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

[TX-Beau]

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

No I am critiquing the texts that they claim to follow. Christians claim that their Bible is their moral guide and ditto for Muslims and the Quran. Both books are pretty clear that you can not question them otherwise you are an apostate. The Quran for instance even says it clearly that those people who accept some of the Quran but not all are basically apostates and will go to hell. They are free to deny aspects of these texts if they want to but still cling to these religions but according to these texts and even to their religious authorities they are not true Christians or true Muslims. I have never claimed that all Christians or all Muslims are fundamentalists but the books they follow mandate fundamentalism.

I'm ignoring the Nazi thing because it's stupid and just a distraction. NO their religious "leaders" are not saying what you claim they are, they are all over the place in all three and there is no uniformity on what is scripture just because you want there to be.

Yes they all pick and choose and you don't get to tell them what they believe. If it's any consolation, I find it baffling how they include this and exclude that and still call the books scripture, but the fact is they all do this and you don't get to tell them no.

Your opinion on what they include in their religion is utterly moot.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What the fuck ever. I'm done making allowances for suburban commandos and their Rambo fantasies, I'm done putting up with 2nd amendment cultists and their Minuteman fantasies.

HOW FUCKING HIGH DO THE BODIES HAVE TO PILE before you admit we have a problem? I think they could pile to the sky and there you'd be, spewing mealy mouthed platitudes desperately ignoring the 500 Pound gorilla right there on the couch next to you.

Guess what, YOU WILL NEVER have the kind of armament necessary to topple the government - because you CAN'T HAVE IT!

Because it's REGULATED, which is perfectly CONSTITUTIONAL!

Go ahead, tell me firearm regulation is illegal, you always ignore this point, why is that?

END. OF. STORY.

I'm sorry that you live in paranoia, I can't help you with that.

You rattle on and on about "unalienable rights," like some kind of Moony, but lets face it, you only have the right to life, until there is some good reason to take it away from you, you only have the right to liberty, until there is good reason to incarcerate you, and there are myriad reason you can be required to do things that deprive you of the pursuit of happiness - and they are ALL LEGAL! Because there is no such thing as an absolute right no matter how much you insist there is.

I will give you credit for convincing me of one thing, Your kind - the cultists, and the tiny penised kind, have been hiding behind the 2nd Amendment and forcing this plague on all of the rest of us, time for it to go, and just like you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you do not have the right to force the rest of us to put up with this.

I second all of this really. In these cyclical debates that come around pretty much everytime there's a mass shooting, I've said to Kuli before that I believe him to be insulated and removed from the consequences our society has to pay for having the kind of society he wants to have, where guns are everywhere. He reacted with belittling condescension at my "cowardice" for telling him how I and most city people would feel sitting in a restaurant and seeing someone come in with automatic weapons. And it's very convenient to sit in the near backwoods of the Pac-Northwest and have that reaction I suppose. Just like it's easy for people who don't live alongside racism to belittle it, and straight people to not see homophobia.

Bottom line, if the price of making the gun nut subset of the population "feel secure" is that all of the rest of us need to live in fear of the society and the body count and the risk of senseless gun violence that we have to live as hostages in, then I really no longer care that what they want or how they feel. None of the benefits they say we would get by having tons of people armed ever appear, so we just listen to the same boogeymanning about how "bad" it will be if people don't have guns everywhere.

I'm willing to risk it... and I'm supposedly a coward, so..

 

[Kulindahr]

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

No I am critiquing the texts that they claim to follow. Christians claim that their Bible is their moral guide and ditto for Muslims and the Quran. Both books are pretty clear that you can not question them otherwise you are an apostate. The Quran for instance even says it clearly that those people who accept some of the Quran but not all are basically apostates and will go to hell. They are free to deny aspects of these texts if they want to but still cling to these religions but according to these texts and even to their religious authorities they are not true Christians or true Muslims. I have never claimed that all Christians or all Muslims are fundamentalists but the books they follow mandate fundamentalism.

No, you are mangling the texts.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say you can't question it! That claim is made only by fundamentalist sects and Rome.

Nor does the Bible "mandate fundamentalism" -- in fact it endorses the allegorical method, which fundamentalism excludes.

As for the Nazi comparison I think it is spot on. Nazism was inspired by Christianity especially Christian Jew hatred. The even had God with us on their belt buckles, Hitler was a devout Catholic etc. As for the Islamic connection Hitler allied himself with the Mufti of Jerusalem who supplied Hitler with Muslim troops and even wanted to bring the concentration camps to the Middle East oh and as for the gay thing both Nazism, Christianity and Islam hates homosexuals. Plus Christianity and Islam have done just as much evil to the world as Nazism.

Nazism was an eruption of the old pagan religions, arguably foretold by Nostradamus.

 

[Kulindahr]

Every country has had a wild-west period.

The protection against insurrection fantasy is just that. Gun enthusiasts versus the world's most powerful army (assumedly being led by the world's most ruthless leader)? Not a hope. That kind of fantasy is where the 'ammosexual' slur comes from - it's delusional thinking.

Statistically speaking, that bedside gun of yours is more likely to be used against a family member than any intruder.

m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

We know you'll never agree with us, but understand why we disagree.

Guns in homes are used at a minimum 70,000 times a year to defend against an intruder. For your claim to be true, there would have to be at least 70,000 firings of guns against family members. There are no figures to support such a claim.

The more believable figure is a half million defensive uses in the home per year. Do you really believe that over half a million times a year, a gun in the home is fired against a family member?

 

[TX-Beau]

guns in homes are used at a minimum 70,000 times a year to defend against an intruder. For your claim to be true, there would have to be at least 70,000 firings of guns against family members. There are no figures to support such a claim.

The more believable figure is a half million defensive uses in the home per year. Do you really believe that over half a million times a year, a gun in the home is fired against a family member?

is regulation of firearms legal or not?

 

[Kulindahr]

Every country has had a wild-west period.

The protection against insurrection fantasy is just that. Gun enthusiasts versus the world's most powerful army (assumedly being led by the world's most ruthless leader)? Not a hope. That kind of fantasy is where the 'ammosexual' slur comes from - it's delusional thinking..

The right to insurrection has been affirmed by SCOTUS.

And no, it isn't delusional thinking -- you're assuming that governors would not call out the national guard to oppose the U.S. federal military which is likely in many states, and that American military would actually fire on American citizens. You're also overlooking the fact that an armed citizenry could destroy transportation and the economy to the point that the military would have to treat the entire country as enemy territory -- and if they did, the government would lose all support except from people who love military dictatorships.

 

[TX-Beau]

The right to insurrection has been affirmed by SCOTUS.

And no, it isn't delusional thinking -- you're assuming that governors would not call out the national guard to oppose the U.S. federal military which is likely in many states, and that American military would actually fire on American citizens. You're also overlooking the fact that an armed citizenry could destroy transportation and the economy to the point that the military would have to treat the entire country as enemy territory -- and if they did, the government would lose all support except from people who love military dictatorships.

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

Answer the question.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's 300,000,001. THAT is more...


Even the Vatican City had a wild-west period?

Actually, yes -- it just wasn't called Vatican city yet.

As Kulindahr is a gun owner who actually knows about (and respects) gun safety and protocol, unlike some entirely-clueless and untrained gun owners out there, his gun is less likely to be used that way than implied with statistics.

Not to mention, also, that there are no children in the household, so there won't be any kids (too young to know differently) finding a loaded gun and playing with it.

For anyone but me to use my bedside gun against someone in the house, they'd have to know where the pieces and the ammo are. I know, and can reach and put them together in under three seconds.

Of the gun owners I know whose households I've seen, no guns are available to anyone who isn't a responsible user -- they're either secured, being borne, or disabled. I suspect that the households which make the statistic what it is are poorly educated and don't follow proper safety.

I've helped train kids to use guns. I don't ever let them even touch a live round until they've got the secure-and-safe part down to a habit. My first firearms instructor drilled that into us; he started his kids off with toy guns and required them to follow all the same rules as for real ones, including locking up the toys when not in use.

 

[TX-Beau]

Actually, yes -- it just wasn't called Vatican city yet.



For anyone but me to use my bedside gun against someone in the house, they'd have to know where the pieces and the ammo are. I know, and can reach and put them together in under three seconds.

Of the gun owners I know whose households I've seen, no guns are available to anyone who isn't a responsible user -- they're either secured, being borne, or disabled. I suspect that the households which make the statistic what it is are poorly educated and don't follow proper safety.

I've helped train kids to use guns. I don't ever let them even touch a live round until they've got the secure-and-safe part down to a habit. My first firearms instructor drilled that into us; he started his kids off with toy guns and required them to follow all the same rules as for real ones, including locking up the toys when not in use.

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

Surely in your vast knowledge of all things gunpowder you can answer that simple question.

 

[Kulindahr]

W
Guess what, YOU WILL NEVER have the kind of armament necessary to topple the government - because you CAN'T HAVE IT!

Because it's REGULATED, which is perfectly CONSTITUTIONAL!

Please cite the constitutional authority to do anything beyond arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia.

 

[TX-Beau]

Please cite the constitutional authority to do anything beyond arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia.

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

Dodge all you want we both know the answer.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry that you live in paranoia, I can't help you with that.

I guess there was no shooting in Orlando; it was just paranoia.
Calling the desire to save lives by being able to shoot back "paranoia" is an astounding insult to those victims. Those who call for the Second Amendment to be honored as it was written are not living in paranoia, but in reality. The paranoia lies in thinking that law-abiding citizens are going to turn the country into a wild west -- a proposition screeched by the media every time it's made easier for citizens to be armed in public, and which has NEVER happened.

You rattle on and on about "unalienable rights," like some kind of Moony, but lets face it, you only have the right to life, until there is some good reason to take it away from you, you only have the right to liberty, until there is good reason to incarcerate you, and there are myriad reason you can be required to do things that deprive you of the pursuit of happiness - and they are ALL LEGAL! Because there is no such thing as an absolute right no matter how much you insist there is.

If anyone has a right to take away my life, then I have a right to take away anyone's life.

And as Heller, which unanimously called the Second an individual right, said, rights cannot be restricted for anyone's convenience -- which is exactly what gun-control advocates want to do (except they have yet to propose anything that will affect criminals significantly rather than just burdening the law-abiding).

I will give you credit for convincing me of one thing, Your kind - the cultists, and the tiny penised kind, have been hiding behind the 2nd Amendment and forcing this plague on all of the rest of us, time for it to go, and just like you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you do not have the right to force the rest of us to put up with this.

Yeah, come tell our Pink Pistols members they're "tiny penised".

It used to be possible to order guns from catalogs through the mail, because the individual right was understood. That proves that it isn't ease of access that is the problem -- something else is. In fact, the more restrictions that get passed, the worse things have gotten, and that for the simple reason that guns are not the problem. "Gun control" is equivalent to putting make-up over measles; it tries to hide the problem so people can feel better.

 

[TX-Beau]

I guess there was no shooting in Orlando; it was just paranoia.
Calling the desire to save lives by being able to shoot back "paranoia" is an astounding insult to those victims. Those who call for the Second Amendment to be honored as it was written are not living in paranoia, but in reality. The paranoia lies in thinking that law-abiding citizens are going to turn the country into a wild west -- a proposition screeched by the media every time it's made easier for citizens to be armed in public, and which has NEVER happened.



If anyone has a right to take away my life, then I have a right to take away anyone's life.

And as Heller, which unanimously called the Second an individual right, said, rights cannot be restricted for anyone's convenience -- which is exactly what gun-control advocates want to do (except they have yet to propose anything that will affect criminals significantly rather than just burdening the law-abiding).



Yeah, come tell our Pink Pistols members they're "tiny penised".

It used to be possible to order guns from catalogs through the mail, because the individual right was understood. That proves that it isn't ease of access that is the problem -- something else is. In fact, the more restrictions that get passed, the worse things have gotten, and that for the simple reason that guns are not the problem. "Gun control" is equivalent to putting make-up over measles; it tries to hide the problem so people can feel better.

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

You can dance your dance of obfuscation all night long, but that is the only germane question, which you will not answer, because the answer eviscerates anything else you might say.

SO ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

Fact is that regulation is perfectly legal, and perfectly Constitutional, and that's all folks.

The Only question is which regulation and how much confusion LaPierre can purchase.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm sorry you have become his butt boy.

 

[Kulindahr]

I second all of this really. In these cyclical debates that come around pretty much everytime there's a mass shooting, I've said to Kuli before that I believe him to be insulated and removed from the consequences our society has to pay for having the kind of society he wants to have, where guns are everywhere. He reacted with belittling condescension at my "cowardice" for telling him how I and most city people would feel sitting in a restaurant and seeing someone come in with automatic weapons. And it's very convenient to sit in the near backwoods of the Pac-Northwest and have that reaction I suppose. Just like it's easy for people who don't live alongside racism to belittle it, and straight people to not see homophobia.

Bottom line, if the price of making the gun nut subset of the population "feel secure" is that all of the rest of us need to live in fear of the society and the body count and the risk of senseless gun violence that we have to live as hostages in, then I really no longer care that what they want or how they feel. None of the benefits they say we would get by having tons of people armed ever appear, so we just listen to the same boogeymanning about how "bad" it will be if people don't have guns everywhere.

I'm willing to risk it... and I'm supposedly a coward, so..

(emphasis mine)

What a beautiful demonstration of the paranoia that drives gun control: it isn't about rights, it isn't about reality, it's about being scared.

You've essentially said that you'd rather have people die than be able to defend themselves. That's exactly what people screeching that arming the staff at places like Pulse would have been horrid are saying: that the lives of the people at that nightclub were worth nothing, that it was better that they be totally unprotected against barbarians. People who don't want their fellow citizens armed are the paranoid ones; those of us who recognize that things like the Pulse slaughter do happen are living in reality.


BTW, you and at least one other here love to resort to lying about what defenders of the Second Amendment say; you've done it again in this post. When you continually resort to lying, it's pretty sad -- and it shows you don't give a shit what others think, you just want to insult and trash whoever isn't willing to conform to your view.

 

[TX-Beau]

(emphasis mine)

What a beautiful demonstration of the paranoia that drives gun control: it isn't about rights, it isn't about reality, it's about being scared.

You've essentially said that you'd rather have people die than be able to defend themselves. That's exactly what people screeching that arming the staff at places like Pulse would have been horrid are saying: that the lives of the people at that nightclub were worth nothing, that it was better that they be totally unprotected against barbarians. People who don't want their fellow citizens armed are the paranoid ones; those of us who recognize that things like the Pulse slaughter do happen are living in reality.


BTW, you and at least one other here love to resort to lying about what defenders of the Second Amendment say; you've done it again in this post. When you continually resort to lying, it's pretty sad -- and it shows you don't give a shit what others think, you just want to insult and trash whoever isn't willing to conform to your view.

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

If you don't want to be known as someone who resorts to lying, answer the question.

 

[Kulindahr]

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

Answer the question.

Show me the authority in the Constitution. If it isn't there, then according to the Constitution there is no authority.

If there is no authority, then all regulation is unconstitutional.

 

[TX-Beau]

Show me the authority in the Constitution. If it isn't there, then according to the Constitution there is no authority.

If there is no authority, then all regulation is unconstitutional.

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

There is law in this United States, WHAT IS IT?

 

[Kulindahr]

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

Dodge all you want we both know the answer.

Legal and constitutional are not the same thing.

The Constitution says that only what is specifically granted to Congress is legitimate. There is no power over arms of any kind granted to Congress.

All the insisting by liberals that regulating arms is legitimate merely serves to show that those so claiming despise the Constitution.

As constitutional scholar J. Turley has pointed out, the current liberal administration is the very thing the Constitution was supposed to prevent. It's sad that it took a corrupt executive to wake such a scholar up; it has been evident for a long time that elitist politicians despise the Constitution any time it stands between them and control. This is why it is so commonly said that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. It took years of seeing how liberals trample the Constitution to support gun control for me to accept how true that is.

Law is being used to trample the Constitution -- and you're supporting the tramplers.

 

[opinterph]

WHAT IS IT?

Why don't you just tell us what you've discovered through your own personal research? Or is that a secret?