Worst shooting in US history in Orlando today, at least 50 killed

hex11 said:

But since these laws are in effect, why was no action taken? It's either gross incompetence, or something even worse...

It might surprise you, but even the USA do not have the unlimited personnel required to apprehend anyone and everyone who is on a watchlist.

OK people, now I'm completely confused.

Is there actually someone in here that think this has nothing to do with Islam? Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but I've seen way too many times the "it's not a 'terrorist' or 'extremist' attack, it's a 'hate crime'" argument. So, he was homophobic / insane, therefore, this can't be inspired by religion.

Seriously?

EDIT: Redundancy, sorry.

This shit-storm smells like Taco Bell. George Clooney did 7/11 inside job, isis noscope infidels

Fuck that.

Gez said:

It might surprise you, but even the USA do not have the unlimited personnel required to apprehend anyone and everyone who is on a watchlist.

A lot of that red flag stuff I walked about can actually be automated. And it can probably even be delegated to local law enforcement to carry out the initial incarceration, until the feds could get their warm bodies over there.

But it turns out there was something else blocking their work in this case.
http://www.infowars.com/hillarys-state-dept-blocked-investigation-into-orlando-killers-mosque/

Did you seriously just unironically link Infowars

It's already been established that Clinton has done some very shady stuff, especially that whole business about her email server and state secrets. None of this surprises me in the least. Obama btw has prevented further investigations into Clinton herself, probably so it doesn't affect the election

Here's other source btw
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/orlando-mosque-tied-to-case-hillarys-state-dept-scrubbed/.

hex11 said:

It's already been established that Clinton has done some very shady stuff,

List them.

hex11 said:

especially that whole business about her email server and state secrets.

*cough*

hex11 said:

None of this surprises me in the least.

Same. Only a total idiot would trust a shortwave blasting blowhard who is against the "1 percent" and the "Bilderberg" but support a 1 percenter who has ties with Henry Kissinger, for president. Unreal.

hex11 said:

Obama btw has prevented further investigations into Clinton herself, probably so it doesn't affect the election.

Clinton has been investigated for over 30 years. Literally nothing has stuck. I'm sure Obama's time machine was in full throttle to make this happen.

hex11 said:

Here's other source btw
I JUST LINKED TO WORLD NET DAILY

I'm afraid to talk too much about Cliton. She has a history of dissapearing people. :^)

Also, both sources cite a book. You couuld like, read it or something, istead of getting all bent out of shape because you don't like the website (messenger).

hex11 said:

I'm afraid to talk too much about Clinton. She has a history of disappearing people. :^)

If were not careful we all may turn into invisible men.

Phml said:

I am completely and unapologetically pro positive eugenics. In an ideal world, people who read "there are genetic differences between human populations" and conclude this means "we should enslave others" shouldn't have been born. Same for people who use Tumblr grammar. I'm still conflicted on which of the two is the worst offense, will get back to you on that.

you and that other guy who was basically a neo-nazi would get along just fine.

also lmao @ "tumblr grammar" -- whatever that means.

Linguica said:

Did you seriously just unironically link Infowars

Gez said:

The NRA is never going to allow any sort of restriction on who can buy weapons. They've blocked attempts at preventing the clinically insane from buying guns, they will also block attempts at preventing people on watchlists from buying guns.

That's completely false, considering people who are "clinically insane" are already prohibited persons and have been since the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NRA supported the Gun Control Act, which did in fact create restrictions on who can buy firearms, where and how. Namely, it created the Federal Firearms License system for gun dealers, required them to conduct backround checks using a Form 4473 (it used to take a few days, now the FFL calls up the FBI National Instant Criminal Search hotline to conduct the backround check). It created criteria on who is a prohibited person (namely felons and those declared mentally defective). It requires a person purchasing a long gun from an FFL to be 18, or 21 for handguns. It does a bunch of other stuff too, if you want to know the other gritty details, it's on Wikipedia.

The problem with using the terrorist watchlist to prohibit people from owning firearms is that there's absolutely no due process. It's a secret list, with secret criteria, and there's no known mechanism to have your name removed if it is on there incorrectly. Senator Ted Kennedy was infamously on the so-called "selectee list" and was constantly detained when attempting to travel by air, and he was a sitting Congressman. Children have been selected for additional screening due to having the same name as a person on the terrorist watchlist. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about using a flawed mechanism which lacks due process when we're talking about restricting somebody's civil rights.

