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

[Kulindahr]

No they didn't, they said that there is no constitutional protection for concealed carry, and if/when this gets kicked upstairs that will be upheld, because indeed there is no constitutional protection for concealed carry, now let's get the lawsuit started that challenges the Texas law that forces me to let you have guns in my bar.

For all of the gun nuts arguments about constitutionality, they seem to think that their INTERPRETATION of the constitution should be forced on all of us.

You DO NOT have the right to force the rest of us to put up with this, You want a gun, fine, but you CAN'T HAVE IT IN MY STORE!

They said that if there's a right, it's open carry/ That means that laws against open carry are unconstitutional.

"Shall not be infringed" is the strongest language in the Bill of Rights. It goes beyond the "Congress shall make no law" of the First, indicating that this limits not just Congress, but any entity whatsoever, from having any limitations on arms kept and borne by citizens. That's the plain language that's supported by both the Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers.

As was said at the time, the point was that every man be armed.

 

[Kulindahr]

When the police arrived they went in and confronted the gunman. When that was done the gunman got into the restroom with hostages. While the police contained the main rooms they started pulling out the injured to get them medical help. That in itself save many more people. Then all the SWAT team had to do is form a plan to get the hostages out of the restroom which they did with saving the lives of those in the restroom. I have not been prouder of our local City Police and Sheriff Deputies that risked their lives to save others.

Every report I've seen said no police went in before three hours. Do you have something different?

 

[Kulindahr]

It seems he's assessed the level of fire power available to the police officer at the door and made a calculated choice to target and outgun him first.
Given he was not apparently injured in that initial fight, I guess he was wearing some kind of armour.

Obvious armed security at a door is just a target.


BTW, he tried to buy military-grade armor before going barbarian, and failed. I didn't even know that was available!

 

[Kulindahr]

^ That would make the gun dealers and the NRA very very rich and happy.

Who cares? The man is an expert at protecting lives.

 

[Kulindahr]

This wasn't a hunting rifle, which (the ones I'm familiar with from earlier in my life) requires loading a new shell every time you want to shoot with it. A hunting rifle is a one-shot affair; the hunter gets only one shot. After that shot, the target, and any other possible target, scurries away in a hurry whether it's deer, pheasants, squirrels, or...

Hunting rifles have NEVER been banned, nor should they ever be.

The AR-15 is indeed a weapon of warfare.

The AR-15 is one of the most common hunting rifles in the U.S. It's also effective and highly recommended by experts for home defense.

And no, it isn't a weapon of warfare; it sucks at suppressive fire, which is the most common type of fire in a war. No military commander worth anything would want his troops armed with it.

 

[Mariatenebre]

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

So the fuck what? Plenty of religious people have rejected hatred in their Christianity and their Islam and their Judaism, and you don't get to define their religion for them just because you have a political agenda.

Your point is moot, and just as inflexible and intolerant, and indeed bigoted as anything you are condemning. You want to change minds, or do you just want to forge on in righteous dudgeon, projecting your prejudices on everyone else?

There is no religion between the pages of a book - it's all interpretation and practice, and if some Muslim has decided that hate isn't part of his religion, you don't get to tell him no.

Yeah, and that Nazi thing is just pretty stupid - false parallel and all.

I am not defining their religion for them. I am critical of the doctrines in the texts they adhere to. While many Abrahamics don't adhere to the negative aspects of their religion it does no one any good to pretend like these texts don't exist. The fact is that in Islam as well as in all of the Abrahamic religions homosexuality is seen as evil and meriting the death penalty. This is what their texts literally say.

Also another problem with the Abrahamic religions is that they are "book religions." What this basically means is that in these religions these texts are considered 100% true and unquestionable books from god. You must basically believe in whatever canon your Abrahamic religion teaches is true otherwise you are considered an apostate who has rejected god and deserves hell. That is literally what the texts state. Which makes it harder for them to reform their religions. Where as in most non Abrahamic religions they are not book religions and there is no Bible or Quran that everybody in differing Pagan religions must adhere to. Now certainly Pagans have their own religious books and texts but they do not hold on to the literalism or the exclusivism in the Abrahamic religions and are open to critique.

The fact is that even though I acknowledge that many Abrahamics are open and accepting the fact remains that their texts are not. Now can you be say a Muslim or a Christian etc and reject the Quran and Bible's view of homosexuality and other things sure. However according to the texts they claim they are basically an apostate. The Abrahamic religion's sadly have an all or nothing idea found in their texts and their religious orthodoxy. Now I acknowledge that many Abrahamics are accepting the truth of the matter is that their holy texts are not and it does no one any good to pretend these texts say something different then they actually do.

Also I don't see how the Nazism thing is stupid. It is a pretty good comparison. If a Nazi rejects some of the basic teachings of his political philosophy is he still a Nazi ditto is a Christian or Muslim still a Christian or Muslim if they reject the commandments of their god in his texts?

 

[TX-Beau]

They said that if there's a right, it's open carry/ That means that laws against open carry are unconstitutional.

"Shall not be infringed" is the strongest language in the Bill of Rights. It goes beyond the "Congress shall make no law" of the First, indicating that this limits not just Congress, but any entity whatsoever, from having any limitations on arms kept and borne by citizens. That's the plain language that's supported by both the Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers.

As was said at the time, the point was that every man be armed.

No, they said that there is no constitutional protection for concealed carry and every fucking hunter is "open carry" which was never even an issue. YOU are trying to imply that they said carrying handguns into bars is constitutionally protected - which it isn't.

You know damn well that there is nothing constitutional about gun regulation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Christ sales. There was a off duty police officer in the parking lot hired as security part time. There was a shoot out in the parking lot (#1) forcing the self loathing gay dude inside the club, and more police arrived. There was a shoot out inside the club floor (#2), the gunman retreated into the bathroom area and there was fear of explosives thus the hostage stand off for about 3 hrs. In the bathroom people were packed like sardines. While the stand off was going on he used his 9mm glock to point over the stalls and fire at the sardine piles up people. The police decided to use a armored vehicle to bust the wall in. There was another shoot out (#3) with the self loathing psycho gay dude and he didn't put down the gun and was shoot up like Swiss cheese.

Part of the problem with ID'g some of the victims shot with the assault rifle is they had no head, even if they had a ID it still takes time to make sure who is who. These bullets spinning through bodies splinter arms and blew limbs off. It of course was extremely graphic and horrible.

Wife is involved, so is Dad. His Son wasn't fucked up over seeing 2 men kissing in MIami. He had hung out and dated gay dudes since high school. This is self hate due to upbringing and religion. This is mental illness and bigotry led by religion left untreated.

Please substantiate the claim I put in bold. The AR-15 isn't powerful enough to blow away a human head.

Now, a double-tap from the rear might cause a substantial enough exit wound to leave not much of a face, but that's about it.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

A semi automatic is NOT a sporting rifle. [Text: Removed]

Of course it is. No semi-auto is a military weapon; they're manufactured for sporting purposes.

They're great, for example, for shooting pests such as prairie dogs, coyotes, and moles.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Wow, notice how Kuli doesn't comment on this vid?

There's not enough there to comment on -- it's very poorly done.

I found and watched five other videos purporting to show the same thing, without finding any of quality. This would be an excellent subject for high-speed filming for slowing down the action to see what's going on.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am curious how you will vote Kul? It seems virtually certain that Hillary would give liberals a solid majority on the USSC, and just as certain that they will start dismantling the 2d Amendment. Trump will, we assume, appoint a conservative who will preserve the Conctitution.

Trump won't appoint anyone who will "preserve the Constitution" any more than Hillary will; he'll find people who will interpret it the way he likes, as she will appoint people who will interpret it the way she likes. There's no possibility any longer in this country of actually appointing defenders of the whole Constitution.

 

[TX-Beau]

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

I am not defining their religion for them. I am critical of the doctrines in the texts they adhere to. While many Abrahamics don't adhere to the negative aspects of their religion it does no one any good to pretend like these texts don't exist. The fact is that in Islam as well as in all of the Abrahamic religions homosexuality is seen as evil and meriting the death penalty. This is what their texts literally say.

Also another problem with the Abrahamic religions is that they are "book religions." What this basically means is that in these religions these texts are considered 100% true and unquestionable books from god. You must basically believe in whatever canon your Abrahamic religion teaches is true otherwise you are considered an apostate who has rejected god and deserves hell. That is literally what the texts state. Which makes it harder for them to reform their religions. Where as in most non Abrahamic religions they are not book religions and there is no Bible or Quran that everybody in differing Pagan religions must adhere to. Now certainly Pagans have their own religious books and texts but they do not hold on to the literalism or the exclusivism in the Abrahamic religions and are open to critique.

The fact is that even though I acknowledge that many Abrahamics are open and accepting the fact remains that their texts are not. Now can you be say a Muslim or a Christian etc and reject the Quran and Bible's view of homosexuality and other things sure. However according to the texts they claim they are basically an apostate. The Abrahamic religion's sadly have an all or nothing idea found in their texts and their religious orthodoxy. Now I acknowledge that many Abrahamics are accepting the truth of the matter is that their holy texts are not and it does no one any good to pretend these texts say something different then they actually do.

Also I don't see how the Nazism thing is stupid. It is a pretty good comparison. If a Nazi rejects some of the basic teachings of his political philosophy is he still a Nazi ditto is a Christian or Muslim still a Christian or Muslim if they reject the commandments of their god in his texts?

Yes you are trying to define their religion for them. A bunch of them say those passages are apocryphal or antiquated or some other disqualifier and are no part of the religion they practice, then you come along and tell them that because it's in the book they aren't "real" whatever. I certainly think they should explain WHY the things they ignore are ignored, but that isn't the same as insisting to some Christian that because the bible says so, he must believe the world was created in 7 days or he isn't a Christian.

Every one of the "book" religions has things in the book they ignore, some this thing others that thing, that isn't part of the religion they or their denomination practice. This has never been different. It's just a lie to say that every Christian or Muslim is a Fundamentalist who believers everything in the book is 100% true. That's just not the case. Then you went right on to do what you say you don't do, and define what a "Book" religion has to be in order to what? What is the point in insisting all Jews/Christians/Muslims meet your definition or they are apostate?

That's just fucking arrogance on your part, and stinks of agenda, and you chose the false analogy with the Nazis because they were abhorrent and you wanted to equate them with religious people - despite the fact that they aren't the same thing at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Because of course the Supreme court can do that.

- - - Updated - - -

[Text: Removed]

Yes, they can -- they'll been dismantling the Fourth for years, and butchering the First.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you need an assault style weapon to hunt, you are a piss poor hunter and should NOT be allowed to hunt.

Your view of the aesthetics of a rifle, which is all that the term "assault style" is, is irrelevant.

The hunters I know who use semi-automatics do so for the sake of the wildlife, i.e. to hunt humanely. There is always the possibility of a shot not quite hitting where it was aimed due to all sorts of factors, and being able to immediately fire again means less suffering for the animal.

In other words, many hunters like semi-autos because they are RESPONSIBLE.

 

[TX-Beau]

Your view of the aesthetics of a rifle, which is all that the term "assault style" is, is irrelevant.

The hunters I know who use semi-automatics do so for the sake of the wildlife, i.e. to hunt humanely. There is always the possibility of a shot not quite hitting where it was aimed due to all sorts of factors, and being able to immediately fire again means less suffering for the animal.

In other words, many hunters like semi-autos because they are RESPONSIBLE.

I don't know a single hunter who carries an AR-47 into the woods.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Yes, it's there to give one purpose for the core statement. If they'd suspected that later generations would be so grammatically deficient, they'd either have left the phrase off or added another reason or two.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

It's been interpreted as an individual right since the beginning, listed numerous times as one along with the rights to free speech, etc.

The grammar does not limit the right to the maintenance of a militia, it provides that as one reason.

 

[Kabluey]

What does this have to do with me?

I cited an expert -- you make it about me.

BTW, this has nothing to do with a "hobby", and everything to do with the understanding of liberty on which this country was founded.

My apologies, I thought you were citing your own experience.

I had to Google to find out who the former head of Interpol you were referring to is.
Turns out he's the only American who's held the position, Ron Noble.

He was also head of the agency tasked to regulate guns in the USA.

Citing someone who is arguably part of the problem due to political inaction doesn't help anything.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Well-regulated meaning well-armed and well-trained, i.e. functioning as it is supposed to. That meaning of the word survives in the use of "being regular" in terms of excretion.

Given the discussion of the amendment back then, it could have been phrased, "Citizen soldiers capable of effective rebellion against their government being necessary to the security of a free state...."

 

[TX-Beau]

It's been interpreted as an individual right since the beginning, listed numerous times as one along with the rights to free speech, etc.

The grammar does not limit the right to the maintenance of a militia, it provides that as one reason.

No, that's just false.

...In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290)...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment