A suspected Islamic terrorist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Florida, killing 50 people and wounding another 53 before he was killed by police. While authorities continue to investigate to determine whether this man had ties to ISIS, the terror organization has not been quiet in praising the attack. This comes three days after ISIS announced they would attack somewhere in Florida. Today's attack marks the largest act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11.
takyon: The gunman reportedly called 911 emergency services to pledge allegiance to ISIS. The President will hold a briefing momentarily. Compare this article to the original submission.
Related Stories
So, the Islamic Terrorist Opens Fire on Florida Nightclub; 50 Killed, 53 Wounded story is up over 400 comments and loading slower than hell. We finally managed to find ourselves a limit to comments under the current code. There's a fix going to be coming in the upcoming site update but for now there are two workarounds; take your pick.
- Change your comment view mode to Nested or Flat.
- Change Comment Limit under Preferences to five to ten.
The latter solution gives you 5-10 root level comments and all their children not 5-10 comments total. It also allows you to keep using the javascript expand/collapse buttons if you were.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:08PM
Execute:
carry out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person).
kill (someone) as a political act.
It was neither of those things.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:15PM
Changed to "killed".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @02:06AM
All the pedantry aside - there's got to be a new "Florida Man" joke in this story. Every time you read or hear a tagline, "Man from Florida", you KNOW something outrageous is coming.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 13 2016, @02:14AM
Floridians won't even feel unsafe after this large terrorist attack. It's just the cost of doing bizness in FL.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 14 2016, @01:47PM
And your post made me think "Florida burning Man" joke.
Not so funny, really.
DISCLAIMER: if the next 'attack' consists of fire, I was at home, or at work, or with my family somewhere.
.
.
I have witnesses that say so.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:16PM
Terrorist actions ARE political acts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:25PM
> kill (someone) as a political act.
What, do you think this guy just had personal grudges against all 50+ people he killed in that particular night club?
Of course it was political.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:26PM
To both anons, the context is the police killing the gunman, not the gunman's killings.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Username on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:12PM
Islam isn’t just a religion, it is a political ideology. That is why homosexuality is illegal in the Islamic world, and is punishable by execution by 11 different countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:42AM
Islam itself is a religion; it just so happens, however, that many of its proponents also subscribe to a toxic political ideology.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:01AM
You need to re-read the other AC and give his statement some serious thought.
Islam is NOT "just a religion". It is a judicial system, a political movement, a philosophy, a way of life. Islam rejected each and every one of the ancient philosophers, and it rejects all other judicial systems. Islam has no room for socialism, capitalism, democracy, or fascism. Islam is sufficient unto itself in all respects. Islam doesn't look outside itself for anything.
(Score: 2) by dmc on Monday June 13 2016, @09:08PM
You haven't spent a lot of time interacting with multiple people of any particular religion have you? Take any label or classification of people, then go spend real time getting to know a dozen of the people who fall into that category. You'll soon realize that the labeling and classifications are not clarifying the situation (at least in the way that you used them). There are some christians that "look outside of themselves for something", and then there are some christians (from seneca kansas as I recall) that call on the government to execute homosexuals. It's a big complicated world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @03:32AM
All well and good until one of them tries to kill you.
Then none of this applies.
Try telling a rape victim that not all men are rapists. Right.
Read the koran. At least once.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:47PM
toothbrushes, wife beating, and the koran. Been there, done that.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 14 2016, @01:59PM
THIS is why religion needs to disappear:
ah, shit, i just f'd up: this is why ORGANIZED religion needs to disappear.
YOU DO NOT NEED SOMEONE ELSE TO TELL YOU HOW TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE, ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED SOMEONE TO TELL YOU HOW TO THINK OR NOT THINK.
Believe what you believe, think what you think, but think about it and question it. Is what i am thinking a good thing? Is it? Why? What?
If you believe in a 'God', fine! If you think the moon has never been landed on, fine! But think about it: don't just accept what someone tells you.
Don't strap a bomb to yourself 'cause someone says 'this is a good thing'. (If it was a good thing, THEY'D be doing it themselves, but they're not, are they! (Think about that.)
As one sig says, (to paraphrase, because i don't have it in front of me)(apologies to the owner for saying it so lamely): "I just told you to think about it for yourself."
More people need to think, instead of being sheeple and doing what the shepherd says.
Damn, people.
.
THINK!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:09AM
> Islam isn’t just a religion, it is a political ideology.
Just like christianity, judaism, hinduism, confucianism and practically every major religion.
And just like every religion it is all subject to interpretation of which there are practically an unlimited number to chose from. That's why you can have these gay imames [islamandhomosexuality.com] and this mosque welcoming LGBQT people [www.cbc.ca] and american evangelicals pushing the death penatly for gay sex in uganda. [thinkprogress.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:31AM
Mod Points! My kingdom for mod points!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:07PM
I have mod points, but it's already at 5. I tried to push it to 6, as that is one better, but it seems the limit is 5.
.
But why not just make 5 one louder.
.
Well, mine goes to 6!
.
(yeah, sorry. It's the vodka talking again).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:30PM
Hair splitting. I don't believe Wonkey has been designated an official arbiter of word definitions. Dictionaries carry a significant variety of definitions.
Firing on police, or anyone else for that matter, immediately invokes a right to self defense, and therefor renders the shooter a legally condemned person.
Execution also does not require any political motivation in at all. You made that part up. Although all indications are that there were political motives involved in this instance.
The original submission was a little suspect in the choice of words, using the phrase "executed by police" suggests a certain amount of sympathy with the attacker. However this might have been a casual choice of words,
Takyon felt obligated to point out the edit to this story by adding "Compare this article to the original submission." That too seems out of character and somewhat suspect. I don't know if that happened before or after wonkey inserted himself in the editing process.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:20PM
The term "execution" implies, to my mind, a killing that was not in self-defence and was intentional, not accidental. Consider the expression "execution style":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution-style_murder [wikipedia.org]
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=execution%20style [urbandictionary.com]
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/execution+style [thefreedictionary.com]
http://wishtv.com/2016/02/26/victims-found-in-fort-wayne-home-killed-execution-style/ [wishtv.com]
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/execution+style [thefreedictionary.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:26PM
Fuck off. I removed (censored) the inflammatory comment from view, and pointed out where the submitter's original phrasing could be found. There is nothing wrong with this.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 13 2016, @06:46AM
Apparently you aren't alone in the censoring.
Even Obama agrees with you. [nypost.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 13 2016, @07:00AM
The President is going to wait more than 24 hours to allow investigation before laying definitive blame on ISIS? He didn't get into the specifics during a 5 minute press briefing? How #Sad!
He called it a terror attack, he said it was "an attack on all of us", a phrase the NY Post writer used. What more do you want?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday June 13 2016, @05:02PM
By the time he made his announcement, the terrorist already had been identified, his file found in the FBI Data base, which also documented his two trips to Saudi Arabia, his connections to a radical imam, and people had come forth with tales of his work place rages. Everything else except these rages were in the FBI files. Check the time lines on the stories. Even the FBI released information more damning well before Obama spole.
But is that who Obama blamed? US.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday June 13 2016, @08:01AM
We are not censoring - in fact, we are even bringing the original submission to your attention so that you can read it.
However, the purpose of the story as published is to give the facts and details of the news. The place for comments, including political views or inflammatory remarks, is in the comments. While we do permit a small amount of leeway in this regard, as a matter of policy (and it is our policy, not the whim of a single editor) we try to separate the facts from opinions and publish the former, unless the formatting of the submission makes it very clear that they are the submitter's personal views. In this case, there was no clear formatting in the submission and therefor some irrelevant text was edited out of the published story, and new information which was not available at the time of the submission was added. Takyon was quite correct in bringing this fact to your attention so that you can read the original sub if you so wish to do.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 13 2016, @11:41AM
Why doesn't wonkey volunteer as an editor to spare us all the backseat driving?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:17PM
An Islamic terrorist killed members of a group his skybully says are free targets....sounds like an execution to me.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:38PM
But the question was whether the police executed the terrorist.
Try to follow the thread Hairyfeet. I know it can be difficult before the third cup of coffee after a night out partying.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday June 17 2016, @02:46AM
Uhhh I didn't think the obvious needed to be said because no shit the cops executed the bad guy...that is their fucking job!
Do you see cops shooting bad guys in the foot or the hand like the lone ranger TV show? Of course not they empty the gun into center mass where all the vital organs are! If they manage to survive that its a nice bonus but its not like cops shoot to wound, its their job to stop the threat as quickly as possible and that means taking them out, simple as that.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:34AM
Hi. ACSJW here. Just testing.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 13 2016, @01:04PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:14PM
Except, the results also show: Git. Yuup, git.
Unsuccessful.
Zero.
git. :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:08PM
Another tragedy due to some asshole who couldn't just off himself. However, in this twisted world of geopolitics and the second rise of fascism it makes me wonder: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/10/2036233 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:26PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:24AM
Why should they just off themselves? Because you assume everyone is a proud women's rights supporting modern westerner like yourself? Some people like the old ways: and the old ways (neither in europe or elsewhere) do not allow suicide, but do promote assault.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @06:16AM
That doesn't sound like "the old ways" so much as "basic instinct." A "civilized" person would hopefully find other outlets to deal with their anger than murder. Religious text excuse some violence, often for its usefulness in the moment. Too bad those instances got recorded so some crazies feel justified in blowing up abortion clinics, and others gun down gay nightclubs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:11PM
Compare this article to the original submission.
Seems to me the classy thing to do would be not to draw attention to it.
(The original submission ended with "Happy Ramadan everybody.")
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:15PM
No.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:41PM
Yes.
Look, the original submission link has appeared on every story for a long time now, stemming from editors being slammed for too much or too little editing.
To choose this story to post, and then edit out much of the original invective or point of view, is kind of two-faced. You want to have the story (10 hours late), and you want to take a couple swipes at the submitter, and then you want to make it plain to all that you did so.
Too much.
Its a major news story, Don't like the slant of any submissions? Then grab a headline from the MSM (which had this up hours before submission) and go with that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tynin on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:05PM
In all cases, when presenting the news, you should make it as non-biased as possible, so the reader can make there own opinion. Removing the last sentence was the right thing to do. To allow it would turn this into nothing more than a click-bait/troll article.
(Score: 1) by baldrick on Monday June 13 2016, @07:37AM
I think just the story is required and let the submitter make his observations in a post
... I obey the Laws of Physics
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 13 2016, @08:10AM
https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?sid=13992&cid=359238 [soylentnews.org]
Essentially, it covers the reason that the changes were made.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:10PM
With apologies to all the non-batshit Muslims-
Why shouldn't it be mentioned? There are multitudes of aspects in Islam, Christianity, etc. that are incompatible with western civilization, and they should be mocked mercilessly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the private practice of faith.
But you can't in one breath claim the religious tolerance of western civilization, and the the next use that as a fulcrum to destroy western values.
And especially during an Islamic holy month, engaging in mass murder is so beyond pale, but fuck me if it isn't an aspect of the faith.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:04PM
Yeah to all the muslims who love to point out how perfect and tolerant Islam is, I always ask them to show me which country of all the islamic countries is a paragon of human rights, freedom and tolerance.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:22PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:27AM
>There are multitudes of aspects in Islam, Christianity, etc. that are incompatible with western civilization, and they should be mocked mercilessly.
And adherents to both Islam and the Bible (Old Testament) are encouraged to cut people like yourself down inorder to establish the social order espoused in said religions.
"western civilization", aka modern christianity, aka pro-women's rights, anti man+girl pedophillia, pro homosexuality, pro-female empowerment, anti male-overlordship; is just another religion. Just as marxism was.
The old religions must fight if they wish to remove the new woman's religion from ruling forever.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @07:02AM
I'm glad we scare you so much, Mikee :) And I'm proud to be every single last thing you hate. Just wondering whether you'd die of primarily fear or anger if we ever actually met!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Informative) by rigrig on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:31PM
I don't know about classy, but I quite like the idea that editors point out when there have been significant (according to them) changes from the original submission.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:13PM
Obama brings up gun control about 3 minutes in. The statement lasted just about 5 minutes.
Both the President and the one news outlet I listened to earlier, NPR (someone being interviewed maybe 15 minutes before the briefing), mentioned that the attack targeted LGBT and specifically transgendered people. I wonder if this attack could/will be used to repel the recent wave of anti-transgendered hate.
Here are the latest tweets from the Donald [twitter.com]:
Context of the second tweet above is apparently people sending messages to him saying that he was right or whatever.
Also, outlets are reporting that the LAPD arrested a man heading to the West Hollywood Pride Parade with assault rifles (explosives also mentioned):
http://fox6now.com/2016/06/12/tmz-deputies-will-have-shooter-gear-during-west-hollywood-pride-parade/ [fox6now.com]
http://www.cbs46.com/story/32202842/man-arrested-with-guns-explosives-headed-to-los-angeles-gay-pride-parade [cbs46.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:29PM
> Also, outlets are reporting that the LAPD arrested a man heading to the West Hollywood Pride Parade with assault rifles (explosives also mentioned):
After every event like this there are a buzz of reports. After the chattanooga shooting there were reports of shootings in malls in near by towns, they all turned out to be false. Give it some time before taking anything seriously.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:35PM
Trump has positioned whatever he says so he 'sounds right'. It is a sales technique. I have not read his book. I have read many others. It is called positioning. Hillary just is not as good at it as he is. Hillary will now 'take a position' while he can say 'I already had one'. It is just political pandering just ignore it.
This was an Islamic revenge attack from a wannabee ISIS guy. He was running around saying "Allah Akbar" as he gunned people down.
Controlling the weapons does nothing. Unless we as a nation decide to change our second amendment and article 8 of the constitution. I do not see that happening any time soon. We have in many ways made guns to be the devil. Instead of teaching the respect and discipline as laid out in our constitution. Congress is once again failing at its job under section 8 of the constitution. Which goes hand in hand with #2 under the bill of rights.
used to repel the recent wave of anti-transgendered hate
When you act like an asshole expect to be treated as one. Tolerance is a 2 way street that some people want to be a one way street.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:20PM
> Congress is once again failing at its job under section 8 of the constitution.
What? To enforce patents and copyrights? To issues letters of marque? To print money or collect taxes?
> When you act like an asshole expect to be treated as one. Tolerance is a 2 way street that some people want to be a one way street.
Yes, you must tolerate my hate for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:01AM
If 10% of those people who got gunned down had been armed the terrorist would have been killed just after he started shooting.
The answer to crazies having guns is more sane people having guns, not less guns so that more will die by the next crazy shooter.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:33AM
Puerile, James Bond fantasy. If 10% of the club goers had been armed and drew their weapons and fired once the shooting started, many of them would have shot other armed club-goers or even unarmed bystanders. It's even possible that more people might have died. Not only that, but some of your gun-slinging heroes could have then been shot by S.W.A.T once they stormed the club. Hint: Real life doesn't play out the same way as the juvenile power-savior-revenge fantasies inside your own head do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:04AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Monday June 13 2016, @04:09AM
Puerile, James Bond fantasy. If 10% of the club goers had been armed and drew their weapons and fired once the shooting started, many of them would have shot other armed club-goers or even unarmed bystanders. It's even possible that more people might have died. Not only that, but some of your gun-slinging heroes could have then been shot by S.W.A.T once they stormed the club. Hint: Real life doesn't play out the same way as the juvenile power-savior-revenge fantasies inside your own head do.
In the real world, the shooter would have chosen some other target that didn't have armed people present.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:22AM
> In the real world, the shooter would have chosen some other target that didn't have armed people present.
Incorrect. [thetrace.org]
It’s not the absence of guns, but rather the abundance of victims. If you’re going to do an act like this, you need a certain number of people in one space.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 13 2016, @05:36PM
It’s not the absence of guns, but rather the abundance of victims. If you’re going to do an act like this, you need a certain number of people in one space.
And I don't see evidence of that in the link you provide. It spend more time disproving its own assertions. For example,
For example, out of six mall shootings included in the report, two occurred in malls with gun-free signs, and yet armed citizens attempted to intervene. In the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon, a permit holder confronted the shooter (but did not fire) at the end of the rampage; in the Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City, an off-duty police officer helped subdue the shooter. Both men were in explicit violation of gun-free policies — but their presence means that for the shooters’ purposes, those malls were not gun-free zones after all.
Notice in the two cases (of six mentioned gun free zone incidents) where someone in a gun free zone attempted to intervene with a firearm, they stopped the shooting. Then there are two cherry picked situations which allege to show the futility of armed response (a person who gunned down two police officers and an armed civilian as well as the Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shootings where someone at the end almost shot the wrong person). So we're supposed to take seriously the cherry picked cases and ignore the other two situations which showed opposite outcomes.
And of course, the two cherry picked scenarios show the shooters choosing relatively safe targets. A restaurant with no expectation that anyone armed was present or a Walmart (ditto on expectation of number of armed people) for the first shooting. In the second case, the armed person who almost accidentally shot the wrong person was also the first armed person to the scene. So we have the crazy people hitting soft targets just like they supposedly don't do.
In other words, we have a number of examples that supposedly proved one thing while unintentionally disproving other things. You need evidence not some spectacular case of reasoning failure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:44PM
I wonder if this attack could/will be used to repel the recent wave of anti-transgendered hate.
Here are the latest tweets from the Donald
Are you intending to imply (by putting these things so close together) anti-transgender hate from Trump? Based on what (I'm genuinely curious)? The only time I've seen him address a transgender issue was during the whole restroom hysteria, and his response to a question on it was that they should use whatever restroom they want to use.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:55PM
Later he said:
"I believe it should be states' rights and I think the states should make the decision, they're more capable of making the decision." -- http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279843-trump-leave-transgender-issue-to-states [thehill.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:08PM
Nope. Is dumping some information with a few line breaks all it takes to outrage you?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:15PM
Outrage? I don't know where you're getting that from.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:20PM
Don't post questions like:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:10PM
Why shouldn't I ask such questions? It was unclear to me what you were trying to say, so I asked what your intent was. That doesn't imply that I am outraged; it implies that I don't understand your writing. If your intent is unclear and I shouldn't ask for clarification, I should do what, make wild-assed assumptions about what you mean (like you appear to be doing about me)?
You made a conjecture about the incident impacting transgender hate, then followed it by a tweet where Trump is expressing sympathy for the (transgender) victims. It's not crazy for someone to think that tweet was intended to support your conjecture. Many people write their posts with a logical flow, rather than treating each paragraph as being completely unrelated to the others, as you appear to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:10AM
Remedial reading classes are available at a community college near you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:11PM
If it's one guy, acting alone, killing some people, who will likely to be found to have never met another radical Islamic terrorist.
Tim McVeigh would be a radical Christian terrorist then.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:53PM
Was he? Or are you just assuming he was because he was white and lived in the US?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:11PM
He called himself a Christian and he blew up people he said were doing wrong. The Orlando guy called himself a Muslim and shot up people he said were doing wrong.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:21PM
Citation needed. As far as I ever heard his relevant beliefs were strictly political. They were even ones I agree with, though I tend to disagree strongly on method of remedy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:57PM
Actually, he seemed to vacillate on that subject over time, so perhaps he is a poor example of a Christian terrorist (though he did take last rites before his execution).
But that's kind of the point. We know Mateen identified as Muslim, but we have no evidence that he was devout, much less fundamentalist. According to reports, Mateen seemed more motivated by homophobia than Islam.
Eric Rudolph would be a good example of a Christian terrorist.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:40AM
Ahh, see there's the difference. McVeigh did what he did for political ideology; no religion involved beyond him possibly having beliefs at all. Islamic terrorists do it because their religion demands it of them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 13 2016, @03:25AM
You're begging the question. We don't know that the guy in Orlando IS an Islamic terrorist. If his being vaguely Muslim and killing a bunch of people makes him an Islamic terrorist, then McVeigh is indeed a Christian terrorist.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:41AM
No, I'm going on reports of a man with an islamic name shouting "allahu akbar" and shooting a hundred people or so. If you're shouting about your god while you shoot people, it's safe for someone to assume you're religiously motivated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday June 13 2016, @04:01PM
The reports I've seen said the music was so loud, nobody even heard the guns, much less anything shouted or not.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:25PM
Possibly across the room. Not likely within easy range to put two in his chest and one in his head. .22s aside, guns are damned loud.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 13 2016, @08:32PM
That was the report anyway. No reports of him yelling anything, so no evidence there for your assumption.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:07AM
It was mentioned further up in the comments that he was yelling it. I'm not going to fact check for a hypothetical situation though; it's irrelevant.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:55AM
So I'll assume that was all hypothetical along with the claim that this had anything to do with Islam.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:14AM
The hypothetical bit was "if everyone were armed". Try and keep up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 14 2016, @04:12AM
Sorry, you're in the wrong thread. Hit parent a few times and get up to speed.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:35AM
> Islamic terrorists do it because their religion demands it of them.
Nope. Their religious interpretation provides an excuse for them to act on their own prejudices.
Islam no more demands it of them than Christianity demands it of christians ala leviticus 20:13 [biblehub.com]
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:32AM
Islam, as preached in many mosques, does in fact demand it and is precisely why this happens. Christianity, barring a few disavowed nutjobs, preaches only peace from the pulpit. Equating the two makes you look like a fool.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @11:28AM
> Islam, as preached in many mosques, does in fact demand it
In your wet dreams.
Compared to the daily evangelical fixation on LGBQT, the topic barely comes up in most mosques.
I doubt you've ever even been in a mosque.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @11:34AM
Oh? How many churches preach violence against the LGBTOMGWTFBBQ crowd? None. Not even Westboro and they're pretty much the worst of the lot.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 14 2016, @12:14AM
While traveling through the midwest, I did hear a radio preacher calling for the extermination of homosexuals.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @01:59AM
Should have got his name. That's illegal in this nation. Unlike, say, calling for the extermination of Jews or Americans in the middle-east.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 13 2016, @04:18AM
But that's kind of the point. We know Mateen identified as Muslim, but we have no evidence that he was devout, much less fundamentalist. According to reports, Mateen seemed more motivated by homophobia than Islam.
Eric Rudolph would be a good example of a Christian terrorist.
No, I don't grant that. I could see someone committing a violent act and faking a religious belief either as false flag or to throw authorities off their trail. So I grant that. But this guy went beyond just faking phone calls with a visit to the Middle East and some degree of contact with ISIS.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 13 2016, @04:39AM
Can you point to a source about the visit? I haven't seen that. I do see in updated information that he was once investigated by the FBI with no action taken for comments he was supposed to have made at work, then again for having had contact with a U.S. citizen who later became a suicide bomber but he was determined not to be a threat. That suggests to me that the 911 call might have held an element of sarcasm towards the FBI.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:31AM
Seems to have gone on the hajj [washingtonpost.com] which is not particularly note-worthy since even half-assed muslims do it (kind of like cafeteria catholics) and its in saudi which is the land of fundamentalism but also where they are scared shitless of isis (was isis even a thing in 2012?)
> having had contact with a U.S. citizen who later became a suicide bomber
for al qaeda [theguardian.com] too, not even isis
reports from his ex-wife (whom he beat) are that he was just an asshole [cbslocal.com] and not particularly religious
co-worker confirms his long-standing asshole nature too [floridatoday.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:08PM
I got your fucking citation right here. [wikipedia.org] As you already guessed, sjames is talking out of his ass, at least as far as Timothy McVeigh is concerned. On the provided wiki reference scroll down to the section labelled "Religious beliefs". Among other things it says McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." And he stated that he did not believe in a hell and that science is his religion. In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic. I would think that pretty well demolishes any notion that McVeigh was motivated by religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:10AM
"However, he took the Last Rites, administered by a priest, just before his execution," it says right after the bit about the letter saying he was agnostic. Odd that you omit that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:30AM
It's Pascal's Fucking Wager at that point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:26AM
Pascal's Wager is so christian-centric that even mentioning it proves the point.
It only works if the choice is between no god and the catholic god.
Add in all the other versions of god and it becomes a game of roulette.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday June 13 2016, @11:18PM
If you had to choose between throwing your money in a trash can and throwing your money on a roulette table... no matter how you played your money on the roulette table you'd have better odds of a return than putting your money in the trash can.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:53PM
Gun control was also brought up very early in the reporting after the gunman was identified. They were lamenting how easy it was to get ahold of a gun.
Yet this guy had all the permits for gun ownership and possession in Florida and two adjacent states.
The shooter, Omar Saddiqui Mateen, is 29 and from Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando, two law enforcement officials told CNN. He had been trained as a security guard, CNN has learned.
He worked as a guard at a facility for juvenile delinquents (Security firm G4S) says his ex wife.
So if anyone in the country was vetted for Gun Possession it was this guy. He followed all the laws. He had all the permits. He had all the background checks.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:12PM
But still are you gong to now claim that we don't need any more gun regulations? Everything I'm reading so far about this guy screams out that he was a tragedy just waiting to happen.
(Score: 5, Touché) by frojack on Monday June 13 2016, @12:53AM
Everything I'm reading so far about this guy screams out that he was a tragedy just waiting to happen.
And all your regulations never saw it coming. And neither did all the NSA spying and trawling of social media. And neither did the phone taps, the email indexing, the FBI investigations. (Yes he was looked at twice by the FBI).
But you, YOU spotted it right away, just reading a few late breaking news reports. YOU, all alone spotted this. You're too incompetent to sign into your favorite web site, but by gawd you can spot a terrorist at a hundred yards just looking at a couple CNN pages.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:30AM
Problem is...
1. Nothing he had done prior was actually criminal and provable in court. The FBI would have needed to set up a sting operation, gently goad him into taking action with FBI-supplied fake weapons, and then arrest him. Getting him to take action in a controllable way, but without getting the case thrown out of court, is a delicate balancing act that takes time and doesn't always work.
2. There are probably several million other people in this country who basically desire to commit a similar act, and the FBI probably knows about a million of them. There is no way that the FBI can trail, stalk, stake out, or otherwise follow every one of those people. This is a long-tail problem, and resources are limited.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 13 2016, @03:44AM
You are partly right, AC.
But you missed the point where he passed a FBI background check while applying for a Security Clearance.
They didn't need any probable cause to deny him that clearance, because he already accepted that background check in his job application.
Anything worrisome that they found in the background check should have tripped alarms.
This guy passed all the checks, probably it will be found he bought all his guns legally.
Once again gun control does not work. And neither would banning gun altogether. Ask the Israelis. Stabbing reports are all the rage these days, and they are probably coming to a venue near you.
I doubt there are "several million" that want to do the same thing. They may number in the thousands, (with idle dreams, and secret desires). Probably no more than a couple hundred with real intent and the courage to do something, who are just waiting for an "excuse". Those are the only ones I expect the FBI to watch.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:53AM
Probably no more than a couple hundred with real intent and the courage to do something, who are just waiting for an "excuse". Those are the only ones I expect the FBI to watch.
If only they weren't indistinguishable from all the others who are just talking shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:35AM
Long tail problem?
Then chop off the head. Ban islam and kick all people who follow islam to the middle east. WIRM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:55AM
Head? Nuke Mecca, Jerusalem, the Vatican, Clearwater Florida, and Provo. That ought about cover it, all the centers of infection of Abrahamic Faiths, except for Pike Place Market, but one must think of the fish!
(Score: 2) by dak664 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:18PM
He was looked at twice and underwent surveillance. To me that suggests at least one attempted sting which he was too smart to fall for. And very probably those investigations and stings pissed him off.
Wonder how much credit the FBI should get for causing this one?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:17AM
You miss the most obvious fact: GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK!! Never did, never will.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday June 14 2016, @12:36AM
Never? Not even once? [reuters.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 14 2016, @01:11AM
What is the overall homicide rate, overall crime rate, overall violent crime rate in Oz? For all of Europe's bragging about gun control, Europe's overall rates aren't much better than in the US. Especially since the invasion of barbarians from south of the Med has begun. Who has noticed that rape is up all over Europe? Give the women some guns, so they can blow the testicles off of their rapists, and crime will drop.
I do recall someone telling me about the "bikies" in Oz. They seem to have all the weapons they want. So, no, gun control doesn't work in Oz - guns were outlawed, so now only outlaws have guns.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:51AM
Well, in the linked story, the overall homicide rate in 1996 (pre-gun control) was 311 - 98 of them by gun. In 2014, it was 238 - 35 by gun. But you aren't actually interested in statistics.
There's a far more detailed analysis over at Snopes [aic.gov.au], but the TL;DR is
Is that the support you were looking for?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 14 2016, @01:55PM
Salutes, for quoting what is probably the most important part of any analysis of "gun control".
"The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here"
Feel free to browse my journal page. I have a number of articles and quotes cited - I guess it's a small number, but they are there.
There are no rules to be learned from passing gun control laws. Europe has varied results, in different countries. Australia has some encouraging results with their gun control - but it isn't all one-sided in favor of gun control.
The US? Our results are very DIScouraging. Those cities with the strictest gun control are the very cities with the highest crime rates, and the highest rates of gun crime. They are the most violent cities in America.
The cities in Texas have very lenient gun control laws. That is, in Texas, anyone can have a gun, unless he has been judged incompetent, or a felon. Open carry, concealed carry, put it in your trunk, in your glove box, in your window - any way you want to carry, you can carry. Only two people in the entire state of Texas have been killed with guns this year. Two. Chicago, with a tenth of the population of Texas, sees two killed every day.
We have witnessed cities repeal gun control, and crime initially rises for a few months - then plummets. Criminals are either killed off, or they learn that honest citizens shoot back, so they move on to greener pastures.
we have witnessed cities pass gun control laws, and crime stays stable for awhile, then slowly rises.
We have witnessed a lot of crazy stuff here in the states. Lawmen want to claim all the credit when crime rates fall - but as your own quote suggests, things aren't so simple. A city passes a gun control law, and crime falls, so they claim credit - but nationwide, crime rates have falled at similar rates.
It ain't a simple thing to figure out, but overall, history suggests that you are safest in a community where EVERYONE has access to guns.
Now, to be honest, I have looked at Australia's statistics. As I said - they are just about the most encouraging statistics in the world, for gun control.
I've also looked at the UK's statistics. You should be aware that most of their statistics are lies and damned lies. Again, if you care to look, I have a couple journal entries regarding gun crime and violent crime statistics in the UK. UK cops just don't record a lot of crimes. They are actually under pressure to MAKE the statistics support their gun control laws. Violent crime in the UK seems to be lower than in Chicago - but it much higher than gun control fanatics claim.
Once again - thank you for your honesty. There are NOT any good statistics that support either of our positions, partly because governments don't maintain the same statistics, and partly because some governments are dishonest about those statistics.
I do believe that an armed society is a polite society.
http://www.liberteesalabama.com/store/p4/%22An_armed_society_is_a_polite_society.%22_Heinlein_quote_T-shirt.html [liberteesalabama.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 13 2016, @04:29AM
But still are you gong to now claim that we don't need any more gun regulations?
Why did you even ask? Why do we need any more gun regulations anyway? There seems to be this retarded assumption that every time something bad happens, we need more regulations, like regulation is some sort of syrup that tastes better when you pour more on.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:17AM
Frojack - you seem to miss the fact that he was employed as a security guard. I caught that among the earlier news stories. Ahhhhh - "security guard at the courthouse in Port St. Lucie, Florida." A government approved, government employed security guard.
The unwise progressives who would see guns banned for everyone except law enforcement would have authorized this scumbag to have weapons anyway.
THE POLICE ARE JUST PEOPLE who suffer from all the mental illnesses, political agendas, petty hatreds, and foibles that all the rest of the population suffers from!
Maybe the headline should be changed to "Goverment Employee with ISIS ties guns down over 100 gays".
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 13 2016, @03:28AM
Frojack - you seem to miss the fact that he was employed as a security guard.
Pretty sure I mentioned that in the VERY post to which you replied.
His most recent employment was with a youth detention center, he worked for a private security company that has contracts in three states.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:04AM
Fair enough - I guess I skimmed, when I should have read . . .
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 13 2016, @04:08AM
More on his employment, apparently his employer was made aware of his feelings and did nothing [thegatewaypundit.com].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:14PM
and of course, delude people (for whatever reason), want to gain the "oxygen of publicity".
So how do we organise ourselves such that horrific acts are investigated, reported, but not glorified?
Reading about those ISIS freaks doing more, and more disgusting things, looks a little bit like vying for attention...or is it media focus?
My condolences to all affected, this was a most disgraceful criminal act :-(
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:18PM
If everyone in the club had guns then fewer people would have been killed. After the first few shots, everyone would have whipped out their guns and shot all the gunmen dead in self-defence. Oh wait there was only one gunman? Hard to tell in a nightclub...
If only Christina Grimmie and all those around her had guns then she would still be alive.
;)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:04PM
If this guy had gone on a rampage in a Pentacostal revival meeting, he probably would have faced return fire. He chose a venue with demographics that minimized that risk.
For the record, as a liberal atheist peace type hippie, the whole things is just gross: the religiously tinged massacre, the further militarization of the police to follow, and the additional burden placed on civil liberties that is sure to come.
(Score: 2) by julian on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:11PM
He chose the venue because his religion taught him those people are subhuman and deserve to be killed, and that he'd be rewarded for doing so--especially if he died in the process.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:21PM
Demographically, many LBGTQ individuals identify with the DNC positions including banning personal firearm ownership. Many pentacostals identify as RNC and support the NRA. In two gatherings of these two groups, it is reasonable to presume that one will be more likely to be armed than the other. If the shooter was going for maximum carnage, he would choose the least armed group.
There are no doubt other reasons including religiously induced homophobia as you indicate, but there is an advantage of shooting up a gay nightclub over shooting up the local gun range. One of those is obviously going to be easier for the murderer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:58PM
Homosexuals and trans people identify with the DNC because they're the only game in town. The other guys want to deny them human rights, demonize them at every turn, accuse them of being pedophiles and recruiters of children into "the gay lifestyle", and systematically close spheres of public life to them. Discrimination (as much as they can legally get away with) is part of the Republican party platform. It's often disguised with language like "family" and "faith" but it's thinly veiled. A homosexual knows what it means when a politician says he will legislate for "family values".
Why would an Islamist attack socially conservative Christians, especially when there are targets that offend their Islamic sensibilities far more? Islamists agree with the socially conservative Christians on many things, including a dislike of homosexuals. Christians at least have a prescribed role in the vision of the future laid out by Islam. Atheists and homosexuals are beyond excuse, they have no place in Islamic society.
And again, this man intended to die in battle, that's one of the end goals in these sorts of attacks. So no amount of armed deterrence would work. I'll even submit that a shootout with multiple gunmen in a dark and crowded nightclub could have had a death toll even higher than it was with just the one attacker.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:23AM
Armed deterrence would have worked if only one person had been armed, and shot the bastard dead with the first iteration of "Allahu Akhbar!" There might have been three victims, instead of over 100.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @01:52AM
Or there could have been a shootout with even more dead in the crossfire and the chaos. In my experience the sort of people who advocate for this policy tend to overestimate their own capabilities with a firearm, and place an absurd amount of trust and faith in the capabilities of other people. It just feels good to believe you'd snap into tactical operator mode, draw, and double tap the bad guy before he could do much harm. That's a paranoid delusional hero fantasy. In reality, even trained military and police routinely make mistakes.
You are not an asset to the public making everyone safer by carrying, you are a dangerous liability. I say this as a gun owner myself. I wouldn't carry in public even if it were legal to do so. I have no business attempting to use a firearm in that way, and I know my own limitations.
It's much more likely I'd simply add to the carnage instead of stopping the shooter. Every jacked up moron who thinks differently is even more of a liability because they don't know how dangerous they really are.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @02:01AM
Citation necessary. Surely, you can find a story of just such an even, possibly in some lawless state such as Texas.
Try this link - https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=13890 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @02:09AM
Here's just one [khou.com]. Oh look, it's even from Texas.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @02:26AM
That scenario isn't what you implied. You implied that two, six, a dozen, even scores of people might be sucked into a gun battle, if guns were allowed in "gun free zones". In this instance, we have two criminals, one victim, and one passerby who appears to be a fucking idiot. He shot the victim he was trying to help?
Someone needs to look a little harder at this incident. I'm not sure the shooter wasn't part of the car-jacking.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @02:38AM
My point was that gun owners are usually far less competent than they believe themselves to be, and that they will do more harm than good by using their gun to stop a crime in progress.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:30AM
Well then, your opinion is noted. Your opinion is no more and no less valid than any other person's opinion. If you could cite statistics supporting your opinion, it might have more value. Or not, as the case may be. Hoplophobes cite all kinds of statistics to support their concept of gun control - yet Chicago sees more people killed every week than Texas sees in a year.
