Mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando Florida: Political Discussion [SPLIT]

[xbuzzerx]

Gee. Maybe what they'd be doing is actually interpreting the second amendment as it was intended.

You'd almost think that word militia was in the original text for a reason. Silly founding fathers, didn't know what the hell they were talking about. They weren't even NRA members.

 

[LeicsDom]

Re: Florida Gay Club PULSE has been attacked with injuries, and possible hostage situation.

I don't know anything about Ireland, but as a patriotic American I have to say that there is nothing religious about soccer. (grin)

In Scotland football is ALL about religion

 

[Benvolio]

You'd almost think that word militia was in the original text for a reason. Silly founding fathers, didn't know what the hell they were talking about. They weren't even NRA members.

The founding fathers did know what they meant. That is why during their lifetime and the last 227 years the Constitution has meant the people have the right to bear arms.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The founding fathers did know what they meant. That is why during their lifetime and the last 227 years the Constitution has meant the people have the right to bear arms.

It has been misinterpreted as a matter of expedience.

For the maintenance of a well regulated militia is pretty clear.

Well. Regulated. Militia.

Not every fucking yahoo should get assault rifles.

 

[alphacentauri]

Nobody should be surprised that someone from the "religion of peace" did this in Orlando, or that someone in Texas from that same "religion of peace" attacked someone in a walmart.

I've been following this in the media and a lot of lesbian, bisexual, and gay people are in complete denial that Islam is the reason why this guy and other people in recent years have massacred people, and they deny that this guy in Orlando and others were even affiliated with ISIS and Islam.

Meanwhile at an Orlando mosque just days before the attack at Pulse dance club an Iman said that people who are bisexual or gay/lesbian must die.

Bigoted religious leaders of other religions get called out for this, but Islam somehow gets a pass and is excused even though the majority of Muslims hate bisexual and gay/lesbian people, and want us all dead, or in prison?

 

[alphacentauri]

Re: Florida Gay Club PULSE has been attacked with injuries, and possible hostage situation.

Too bad. For some the truth is always hard to swallow. You wait and see. Barak Obama will spin it to a homophobe thing. It's already happening. Check for yourself. He didn't even say the words "muslim extremism" tonight, did he?

a Muslim did this. Inspired by a homophobic Muslim leader. People who are in denial about this are just going to have to deal with that.

Only one religion keeps up the massacres, and it's not Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus.

This is the third time Muslims (a small but growing bunch) in the U.S. have attempted the mass murder of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. This was the first successful one. There will be more to come because they are never held accountable.

Islam strangely enough is OK with Trans people as in in Iran and other ass backwards Muslim countries they actually pay for surgery for trans people, and give them a new ID and argue that it's OK to be trans because an Iman or the Koran says so; but that if you're bisexual or gay and a man you deserve death; but it's fine to be Muslim and a pederast because Muhammad was one.

There's a big difference now when you look at which religion is actually murdering in mass numbers.

It's easier for Muslim appologists to label all Christians and all white men.

If this were a Catholic or a right-wing Christian, the comments would be denouncing ALL of them, while bloggers and commentators online would know no boundaries with their labeling and accusations.

When it comes to Muslims and Islam, they must really fear for their lives; they don't dare say anything negative about them for fear an extremist will target them.

I have even read comments by LGBT people who are now claiming that this was not Jihad or this guy in Orlando was not with ISIS when he was, and so was the guy that wanted to attack the L.A. LGBT pride parade.

 

[offthewall14420]

Are there any subsistence hunters here? You go that hardcore might as well be using a bow.

I'll help pry from cold dead hands.

 

[rareboy]

It has been misinterpreted as a matter of expedience.

For the maintenance of a well regulated militia is pretty clear.

Well. Regulated. Militia.

Not every fucking yahoo should get assault rifles.

Just in case Benvolio and a few others missed this.

 

[offthewall14420]

Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

POTUS should call them to fight ISIL. Operation Human Shield.

 

[Mariatenebre]

From what I have heard this guy was apparently closeted. It is also a lie to say that this had nothing to do with Islam. The guy's father is on video supporting the Taliban and saying that gays should be punished. It is most likely that his kid had self hating issues and was radicalized by ISIS and did this attack as a way of atoning for the sin if being gay. I actually lost who I thought was a good friend over this issue because he kept posting stuff about how this attack has nothing to do with Islam. Now while I acknowledge that not all Muslims or Abrahamics are homophobic Islam and the Abrahamic religions are indeed homophobic. Once more if this had been a Mormon terrorist as the guy I knew is an ex Mormon or just another Christian there would be no memes stating that this attack has nothing to do with Mormonism or Christianity and people would be calling out these religions but when it comes to Islam everyone does the whole pay no attention to the man behind the curtain thing. I mean have any of these gay Liberals read the story of Lut in the Quran?

 

[rareboy]

^ You're a little late to the party. This has all been chewed to a fine pulp in a number of threads including the one about him being a regular at Pulse with a Grindr profile.

Debate will continue to rage and I doubt if between his father and his wives that we'll ever know the complete truth if he didn't leave a journal or a note or anything.

 

[Benvolio]

It has been misinterpreted as a matter of expedience.

For the maintenance of a well regulated militia is pretty clear.

Well. Regulated. Militia.

Not every fucking yahoo should get assault rifles.

The founders did not yet realize that they needed to defend against liberals as well as wild animals and attacking Native Americans. They regarded the need to hunt game and defend their families was too obvious to need spelling out. The recitation about militia is introductory. The operative portion of the Amendment is unambiguous; the right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[rareboy]

Well then, I guess that every person should be able to get a machine gun too.

You ammosexuals are always sounding the same nonsensical note.

No one talks about taking away guns...only restricting what civilians should need to own.

Or making them go through background checks.

 

[Benvolio]

Well then, I guess that every person should be able to get a machine gun too.

You ammosexuals are always sounding the same nonsensical note.

No one talks about taking away guns...only restricting what civilians should need to own.

Or making them go through background checks.

We know the liberals too well to fall for that. They will start with a reasonable limitation which however, involves the concession that there can be exceptions. Then they will want endless exceptions until the Amendment is a nullity.
When I invoke freedom of speech on this forum, a democrat is sure to assert, one cannot shout fire in a crowded theater (and therefor any limitation of speech the dems want is Constitutional). Holmes would not be pleased.

 

[offthewall14420]

The founders did not yet realize that they needed to defend against liberals as well as wild animals and attacking Native Americans. They regarded the need to hunt game and defend their families was too obvious to need spelling out. The recitation about militia is introductory. The operative portion of the Amendment is unambiguous; the right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's your and the conservative SCOTUS interpretation.

"Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller 2007, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court.

The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional."


https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

 

[offthewall14420]

Article I (Legislative), Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

 

[gsdx]

The founders did not yet realize that they needed to defend against liberals as well as wild animals and attacking Native Americans. They regarded the need to hunt game and defend their families was too obvious to need spelling out. The recitation about militia is introductory. The operative portion of the Amendment is unambiguous; the right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do your homework. You might want to start with Google. I did it a long time ago and discovered that the founders didn't need to defend against anyone. They were protecting their own asses. There were many rewrites. The Amendment is sufficiently vague that it can be interpreted in many different ways. That's why the 'militia' bit is completely ignored these days. It wasn't an introduction. It was a prerequisite.

But it's easy to forget that, and it's why no government is willing to clarify it. They know it would be political suicide to even think about it.

 

[offthewall14420]

FYI:

 

[Kabluey]

Article I (Legislative), Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

The second amendment was written at the same time as the early development of what would eventually become parts of America's police force. This was well before the creation of city police.

Prior to the second amendment, the word 'police' wasn't used in the USA, instead marshall, sheriff and militia described civilians employed by the state.

 

[offthewall14420]

May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan