Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History

[chfo]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lymphocyte]

I know I said I was going to sit this one out, but I'll make one comment here because I can't help myself. Most of this thread is opinion, but there's a factual error in your post.

Neither the Heller nor McDonald rulings actually gave us any precedent on the level of scrutiny to be applied to regulation of the 2nd Amendment. I think it should be strict scrutiny, and I think most sane people who respect and cherish any of the enumerated rights in the Constitution would agree strict scrutiny should apply to their Constitutional rights, but this remains unsettled law.

Also, your definition of strict scrutiny is only 2/3 complete. There are three elements to it: the law must be narrowly tailored, it must serve a compelling government interest, and the third element is that it must employ the least restrictive means to enforce the limitation. (This last bit matters when we're talking about how regulation and due process is actually implemented, because the devil is always in the details.)


Back to opinion:

The fact that the level of scrutiny to be applied to the 2nd Amendment remains unsettled law is all the more reason why SCOTUS appointees are so important. The last two appointees to the Court have demonstrated that they do not believe that strict scrutiny should apply to the 2nd Amendment - they favor the doctrine of "rational basis" which places far weaker constraints on government power.

Yes, in fact, I believe there's currently a circuit split over intermediate vs strict scrutiny, but I actually thought Heller and McDonald were quite compelling on what level aught apply (this issue was indirectly raised as as a right that's "fundamental from an American perspective" in the plurality opinion in McDonald), though they infamously side-stepped answering the question directly.

You're absolutely correct about the tripartite test. Thank you for correcting me. I was just typing tired and from memory...

 

[deleted171991]

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/marr...d-the-family-in-islam-2-728.jpg?cb=1302603006

Please start accepting that absolutely ANY strongly religious or intolerant person can become radicalized. There are very few places on Earth where people pay more than lip service to the concept of tolerance. Most of Europe is passive-aggressive about the subject of ethnically, racially, sexually or religiously different people. Even in America, there are many people like that.

The fact that it's not politically correct to show intolerance in some countries, just swipes the dirt under the rug, and then gets it compressed (ready to blow) while everybody is trampling on it.

 

[deleted171991]

Radical Islam is the problem and not all of Islam. But, the fact remains that the Muslim community does seem to be close knit and it isn't easy for the FBI to find the radical ones from among the U.S. population. As per all religions the teachings of the religious leaders spread to their followers which can have major consequences.

Radical anything is a problem. FYI, fascism and the Second World War were fueled by radical Christians in many European countries.

 

[deleted171991]

Did the FBI miss this guy in 2013 and 2014? How many other U.S. Citizens will become radicalized? In our society based on laws where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty what more could the FBI have done to prevent this tragedy?

Sadly, The solution to this problem is to go back to Iraq/Syria and wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth. Even though this solution will require the sacrifice of U.S. men and women on the ground it must be done. We broke Iraq into pieces during the BUSH era then withdrew all out troops under Obama with the end result being ISIS and Chaos in that region.

Sensitivity, specificity. One just can't have both at 100%.

I'd rather give up some security than lose my liberties. I'd rather be shot dead than live in "1984", under constant surveillance.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yeah, that's what happens when you karate chop yourself into a conversation 30-posts down without reading or contributing to anything before it.

Lots of options suggested:
People publically pledged to ISIS should be restricted from buying firearms.
People publically pledged to ISIS should be listed on a notice registry in case they buy firearms.
People publically pledged to ISIS who buy firearms should receive enhanced public surveillance.
People publically pledged to ISIS should receive enhanced public surveillance period.
People publically pledged to ISIS should receive consideration for private surveillance under FISA.
Guns with higher destructive capacity should fall under greater scrutiny for purchase.
Etc.

None of that is prima facie unconstitutional. At least one of those options would have worked even if he had acquired his guns illegally and not-impulsively (contrary to what happened).

Interviewed twice by the FBI. Publicly supported ISIS. All the risk factors. Couldn't be privately surveilled. Couldn't be restricted from owning a semi-automatic rifle. Couldn't be listed on a registry. @VA Hopeful Dr, how was this not preventable with different laws?

OK let's change your questions around a little bit...

Dylan Roof publicly supported white supremacist causes.

Should people who publicly support the KKK fall under all the questions you just posed? What about anyone who poses for pictures in front of the Confederate flag? If yes, what about the ISIS flag or a swastica?

The Sandy Hook guy had seen psychiatry before the mental illness. Should all mentally ill patients fall under those same rules? If yes, what illnesses qualify? Schizophrenia? Bipolar? What about Axis 2 disorders as they tend to actually be the most dangerous?

The point sb is trying to make (among many) is that one you allow that its permissible to restrict the rights of one group "for safety" then its just a matter of whoever is in charge deciding what groups qualify as those under surveillance. We've already seen this backfire - google cases about completely harmless Americans in Gitmo or people who got on the no-fly list for having the same name as a legitimate terrorist that then took years to get their name off of that same list.

 

[chfo]

 

[ProfMD]

No.

Words in pictures are not afforded any special privilege or liability. They're either a TOS violation or they aren't.

If you think someone's words, pictures, or pictures of words are over the line, use the report link and I or another moderator will get an email alert. Be advised that due to SDN's privacy policy, you won't get a response or any kind of feedback regarding anything we say or don't say, do or don't do, to the individual you're reporting. Sometimes it's obvious (posts deleted or people banned), sometimes it's not.

I know.

It was more a comment on the number of memes on this thread.

I wonder if any intelligent debate has ever been won by a meme?

 

[ProfMD]

It's not a silly analogy at all.

Guns do not necessarily have to kill to have their intended effect.

Competition shooting.

Defensive protection.

Hobby collecting.

Hunting for sport or survival.






When people argue for banning "assault" rifles, they are de facto arguing for banning all guns.

What's the difference between a M1a and AR-15?

One isn't a scary black "assault rifle", but both are basically the same.

And once you ban "assault" rifles, what about handguns? The Ft Hood terrorist used handguns to kill over a dozen of our finest soldiers.

The fact is that once you ban one type, you can ban every type because they all shoot projectiles.




And it is easy to destroy ISIS. You annihilate them. Hard to recruit terrorists when there's nobody left.

I realize there are other uses for guns.

Hence the term primary use.

Most people arguing to keep guns want to hunt or be the next Wyatt Earp shooting up the bad guys.

 

[deleted480308]

I realize there are other uses for guns.

Hence the term primary use.

Most people arguing to keep guns want to hunt or be the next Wyatt Earp shooting up the bad guys.

both great uses

 

[lymphocyte]

OK let's change your questions around a little bit...

Dylan Roof publicly supported white supremacist causes.

Should people who publicly support the KKK fall under all the questions you just posed? What about anyone who poses for pictures in front of the Confederate flag? If yes, what about the ISIS flag or a swastica?

The Sandy Hook guy had seen psychiatry before the mental illness. Should all mentally ill patients fall under those same rules? If yes, what illnesses qualify? Schizophrenia? Bipolar? What about Axis 2 disorders as they tend to actually be the most dangerous?

The point sb is trying to make (among many) is that one you allow that its permissible to restrict the rights of one group "for safety" then its just a matter of whoever is in charge deciding what groups qualify as those under surveillance. We've already seen this backfire - google cases about completely harmless Americans in Gitmo or people who got on the no-fly list for having the same name as a legitimate terrorist that then took years to get their name off of that same list.

1. Did the KKK declare war against the US and make it its mission to kill as many Americans as possible? Did Dylan Roof publically pledge to that cause? If so, sure, I can see a good reason to restrict his access to semi-automatic rifles.

2. Yes. Unwell people with mental illness should not own any kind of firearm until they can be stabilised and further reviewed. This is not at all a controversial opinion. The risk of suicide is probably much higher than the risk of homicide. You draw the line in the least restrictive way possible... but you draw the line.

3. I guess I'm looking at things from a very pragmatic Australian perspective. I'm very happy to draw lines, and no, I don't really think the slope is that slippery. Again, seemed like a no-brainer in this case. Maybe what you're looking for are some universal principles that would apply equally well to Dylan Roof, Mental Illness, etc. I don't think that's necessarily possible--but in all three cases, 1) compelling interest, 2) narrowly tailored, 3) least restrictive. I think these criteria could be satisfied (or at least presented to a court of law) while maintaining the integrity of the 2nd amendment AND doing something efficacious.

4. I've actually worked with two folks in Gitmo. I understand the risk. Preventing people from owning an AR-15 is not sending them to Gitmo. Seriously? Especially if there's due process meeting tripartite test above (compelling interest, etc.). We're talking about semi-automatic rifles here. Let's be real when comparing that to a permanent loss of life or liberty without due process of law (or a Kangaroo court). Unreal.

You two are holding yourselves out to be great defenders of liberty, but you have to look at the actual facts of the case and not push yourself down the slippery slope. Just because you can't yell "Fire"! in a crowded movie theatre doesn't mean you can't chant KKK slogans at a rally. Even our most fundamental rights can be constrained under strict scrutiny. That's a very long-standing legal principle.

I'm flagging right now, but similar arguments could be made for other restrictions given the appropriate fact patterns.

 

[deepstate2016]

We have been bobbing Isis for quite some time

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

1. Did the KKK declare war against the US and make it its mission to kill as many Americans as possible? Did Dylan Roof publically pledge to that cause? If so, sure, I can see a good reason to restrict his access to semi-automatic rifles.

2. Yes. Unwell people with mental illness should not own any kind of firearm until they can be stabilised and further reviewed. This is not at all a controversial opinion. The risk of suicide is probably much higher than the risk of homicide. You draw the line in the least restrictive way possible... but you draw the line.

3. I guess I'm looking at things from a very pragmatic Australian perspective. I'm very happy to draw lines, and no, I don't really think the slope is that slippery. Again, seemed like a no-brainer in this case. Maybe what you're looking for are some universal principles that would apply equally well to Dylan Roof, Mental Illness, etc. I don't think that's necessarily possible--but in all three cases, 1) compelling interest, 2) narrowly tailored, 3) least restrictive. I think these criteria could be satisfied (or at least presented to a court of law) while maintaining the integrity of the 2nd amendment AND doing something efficacious.

4. I've actually worked with two folks from Gitmo. I understand the risk. Preventing people from owning an AR-15 is not sending them to Gitmo. Seriously? Especially if there's due process meeting tripartite test above (compelling interest, etc.). We're talking about semi-automatic rifles here. Let's be real when comparing that to a permanent loss of life and liberty without due process of law (or a Kangaroo court). Unreal.

You two are holding yourselves out to be great defenders of liberty, but you have to look at the actual facts of the case and not push yourself down the slippery slope. Just because you can't yell "Fire"! in a crowded movie theatre doesn't mean you can't chant KKK slogans at a rally. Even our most fundamental rights can be constrained under strict scrutiny. That's a very long-standing legal principle.

I'm flagging right now, but similar arguments could be made for other restrictions given the appropriate fact patterns.

Really? So the patient with uncontrolled ADHD shouldn't be allowed to go duck hunting? Same with the guy who marches in the yearly KKK parade? Ignoring the fact that neither group is actually at any increased risk of gun violence...

No, I'm saying that a government that locks people in Cuba or prohibits them from flying on an airplane for literally no good reason is something I don't trust to be a good decision maker about who can/can't own guns most of the time.

You keep saying semi-automatic rifle, but that doesn't mean what you think it does. My first deer rifle was a semi-automatic rifle. Yet had this guy used that gun, he would have killed at most 5 people then had to reload (a fairly lengthy process compared to many other guns). Heck, the VA Tech shooter did almost as much damage as this guy with handguns.

The problem you're running into is you're trying to come up with rules based on this single event but we know they likely won't prevent other shooting (and might not have even prevented this one).

 

[lymphocyte]

Really? So the patient with uncontrolled ADHD shouldn't be allowed to go duck hunting? Same with the guy who marches in the yearly KKK parade? Ignoring the fact that neither group is actually at any increased risk of gun violence...

No, I'm saying that a government that locks people in Cuba or prohibits them from flying on an airplane for literally no good reason is something I don't trust to be a good decision maker about who can/can't own guns most of the time.

You keep saying semi-automatic rifle, but that doesn't mean what you think it does. My first deer rifle was a semi-automatic rifle. Yet had this guy used that gun, he would have killed at most 5 people then had to reload (a fairly lengthy process compared to many other guns). Heck, the VA Tech shooter did almost as much damage as this guy with handguns.

The problem you're running into is you're trying to come up with rules based on this single event but we know they likely won't prevent other shooting (and might not have even prevented this one).

What a leap. "Unwell" and requiring "stabilisation" and "further review" in the context of mental illness usually refers to manic or depressive bipolar, florid psychosis, etc. It doesn't usually mean uncontrolled ADHD, and I believe you know better than that.

Surely you trust the justice system to deprive people of their personal liberty? Or does your nihilistism extend that far as well? Do you trust due process in any venue? If so, why wouldn't that same trust in due process extend to this kind of deprivation, when guns are at stake?

You seem to think the government is One Static Thing. What a thoroughly bizarre idea.

Yes, it was the government that locked people in Cuba. It is now the government that is fighting to get those people out of Cuba; the government that heroically released the Torture Memo; the government that refused to defend DOMA... the government is not monolithic. It's a heterogenous, dynamic entity with competing ideas and ideals, with heros and villians and meddling bureaucrats, with victories and defeats, and with three more or less co-equal branches. Outrageous competence saved the US auto industry. Outrageous incompetence led us into Iraq without a coherent exit strategy. We do the best we can, and we move on. That's how politics works in a large, civil, democratic society where most people disagree with each other.

And I think we'll forever disagree on this point: the guy was interviewed twice by the FBI, had all the risk factors, publically declared that he was going to kill Americans, and wanted to buy an AR-15... I'm gonna say that was pretty preventable.

Finally, my first gun was a Ruger 44 Carbine. I know exactly what a semi-automatic rifle is. This wacko shouldn't have been able to buy one (let alone an AR).

 

[caligas]

The most telling thing about this cartoon is that it has words to explain itself below it, showing that it is geared towards ******s.

 

[chfo]

We have been bobbing Isis for quite some time

Obama blamed guns in his press conference after the massacre.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Well it's not like if we illegalize guns that gun violence will just magically end. Take a look at Mexico. Criminals will always be able to get guns. The only thing that will change is we won't be able to defend ourselves anymore.

And our anti-gun president arms their bad guys.

 

[chfo]

From the president's speech this afternoon:

This is a very dark moment in America’s history.

A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.

It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.

It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.

It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.

We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with force, purpose and determination.

But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and think and act clearly.

If we don't get tough, and we don't get smart – and fast – we're not going to have a country anymore -- there will be nothing left.

The killer, whose name I will not use, or ever say, was born to Afghan parents who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don’t share its radical views. The father even said he was running for President of that country.

The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.

That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about.

We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.

We have an incompetent administration, and if I am not elected President, that will not change over the next four years -- but it must change, and it must change now.

With fifty people dead, and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to talk around the issue anymore -- we have to address it head on.

I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger but now, many are saying I was right to do so -- and although the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on. The ban will be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.

The immigration laws of the United States give the President the power to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to the interests or security of the United States, as he deems appropriate.

I will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.

After a full, impartial and long overdue security assessment, we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.

We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer.

Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.

Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.

I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by Radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.

It’s not just a national security issue. It is a quality of life issue.

If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about Radical Islam.

We need to tell the truth, also, about how Radical Islam is coming to our shores.

We are importing Radical Islamic Terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system -- and through an intelligence community held back by our president.

Even our own FBI Director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds of the people we are letting into America.

All of the September 11th hijackers were issued visas.

Large numbers of Somali refugees in Minnesota have tried to join ISIS.

The Boston Bombers came here through political asylum.

The male shooter in San Bernardino – again, whose name I won't mention -- was the child of immigrants from Pakistan, and he brought his wife – the other terrorist - from Saudi Arabia, through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.

Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly five-fold in just one year. According to Pew Research, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.

We admit many more from other countries in the region who share these same oppressive views.

If we want to remain a free and open society, then we have to control our borders.

Yet, Hillary Clinton – for months and despite so many attacks – repeatedly refused to even say the words “radical Islam,” until I challenged her yesterday to say the words or leave the race.

However, Hillary Clinton – who has been forced to say the words today after policies she supports have caused us so much damage – still has no clue what Radical Islam is, and won’t speak honestly about what it is.

She is in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the world.

In fact, just a few weeks before the San Bernardino slaughter, Hillary Clinton explained her refusal to say the words Radical Islam. Here is what she said: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Hillary Clinton says the solution is to ban guns. They tried that in France, which has among the toughest gun laws in the world, and 130 were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in cold blood. Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans, abolishing the 2nd amendment, and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. She wants to take away Americans’ guns, then admit the very people who want to slaughter us.

I will be meeting with the NRA, which has given me their earliest endorsement in a Presidential race, to discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of terror.

The bottom line is that Hillary supports the policies that bring the threat of Radical Islam into America, and allow it to grow overseas.

In fact, Hillary Clinton’s catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more Radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our security but our way of life.

When it comes to Radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss – it's deadly.

The Obama Administration, with the support of Hillary Clinton and others, has also damaged our security by restraining our intelligence-gathering and failing to support law enforcement. They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else.

I refuse to be politically correct.

I will do the right thing--I want to straighten things out and to Make America Great Again.

The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon.

As President I will give our intelligence community, law enforcement and military the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks.

We need an intelligence-gathering system second to none. That includes better cooperation between state, local and federal officials – and with our allies.

I will have an Attorney General, a Director of National Intelligence, and a Secretary of Defense who will know how to fight the war on Radical Islamic Terrorism – and who will have the support they require to get the job done.

We also must ensure the American people are provided the information they need to understand the threat.

The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration has already identified hundreds of immigrants charged with terrorist activities inside the United States since September 11th.

Nearly a year ago, the Senate Subcommittee asked President Obama's Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security to provide the immigration history of all terrorists inside the United States.

These Departments refused to comply.

President Obama must release the full and complete immigration histories of all individuals implicated in terrorist activity of any kind since 9/11.

The public has a right to know how these people got here.

We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with, or support, radical groups and beliefs.

We have to control the amount of future immigration into this country to prevent large pockets of radicalization from forming inside America.

Even a single individual can be devastating, just look at what happened in Orlando. Can you imagine large groups?

Truly, our President doesn't know what he is doing. He has failed us, and failed us badly, and under his leadership, this situation will not get any better -- it will only get worse.

Each year, the United States permanently admits more than 100,000 immigrants from the Middle East, and many more from Muslim countries outside the Middle East. Our government has been admitting ever-growing numbers, year after year, without any effective plan for our security.

In fact, Clinton's State Department was in charge of the admissions process for people applying to enter from overseas.

Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans to massively increase admissions without a screening plan, including a 500% increase in Syrian refugees.

This could be a better, bigger version of the legendary Trojan Horse.

We can't let this happen.

Altogether, under the Clinton plan, you'd be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their children.

The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to screen who we are bringing in.

The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans.

The burden is also on Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it. Her plan will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars long-term.

Wouldn't this money be better spent on rebuilding America for our current population, including the many poor people already living here?

We have to stop the tremendous flow of Syrian refugees into the United States – we don't know who they are, they have no documentation, and we don't know what they're planning.

What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration policy that promotes American values.

That is the choice I put before the American people: a mainstream immigration policy designed to benefit America, or Hillary Clinton's radical immigration policy designed to benefit politically-correct special interests.

We've got to get smart, and tough, and vigilant, and we've got to do it now, becauselater is too late.

The media talks about “homegrown,” terrorism, but Islamic radicalism, and the networks that nurture it, are imports from overseas.

Yes, there are many radicalized people already inside our country as a result of the poor policies of the past. But the whole point is that it will be much, much easier to deal with our current problem if we don’t keep on bringing in people who add to the problem.

For instance, the controversial Mosque attended by the Boston Bombers had as its founder an immigrant from overseas charged in an assassination plot.

This shooter in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. Why would we admit people who support violent hatred?

Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country who suppress women, gays and anyone who doesn’t share their views.

She can’t have it both ways. She can’t claim to be supportive of these communities while trying to increase the number of people coming in who want to oppress them.

How does this kind of immigration make our life better? How does this kind of immigration make our country better?

Why does Hillary Clinton want to bring people here—in vast numbers—who reject our values?

Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? Clinton wants to allow Radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.

I don’t want them in our country.

Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities.

America has already admitted four times more immigrants than any country on earth, and we continue to admit millions more with no real checks or scrutiny.

Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven’t budged in many years.

So whether it’s matter of national security, or financial security, we can’t afford to keep on going like this. We owe $19 trillion in debt, and no longer have options.

All our communities, from all backgrounds, are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against anyone; it is an act of defense.

I want us all to work together, including in partnership with our Muslim communities. But Muslim communities must cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad – and they do know where they are.

I want to fix our schools, roads, bridges and job market. I want every American to succeed. Hillary Clinton wants to empty out the Treasury to bring people into the country that include individuals who preach hate against our own citizens.

I want to protect our citizens – all of our citizens.

The terrorist attack on the Pulse Night Club demands a full and complete investigation into every aspect of the assault.

In San Bernardino, as an example, people knew what was going on, but they used the excuse of racial profiling for not reporting it.

We need to know what the killer discussed with his relatives, parents, friends and associates.

We need to know if he was affiliated with any radical Mosques or radical activists and what, if any, is their immigration status.

We need to know if he travelled anywhere, and who he travelled with.

We need to make sure every single last person involved in this plan – including anyone who knew something but didn't tell us – is brought to justice.

If it can be proven that somebody had information about any attack, and did not give this information to authorities, they must serve prison time .

America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.

It also means we must change our foreign policy.

The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.

These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.

That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism, not nation-building.

For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.

I've said NATO needs to change its focus to stopping terrorism. Since I've raised that criticism, NATO has since announced a new initiative focused on just that.

America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism, just like we did against communism in the Cold War.

We've tried it President Obama's way. He gave the world his apology tour, we got ISIS, and many other problems, in return.

I'd like to conclude my remarks today by again expressing our solidarity with the people of Orlando who have come under attack.

When I am President, I pledge to protect and defend all Americans who live inside of our borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were born, all Americans living here and following our laws will be protected.

America will be a tolerant and open society.

America will also be a safe society.

We will protect our borders at home.

We will defeat ISIS overseas.

We will ensure every parent can raise their children in peace and safety.

We will make America rich again.

We will make America safe again.

We will make American Great Again.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

@sb247 This seems to be your entire life philosophy summarised in three short sentences.

Ad hominem much? Best way to declare yourself a loser.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Radical anything is a problem. FYI, fascism and the Second World War were fueled by radical Christians in many European countries.

Which radical Christians? Not Catholics. Ask the Polish. And AFAIK Stalin was an atheist, and Hitler pretty much one as well.

 

[lymphocyte]

Ad hominem much? Best way to declare yourself a loser.

That's your substantive contribution? An ad hominem at an ad hominem? Do you even realise what you just declared yourself?

You also missed his line: "I don't have a statistic. I'm also not sure why it would matter. I'm just saying it happens." Seemed like a pretty good zinger considering...

Also, your facts are off:

And our anti-gun president arms their bad guys.

Our pro-gun president armed their bad guys too. Look at when the ATF gunwalking scandal began. It occurred over five years during the Bush and Obama administrations. It honestly looked like a stuff up on the part of the ATF Field Office, not the people way above them in either administration.

Which radical Christians? Not Catholics. Ask the Polish. And AFAIK Stalin was an atheist, and Hitler pretty much one as well.

Hitler's personal views were nuanced, but he was vocally and outwardly Christian. Most Germans certainly thought so as they rallied around him.

 

[chfo]

Gays have come out in record numbers in full support of Donald Trump because of Obama's blatant pandering and ignoring the anti-gay teachings of the Qur'an.

This will spell the end of the Democrats chances in November.

 

[deleted171991]

Which radical Christians? Not Catholics. Ask the Polish. And AFAIK Stalin was an atheist, and Hitler pretty much one as well.

You must be kidding me, right? Why do you think the nazis chose Poland for their extermination camps? Because of the nice Polish Catholics, sure... And Mussolini's guys were excommunicated by the Catholic Church, whose leadership just happened to fraternize, it's all lies... All those people in the Second World War were exterminated like bugs by atheists, right, not by fervent brainwashed haters?

And I said fascists, not nazis. In every occupied or allied European country, the nazis had local thug fascist organizations who were mainly radical Christians. Same as neonazis and European skinheads nowadays.

And just because the leaders were not brainwashed, doesn't mean that the minions weren't/aren't.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

That's your substantive contribution? You missed his line: "I don't have a statistic. I'm also not sure why it would matter. I'm just saying it happens." Seemed like a pretty good zinger considering...

Also, your facts are off:



Our pro-gun president also armed their bad guys. Look at when the ATF gunwalking scandal began. It occurred over five years during the Bush and Obama administrations. It honestly looked like a stuff up on the part of the ATF Field Office, not the people way above them in either administration.



Hitler's personal views were nuanced, but he was vocally and outwardly Christian. Most Germans certainly thought so as they rallied around him.

Geez. Us.

Far be it for you to think someone doesn't need to beat a dead horse to "contribute". You going to try to dictate that part now too?

How are my facts "off"? Obama didn't contribute to fast & furious? Is that what you're saying? I didn't realize Bush was on trial here since he's not the sitting president who makes such a big deal about gun control. And innocent presidents don't evoke executive privilege over documents that come to light. He knew. Stop being such a fanboy, it's embarrassing.

From your Wiki link: "He promoted the idea of God as the creator of Germany, but Hitler "was not a Christian in any accepted meaning of that word." Domarus also points out that Hitler did not believe in organized religion and did not see himself as a religious reformer." Do you even read what you post, bro?

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

You must be kidding me, right? Why do you think the nazis chose Poland for their extermination camps? Because of the nice Polish Catholics, sure...

And I said fascists, not nazis. In every occupied or allied European country, the nazis had local thug fascist organizations who were mainly radical Christians. Same as neonazis and European skinheads nowadays.

And just because the leaders were not brainwashed, doesn't mean that the minions weren't/aren't. Just look at all the haters following Trump.

Naziism is a fantastic fascist ideology. Do you even know how many priests, nuns, etc were sent to their deaths?

I don't think you understand the origin of the skinhead. Hint: it started in the UK and had nothing to do with religion.