I still hold out Texas as a model state for "common sense gun control".
Ya know what's odd? I went looking for a follow-up on your story. I find nothing. The story is carried by a myriad of news sources, but there is no follow-up. The victim isn't named, the shooter doesn't seem to be apprehended or named, the carjackers aren't named. The perps and the shooter just disappear, and leave the victim to be hauled off to the hospital.
As you might imagine, I'm having problems with the credibility of this story . . .
Note, that I am not questioning your credibility, it's the story I'm having problems with. I just gullibly believed the headline when I read it. Apparently, you did too. Ehh . . . .
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 13 2016, @12:40PM
Also, how would a person in the club know which guy with guns is part of the attack, and which isn't? They weren't wearing uniforms. So if you have multiple people in the club carrying guns and the shooter comes in, how do you know which one of the subsequent people pulling guns (assuming you can calmly observe the situation) isn't in cahoots with him? All you can see is that they're firing a weapon, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:35AM
The lighter skinned folk will shoot the darker skin folk and vice versa :).
Seriously as the original AC commenter it's amazing how retarded the rest are that they still can't even realize my obvious point that when there are lot of strangers around, how would you know who are the bad guys when everyone whips out their guns and starts shooting at others?
As I said:
everyone would have whipped out their guns and shot all the _gunmen_ dead in self-defence. Oh wait there was only one gunman? Hard to tell in a nightclub...
From what I see most people in the USA are too retarded and dangerous to be allowed to have guns. Especially most of the US police force.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:09AM
Remember, kids, always pick up your shells.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:46AM
Homosexuals and trans people identify with the DNC because they're the only game in town.
Oh bullshit.
Gays serving in the military? Log Cabin Republicans.
Gay marriage? Someone considered by the Bush administration for the post of Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. The Democrats, however, were so vehemently opposed that Bush nominated Michael Mukasey instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson [wikipedia.org]
I won't deny there is a lot of hostility from social conservatives, but you are oversimplifying the issue to the point of misrepresentation.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @01:58AM
Gays serving in the military?
Every person in the military is a Republican? Or are you talking about DADT? Obama ended that. What party is he from again?
Log Cabin Republicans
A joke. Openly hated by half their party. If the GOP ever abandoned their social conservative positions the party would be over. It'd fracture into at least two parties and with their strength divided would never again hold office. Face it, you don't have a viable party without anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-abortion, Christian persecution complex social conservatives.
I won't deny there is a lot of hostility from social conservatives
Also known as the GOP base. There is no Republican party without bringing the bigots on board, they simply don't have the numbers, just like the Democrats have to pander to social justice warriors and misandric feminists. A pox on both their houses, IMO.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:06AM
I never understood the Log Cabin Republicans. It must take some powerful delusion to think that party doesn't want you dead or worse if you're gay. That sounds like being a chicken who owns stock in KFC.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:35AM
Social conditioning - its easier to trivialize bad actions when you haven't born the brunt of them yourself. Especially when your friends are telling you its mostly just the exaggerations of SJWs. Ironically, it is sort of a victory for those SJWs - the fact that some people can be out and still live in republican social circles with minimal discrimination directly to their faces is significant progress over previous generations. Trickle down progressivism.... (next up latinos, blacks and muslims are still at the back of the bus)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @04:27PM
Yeah, I suppose. These things take time, and we have to fight every day, and the haters only need to be lucky once to undo decades of progress. It sucks. But we gotta fight the good fight, right?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:38AM
Obama ended that
Um, you mean had his hand forced after defending it, and purposely signed a repeal thereby avoiding having it a part of case law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
Now show me anything that DNC has changed for homosexuals in the last decade.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:44AM
Hillary opposed gay marriage until just recently. That includes her 2008 campaign and her time as the Secretary of State. Her emails reveal a strong dislike of LGBT stuff.
Trump welcomes trans people to use the restroom of their choice at his businesses.
Hmmm, looks like you'd better choose Trump. Hillary might flip-flop on you. To her, gay rights count about as much as opposing the trans-Pacific trade partnership. It's just a position to be taken, temporarily and insincerely, as required for today's political maneuver.
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @02:57AM
I'm not a Hillary supporter. I'm a liberal, not a Democrat. I've been supporting Bernie Sanders and will vote for Jill Stein if Hillary is the Democrat's nominee. Yet I am not blind to the fact that, on most issues, in most years, in most places, the Democrats are far more in favor of gay rights than the Republicans. Are you seriously proposing the Republicans will stand up for gay rights? You think I'm that big of a fool?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 13 2016, @05:51PM
Are you seriously proposing the Republicans will stand up for gay rights? You think I'm that big of a fool?
With Trump now leading the party, this might just change. Trump doesn't seem to care much about LGBTQ people, said that Caitlyn Jenner could use whichever bathroom at Trump Tower she was comfortable with (and she did), and has said it's a states' rights issue (which of course is just a way for GOP politicians to avoid an issue, so they don't piss off the more conservative people too much).
And now, with this incident squarely placing Islam against LGBT acceptance, and the Donald having a history of both nationalistic and anti-Islam statements (banning all Muslims from entering the country "until we can figure out what's going on"), while the Democrat side and the liberals having a history of cozying up to Muslims (crying "Islamophobia" against anyone who criticizes them), I could definitely see Trump using this as an opportunity to gain more mainstream acceptance by cozying up to LGBT groups while demonizing Islam even more. Obviously, as we can see here, we really do have good reasons to fear Islam: its adherents do go on killing sprees from time to time. Whereas with LGBT people, there is precisely zero evidence we have anything to fear with them: when was the last time you heard of gay people mass-murdering straight people? A politician looking to exploit fear here can do so pretty easily.
Personally, I think this will likely go down in history books as one of the factors that helped propel Trump into the White House. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a horrible thing either; the alternative doesn't look any better, and in some ways worse. If Hillary gets elected, I definitely foresee us getting involved in a large-scale war in Syria within 100 days. It'll be a repeat of the Bush Administration, though probably worse since Russia is already operating in Syria and is directly working to prop up Assad, who neo-liberal globalists like Hillary hate and want to remove from power at all costs. With Trump, I expect he'll work with Russia to drop a few bombs on ISIS and that's about it, but I worry he'll wreck the economy by trying to change course too fast towards more isolationist policies.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @08:25PM
It's funny, because I get the exact opposite impression. I think Trump is likely to start a war. He's so thin skinned and takes everything personally, he's likely to get frustrated that he can't bully other governments around like he can with his own executive branch and impulsively escalate military tension past the point of no return. I don't know where in the world it would happen but his attitude makes me nervous. He's dangerously unhinged and emotional. Not the kind of calm and thoughtful personality I want for the job (Hillary isn't either, but she's a lot closer).
He's made so many contradictory statements. One day he's an isolationist, the next we're going to ramp up the war against ISIS; torture them and murder their families (good luck getting the military to go along with that, btw).
On the other hand I am fairly confident that Hillary will simply continue Obama's policies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @06:23PM
Heck no, but Trump would. Rick Santorum on the other hand...
You don't lump democrats together, as shown by your acceptance of Bernie and non-acceptance of Hillary. Why lump republicans together?
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @08:36PM
So just answer a thought experiment for me:
There's a person who is a homophobe, and it's really important to them. It's one of the primary things they vote on. They like seeing their homophobia translated into real legislation like banning same-sex marriage (kind of a lost cause now, but maybe it can be reversed later?) and allowing businesses to deny serving customers based on sexual orientation. They have their one vote to cast in November to do the most "good" for their worldview that they can. What party do they vote for?
You know the correct answer to this question as much as I do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:58PM
They focus on congress. Maybe there would be a difference.
It's very clear that the republican party is trying to drop the issue. There are some who still claim to care, not that they actually care, in order to win votes in the deep south.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @09:37PM
It's very clear that the republican party is trying to drop the issue.
I think this is true as well. The problem I see for the GOP is that they don't have a working coalition without social conservatives, especially religious ones. If they joined with the liberals on same-sex issues they'd lose both houses of congress and the presidency for a generation.
So I am really hoping that happens!
It wouldn't be a total failure, however. Conservatism doesn't really exist to win or govern anyway. Conservatism is necessary for liberalism to have something to struggle against and triumph over, and secondarily to slow the rate of change to something manageable on a human timescale. It's been going on for thousands of years. Conservatism sets the agenda for what the next generation of liberals have to overcome. This issue is the perfect example of that process in action. In as little as 20 years it won't be possible to be a conservative who is against marriage equality; just like you can't be a serious candidate of any party today and be against interracial marriage.
I hope our dysfunctional electoral system doesn't result in a total victory for the left however, because there are some areas where they've been overreaching. Our culture for example can only absorb so many externally sourced demographic changes. Or in other words, immigration needs to be slow enough that the new arrivals have no other option than to become American instead of arriving in sufficiently large groups that they can clump together into their own communities and preserve their birth country's culture entirely. That's very destabilizing and ultimately bad for everyone including the immigrants.
There are a couple other issues I'm concerned with, which is why I am not entirely thrilled to see The Right imploding and losing its mind following this charlatan Trump. He's exactly the wrong kind of politician that conservatives need at this moment. Contrast him with William F. Buckley.
I guess Trump is what you get for courting anti-intellectualism for so long.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:21AM
" If the shooter was going for maximum carnage, he would choose the least armed group."
Yes - and you put the lie to "gun free zones" right there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:24AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:51AM
Name calling makes you right? Idiot?
Speaking of specific groups - a fucking MUZZIE gunned down a hundred AMERICANS. I guess you missed those groups? Do you even bother to read and think about the news?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/ [cnn.com]
Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, official says
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:36AM
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:14AM
Gays are an insignificant group of Americans, totaling less than 3% of the population. They don't come equipped with guns, and they have no mission in life.
Muslims, on the other hand, are more significant, because they are 1% of the population, and they come with guns and a mission in life. One of those missions is to eradicate homos.
Significance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:42AM
You are quick to label yet take offense at being labeled. That's a really cute combination you have, there. ;)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:31AM
I'm an American. I have that right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:42AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:52AM
The difference between us is, you seem to give a damn that I might be "offended". Me? I don't give a rat's ass that you might be offended. I don't even care enough about you to try to offend you. I realize that those of you who wish to be offended would be offended even if I offered praise and flattery, so it just doesn't matter.
Now, if you don't mind, I'll just keep on being offended that muslims are free to walk about in my country, gunning down people they disapprove of. It's my right to shoot my fellow Americans, he has no such right.
Oh yeah - did you read this link, posted by frojack? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/former-coworker-pulse-killer-omar-mateen-employer-nothing-homophobic-racist-comments-cuz-muslim/ [thegatewaypundit.com]
This dirtball Muslim had been talking about killing faggots for YEARS, but he was given a free pass because he's a Muzzie.
Geez, I wonder if that offends you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:56AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @06:16AM
What does that mean, exactly? Profiling works, doesn't it? We got an immigrant raghead who runs at the mouth about hating queers, and even talks about killing them - and he's given a free pass. His employer, the FBI, and God knows who else gave him a pass. This is liberal tolerance, at it's worst.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @06:26AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @07:04AM
This is life, Gomer. There aren't any goalposts, unless you consider your tombstone to be a goal post. While you philosophize about goal posts, some Muzzie is planning another attack on Christians, Americans, gays, infidels, or even his own fellow Muslims because they don't worship in some precise method of worship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:27AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @08:40AM
You've not been paying attention, have you? Remember Sandy Hook? The gun-free sign DID NOT MATTER!! How many, 20 kids, dead because idiots thought a stupid assed sign mattered. Another idiot proved them dead wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @11:42AM
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @07:08AM
I love watching people like him have a meltdown when people like you back them into a corner and point out their complete dysfunctional hypocrisy! It's like watching a very large toddler inching closer and closer to a massive, red-faced, floor-pounding temper tantrum. The worst part, though, is they expect everyone else to be dumb enough to mistake their macho posturing for anything approaching common sense, civility, or self-control.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:43AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:28PM
I'll just keep on being offended that muslims are free to walk about in my country, gunning down people they disapprove of. It's my right to shoot my fellow Americans, he has no such right.
So how long do we have to wait till it's your turn to be the wackjob in the news gunning down Americans? This time for being muzzies instead of faggots.
How different really are you from him?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:26PM
> He chose a venue with demographics that minimized that risk.
Implied in that statement is that he choose that venue because it minimized that risk.
Seems much more likely he chose that venue because it was gay. There are, after all, a bunch of places without many guns.
Seems he had a problem with gay people. [newser.com]
Want to bet he was in the closet?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 13 2016, @05:25AM
Not unless I get to bet that he was in the closet (although consider the source): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/12/drag-queen-orlando-gunman-omar-mateen-was-my-friend.html [thedailybeast.com]
Basically my position is that this was both ideological and homophobic, which isn't that much of a leap because those who would take up this kind of suicide mission, must be really totally immersed in some kind of ideological humbug and in our time, that sort of dangerous insanity is usually religion based and religions love to pick on gays for some reason I can't comprehend. Anyway, all I'm saying is that he could have picked any number of ideological targets -- you have the right wing evangelicals hell bent on pushing our latest crusade for example or military bases where people are trained to engage in that crusade as another. Either of those two groups however, are much more likely to shoot back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:10PM
If this guy had gone on a rampage in a Pentacostal revival meeting, he probably would have faced
poisonous snakes and poisonous poison and rolling on the floor and speaking in tongues.
There, FTFY!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:23PM
It isn't hard to tell, just look for the muzzle flash. Easy peasy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:13PM
It isn't hard to tell, just look for the muzzle flash. Easy peasy.
Sure. And if you've got a dozen people shooting, you've likely just shot another nightclub patron. So somebody else returns your fire, and now you've got a bar brawl, only with guns instead of bottles.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:56PM
How about you just shoot the guy yelling "allahu akbar" while shooting at people then? It's a safe bet.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:21PM
yelling "allahu akbar"
well, it COULD be a trap, you know...
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:11PM
Or a mating call for Tori Spelling.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:37PM
I doubt many gun owners have the capability of working out which person is shooting to kill - oh, they all are? Hmm. So.. Which one deserves to die?
Apparently, the one yelling something in a foreign language.. Which one is that, in a dark, crowded night club, full of panic, screaming and chaos?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:29AM
If it's light enough for the lone shooter to target people, then it is light enough for people to defend themselves. Or, are you suggesting that because Omar had divine aid, he was enjoying some kind of superhuman powers of vision? Omar is a fucking SUPERHERO now? Batman Omar? Superman Omar? Flash Omar? FFS -
(Score: 3, Touché) by MostCynical on Monday June 13 2016, @02:14AM
Surely he was happy to hit *anyone*, so "aiming" wasn't strictly necessary.
Anyone trying to hit HIM would need alot more light.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @02:23AM
Still preposterous.
Although - I wonder - are you trying to imply that gays don't have lighting in their bars? I've been in a fair number of bars in my lifetime. Bars, nightclubs, pubs, whatever you want to call the local dive, I've seen a fair number. For the most part, they are decently lit. Better lit than the alley out back where the drug deals are made when the bar is closed. Bars do odd things with the lights depending on the ambiance, outside entertainment, special events, or whatever - but the lighting is almost always good enough for me to admire the waitresses asses and cleavage.
Was there a special event at this particular bar, or are you just suggesting that gay bars don't light their interiors? Is everyone so damned fugly that they'll NEVER get laid if people can see them?
Please - clarify yourself here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Monday June 13 2016, @02:58AM
Night clubs are Often dim. Indeed, they are (in Australia, YMMV), exempt from ususal lighting standards.
https://www.iesanz.org/_r100/media/system/attrib/file/802/10_understanding_how_to_achieve_good_lighting_solutions_within_the_framework_of_the_building_code_of_australia.pdf [iesanz.org]
There are also, often strobes, revolving lights, changing colours, spot lights.
Identifying the aggressor(s), rather than one or more *responding* shooters in such an environment is likely to be very difficult, with no small risk of hitting the wrong target, or an innocent bystander.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:43AM
Not yelling "something", yelling something that almost always precedes islamic terrorist attacks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:27AM
That "allahu akbar" bit just goes over many people's heads. Even after it has been explicity pointed out, they just don't understand what was happening. They don't understand the players, the motivations, nothing. So many people live in their own insular little worlds, engrossed in the iPhones and it's apps, they simply cannot absorb obvious knowledge that is offered to them for free.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:19PM
And just shoot the people shooting. Warning: You may get shot if you shoot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:23PM
Yes, indeed. At work several months back we had some training on what to do in an active shooter situation. One of the things I learned is that if the active shooter loses possession of his gun under no circumstances are you to pick it up, even if it is to grab it away from him. If you do, SWAT is very likely to shoot you instead. As in a "shoot first, ask questions later" kind of a way. Everyone reading this should remember this if they ever find themselves in an active shooter situation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:35AM
Every "training program" that I've heard anything about seems to be designed to make idiots of people.
Let's try this: Sumbitch is shooting at you and all your coworkers. He fumbles the gun. He reaches for it, but you grab it instead. SWAT busts in, and shoots you because you have a weapon. How in hell have you lost anything? You took a gamble, you kept the weapon away from the crazy man, you saved a life or two - and you're gonna bitch because you ultimately got shot? THAT WAS THE WHOLE INTENT ALL ALONG - THAT YOU DIE!! It's your choice whether you die like a man, or die like a sheep at slaughter.
I suggest you grab the gun and shoot that sumbitch who intends to shoot you and your coworkers.
At the very fucking least, grab the gun and throw it out the window to deprive the gunman of one of his weapons.
Stand up tall, on both of your feet, and feel like a man, at least once in your life.
(Score: 3, Informative) by chewbacon on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:06PM
I get your sarcasm there, but in the state of Florida even if you have CCP, you cannot go get drunk while packing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:20PM
but in the state of Florida even if you have CCP, you cannot go get drunk while packing.
1) So what sentence would the state of Florida give you for getting drunk, shooting 50+ people and then doing a death by cop? They going to revoke your CCP?
2) You don't have to get drunk in nightclubs, especially if you're going there as the shooter and not for the shooters. A bit of alcohol may help improve accuracy but the benefit drops above a certain amount.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:22PM
Lines to donate blood are reportedly up to a mile long, temperature [weather.gov] is in the upper 80s Fahrenheit. However, note that sexually active gay men can't donate:
http://www.nytimes.com/live/orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-updates/orlando-blood-donation-centers-overwhelmed/ [nytimes.com]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/12/orlando-blood-bank-crisis-waives-gay-donation-restrictions/85789648/ [usatoday.com]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/06/12/orlando_pulse_gay_nightclub_shooting_gay_men_can_t_donate_blood.html [slate.com]
I thought we had a previous article on these FDA rules, but I couldn't find it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:57PM
Now only accepting the blood of virgin maidens, which rules out any female American who has passed puberty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:15PM
I saw an article the other day that surprised me with its numbers.
They don't know what is causing it either.
Suspects: Bad diets; lack of exercise; soft drinks; hormone-fed meat; soy in the diet; chemicals in seemingly benign products (shampoos, cosmetics); unstable family structures (absent fathers).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:34PM
American girls are such sluts, prepubescent sexual experimentation is triggering puberty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:20PM
Don't do any research to test the claim that prepubescent sexual experimentation triggers puberty, just mod it Troll because ideologically it can't be right.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:08AM
So why the hell did I have my first period at 10 and remain a virgin, by explicit choice, until 21 then? I realize one data point isn't the distribution, but in formal logic, one counter-example disproves an "All X are Y" statement. And my sister?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:23PM
I suspect the observation is the result of poor data collection, especially if they're claiming that age of menarche declined before the mid 20th century. One might imagine some effect along the lines of what's been observed in fish populations if this decline began in the late 20th century. Before that time, they really need to put forward a theory that doesn't lean on the idea of virgin purity.
Alternate hypothesis: assuming for the moment the observation isn't pure bunkum, it may fail to take into account human migration patterns (voluntary and involuntary). It could start with a data set based on the average European woman and quickly change under the nose of the sloppy observer into a data set that includes Oriental and African women as well. I don't know enough about gynecology or endocrinology to go from there.
The problem is, as always, magickal thinking which comes from piss-poor education and also using the Bible as a medical manual. These are the same kind of people who think women's bodies can somehow stop a pregnancy when she's raped. And these are also the same people who want to press criminal abortion charges against women who miscarry.
And these people become very angry and even violent with the individual when the individual's body doesn't respond in the way that the medical manual says a good person's body should.
I hope humanity will eventually learn how dangerous religion truly is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:35AM
MikeeUSA?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:39AM
Yes, it is known what is causing it. Chicken. Chickens are force fed growth hormones, along with the rest of their feed. Growth hormones and anti-biotics. Chicken farms are one of the sources of anti-biotic-resistant diseases.
Blame Con-Agra.
Beef and pork are also sources of growth hormones and anti-biotics, but they are of far lesser concern than the birds. By percentage of body weight, the birds are force fed far more hormones and anti-biotics.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Arik on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:22PM
Holy fuck will the violence against the English language never stop?
cel·i·bate
ˈseləbət/
noun: celibate; plural noun: celibates
1.
a person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:27PM
You can replace "been celibate" with "abstained from sexual activity". Now that we've fixed the grammar, how do you feel about the policy?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:33PM
It's still ridiculous nonsense, funny memes aside, people in committed relationships DO actually engage in sexual activity.
>Not sure if you are trying to be funny or just retarded.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:21PM
Neither. Here's the actual policy [fda.gov]:
I was obviously correcting the "celibate" sentence from the article to match the FDA's official policy on gay potential blood donors.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:12PM
Did I miss it?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:09PM
How do you feel about getting HIV from your blood transfusion?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:16PM
Unsatisfied. I didn't even get laid!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:22PM
Furthermore I know at least as many slutty chicks I'd be worried about getting HIV, HPV or worse from.
Additionally, I have heard of far more false negative HSV cases than I have of HIV, and they already have mandatory testing of all donated blood samples for HIV antibodies, so gay men are no worse than other options, unless they are REALLY promiscuous and/or drug users and still probably don't top the sluttiest women, who under this policy are allowed to donate blood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:01AM
It's not just HIV. Syphilis is also much more common in gay men than in heterosexuals (75% of all syphilis cases are gay men).
Doctors work on statistics, not ideology. Let them do their job.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:24PM
How do you feel about having donated blood tested for diseases before it gets put into you? Anybody can have HIV.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:27PM
Nightclubs are immoral! No one should ever go to them! Let them rot and go out of business!
To hell with the nightclub scene!!
Why, yes, I am complaining only because they won't let me in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:33PM
This is going to feed itself.
People with "islamic" or "arabic" sounding names or complexion
doing these things then people will start to avoid them
and these people will then feel even more isolated / different
making them even more susceptible to a "cause" that
will again lead to more violence, isolation and their own death?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:47PM
Nerds who appear "different" and "awkward" and "unkempt" in public are avoided and isolated, making them feel bitter and rejected, and making them susceptible to recruitment by terrorists. Yet you don't see lonely nerds joining terrorist groups and turning to violence and shooting up nightclubs. Not even terrorists want nerds. Nobody wants nerds.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:10PM
We generally also have very strong, strange sense of morals. I've observed that there is an overwhelmingly consistent sense that harming people, and especially murder is fundamentally wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:57PM
With all due offense, your observations obviously have been of integrated social nerds who adopt a moral stance that will allow them to prosper in your mutual-admiration society.
Isolated antisocial nerds pick and choose whatever morals they want, including this possibility:
For most of eternity, I won't exist. That leaves two options: live forever or destroy the universe. [smbc-comics.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:13PM
You haven't heard of engineers being recruited by ISIS? It doesn't hurt that teenage girls are flowing into the group mostly by themselves.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:37PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:52PM
Fuck 'em
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:21PM
You can't really do anything about your complexion. You can choose a normal name, easily for your children, and with more annoyance for yourself.
When I hear that somebody's name is Osama or Ahmed or especially Mohommed or Muhamed, am I supposed to assume he is a normal American who accepts our culture? Heck no.
Your name is a statement about your identity. Call yourself "Running Bear" or "Adolf" or "Peace Flower" or "Trevon" or "Jose" and everybody knows something about your values and/or the values of your mother. (normally the values are pretty similar so the distinction rarely matters much)
Having an Islamic name is basically flipping the middle finger to American culture. It's silly to expect anybody to ignore that very obvious choice. You are signalling that you want to be apart from the rest of us. There is nothing to stop a person from having a normal American name even if they look Arabic, North African, Malaysian, or whatever. You can be "Kevin" or "Jack" or "Robert".
With an Islamic name, **you** have made the choice to be isolated, and we are merely acknowledging that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:31PM
so, free to be you and, well, you...
that is some potent freedom you got there...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:28PM
You are free to pick a name which indicates you reject American culture.
I am free to reject you for doing so. You want to be isolated? Fine, I will do my part to isolate you. Your wish is granted.
(Score: 4, Touché) by number11 on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:25PM
Have a name like McLendon or McVeigh or Holmes or Hennard or Huberty or Nichols or Roof? Everybody will know that you're a potential terrorist and you should be isolated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:20PM
But everyone is a potential terrorist already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:26PM
Don't forget Arnold, B.
:)
Or how about 'Judas' or 'Brutus' or Caine?
Or for the ladies, Lillith
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:49PM
I found another one! Howell [latimes.com].
That's right, folks! The Muslim terrorist killed a bunch of people, but the Christian terrorist got caught this morning.
I was going to post something about how it's a matter of time before a Christian attempts something like this. I guess I didn't have to wait. At least, I assume he's Christian. Maybe he'll turn out to be an atheist for extra plot twist. I suppose I could see the lizard people going either way on that one.
Santa Monica Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks said on Twitter that the 20-year-old man told one of her officers after he was arrested that he wanted “to harm Gay Pride event [in Los Angeles].” But she did not provide any details, and officials said they are still trying to sort out his motives.
Police identified him as James Wesley Howell of Indiana. A Facebook page for someone with the same name in Indiana shows a young man posing next to a white Acura with the same license plate as the car searched in Santa Monica for the weapons and explosives.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 13 2016, @12:05AM
Found the mentioned Facebook page [facebook.com].
Notably, this guy may have recently left jobs at both Geek Squad and Universal Protection Services (Clarksville, IN). Guy seemed to really like his car. He was a Sanders supporter? O.o;; “Looks like if you aren't voting just pick Bernie; because he looks like he isn't a charismatic Hitler. Unlike nearly every other candidate...” At least we know he didn't like Obama. “Wow; found "Vladimir Putin" talking shit online wat that punk ass obameramoo gunna do about this one?”
May have been working in Jeffersonville, IN pressing steel. Lots of music video links, nothing that particularly sticks out.
This gets stranger and stranger. Back on November 20, 2015, he linked here: Charlie Hebdo Shooting: Paris Attack Hoax NWO Exposé (Documentary) [youtube.com]. On August 21, 2015, he posted about liking his job in Louisville with selfie in a suit.
It gets even more strange. On June 1, 2015, he signed a change.org petition to end the war on marijuana. “I am supporting this petition because I believe that the federal government's overall regulation against this "schedule I narcotic" (weed) is a disgrace against our national freedoms as a country we should be allowed to smoke some pot or use it in a supplemental form to stimulate the endocannabinoid system in our own bodies if we choose to do so.. Our founding fathers would roll in their graves if they had the opputinity to see just where this country ended up.”
On March 3, 2015, left a job with Amazon.com. Seemed to be unhappy about his Nvidia GTX-970 card, but I find that hard to imagine having one myself. 2015 post where he started working at Universal Protection Services. Started working at Amazon.com November 2014.
Hmm… maybe that gets to the bottom of it. Damn this guy couldn't hold down a job. But why the hell would he drive all the way to LA to shoot up a gay pride parade?
MKULTRA? Lizard people moon matrix?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:48AM
Drug abuse?
Girlfriend dumped him for a woman?
Unable to accept his own homosexuality?
Was fired by a gay boss?
Beat up by a straight person who planned on attending the parade with their gay friends?
Hurt people get fixated on all kinds of ancillary characteristics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:57AM
Howell Told Police He Was Going to Look for a ‘Friend’ at the Parade [heavy.com]
He's a cutie, he coulda found a "friend" or two real quick.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:45PM
Entry into the USA will require proof of eating bacon. No bacon = no entry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:53PM
Hey it might work. Jews will pass the test just fine. Jews gladly eat bacon to piss off God. It's their form of civil disobedience.
Trouble is it will still keep the vegan granola girls from crossing the border. That's OK though because have you seen those unshaven granola girls who refuse to wear makeup? Yeah, not even the girls want them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:02PM
Must show gay card to enter gay establishments?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:07PM
Gay card proves nothing. Must have erection when shown gay porn.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:33PM
I firmly have an inkling that this individual was a total closet case, and was mad that the homosexuals were flaunting openly what he tried so hard to suppress in himself. He grew up with everyone around him openly hating on homosexuals, so he had to suppress and adopt their believes. But of course you cannot fight your nature for long, so he went out trying to "prove" what a devout Muslim he was, and "totally not a homosexual" because he couldn't live with himself any longer. And he beat his wife under many pretenses but the real reason was because she was not a man. He probably believed he became homosexual because he was exposed to that lifestyle in the US at some point, and he was scared for his son turning homosexual by being exposed as well.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:06PM
Nuts -- I don't eat mammals for ethical reasons. How about turkey bacon?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:17PM
Turkey won't do the job AFAIK, but shrimp will work.
Also: vultures, dogs, insects (except maybe locusts)
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:22PM
Love shrimp. Phew -- I was worried there.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:04PM
Orintiophobe!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:11PM
While I look forward to free bacon sandwiches next time I'm queueing for immigration, I'm not sure how it will stop a US citizen who has never left the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:12PM
Fine. Once per (some suitable time period) every citizen is required to visit his local Department of Homeland Security affiliate and take the bacon-test. It will create jobs and make 'murica great again ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:35PM
I like bacon, can I take the test routinely?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday June 13 2016, @03:15AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:16PM
Name a movie that featured John Belushi.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:40AM
Muslims love bacon too: [france24.com]
In the Islamic State of Iran, restaurants are not allowed to serve items forbidden by sharia law, like alcohol and pork. And yet, it is possible to find underground establishments that serve them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:42PM
Of course they do. Why would a religion ban something people DO NOT LIKE? These types of bans are there to allow them to see how much power they have over people. Just like bans on encryption, or guns, or using a fucking bathroom. It's about control. It's about easily sorting out the "troublemakers" so they can be "dealt with."
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday June 13 2016, @07:00AM
Many of these devout Muslims start as ethnic-Arab Western-raised boys and can both drink alcohol (forbidden in Islam) and commit these attacks. Does not every faith have exemptions for the "greater good"?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Touché) by Serial_Priest on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:53PM
On the plus side, he was clearly a moderate Muslim, since no one's head was cut off, and no one was tortured with knives after being shot like they did in Paris. This is proof that our national policies of tolerance and diversity are working! #refugeeswelcome #dumpdrumpf
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Username on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:13PM
I know you’re being sarcastic, but the problem isn’t with diversity, or multiculturalism. The problem is with Islam, where others have to capitulate to their beliefs. The difference between moderate and radical is how they get you to capitulate. Islam needs a protestant movement, where it’s ok for others to not be in your religion. It’s the same problem catholicism had with indoctrination and being a political ideology until the 18th century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:19PM
They had their Martin Luther, it was when the Khans knocked on their door and slew everyone from the region of modern Iran to the boarders of Egypt. Took them from the religion of peace they were to a reactionary (due to facing extinction) religion they are today. It is really quite unfortunate.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:00PM
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has deleted a tweet quoting the New Testament that he posted after the deadly Orlando nightclub shooting.
Hours after the early Sunday morning shooting at a gay nightclub that left at least 50 people dead, Patrick sent a tweet from his personal account: "Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows."
Sounds like some religious extremist terrorist sympathizers are in control of the Texas government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:48PM
He's another German [danpatrick.org] hiding his birth name of Dannie Scott Goeb (sounds like Globe). Can we get him and Drumpf to move back to Prussia?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:41PM
I think of Prussians as warriors.
Trump never served. 4 draft deferments[1] [google.com]
Trump is simply a blowhard and a Chickenhawk.
My intuition is that his roots are in Bohemia.
[1] He almost matches Chickenhawk Dick Cheney's 5 deferments.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:03PM
> "Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows."
The Christian terrorists and the Muslim terrorists have a lot in common. They should hang out more.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:14AM
They have basically everything in common except what they think of Jesus/Yeshua/Issa and whether they will or will not enjoy delicious, delicious ribs. This is the open secret that people won't admit to themselves.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @11:45AM
Speaking of which, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:06AM
Do you really think a politician of that rank would be that stupid?
While I am sure that plenty of them harbor such thoughts, they leave the speaking of it outloud to guys like pat robertson and the falwells. [theguardian.com]
The Lt Gov's office said that tweet was queued up days ago [pbs.org] which is way more plausible than a politician publicly gloating at a mass murder.
(Score: 2) by termigator on Monday June 13 2016, @05:08PM
> Do you really think a politician of that rank would be that stupid?
Yes. This is Texas we are talking about.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:07PM
This is going to be a tough one for the christian right. Do they condemn the murders of 50 people by a supposed Islamic extremist or praise him for doing gods work and killing the gays? Oh, they're just worried that Obama is coming for their guns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:30PM
...and Obama is a Muslim foreigner [cnn.com] so we know what he'll do with those guns...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by jmorris on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:49PM
Phulease. And people say I troll?
No Christian is supposed to hate gays. It is of course permitted to hate the sin. Outside of mental defectives like the Westboro idiots, you won't find what you are obviously looking for.
As for me, I'll just leave better words than my own here:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:50PM
Outside of mental defectives like the Westboro idiots
They actually follow the bible more closely than other Christians. But really, everyone picks and chooses.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:16AM
Yeah you're not supposed to hate them, but feel free to soak your panties all you want imagining them and everyone else you don't approve of writhing and screaming and broiling in eternal fire.
I dunno, to me that sounds like hate, even if at one remove. Trying to fob that off on your God (I refuse to believe you are, as you state, an agnostic; that sounds like Christian taqiya to me) is a little like a guy who hires a hitman saying he's not actually a murderer on account of not being the one to squeeze the trigger.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday June 13 2016, @03:38AM
You just don't want to see the difference because you don't want to accept the notion that homosexuality could be abnormal or that anyone could even be permitted to think that it is.
But remember that I usually push a concept I call the "Right to be Wrong." They have every right to be 'wrong' so long as they don't try to tell me I can't say I think they are wrong. Because if I deny them the "right to be wrong" I'd not only be declaring myself the power to officially say they are wrong, but far worse, I'd be granting that that power should exist. Because once we all accept such a power exists, everybody ends up being declared "wrong" about something eventually and then nobody is free anymore. Nobody. So while I don't want to claim the ultimate deciding power, I'm equally determined to keep it out of the hands of the PC Police.
Once that happens it is just a question of WHO ends up in change of declaring who is wrong. Which brings us to today's story where Islam really, really believes they can not only tell everyone they please that they are wrong but kill anyone who is wrong and refuses to change their ways after being ordered to change. Objecting to them killing people is also deemed wrong and worthy of them killing you over. The advocates of Political Correctness might not, yet, be killing its opponents but they certainly aspire to that power. Which is why they must be restrained. However ISIS is killing people NOW so if the PC Police can turn their guns on ISIS I'm more than willing to ally with them against a more immediate threat. But they probably can't because PC says Islam is 'oppressed' so they have to support them right up to the point where they are themselves being killed.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @06:51AM
When did I ever say homosexuality was normal? I am fully aware that as a lesbian I am a generic aberration and will not be passing my genes on...and I give slightly fewer fucks about that, or what you think of me, than Deadpool on a massive angel-dust bender. Abnormal does not, in and of itself, mean wrong, and you can take your "right to not think like JMorris^W^W^W^W be wrong" and shove it so far up your narcissistic, self-centered ass you choke on it. I hope you end up with a gay son.
