleston church shooting: Hate crime, gun crime? Does it matter?*

Earlier today, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch declared that acts such as the mass murder of worshippers in a black church in Charleston, allegedly by a man fond of white supremacist symbols, "have no place in a civilized society."

She's right, of course. But a reasonable case can be made that South Carolina is less a civilized society than a predator's paradise.

In a civilized society, people have some assurance that laws, and the agents who enforce those laws, will shield them from predators, protecting the weak being the essence of civilization.

But even leaving aside its ugly history of race relations — the Confederate flag still flies in front of the state capital in Columbia — South Carolina, like many other U.S. states, is a place where the love of guns trumps the protection of innocents.

* * *​
Dylann Storm Roof, the prime suspect in Wednesday's slaughter.

There he stands in his Facebook picture, posing in a bog somewhere, the flags of apartheid South Africa and the white-ruled former Rhodesia stitched ostentatiously onto his jacket. 

News photo of the month, that one.










* * *​
One of the first news organizations to report Roof's birthday present was the *Charleston Post and Courier,* a newspaper that has a Pulitzer Prize to its credit.

*On the front page today, just over the headline CHURCH ATTACK KILLS 9, it featured a peel-off advertisement for "Ladies Night" at the ATP Gun Shop and Range: "$30 gets you everything!" Gun, ammo, even a souvenir T-shirt.*

The newspaper at least had the grace to apologize for that.

* * *​
Meanwhile, at the White House, the president was raising his civilized voice, once again.

"I've had to make comments like this too many times," Barack Obama told reporters, rather plaintively. He has spoken after mass murders at least six times during his presidency.

"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries."

* * *​
Obama went on to say that "it is in our power to do something about it."

But it's actually not in his power to do anything about it. He tried, after the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., in 2012.

The country was outraged. Most Americans agreed with him. Then the National Rifle Association started making some calls and Congress punked out.

Why would anyone think it'll be any different this time?​
(CBC)

*And of course, you can always count on the NRA to make a calming, thoughtful comment when incidents such as these occur...*

*NRA board member blames deceased pastor for the deaths in the Charleston shooting*

A National Rifle Association board member has blamed the political position of South Carolina State Senator — and pastor — Clementa Pinckney for the church massacre in Charleston that left nine people dead.

* * *

NRA board member Charles Cotton has said that if Senator Pinckney had not voted to oppose legislation that would have allowed guns in South Carolina churches, “eight of his church members…might be alive,” Politico reported.​
(Independent UK)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is either deliberately lying or an addled fool with his contentions that: "At some point as a country, we have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries."

Read it and weep. The US is about the same as other countries in the world:

Actually, President Obama, Mass Killings Aren't Uncommon In Other Countries


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Rather than a quantitative take on the USA vs other countries, a qualitative analysis would be more revealing as to whether the USA is particularly deranged.

Mexico, for example, skews quantitative results by having frequent *mass* killings tied to the narco gangs and police violence against, in a recent case, teacher-students in the state of Guerrero. 

Do things like school and church massacres happen more frequently in the USA than in other countries? - these are attacks on the innocent by (usually) individuals.

The breakdown matters, as the response by government / law & order establishment will vary according to the context.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> ... these are attacks on the innocent by (usually) individuals.


Yes. The *unarmed* individuals.

You notice no one walks into an NRA meeting & starts firing weapons...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

President Obama, as a community agitator, has inexcusably taken his vocation to the highest office in the land. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, as is the shooter in this case. However, Obama's toxic presence is part of the current problem.

This incident should be a reason for the president to talk about support for mental illness. Instead he turns it to attacks on gun rights. Completely disingenuous.



CubaMark said:


> Rather than a quantitative take on the USA vs other countries, a qualitative analysis would be more revealing as to whether the USA is particularly deranged.
> 
> Mexico, for example, skews quantitative results by having frequent *mass* killings tied to the narco gangs and police violence against, in a recent case, teacher-students in the state of Guerrero.
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Horse feathers & bull pucky.

The response will vary according to the politics _du jour_...



CubaMark said:


> ...the response by government / law & order establishment will vary according to the context.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

FeXL said:


> Yes. The *unarmed* individuals.
> 
> You notice no one walks into an NRA meeting & starts firing weapons...


I do not wish to make light of this situation, but I was surprised that no one in the church fired back.......hand guns seem to be everywhere in the U.S. and carried by everyone.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> I do not wish to make light of this situation, but I was surprised that no one in the church fired back.......hand guns seem to be everywhere in the U.S. and carried by everyone.


It's because, unlike NRA propaganda and the beliefs of folks like FeXL, having a gun in hand does not automatically make you a steely-eyed, cold, calculating, capable, one-man anti-terrorist SWAT team.

Human beings still have many of the eons of ingrained behavioural traits gumming up the works. As a species, we tend to panic in the face of situations like, say, a kid standing up in the middle of prayer service and begins unloading on the people around him. We run away.

Perhaps the mental disconnect of pro-gun types, who fancy themselves amazing bulletproof vigilantes should the situation ever arise, comes from their lack of belief in evolution - they dismiss those behavioural traits because, you know, 6,000 years isn't enough for such animalistic instincts to be an issue.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> I do not wish to make light of this situation, but I was surprised that no one in the church fired back.......hand guns seem to be everywhere in the U.S. and carried by everyone.


I have a feeling that many church goers in the US, regardless of their race or religion, keep their guns at home while in a place of worship.

"NRA board member Charles Cotton blamed Clementa Pinckney, a victim of the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, for his own death. He also blamed Pinckney, the pastor of Emanuel AME and a state senator, for the deaths of the other eight people killed. 

As a state senator, Pinckney supported tougher gun regulations and opposed a bill that would have allowed people to carry concealed guns in churches. On TexasCHLForum.com, a message board, Cotton wrote that “Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.” "

NRA Board Member Blames Charleston Victim For His Own Death | ThinkProgress


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He's right--they _might_ have been alive. However, this is not the time to say it.

Of course, that doesn't stop Hillary Clinton from using this reflective moment to try to score political points:

Hillary Clinton Suggests Donald Trump-Like Comments Can 'Trigger' Events Like Charleston - ABC News


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Marc and CubaMark, the common rebuttal is to arm individuals. In New Jersey it was arm the teachers, in Virginia it was if students had guns there would not have been an issue, in Colorado arm the staff. Now it will be arm the church. I am not a religious man but a Pastor asking for more gun control seems in line with his occupation to me ..... I don't think we will see a cultural shift in the U.S. on this even if a school, church, college, theatre is shot up everyday of the year ...... only a rise in gun sales I am afraid.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm afraid you are most likely correct, Rps.

And then we have the brilliant social commentators at FoxNews, claiming this was an "Attack on Faith". After the police were labelling this attack as a hate crime, these asses intentionally misrepresent reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIQnjz9JV8

Un. F******g. Believable. Oh, wait, it's Fox. Par for the course....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Turning your impotence on FOX News? Only took a few minutes.



CubaMark said:


> And then we have the brilliant social commentators at FoxNews, claiming this was an "Attack on Faith". After the police were labelling this attack as a hate crime, these asses intentionally misrepresent reality.
> 
> Un. F******g. Believable. Oh, wait, it's Fox. Par for the course....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Turning your impotence on FOX News? Only took a few minutes.


Rising quickly to the defence of FOX, MF. Sorry - are they off-limits? Should one not be critical of the media when they intentionally misrepresent facts? You seem quite emphatic that the media should be held to account in other threads... 

I also cited the *Charleton Post & Courier* earlier for their bonehead move advertising gun sales on the same front page as the Charleston lead article - you took no umbrage to that, so I can only conclude that you hold FOX near and dear to your "heart" (note the quotes), despite your previous statements claiming you rarely / never watched it...

Why do you attack the messenger? Your obsession with me is becoming rather uncomfortable...

But of course, much easier to focus on me than on the topic of the thread... misdirection _du jour_....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Marc and CubaMark, the common rebuttal is to arm individuals. In New Jersey it was arm the teachers, in Virginia it was if students had guns there would not have been an issue, in Colorado arm the staff. Now it will be arm the church. I am not a religious man but a Pastor asking for more gun control seems in line with his occupation to me ..... I don't think we will see a cultural shift in the U.S. on this even if a school, church, college, theatre is shot up everyday of the year ...... only a rise in gun sales I am afraid.


Rps, I trust that you don't think I was suggesting that if all the people were armed in that church that the shooting would not have taken place. What Mr. Cotton of the NRA said was reprehensible—even for someone with the hierarchy of the NRA.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I credit you for going after another newspaper first, since that takes a little more effort than simplly wailing F-O-X-X-X-X. 

My point is, why attack the media at all during this ordeal? That's just a sideshow.



CubaMark said:


> Rising quickly to the defence of FOX, MF. Sorry - are they off-limits? Should one not be critical of the media when they intentionally misrepresent facts? You seem quite emphatic that the media should be held to account in other threads...
> 
> I also cited the *Charleton Post & Courier* earlier for their bonehead move advertising gun sales on the same front page as the Charleston lead article - you took no umbrage to that, so I can only conclude that you hold FOX near and dear to your "heart" (note the quotes), despite your previous statements claiming you rarely / never watched it...
> 
> ...





CubaMark said:


> Your obsession with me is becoming rather uncomfortable...


It's not you--it's the gabble that you post. I would respond even if it were posted anonymously.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> It's because, unlike NRA propaganda and the beliefs of folks like FeXL, having a gun in hand does not automatically make you a steely-eyed, cold, calculating, capable, one-man anti-terrorist SWAT team.


You know nothing about my beliefs. You have illustrated that clearly time after time. And, when challenged to clarify what you perceive my beliefs to be, you tuck tail & go into hiding for another week until the smoke clears.

If you don't know, ask. Otherwise, don't put words in my mouth.

The problem with progressives such as yourself is that you think that firearms have to be waving in the air or firing to be a deterrent. They don't. The mere presence of a firearm, safely tucked away in a holster, will deter violence. It doesn't need to be drawn.

An armed society is a polite society.



CubaMark said:


> Human beings still have many of the eons of ingrained behavioural traits gumming up the works. As a species, we tend to panic in the face of situations like, say, a kid standing up in the middle of prayer service and begins unloading on the people around him. We run away.


Some do, some don't. You simply can't go painting the whole of society with that great big brush. 



CubaMark said:


> Perhaps the mental disconnect of pro-gun types, who fancy themselves amazing bulletproof vigilantes should the situation ever arise, comes from their lack of belief in evolution - they dismiss those behavioural traits because, you know, 6,000 years isn't enough for such animalistic instincts to be an issue.


Speaking of mental disconnect, Mr. Amateur Psychologist, you've stumbled admirably about your point regarding the flight response but you have completely ignored the fight response. 

Not everybody runs...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

And Obama said that Benghazi was triggered by a youtube video.

My point is, you need to independently verify everything, not limited to but including the original police statements.

Does it make sense that Roof, who, according to online reports, had black friends, would commit a hate crime against blacks?

I'm not defending anybody here but I find that a stretch.



CubaMark said:


> After the police were labelling this attack as a hate crime, these asses intentionally misrepresent reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Possible Republican presidential candidate, Dr. Benjamin Carson:



> The heart of the matter is not guns. The heart of the matter is the heart, the heart and soul of people. This young man didn't wake up yesterday and suddenly turn into a maniac. Clearly there have been things in his background, in his upbringing that led to the type of mentality that would allow him to do something like this. And one of the things that I think we really need to start concentrating on in this country is once again instilling the right kinds of values, particularly in our young people. We're so busy giving away all of our values and principles for the sake of political correctness that we have people floating around out there with no solid foundation of beliefs.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Possible Republican presidential candidate, Dr. Benjamin Carson:


Sadly, he won't get elected.

American society as a whole can't handle that kind of honesty.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Rps, I trust that you don't think I was suggesting that if all the people were armed in that church that the shooting would not have taken place. What Mr. Cotton of the NRA said was reprehensible—even for someone with the hierarchy of the NRA.


Dr. G, I didn't and it surely is.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> I'm afraid you are most likely correct, Rps.
> 
> And then we have the brilliant social commentators at FoxNews, claiming this was an "Attack on Faith". After the police were labelling this attack as a hate crime, these asses intentionally misrepresent reality.
> 
> ...


Why do you even watch this crap CM?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Possible Republican presidential candidate, Dr. Benjamin Carson:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.





Rps said:


> Dr. G, I didn't and it surely is.


OK. I guess I misread your intent. Mea culpa. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> You know nothing about my beliefs. You have illustrated that clearly time after time. And, when challenged to clarify what you perceive my beliefs to be, you tuck tail & go into hiding for another week until the smoke clears.
> 
> If you don't know, ask. Otherwise, don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> ...


What? :yikes: 

What possible evidence to you have to back up that claim?

Canada is not an "armed society" and I think we are generally speaking a polite society, whereas the US *IS* an "armed society" and they are certainly no exactly polite.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> What possible evidence to you have to back up that claim?


It's a quote from the late Robert A. Heinlein:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

What evidence do you have to the contrary?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Why do you even watch this crap CM?


He doesn't--he gets it from a "progressive" news feed that fuels his outrage.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> It's a quote from the late Robert A. Heinlein:
> 
> "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
> 
> What evidence do you have to the contrary?


See above, you replied before I made an edit to my post.

Just because a science* fiction* author makes a statement does not make it true. What evidence did he have to make such a claim?

You made the assertion so defend it if you can with research and actual facts and not just a statement by an author of science fiction.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, all you gun-haters out there... According to several articles online, Roof reloaded *5 times!*

Dylann Storm Roof, suspected Charleston church gunman who killed 9 in massacre, caught in North Carolina



> Chilling details emerged about Roof’s racist rants inside the church, the ignored pleas of his victims as *he reloaded his handgun five times* — and his release of one terrified woman to serve as a witness to the carnage.


M'bold.

Now, tell me again how one single, solitary handgun in that prayer group might not have saved lives.

The reality, people, is that these spineless freaks target the weak, the innocent & the unarmed because they know there will not be retaliation.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> You know nothing about my beliefs. You have illustrated that clearly time after time. And, when challenged to clarify what you perceive my beliefs to be, you tuck tail & go into hiding for another week until the smoke clears.


psssst. psssst. yeah, you. y'know what? I don't really care what your beliefs might be.



> The problem with progressives such as yourself is that you think that firearms have to be waving in the air or firing to be a deterrent. They don't. The mere presence of a firearm, safely tucked away in a holster, will deter violence. It doesn't need to be drawn.


That's insane. The death penalty exists. It hasn't stopped murder. The NRA and those who support its position on gun rights has challenged vigorously any attempt to restrict the ownership of firearms. Even a 24-hour delay for a background check is somehow an infringement on gun owners' rights. 

Dylann Roof was given a firearm by his family, despite apparently everyone who knew the man to be 'disturbed'. Did he have a permit? Was he licensed? Where did they get the gun? Questions awaiting answers.

And "progressives like you" - I used a firearm for much of my teen years in small-town Canada. Went out with my dad hunting rabbits, deer, pheasants. Competed in a few of those little "turkey shoot" contests too. I'm not anti-firearm. I'm anti- those idiots who feel they must "protect themselves" from some unspecified (but always alluded-to) threat that's _just around the next corner_. I'm against the lack of funding for mental health care that is so pervasive in U.S. (and more frequently, Canadian) society that results in people who should be nowhere near a firearm seemingly able to put their hands on 'em with ease. The second amendment _as it is interpreted_ by the majority of Glock- or AR15-owners is a crock.



> An armed society is a polite society.


Also insane.



> Speaking of mental disconnect, Mr. Amateur Psychologist, you've stumbled admirably about your point regarding the flight response but you have completely ignored the fight response.


I claim no great skill in psychology. However... even the most ferocious animal, when startled, will begin to withdraw before the 'fight response' recognizes the aggressor as one that can/should be fought against. But we're not talking claws and teeth. We're talking firearms. Once the bullets fly, the 'fight response' is meaningless if one is already lying in a pool of blood. 



> Not everybody runs...


I believe that most do.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> So, all you gun-haters out there... According to several articles online, Roof reloaded *5 times!*
> 
> Dylann Storm Roof, suspected Charleston church gunman who killed 9 in massacre, caught in North Carolina
> 
> ...


The weak? Really?

The reality is that psychopaths don't give a s**t about human life. Often times not even their own. It has little to notihng to do with whether or not they expect retaliation aside from the fact that they can kill as many people as they possibly can before getting killed themselves.

More guns is NOT the solution. The US has proven it time and again. They are awash with guns and the slayings just keep going on and on, so what is your possible rational that more guns would solve the problem?

In case you missed the news today Roof stated he wanted to start a race war so what does that have to do with the "weak, the innocent & the unarmed" he just went a place where he knew there would be a lot of black people so that he could hill as many of them as he could. he probably even hoped that a black person there was armed so they could kill and then start the war and he would be a martyr.

Sick minds do sick things and it has absolutely nothing to do with the *weak*, the innocent & the *unarmed*.

The more I think about your post the more I think it is misplaced, misinformed and just plain offensive on many levels.

Not talking about you, but what you posted.

This was clearly a hate crime conducted by a psychopath, to construe it as anything else is just pure political posturing on all fronts.

No one here has yet to mention the tragedy for the victims and their families and friends and the community. It seems as though due to the frequency of such events in the US we have become numb and have little to no empathy for those who were killed and the family and friends of the victims. THIS is where the focus should be and not on the politics of it, that can come later.

Just so it is said at least once, my heart goes out to the victims, their friends and the greater community of Charleston for what they are going through now. It is truly heartbreaking for them.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> Canada is not an "armed society" and I think we are generally speaking a polite society, whereas the US *IS* an "armed society" and they are certainly no exactly polite.


You haven't been out in public much lately, nor on the highways, have you?

People will just as soon walk over you on the sidewalk as lift their heads from their gadgets. Fewer & fewer people say "Thank you" for holding the door open for them. Even less will actually hold the door open for you. Bumping into you in a crowd is more & more accompanied with a look that says "Get out of my way" than a contrite verbal "Excuse me". "Please" & "Thank you" are practically non-existant in our vocabulary.

Signalling for a lane change or turning a corner is the exception, not the rule. Cutting you off or following too closely happens several times every minute. Stop signs, at best, means a slowdown to 30k.

This is happening all over Canada & the US.

Canadian & American society hasn't been polite in years. Heinlein had a quote about that, too. I've referenced it a couple of times on these boards. It comes from his book, _Friday_.



> _“A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot...” _


Welcome to today...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> *You haven't been out in public much lately, nor on the highways, have you?*
> 
> *People will just as soon walk over you on the sidewalk as lift their heads from their gadgets*. Fewer & fewer people say "Thank you" for holding the door open for them. Even less will actually hold the door open for you. Bumping into you in a crowd is more & more accompanied with a look that says "Get out of my way" than a contrite verbal "Excuse me". "Please" & "Thank you" are practically non-existant in our vocabulary.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the more than obvious condescension and rude post. (Good thing we are not both armed and live several thousand kilometers from one another or else there may be hell to pay  )

Maybe you should move to a different part of the country if that is your experience. 

I dare say I am "out and about " every much as you every day and while yes there are rude people they are not as abundant as you express it to be. 

I do agree with you though about people having their devices stuck in their face all the time, but that is not deliberate rudeness just being self absorbed and over worked.

But... how is everyone having a gun going to make it a more polite society?

We will still have "road rage" and people with their smart devices stuck in their face, but there will be just be many more shooting deaths because everyone is armed because they got "dissed".

Your argument is completely illogical IMO.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> psssst. psssst. yeah, you. y'know what? I don't really care what your beliefs might be.


Yet you ascribe what you interpret are my beliefs into multiple posts. For someone who doesn't care, you tend to spend a fair amount of time speculating.

Quit putting words in my mouth.



CubaMark said:


> That's insane. The death penalty exists. It hasn't stopped murder.


No, it hasn't. Why? For at least a couple of reason. First, because most murderers think they can get away with it. Know what? They're right! Second, in the heat of a gunfight, do you think most criminals are thinking, "Gee, this is against the law, idn't it?"



CubaMark said:


> The NRA and those who support its position on gun rights has challenged vigorously any attempt to restrict the ownership of firearms. Even a 24-hour delay for a background check is somehow an infringement on gun owners' rights.


First off, yes, they have. Why? Because it's a foot in the door. You know & I know & they know that once that elephant gets his foot in the door, there's no stopping him.

Second, all the gun laws in the world will not stop people from having reasonably open access to firearms. Know why? 'Cause criminals don't observe the laws in the first place!

Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?



CubaMark said:


> Dylann Roof was given a firearm by his family, despite apparently everyone who knew the man to be 'disturbed'. Did he have a permit? Was he licensed? Where did they get the gun? Questions awaiting answers.


The later reports are noting that the gun was purchased by him with cash given to him for his birthday.



CubaMark said:


> And "progressives like you" - I used a firearm for much of my teen years in small-town Canada. Went out with my dad hunting rabbits, deer, pheasants. Competed in a few of those little "turkey shoot" contests too. I'm not anti-firearm. I'm anti- those idiots who feel they must "protect themselves" from some unspecified (but always alluded-to) threat that's _just around the next corner_.


Cool. So you know how to fire a firearm.

And, maybe those "idiots" you so blithely condescend are thinking about what might happen to them, say, _just around the next corner_ in a church in South Carolina... Yeah, suddenly not so much fantasy & a little more reality, huh?



CubaMark said:


> I'm against the lack of funding for mental health care that is so pervasive in U.S. (and more frequently, Canadian) society that results in people who should be nowhere near a firearm seemingly able to put their hands on 'em with ease.


As I noted above... I bet you I could go out tonite with a wad of cash & purchase myself a handgun in a dark alley from someone of questionable repute. All the gun laws in the world are not going to change that.



CubaMark said:


> The second amendment _as it is interpreted_ by the majority of Glock- or AR15-owners is a crock.


There ya go with that 10 foot brush again.



CubaMark said:


> Also insane.


Well, that's your opinion. Have at 'er.



CubaMark said:


> I claim no great skill in psychology. However... even the most ferocious animal, when startled, will begin to withdraw before the 'fight response' recognizes the aggressor as one that can/should be fought against. But we're not talking claws and teeth. We're talking firearms. Once the bullets fly, the 'fight response' is meaningless if one is already lying in a pool of blood.


Like I noted. He reloaded 5 times. In between reloads there was more than enough time to move to defend oneself, _if they had the proper tools._



CubaMark said:


> I believe that most do.


Ah, from "all" to most". Good for you! Keep working on that...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Maybe the one who belongs in jail is the idiot dad. Lot's of different reports available on this aspect including some from the lamestream, but the quote below from the end of linked blog article should give you the picture. Then ask yourself what idiot father gives a gun to a kid he knows is taking a drug of that nature? How about asking whether the problem lies with guns or this type of drug?

The Charleston Shooting: the larger covert op



> *Update: CBS News is reporting that Dylann Roof was arrested on February 28 in a mall, while he was asking a store clerk “out of the ordinary questions.” At that time, he was found in possession of a medicine called Suboxone.*
> 
> *It is an addicting drug used to treat opiate addiction. Some adverse effects: agitation, hostility, hallucinations, attempted suicide, depersonalization.*
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Maybe the one who belongs in jail is the idiot dad. Lot's of different reports available on this aspect including some from the lamestream, but the quote below from the end of linked blog article should give you the picture. Then ask yourself what idiot father gives a gun to a kid he knows is taking a drug of that nature? How about asking whether the problem lies with guns or this type of drug?
> 
> The Charleston Shooting: the larger covert op


An interesting possibility despite the source. 

Going off any mental heath meds suddenly can have very serious consequences even those who aren't already psychopaths.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

CubaMark, I think, and this is a Canadian perspective, that the Second Ammendment is only half quoted when referenced, and I agree with you that those who quote only half of it get a myopic view of their "right". I would welcome a view from a U.S. perspective in ehMac land if we have any contributors out there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> CubaMark, I think, and this is a Canadian perspective, that the Second Ammendment is only half quoted when referenced, and I agree with you that those who quote only half of it get a myopic view of their "right". I would welcome a view from a U.S. perspective in ehMac land if we have any contributors out there.



Given the writings of the framers of the Constitution at the time it was written, it becomes very clear that they meant that individuals had the right to bear arms.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Given the writings of the framers of the Constitution at the time it was written, it becomes very clear that they meant that individuals had the right to bear arms.


Very true, Macfury. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Back then, there was a need for a "well regulated Militia" in that there was no standing army as there is today. Of course, some Constitutional scholars point to the statement "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Constitutional scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As Alexander Hamilton said:



> If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.


In essence, the right to arm oneself became MORE important once the US raised a federal army.




Dr.G. said:


> Very true, Macfury. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Back then, there was a need for a "well regulated Militia" in that there was no standing army as there is today. Of course, some Constitutional scholars point to the statement "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Constitutional scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> As Alexander Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> In essence, the right to arm oneself became MORE important once the US raised a federal army.


An interesting interpretation of Hamilton's Federalist Paper #29.

In #29, Hamilton wished to substantiate his main lines of argument, which were two: first, that American security depended on a national system of defense under the direction and control of a strong central government; and second, that a well-organized military force would not be a threat to the political liberties and civil rights of the people if, as proposed, all armed forces were placed under the control of the legislature, the Congress, consisting of popularly elected representatives of the people. Thus, gun ownership is not an absolute right, but subject to government regulation in order, as the Preamble states, to insure domestic tranquillity and to promote the general welfare.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Hello Dr. G and MacFury. In recent times I think the second amendment has to be the most confusing of the writings in the U.S. Constitution.
If my history serves me well, and it seems this is what you are saying here Dr. G, there were two early Supreme Court challenges to it both resulting in the idea that it did not mean arm everyone. It seems to me that as time went on the court bent to public opinion ( read corporate opinion ) and moved to provide a ruling that we understand to day as arm everyone. I think this was in mid 2000s. What is interesting to me is that there are a number of activities today that society accepts, such as ride programmes and stopping drivers for alcohol which could be deemed unconstitutional yet were deemed in the public good ..... Why, then, in the light of the U.S. History of senseless gun violence is adequate control measures on fire arms not in the public good?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Hello Dr. G and MacFury. In recent times I think the second amendment has to be the most confusing of the writings in the U.S. Constitution.
> If my history serves me well, and it seems this is what you are saying here Dr. G, there were two early Supreme Court challenges to it both resulting in the idea that it did not mean arm everyone. It seems to me that as time went on the court bent to public opinion ( read corporate opinion ) and moved to provide a ruling that we understand to day as arm everyone. I think this was in mid 2000s. What is interesting to me is that there are a number of activities today that society accepts, such as ride programmes and stopping drivers for alcohol which could be deemed unconstitutional yet were deemed in the public good ..... Why, then, in the light of the U.S. History of senseless gun violence is adequate control measures on fire arms not in the public good?


Yes, you are correct, Rps. The landmark decision in 2008 (see Dist. of Columbia v Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ) is the most recent decision that sets out the boundaries of gun ownership and use, and the restrictions allowed on both of these points.

"To secure domestic tranquility" and "not in the public good" have been argued back and forth since the late 1790s.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Macfury said:


> President Obama, as a community agitator, has inexcusably taken his vocation to the highest office in the land. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, as is the shooter in this case. However, Obama's toxic presence is part of the current problem.
> 
> This incident should be a reason for the president to talk about support for mental illness. Instead he turns it to attacks on gun rights. Completely disingenuous.


I don't agree. I don't think Obama is trying to be an agitator.

I think Gun Control is a long sell. It's important to bring it up every time there is a mass shooting. Eventually it will become part of the narrative. NRA membership is only 1-2% of the population, add the gun enthusiasts maybe you are talking 15% of the population (speculation, no source on this). The few should not speak for the many.

Obama is not stupid. He could quite easily make heartfelt speeches and appearances of support and stop there. He's in his last term, and most importantly support for the president goes up in the U.S.A. in moments of crisis.

I agree mental health is the motivation of the shooters. I just don't what anyone could do about it. These men (referring to the men in the last several shootings) are legally adults. The laws against involuntary commitment are different state to state, and are strict.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

smashedbanana said:


> I don't agree. I don't think Obama is trying to be an agitator.
> 
> I think Gun Control is a long sell. It's important to bring it up every time there is a mass shooting. Eventually it will become part of the narrative. NRA membership is only 1-2% of the population, add the gun enthusiasts maybe you are talking 15% of the population (speculation, no source on this). The few should not speak for the many.
> 
> ...


You raise many valid points here, smashedbanana. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

This may seem like a weird question, but , wouldn't not having this go to the Supreme Court, and leaving it up to the States be a better alternative in the long run. It seems to me that once something is constitutionalised it is almost impossible to change and impacts many other laws and statues.

As an example, and i am only using this an an example and not trying to derail the thread, the Supreme Court in the U.S. Will soon rule on Same Sex Marriage, once they do this won't it constitutionalise this and greatly impact the various other laws and statue meaning everything will now become a Supreme Court challenge, and I am not sure how experienced the court is in Family Law. So, with gun control wouldn't leaving it to popular view at the State level be the best way to go.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama wants gun control because it would further concentrate power in the federal government. Everything that man does is another way to make Washington more powerful. Guns are a bug up his ass, because it simply makes the populace less docile.

Most Americans agree with the Second Amendment. Studies show declining gun ownership and increased support for gun ownership rights.

Growing Public Support for Gun Rights | Pew Research Center



> For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.


On gun ownership:

Polls: Gun ownership declines - CNNPolitics.com



> A General Social Survey, which has been tracking gun ownership in surveys since 1872, has found that 31 percent of households reported owning a gun in 2014, which is down from approximately half of households in the late 1970's and early 1980's.


On Obama's centralization of power, this sums it up well:

The Audacity of Fluff: A Critical Reading of Obama's Inaugural Address - The Atlantic



> Obama favors greater central authority in health care, energy, education, gun regulation, and occupational safety. His underlings have actively undermined state efforts to decentralize marijuana policy. And on national-security matters, he has worked to centralize authority in the executive branch. In what way has Obama's supposed skepticism of central authority manifested itself in the last four years? I can think of no significant step he has taken to check it.





smashedbanana said:


> I don't agree. I don't think Obama is trying to be an agitator.
> 
> I think Gun Control is a long sell. It's important to bring it up every time there is a mass shooting. Eventually it will become part of the narrative. NRA membership is only 1-2% of the population, add the gun enthusiasts maybe you are talking 15% of the population (speculation, no source on this). The few should not speak for the many.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> This may seem like a weird question, but , wouldn't not having this go to the Supreme Court, and leaving it up to the States be a better alternative in the long run. It seems to me that once something is constitutionalised it is almost impossible to change and impacts many other laws and statues.
> 
> As an example, and i am only using this an an example and not trying to derail the thread, the Supreme Court in the U.S. Will soon rule on Same Sex Marriage, once they do this won't it constitutionalise this and greatly impact the various other laws and statue meaning everything will now become a Supreme Court challenge, and I am not sure how experienced the court is in Family Law. So, with gun control wouldn't leaving it to popular view at the State level be the best way to go.


The issue of states rights vs the individual rights vs the collective good of federal rights was argued over and over and over again by the founding fathers and then on and on and on up to today. The Civil War was fought initially over this issue. It was only after the Civil War that the term "The United States of America" was used. Prior to the CW, it was "These United States of America". 

There are necessary constraints upon the rights of each state to do as they please, such as the restrictions some southern states placed upon African-Americans when it came to voting and other civil rights.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> So, with gun control wouldn't leaving it to popular view at the State level be the best way to go.


You would need to change the Constitution first. Thankfully, not an easy task.

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled twice in recent years to relax gun bans in DC and Chicago, because those bans violate the Constitution.

However, a Supreme Court ruling does not Constitutionalize something. It is only a legal precedent.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thankfully, Democrats lost the war of public opinion on slavery.



Dr.G. said:


> There are necessary constraints upon the rights of each state to do as they please, such as the restrictions some southern states placed upon African-Americans when it came to voting and other civil rights.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Thankfully, Democrats lost the war of public opinion on slavery.


True. However, the Democrats and Republicans back then are totally different parties now. Lincoln would be cast out of the Republican party now unless he ran in a fairly liberal (small L) thinking, open-minded Republican/Democratic district.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> However, a Supreme Court ruling does not Constitutionalize something. It is only a legal precedent.


No so sure about that, I think it does as the subsets to the legislation fall under precedent. Therefore each legislative change would be open to challenge.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suppose you can dream, Dr. G.



Dr.G. said:


> True. However, the Democrats and Republicans back then are totally different parties now. Lincoln would be cast out of the Republican party now unless he ran in a fairly liberal (small L) thinking, open-minded Republican/Democratic district.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I suppose you can dream, Dr. G.


Imagine, a two-term Obama presidency followed by a two-term A. Lincoln presidency ............ that would be a dream come true ............. and then throw in a couple of terms of FDR and we would see the "rebirth" of a new America. "I have a dream ..............."

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Imagine, a two-term Obama presidency followed by a two-term A. Lincoln presidency ............ that would be a dream come true ............. and then throw in a couple of terms of FDR and we would see the "rebirth" of a new America. "I have a dream ..............."
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Say Dr. G, have you changed your favourite beverage!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Imagine, a two-term Obama presidency followed by a two-term A. Lincoln presidency ............ that would be a dream come true ............. and then throw in a couple of terms of FDR and we would see the "rebirth" of a new America. "I have a dream ..............."
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


It would be an authoritarian America ridden with corruption, incompetence and bullying.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It would be an authoritarian America ridden with corruption, incompetence and bullying.


In other words, the status quo...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Say Dr. G, have you changed your favourite beverage!


No, just dreaming of what would be great for the USA these days. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It would be an authoritarian America ridden with corruption, incompetence and bullying.


You are thinking of a Republican presidency .................. a reign of Democratic presidents would bring in a progressive agenda.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> You are thinking of a Republican presidency .................. a reign of Democratic presidents would bring in a progressive agenda.


"Progressivism" is authoritarianism. Coercion to conform to various social programs through central control. You are all mixed up.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Obama wants gun control because it would further concentrate power in the federal government. Everything that man does is another way to make Washington more powerful. Guns are a bug up his ass, because it simply makes the populace less docile.
> 
> Most Americans agree with the Second Amendment. Studies show declining gun ownership and increased support for gun ownership rights.
> 
> Growing Public Support for Gun Rights | Pew Research Center


I don't follow you on how a national approach to gun control would centralize power more or less. 

I don't agree that gun ownership makes the population less docile. I agree that it probably makes those people more active when it comes to gun control policy, but I don't think that makes them more politically active as a whole.

That study is a poll of 1500 people, I don't put as much weight in it as you maybe do.



Macfury said:


> On gun ownership:
> 
> Polls: Gun ownership declines - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> ...


This might be true. Or it might just be the way things are. The president can only work from Washington. He can's stand up and propose things on a state level.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> "Progressivism" is authoritarianism. Coercion to conform to various social programs through central control. You are all mixed up.


Not so. Luckily, you are able to be self-sustaining, but there are others who cannot make it without some help. So, let's agree to disagree on this issue and move on to the next election ........... which, sadly, will not have either Lincoln or FDR running.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

This is for Macfury. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Roosevelt's wrong-headed policies stretched out the Depression beyond anyone's imaginings. Having a federal government stronger than the private sector has led to the crony capitalism mastered by Obama.

Roosevelt's definition of fascism is so far off it's laughable. It is industry dominated by and doing the bidding of government, not the reverse.

Let's not agree to disagree, Dr. G. Let's simply agree that you are wrong.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Let's not agree to disagree, Dr. G. Let's simply agree that you are wrong.


Not going to happen, Macfury. Still, you are my brother and all I can say is "He ain't heavy, he's my brother." Paix, mon frère.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He is heavy, and he's my bother.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> "Progressivism" is authoritarianism. Coercion to conform to various social programs through central control. You are all mixed up.


Or... you're seeing monsters in the closet that just aren't there....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Roosevelt's wrong-headed policies stretched out the Depression beyond anyone's imaginings. Having a federal government stronger than the private sector has led to the crony capitalism mastered by Obama.


He's both a Kenya-borne, secret-muslim, authoritarian progressive evil genius and an incompetent community organizer-occupier of the Oval Office with no idea what 'real' 'murica is all about.

That Obama, he's an enigma!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> He is heavy, and he's my bother.


Well, we shall then both have to support our younger brother, Ralph. That is the progressive libertarian way to treat those in need. Not sure where we are going to take him, however.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> He's both a Kenya-borne, secret-muslim, authoritarian progressive evil genius and an incompetent community organizer-occupier of the Oval Office with no idea what 'real' 'murica is all about.
> 
> That Obama, he's an enigma!


:lmao::clap::lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You need to take a class in building straw man arguments, CM.

"Progressive," but largely incompetent and unable to handle such complex tasks as balancing budgets or negotiating on behalf of his country on the world stage. Petty and authoritarian. There's a nice unity to that.





CubaMark said:


> He's both a Kenya-borne, secret-muslim, authoritarian progressive evil genius and an incompetent community organizer-occupier of the Oval Office with no idea what 'real' 'murica is all about.
> 
> That Obama, he's an enigma!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Or... you're seeing monsters in the closet that just aren't there....


I don't think that those are monsters in the closet .................. they are something much worse .................... doxies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  XX)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> "Progressive," but largely incompetent and unable to handle such complex tasks as balancing budgets or negotiating on behalf of his country on the world stage. Petty and authoritarian. There's a nice unity to that.


Sadly, this describes George Bush quite well. You are accurate in your analysis of the 8 years of Pres. Bush.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, this describes George Bush quite well. You are accurate in your analysis of the 8 years of Pres. Bush.


You think of George Bush as "progressive"? That counters everything you've said before. Certainly a bit of a "fail" post on your part Dr. G.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> You think of George Bush as "progressive"? That counters everything you've said before. Certainly a bit of a "fail" post on your part Dr. G.


No, Pres. Obama is the progressive, mon ami. Pres. Bush failed the nation he was sworn to "preserve, protect and defend." Glad we agree at least on this point. See, brothers do share a common bond. Paix, mon frère.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G., it may be time for a nap on your part. 



Dr.G. said:


> No, Pres. Obama is the progressive, mon ami. Pres. Bush failed the nation he was sworn to "preserve, protect and defend." Glad we agree at least on this point. See, brothers do share a common bond. Paix, mon frère.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Dr.G., it may be time for a nap on your part.


Well, I am your older brother, but I do have a great deal of grading to do, so you shall have to take my place at the "nap center". Paix, mon frère.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, I am your older brother, but I do have a great deal of grading to do, so you shall have to take my place at the "nap center". Paix, mon frère.


I am working well into the night. Let's see who lasts the longest.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I am working well into the night. Let's see who lasts the longest.


You win. :clap:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hmmm, lots of conflicting reports on how Roof actually acquired the firearm. Some say it was gifted from his father, some say he purchased it himself with money gifted from his father, whatever. Either way...

Dylann Roof Could Not Legally Carry a Firearm



> ...[R]adio host and Second Amendment warrior Dana Loesch has revealed that under current South Carolina law, shooter Dylann Roof was already ineligible to purchase or carry a firearm due to a previous felony conviction and would have failed a background check.


So, despite the fact that laws were in place to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> You would need to change the Constitution first. Thankfully, not an easy task.
> 
> In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled twice in recent years to relax gun bans in DC and Chicago, because those bans violate the Constitution.
> *
> However, a Supreme Court ruling does not Constitutionalize something. It is only a legal precedent.*


No it does not, but in Canada it can declare a law unconstitutional and can create a provision in their ruling to compel the Government to come up with new legislation in a certain time frame to make it adhere to the Constitution.

But not knowing the US system as well as you do Mf, are you saying that unlike a Supreme Court ruling here the SC in the US cannot compel the Government to make a change to a given law to make it adhere to the US Constitution if found to be unconstitutional??

If not then seems a little strange to me.



Rps said:


> No so sure about that, I think it does as the subsets to the legislation fall under precedent. Therefore each legislative change would be open to challenge.


Not really sure what you are saying here Rps. 

The Constitution is created by Legislatures not the Judiciary. As mentioned above in Canada the Judiciary can compel Parliament to make changes to the legislation if it is found to be unconstitutional. But the Judiciary plays no role in forming new Legislation, they can make recommendations in their ruling but it is up to Parliament to change legislation.

Then if there is a Constitutional challenge to the new law, the process starts all over again.

But in the end the Judiciary can only rule on whether or not a given law is Constitutional. They do not create the law of the land, i.e., in this case under discussion, the Constitution.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> I don't follow you on how a national approach to gun control would centralize power more or less.
> 
> I don't agree that gun ownership makes the population less docile. I agree that it probably makes those people more active when it comes to gun control policy, but I don't think that makes them more politically active as a whole.
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure he can't. 

Certainly he can't propose State Legislation in a State Legislature but IMO he can stand up publicly and say what he thinks and propose things that a given State Legislature could do that are under State legislative authority. It may not be common practice but I don't think there is anything illegal for a President to do so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In the US, the Supreme Court can decide--or undecide--how the Constitution applies to a specific issue. However, the Constitution itself does not changeas a result of that ruling.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Screature, my point was that once an action has been deemed unconstitutional then all the laws that touch that subject become open to challenge if someone wants to mount a challenge .... Not unlike our laws. Case in point if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favour of same sex marriage ( as an example ) then all laws that touch it came under challenge, such as the parental rights of an unborn child to a lesbian couple. Gun control, the topic here, has had a back and forth argument for years. The real issue with the U.S. Constitution, and I think MacFury said it best sometime ago is that half the challenges are because people are trying to take its wording literally, and the other half try to interpret what they think the Founding Fathers were thinking. Ours is a very young country with a very young constitution ..... so we will be fraught with problems when we ammend ours to any great degree. Sometimes I think we were better off with out one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> In the US, the Supreme Court can decide--or undecide--how the Constitution applies to a specific issue. However, the Constitution itself does not changeas a result of that ruling.


True. Only by the difficult amendment process can the US Constitution change. Sadly, this process is preventing the dismantling of the Canadian Senate since no one really wants to open up the "can of worms" that would be required to change the Canadian Constitution.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A black president speaks about race and no one hears*

Former Texas governor, presidential aspirant and handgun-toter *Rick Perry actually called the shooting* — in which a young white man joined an evening prayer service at an historic black church, made a bunch of racist comments and then shot and killed nine people — "*an accident*."​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They hear it, but they may no longer be listening. It might be because the "black president" has managed to inflame tense racial situations several times in his presidency. I doubt people are taking him seriously at this point.

Perry says he intended to say "incident." I suppose you were just lifting typically low-quality inflammatory reports straight off the aggregator.



CubaMark said:


> *A black president speaks about race and no one hears*
> 
> Former Texas governor, presidential aspirant and handgun-toter *Rick Perry actually called the shooting* — in which a young white man joined an evening prayer service at an historic black church, made a bunch of racist comments and then shot and killed nine people — "*an accident*."​
> (CBC)


Question: Why are "progressives" so eager to politicize this tragedy? Who cares what either Obama or Rick Perry are saying?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> They hear it, but they may no longer be listening. It might be because the "black president" has managed to inflame tense racial situations several times in his presidency. I doubt people are taking him seriously at this point.
> 
> Perry says he intended to say "incident." I suppose you were just lifting typically low-quality inflammatory reports straight off the aggregator.
> 
> ...


He obviously misspoke as there is no way you could possibly confuse this with an accident. I concur with your questioning of the politicization of such tragedy.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Question: Why are "progressives" so eager to politicize this tragedy?





MacGuiver said:


> I concur with your questioning of the politicization of such tragedy.


One rarely hears about violence in the MSM unless it is whites against blacks. 

Twelve people were shot & one killed at a block party in Detroit over the weekend. There were over 400 people in attendance. Nobody is coming forward with any details. No skin color mentioned in any of the articles. Any bets the shooter wasn't white? If he/she/it would have been, it would have been all over the news. This under-reported killing doesn't fit the agenda.

Seven people were shot in Philadelphia over the weekend, the second similar attack in 2 days. A black male is being sought by police. Again, this under-reported killing doesn't fit the agenda.

The first attack in Philly was also at a block party and 7 more people were shot & injured. Anybody hear anything about that? Not likely. Once more, doesn't fit the agenda.

An interesting article:


A Racial Fort Sumter?



> When I heard about last Wednesday’s spree, I thought of the 2010’s Hartford Distributors shooting, wherein Omar Thornton, a black former employee of a beer distribution company, shot eight white former coworkers to death before killing himself. Thornton’s white girlfriend would claim that he’d been taunted with racial epithets while at work, although even the nonwhite employees at the company denied that any such events ever occurred.
> 
> As with last week’s Charleston shooting, racial animus appeared to be a motivating factor for Thornton. The main difference is that you’ve likely never heard of Omar Thornton, while you are already painfully aware of Dylann Roof.
> 
> ...


M'bold.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Screature, my point was that once an action has been deemed unconstitutional *then all the laws that touch that subject become open to challenge if someone wants to mount a challenge* .... Not unlike our laws. Case in point if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favour of same sex marriage ( as an example ) then all laws that touch it came under challenge, such as the parental rights of an unborn child to a lesbian couple. Gun control, the topic here, has had a back and forth argument for years. The real issue with the U.S. Constitution, and I think MacFury said it best sometime ago is that half the challenges are because people are trying to take its wording literally, and the other half try to interpret what they think the Founding Fathers were thinking. Ours is a very young country with a very young constitution ..... so we will be fraught with problems when we ammend ours to any great degree. Sometimes I think we were better off with out one.


All the laws? Are you sure? Can you provide a citation in law that states that.

Just because the SC deems that a law is unconstitutional does not mean that all sections of the law are unconstitutional. i.e. It can be deemed unconstitutional, because of a specific section or sections. So the only way that a challenge could be successfully won on a law that has adjunct references to the law deemed unconstitutional is if they refer to the Section(s) that were deemed unconstitutional. At least that is my understanding from my lawyer friends.

Also I would think, but do not know for sure, that any challenge that occurred during the time frame set out by the SC for the Government to in place new legislation would effectively be in legal limbo until that new legislation came into place.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

In the mean time, progressive heads are exploding...

Red Flag: The Cowardice of the Media and the Courage of Charleston



> As Charleston marched in unity at sunset on Sunday night, two things were conspicuously missing. One was the progressive paid-agitation mob, normally so prevalent whenever an eager media trains its cameras on torched buildings and tear gas.


Further:



> But then something happened. This time was different. This time things didn’t go according to the their plan. This time, spurred on by the courage of families left behind, forgiving an unforgivable monster, with arms linked on bridges and church pews, *Charleston joined together and made it known to racial extremists, both black and white, that their community would not be defined by them.
> 
> Hate would not win.*


Yeah, kinda *unlike* Baltimore, _et al._

And where was the leader of the free world?



> Obama entered the White House briefing room the morning after the attack, gave a short two minute statement, lectured the country about gun control and then got on his airplane and flew away to Hollywood. Beyond a couple sparse tweets, that was all we heard from him. It takes a truly special brand of narcissism to decide to sit out the healing and grieving process a country takes upon itself in its President’s absence, yet at the same time scold it from an iPhone at Tyler Perry’s house or a golf course in Palm Springs.


Oh, & further on that "despicable" flag, CM:



> Republican Presidential candidates were being made to answer for a Democrat battle flag, representing a Democrat war in a chapter of American history remembered as a Democrat revolt against the Republican proposition that human beings shouldn’t be held as chattel property.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Screature, you make valid points, but we are talking about U.S. actions here and the States Rights question rises it's ugly head. Take Michigan, it recently passed a law that, in essence, states you can refuse an action if it violates your religious beliefs. This has been called a mask for anti-same sex marriage opinions. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favour of same sex marriage ( which I don't think they will do, but rule to hold valid those same who are married in another jurisdiction ) then this opens up to challenge that law as one could argue that it is a discriminatory bill. Here is the issue with gun laws, State Rights will complicate the matter.

From my perspective, and look at the furor over the Long Gun Registry here in Canada ( and was it really just over the cost of the thing.....) we require a cultural change with respect to guns in the world ...... and any cultural change is either slow in coming or takes an action of biblical proportion ...... as I say you could shoot up every primary, high, advanced school in the country all that would happen is the people of the U.S. Would arm themselves more.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Oh, & further on that "despicable" flag, CM:


I find it more than amusing that you and others on the Right continue to equate the modern Democrat and Republican parties with their historical namesakes. 

Is that really the best you can do?

You imply that I have sympathy for the Democratic Party - I do not. They are not progressive / liberal. They are nothing more than the flip side of the same 1% coin that runs the US bureaucracy, with slightly different policy aims. But whether its a Republican or Democrat in the White House, the US remains an aggressive, violent, global imperialist threat.

Domestically, each is as beholden to the wealthy and Wall Street as the other. Neither can be said to truly have the best interests of the average citizen in mind.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

CubaMark, is this the price of Empire?

Also, some interesting reading, the Washington Post ran a piece called 5 Myths About Why The South Seceded. Interesting in light of recent comments in the U.S. Media, and Mr. Obama


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton were both responsible for Confederate flags flying at statehouses.

Let 'er fly. It's important history!



FeXL said:


> In the mean time, progressive heads are exploding...
> 
> Red Flag: The Cowardice of the Media and the Courage of Charleston
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I find it more than amusing that you and others on the Left continue to deny the commonalities that modern Democrats & their historical counterparts have shared throughout time.



CubaMark said:


> I find it more than amusing that you and others on the Right continue to equate the modern Democrat and Republican parties with their historical namesakes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton were both responsible for Confederate flags flying at statehouses.
> 
> Let 'er fly. It's important history!


Really...?

Like comedy, timing is everything in politics.

Your post seems to ignore that fact.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Which is why I suggest a cooling off period before people erase their state history.



screature said:


> Really...?
> 
> Like comedy, timing is everything in politics.
> 
> Your post seems to ignore that fact.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> You imply that I have sympathy for the Democratic Party - I do not.


We only imply that your criticisms in American politics are overwhelmingly aimed at Republicans and very rarely at Democrats.



CubaMark said:


> They are not progressive / liberal.


Not to an extreme socialist. From the north pole, all you can see is south.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Which is why I suggest *a cooling off period before people erase their state history*.


I don't think anyone was suggesting erasing a State's history, at least not here. But how long should that "cooling off period" be? I can't think of any time in the next two hundred or more that there would not be negative connotations associated with flying the swastika in Germany. Yet almost 250 years late it is still acceptable to fly the Confederate flag in some parts of the US. When it comes to great atrocities history runs deep and long.

One also has to ask how insensitive to you have to be before you clue in and realize that people are going to stand up and take notice and say "WTF"?

There is no need to take the flag down but at least lower to half mast for god's sake. That would be the decent thing to do considering what just happened in 2015.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Who cares what a maniac chose to photograph? Shall we close Gold's Gym for a couple of weeks to boot? He drank Budweiser too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> I find it more than amusing that you and others on the Right continue to equate the modern Democrat and Republican parties with their historical namesakes.
> 
> Is that really the best you can do?
> 
> ...


To whom? It all depends on what people in what country you are talking to doesn't it.

For the most part the people/countries that believe the



> ...US remains an aggressive, violent, global imperialist threat...


are ones that are in the minority and are operating on outmoded ways and concepts of governance.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Just as an aside, the Confederate flag shown is not actually the flag of the Confederacy. If you look up the State Flag of Georgia, take out the State Emblem, that is the Stars and Bars flag of the Confederacy. What we think is the Confedrate Flag is actually the military flag .... But the image it conveys is still the same ...... pedantic I know but that is just me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Who cares what a maniac chose to photograph? *Shall we close Gold's Gym for a couple of weeks to boot? He drank Budweiser too*.


My god man, you seem to be willingly ignoring the salient points. Completely lame comment. You can do better.

What exactly is your point? Is your position because it would be some kind of "cowtowing" to lower the Confederate flag to half mast. That is my best guess because you are making no reasonable defence for your position IMO. 

You want real "cowtowing", look to what the Confederates forced their *black slaves* to do!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Just as an aside, the Confederate flag shown is not actually the flag of the Confederacy. If you look up the State Flag of Georgia, take out the State Emblem, that is the Stars and Bars flag of the Confederacy. What we think is the Confedrate Flag is actually the military flag .... But the image it conveys is still the same ...... pedantic I know but that is just me.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The flag did not cause the death of those people. If you want to take it down, then do it with some degree of thought instead of rushing into it. 

Or just apply the same principle to the current US flag, because it flew over the genocide of many Indian tribes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Or just apply the same principle to the current US flag, because it flew over the genocide of many Indian tribes.


Sometimes the truth hurts.

It also flew over the innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The flag did not cause the death of those people. *If you want to take it down, then do it with some degree of thought instead of rushing into it. *
> 
> *Or just apply the same principle to the current US flag, because it flew over the genocide of many Indian tribes.*


Once again just take it to half mast. There is no rushing into anything.

Nope not at all. The current US flag did not fly over the genocide of many Indian tribes. Other flags of the US most certainly did but not the current one. 

The current flag has flown over efforts to make restitution.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Once again just take it to half mast. There is no rushing into anything.


Half mast would be fine.



screature said:


> Nope not at all. The current US flag did not fly over the genocide of many Indian tribes. Other flags of the US most certainly did but not the current one.
> 
> The current flag has flown over efforts to make restitution.


It had fewer stars on it.


Wounded Knee: 1890.
US Flag: 1890


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> *Half mast would be fine*.
> 
> *It had fewer stars on it.*
> 
> ...


From what I read that is all that was being asked for, the flag to lowered to half mast out of respect for those that died.

Yep it did but it is not what you said. 



> Or just apply the same principle to *the current US flag*, because it flew over the genocide of many Indian tribes.


1890 was a long time ago now and does not represent *the current US flag*. Any way you want to try and defend your statement, your statement was incorrect because it was not *the current US flag* .


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I suppose this is stating the obvious but the flag didn't kill those people it was a gun. All this discussion about whether the flag should have been lowered or abolished is just noise, the real issue is cultural and the right to own guns.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> I suppose this is stating the obvious but *the flag didn't kill those people* but guns. All this discussion about the whether the flag should have been lowered are abolished is just noise, the real issue cultural and the right to own guns.


With all due respect Rps symbols do matter, that is why they exist.

Regarding guns, it is an old adage but one that is true, a gun left alone kills no one.* It takes a human being to use a gun to kill other people.* That is the problem.

Guns IMO represent an example of yin and yang. They can be used for good or evil. But they are not evil in their own right, or good in their own right. They are simply objects that have a certain capacity. What human beings chose to do with them is the problem.

A knife can kill, an arrow can kill, a hammer can kill, an axe can kill, a sword can kill, etc. etc. etc. The problem is not the means by which one chooses to kill another human being it is that we as people choose to kill another human being.

Since humans existed we have always killed each other. The only difference is that now we have much more efficient and effective ways to do so.

So banning guns is not a solution to dealing with human on human violence. The problem runs much deeper than that and the banning of guns would at best be a band aid solution without any significant result in terms of addressing human nature (the real problem) and that we will continue to kill each other with or without guns.

Human hatred and intolerance is the problem not guns.

Imagine if you will a world where we all respected each other and human life was sacrosanct and thou shall not kill another human being and we all abide by that? What would it matter if each and every one of us had guns?

IMO it would not matter at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> I suppose this is stating the obvious but the flag didn't kill those people it was a gun. All this discussion about whether the flag should have been lowered or abolished is just noise, the real issue is cultural and the right to own guns.


A mentally ill person killed those people. The real issue is how the mentally ill are treated in the U.S.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe they'll grant statehood to Puerto Rico and clear up any unpleasant history past 1959.



screature said:


> From what I read that is all that was being asked for, the flag to lowered to half mast out of respect for those that died.
> 
> Yep it did but it is not what you said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> A mentally ill person killed those people. The real issue is how the mentally ill are treated in the U.S.


Forgive me but this is hype, pap, and B*llsh*t ... The real issue is the gun culture!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Maybe they'll grant statehood to Puerto Rico and clear up any unpleasant history past 1959.


Keep trying... You were incorrect in your statement.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Forgive me but this is hype, pap, and B*llsh*t ... The real issue is the gun culture!


So say you. But gun culture did not kill those people in Norway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Keep trying... You were incorrect in your statement.


You're still nitpicking on the number of stars?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> You're still nitpicking on the number of stars?


You would!!!

Times change and things happen. Like I said it was a long time ago and you are factually in error.

Can you never admit when you are wrong/incorrect?... It seems not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"You have every right to feel ill will toward the Confederate flag, but no right to feel offense at the US flag--we've added 7 stars to it since then, so bugger off!" 

Remembering,of course, that what is referred to as "the Confederate flag," as rps notes, is a battle flag. Further, it never represented the Confederacy as a nation at all. The national flag features a circle of stars and three stripes.



screature said:


> You would!!!
> 
> Times change and things happen. Like I said it was a long time ago and you are factually in error.
> 
> Can you never admit when you are wrong/incorrect?... It seems not.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> *"You have every right to feel ill will toward the Confederate flag, but no right to feel offense at the US flag--we've added 7 stars to it since then, so bugger off!"
> *
> Remembering,of course, that what is referred to as "the Confederate flag," as rps notes, is a battle flag. Further, it never represented the Confederacy as a nation at all. The national flag features a circle of stars and three stripes.


So who exactly were you quoting MF?

Since when did I state any offence to the US flag? 

Bugger off? Is that an insect repellent or some other sort of repellent?

Who is the *we've*? Are you now a dual citizen of the US?

Time to get over yourself MF. You don't own this place but by the path you are on it seems that you want to be "the last man standing". Which would essentially mean you have driven every one else away.

If that is your objective you are well on your way and have been for quite some time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> So who exactly were you quoting MF?


It is a made-up quote, placed in quotation marks to separate it from the main post.



screature said:


> Since when did I state any offence to the US flag?


You haven't. I pointed out that there have already been calls to retire the US flag in wake of the success with having some battle flags removed. You said that the flag had a different number of stars when such massacres took place, so the idea has no traction.



screature said:


> Who is the *we've*? Are you now a dual citizen of the US?


It is a made-up instruction from one American to another American (certainly not you) who may take offense at the US flag to count the number of stars in the flag at the time of a supposed national offense. If the number of stars don't match, they have no recourse. Again, it is placed in quotation marks to separate it from the main post, indicating it is not addressed directly to the poster.

I could have presented it in this way:

*One American (addressing another American):* You have every right to feel ill will toward the Confederate flag, but no right to feel offense at the US flag for other perceived wrongs--we've added 7 stars to it since the last massacre, so the flag is no longer the same flag. Now bugger off!"



screature said:


> Bugger off? Is that an insect repellent or some other sort of repellent?


That would be Bug Off, I think.



screature said:


> Time to get over yourself MF. You don't own this place but by the path you are on it seems that you want to be "the last man standing". Which would essentially mean you have driven every one else away.
> 
> If that is your objective you are well on your way and have been for quite some time.


Screature, your posting style here has been nothing if not erratic—largely reasonable, then marked by angry and insulting outbursts and subsequent apologies. Perhaps you mean what you're saying, and perhaps you don't. Either way, if vigorously presenting and defending my ideas is offensive to you, I make no apologies.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, now that the details have come come out in the wash, let's have a look at Dylann Roof's ability to purchase a firearm.

Background Check Should Not Have Permitted Dylann Roof to Buy Gun at All; Mistake Was Due to Lack of Timely Records-Gathering by FBI and Police



> So the police did not give the FBI the record in time, or the FBI did not request it in a timely way, and did not have, in any event, the report after three days, so Roof bought the gun.


And



> So obviously what we need is more laws on citizens, to make up for a massively incompetent government.


And



> The NYTimes is branding this a "loophole" for strategic leftist political agitation purposes -- if the government doesn't have its **** together, it's a "loophole" that can only be cured by a blanket restriction.


Ya, go figger.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

As I understand it the records were available. The FBI simply failed to ask the correct county.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> So, now that the details have come come out in the wash, let's have a look at Dylann Roof's ability to purchase a firearm.
> 
> Background Check Should Not Have Permitted Dylann Roof to Buy Gun at All; Mistake Was Due to Lack of Timely Records-Gathering by FBI and Police


So - you're saying that a national, computerized firearm registry would have prevented this lunatic from owning a gun?

Well, how about that.... :heybaby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, not at all. The FBI is simply incompetent at managing its own database.



CubaMark said:


> So - you're saying that a national, computerized firearm registry would have prevented this lunatic from owning a gun?
> 
> Well, how about that.... :heybaby:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> So - you're saying that a national, computerized firearm registry would have prevented this lunatic from owning a gun?


The rules, regs, laws, everything, are already in place. However, if the idiots who are in charge don't follow them, all the rules, regs & laws mean diddly squat...



CubaMark said:


> Well, how about that.... :heybaby:


Yeah, how about that?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> ... *s*creature, your posting style here has been nothing if not erratic—largely reasonable, then marked by angry and insulting outbursts and subsequent apologies. Perhaps you mean what you're saying, and perhaps you don't. Either way, if vigorously presenting and defending my ideas is offensive to you, I make no apologies.


Sorry no apologies here either.

Unlike you I apologize when I have been proven wrong/incorrect. So if I apologize it is based on a statement that I made that was in error.

You seem to be incapable of that.

Confidence is not only based on knowing when you are right/correct but also when can admit when you were wrong/incorrect.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Worthwhile read on the background of the Chattanooga shooter. If tox tests were done and results will be released in this case, why were they not done or at least not released for the two lone Canadian Gunmen last December? 

Family spokesman: Mental issues dogged shooter who killed 5



> Bassam Issa, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga, said he knew nothing of Abdulazeez's problems, despite knowing his father well through the mosque. But, he added, that is not surprising. Drinking alcohol and using drugs is strictly forbidden in the Islamic faith.
> 
> "In our culture, if a son or daughter is having those sorts of problems, they keep it a secret because of the shame," Issa said. "As a parent, you always want to be able to say your child is making you proud, not that they are struggling."


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_*And here we go, yet again:*_

*Shooting at Oregon Community College Leaves at Least 13 Dead, 20 Wounded*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






*Update, TK EDT: *Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin says the fatalities are less than originally reported by the attorney general— there are *10 fatalities and 7 injured*. There are still no details on the shooter.

*Update, 5:03 p.m. EDT: *Oregon Gov. Kate Brown confirms that the shooter was a 20-year-old male. "I know I am joined by my fellow Oregonians and Americans in profound dismay and heartbreak at this tragedy at Umpqua Community College," Brown said.

*Update, 4:52 p.m. EDT:* Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin confirms that the shooter is dead. "I couldn't be happier [with the officer response today]," Hanlin said.

Hanlin said the scene is still active and being investigated.

*Update, 4:08 p.m. EDT: *Oregon's attorney general confirms that at least 13 people were killed and 20 people wounded in today's shooting.

* * *

According to the gun safety coalition Everytown,* today's shooting marks the 45th school shooting in 2015 alone.*​
(MotherJones)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*UCC SHOOTING RAMPAGE: At least 10 reported dead including shooter*

_Kortney Moore, 18, from Rogue River, was in her Writing 115 class in Snyder Hall when one shot came through a window. She saw her teacher get shot in the head. The shooter was inside at that point, and he told people to get on the ground. *The shooter was asking people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing away*, Moore said. _​
(NRToday)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Chris Harper Mercer identified by CBS as Oregon college shooting suspect*

The man who opened fire at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College Thursday, killing 10 and injuring several others, has been identified as Chris Harper Mercer.
The gunman was identified late Thursday by CBS News. Mercer was 26, according to CBS, which cited law enforcement sources. The Douglas County Sheriff earlier identified the gunman was a 20-year-old man but did not identify him.​
(KiroTV)


*Umpqua Gunman Chris Harper-Mercer Hated Religion Online*

An online dating profile, linked to Harper-Mercer's e-mail address and featuring another photo of him, says the 26-year-old was living with his parents and searching for the "yin to my yang." It identifies his views as "conservative, republican," and lists "organized religion" as one of his "dislikes."​
(DailyBeast)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks for identifying his party affiliation, CM. You seem to avoid it when the shooter is a Democrat.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Thanks for identifying his party affiliation, CM. You seem to avoid it when the shooter is a Democrat.


 There's been a Democrat shooter? Where? When?

You seriously think that I would omit it in the case of a Democrat shooter? You've seen me say it before in this forum: Democrats & Republicans are two sides of the same coin. 

You're being ridiculous. Again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Democrats & Republicans are two sides of the same coin.


If that's so, why identify the shooter's party affiliation?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> If that's so, why identify the shooter's party affiliation?


That's a question for the news outlets that are doing so. I'm simply citing what they are publishing. Am I to be held to a different standard? 

If you are displeased that the shooter was identified as a Republican, complain to them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your prejudice is showing.



CubaMark said:


> That's a question for the news outlets that are doing so. I'm simply citing what they are publishing. Am I to be held to a different standard?
> 
> If you are displeased that the shooter was identified as a Republican, complain to them.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

When will them in those Excited States commence the "War on GUN THUG TERRORIST?"


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Your prejudice is showing.


Oh, yeah, *mine.* 

Meanwhile - the gunman's family reacts:

*Chris Harper Mercer, Oregon Gunman, Is Recalled as a Recluse Close to His Mother*

Video: http://vp.nyt.com/video/2015/10/02/35860_1_oregon-gunman-familyreax_wg_360p.mp4

Chris Harper Mercer, the man identified as the gunman in the deadly rampage at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., on Thursday, was a withdrawn young man who neighbors said wore the same outfit every day — combat boots, green Army pants and a white T-shirt — and was close to his mother, who fiercely protected him.

Neighbors in Winchester, Ore., and Torrance, Calif., where Mr. Mercer, 26, lived with his mother, Laurel Harper, remember a reclusive and seemingly fragile young man with a shaved head and dark glasses who seemed to recoil from social interaction.

“He always seemed anxious,” 

* * *​
a neighbor who said she lived in an apartment below Mr. Mercer’s, described a more assertive young man than his former neighbors in California did. Far from avoiding social interaction, she said, he frequently shouted at her for smoking on her balcony.

“He yelled at us, me and my husband,” said Ms. Hart, who lives in the building with her husband and father. “He was not a friendly type of guy. He did not want anything to do with anyone.”​
(NYTimes)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Well, that kind of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

SINC said:


> ^
> 
> Well, that kind of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?


Not really. Those are mostly things people choose to do to themselves, that they can also easily choose to avoid. People don't show up at a school carrying a concealed swimming pool, and run from class to class randomly drowning others.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It shows that activists would rather destroy gun rights (which would have a dubious effect on total deaths) than focus on any number of causes that could easily and in all probability prevent deaths.

The failure in thinking is to assume that you could prevent any individual maniac from finding a large group of people guaranteed to be unarmed (gun-free zone). Though I think that most of the activists hate the Second Amendment more than they want to prevent deaths.



heavyall said:


> Not really. Those are mostly things people choose to do to themselves, that they can also easily choose to avoid. People don't show up at a school carrying a concealed swimming pool, and run from class to class randomly drowning others.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> It shows that activists would rather destroy gun rights (which would have a dubious effect on total deaths) than focus on any number of causes that could easily and in all probability prevent deaths.
> 
> The failure in thinking is to assume that you could prevent any individual maniac from finding a large group of people guaranteed to be unarmed (gun-free zone). Though I think that most of the activists hate the Second Amendment more than they want to prevent deaths.


I disagree. It's about minimizing externalities that can negatively affect you in ways beyond your control. Even if the number of shootings was zero, the concern would still be the same.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly my point. It's not about the preservation of life and never was.



heavyall said:


> Even if the number of shootings was zero, the concern would still be the same.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> Exactly my point. It's not about the preservation of life and never was.


Yes it is, I never implied otherwise. People want to carry around a concealed device capable of killing people through walls. That should never have been allowed in the first place.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The failure in thinking is to assume that you could prevent any individual maniac from finding a large group of people guaranteed to be unarmed (gun-free zone). Though I think that most of the activists hate the Second Amendment more than they want to prevent deaths.


If the primary goal of activists was to save lives, they would act completely differently. 

If they were truly safety advocates as they claim, you'd see these people handing out visi vests, paying for driving lessons, swimming lessons, gun training courses, buying trigger locks, handing out safety pamphlets, etc...

They don't do any of that stuff because it's an ideological position.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I read somewhere that the average car kills more people than the average gun.

I would say AT LEAST 50% of car trips are truly unnecessary. We use our cars for leisurely purposes as much as for work.

If anti-gun advocates were consistent, they would try to ban leisurely driving because you're putting other people at risk unnecessarily.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

heavyall said:


> Not really. Those are mostly things people choose to do to themselves, that they can also easily choose to avoid. People don't show up at a school carrying a concealed swimming pool, and run from class to class randomly drowning others.


That's not true at all.

The things you do in life put other people at risk... all the time. 

If you go into public with a cold or the flu, you might kill an elderly person who wouldn't have otherwise gotten sick had you not gone outside. 

I already made the point with driving.

The products you buy in a store carry risk of death too. The people making them die at a certain rate in the factory, the people delivery the goods crash, or boats sink. The people putting goods on a shelf sometimes fall off a ladder and die. These risks aren't trivial... 17 times more people die from falls than from guns. 

Like it or not, we are all connected and the things we do affect others.

You can't nerf the world.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

You'll never take my guns!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Actually somebody took two of my guns last week in a break-in.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Well, that kind of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?


Then you'll be in favour of scaling back efforts to fight terrorism at home, then?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Yes it is, I never implied otherwise. People want to carry around a concealed device capable of killing people through walls. That should never have been allowed in the first place.


You said:



> Even if the number of shootings was zero, the concern would still be the same.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Absolutely. But second Amendment rights must stand.



CubaMark said:


> Then you'll be in favour of scaling back efforts to fight terrorism at home, then?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yep. Another Muslim, suspected terrorist, killing Christians...

Oregon Mass Shooter On Terror List Obama Refused To Take From Russia



> The Federal Security Services (FSB) is reporting today that an American black-Islamist terror suspect, who yesterday committed an act of mass murder in the State of Oregon (United States), had been included on a list of 87,000 “known/suspected” Islamic terrorists that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) refused last month to accept from the Federation due to its not being “politically viable in the present atmosphere”.
> 
> According to this report, the black-Islamist terrorist who committed this act of terror, Chris Harper Mercer, had previously been indentified by electronic intelligence specialists within the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as being an Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) adherent after he had attempted to gain passage to Syria via Turkey during the first week of September, 2015.


By all means, let's import a bunch more...



CubaMark said:


> _*And here we go, yet again:*_


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> You said:


Yes I did. And?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Vandave said:


> I already made the point with driving.


We don't let people drive cars down the hallways at schools either. For similar reasons.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hmmm, first time I've ever disagreed with one of your posts.

Thing is, choosing to pull the trigger & attempting to kill someone is a choice, too. Same as stabbing someone with a knife or swinging a baseball bat at someone. These are all choices that no one forces you into.



heavyall said:


> Those are mostly things people choose to do to themselves, that they can also easily choose to avoid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Yes I did. And?


And that those interested in outlawing guns did no care whether people were killed by them or not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Don't worry about posting that FeXL, CM was just about to update the story with that information....



FeXL said:


> Yep. Another Muslim, suspected terrorist, killing Christians...
> 
> Oregon Mass Shooter On Terror List Obama Refused To Take From Russia
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Don't worry about posting that FeXL, CM was just about to update the story with that information....


Well, just in case he was avoiding the issue...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, a little more background...

Oregon college shooting is all the more reason to carry guns, say local residents 



> Seven weapons were recovered at Mercer’s home, in addition to the six weapons that were recovered on the campus, Celinez Nunez, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), told reporters during a Friday morning press briefing. A bulletproof jacket and five extra magazines were also recovered at the scene.
> 
> *All 13 weapons were purchased legally by the shooter or a family member in the last three years,*


However, even before this information came out, Obama is in full plea mode for greater gun controls. (caution: language warning)

Shock: Obama Makes Political Appeal for Gun Control, Before Finding Out If Any Gun Control Would Have Stopped the Shooting



> *The President likes talking about some deaths, but not so much about others.* The President, who has yet to say the words "Kathy Steinle," will agitate for his political wish list at 6:20 eastern, 3:20 Pacific, or whenever he feels like it.
> 
> If this kid had no record or officially reported psychiatric condition, what "gun control" would have stopped him, apart from full confiscation, which the left claims to not desire?


Bold from the link.

And, the killer had recently flunked out of Army basic training.

This next link is an interesting read & links to another interesting read.

Milo: If You Want to Stop Mass Shooting, Try Treating Boys Better



> These killers are full of the desire to crush and conquer, but, being losers, headcases, and diagnosable near-morons, _have no chance of crushing or conquering anything._
> 
> The most they can do is shoot a bunch of unarmed people by ambush. That's really the _most_ they can do. They sure the f*** aren't going to be building any houses or bridges. *They don't have the mental equipment for that.*
> 
> ...


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Yep. Another Muslim, suspected terrorist, killing Christians...
> 
> Oregon Mass Shooter On Terror List Obama Refused To Take From Russia


*I can't believe you are actually going to do this again.* 

Quoting again from - the word 'unreliable' is far too kind - right-wing 'sources' to promote your ongoing campaign against all things muslim is right in character for you, FeXL. XX)

Come back when you have, you know, a source with a modicum of believability. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's a question for the news outlets that are doing so. He's simply citing what they are publishing. Is FeXL to be held to a different standard than you are?



CubaMark said:


> *I can't believe you are actually going to do this again.*
> 
> Quoting again from - the word 'unreliable' is far too kind - right-wing 'sources' to promote your ongoing campaign against all things muslim is right in character for you, FeXL. XX)
> 
> Come back when you have, you know, a source with a modicum of believability. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good sense on US guns:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/o...stof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?_r=1



> Actually, cars exemplify the public health approach we need to apply to guns. We don’t ban cars, but we do require driver’s licenses, seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns. And we’ve reduced the auto fatality rate by 95 percent.
> 
> ......
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It's a question for the news outlets that are doing so. He's simply citing what they are publishing.


What "news outlets"? Have you taken a look at the links FeXL posted? Are *you* willing to give them any credence at all?

I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is very likely going to play out as a repeat of the Lubitz / Jihadist fiasco....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Says the man who cites _Crooks and Liars_...



CubaMark said:


> What "news outlets"? Have you taken a look at the links FeXL posted? Are *you* willing to give them any credence at all?
> 
> I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is very likely going to play out as a repeat of the Lubitz / Jihadist fiasco....


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Pretty easy to sit in the cheap seats & claim there's no credence. This from the guy who called me a liar & had zero evidence to support it, save a weak 6 month old memory that ultimately proved wrong. 

How about posting evidence that shows otherwise?



CubaMark said:


> Are *you* willing to give them any credence at all?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> And that those interested in outlawing guns did no care whether people were killed by them or not.


That's a gross mischaracterization of what I said or even implied.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> This from the guy who called me a liar & had zero evidence to support it, save a weak 6 month old memory that ultimately proved wrong.


Your brain works in mysterious ways.

You stated that Lubitz was tied of Islamic Jihad. That was not correct. So how was I "ultimately proved wrong"?

Even when presented with evidence from multiple sources, your response to my criticism of your posting far-right wacko allegations was "I remain open to the possibility" that Lubitz had ties to Islamic Jihad.

And you're right: continued belief that (x) is  isn't lying, necessarily, but it does make one question your sanity.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> How about posting evidence that shows otherwise?


You want me to "prove a negative" about the OCC shooter. Brilliant. 

"Prove to me that humans and dinosaurs didn't walk together on the earth!" is essentially what you're saying, with about as much validity.

Let's get this down plain and simple, so the gallery can enjoy the show later:

*Do you believe the sources that you have cited, which claim that the OCC shooter has Islamic ties?*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm mostly on your side on the gun issue Mark, but this analogy just doesn't work. The woman seeking an abortion is openly stating her intention to kill her own child. If someone applying for a permit to buy a gun wrote down on the form that he planned to kill people with it, I'm thinking that would get flagged.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

heavyall said:


> The woman seeking an abortion is openly stating her intention to kill her own child.


It's not a child. It's a foetus. 

...but that's a discussion for another thread.

The thrust of the analogy is sound: a woman seeking a _legal abortion_ —because they are legal— is put through an emotional wringer in many states (noneso more than idiotic Texas) that includes the items mentioned above. 

But you want to buy a gun? Just show me the money, sir. And that's ridiculous.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> It's not a child. It's a foetus.


It's a child who isn't born yet. It's still a human being, that woman's own offspring. It isn't some other species.



> ...but that's a discussion for another thread..


You're the one who brought the subject up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> You're the one who brought the subject up.


He lives in an en echo chamber, so he thought it would go unchallenged.

In the US from 1973 through 2011--nearly 53 million "legal" abortions. 125,000 per day worldwide. That culture of death has minimized and cheapened the value placed on human life by others.

An infinitesimal number of gun purchases result in death. All of the abortion appointments result in death--but it's a good sort of death, so let's just focus on guns. 

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths*

We’re angry, but we also need to be smart. And frankly, liberal efforts, such as the assault weapons ban, were poorly designed and saved few lives, while brazen talk about banning guns just sparked a backlash that empowered the National Rifle Association.

What we need is an evidence-based public health approach — the same model we use to reduce deaths from other potentially dangerous things around us, from swimming pools to cigarettes. We’re not going to eliminate guns in America, so we need to figure out how to coexist with them.

First, we need to comprehend the scale of the problem: It’s not just occasional mass shootings like the one at an Oregon college on Thursday, but a continuous deluge of gun deaths, an average of 92 every day in America. Since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than died in all U.S. wars going back to the American Revolution.

When I reported a similar figure in the past, gun lobbyists insisted that it couldn’t possibly be true. But the numbers are unarguable: fewer than 1.4 million war deaths since 1775, more than half in the Civil War, versus about 1.45 million gun deaths since 1970 (including suicides, murders and accidents).

If that doesn’t make you flinch, consider this: In America, more preschoolers are shot dead each year (82 in 2013) than police officers are in the line of duty (27 in 2013), according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI.

* * *​
When I tweeted about the need to address gun violence after college shooting in the Roseburg, Ore., a man named Bob pushed back. “Check out car accident deaths,” he tweeted sarcastically. “Guess we should ban cars.”

Actually, cars exemplify the public health approach we need to apply to guns. We don’t ban cars, but we do require driver’s licenses, seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns. And we’ve reduced the auto fatality rate by 95 percent.

One problem is that the gun lobby has largely blocked research on making guns safer. Between 1973 and 2012, the National Institutes of Health awarded 89 grants for the study of rabies and 212 for cholera — and only three for firearms injuries.

* * *​
A poll this year found that majorities even of gun-owners favor universal background checks; tighter regulation of gun dealers; safe storage requirements in homes; and a 10-year prohibition on possessing guns for anyone convicted of domestic violence, assault or similar offenses.

We should also be investing in “smart gun” technology, such as weapons that fire only with a PIN or fingerprint. We should adopt microstamping that allows a bullet casing to be traced back to a particular gun. We can require liability insurance for guns, as we do for cars.

* * *

The gun lobby argues that the problem isn’t firearms; it’s crazy people. Yes, America’s mental health system is a disgrace. But to me, it seems that we’re all crazy if we as a country can’t take modest steps to reduce the carnage that leaves America resembling a battlefield.​
(NYTimes)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Do you never read the posts of others? I posted that two days ago.

The 2013 figure posted above for police officers was chosen because it was the lowest in almost 60 years. 121 died in 2012. Silly comparisons. Why not make the point about toddlers honestly instead of copping bitmapped memes without doing any research?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Yep. Another Muslim, suspected terrorist, killing Christians...
> 
> Oregon Mass Shooter On Terror List Obama Refused To Take From Russia



_The gunman who executed nine people at an Oregon community college before killing himself ranted in writings he left behind about not having a girlfriend and thinking everyone else was crazy, a law enforcement official said Monday.

* * *

The official also said the mother of 26-year-old gunman Christopher Harper-Mercer has told investigators he was struggling with some mental health issues. The official is familiar with the investigation but wasn't authorized to speak publicly because it is ongoing.

Harper-Mercer complained in the writings about not having a girlfriend, and he seemed to feel like he was very rational while others around him were not, the official said.

He wrote something to the effect of: "Other people think I'm crazy, but I'm not. I'm the sane one," the official said. The writings recovered at the shooting scene were a couple of pages long._
(CBC)​
*Yup. Sounds like an Islamic Jihadist to me. All the "Allahu Akbar"s and "Death to America"s and "Infidel Swine". Case closed. Cut-and-dried. My gut tells me FeXL got it right (again)! *


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He didn't have a girlfriend? Guess that nails it.

Again, like you, FeXL was only reporting what the media said. I don't believe he is vouching for it.



CubaMark said:


> _The gunman who executed nine people at an Oregon community college before killing himself ranted in writings he left behind about not having a girlfriend and thinking everyone else was crazy, a law enforcement official said Monday.
> 
> * * *
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Again, like you, FeXL was only reporting what the media said. I don't believe he is vouching for it.


No, he wasn't just "reporting what the media said". That would imply that the sources he linked were, you know, what normal people would consider "the media".

FeXL has a penchant for citing extremely unreliable, far-right-wing, racist and fake sources.

That he would repeat his mistake (or perhaps it was intentional?) is ridiculous.

And you're defence of him in this instance is deplorable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since I defend your right to cite "Crooks and Liars", I can't very well attack FeXL on this. The report is probably inaccurate, but he has the right to cite it and use your defense--he can't help what he is seeing reported in the media. 



CubaMark said:


> No, he wasn't just "reporting what the media said". That would imply that the sources he linked were, you know, what normal people would consider "the media".
> 
> FeXL has a penchant for citing extremely unreliable, far-right-wing, racist and fake sources.
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Since I defend your right to cite "Crooks and Liars", I can't very well attack FeXL on this. The report is probably inaccurate, but he has the right to cite it and use your defense--he can't help what he is seeing reported in the media.


You've complained about C&L in the past, but I don't recall your citing any instance when their reporting has been inaccurate. Care to enlighten us?

As for FeXL's sources... I expect you'll rush to my defence as well when I begin to cite the *Weekly World News* as authoritative....?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> You've complained about C&L in the past...
> 
> ....I expect you'll rush to my defence as well when I begin to cite the *Weekly World News* as authoritative....?


If I support you on the first, I can't fault the second.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're right. Kinder Surprise eggs should be legal in the US.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> You're right. Kinder Surprise eggs should be legal in the US.


It is rather ridiculous, eh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> It is rather ridiculous, eh?


I wish they tasted better though.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> You're right. Kinder Surprise eggs should be legal in the US.





CubaMark said:


> It is rather ridiculous, eh?


Actually some Kinder Eggs confiscated from a car in front of me at US customs. Pretty sure they went home to the customs agents kids.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*1 Fatally Shot at Texas Southern University Housing Complex*

HOUSTON — A student was killed and another person was wounded during a shooting outside a Texas Southern University student-housing complex on Friday, and police have detained two men for questioning, authorities said.

The university quickly went on lockdown after the shooting was reported around 11:30 a.m. in a parking lot at the University Courtyard Apartments, a university-owned complex on the edge of the Houston campus. Students and teachers were told to stay inside until the lockdown was lifted Friday afternoon after the two men were detained, but police said no arrests have been made.

The incident marked the third shooting on or near the campus in less than a week, though it's unclear whether the shootings were related. Friday's shootings also came the same day as a fatal shooting at Northern Arizona University, and about a week after eight students and a teacher were fatally shot at a community college in Oregon.​
(NYTimes)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmmm . . .

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware | Pew Research Center


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The decline in gun violence never "effing" stops!



SINC said:


> Hmmmm . . .
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware | Pew Research Center


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Here's a man - an elderly man - who didn't need a gun to stop a massacre.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, no--since the assailant was carrying a knife.



CubaMark said:


> Here's a man - an elderly man - who didn't need a gun to stop a massacre.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Boston high school shooting: One teen killed and three others wounded in attack*
_People are still searching for a suspect._








One teenage student has been killed and three others were injured in a shooting that took place outside a high school in Dorchester.

A 17-year-old male student at Jeremiah E Burke High School High School was killed in the attack, two other teens were injured and a 67-year-old woman sustained a leg injury when grazed by a bullet, police said at a press conference on Wednesday.

Commissioner William Evans said that police have launched an investigation into the city's 13th homicide this year. “When a 17-year-old is shot and dies on the street when leaving school, we should all be outraged,” Commissioner Evans told reporters.​
(Independent UK)

*More detail* from the Boston Globe


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Fifty die in worst mass shooting in US history*









Image courtesy NPR​
Fifty people were killed and 53 injured at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in the worst mass shooting in US history. Authorities are investigating the massacre as a potential terrorist attack. 

Clubgoers fled the dance floor chaos in the early hours in a rush for safety, as a local police officer moonlighting as a security guard exchanged shots with the attacker, identified as Omar Mateen, a US citizen from Port St Lucie, Florida. Mateen, whose parents are from Afghanistan, was killed as police stormed the club. 

* * *​
Mir Seddique, Mateen’s father, told NBC News that the attack “had nothing to do with religion”. He said Mateen was angered when he saw two men kissing in Miami a couple of months ago, which may be linked to the attack on the Pulse club.

* * *​
The attack was the deadliest shooting in US history. A massacre at Virginia Tech university in 2007 that left 32 dead had been the worst US mass shooting.

* * *​
In the absence of public evidence of a terror link, some people speculated on Twitter that the attack may have been an episode of anti-gay violence. “Disgusting & tragic hate-crime” read one post by a Chicago man.​
(Financial Times)











*Father of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen: Nightclub massacre was triggered by two gay men kissing*

Speaking by phone with an NBC reporter, the father of the man who killed 50 and wounded 54 more at a gay nightclub in Orlando said the shooting “had nothing to do with religion.”

Police and FBI have confirmed the shooter who died at the scene after taking hostages was 29-year-old Omar Mateen.

“We are saying we are apologizing for the whole incident. We weren’t aware of any action he is taking,” Mir Seddique said. “We are in shock like the whole country,”

Mateen’s father also said that his son was angered after seeing two men kissing on the street months ago.

According to ABC, Mateen is a U.S.-born citizen whose parents were born in Afghanistan.

Mateen’s parents were born in Afghanistan, and he was “on the radar” of U.S. officials for some time, but was not the target of a specific investigation, law enforcement officials told ABC News.

TMZ is reporting that Mateen holds a Florida security officer license and a state firearms license.​
(RawStory)










*Ex-wife of suspected Orlando shooter: ‘He beat me’*

The ex-wife of the 29-year-old man suspected of killing 50 people in a Orlando nightclub early Sunday said that he was violent and mentally unstable and beat her repeatedly while they were married.

The ex-wife said she met Omar Mateen online about eight years ago and decided to move to Florida and marry him.

At first, the marriage was normal, she said, but then he became abusive.

“He was not a stable person,” said the ex-wife, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she feared for her safety in the wake of the mass shooting. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”

* * *​
Mateen’s ex-wife said his family was from Afghanistan, but her ex-husband was born in New York. His family later moved to Florida. In a series of Myspace photos, Mateen is seen taking selfies and wearing New York Police Department shirts in a couple of the shots. His ex-wife identified him as the man in the Myspace photos.

Mateen’s ex-wife said she was having a difficult time when she first met him and decided to move to Florida to be with him. The two married in March 2009 and moved into a 2-bedroom condominium in Fort Pierce, Fla., that Mateen’s family owned.

“He seemed like a normal human being,” she said, adding that he wasn’t very religious and worked out at the gym often. She said in the few months they were married he gave no signs of having fallen under the sway of radical Islam. She said he owned a small-caliber handgun and worked as a guard at a nearby facility for juvenile delinquents.​
(Washington Post)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Orlando Nightclub Shooting: Mass Casualties After Gunman Opens Fire in Gay Club - NBC News



> Investigators told NBC News that the FBI was looking into Mateen three years ago because of a statement he had made about radical Islamic propaganda. *Law enforcement officials NBC News that Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of ISIS on a 911 phone call shortly before the shooting.*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Orlando Nightclub Shooting: Mass Casualties After Gunman Opens Fire in Gay Club - NBC News


Also from the NBC story, because you know that Muslims in American have to go that extra mile to ensure that people actually see/hear them condemn terrorist acts:

_Police said Mateen was a U.S. citizen, but some of his family members are not. They would not say where those family members were from, and while they have not confirmed that Mateen was Muslim, several Muslim groups rebuked the attack.

"We condemn this monstrous attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured. The Muslim community joins our fellow Americans in repudiating anyone or any group that would claim to justify or excuse such an appalling act of violence," the Council on American-Islamic Relations Orlando Regional Coordinator Rasha Mubarak said in a statement._​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I only mentioned it because your post stated only that the attack was not motivated by radical Islamic views.

I think many were hoping that the attack was motivated only by hatred for homosexuals because that is easier for them to deal with.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I only mentioned it because your post stated only that the attack was not motivated by radical Islamic views.
> 
> I think many were hoping that the attack was motivated only by hatred for homosexuals because that is easier for them to deal with.


agreed - seems the community of LGBT - are all over the Christians and the Right.. 
not sure why, what did Christians and the Right do?

The assailant claims he is ISIS and yet the community is blaming everyone else but the obvious..

it is a tragic event, regardless of sexual orientation, People died, plain and simple.. 
I am filled with sadness for the LGBT and the Christians for being blamed even when an Islamist extremist is the cause.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I only mentioned it because your post stated only that the attack was not motivated by radical Islamic views.


My post cited "police are investigating" "as a potential terrorist attack" and that Mateen "had been on their radar for some time". 

It also noted that neither his parents, nor his wife, said this had anything to do with his religious beliefs. His wife's comments point to someone with mental health issues, a seriously off the hook temper, and "not very religious".



Macfury said:


> I think many were hoping that the attack was motivated only by hatred for homosexuals because that is easier for them to deal with.


.....or because the "many" are bright enough not to immediately assume Islamic jihad when they see the news. He may well turn out to have been influenced or tied to radical terrorists as in the NBC link you provided (which cited an unnamed source, naturally). But too many people - based on their inherent prejudices - will immediately declare World War III and start calling for the nuking of the middle east... despite this fellow having been born and raised in New York City.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> agreed - seems the community of LGBT - are *all over the Christians and the Right.*.
> not sure why, what did Christians and the Right do?
> 
> The *assailant claims he is ISIS* and yet the community is blaming everyone else but the obvious..


Care to cite some sources? I've not seen any of this.

.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> Care to cite some sources? I've not seen any of this.
> 
> .


all on facebook - which are LGBT - friends.. 
so copying and pasting will be inappropriate.
but my feed is on fire with hate and anger which is understandable, but miss directed. . 

here are two quotes "And the Christian Right, don't even get me started on these ****ing pieces of ****!!" 
and another "Christian groups need to start being held accountable for the violence that they are encouraging. Religious right laws"

just shaking my head, people are murdered and the Christians are blamed instead of us trying to group heal together. 
This was a hate crime, terrorist attack..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> My post cited "police are investigating" "as a potential terrorist attack" and that Mateen "had been on their radar for some time".
> 
> It also noted that neither his parents, nor his wife, said this had anything to do with his religious beliefs. His wife's comments point to someone with mental health issues, a seriously off the hook temper, and "not very religious".


But it did not mention the possible ISIS connection.




CubaMark said:


> .....or because the "many" are bright enough not to immediately assume Islamic jihad when they see the news. He may well turn out to have been influenced or tied to radical terrorists as in the NBC link you provided (which cited an unnamed source, naturally). But too many people - based on their inherent prejudices - will immediately declare World War III and start calling for the nuking of the middle east... despite this fellow having been born and raised in New York City.


What do assumptions have to do with mainstream media reports? Even the guy's name did not prompt me to believe he was an example of radicalized Islam. I don't know anybody who is thinking of nuking anyone either.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Pop apologizes but...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/?tid=sm_tw



> The father of Omar Mateen, identified by police as the man behind the carnage at an Orlando nightclub early Sunday morning, is an Afghan man who holds strong political views, including support for the Afghan Taliban.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lard! Obama could have at the very least waited for the blood to stop oozing from the corpses before launching further attacks on the Bill of Rights.

Smelling like another San Bernadino. Will wait to see if there was a parallel drill the day before/of and if toxicology tests and full autopsy are not performed on the shooter.

It seems very unlikely that any follower of the Muslim faith would do such a thing during the month of Ramadan, but admit my Muslim acquaintances are as horrified as I by the attack.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Lard! Obama could have at the very least waited for the blood to stop oozing from the corpses before launching further attacks on the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Smelling like another San Bernadino. Will wait to see if there was a parallel drill the day before/of and if toxicology tests and full autopsy are not performed on the shooter.
> 
> It seems very unlikely that any follower of the Muslim faith would do such a thing during the month of Ramadan, but admit my Muslim acquaintances are as horrified as I by the attack.




The shooter was a born and bred American. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> The shooter was a born and bred American.


To be correct, allow me to expand upon that. 

'The shooter was a born and bred American *who was radicalized and had pledged support to the Muslim group ISIS.*'


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Care to cite some sources? I've not seen any of this.


ACLU lawyers blame 'Christian right,' GOP for Orlando terrorist attack | Washington Examiner



> Christian conservatives are responsible for the mass shooting at a gay bar in Orlando because they "created this anti-queer climate," according to American Civil Liberties Union attorneys.
> 
> "You know what is gross — your thoughts and prayers and Islamophobia after you created this anti-queer climate," ACLU staff attorney Chase Strangio tweeted on Sunday morning.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> ACLU lawyers blame 'Christian right,' GOP for Orlando terrorist attack | Washington Examiner


It's incredible to watch mental gymnastics leftists are going through trying to maintain leftist dogma on this disgusting attack. I had a gay activist on Twitter blaming Christianity for it. When I pointed out the obvious fact the shooter was a Muslim ISIL supporter who gleefully screamed Allah Acbar while spraying bullets, therefore his attack was miss directed, he quickly pivoted to a vigorous defence of Islam, acusing me of the dreaded "islamphobia". Logic like a vacuum, that blows and sucks at the same time.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> To be correct, allow me to expand upon that.
> 
> 'The shooter was a born and bred American *who was radicalized and had pledged support to the Muslim group ISIS.*'


The so called ISIS connection is extremely tenuous and very suspect. Obama's immediate attempt to capitalize with further encroachments on the Bill of Rights (not just the second amendment) was clearly written and well rehearsed before the attack took place. Look closer to home for the real source of the radicalization.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

This new ABC News report makes it pretty clear that this guy was a violent, mentally ill, homophobic racist. From what I've seen to date, my impression is that any "allegiance" to ISIS, made in no other forum that anyone has found so far apart from the 911 call he made during the Pulse nightclub assault, is nothing more than a manifestation of his disturbed mind. It does not appear that he was following any orders from organized terrorists. This guy was messed up, from day one. 

The FBI's three interviews with Mateen turned up no credible or substantive connection to terrorists.

Despite that investigation, since it did not result in charges, he was still able to legally purchase the Glock handgun and the AR-15 rifle. 

You have to admit, it seems pretty odd that someone who was so prominently on law enforcement radar could exercise his 2nd Amendment "right" to buy weapons, while children with a name that is the same as / similar to a terrorist can remain on a No-Fly list for years, if not forever.