If the government thinks people on their various watchlists are too dangerous to own a firearm, they should bring forth evidence before a judge in a public courtroom, make their case for the public record and determine the validity of the evidence presented to make a judgement. We already do this with restraining orders, which also prohibit a person from possessing or purchashing firearms. There should be a process to appeal the judgement, there should be mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of the system and to protect innocent people from being caught up in a dragnet. If the government can prove the person should be prohibited, then yes, they should be added to the NICS (National Instant Criminal Search) system as a prohibited person.

hex11 said:

Are you australian by chance, dew? Because you post exactly like the autralians on 4chan /pol/ forum.

Yeah, screw those dirty hive-minded Australians. Also since we're getting into political shit, I'll just say that this is the first election where I've had absolutely zero desire to see either candidate end up in the white house. It's a shit show all around.

Linguica said:

Did you seriously just unironically link Infowars

Bahahaha

Zed said:

Is there actually someone in here that think this has nothing to do with Islam?

It's more about anti-americanism than anything else imo. If it was actually to do with religion, well there are like a billion muslims, and the vast majority live ordinary lives like anyone do.

hex11 said:

I'm afraid to talk too much about Cliton. She has a history of dissapearing people. :^)

I love that the American government - a government that is rumoured to have followed the practice of """disappearing""" people for decades - is only under any real scrutiny for its potential (potential!!) transgressions once a woman is poised to be its leader. The sheer terror that guys are feeling about a woman being their leader is outstanding.

No you don't understand, people!! Shillary might wage a war in a foreign country, or pass laws favourable to big business!! She might restrict your civil rights! We can't let the American people be at risk of being exposed to this conduct!! I can't wait to make my vote for literally The Donald.

MistAche said:

Quoting a friend here "If those gays were armed with guns instead of just aids the death toll would've been much lower... also thought they would've been use to taking loads to the face."

Dumbass.

kuchitsu said:

?????????
wtf?

This is true what Gez said. NRA believes the 2nd amendment applies unequivocably to all citizens and probably temporary residents of the US. Even the people who are not allowed to vote anymore because of incarceration (this is true in 20+ states), the NRA has lobbied successfully to allow former inmates to possess firearms. Also, whenever tragedy strikes, they identify the key culprit: egregious individual madness, not a systemic arena that permits these things to happen without repurcussion
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/guns-and-mentally-ill

Csonicgo said:

List them.

*cough*

Same. Only a total idiot would trust a shortwave blasting blowhard who is against the "1 percent" and the "Bilderberg" but support a 1 percenter who has ties with Henry Kissinger, for president. Unreal.

Clinton has been investigated for over 30 years. Literally nothing has stuck. I'm sure Obama's time machine was in full throttle to make this happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI1nPd7hezM

Clinton Body Count

Naked Snake said:

Gun Control Act of 1968.

That was a different NRA.

The organization completely changed in 1977 when Harlon Carter became its president. Carter and the charismatic Neal Knox were responsible for completely changing the NRA from what it was before -- an organization devoted to training people in the responsible use of guns -- into what it is now -- a cult to firearms and political lobbying group.

That Gun Control Act of 1968? Most of it was repealed by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986.

Gez said:

That was a different NRA.

The organization completely changed in 1977 when Harlon Carter became its president. Carter and the charismatic Neal Knox were responsible for completely changing the NRA from what it was before -- an organization devoted to training people in the responsible use of guns -- into what it is now -- a cult to firearms and political lobbying group.

That Gun Control Act of 1968? Most of it was repealed by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986.

I don't blame them for taking over, the Gun Control Act was just another lubricant on the slippery slope. I'm not exactly pleased with their non-sensical ramblings and therefore am no longer a member, but I still don't support most of the proposed forms of "gun control" because I have genuine concerns over their implementation or effectiveness.

A good example is the repeated call to ban "assault rifles / assault weapons". The problem lies in the fact that even if you take the pistol grip off a rifle and put it in a traditional-looking stock, you still end up with a semi-automatic firearm, so essentially you are just regulating the cosmetic appearance of a firearm, things that have zero impact on their ability to be used in a crime. One of the criteria that defines an "assault weapon" under current and proposed laws is a stock that telescopes in length to adjust for the height of different shooters. Can you really say with a straight face that a stock that is not rigid but instead adjusts to a person's physique makes it more useful in a crime or more deadly than a conventionally-stocked firearm?

So yeah, of course I am going to oppose that, because it has zero impact on criminal usage and zero impact on the lethality of the weapon. A semi-automatic firearm, no matter what it looks like, is a dangerous weapon when misused. This is true of any firearm.

Do I think that we need absolutely no new laws entirely? Of course not, there are certainly things we need to tighten up, like what records states have to forward to the NICS system. We CAN tackle this issue without abbrogating people's rights, just like we tackle all sorts of other issues without resorting to further reductions of civil liberties (shit like the PATRIOT Act not-withstanding).

Gay bars and clubs are just about the only spaces people like me can feel completely safe in, and now we're being murdered in them.

Gun control is a huge topic, but it's only part of the problem.

Attention spoiler that contains quotes.

Doomkid said:

What a piece of scum.. So many lives lost over a load of bullshit. Gotta love how his father essentially says "it's not because of his religion, it's because gays made him angry" as if the former isn't clearly the reason for the latter in this instance - he fucking outright said it himself. I was born in Orlando, a lot of people are hurting bad there right now. My condolences to them and their loved ones. What a terrible tragedy..

That why he pledged allegiance to ISIS in the 911 call right before the attack? Hell, from what I understand, the Mosque he was attending had an IMAM calling for the death of gays and that his Father himself sympathized with the Taliban. He can quit the lies, it's blatantly obvious that religion has everything to do with it, this is a Radical Islamic Terrorist attack.

MetroidJunkie said:

That why he pledged allegiance to ISIS in the 911 call right before the attack? Hell, from what I understand, the Mosque he was attending had an IMAM calling for the death of gays and that his Father himself sympathized with the Taliban. He can quit the lies, it's blatantly obvious that religion has everything to do with it, this is a Radical Islamic Terrorist attack.

I'll repeat, he called 911 just for have their attention for what he planned to do (and did probably). He wasn't ISIS member. Jesus...

You know, you might have had a point except ISIS also took credit for the attack. Still going to deny it?


http://www.newsmax.com/US/ISIS-credit-Orlando-shooting/2016/06/12/id/733485/

Some people are trying to skirt the Islamic ties the assassin had. Sure, the vast majority of Muslims aren't violent. Doesn't change the fact that a violent faction that is ultimately linked to Islam has arisen. A religious institution appearing to be mostly stable doesn't mean there isn't a shaky foundation. This is just how world religions operate, they eventually produce problems that get bigger over time.

The issue is we need to be able to separate them and, if necessary, get people on the inside because there are Radicalized Mosques among the more peaceful ones. Hell, a chunk of so called Peaceful ones still think ISIS is justified. It's a pretty loaded situation. There are Muslims who legitimately denounce ISIS and show support to the West but they're hardly representative of all Muslims in the United States. If Christianity had such a strong connection to terrorism, you can bet your ass Atheist groups would be calling for investigations of all churches in America so it seems like a double standard.

Glaice said:

What happened to at the door security? Why was this retard allowed to buy an assault rifle and a pistol? I see this as a major flaw for this to happen.

Technically, this is the worst MODERN DAY shooting in the USA since there's been worse in the past, such as the Civil War era.

I'm pretty sure most nightclubs don't allow backpacks in. I don't know where this guy had his weapons concealed, though.

MetroidJunkie said:

The issue is we need to be able to separate them and, if necessary, get people on the inside because there are Radicalized Mosques among the more peaceful ones. Hell, a chunk of so called Peaceful ones still think ISIS is justified. It's a pretty loaded situation. There are Muslims who legitimately denounce ISIS and show support to the West but they're hardly representative of all Muslims in the United States. If Christianity had such a strong connection to terrorism, you can bet your ass Atheist groups would be calling for investigations of all churches in America so it seems like a double standard.

I agree. Some Muslims, supposedly peaceful ones, have no problem with this bullshit. Others condemn it. Really, every single Muslim alive should be condemning this. But that's not the case. They got caught up in the bullshit, the traditions. They're all mixed up.

PureSlime said:

I agree. As a Canadian, I really think Americans need to put aside the weird gun fetishism and start thinking rationally about the second amendment - written in a time where firearms took a while to reload and were primarily for arming citizens in militias and keeping people from trespassing.

Quoted for great justice.

Except targeting literally all Americans and making it harder for them to utilize their Second Amendment rights seems like a completely backwards way of dealing with this, especially since the majority of people seeing it from that angle refuse to even acknowledge the ISIS part of it. How about we just make it law that nobody under FBI investigation for terrorism can purchase a firearm? Because that sure as hell would have stopped him from getting a gun and, for the overwhelming majority of Americans that aren't terrorists, it won't affect them one bit.