The rest of your post is panicked, lemmingized, persecution-complexed nonsense. The rest of your brain has been beaten into submission by your massively over-developed amygdala and left you with ZERO ability to assess and prioritize threats. If you think the annoying Tumblrinas are anything like as dangerous or violent as Daesh, you've got your wires crossed. If you're this scared of the entire world, just go hide in a bunker somewhere until this all blows over and/or you die of fright. No, your tough-guy talk doesn't fool me in the least; your adrenals are screaming for mercy and you're scared of your own shadow.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:44PM
Dude, take a chill pill.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @05:44PM
No. The only thing required for evil to win is for good (wo)men to stand by and do nothing. In every era there arise people like this man, hollow, soulless sociopaths who drift through life vampirizing whatever they come across...and in every era there arise people like me whose cause is to point this out and, when possible, fight it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 13 2016, @06:07PM
I am fully aware that as a lesbian I am a generic aberration and will not be passing my genes on
Oh please, I'm really disappointed in you, and I'm not even homosexual myself. First off, there's tons of evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom; it's not unique to humans. Secondly, there's nothing preventing you from passing your genes on, you just have to find a willing male, or get artificial insemination as so many women these days do when they hit 40 and can't find a husband. Even more, homosexuals have been having kids for eons, and even in recent history, and those kids usually come out straight, not homo. The bottom line: homosexuality is perfectly normal for humans. It probably serves as a bit of a population-control mechanism (since they are somewhat less likely to have kids, or as many).
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @08:45PM
My girlfriend/soon-to-be-wife doesn't want kids, though she says she's open to the idea of adoption at some point if she changes her mind and we have the money. I kind of wish she could get me pregnant actually, but it doesn't seem to be in the cards. There are already far too many orphan and abandoned children for me to contemplate making another one, though.
And, don't worry, I don't mind being a "genetic aberration." Realistically speaking, no, homosexuality is not "normal." If it were it would be around 50% of the population, not 1-3%. Normal and abnormal are more statistical statements than moral ones, which is where people like JMorris fuck up in this discussion. Personally I find him more funny than threatening; he's so completely transparent as to his motivations and fears, and he thinks he can hide from us! The guy's a textbook case.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday June 14 2016, @04:22PM
Realistically speaking, no, homosexuality is not "normal." If it were it would be around 50% of the population, not 1-3%. Normal and abnormal are more statistical statements than moral ones,
I disagree. It's normal for a population to have small number of individuals with different traits. "Abnormal" connotes that there's something wrong with being different. People over 6' tall are a small portion of the population too, but there's nothing wrong with being 6' tall, it's just not the majority. Having green eyes is also a small portion of the population (less than 10%, probably less than 5%), but again there's nothing wrong with it, so calling it an "aberration" is a disservice to those who have that trait. There's no shortage of traits that only a single-digit percentage of the population has, and most of them aren't a negative. Finally, from what I can tell, homosexuality is much more than just 1-3% of the population, if you include bisexuality or anyone who isn't a Kinsey 0, and actually is honest with themselves about it.
As for orphan/abandoned children, you obviously haven't looked into what the adoption process in this country is like (assuming you're in the USA). It's pretty horrific, which is why many couples end up going to China, India, Romania, etc. to adopt children. It's also an extremely costly process, no matter where you get the child from. It's probably a lot easier with older kids in the foster system, but then you're going to deal with a kid with a lot of emotional problems. There's certainly nothing wrong with volunteering to help those kids, but it's obviously a serious challenge and not every prospective parent is up to that or capable of it. Kudos for wanting to help an existing child, but there's very good reasons why not everyone wants to take that road.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quintessence on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:10PM
Actually, I think it is perfectly appropriate to put those aspects of Christianity on point: where do you stand?
Let's not forget the KKK is a Christian organization (and at its height, the largest fraternal organization in the US) that used the Bible as a justification for slavery and condemning blacks, but that interpretation of Christianity has been beaten to the dirt, and is so far removed from mainstream Christianity that most Christians would be deeply offended by the implication.
And so it is with homosexuals, with at least aspects of Christianity adopting a more tolerant "hate the sin, but not the sinner" stance; the parallels to the KKK's take on race relations and a vocal part of Christianity on homosexuals is unmistakable: where do you stand?
Having Christians answer to the virulent rhetoric is a good thing, and at least they can discuss among themselves where the "God Hates Fags" path leads.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:08PM
It leads to broken bones and severe lacerations if those Westboro wack-a-doodles ever show up at a funeral I'm attending.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 13 2016, @03:42PM
Inb4 they sue you and win because they're all lawyers and that's part of the plan.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:26PM
Still worth it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Monday June 13 2016, @12:53AM
I'll take this one. I was raised Roman Catholic, though I've been nonpracticing and am growing more and more comfortable with atheism.
There's no part of this that any part of the church I used to belong to would endorse. Killing people because they don't follow the rules of the RC church would be murder, and a first-class, do-not-pass Go ticket to hell. They do have this weird (to me) deal where you can be forgiven pretty much anything as long as you confess it (and really mean it, and really stop doing it), but seeing as this guy was killed in the act, my old church would say he's irrevocably in hell forever.
Where do I stand? I don't think other people's sexuality is any of my concern unless they're a potential partner. I think many of the world's problems could be solved if we just left each other alone.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Monday June 13 2016, @02:14AM
Killing people because they don't follow the rules of the RC church would be murder
Apparently you haven't heard of the Inquisition or the Crusades.
Point being institutional change doesn't happen in a vacuum, and even for the long storied history of the Catholic Church, there are reformers, there are doubts as to how the Church should progress, and, most importantly, the Church can admit mistakes were made and change course.
God may not be infallible, but perhaps our understanding is.
I'll even give the Church credit: with the long history it has, the present Pope is about the best you could ask for in maintaining tradition with an eye towards social change.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Monday June 13 2016, @03:44AM
I have. I was a big medieval history buff as a kid. The church I was part of in the 1900s didn't have inquisitions or crusades. They were a lot more about bake sales and the occasional carnival or bingo night.
If you want to extend the question to "Was the Inquisition wrong? Were the Crusades wrong?" Yes and yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:52AM
The church I was part of in the 1900s didn't have inquisitions or crusades.
They were a lot more about bake sales and the occasional carnival or bingo night.
Don't forget protecting pedo-priests. Also there is the matter of complicity in the rwandan genocide. [theguardian.com]
Neither of which the church has fully come to grips with yet.
Anecdotally, my friend was forced to marry her rapist at the age of 18 in the phillipines, and she wasn't even from a poor family - she attended the most prestigious university in the country. (15 years later she was granted an annulment by the very same priest after her husband had cracked her head open and left her for dead in the street).
I don't say that to bag on catholicism, but rather to point out that individuals can experience the same religious institution in wildly different ways.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Monday June 13 2016, @01:59PM
I haven't. That's why I left. I had kids and the fact that people knew that was happening and didn't stop it was a deal breaker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:12AM
And this is why nothing will ever change. Everyone pigeon-holes everyone else into this-or-that group, and projects motives, probably responses, probable thought process on the whole group. Surely people can still think for themselves - focus on the issue at hand and forget the pigeon-holing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bobs on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:23PM
This is tragedy.
One of the things I am struggling to come up with is a measured, appropriate public policy response that would be effective at preventing a single, suicidal, nut from killing a bunch of people in a dark, crowded place.
The only thing that comes to mind is making it harder (not impossible) for people to get their hands on rapid firing weapons.
But that still won't stop it, just make it somewhat less likely.
Reading 400-million plus peoples' emails isn't going to prevent it
Seems like the most effective response is going to be slow, complicated and not visible:
Improving mental health and social services and
pushing back on those practicing(ISIS) , promoting and funding (Saudi Arabia) extremists and terrorist ideologies.
We can kill most/all the folks in ISIS. We can still have some crazy decide to kill a bunch of people. Was happening before ISIS and will after. I don't see any reasonable society that can make that impossible, and efforts to try will just hurt us more than a few isolated, random nuts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:30PM
There is none. That's the whole problem. We've been fed this meme that every tragedy requires a new government response.
Murder is murder. It's always horrible, it's always tragic, it's always illegal, and it still happens.
What we *should* do in response to this is less. If we spent less money making the middle east into a hellhole we'd have less worry of blowback here.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:15PM
Unstable recent ISIS sympathiser goes on rampage...
Sounds a lot more like an FBI entrapment target that went off on his own and ahead of schedule than a mid-east blowback to me.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:46PM
That said we don't know all the details and it's perfectly possible this guy was just crazy and would have done this or something like this for one name or another anyway.
But the idea that just because a tragedy occurs a new law is needed is the big problem here. Absolutely retarded meme that the media-government complex just adore.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:25PM
I was thinking the exact same thing when the roommate told me about this. Check this out: Heavily armed man arrested near L.A. gay pride festival [reuters.com]. Perhaps the lizard people felt they were having a difficult time fomenting hatred among LGBT people towards Muslims.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by gman003 on Monday June 13 2016, @12:00AM
I disagree. We had mass shootings before islamic terrorism was a notable thing, and we will continue to have it afterward. I strongly suspect that many of the attacks attributed to islamic terrorism are simply the result of an unstable person latching on to something they think will give their life meaning. The same has happened with christian terrorism or environmentalist terrorism. Eliminate one movement, they'll just find another to latch on to. Or just kill people without bothering to come up with a reason. (Now, eliminating the movement is still a worthwhile goal, because it does contribute to the frequency of such events and causes plenty of other problems, but it's not a one-shot solution to the problem)
What we need is gun control based on facts and reason, not politics. The Democrats will almost inevitably trot out another variant of the Assault Weapons Ban - a piece of legislation that was flawed in pretty much every way it is possible for a law to be flawed. All the AWB did was ban guns that looked scary. The points system counted things that do not matter - a pistol grip makes no significant difference towards a weapon's effectiveness, it's just more associated with modern military-derived weapons than with older or non-military weapons. And then, because there were still a bunch of major weapons not being covered by it, they specifically banned several guns - including a gun that was so badly-designed that it would actually be *better* for it to be in the hands of criminals rather than a better weapon, but because they had the gall to name it the "Street Sweeper" Congress just assumed it *had* to be dangerous and evil.
Whether it's right or not, because of the sheer size of our gun industry and the absurd levels the issue has been politicized, we cannot do a comprehensive firearms ban. There's no way we could get a UK-style gun control system in place, even if that was the overall best system. That's one reality that anyone proposing solutions to this problem has to accept. (FWIW, my personal opinion is that while we definitely need to decrease the political power of the gunmaker's lobby, and the near-religious level some gun owners take it to is a serious problem, the goal should not be "eliminate guns" but rather "eliminate gun deaths", so a comprehensive ban is a non-preferable solution all else being equal)
Any attempt at gun control should also address the quite-substantial but oft-overlooked suicide issue. The #1 risk factor for suicide isn't "depression" or "alcoholism" - it's "is there a gun present in the home?". And the total number of gun suicides in the US is twice the number of gun homicides. So if the goal is to actually help people, the solution should address suicides as well as homicides. And let's throw accidents into the mix as well, since those are also unreasonably high.
There are very few new ideas in this world. A quick bit of research points us towards a good solution: look for first-world countries with high levels of gun ownership, and low levels of firearms casualties. Norway and Switzerland come to the forefront pretty quickly. Firearms homicides are literally one-in-a-million in Norway, 1/30th that of the United States, and yet they rank #10 in the world for gun ownership per capita. Switzerland has even higher levels of gun ownership (thanks in part to their "military reservists keep their weapons in their home" policy), and they too have notably low levels of gun-related deaths. So what are they doing right?
Licensing. You have to register your weapons, you have to pass a test proving you know firearms safety and basic firearms law, and you can only buy ammunition that will work in a weapon you have registered.
So with that in mind, this is the rough outline of the gun control law I would write, were I somehow in charge of writing bills:
Certain weapons would need no license to own or operate. Any muzzleloader would automatically be in this class. Maybe word it as "loaded with loose black powder" if that covers edge cases better. My reasoning here is that you basically can't do a mass murder
with these things. You'd get one shot off, and then in the minute it takes you to reload, either everyone's run away, or you've been dog-piled and neutralized as a threat.
A Class I license would be needed for manually-operated long guns under 12mm in caliber (if rifled) or under 20mm in caliber (if unrifled - this is mainly for shotguns, and 10-gauge is just under 20mm). Anything from a Dreyse to a Mauser to a Winchester - bolt actions, lever actions, break actions, basically anything that isn't self-loading, under a certain size. A Class I license would require a basic weapons safety and weapons law test, making it about as hard to obtain as a driver's license. My reasoning here is that these are substantially harder to kill lots of people with - you could do a "sniper in the clock tower" thing, but that takes quite a bit of skill, and is still easily stopped. The licensing here is mainly to cut down on accidents, not crime, because there's not many armed robbers around wielding Mosin-Nagants.
A Class II license would be needed for any self-loading non-automatic long guns in those same calibers. This would be a bit harder to obtain, adding a requirement for a background check and proof-of-ownership of a gun safe (to impede theft - sure, there's no reasonable way to force people to use a gun safe, but if you make them buy it, they're far more likely to use it. The main differences would be in obtaining and transferring weapons - while with Class I, you just need to register it when bought, with a Class II, you need to file whenever you sell it, even privately - mostly to make sure that whoever you're selling it to is actually licensed for it. My reasoning here is on making it hard for an unlicensed person to possess a Class II weapon, because this is the level where crimes get serious.
A Class III license would cover any other long gun - rifles above 12mm caliber, or automatic rifles, as well as anything currently classed as a "destructive device", like an RPG. This would be about as hard to obtain as a Type 1 FFL is today, or perhaps slightly easier. After all, the NFA is a proven-effective piece of legislation - in the near-century since it started, there have been only two homicides with personally-owned automatic weapons, which is an acceptable amount. The license would be hard to obtain, easy to revoke, and would require on-site inspections every year or so to make sure they're being safely stored and haven't been stolen or lost.
You'll notice one major class of weapon not covered by any of these: handguns. And the reason for that is twofold: first, handguns, being cheaper to make, are cheaper to buy, and thus the primary firearm used for suicides; second, concealed-carry permits are quite frankly retarded. The whole point is that you can't see them being carried - if someone owns a concealable weapon, it should be assumed that they will carry it concealed because there's no way to really stop them. So any license that includes handguns (let's call them Class I.A, II.A, and III.A) is implicitly a concealed-carry license. I think it would be justifiable to make these may-issue licenses instead of shall-issue, even for Class I.A, but there's not much evidence to go on here so I could be easily persuaded.
The whole point of a licensing system, of course, is to make it possible to not license people who shouldn't be. Any felony would be grounds to revoke all licenses, of course. Dishonorable discharge from a military or police force would be automatic grounds to revoke a Class II or higher license. A court order should be able to temporarily revoke a license, on request of either law enforcement or a psychiatrist (with the intent of preventing homicides and suicides, respectively). But what to do with guns you are no longer allowed to own? Simple - escrow. A responsible party (let's say the local police for now) will take possession, but not ownership, of any firearms you legally owned but are now not licensed for. They can't do anything with it except store it, without the owner's say-so. If the owner decides to transfer or sell it to a licensed person, the police hand it over (after checking their license and politely reminding them that giving it to someone without a license is a crime). If they get their license back, they get all their guns back. If the owner orders it to be destroyed, it's destroyed, unless it's considered evidence. This should keep abuse of the license-revocation system to a minimum, because this makes it a hassle for the police instead of a potential profit source.
Last point: weapons may be pushed to a lower class by whichever government body is responsible. So something that, by the above rules, would be Class II, but should intuitively be Class I, like the Ruger 10/22, can be reclassified on a case-by-case basis. Making it only possible to lower a classification, not raise it, should cut down on pointless political point-scoring while still allowing practical concerns to be addressed.
There are a lot of things left to figure out. How do you grandfather in all the guns that already exist? Where do suppressors fit into this (since they're far over-regulated right now)? Where's the dividing line between handguns and long guns? This is obviously not a complete piece of legislation. Writing good laws is *hard*, and I don't want to spend a hundred pages on this. I wish I could make this even shorter, since it's far too long already. But my point is made. A law can be made based on evidence and reason that should be able to substantially reduce firearms-related death and injury, without unduly impeding the ability of regular, sane people to shoot guns recreationally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:38AM
Not bad. Problem is, the first thing you need to do for that is a constitutional amendment to revoke the second amendment.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday June 13 2016, @02:07AM
Not necessarily. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I am particularly not a Constitutional lawyer).
The Second Amendment, taken literally, is absolute. You can bear arms - weapons, any weapons. A strict literal reading would say that citizens can own and use nuclear missiles. Which is patently absurd, which is why no current Supreme Court justice is a strict constructionist. I believe every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been given some sort of exception, save the Third, to avoid extreme cases. Direct threats are not protected by freedom of speech. Riots are not protected by freedom of assembly. Being near the border wipes away your protection from unreasonable search and seizure (which is IMO wrong but that's not what the courts have ruled).
And so it is with the Second Amendment. The government may regulate the possession of arms. The federal government has regulations under Title I and Title II - this is why you can't buy an RPG-7 at Wal-Mart. You already need all manner of papers and to pay a lot more taxes than you really should in order to possess certain weapons. My proposal merely smooths out that curve - adding incremental amounts of licensing in order to reach further levels of firepower.
Not to mention that a lot of state or local governments have restricted firearms, sometimes to ludicrous degrees (coughcoughcaliforniacough).
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @03:24AM
The Second Amendment, taken literally, is absolute. You can bear arms - weapons, any weapons. A strict literal reading would say that citizens can own and use nuclear missiles.
Yeah.
Which is patently absurd
If you feel that way, move to amend the constitution. Don't just ignore it.
which is why no current Supreme Court justice is a strict constructionist.
And nor are they friends to the concept of a limited government which follows the highest law of the land, as evidenced by countless authoritarian decisions.
Keep in mind that there is a stark difference between what is actually constitutional and what the courts claim is constitutional.
I believe every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been given some sort of exception
Often in utter defiance of the constitution, mind you. The courts also approved of citizens of Japanese descent being put in internment camps, the jailing of war protesters, the existence of obscenity laws and other types of censorship. They have also been entirely ineffective thus far at putting a stop to blatantly unconstitutional surveillance practices. The courts are not exactly friends to liberty.
My proposal merely smooths out that curve - adding incremental amounts of licensing in order to reach further levels of firepower.
Your proposal would make an already bad situation even worse. But this sort of thinking seems common. If there is a long history of the government ignoring the constitution, we should try to correct that, not just allow them to violate it even more while ignoring what's happening. Either create an amendment or knock it off; simply interpreting the constitution in ways that are convenient for you so that the government can have more power is unacceptable.
Not to mention that a lot of state or local governments have restricted firearms, sometimes to ludicrous degrees (coughcoughcaliforniacough).
Which isn't constitutional either.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 14 2016, @08:36AM
I believe every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been given some sort of exception
Often in utter defiance of the constitution, mind you. The courts also approved of citizens of Japanese descent being put in internment camps, the jailing of war protesters, the existence of obscenity laws and other types of censorship. They have also been entirely ineffective thus far at putting a stop to blatantly unconstitutional surveillance practices. The courts are not exactly friends to liberty.
This is incorrect. The Supreme Court *decides* what is constitutional. This was decided in 1803 in via Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org].
While this decision was not greeted warmly by many (Jefferson, notably, thought it very bad), there has been ample time to modify the court's power (in fact there have been seventeen amendments passed since that decision), yet this has not been done. Would you care to speculate as to why that's the case?
As such, it's clear that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is constitutional in the United States. You may disagree with their decisions (I certainly have issue with a bunch!), but unless and until there is a constitutional amendment destroying the independent judiciary, that's the way it is.
Despite the fact that I find fault with how some (if not many) cases are decided by the court, I am glad that we have an independent judiciary that is co-equal to the Legislative and Executive branches of our government.
Feel free to disagree (I'm sure you will), but you'll just be tilting at windmills, friend.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:24PM
The US Supreme Court usurped for itself powers it had no authority to grant. It's no different than Congress with the War on Some Drugs: Congress "did its thing" (passed a law) and gave itself powers it had no authority to grant. It is no diffferent when the Supreme Court "did its thing" (wrote a brief on a case) and gave itself powers it had no authority to grant. It's a violation of law and literally criminal.
I've written a couple [soylentnews.org] journals [soylentnews.org] on the topic in case you'd like a few more details (and I reference the logically-inconsistent Marbury decision, to boot).
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 14 2016, @04:32PM
The US Supreme Court usurped for itself powers it had no authority to grant. It's no different than Congress with the War on Some Drugs: Congress "did its thing" (passed a law) and gave itself powers it had no authority to grant. It is no diffferent when the Supreme Court "did its thing" (wrote a brief on a case) and gave itself powers it had no authority to grant. It's a violation of law and literally criminal.
I've written a couple journals on the topic in case you'd like a few more details (and I reference the logically-inconsistent Marbury decision, to boot).
As I pointed out to Anal Pumpernickel, you're tilting at windmills friend.
Regardless of what you think of Supreme Court decisions, or legislation duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, those are the rules that control our government.
If you don't like it, you have several options:
Perhaps there are other options as well.
However, until such time as some or all of the above are successful, we have the governmental structure that we have.
The government we have is the government we (as Americans) created and have modified over the past 229 years or so. I don't like many of the things that the Federal government does, nor do I condone many of the unethical and downright nasty things it's done to us and to citizens of other countries.
I'd like to make things better for all of us. But claiming that Supreme Court rulings are "unconstitutional" or "criminal" isn't even wrong. It's meaningless prattle, devoid of semantic content.
Some (or many or all) of those rulings may be (and have been -- Plessy v. Ferguson [wikipedia.org] and Korematsu v. United States [wikipedia.org] come to mind) antithetical to the ideals of liberty, equality under the law and just plain fairness. One might even go so far as to say they are unethical, unprincipled and possibly even evil.
But to say that they are illegal or unconstitutional shows a lack of understanding of the governmental structures we, as a people, have placed over ourselves.
You don't have to like it. You don't need to support it. And if it's too burdensome, you don't even need to live under such a government. The choice is yours.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @09:45PM
If you make the choice to believe that a verifiable falsehood is reality, I cannot (and will not try to) force you to change your mind. I can identify and define what appears to be literal insanity, albeit a comfortable state of mind considering the alternatives, in an attempt to shake you and others out of the despondant viewpoint which says "this new verifiable lie the Supreme Court emitted must now be considered by myself to be truth or else I'm a bad American/terrorist/rebel".
You seem not to have read my journals, as the meaning behind my use of the term "criminal" is plainly defined: when the authority of the individual is trespassed by an agent of government whose authority is a derivative of said individual's, that act is a crime. While the SCOTUS' mere act of declaring a lie to be truth is arguably not a criminal act in and of itself, it is not arguable that the lie will be imposed upon others at gunpoint by agents of government using the SCOTUS' lie as the justification for such criminal acts in the Nuremberg flavor of "just following orders".
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 14 2016, @10:16PM
If you make the choice to believe that a verifiable falsehood is reality, I cannot (and will not try to) force you to change your mind. I can identify and define what appears to be literal insanity, albeit a comfortable state of mind considering the alternatives, in an attempt to shake you and others out of the despondant viewpoint which says "this new verifiable lie the Supreme Court emitted must now be considered by myself to be truth or else I'm a bad American/terrorist/rebel".
I didn't say that Supreme Court rulings were "the truth." I said that they were the law of the land and, in a bunch of cases, unethical, unprincipled and possibly evil.
Nor did I even insinuate that disagreeing with the Supreme Court made you (or anyone else for that matter) a "bad American/terrorist/rebel."
You seem not to have read my journals, as the meaning behind my use of the term "criminal" is plainly defined: when the authority of the individual is trespassed by an agent of government whose authority is a derivative of said individual's, that act is a crime.
I did read the journal entry you linked and found it puerile and rather unconvincing.
There are many things that the Federal government does that I find to be unconscionable and downright disgusting.
The question is, "What are we going to do about it?" Are there options other than that which I suggested that you'd like to see attempted?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @10:53PM
There were two linked journal entries, and aside from the directness and simplicity, what particular aspect(s) do you find to be silly, childish, or trivial?
My goal with the journals and my comments here is to resolve the contradiction of "law is what government says it is" with a government/law that is self-contradictory, easily seen in Dred Scott vs Sandford and also in the very existence of laws restricting possession of weapons within the same government which pays lip service to the Second Amendment.
The question of "what to do about [a criminal/evil] government" is another matter entirely. What people have done about criminal/evil laws is a matter of historical record: many ignored them (e.g. the Underground Railroad, First Prohibition, the Battle of Athens [jpfo.org], and the ongoing Battle of Bunkerville [thenationalpatriot.com] saga). For myself, I look at each claimed law that passes into my awareness and judge its validity according to the principles I wrote about in those two journal entries. I believe this is my responsibility and duty as an USian, rather putting any further effort into the futile and wholly corrupt existing federal political process (they may yet be some hope at the local level). I choose not to be a criminal, nor to support other criminals, and to treat everyone else I come across as equal or better than my own self by default. A random sampling of people who have met me will produce a positive picture of a person, with likely notable comments on my "strange" views that came up in conversation when it seemed appropriate and of interest to them according to my (hopefully correct) judgement. Naturally, when the US federal government gets around to prosecuting me, the indictment is going to be pages long, calling me a horrible crook who must spend decades if not centuries locked away in a cage.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:32AM
I look at each claimed law that passes into my awareness and judge its validity according to the principles I wrote about in those two journal entries.
So you've chosen option 4:
Promote and engage in peaceful civil disobedience to get the Federal government to do what you want it to do, promote and engage in armed rebellion against the Federal government, or both;
A valid choice. Good for you. It's certainly better than doing nothing.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:06AM
No. When I disregard a law as Constitutionally-void and break it (while harming no one, mind you), that is not "civil disobedience". It is exactly the same in principle as disregarding an order from MS-13 to carry large amounts of cash everywhere I go while forbidding me from being armed: an order by criminals with no principle behind it other than the naked use of force. When a person is killed by government agents over a legally-void law, that killing is a murder no different in principle than any other intentional taking of human life outside of self-defense. Criminals are criminals no matter the costume they may wear and are deserving of equal treatment when they confront you.
"Civil disobedience" recognizes the law in question as valid yet objectionable. Most of the federal government's so-called laws are in fact not valid law at all. A law's maximum authority is limited to that of a single human being's, since the supreme law of the USA's is a mere derivative of said individual's authority: it cannot exceed the authority of its source. Laws that attempt to do so are unconstitutional by definition. (Else, I could start a kidnapping gang, and at some arbitary threshhold become lawful once I had enough members/supporters.) An unconstitutional act is not law; it has no legal power, it justifies no government action, and it was invalid as law the very moment it was "passed".
If you've read my journals, that last bit may seem familiar to you in regards to Norton vs Shelby County's recognition (not establishment of) of that same principle.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 14 2016, @06:55PM
This is incorrect. The Supreme Court *decides* what is constitutional.
What the legal system says is true and what is actually true in reality are different matters. If the Supreme Court was always correct, then how could previous decisions ever be overridden, aside from a situation where the constitution has changed between the rulings? Did reality magically change in that time? So what you're talking about clearly only applies to the legal system. This is because there is a need to have someone decide matters at the end of the day, not because those people are always correct. When they are wrong, we must attempt to correct the issue.
You may disagree with their decisions (I certainly have issue with a bunch!)
Well, that's what I was doing. I'm not opposed to the courts ruling on constitutional matters, but I simply disagree with many of the decisions they have made. These terrible rulings need to be fixed, one way or another.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 14 2016, @08:00PM
What the legal system says is true and what is actually true in reality are different matters.
I never said anything about "truth." I specifically said "constitutional." What is legal/constitutional does not necessarily coincide with what's true or right. Until the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, it was "legal" in the United States to own other human beings. In fact, it was enshrined in the original text of the Constitution. This was clearly not right, nor is it "true" in an ethical sense. However, it was the law of the land.
If the Supreme Court was always correct, then how could previous decisions ever be overridden, aside from a situation where the constitution has changed between the rulings? Did reality magically change in that time? So what you're talking about clearly only applies to the legal system. This is because there is a need to have someone decide matters at the end of the day, not because those people are always correct. When they are wrong, we must attempt to correct the issue.
[...]
Well, that's what I was doing. I'm not opposed to the courts ruling on constitutional matters, but I simply disagree with many of the decisions they have made. These terrible rulings need to be fixed, one way or another.
I don't take any issue with your analysis or the sentiment behind it.
Please see my response to an AC [soylentnews.org] above.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Monday June 13 2016, @03:45AM
The anti-gunners need to take a cue from jiu-jitsu and let the second amendment collapse under its own weight. They should argue that it is literally correct. There are no limits on who can own weapons, or what weapons they can own, or where they can take them.
Go shopping with a shotgun. Start turning up to PTA meetings carrying an SMG wearing a bandolier full of grenades. Mount a homemade cannon on the back of the pickup or the roof of the SUV. Convert an AR15 into fully automatic and stand on their second amendment rights. Use a flamethrower to clear weeds in the front yard and light the BBQ.
Then agitate for a constitutional amendment.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:17PM
Thank you, I will.
I would like a world where weapons are unnecessary. Communities that feel secure in their rights don't feel the need to carry weapons. Many Europeans now, for example, are content to live without guns because they know they can get most of what they want with a well-attended strike.
That is not true in the United States. We know on some visceral, genetic level, that the only guarantee of freedom we have is our weaponry and willingness to strike back at overbearing government.
Bureaucrats, politicians, elected members of office, should perennially rest assured that if they abuse the powers of their offices too much, then angry citizens will hunt them down. We are at that point now, and only all await the appropriate spark.
Note: I am not a gun-totin' conservative, but a progressive.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 13 2016, @03:50PM
A strict literal reading would say that citizens can own and use nuclear missiles.
Strictly literally speaking, "to bear" means "to carry." So unless you have a nuclear missile you can lift yourself...
So talking man-portable weapons clears up this whole silly argument. Oh wait, I suppose you can easily carry a vial of smallpox...hmm.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:17AM
Strictly literally speaking
Er, no. Using that interpretation, there would be no right to actually use the weapons for anything at all, since the 2nd amendment only speaks of keeping and bearing arms. If that was the case, why even bother mentioning such a worthless right?
Words have multiple meanings. Clearly, "to bear" means something more than "to carry" here.
(Score: 1) by BenFenner on Tuesday June 14 2016, @05:24PM
The Second Amendment, taken literally, is absolute. You can bear arms - weapons, any weapons. A strict literal reading would say that citizens can own and use nuclear missiles.
This is incorrect. The 2nd amendment, taken literally, is absolute. I will give you that. However, you can bear "arms", which is not the same as "weapons". In the context in which the second amendment was written, there were two types of weapons. "Arms" and "ordinance". Arms are smaller weapons able to be carried by a single person over a reasonable distance in battle and the like. Ordinance describes larger pieces of weapons equipment carried by horses at the time (think cannons) or assembled on site after being carried by mules (think mountain guns) and as technology has moved on it now includes tanks, planes, and your aforementioned nuclear missiles. The 2nd amendment does not provide US citizens the rights to bear these ordinances.
Reasonably carry and operate on your own? Arms.
Larger weapon system? Ordinance.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:06PM
I highly doubt that is correct.
The earliest attestations of "ordnance" (or "ordinance", as it was originally) in a martial context have it meaning "anything a military needs to operate", including weapons of all types, ammunition, clothing, and food. Its current meaning focuses more on weapons and ammunition, particularly for the artillery, but even today you can refer to a carbine as "ordnance" and be correct (otherwise, the term "heavy ordnance" would be meaninglessly repetitive, because all ordnance would be heavy). It would be improbable for a word to condense in meaning to an extremely strict subset, and then relax back to more-or-less the original meaning. Particularly in only six centuries.
The same holds true for "arms". You can trace that back to Latin and still get a meaning that covered everything from "swords" to "catapults" (the main difference in meaning is that Latin "arma" included armor as well as weapons, with the two distinguished as "arma noctiva" and "arma defensiva"). We've dropped "defensive arms" from the meaning but "arms" still refers to any weapon.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nekomata on Monday June 13 2016, @02:05PM
Sorry mate, not true. Getting a gun in Switzerland is absolutely freaking simple.
1. Show you don't have any police record. Especially nothing drug or violence related (some other stuff might pass, idk)
2. Take you clean police record and a form to the local police station
3. They will, after some other checks (like if you have 100 speeding tickets or so) give you a WES (Waffen Erwerbs Schein, ~weapon purchase permit)
With your WES you can now go and buy up to three guns. You however do not register the ownership of your gun! You only need to show you are allowed to buy it.
No permit is needed for bolt-actions and the like (where you reload after every shot)
Special permit is needed for: carrying (almost impossible to get), full-auto weapons (need to be a collector) and silencers (collector too? idk).
So your assumtion that it has anything to do with HOW you get the guns here is wrong. I would personally assume it's a combination of culture and well-being. But I havn't given it that much tought since I can't compare the state here to the state in USA (never been there).
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday June 13 2016, @06:44PM
I did not solely base my proposal on Swiss gun law. I used elements of it, such as the lack of/looser restrictions on certain types of weapon, as well as elements of Norwegian gun law and elements I thought would be necessary to adapt it to American culture and American legal doctrine.
There is significant merit to the Swiss system (as evidenced by the facts), and I would be quite willing to incorporate more elements of it into this proposal. Or hell, even just adopting it outright would be better than the system we have now, even though it doesn't address problems like America's abnormally high gun-accident rate or gun-suicide rate.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 13 2016, @01:32AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:35PM
Any kind of gun control will result in... only criminals having guns, while everyone else doesn't. I don't own one myself, don't need one.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:11PM
You should. Otherwise you're shirking your moral obligation to aid in the defense against a tyrannical government. Which is why we're allowed guns in the first place.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:09AM
Oooh, look at me! I don't own a gun and I most likely never will. I'm shirking my "moral obligation"! Look, Buzzard Breath, I've seen you extremist ammosexual types gradually drift from "it is my right to own a gun" to "you should own a gun too, or you are shirking your moral responsibility". It won't work. I will not be shamed into joining your cause. If you want to convince me that gun ownership is a moral imperative then, at the least, you will have to convince me that said gun ownership provides benefits to me and those around me. Right now, you have mostly convinced me that you and ammosexuals like yourself are dangerous fools who need to be disarmed. If you want to convince me then show me the benefits to you and your ammosexuial buddies having a weapon within easy reach. No doubt you will at some point trot out the tired canard "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away"; of course, this conveniently ignores the fact that you and your ammosexual buddies also seem to be only minutes away when seconds count. Frankly, I don't think having you and your ammosexual buddies armed is buying the rest of us much in the way of benefit and is creating many more headaches than it is worth. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:30AM
Blah, blah, and also blah. You can either choose to exercise the power you've been given responsibly, irresponsibly, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalala. I guess we know which side of the fence you come down on. There is nothing good or right about throwing power away. The only good or right comes from using what you're given to do good.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:10AM
Whooosh!!! Frankly, you and your ammosexual buddies have not demonstrated all that much "good" for all the power you have been given. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:43AM
Over six thousand prevented crimes per day credited to private firearm ownership. Less than forty fatal shootings per day. The math is not difficult.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:49AM
It took me over 3 decades to "win" my first fight.
I did so by kicking the leader hard enough to injure them.
If I am afraid of maiming somebody, how the heck is a gun going to help?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:31AM
I guess you posted aptly, AC.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by number11 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:31AM
you're shirking your moral obligation to aid in the defense against a tyrannical government.
Where were your people when they rammed the "Patriot" act through? When they rounded up the Japanese-Americans? When they attacked Iraq under false pretenses? When Jim Crow was oppressing Blacks? Funny, the gun crowd could often be found cheering the government on.
(I'm a gun owner. I don't have any illusions about the moral values of most gun owners.)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:47AM
Right here, asking "are you fucking insane?!" while you lot were screaming "save me, superman!". We're not here to hold your hands and keep you from throwing your rights away every time you're scared. We're here as a last resort.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 13 2016, @01:34AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:45AM
You voted them in. We're here for when it becomes absolutely intolerable. Which it will within the next fifty years, I guarantee.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 13 2016, @01:52AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @02:24AM
Not really. I'll likely have to live through a few more decades of this garbage and never get to see the liberty on the other side. I'm doing all I can though and voting for the worst possible candidate for President every time. Thankfully plenty of people are stupid enough to do the same thinking they're voting correctly. Maybe it'll help speed things up and I'll get to live in a land of freedom again before I die of old age.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 13 2016, @02:38AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:45AM
Ya think? I'm pretty sure it's definitely my problem. It's just not currently a bad enough problem to justify another civil war.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 13 2016, @11:49AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:33PM
Well if you really want the killing to start now, go ahead and start organizing it. You're going to find it difficult going for a couple more decades at least though. The people are not ready. Yet.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 13 2016, @08:33PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:05AM
It is what it is. Would you prefer we start the killing now? Because that's why we're allowed guns; to kill people who need a good killing. Personally I believe, like the founders did, that it should be a last resort. If your views differ, that's fine though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 14 2016, @06:22AM
You will never be there for us.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @10:25AM
Never? No. It'll see the light of day within the next fifty years unless things change. I'd rather it happen sooner but that's not up to me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:13PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:31AM
LOL. You and your fetishized "armed resistance," even if you could manage to number in the hundreds of thousands, will be decimated by a few hundred pilots and operators with drones and surgical PGM strikes before you even realize you are the subject of a coordinated attack. These highly trained, indoctrinated soldiers will take you out without hesitation or remorse since you will have been branded traitors and terrorists. This will be followed up with a neat and tidy mainstream media blitz that will convince the vast majority of Americans that the right and moral thing was done.
And, no, the small number of recruits you think you have infiltrated the military with will not be able to stop this or even be aware of these classified operations. You will be done before you even get your chance to be a the hero rebelling against FEDRUL GUBBMINT tyranny, if you even survive. You are only allowed to keep your toys because the feds know that you are nothing more than a impotent joke once push comes to shove.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @10:00AM
Sweety, American gun owners don't number in the hundreds of thousands. We number around a hundred million and we own enough firearms to arm every man, woman, and child within our borders and still have a few left over.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:30PM
And yet--not to put too fine a point on this--I don't feel any safer because of this.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:24PM
You're not supposed to. You're supposed to feel safer because you own a gun. If you don't, well that makes you pretty well fucked when violent crime eventually comes your way, now doesn't it?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:48PM
Any kind of gun control will result in... only criminals having guns, while everyone else doesn't. I don't own one myself, don't need one.
The first part of your statement was correct. Then you went off the rails.
I've never yet needed one either. But there is a loaded (and secured) one within reach.
Everybody inside that nightclub was unarmed. The lone offduty cop working outside security was the only one that engaged the shooter till swat arrived. And Swat let him have several hours alone inside while he continued to shoot people.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:37PM
Quite.
This case isn't an example of massively organised attacks like the IRA or Al'Quiada, this isn't a group that relies on foreign funding from the US or Saudi, it's not even small groups like the Paris shootings and Brussels Bombing. It's lone nutters following propaganda on the internet perpetrating their crimes in their own country.
We had one in London in December [wikipedia.org], very hard to stop a lone gunman.
One of the three victims was seriously injured, and the other two sustained minor stab wounds. The suspected perpetrator was named as 29-year-old Muhaydin Mire of Leytonstone.
...
During a video of the alleged perpetrator being subdued by police, a bystander subsequently identified by the first name John shouted, "You ain't no Muslim, bruv. You ain’t no Muslim."
Fortunatly most are inept at causing mass casualties, at least in the UK. Go back to 2007 [wikipedia.org]
A dark green Jeep Cherokee, registration number L808 RDT,[15] travelling at a speed estimated by a witness as about 30 mph[16] (48 km/h), struck security bollards in a terror ramming attack at the main entrance to Glasgow International Airport.[2] The vehicle was reported to have several petrol containers and propane gas canisters on board.
....
Another man exited the car and ran into the terminal building while he was on fire and began writhing on the ground, before being kicked in the testicles by an airport employee, John Smeaton,[23] who was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his heroism.
(sorry, I just love that headline [blogger.com])
I'm not sure why there is such a difference in victims between a lone nutter in the UK and a lone nutter in the US. Anyone?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:45PM
Why in the world do you think improving social services would stop religious terrorism? He didn't kill 50 people because his EBT card was empty. He was almost certainly motivated by religious extremism.
At the risk of stating the obvious: yet another mass shooting in a gun free zone. It's convenient if you know that your victims will be unarmed.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:11PM
Because its hard to recruit when everyone is well taken care of and no injustices are being forced upon entire populations. The only thing that can combat such lunacy is education and time. Injustice begets further injustice; tolerance and education mean you take some hits in order yo minimize future ones.
Obviously there are times when a violent counter action is warranted, but currently that is our go to option.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:12PM
There has never been, in the history of the world, a time when everyone was "well taken care of". And there never will be.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:13PM
I know plenty of rich people who are also religiously batshit crazy. It doesn't just happen to the poor.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:24PM
Why in the world do you think improving social services would stop religious terrorism? He didn't kill 50 people because his EBT card was empty. He was almost certainly motivated by religious extremism.
As are most homophobes. Even so, most of them don't actually kill gays. But you're probably right, improving social services may not make everyone more tolerant.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:45PM
After a lot of thought on this today, the only thing I can think that we as the US should do, is become more isolationist. If we were not running machine learning AI games with programs called Skynet, if we were not overthrowing other countries and leaving them with nothing to fill the hole, if we were not causing such low level but persistent collateral damage every where we go... but that is our status quo. We've been shitting all over the world and now it is allowing the local disenfranchised to have a renewed purpose in what will be the short remainder of their life.
We need to step out of this fight we likely have caused, and let the region settle on its own accord. Long distance and far far away nation's aren't well equiped in dealing with problems on the other side of the world.
Meanwhile our infrastructure is crumbling (lead is still a problem, after nearly 100 years of knowing it is terrible as just a single example), our education system is clearly failing our children (see Nevada as an example), and the middle class in its death throes (just a few decades ago you only needed a single worker in the house and could still retire and go on vacations, now everyone in the house needs a job and we have stay-cations and likely get to work till we die).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:29PM
Build a wall, and make Florida pay for it! It would have stopped the 9-11 attacks.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:56PM
I'm a Libertarian who'd vote for Bernie given the chance. Isolationism doesn't mean building walls or being a conspiracy theorist.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:13PM
If you'd vote in favor of wealth redistribution, you are no libertarian.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:57PM
Uh, there is a whole 'nuther side to libertarianism, left-libertarianism, which in fact your particular strain draws heavily from, since it pre-dates it by a few hundred years.
"Wealth redistribution" is little more than "returning stolen property" in the right circumstances.
And back to your regularly scheduled rant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:53AM
What?
Are you telling me that an extremist is ignorant of the full extent of his own professed philosophy?
Who would have guessed!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:39PM
Do you have a quote to back up your claim that Bernie is somehow worse than others in the current pool of politicians?
I have one that says Bernie is a Capitalist-friendly politician of the FDR variety.
"The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this: I don’t believe government should own the means of production... I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas."
Sanders outlines pro-capitalist, pro-war positions in speech on "democratic socialism" [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wsws.org]
Bernie may call himself a "Democratic Socialist" (a redundant term), but he's just another Liberal Democrat: Progressive taxation in proportion to one's ability to pay (and in proportion to the benefits derived from the business-friendly infrastructure provided by government)--the way it was done when USA was strongest and most vibrant.
...and if you want to see what a total mess Libertarians make of things, look at the fiasco that Gov. Sam Brownback has made of Kansas. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:28PM
In fact, many of Sander's positions coincide with... gasp Gary Johnson.
Granted, the Libertarian convention about imploded with its purity tests over Johnson and his pick for VP, but to claim there isn't a lot over overlap between libertarians and Sanders is just ignorant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:29AM
Specify 2 of those.
Make both of them ECONOMIC positions.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:18AM
Per on the issues-
•Break up large banks; add fees for high-risk investments. (Apr 2015)
•Why did we bail out South Korea? (Dec 2010)
•Middle class spending $2,200 each to bail out Wall Street. (Oct 2008)
•More enforcement of mortgage fraud and TARP fraud. (May 2009)
•Yes, limit size of government, but address inequality. (Feb 2016)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm [ontheissues.org]
Now return the favor and point out issues where the Libertarian party and Trump agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:58AM
With Trump, it's pretty easy.
For any issue, he has at least 2 positions (1 for each audience he addresses.)
Trump has no core values except to inflate his brand.
Politically, he is simply a loose cannon.
It will be interesting to see how many old-school Pachyderms refuse to vote for him in November.
...assuming he doesn't implode before then.
(Pretty sure you can go to jail for fraud--and antagonizing judges doesn't help things.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:38AM
Are you insane? Legitimate question. Anyone who thinks FDR was a friend to capitalists has lost their bloody mind.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:21AM
Okay vulture breath, I'm gonna spell this out real simple-like for you so even you can get it: in a consumer economy, if the consumers can't consume, the economy grinds to a halt. In a fiat money milieu, the velocity of that money is more important than the size of the supply; if the velocity drops, as it does when the rich hoard it rather than the poor and middle class spending it, the economy also crashes.
This isn't even a moral or ideological argument; it's akin to saying that in a grinding mill, if the river isn't flowing, no flour is going to get made.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @10:10AM
Ah, my number one fan. How's the family? Job treating you well?
Re: your rant... No. Shit. Sherlock. But neither will shooting the 1% cow get you any milk. Sure, you eat steak for a little bit but then you're fucked.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @04:40PM
You have a reality distortion field that would give Saint Jobs a run for his ill-gotten money, you know that? I'm no more a fan of yours than someone pursuing an Ebola vaccine is enamored of haemorrhagic fevers, and my motivation is roughly similar.
And if you think my plan is as silly and shortsighted as "shoot the 1%" you're delusional. No, my plan is "make the 1% pay their right and just share, whether they like it or not, and if they want to go Galt, good fucking luck to them."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:22PM
You're not a fan and yet you follow me around talking to me? Woot! I got me a stalker!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @08:35PM
No, shitheel. I "follow you around" on here to post counters to whatever toxic shit you spew hoping it'll prevent impressionable minds from being infected with whatever pernicious mind-virus you picked up. Did you not see the analogy to an Ebola researcher above, or did you choose to ignore it deliberately?
Once again: you are one of many Patient Zeros for the mental equivalent of those lovely tropical fevers that turn your organs into liquid shit; I am attempting to vaccinate anyone exposed to you. That makes me a "fan" in about the same way Ed Jenner was a fan of smallpox.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:03AM
I ignore roughly half of what you say on the grounds that it's bloody stupid and stupid is contagious.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:36AM
*fwoosh! phwEEEEEEEEeeeeee--boom!* FUCK! That's the second time in 5 minutes you've blown out every single last fuse in the ol' Irony-o-tron. I'm gonna start sending you the bill for replacement parts, damn it all. Even with two jobs keeping the thing supplied is murderous.\\
On the other hand, it's a very telling indication that you're well and truly out of ammunition when all you have it "hurr hurr ur a st00pid dumb poopyhead an' yer mamma wears army boots." Keep going; you aren't half as slick as you think you are and the more you keep this crap up the more you reveal your true colors to everyone watching.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @10:29AM
Oh please, I can do way better than that nonsense. Yo momma so ugly she puts a bag over her own head when she masturbates.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @05:14PM
The army boots thing would have been a better insult. See, MOST people don't look at themselves in the mirror when they jill/jack off (I realize you are an exception, but in a lot of ways you are far from normal). Whereas "yo mamma wears army boots!" is a way of saying "Your mother's a whore and shagged a random soldier and that's where she got the boots from."
You're batting zero for three so far :) Your panicked, inflamed flailing is amusing though; do keep it up. Remember, every time you fuck up, everyone on here can see it, and it just confirms what kind of person you are.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:10PM
Your reality. It must be quite different from the one the rest of us live in. Do tell us about it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:13PM
You only wish, vulture breath. Unfortunately for you, your delusions do not make you correct.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:23PM
A mirror, get one. Look into it when you say things along those lines. You and your shrink will thank me later.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:38PM
God damn, so this is what you've degenerated into. You got nothing left but "Uh uh, no you! You're the crazy one, nerr nerny nerr nerr!"
Go back to third grade. It's clear you never graduated the playground. And very likely didn't pass basic math or history either.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:37AM
The fact that Capitalism still exists in the USA is clear evidence the FDR didn't want it to fail.
Just as happened in the crash of the 21st Century, those individuals with excess wealth pounced on the failed businesses and bought them up for pennies on the dollar of what they had been worth months before.
Had he wanted to, FDR could have made a move to snatch those up for the same cut-rate prices via Eminent Domain and nationalized them.
He didn't.
...and, after that, had he wanted to finally end the repeated boom-and-bust cycle of Capitalism in the USA, he could have continued on nationalizing still-solvent companies.
What he actually did was put USAians on the public payroll when Capitalists wouldn't hire them.
(15 million of them when the population of the country was 130M.)
He put them to work building roads and bridges and ports and all sorts of things that the private sector uses.
Now these Working Class people had money in their pockets and could spend it on the products of the Capitalists.
What FDR did was save Capitalism when it had yet again completely fallen on its face.
(Too many Capitalists are too stupid to realize that without customers, there's no way to make more money and that WORKERS are their customers.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Monday June 13 2016, @03:56AM
Are you kidding? FDR is a great argument in a favor of capitalism. He was the polar opposite of Coolidges hands off approach that created the roaring 20s. FDRs 90% taxes and destruction of food in the middle of a depression to create demand is a socialist dream. FDR turned the 30s and early half of the 40s into a nightmare with his policies, providing every capitalist with tremendously valuable argument against socialism. He's the best friend a capitalist could have.
Unless of course, you actually had to live under his policies. Which I guess we still do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:47AM
destruction of food in the middle of a depression to create demand
Have a cite for that?
is a socialist dream
Socialists wouldn't have overproduced in the first place.
I don't see how "socialist" applies at all. Fnord? [google.com]
What you're talking about is Supply-Side Economics aka the boom-and-bust cycle aka Capitalism (in its most perverse form).
...and, if wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a few (who don't spend much of it), hijinx isn't needed.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:39AM
If significant wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a relative few, most of the comforts you take for granted today do not exist. Nothing that takes a large initial investment ever happens unless the government wants it to and they're not known for taking risks or having vision. Well, unless their pockets have been appropriately lined by those with concentrated wealth. The only exception I can name is the space program and it's currently suffering under a lack of vision and an abundance of risk aversion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:42PM
And here we go...
If significant wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a relative few, most of the comforts you take for granted today do not exist
Is that specific to wealth or how markets are set up? I mean you could have mentioned Pareto distribution as being fairly consistent across different economies, that some people are skilled in building wealth, but that is an effect and not a condition, and the corollary is that absolutely NOTHING takes places without work. Your pile of gold doesn't magically turn into a house, but labor is free to act in the absence of capital.
Nothing that takes a large initial investment ever happens unless
Their Patreon sounds good? People form a co-op? Payment is offered as shares in lieu of wages?
There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.
Even Hayek understood that coordination was key. That is capital, labor, and need all have to occupy the same space-time. The genius is bringing those elements together, not the elements themselves.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:31PM
Not for anything that requires significant up-front capital there aren't. Try and design and produce a prototype of a new car if you doubt it. Must be street legal in all fifty states. Not everything can be beg-sourced.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:56PM
There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.
Not for anything that requires significant up-front capital there aren't.
Ah, tautology. Good for you.
Prior to capitalism being mistaken for markets, sailing voyages were frequently paid through shares. Were talking equivalent to multi-million dollar endeavors that got started with little seed money and a promissory IOU after the fact.
It's called market innovation. In the face of not enough money, the work still needs to get done.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @08:14PM
In the face of absent materials, work cannot get done.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:57PM
Huge amounts of money that just sit around and aren't used to produce new goods|services may as well be a rock that is buried and forgotten.
From FDR's time until after Ike left the Oval Office, the marginal tax rate on the billionaire class was over 90 percent.
That money was used by the gov't to build infrastructure and develop a space program.
In that time, USA transitioned from a place with 25 percent unemployment to become the envy of the world.
It's clear that collective activity by millions of people can easily match and even surpass what a few wealthy individuals can and will do.
Once again, you show your unwillingness to embrace (or even recognize) paradigms which aren't rooted in the dark past.
The AC above me mentioned, as an example, Patreon (A Kickstarter sort of thing for artists).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:19PM
You'd be correct if the rich left their money in mattresses. Unfortunately for your theory, they invest nearly every penny where it will make them more money. Which is putting it back in circulation and blows your entire line of reasoning out of the water.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:28PM
Buying a stock certificate doesn't create anything.
It simply moves that existing thing from one set of hands to another.
What you are talking about is EXTRACTING wealth from the economy while producing nothing.
The rich buying each others' mansions and yachts at ever-inflated prices doesn't improve the economy either.
At best, the economic activities of the uberrich creates economic bubbles and drives up prices for Joe Average.
Now, if that money was spent hiring a worker or building a factory, -THAT- would actually be useful for the economy.
...then there's the 1 Percenters using their excessive wealth to buy up gov't.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:10AM
You've obviously never worked in the business end of any publicly traded company to say something that foolish. Your stock price (which increases when people buy your stock) directly effects your ability to take out loans. Which directly effects your ability to grow, hire more employees, and pay the ones you have better. No, my friend, trading stock does in fact make a damned big difference to someone other than the two people trading.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:36AM
Your stock price (which increases when people buy your stock
Take off your rose-colored glasses and put down your pom-poms.
Stock prices also go down.
(That's when the smartest Capitalists buy.)
Again, nothing new is created when stock is sold.
Ownership of that simply exchanges hands.
It's no different from moving your wallet from your right pocket to your left pocket.
...and, with fewer and fewer actual customers for actual goods each week, you guys who think that unearned income, aggregated by people with more money than they can spend, is useful to the economy are a hoot.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:09AM
Yes, stock prices do go down. Until someone buys the stock. Then it stops going down. Which means buying stock kept a company from being utterly unable to get a loan and having to fold its doors and put people out of work.
Oversimplifying something as complex as the meta level of our economy is foolish. I expected better of you. Your reasoning generally tries to at least be not blatantly and provably false.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by boxfetish on Monday June 13 2016, @04:00AM
No matter how popular Sanders became as president he would be unable to enact much wealth redistribution. Perhaps tynin realizes that tall tales of rampant socialism and any tangible wealth redistribution are just right-wing scare tactics. The reality of a Sander's presidency would just be a relatively honest man trying to level the playing field and prevent any further siphoning of wealth from the working and middle classes to the rich by ending Corporate welfare and one dollar=one vote. A true Libertarian would be in favor of Sanders over Clinton or Trump. Double plus good, citizen.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:33AM
Right-wing scare tactics? It's Sanders's stated goal ffs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:52AM
Basically, this. Thanks, you articulate me well.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:11PM
Here's the unfortunate truth: rapid firing weapons are by far less efficient at killing than explosives. Even if you are effective at limiting access to semiautomatics (doubtful, as criminals intending to do this are by definition not interested in your laws and there are way, way too many already in circulation), there are a stupendous array of methods to make things blow up.
Are you old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Timothy McVeigh could not have done that kind of damage to personnel or infrastructure with civilian firearms.
Now, let's say this guy couldn't get his hands on anything more than a bolt-action .22 rifle. Instead, he makes a bomb - or a few of them. Where would we be instead? Well, the nightclub had ~320 people inside. I'm pretty sure it would have been worse. A lot worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:35PM
If they were really serious they would bring back the plague bearers.
If you want to create terror and chaos, no better way than an epidemic, and if you want to kill the most gays, get them sick and make them out as the roving plague of pestilence upon a city/state/country.
But these guys are a bunch of smallminded chumps, just like the KKK, Al Qaeda, etc.
We've probably had more deaths from the legislative collateral damage than we have from the physical.
I think that is telling of what is wrong with our country. If we were the home of the brave we would march proundly on without changing our way of life. But instead we have the past 16 years (18 if you go by columbine.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:57PM
You're not wrong about the effects of plague, etc.
However, the barrier for entry for explosives is much lower. It's as close as your local hardware, and this isn't going to change meaningfully at all because plants will always need nitrates.
Understand I'm talking here about the sole actor crazy nutjob who wants to make a mark and leave a perverted legacy behind, complete with manifesto etc. That describes the overwhelming majority of mass shootings which could possibly be reached - in theory - by gun control (putting aside that criminals don't obey laws by definition for the moment). These people don't want to be the shadowy actors behind real terror, nor do they have the support network to try and get some sort of plague weaponized. These are blaze-of-glory types, usually without any social support.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:34PM
The only thing that comes to mind is making it harder (not impossible) for people to get their hands on rapid firing weapons.
You seemed trapped in a box, and you can't think your way out of that box.
How many would this guy be able to kill with his rapid fire weapon had 5, 8, 20, 100 people in that nightclub been carrying their own weapons?
Yeah, Probably one or two innocent bystanders would have gotten caught in the crossfire. As it was, with everybody unarmed, 50 dead, and over 50 more wounded.
You people in your little thinking box will never learn until we are all dead.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:50PM
Just one time I hope you get to see your "everyone has guns" scenario play out. The lights go out, one person starts shooting... gawd.
Set it up with paintball guns in a disco and see how many people get shot. Maybe "one or two" can be your estimate. I'm going for maybe 100 or 200.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Monday June 13 2016, @03:59AM
Perhaps the reason that you haven't seen it play out should be telling you something?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:18PM
Go easy on frojack right now. He's a bit frightened. But it gets better.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:57PM
One of the things I am struggling to come up with is a measured, appropriate public policy response that would be effective at preventing a single, suicidal, nut from killing a bunch of people in a dark, crowded place.
It's very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to stop a dedicated gunman intent on exchanging his or her life for their target.
Ford and Reagan would both have been dead if Squeaky Fromme and John Hinckley weren't batshit crazy and woefully unprepared for the tasks to which they set themselves.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:35AM
have armed guards at nightclubs lol :-)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:40PM
Organized groups with no hope of change via rhetoric can only resort to asymmetric warfare. We will continue to see massive attacks on soft targets no matter how many laws we pass, or who we drone-bomb or capture. If they had the numbers available, doing multiple mall shootings on multiple days during the Christmas shopping season would be one way to make an economic attack.
The threat from Wahhabi Islam is not a military one, but a philosophical one. This twisted adulteration of Islam by the priestly class clings tightest to the idea that religious Innovation, or Bid’ah, is a corruption of the very word of Allah. Of course, the priestly class are the gatekeepers of such interpretations. The Islamic voices that rightly speak out against this rigid orthodoxy, that speak of the Innovation that happens in the Quran for Mohammed's geopolitical convenience, are silenced by implied or overt threat.
Our corporal punishment approach is not going to meet this threat. We need to promote those moderate and questioning voices that will ask the questions the Wahhabis cannot answer. If Allah is all-powerful, why does suffering exist? Why if homosexuality is a sin, has Allah created hundreds of species that practice it? Why did Allah create unclean animals? Is the Koran wrong or did Allah make errors? Of course my questions are too blunt for an audience of the faithful, but a skilled speaker can address them within Islamic interpretations to slough off the Wahhabi ideals. The Wahhabis know this, and that's why they hunt down the most moderate voices. We would need to provide this via protected voices, those under protection in anonymity.
One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas. - Victor Hugo
We also need to promote the rule of law and economic freedom in the Islamic and especially Arab world. Corrupt counties where the average citizen has no chance at a prosperous life are festering breeding grounds for vile ideologies. It does not take a majority of disaffected people to make those countries worse.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:40PM
The main addition to this which I think is crucial:
We need to practice the rule of law here, at home, as well. Clapper, Hillary, heads of banks who lied under oath etc. - they must be held to account.
By not holding these accountable we have an immense amount of egg on our faces and are shown to be hypocrites on the international stage. We're straight-up giving extremists examples to point at and cry "look how corrupt and degenerate they are!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:43PM
n/t
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:14PM
He was in a gay nightclub, so it was most likely an iPhone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:11PM
It's Funny because it's true. Apple has been an openly gay company as far back as the Rainbow Apple logo.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday June 13 2016, @12:37AM
..Which kind of implies that the shooter probably used a Windows phone..or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:44PM
About how to protect "soft" targets that are most attractive to terrorists and nut jobs of all political persuasions:
- schools
- movie theaters
- restaurants and nightclubs
- outdoor festivals
Rock concerts and athletic events seem to have mostly gotten this under control by use of metal detectors and screening gates. However, that kind of security probably doesn't scale down to events with dozens or a few hundred people.
Everything has to be on the table, including guns or lack of guns. Let's look at the science and the records, not ideological suppositions that "guns protect people" or "schools should be a gun free zone".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:17PM
You think unarmed security guards at the metal detector would have dissuaded him? I tend to disagree. It in fact would have only created a choke point and made it possible to kill a larger number of people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:24PM
Security guards would be armed, but what about the patrons? What about bartenders, club manager, etc.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:38PM
In an ideal world, everyone would be armed at all times. Except while swimming/showering/etc... That would just be impractical.
The ability to end a threat to your life or liberty with the squeeze of your finger is an extremely powerful position to live in. Forsaking your own ability out of fear is the absolute pinnacle of idiocy. Taking it away from others is one of the most immoral acts you can commit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:21PM
The ability to end a life with the squeeze of your finger is an extremely powerful position to live in.
Combined with your juvenile sig line, this makes me seriously question your sanity, Mightily Buzzarded!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:50PM
Yeah, yeah yeah...as you can see the Buzzard is an ammosexual. Relax! It's not always easy but we should respect the lifestyle choices of our differently-oriented neighbours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:57PM
Nice attempt at misquoting him on purpose, you wiener!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:54AM
Nice attempt at misquoting him on purpose, you wiener!
Attempt? There was no attempt! With ammosexuals, the line between removing a threat and taking life is very thin, sort of Zimmerman thin. So it was out right a successful misquote, but one that perhaps gets to the underlying pathology.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:25AM
There's no pathology, sweety. It's power, pure and simple. You can use it for noble purposes like over 99% of all guns are or you can be part of the less than 1% and use it for vile purposes. Eschewing it entirely is not noble, it is foolish.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:25AM
Glad to see other people are picking up on this one. *I* have a bigger dick than he does and it's a clitoris.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:29AM
First, each one of us are going to die within 120 years of his or her birth with 100 percent probability. We're not immortal.
Second, you can be killed walking across the street, or walking through a parking lot, so fast that you won't have a chance to reach for a gun or anything else you may have been packing. A drunk or suicidal driver could do it. You could be hit from across the double yellow line or the median strip by a driver who barrelled out of control. That kind of thing probably happens an average of several times a day in the USA, much more frequently than all the homeland terrorist incidents.
There's such a thing as an unhealthy obsession with personal safety. Taken to an extreme, you'd live your entire life in a gated community surrounded by armed guards and never leave.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by isostatic on Monday June 13 2016, @09:29AM
That kind of thing probably happens an average of several times a day in the USA, much more frequently than all the homeland terrorist incidents.
Someone dies due to a road related incident about 90 times a day. That's a 9/11 every month. Nobody cares much, it just happens.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @10:05AM
Honey, I'm not obsessed. I simply take the power that's available to me and rarely think about it again unless it's needed. Or brought up when hysterical fools decide they want to take my power from me so they won't have to be scared. Instead of, you know, taking some of the available power for themselves and not needing to be scared anymore.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:58PM
The father of the suspect
—https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:40PM
Is it sons all the way down?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:47PM
To be fair, I was completely disgusted by seeing two guys with porn 'staches kissing.
I'm not even notably homophobic, but something about that just made my skin crawl.
I was ready to chalk it up to just REALLY not being attracted to men, but then I saw two lesbians with mustaches kissing and really got horrified.
So, uh, people with hairy faces, could you keep it down with the PDA until I figure this out? Thanks in advance.
I promise not to indulge my fetish for enemas in public in return.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Username on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:15PM
Must be a nightmare just trying to get the victims, bodies or evidence out. I know when ever a plane crashes with one person with AIDs on board the NTSB has to to wear fullbody protective gear. This being a gay bar I’d assume the whole area is one large biohazard with over 100 being shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:38PM
Nah, they just used LGBTF first responders.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:41PM
Of course, cowardly authoritarians are already talking about how we should surrender more liberties for security. Every event like this is used as an excuse for them to manipulate the more emotional people among us into advocating that we all give up freedoms in the name of stopping terrorism.
(Score: 2) by Username on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:45PM
Well, sometimes you have to make temporary concessions. The difficult part is keeping it from becoming permanent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @12:33AM
I am not going to surrender my liberties, even temporarily. Since our government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution, I expect the government to follow it at all times, and so should you. Mass surveillance and the like are deeply unethical, even if we pretend these massive violations of our liberties won't continue forever. People who surrender their liberties--whether in response to events like this or not--are authoritarian cowards.
I greatly object to your assertion that we "have to" make temporary concessions. Why? Your comment seems to be built on the idea that safety is more important than freedom, which I don't think it is. I'd rather risk dying in a terrorist attack than surrender everyone's liberties and allow the government to violate the highest law of the land to possibly make us safer. But that's just me, a person who lives in a country that is supposedly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave', which curiously seems to lack both freedom and people who are brave.
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday June 13 2016, @03:06PM
Why? Well, I do not want the United States of America to become the Islamic States of America. Something needs to be done. I do not like people being at war with me and doing nothing about it. Any kind of political solution will come head to head with the first amendment since their ideology is also a religion. If something isn’t done politically a social solution will form and that will end up very badly. Like crusade badly.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @04:38PM
Well, I do not want the United States of America to become the Islamic States of America.
I don't think that will happen, since we could have hundreds of attacks like this a year and that still wouldn't come to pass. But even if it would happen, sacrificing our liberties to try to stop it would be the wrong approach entirely.
Something needs to be done.
Ah, yes, "something". Meaning, you'll do anything and sacrifice any liberty our of fear.
Any kind of political solution will come head to head with the first amendment since their ideology is also a religion.
So you don't care about the government following the constitution, and the ends justify the means? Okay.
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday June 13 2016, @05:25PM
Let’s say we try separate the mosque from the state route where the US would embargo any government that is Islamic in an effort to force them to secularize. or if you wanted to go hardcore, could give in and acknowledge islam as a state, and require muslims to go through security checks to get visas, and if it isn’t clear they will be deported back to islamic state. Any way you go about it i think would be challenged based on the first amendment because it effects domestic muslims, telling how their religion works. Then would need another clause stipulating government and religion has to be explicit no matter what, or it would be gambled in the courts and they decided whether Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion applies to a religion that is an establish government elsewhere. Or there will be a check on how far the presidents foreign policies extend. Either way parts would be redefined.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @05:29PM
So you want to 'redefine' (i.e. ignore) parts of the constitution. We've seen that done before, and it has led to massive violations of people's rights. I have no interest in 'redefining' the constitution in order to make it less difficult for the government to stop the terrorist bogeyman.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 13 2016, @05:05AM
Why now? Until when, or until what happens?
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday June 13 2016, @03:30PM
Right now Islamic State wants the world to be completely Islamic. Until Islam is no longer a form of government.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 13 2016, @05:21PM
Are you implying that the Islamic State somehow precipitated these killings? I find it more plausible that they happened because someone was offended by the sight of two men kissing [soylentnews.org]. Perhaps the killer thought his victims were, as you called them, a "biohazard [soylentnews.org]." Someone can hold hateful beliefs without having a theocracy. Someone can acquire a few guns and a few hundred rounds of ammunition on his own without having a theocracy. To all appearances, that is what happened.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:21AM
Never waste a good tragedy.
Went through this with Columbine, and the absolute absurdity of the response (no black trench coats, no Marilyn Manson, no video games, and fuck me if gun legislation finally got passed in libertarian Colorado).
When pointing out to the powers that be the idiocy of the response, I got "everybody is on edge. It's just to help calm everybody's nerves". When asked what was the exit strategy after a sense of normalcy returned, there was no reply.
And that kind of hypervigilance in now the new normal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:45AM
We live in a democracy. Changes to laws are debated, albeit by not the greatest collection of legislators ever assembled.
Security of citizens is of great importance. So is freedom. There has to be a balance. Terrorists are experts at exploiting the tension between them; it's not like natural disasters where you can predict damage under various circumstances using science and probability.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @03:02AM
We live in a democracy.
And if that democracy decides to infringe upon people's fundamental liberties in the name of security, then that is an injustice and it must be corrected.
There has to be a balance.
The only "balance" we need in the US is the constitution, which is the highest law of the land. The government should follow it. Of course, it can also be amended if necessary, but since mass surveillance is necessarily unethical, amending the constitution to allow for that would be intolerable.
Whenever someone mentions a mythical, magical "balance" in a discussion like this, what they usually mean is that you should surrender your liberties and forget about a government that follows the constitution. We should evaluate each specific policy proposal to see if it is good or not, not strive to achieve some vague "balance" which usually results in decreased liberties.
Security of citizens is of great importance.
But not as great as freedom, which we should fight and die for.
Terrorists are experts at exploiting the tension between them
Only because so many people are authoritarian cowards.
I believe you've helped to prove my point. You even managed to use the same buzzwords as countless authoritarian 'experts' who appear on media outlets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:32AM
Unless we agree with you, we're spineless cowards who are collaborating the totalitarians.
OK, got it. It's going to be very productive discussing this issue with you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @04:20AM
Unless we agree with you, we're spineless cowards who are collaborating the totalitarians.
No, just cowardly authoritarians. I have no idea if you're directly working with authoritarians who are in positions of power or not.
OK, got it. It's going to be very productive discussing this issue with you.
I don't feel the need to be civil with people who want to infringe upon everyone's liberties. Our goals and values are simply irreconcilable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:25AM
Former director of the CIA Michael Morell was one of the first to crawl out of his hole and ponder the "debate" on which civil liberties we need to give up, in an interview with CBS News.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:40AM
That the shooter was really gay, but didn't want to admit it even to himself?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:28AM
He did penetrate a lot of gays in that club.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:20AM
>Muslims are pedos, thus bad
Deuteronomy chapter 22, verse 28-29 in __hebrew__ (not english).
A man who rapes a (virgin, not-yet-given-away) female child (girl; from infancy till adolescence age), keeps her as bride, pays father.
The muslims atleast marry female children. Whenever they happen to kill a feminist I'm happy.
The russians hate pedos, as all christians do: they are feminists and against man+girl. It is a shame.
Why must all christians be such pro-woman's rights scum?
Why russians? Fuck all you russians that are opposed to man+girl. Fuck you.
Deuteronomy says to kill those who entice you to follow another ruler/judge/god. All whites force everyone to follow feminism/democracy and shell any culture that still allows men to have cute young female children as brides.
The muslim's action today is completely allowed in the old testament, for multiple reasons.
It's very likely that every single person in that incident was opposed to men enslaving female children (becoming lord over).
It is also very likely that every single person in that incident supported women's "right" to divorce the man.
No tear should be shed for those opposed to men taking female children as brides: it is explicitly allowed in Deuteronomy, commanded in cases of the rape of female children by a man.
The Jews killing Jesus for being a pro-woman's rights, anti-pedo, feminist was also completely justified and commanded under Deuteronomy (since he preached for them to follow another ruler/judge/god: not that of Deuteronomy)
"Obey Secular Rulers" -> enticing this means death, but it is the core of Christianity. Christianity supports jailing and killing men who try to marry young girls because the ruler said so and "better a millstone"
Christianity, be it in America, Russia, Europe is the opposite of old pro-men beliefs. It is a return to matriarchy.
Not too long ago:
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:43AM
Depends on whether you are worshiping God or Baal. You need to go back and learn again.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @07:21AM
AC, this is MikeeUSA. Look him up on Google. I won't spoil much on here, but let's just say the man is not only not playing with a full deck, but he brought a pack of Uno cards to the blackjack table.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:26AM
Nobody yet has blamed encryption? Has been seized the attacker's computer or cell phone? It's matter of time for encryption to be blamed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:31AM
The bullets were encrypted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:07PM
It is astonishing that so many people, here of all places, are willfully blind to empirical evidence.
From the eye-witness accounts, this animal was not running around shouting "I hate fags!", nor "Praise Jesus!", nor "Sieg Heil!".
He was shouting "Allah akbar!".
Get it?
Not "Kill the queers!", nor "Hail Mary!", nor "Power to the people!".
Just Allah akbar.
Pretty clear, isn't it? The fact that it doesn't fit the PC narrative is just too bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:18PM
The shooter used an AR-15 rifle [nydailynews.com], evidently copying several of his predecessors (Sandy Hook, San Bernardino). The AR-15 was prohibited for ten years by Joe Biden's Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994, but that act was allowed to expire by Republicans in Congress backed by the NRA.
Isn't that the empirical evidence?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:27PM
No. Does it matter if Lizzie Borden used a single or double-bladed axe?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:49PM
Willful blindness. I'd tell you to look in the mirror, but obviously you can't.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday June 14 2016, @08:13PM
Club regulars have said they saw him there on previous occasions, and that he "would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent." A Disney employee reported having seen him at Disney's amusement park.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-nightclub-omar-mateen-profile-20160613-story.html [orlandosentinel.com]