What a weird, stupid, cruel, idiotic world.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> It's incredible to watch mental gymnastics leftists are going through trying to maintain leftist dogma on this disgusting attack. I had a gay activist on Twitter blaming Christianity for it. When I pointed out the obvious fact the shooter was a Muslim ISIL supporter who gleefully screamed Allah Acbar while spraying bullets, therefore his attack was miss directed, he quickly pivoted to a vigorous defence of Islam, acusing me of the dreaded "islamphobia". Logic like a vacuum, that blows and sucks at the same time.


same happened to myself. 
I have come to a conclusion the left hate Christians and will blame Christianity 
Regardless if it was Islamist or not, they will Say Christians pushed them over board. 
The liberals will use any excuse possible to avoid the truth. 
Remember the bake me a fiasco? Both religious groups were asked but the Christians paid the ultimate price. 
I have no issues with anyone or lifestyle. Live your lives but don't force it upon anyone.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> This new ABC News report makes it pretty clear that this guy was a violent, mentally ill, homophobic racist. From what I've seen to date, my impression is that any "allegiance" to ISIS, made in no other forum that anyone has found so far apart from the 911 call he made during the Pulse nightclub assault, is nothing more than a manifestation of his disturbed mind. It does not appear that he was following any orders from organized terrorists. This guy was messed up, from day one.
> 
> The FBI's three interviews with Mateen turned up no credible or substantive connection to terrorists.
> 
> ...


I continue to be amazed at gun men who pause in the midst of perpetrating a massacre to use a cell phone. He was a whacko for sure. Manipulated perhaps, but by whom is by no means certain. 

Given that we have learned to distrust the lamestream across the board, why trust them when the first words in the report are "Muslim Terrorist"?

As always I want to see the results of a tox screen on the shooter. As always I will not hold my breath, as usually tox screens are not performed or the results clearly clash with the official narrative and are therefore destroyed without being released.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

This discussion is all well and good, but the bottom line is, So What! This is just another day in the U.S. I live near a border city and shootings of people are so common it's only when you take 4 or more does it become news. In fact, the U.S. Has defined what a Mass Shooting is....more than 4 deaths......I remember when 1 was bad, today it doesn't make the news. The real crime here is the blatant sales of military grade weapons to the general public. A close second is the drama filled way this type of news is reported....no disgust just theatrics. And, there will be more to come....it will be the 60s all over again, you watch, wannabes will be lining up for their 15 seconds of fame and the Twitterverse will be rife with hand wringing, but more weapons will be purchased. A spiral beyond hope, and unfortunately at significant and needless human cost.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Rps said:


> This discussion is all well and good, but the bottom line is, So What! This is just another day in the U.S. I live near a border city and shootings of people are so common it's only when you take 4 or more does it become news. In fact, the U.S. Has defined what a Mass Shooting is....more than 4 deaths......I remember when 1 was bad, today it doesn't make the news. The real crime here is the blatant sales of military grade weapons to the general public. A close second is the drama filled way this type of news is reported....no disgust just theatrics. And, there will be more to come....it will be the 60s all over again, you watch, wannabes will be lining up for their 15 seconds of fame and the Twitterverse will be rife with hand wringing, but more weapons will be purchased. A spiral beyond hope, and unfortunately at significant and needless human cost.


not to mention it will overflow into Canada, Toronto is on its way to the worst gun violence in history ..
BTW 
One person in custody after reports of masked man on U of T campus - CityNews


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Add Edmonton to that list. Young punks are carrying and using handguns as part of the normal course of business in Alberta's capital. Edmonton police chief claims that handguns found are now routine as part of traffic stops in the city.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Obama: Orlando shooting was a case of ‘homegrown extremism,’ gunman inspired by online propaganda*

Obama said Monday that it appeared the shooting was a case of “homegrown extremism,” saying that so far investigators have found no connections between the gunman and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, or any other extremist groups.

“It appears the shooter was inspired by various extremist information that was disseminated over the Internet,” Obama said during remarks in the Oval Office.

“We see no clear evidence that he was directed externally,” Obama said. “It does appear that at the last minute, he announced allegiance to ISIL. But there is no evidence so far that he was in fact directed by ISIL, and at this stage there’s no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot.”​
(Washington Post)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't understand this persnickety emphasis on pointed direction by ISIS. The perp was in contact with religious extremists and identified with them. What do they need to see--a pay stub from ISIS?


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

SINC said:


> Add Edmonton to that list. Young punks are carrying and using handguns as part of the normal course of business in Alberta's capital. Edmonton police chief claims that handguns found are now routine as part of traffic stops in the city.



They've got some catching up to do to get even with Surrey BC… but getting close… 

Another shooting in Surrey brings the total to 32 for 2016 - BC | Globalnews.ca

2016 Surrey Shootings


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I don't understand this persnickety emphasis on pointed direction by ISIS. The perp was in contact with religious extremists and identified with them. What do they need to see--a pay stub from ISIS?


pretty much..


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I don't understand this persnickety emphasis on pointed direction by ISIS. The perp was in contact with religious extremists and identified with them. What do they need to see--a pay stub from ISIS?


I think they need to find his membership card and his patented black ISIL jump suit with matching balaclava before they can make a definative link.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I would like to know how the left will spin this one.. 
Imam - in Orlando saying LBGT should be put to death.. 
then the Islamic centre is saying they have to right to preach. lol 
How was this hateful person allowed in? [ please dont say free speech ]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ[/ame]





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Wow! What a twist in the narrative this throws. An anti-gay attack by one of their own.
Who would have thought a gay man could be a homophobe.

Ex-wife’s bombshell claim: Club shooter was gay | New York Post


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Just two days and the official narrative has had its cover blown.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Wow! What a twist in the narrative this throws. An anti-gay attack by one of their own.
> Who would have thought a gay man could be a homophobe.
> 
> Ex-wife’s bombshell claim: Club shooter was gay | New York Post


It never f******ng stops!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> I think they need to find his membership card and his patented black ISIL jump suit with matching balaclava before they can make a definative link.


*
Or.....not.* 

This sure as heck changes the narrative... (emphasis mine)

*Juan Cole: Top 7 Ways to Tell If Someone Is Lying About Being a "Salafi Jihadi"*

Regulars at Pulse Nightclub are saying that Omar Mateen, the alleged shooter in the early Sunday morning massacre there, was himself a regular! The Orlando Sentinel writes, “‘Sometimes he would go over in the corner and *sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent*,’ Ty Smith said.”

So there’s just one thing about his claim to be acting on behalf of ISIL (with whom he appears never to have had any contact): puritanical Muslim fundamentalists of the ISIL sort don’t behave that way. 

* * *​
...a distinction must be drawn between nihilism and terrorism, between the senseless action of a disturbed individual (no matter how he justifies it) and an actual political group to which a suspect actually belongs that deploys terrorism to achieve a deeply political goal.

So here are some tips for recognizing a Muslim fundamentalist who has turned to terrorism, i.e. what most counter-terrrorism experts call a Salafi Jihadi (I prefer the term fundamentalist vigilante). 

* * *​
1. Salafi Jihadis don’t drink alcohol.

2. Salafi Jihadis don’t hang out in bars.

3. Salafi Jihadis don’t, in particular, frequent gay bars.

4. Salafi Jihadis don’t text potential hook-ups using a gay dating app.

5. Salafi Jihadis aren’t usually clean shaven.

6. Salafi Jihadis belong to a fringe interpretation of Sunni Islam and despise Shiites;* they don’t typically claim to have an affiliation with a Shiite group such as Hizbullah, which is fighting ISIL in Syria.* (Here “typically” means, like, “ever.”)

7. Salafi Jihadis don’t express a hope that non-Muslim police will assault their wives. In fact, they wouldn’t want men other than close relatives to so much as see their wives unveiled.

* * *​
Omar Mateen was a disturbed person, likely brought up a nationalist rather than a fundamentalist, and didn’t have the slightest idea of what a Salafi Jihadi was. *He was a fraud in every way. Likely the failure of his first marriage came from his mistreatment of his wife because deep down he was not straight and his self-betrayal made him hate her. * 

When he felt bullied at work for his race or religion, he talked big, invoking Salafi Jihadi groups, without any understanding of them. He never adopted that lifestyle or joined any such group. *He didn’t even know the difference between Sunni and Shiite.*

It is possible, in fact, that his psychotic break came from being jilted at the club, and the massacre was his revenge.

To put all this on Muslims and Islam in general is frankly absurd.​
(Truthdig)

So we have another piece of the Mateen puzzle: a closeted gay man from a repressive conservative culture that denied him his true gender identity. Repression of his 'true self' combined with conflicted emotions, his strained relationship with his father (who said homosexuals should be punished by God), and what certainly appears to be mental illness... well... all of you who are so desperate for this to be an organized, directed attack by the Evil Muslim Empire of Hate are going to be disappointed....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

More. Article suggests Mateen cheered on 9/11 attackers in class.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ome-say-he-celebrated/?utm_term=.8f2d89f64414


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Wow! What a twist in the narrative this throws. An anti-gay attack by one of their own.
> Who would have thought a gay man could be a homophobe.


Seriously? Have you not been paying attention to Conservative American politics over the last, oh, forever?

How many (mainly) Republicans, right-wing Christian preachers, etc., have been caught in compromising positions of a homosexual nature, while simultaneously backing legislation to deny gay rights or calling on 'God' to punish the 'sinners'?

Remember Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and his infamous "wide stance" in an airport bathroom stall? Mark Foley? Pastor Eddie Long? "Family Values" Pastor Ted Haggard? Robert "Tex" Allen? 

The illness isn't homosexuality. It's the psychotic socially conservative mindset that demands that "Men are Men and should act like Men".


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> More. Article suggests Mateen cheered on 9/11 attackers in class.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ome-say-he-celebrated/?utm_term=.8f2d89f64414


Yep. This guy was damaged a long, long time ago:

_“Before 9/11 happened, we were pretty straight. We all rode the same bus. We weren’t really close friends, but friends at least a little,” he added, noting that Mateen attended the Spectrum Alternative School, *a separate campus in Stuart for students with poor grades or behavioral issues.*_​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe that changes the narrative at a lefty coffee clatch! 

I'll believe your sincerity the next time someone blames a Christian fundamentalist for some crime and you quickly jump to the defense with "a real Christian doesn't act this way, therefore the story can't be true."




CubaMark said:


> *
> Or.....not.*
> 
> This sure as heck changes the narrative... (emphasis mine)
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, well, well, an attack on gays by a jealous gay.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ver-recognize-an-ar-15/?tid=pm_business_pop_b

An interesting article re the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

We've been down this road before. To me, the greatest terrorist organisation in the U.S. is its Supreme Court, whose selective rulings over the years smack of "under-the-tableism". Why are "ride programmes" which encumber free movement in an effort to catch drunk drivers considered in the public interest but limiting public access to military grade weapons is not?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> We've been down this road before. To me, the greatest terrorist organisation in the U.S. is its Supreme Court, whose selective rulings over the years smack of "under-the-tableism". Why are "ride programmes" which encumber free movement in an effort to catch drunk drivers considered in the public interest but limiting public access to military grade weapons is not?


A valid point, Rp. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ver-recognize-an-ar-15/?tid=pm_business_pop_b
> 
> An interesting article re the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution.


It's funny that the arms used by the government looked just like the gun in the photo.



> What ‘arms’ looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written:


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

There is lots of ignorance circulating about the shooters weapon. 

The only difference between an AR 15 and a semi automatic deer rifle is military styling. You could do the same damage or more with a deer rifle and a pocket full of magazines. It is not an automatic weapon like a machine gun. If you could ban it and destroy every one of them in the country it would only mean shooters not looking so "Action Movie bad ass" and more "******* deer hunter". It really wouldn't change shooter outcomes one bit unless shooters are motivated by how bad ass they'll look on the 6 o'clock news holding their AR15.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> There is lots of ignorance circulating about the shooters weapon.
> 
> The only difference between an AR 15 and a semi automatic deer rifle is military styling. You could do the same damage or more with a deer rifle and a pocket full of magazines. It is not an automatic weapon like a machine gun. If you could ban it and destroy every one of them in the country it would only mean shooters not looking so "Action Movie bad ass" and more "******* deer hunter". It really wouldn't change shooter outcomes one bit unless shooters are motivated by how bad ass they'll look on the 6 o'clock news holding their AR15.


I have yet to see a shooter on the six o'clock news holding an AR 15, banning guns will not stop or prevent these types of mass shootings.. 

people are the problem.. 

i dont advocate for the NRA or any gun lobbying group, at the end of the day; they will still get these weapons if they want them badly enough - by any means necessary


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> I have yet to see a shooter on the six o'clock news holding an AR 15, banning guns will not stop or prevent these types of mass shootings..
> 
> people are the problem..
> 
> i dont advocate for the NRA or any gun lobbying group, at the end of the day; they will still get these weapons if they want them badly enough - by any means necessary


Seems to me that the failure is in enforcing existing regulations, However, Obama has made it clear that he will only enforce those regulations he chooses to, so those regulations have no teeth.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

macintosh doctor said:


> people are the problem..
> 
> i dont advocate for the NRA or any gun lobbying group, at the end of the day; they will still get these weapons if they want them badly enough - by any means necessary


BINGO! Its definitely a people problem.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It's funny that the arms used by the government looked just like the gun in the photo.


I am not sure about your point, Macfury. Yes, muskets were used back when the second Amendment was written, since these were the common weapons used by those who would form the state militias. Yes, assault weapons are used by the military. It is when these sort of automatic assault weapons that fall into the hands of people who should never have been allowed to own a weapon that trouble develops. It will never be able to keep these sorts of guns out of every hand that should not be given this right. Still, they need to be regulated and even banned from sale to certain people who cannot pass a background check. I know that this might offend your libertarian views, and I understand from where those views stem. I am not looking to start an argument, since I respect your views. However, at some point there has to be some sort of reasonable regulation of assault weapons getting into the hands of those not in the military. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My point is that the Second Amendment was mean to ensure that weapons remained in the hands of citizens against a government that abandoned the Constitution. Expecting that this only limits them to muskets is not reasonable.



Dr.G. said:


> I am not sure about your point, Macfury. Yes, muskets were used back when the second Amendment was written, since these were the common weapons used by those who would form the state militias. Yes, assault weapons are used by the military. It is when these sort of automatic assault weapons that fall into the hands of people who should never have been allowed to own a weapon that trouble develops. It will never be able to keep these sorts of guns out of every hand that should not be given this right. Still, they need to be regulated and even banned from sale to certain people who cannot pass a background check. I know that this might offend your libertarian views, and I understand from where those views stem. I am not looking to start an argument, since I respect your views. However, at some point there has to be some sort of reasonable regulation of assault weapons getting into the hands of those not in the military. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> My point is that the Second Amendment was mean to ensure that weapons remained in the hands of citizens against a government that abandoned the Constitution. Expecting that this only limits them to muskets is not reasonable.


I agree completely. My point of contention has always been that most who avidly, rabidly even, defend the Second Amendment, ignore everything after "the right to bear arms" and do nothing when the rest of the constitution is threatened.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

polywog said:


> I agree completely. My point of contention has always been that most who avidly, rabidly even, defend the Second Amendment, ignore everything after "the right to bear arms" and do nothing when the rest of the constitution is threatened.


The remaining amendments which make up the Bill of Rights were very thoroughly trashed under Bush and Obushma. 

IOW the Government has effectively abandoned the Constitution and the right to bear arms is therefore more crucial than ever before.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> My point is that the Second Amendment was mean to ensure that weapons remained in the hands of citizens against a government that abandoned the Constitution. Expecting that this only limits them to muskets is not reasonable.


Well, since the government has not abandoned the Constitution (unless Trump gets elected and then who knows what will happen), the fact remains that the 2nd amendment was set in stone to guarantee that a well regulated militia be on the ready, in that there was no one standing army that could protect all 13 states. If the right for you to swing your arm wildly with your eyes closed stops at the point of my nose, then why shouldn't the government regulate your access to weapons of mass destruction of human life?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> However, at some point there has to be some sort of reasonable regulation of assault weapons getting into the hands of those not in the military.


Respectfully, as MacGuiver has noted, though, the main difference between an "assault rifle" like the AR15 & a semi-auto deer rifle is styling. So, say "assault rifles", AR15's, get banned. The next idiot who has an axe to grind goes out & purchases a semi-auto deer rifle, kills a bunch of people & the hue & cry is to have semi-auto deer rifles banned. Those get banned, rinse, repeat.

Where does it end? When all firearms are banned?

PS Just wanted to say that I far prefer when you actually discuss the issues, rather than say agree to disagree. Thx.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe the second amendment has been under constant threat from Democrats who simply want to centralize firepower in the hands of an ever expanding government. The current regulations are enough to control firearms--they are simply not enforced. 

It as already well-nigh impossible to buy a military style weapon we might see in a Steven Segall movie, capable of massive sprays of bullets. It was not the type of weapon used in Orlando.

This commentary is apropos:
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernande...urgeon-and-the-cleaning-lady/?singlepage=true



> The administration's demand for more gun control crucially rests on the claim of competence.
> 
> The argument that it is better to rely on state protection than on individual self-defense is only worth having if things work as advertised. But if the administration fails to push back against hostile ideologies and screen refugees, opens the borders, and refuses to heed obvious warnings, the administration has effectively disabled the regulars and you are left with the militia.
> 
> ...


As Jefferson stated: " I have seen the days, they were those which preceded the Revolution, when even this last and perilous engine became necessary; but they were days which no man would wish to see a second time. That was the case where the regular authorities of the government had combined against the rights of the people, and no means of correction remained to them, but to organise a collateral power, which, with their support, might rescue and secure their violated rights."

and...

"it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

The difference between those protected by the Second Amendment and those who are not is the difference between free men (and women) and vassals. 




> If the right for you to swing your arm wildly with your eyes closed stops at the point of my nose, then why shouldn't the government regulate your access to weapons of mass destruction of human life?


For the same reason that government does not control your fist--only the connection with your nose.





Dr.G. said:


> Well, since the government has not abandoned the Constitution (unless Trump gets elected and then who knows what will happen), the fact remains that the 2nd amendment was set in stone to guarantee that a well regulated militia be on the ready, in that there was no one standing army that could protect all 13 states. If the right for you to swing your arm wildly with your eyes closed stops at the point of my nose, then why shouldn't the government regulate your access to weapons of mass destruction of human life?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Berkeley Breathed brought back Bloom County late last year. In one of the first strips, he posted this which has become a bit of an inspiration:









Because he is publishing the strip directly to Facebook, he doesn't have to deal with deadlines and long lead times. In yesterday's strip he showed that like many of us, poor Opus is struggling with recent events:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Well it's getting a little more interesting. Cops are now admitting some of the victims may have been hit by "friendly fire". Autopsies on all victims should be mandatory here! I am also hearing that an AR 15 is no longer the weapon the killer used. The ISIS connection is being held together only by propaganda. And now proof positive that right wing Christians have an ample supply of whack jobs.

California Baptist pastor praises Orlando massacre | Colorado Springs Gazette, News



> SACRAMENTO — In response to the shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub early Sunday morning, a California pastor praised the massacre, stating "they deserve what they got."
> 
> In the video, Jimenez preached to his congregation that they should not be grieving the homosexual victims of the shootings, comparing those killed to pedophiles.
> 
> ...


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Related or just plain strange…???


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Watching CNN. They are interviewing survivors 
They are saving he wasn't alone. 
But that goes against everything. 
First he was straight and married 
Then gay and scorn. 
Authorities refuse to believe witnesses as they unreliable LOL
Wow just wow. I guess they want people to believe 
He was a lone wolf.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I believe the second amendment has been under constant threat from Democrats who simply want to centralize firepower in the hands of an ever expanding government. The current regulations are enough to control firearms--they are simply not enforced. " Macfury, that argument is getting old these days. No government is going to "centralize" firepower in the "hands of an ever expanding government". That is what they were fearful about in Texas a few months ago, and nothing came of it. At some point legal ownership of handguns and rifles/shotguns will reach a point when it makes no sense to own semi and automatic assault weapons. Guns for target practice or hunting of game or fowl (which is regulated), is one thing. However, a gun that can spray nearly a bullet a second is not meant for anything but mass killings. 

Speaking of Texas, the TX legislature is considering allowing open carry of weapons on the Univ. of Texas campus by students and staff (faculty voted by over 97% not to participate in this open carry of firearms). There are no restrictions of what you can carry in terms of hand guns or automatic weapons, or the number of weapons that can be carried around campus and in the classroom. The only "restriction" is that they must be visible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "I believe the second amendment has been under constant threat from Democrats who simply want to centralize firepower in the hands of an ever expanding government. The current regulations are enough to control firearms--they are simply not enforced. " Macfury, that argument is getting old these days. No government is going to "centralize" firepower in the "hands of an ever expanding government".


With all due respect, Dr. G.--I simply don't believe that. But for the sake of argument, describe the type of gun you believe current regulations do not cover.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> With all due respect, Dr. G.--I simply don't believe that. But for the sake of argument, describe the type of gun you believe current regulations do not cover.


There don't seem to be any regulations for any sorts of automatic weapons. There needs to be background checks on those who want to purchase these weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> There don't seem to be any regulations for any sorts of automatic weapons. There needs to be background checks on those who want to purchase these weapons of mass destruction.


Yes, but describe an automatic weapon to me. What can it do that another gun cannot.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

pm-r said:


> Related or just plain strange…???


If someone was invading my home in the middle of the night, which would be more effective in protecting my children? Tough call. I guess I could throw the kinder eggs and hope they choke on the surprise.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> If someone was invading my home in the middle of the night, which would be more effective in protecting my children? Tough call. I guess I could throw the kinder eggs and hope they choke on the surprise.



I'd suspect you wouldn't have the problem being a Canadian where the laws are different, but the ones in the U.S. seem a bit strange, hence my post.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Yes, but describe an automatic weapon to me. What can it do that another gun cannot.


Automatic weapons can shoot either as fast as you can pull the trigger, or like a machine gun, spray bullets out quickly as you hold down the trigger. They have magazines that contain 30-500 bullets. Thus, you are not shooting at a target to try to "cut center", or even shooting at some sort of fowl or game to try to bring it down in a shot or two. These are meant for assaults upon a group of people, and were always used by the military. The fact that I can get one with a no substantial background check, even though I am a known progressive and pacifist, not of sound mind and body (having voted for the likes of Pres. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry and Pres. Obama), and use it to blow away everyone at the annual ehMacLand Canada Day celebration, using bullets that can pierce body armor, is all the more reason to have some strict limits upon who can purchase such weapons and the types of weapons these people can purchase. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Automatic weapons can shoot either as fast as you can pull the trigger, or like a machine gun, spray bullets out quickly as you hold down the trigger. They have magazines that contain 30-500 bullets. Thus, you are not shooting at a target to try to "cut center", or even shooting at some sort of fowl or game to try to bring it down in a shot or two. These are meant for assaults upon a group of people, and were always used by the military. The fact that I can get one with a no substantial background check, even though I am a known progressive and pacifist, not of sound mind and body (having voted for the likes of Pres. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry and Pres. Obama), and use it to blow away everyone at the annual ehMacLand Canada Day celebration, using bullets that can pierce body armor, is all the more reason to have some strict limits upon who can purchase such weapons and the types of weapons these people can purchase. Paix, mon ami.


:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Automatic weapons can shoot either as fast as you can pull the trigger, or like a machine gun, spray bullets out quickly as you hold down the trigger. They have magazines that contain 30-500 bullets. Thus, you are not shooting at a target to try to "cut center", or even shooting at some sort of fowl or game to try to bring it down in a shot or two. ...using bullets that can pierce body armor, is all the more reason to have some strict limits upon who can purchase such weapons and the types of weapons these people can purchase. Paix, mon ami.


So that narrows it down.You would be OK with a gun that has fewer than 30 bullets in its magazine, is incapable of automatic fire and with bullets that cannot pierce armour?



Dr.G. said:


> ...having voted for the likes of Pres. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry and Pres. Obama), ...


At least you did not vote for Walter Mondale.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> So that narrows it down.You would be OK with a gun that has fewer than 30 bullets in its magazine, is incapable of automatic fire and with bullets that cannot pierce armour?
> 
> 
> 
> At least you did not vote for Walter Mondale.


Yes, I was thinking of bolt action rifles, such as this one. Remington 783, Bolt Action, .308 Winchester, Centerfire, 85847, 47700858470, with 3-9x40mm Scope - 644246, Bolt Action at Sportsman's Guide

I could never use one to kill some deer or bigger game, but I would not want to infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters who have a hunting license and are trained in how to use this sort of gun.

My memory is going .................. I was too young at the time to vote for Humphrey, but my first presidential vote went to Sen. Walter Mondale. Thanks for reminding me. Merci, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Not to repeat myself, but........ There are two kinds of ignorance in the world: normal, which is not knowing because you don't know; and willfull, meaning you refuse to listen. The U.S. is of the willfull brand on gun control I am afraid. The U.S. can see gun laws in other jurisdictions and then clearly state the others are wrong. This isn't a case of the world being flat here. Ask yourself this question....why would anyone who is an ordinary citizen require a military grade weapon ?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> So that narrows it down.You would be OK with a gun that has fewer than 30 bullets in its magazine, is incapable of automatic fire and with bullets that cannot pierce armour?


30 is far too many.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Not to repeat myself, but........ There are two kinds of ignorance in the world: normal, which is not knowing because you don't know; and willfull, meaning you refuse to listen. The U.S. is of the willfull brand on gun control I am afraid. The U.S. can see gun laws in other jurisdictions and then clearly state the others are wrong. This isn't a case of the world being flat here. Ask yourself this question....why would anyone who is an ordinary citizen require a military grade weapon ?


:clap::clap::clap:

All valid points, Rp. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

heavyall said:


> 30 is far too many.


Agreed. This is why I would suggest a bolt action or dual cartridge shot gun for actual hunters of game or fowl ............... not humans. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Yes, I was thinking of bolt action rifles, such as this one. Remington 783, Bolt Action, .308 Winchester, Centerfire, 85847, 47700858470, with 3-9x40mm Scope - 644246, Bolt Action at Sportsman's Guide
> 
> I could never use one to kill some deer or bigger game, but I would not want to infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters who have a hunting license and are trained in how to use this sort of gun.


That seems reasonable to me. I am not a hunter myself and actually do not enjoy firing a gun, but I consider it an important part of the US Constitution.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I grew up hunting with rifles and shotguns that held three rounds in the clip or magazine. Can't ever remember requiring all three rounds in a rifle, but there were times when all three shells got used with the shotgun hunting pheasant. Tough to hit, those rascals.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That seems reasonable to me. I am not a hunter myself and actually do not enjoy firing a gun, but I consider it an important part of the US Constitution.


A valid point, but keep in mind that the 2nd amendment was written at a time when there was a need for militias to help protect what was frontier regions of the 13 states. When there was a standing army, these state militias were put under the jurisdiction and control of the states. The fact that you and I can amass a small military grade arsenal, from small howitzers, anti-tank rocket launchers, automatic weapons of all sorts and sizes, along with enough ammo to keep us supplied for a year, is beyond a rational use of"right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The US Constitution has grown with the needs of society and the country, so just as the 1st Amendment has evolved, so too must the 2nd Amendment. Paix, mon ami.

PS I share you dislike to "firing a gun".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> I grew up hunting with rifles and shotguns that held three rounds in the clip or magazine. Can't ever remember requiring all three rounds in a rifle, but there were times when all three shells got used with the shotgun hunting pheasant. Tough to hit, those rascals.


This is my point, Don. This is a legal use of such a gun. Did you need a permit to buy and own the gun? Did you need a permit to hunt pheasants? Were you restricted in when and where you could hunt these fowl? Thus, this is what is needed in the US .......... some reasonable restriction on military grade weapons and ammo, not the sorts of rifles and shotguns you grew up with. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't agree that the right is limited to militias--only that this was one of the reasons why people would need guns.



Dr.G. said:


> A valid point, but keep in mind that the 2nd amendment was written at a time when there was a need for militias to help protect what was frontier regions of the 13 states. When there was a standing army, these state militias were put under the jurisdiction and control of the states. The fact that you and I can amass a small military grade arsenal, from small howitzers, anti-tank rocket launchers, automatic weapons of all sorts and sizes, along with enough ammo to keep us supplied for a year, is beyond a rational use of"right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The US Constitution has grown with the needs of society and the country, so just as the 1st Amendment has evolved, so too must the 2nd Amendment. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> PS I share you dislike to "firing a gun".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> This is my point, Don. This is a legal use of such a gun. Did you need a permit to buy and own the gun? Did you need a permit to hunt pheasants? Were you restricted in when and where you could hunt these fowl? Thus, this is what is needed in the US .......... some reasonable restriction on military grade weapons and ammo, not the sorts of rifles and shotguns you grew up with. Paix, mon ami.


No, no permit was required to either purchase nor own the guns except one had to be 18 years of age. Only hand guns required such a permit. As for the pheasants, yes an annual license was required and there were not only restrictions as to where you could hunt them, but bag limits on all game as well.

Ammo could be purchased at most hardware and sporting goods stores without being questioned except for being 18 years of age.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I don't agree that the right is limited to militias--only that this was one of the reasons why people would need guns.


Well, then you want to adapt the 2nd Amendment, as do those who want some limits on the number and type of weapons that a citizen can possess. You can't just leave out the point of a "well regulated militia".

Amendment II

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> No, no permit was required to either purchase nor own the guns except one had to be 18 years of age. Only hand guns required such a permit. As for the pheasants, yes an annual license was required and there were not only restrictions as to where you could hunt them, but bag limits on all game as well.
> 
> Ammo could be purchased at most hardware and sporting goods stores without being questioned except for being 18 years of age.


Interesting. Was this just for fowl? My son actually wanted to see if he could get a big game license in NL, and took the test and now he can go hunt moose in certain parts of NL at certain times of the year. The fact that he has only used a gun to learn how to use it to get this permit, and does not own a gun, is interesting to me.

Don, would you have had to show any other proof other than of age if you wanted to hunt bigger game? Could you hunt this game anywhere and at anytime of the year?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Understood. So as I read it, one of the reasons that " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is that they may be required to participate in a well-regulated militia.

Why do you suppose that they added "shall not be infringed"? 

The interpretation of this amendment usually comes down to who you trust more: the American people, or the American government.



Dr.G. said:


> Well, then you want to adapt the 2nd Amendment, as do those who want some limits on the number and type of weapons that a citizen can possess. You can't just leave out the point of a "well regulated militia".
> 
> Amendment II
> 
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Understood. So as I read it, one of the reasons that " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is that they may be required to participate in a well-regulated militia.
> 
> Why do you suppose that they added "shall not be infringed"?
> 
> The interpretation of this amendment usually comes down to who you trust more: the American people, or the American government.


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ...." Yes, it is this part that those who don't want any restrictions forget to include in their argument. 

I have to put some trust in the American government as well as the American people. It is a delicate balancing act, and this equilibrium does not come about easily. Still, it is the fact that you and I are having a rational and open discussion, with no persons or government officials banging at my door in that they oppose my viewpoints, that keeps a democracy strong. Granted, we are in Canada, but if we were in the US, and you too were an American citizen, we could still have this conversation. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, then you want to adapt the 2nd Amendment, as do those who want some limits on the number and type of weapons that a citizen can possess. You can't just leave out the point of a "well regulated militia".
> 
> Amendment II
> 
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Do you think the Founding Fathers and beyond understood the use of the comma?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But if it is only for state-run militia purposes, why should the right of the *people* not be infringed?



Dr.G. said:


> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ...." Yes, it is this part that those who don't want any restrictions forget to include in their argument.
> 
> I have to put some trust in the American government as well as the American people. It is a delicate balancing act, and this equilibrium does not come about easily. Still, it is the fact that you and I are having a rational and open discussion, with no persons or government officials banging at my door in that they oppose my viewpoints, that keeps a democracy strong. Granted, we are in Canada, but if we were in the US, and you too were an American citizen, we could still have this conversation. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> But if it is only for state-run militia purposes, why should the right of the *people* not be infringed?


Again, you can't leave out the main part of the 2nd Amendment which is ""A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...." All of the first 10 Amendments have "infringements" placed upon them, even the 1st Amendment, which is the crucial one of the ten. Why should the 2nd be interpreted in part, rather than in whole?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Do you think the Founding Fathers and beyond understood the use of the comma?


Interesting point, Rp.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Where is Pres. Reagan now that we need some of his common sense to try to influence many in the Republican Party????


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Constitutions can be amended......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Where is Pres. Reagan now that we need some of his common sense to try to influence many in the Republican Party????


Thankfully, the fully automatic AK-47 is already next-to illegal and requires special federal oversight to own. You can't simply buy one with a gun license. There are modified AK-47s available that match your requirements, Dr. G.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Constitutions can be amended......


Thankfully, the founding fathers ensured it would be very difficult.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Again, you can't leave out the main part of the 2nd Amendment which is ""A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...." All of the first 10 Amendments have "infringements" placed upon them, even the 1st Amendment, which is the crucial one of the ten. Why should the 2nd be interpreted in part, rather than in whole?


I am not leaving anything out. I am asking why this is defined a right of the people... and not the militia.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I am not leaving anything out. I am asking why this is defined a right of the people... and not the militia.


Read the whole amendment, including the commas. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Thankfully, the founding fathers ensured it would be very difficult.


True, but they were wise enough to know that just as the 13 colonies evolved into the 13 states, there would be evolutionary change in the United States of America. Interesting fact, that it was not until AFTER the US Civil War that the USA was referred to as The United States of America. Before then, it was these united states of America. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Rps said:


> Constitutions can be amended......


yup, liberals have changed our charter a million times in Canada. LOL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Read the whole amendment, including the commas. Paix, mon ami.


Let me rephrase it as a question. To whom does the right to bear arms belong--the state, the militia, or the people?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

In his Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton concluded that the militia is to be constituted directly of the people but managed by the states. 

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

If a well regulated militia was, back then, the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security, which today is the federal government, but back then the states had the collective right to have their own militias as a necessary "civic purpose".

A very interesting and civil discussion is going on between you and I which I am enjoying. If the truth be known, I do support some "collective rights" versus an individual's right, but for other things, I would support an individual's right over the collective right (e.g., When I applied for my Conscientious Objector status with my draft board, the collective right was that I should go and fight in Vietnam as was my duty as an 18 year old American -- a person who could not vote or legally buy a can of beer. However, I believed in my personal and individual right of the freedom of thought and conscience, and requested either a 1O status (i.e., non-military service) or a 1AO status (i.e., non-combative military service as a front-line paramedic). In the end, I was granted a 1AO status and was drafted under those terms.)

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting. Was this just for fowl? My son actually wanted to see if he could get a big game license in NL, and took the test and now he can go hunt moose in certain parts of NL at certain times of the year. The fact that he has only used a gun to learn how to use it to get this permit, and does not own a gun, is interesting to me.
> 
> Don, would you have had to show any other proof other than of age if you wanted to hunt bigger game? Could you hunt this game anywhere and at anytime of the year?


I could buy any long gun or shotgun I wished as long as I was 18. Could be a bolt action or a semi-automatic and any calibre from a .22 to a .306 in those days the preferred high powered hunting rifle for deer, moose, bear, etc. All bolt actions came standard with a three round magazine, but a clip could be purchased to add more rounds, back then most commonly five rounds. Shotguns were manufactured with a magazine that would hold five rounds, but laws in Canada stated they could only be sold equipped with a 'plug' that would limit the shells to three and no more.

There were seasons each fall for deer, antelope, elk, moose, bear, etc. and a license and 'tag' were issued. Some years licenses were issued by draw where the number of hunters outnumbered the quota of animals allowed that season and hunters applied for a license. Then the government drew so many names for the number licenses allowed and if you were lucky enough to have your name picked, you got a license. Many hunters did not. Once the animal had been shot, by law the tag had to be affixed in plain site to the carcass for game warden inspection if you were stopped on the way home to butcher the kill. The tag was not removable once attached, usually to the ear.

You could hunt only in designated zones of the province depending on what game you were seeking and the same rules were followed for the two game bird licenses issued, one for waterfowl and the other for upland game. Upland game being prairie chicken, partridge and pheasant required an additional license in addition to the waterfowl and a separate fee was paid.

Also you were only allowed to hunt from dawn until dusk, dawn defined as when the sun broke the horizon and dusk when the sun set below the horizon.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> I could buy any long gun or shotgun I wished as long as I was 18. Could be a bolt action or a semi-automatic and any calibre from a .22 to a .306 in those days the preferred high powered hunting rifle for deer, moose, bear, etc. All bolt actions came standard with a three round magazine, but a clip could be purchased to add more rounds, back then most commonly five rounds. Shotguns were manufactured with a magazine that would hold five rounds, but laws in Canada stated they could only be sold equipped with a 'plug' that would limit the shells to three and no more.
> 
> There were seasons each fall for deer, antelope, elk, moose, bear, etc. and a license and 'tag' were issued. Some years licenses were issued by draw where the number of hunters outnumbered the quota of animals allowed that season and hunters applied for a license. Then the government drew so many names for the number licenses allowed and if you were lucky enough to have your name picked, you got a license. Many hunters did not. Once the animal had been shot, by law the tag had to be affixed in plain site to the carcass for game warden inspection if you were stopped on the way home to butcher the kill. The tag was not removable once attached, usually to the ear.
> 
> ...


Sounds reasonable, Don. At least it was regulated so that you did not have what we called a "New York City hunting party", which was when a dozen newby hunters from NYC, would form a firing circle around a deer and then all shoot at once. Usually, the deer ran away, and the NYC population would decrease.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"On Wednesday, Trump said he would schedule a meeting soon with the National Rifle Association to discuss proposals to ban people on certain federal watch lists from buying firearms." 

Sad that he has to go ask the NRA for some sort of permission or blessing for this change in policy. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e76e11b12_story.html?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Trump can't do anything but go to the NRA at this point. He has not yet replaced Obama.



Dr.G. said:


> "On Wednesday, Trump said he would schedule a meeting soon with the National Rifle Association to discuss proposals to ban people on certain federal watch lists from buying firearms."
> 
> Sad that he has to go ask the NRA for some sort of permission or blessing for this change in policy.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e76e11b12_story.html?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Trump can't do anything but go to the NRA at this point. He has not yet replaced Obama.


Hat in hand to the NRA. How sad. Hopefully, he shall not step foot in the White House except on a tour. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Hat in hand to the NRA. How sad. Hopefully, he shall not step foot in the White House except on a tour. We shall see.


Not at all sad. The NRA is the largest gun lobby group in America. He can work with them to ensure that he has support for changes when he becomes President--instead of simply using executive orders. Using executive orders when you can't convince lawmakers to follow your agenda--that is truly sad.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Not at all sad. The NRA is the largest gun lobby group in America. He can work with them to ensure that he has support for changes when he becomes President--instead of simply using executive orders. Using executive orders when you can't convince lawmakers to follow your agenda--that is truly sad.


Well, maybe when he does NOT become president, Trump can hold the NRA national convention in one of his hotels, and promote them all he wants.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

How sad when the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court makes such rash statements re the Second Amendment. He was probably nominated to the bench by a liberal commie-loving progressive Democrat. I shall have to look it up. 

Oops ...................... he was nominated by Pres. Richard Nixon.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

People who advocate for gun rights "because constitution" have about as much credibility as people who defended slavery. It's just a piece of paper, written by people who make mistakes, and written in a different time. It absolutely SHOULD be changed when the circumstances for a change arise.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

heavyall said:


> People who advocate for gun rights "because constitution" have about as much credibility as people who defended slavery. It's just a piece of paper, written by people who make mistakes, and written in a different time. It absolutely SHOULD be changed when the circumstances for a change arise.


Agreed, heavyall. There is a process for this change so that it can't be like a tennis ball back and forth every year or so. Still, it was meant to evolve with changes in society, along with the stability of the checks and balances amongst the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> How sad when the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court makes such rash statements re the Second Amendment. He was probably nominated to the bench by a liberal commie-loving progressive Democrat. I shall have to look it up.
> 
> Oops ...................... he was nominated by Pres. Richard Nixon.


Burger was entitled to a few errors during his tenure. No man is perfect.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G. did you support the combatants of the American Revolution or did you feel they were a bunch of gun nuts who needlessly overthrew a government that wasn't so bad?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G. did you support the combatants of the American Revolution or did you feel they were a bunch of gun nuts who needlessly overthrew a government that wasn't so bad?


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." 

Macfury, I would have been one of the Sons of Liberty. Death before Dishonor. Paix, mon ami.

“These are the times that try men's souls.” Thomas Paine

“Give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.” Tom Paine 

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. Nathan Hale


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Burger was entitled to a few errors during his tenure. No man is perfect.


:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Right on!



Dr.G. said:


> "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
> 
> Macfury, I would have been one of the Sons of Liberty. Death before Dishonor. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Right on!


Again, we are in agreement. Paix, mon ami.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It's easier to get a gun than to get a puppy - CNN.com

Before anyone can buy one of our puppies, they have to have references, pass a three part test, show pictures of their house and backyard, sign a three page contract, and then ............ and only then, will we consider selling them a puppy.

Luckily, all the pups we have placed in our 7 litters these past 15 years have been to good homes. Ten people actually have bought another pup from us as their original pup grew up and was so good.

Still, it is easier to purchase an automatic weapon in the US than it is to buy a 15 week old puppy from us.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Always interesting to see conspiracies developing. I know nothing about this person, his history as a journalist, etc. No endorsement implied. 

ORLANDO SHOOTING DAD A LONGTIME CIA ASSET - Daniel Hopsicker's MadCowNew


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*U.K. mourns Jo Cox as group says suspect had far-right ties*

...a U.S. civil rights group said the man suspected of the gun and knife attack had links to an American white supremacist organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center said it has records showing Thomas Mair was a supporter of the National Alliance. The centre said Mair purchased a manual from the group in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol.

the centre published copies of receipts showing that a Thomas Mair of West Yorkshire -- the county where Cox and her suspected killer both lived -- bought publications including "Chemistry of Powder and Explosives" and "Improvised Munitions Handbook."

The address on receipts corresponded to a house that on Friday was cordoned off by police tape and guarded by uniformed officers.

The National Alliance was founded by William Pierce, whose book "The Turner Diaries" has been called a grisly blueprint for a bloody race war. Timothy McVeigh based the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168 people, on a truck-bombing described in the book.

A Thomas Mair of Batley -- the town where the suspect lives -- was also named as a former subscriber to pro-Apartheid publication SA Patriot. In 2006, the online newsletter of far-right group the Springbok Club said Mair was "one of the earliest subscribers and supporters of SA Patriot."

Mair, 52, was arrested Thursday on suspicion of killing Cox, who was shot and stabbed outside a library in her northern England constituency. The suspect's brother, Scott Mair, told reporters his brother had a history of mental illness, but was not violent.​
(CTV)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Here we go again...we've got to establish the ties to white or right wing groups immediately. During the Orlando shooting discussion you were all about being careful not to tie the guy to ISIS and cursing people who were doing so.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Here we go again...we've got to establish the ties to white or right wing groups immediately. During the Orlando shooting discussion you were all about being careful not to tie the guy to ISIS and cursing people who were doing so.


You should read more carefully.

I did not "curse" people who were linking Mateen to ISIS. This is what I said:

_He may well turn out to have been influenced or tied to radical terrorists_​
The issue I had with much of the stuff that people were posting regarding the Orlando shooter is the lack of sources and documentation. Lots of unreliable information, no reliable (or named) sources, etc.

With the Cox shooter, we have ample *documented* information coming out. And anywhere that conjecture has been provided, it has been provided with qualification and warning about the lack of reliable sources.

If you can't see the difference, then it's an issue with your interpretation of reality, not mine.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's the speed at which you are hoping to make the ties, CM. The approach is always noticed.



CubaMark said:


> You should read more carefully.
> 
> I did not "curse" people who were linking Mateen to ISIS. This is what I said:
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Well, this outta explode progressive heads everywhere...

Ted Nugent Just Dropped A Truth Bomb On Gun Control Advocates Everywhere



> “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force,” the letter reads. “If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.”
> 
> “When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.”
> 
> “People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.”


More:



> *“When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone,” the letter reads.*


That's a civilized gun owner's mentality.

Criminals are not civilized gun owners. Don't make a civilized gun owner pay for the crimes of an uncivilized one. It's not the firearms that are dangerous. It's the uncivilized ones wielding them...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Well, this outta explode progressive heads everywhere...
> 
> Ted Nugent Just Dropped A Truth Bomb On Gun Control Advocates Everywhere


You're citing Ted Nugent as someone with a clue? Holy Hell.....

*On dodging the Vietnam War draft*
Nugent told the Detroit Free Press in 1990 that he meticulously planned to get out of the war. He stopped bathing 30 days before going before the draft board and later ate nothing but junk food and Pepsi. A few days before his appointment, Nugent started defecating in his pants. It obviously worked — and it's a good thing, because "if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed all the Hippies in the foxholes. I would have killed everybody."

*On women*
Nugent is well known for his "type" of women, namely women who might not be 18. His "muse" Pele Massa was 17 when they got together — he had to take legal custody of her from her parents in order to date. However, that relationship — like most of Nugent's relationships — ended because of his love for "alternative flesh management," or as we call it, cheating.

He's also not a fan of strong women with independent thoughts.

"What’s a feminist anyways? A fat pig who doesn’t get it often enough?"

*On minorities and non-Americans*
He still has a rabid following around the world, whether he likes it or not. Apparently, he doesn't share the love.

"…Yeah they love me (in Japan) — they’re still assholes. These people they don’t know what life is. I don’t have a following, they need me; they don’t like me they need me… Foreigners are a******s; foreigners are scum; I don’t like ‘em; I don’t want ‘em in this country; I don’t want ‘em selling me doughnuts; I don’t want ‘em pumping my gas; I don’t want ‘em downwind of my life-OK? So anyhow, and I’m dead serious…"
(SheKnows)​
...that's just from a cursory search. Look up "unhinged" in the dictionary and you'll see Nugent's full-page ad....


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I haven't commented on the Orlando tragedy yet. That said, it's been very interesting watching the liberals at work. With a complete absence of surprise, I watched the left immediately bypass the cause (a homophobic, misogynistic, Islamic nut job) & screech the typical narrative, "Gun control!!! Assault weapons!!! AR-15's!!! (although I read somewhere that it wasn't even an AR-15) Blah, blah, blah!!!"

I have a few links...

On turning a tragedy into political fodder:

Orlando Jihad - It's Nothing To Do With Islam Part I - Its Gun Rights



> Just when we think that the socialist/communist/liberal community, or 'progressives' as they like to call themselves, cannot sink any lower, they go and surpass themselves by using the deaths of forty-nine innocent Americans in Orlando, Florida to advance their political agenda.
> 
> The now infamous quote used by Obama bag-carrier, Rahm Emanual, _'never let a serious crisis go to waste'_ has been standard operating procedure for the unscrupulous left on both sides of the Atlantic but watching them double down by using this particular massacre has been an unedifying experience and an indication of how fanatical they are about their ideology and their determination to impose it.
> 
> ...


Yep.

On backing the wrong team:

The Left Chose Islam Over Gays. Now 100 People Are Dead Or Maimed In Orlando



> America has to make a choice. Does it want gay rights, women’s emancipation, and tolerance for people of all nonviolent faiths — or does it want Islam?


Pretty simple question...

Watch The 13 Stupidest Things Said On TV About The Orlando Terrorist Attack

Gotta get the narrative going early...



> On MSNBC, Jim Cavanaugh suggested the attack was probably “domestic terror” from “white hate groups.”


And this, from No-Reputation-Left Brokaw



> “We don’t have any dialogue in America about all these mass shootings,” said Tom Brokaw, conflating an obvious terrorist attack by a radical Islamist jihadi with shootings perpetrated by individuals who have been adjudicated as being mentally ill. Brokaw also demanded that the federal government ban the “AR-14,” a gun that does not actually exist.


Hey, Tom, here's a little tip for ya: You know why there isn't any dialogue? 'Cause you guys on the left refuse to discern between cause & effect. You're so busy focusing on "AR-14's" <snort> that you can't see the cause: the fruit loops & whackos wielding them. There are over 200 million guns in the US, along with hundreds of millions, if not billions, of rounds of ammo. If the typical gun owner was a problem, it'd be pretty f'ing obvious by now, you idiot.

And, how about enforcing existing laws?

Did the FBI Fail and Is It Failing to Admit It?



> The dots appear to have been connected. Yesterday, I noted that the FBI had questioned the mass murderer (MM) in 2013, based on his claims that he knew terrorists. The FBI concluded that his claims could not be substantiated. But then in 2014 they discovered that MM actually had contact with a terrorist who engaged in a suicide bombing. The 2014 event confirmed that MM knew terrorists.
> 
> What did the FBI do? They closed the investigation. It now turns out that, had they kept the investigation open, his mass murder might have been prevented. MM was placed on a federal watch list for 10 months while he was being investigated.
> 
> ...


Related:

UH OH: Gun store says they DID REPORT Orlando Shooter to FBI weeks before massacre



> _A gun store owner reported Orlando shooter Omar Mateen to authorities weeks before he committed the worst mass shooting in US history.
> 
> Robbie Abell, co-owner of Lotus Gunworks, told the Wall Street Journal Mateen came into the store in South Florida in May and asked for heavy-duty body armor like the kind used by law enforcement.
> 
> ...


And, an interesting question about the left's narrative about Mateen being a "lone wolf", from the above story & the next link:

This ABC News report flies in the face of Obama’s ‘Lone Wolf’ theory on Orlando terrorist



> After being turned away on his body armor requests, Mateen then did something that should raise eyebrows and red flags at the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> _“At this time, he pulled away and got on his cell phone. When he was on the cell phone he had a conversation in a foreign language. That was more concerning. Then he came back and he was requesting ammo. He wanted bulk ammo only. At this time we declined any business and he left the store.”_​
> You heard right. When denied the purchase of body armor, “Lone Wolf” Omar Mateen got on the phone, had a conversation in a foreign language and then started asking about purchasing large quantities of ammunition. Abell then contacted the FBI, reported everything that had occurred in his store and that was the last thing he heard until Sunday morning when he saw Mateen’s face plastered across his television.


Questions, questions.

And, this:

Top six jihadi killers in US since 9/11: All vetted or under FBI surveillance – will refugees be vetted as poorly?



> The six perpetrators of the four bloodiest terrorist attacks since September 11th were all at one point in time under the scrutiny of the federal government, mostly by the FBI. Yet all six passed their vetting with flying colors.
> 
> More than a few have asked rhetorically: If the federal government fails to properly vet a mere six individuals who killed or wounded nearly 550 innocent men, women and children, why should we believe the feds when they assure us that they can properly investigate 65,000 refugees from Syria and Iraq? It should also be noted that ISIS has vowed they would embed their followers in with the huge numbers of refugees that are already overwhelming the authorities of many European nations.


Question, questions...

And, how about that "Religion of Peace"?

Casualties of War: Global Jihadism Linked to More Than Half of War Deaths



> More than half of the world's direct casualties of war are now harvested in conflicts linked to militant Islamism and jihadism, a new compilation from the world's leading conflict researchers at Uppsala University showed.


And then, you've got leftist MSM like this pantywaist from the _New York Daily News_. This will put a smile on the face of anybody who has ever fired a weapon:

A seriously sissified shooting story



> _t's really difficult for me to believe that any man could publicly and apparently proudly proclaim himself to be such a totally emasculated milquetoast, and an ill-informed one at that, as New York Daily News reporter Gersh Kuntzmann has done with this error-filled hit piece on the AR-15 rifle – which was, of course, timed to take advantage of the atrocity in Orlando._


_

More:




But it is in the actual firing of the weapon that Gersh seriously sissifies himself:

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions – loud like a bomb – gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.​
I gotta tell you, Kuntzmann, you had millions of American gun owners guffawing with that bit of hissy-fit histrionics. Thousands of teenage girls fire the AR-15 routinely, and they can tell you, the recoil is minimal compared to most sporting rifles. And those unbruised young ladies have the presence of mind not to let themselves become disoriented by those absolutely icky brass shell casings flying past as they steel themselves not to be overcome by the smell of destruction, whatever the hell that is, and the bomb-like muzzle blasts that gave you temporary PTSD, whatever the hell that is, and made you anxious and irritable for at least an hour.

Click to expand...

Emphasis from the link.

His wife should be proud...

Further:




Being the old politically incorrect dinosaur I am, I'd just say, *"Don't send a girl to do a man's job."*

Click to expand...

M'bold.

Nailed it..._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But he makes a very good argument in favoru of guns. And not a thing you've said detracts from the strength of his argument.




CubaMark said:


> You're citing Ted Nugent as someone with a clue? Holy Hell.....
> 
> *On dodging the Vietnam War draft*
> Nugent told the Detroit Free Press in 1990 that he meticulously planned to get out of the war. He stopped bathing 30 days before going before the draft board and later ate nothing but junk food and Pepsi. A few days before his appointment, Nugent started defecating in his pants. It obviously worked — and it's a good thing, because "if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed all the Hippies in the foxholes. I would have killed everybody."
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yet, despite all his alleged whacko credentials, you are unable to put a single dent into his argument. Rather, as is often the case with you, a good, old-fashioned character assassination is all you can muster. 

That says far more about you than anything you've said about him.

Holy Hell, indeed...



CubaMark said:


> You're citing Ted Nugent as someone with a clue? Holy Hell.....


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

About all those gun deaths...

Obama's mandatory plastic cutlery law



> _In 2014, you were *six times more likely to be murdered with a knife* than you were with a rifle. Knives were the weapon of choice in 1,567 murders in 2014, according to the FBI.
> 
> It gets crazier. You were also nearly *three times more likely to be killed by someone’s fists or feet* than you were to be murdered with a rifle.
> 
> In 2014, *660 people were murdered with what the FBI calls “personal weapons” – hands, fists, feet* – compared to *248 with rifles.*_​


Bold from the link.

Bu, bu, bu, but...Assault Rifles!!!

More:



> _"The Pink Pistols is a national gun club for gays and lesbians. It saw its membership soar from about 1,500 members on Saturday to 3,500 on Monday."_​


Good.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Further on Pantywaist Kuntzman's AR-15 experience.

Gersh Kuntzman Memorial AR-15 Discussion



> _ Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).
> 
> The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions -- loud like a bomb -- gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable._​
> I shoot left-handed, so the empties go right past my face. And they have never bothered me. Kuntzman looks like he fires right-handed, so what was he seeing that was so terrifying?
> ...


M'bold.

Sums it up for me?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snow. Flake.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick.


That wasn't sulfur he was smelling. From the sounds of it he likely shat his pantaloons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Alright you primitive screwhead, listen up! This... is a boomstick!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Yup. I believe this is the definition of irony? (Alanis Morissette really screwed that up for me)_

*Gun shop owner fatally shot during weapons safety class*

The owner of a gunshop in Ohio has been shot and killed as a weapons safety class was taking place at his business.

James Baker, 64, was in a room adjoining the class where a lesson was underway for around 10 people permitted to carry concealed weapons, when one gun was apparently discharged by accident. 

Sheriff AJ Rodenberg told local media that one of the students fired by accident while practicing “weapons-malfunction drills.’’​
(The Independent UK)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Loads of larfs, CM. I hear that there was a sugar worker killed in Cuba--and the guy actually ate sugar, so he was responsible for his own death. Yeee-haw, what a back slapper!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Don't be an ass, Macfury. Somebody DIED, for god's sake. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Don't be an ass, Macfury. Somebody DIED, for god's sake.


Absolutely. That's why I abhor CM posting news of an unfortunate accident here in a topic about gun violence for the mere entertainment value of it being "ironic."


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I believe that was MF's point.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

chasMac said:


> I believe that was MF's point.



Then he has a strange way of showing compassion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I don't think CM's post was an attempt to elicit compassion. Though I could be wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is rich. _Chicago Sun Time_s reporter tries to prove how easy it is to buy a gun but the gun store denies it on the grounds that the reporter had: "...an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.” He's denied the gun but still insists the system does not work... because he was discriminated against for being a reporter.

STEINBERG: Would-be terrorists can buy guns, but a reporter? No. | Chicago Sun-Times


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Brilliant...

Loretta Lynch Admits That Federal Authorities Have Lost The Orlando Shooter's Wife



> As US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said today, federal authorities are going back and looking at all of the contact with Omar Mateen, as well as those around him in order find out if there is anything that was missed.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Directly related to the 3 hour siege in Orlando...

Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub



> A man with a concealed carry license stopped a shooter after the latter opened fire on a crowd of people at a nightclub in South Carolina early Sunday morning, according to WISTV.com.
> 
> After getting into a fight with another person, the 32-year-old suspect pulled out a gun and began to fire at a crowd of people gathered outside of the club, hitting and injuring four, WISTV reports. One of the victims, who holds a concealed-carry permit, shot back in self-defense, hitting the suspect in the leg.


Imagine how many lives one well-placed shot could have saved...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Directly related to the 3 hour siege in Orlando...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed, but it is often not that clear cut. The police arrive on the scene and see two people shooting, how do they know which one is the perp? Do they shoot both? How do you avoid shooting the "good guy"? What if the "good guy" fires a pre-emotive shot and kills the would-be killer. Wouldn't this now make him or her the murderer? This one worked out well, but it is often more complicated. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------