You edited your post. Mussolini was never excommunicated. He was an atheist by the time WWII came around. Prior to WWII the Laterat treaty was enacted which gave Mussolini acceptance with the vastly religious Italians and the church found a sovereign home in the Vatican. Mussolini broke the treaty. The church with regards to Italy once they joined the Nazi movement was similar to Switzerland, however Pius was very vocal about his disdain for treatment of clergy and of resistance militia and Jews.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Yeah, that's exactly what all those white supremacists think.

I'm sorry you view the little old lady in Church the same way as you do White Supremacists. But, the truth is one understands that Jesus preached Love, forgiveness, tolerance and the understanding that we are sinful beings vs the other who thinks Jesus was a WASP who hated Jews, Blacks, women and Muslims.

As for myself I know that I fall short of the standard set by God. As an individual I don't hate ISIS or Muslims; in fact, I think most U.S. Muslism are upstanding people. But as a Citizen of the USA I see the threat ISIS poses to this nation and her citizens so our govt. has an obligation to protect us; this means our secular govt. should utterly destroy ISIS.

White Supremacists are a stain on this nation and do not advance the cause they seek to promote.

 

[lymphocyte]

Geez. Us.

From your Wiki link: "He promoted the idea of God as the creator of Germany, but Hitler "was not a Christian in any accepted meaning of that word." Domarus also points out that Hitler did not believe in organized religion and did not see himself as a religious reformer." Do you even read what you post, bro?

Yes, I did. That's I why specifically used the words "vocally" and "outwardly" and not "personally," which I acknowledged were "nuanced." It's a bit hard to converse when I almost literally have to re-quote every word I used...

 

[deleted171991]

Naziism is a fantastic fascist ideology. Do you even know how many priests, nuns, etc were sent to their deaths?

I don't think you understand the origin of the skinhead. Hint: it started in the UK and had nothing to do with religion.

Yeah, I am just a stupid European who needs an American to teach me the history and mentalities of my native continent.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

What a leap. "Unwell" and requiring "stabilisation" and "further review" in the context of mental illness usually refers to manic or depressive bipolar, florid psychosis, etc. It doesn't usually mean uncontrolled ADHD, and I believe you know better than that.

Surely you trust the justice system to deprive people of their personal liberty? Or does your nihilistism extend that far as well? Do you trust due process in any venue? If so, why wouldn't that same trust in due process extend to this kind of deprivation, when guns are at stake?

You seem to think the government is One Static Thing. What a thoroughly bizarre idea.

Yes, it was the government that locked people in Cuba. It is now the government that is fighting to get those people out of Cuba; the government that heroically released the Torture Memo; the government that refused to defend DOMA... the government is not monolithic. It's a heterogenous, dynamic entity with competing ideas and ideals, with heros and villians and meddling bureaucrats, with victories and defeats, and with three more or less co-equal branches. Outrageous competence saved the US auto industry. Outrageous incompetence led us into Iraq without a coherent exit strategy. We do the best we can, and we move on. That's how politics works in a large, civil, democratic society where most people disagree with each other.

And I think we'll forever disagree on this point: the guy was interviewed twice by the FBI, had all the risk factors, publically declared that he was going to kill Americans, and wanted to buy an AR-15... I'm gonna say that was pretty preventable.

Finally, my first gun was a Ruger 44 Carbine. I know exactly what a semi-automatic rifle is. This wacko shouldn't have been able to buy one (let alone an AR).

And as I said previously, Axis 1 disorders don't usually do this type of stuff - too disorganized. Its the Axis 2 patients that end up causing problems, but they don't declare themselves until its often too late. Seriously, ask any psychiatrist if they think requiring psych evals prior to gun ownership is a good idea or even if they have a good history of predicting who among the mentally ill is likely to go do things like this.

I trust the justice system when its done openly (ie. trials, with or without juries). Most of us are OK with certain criminal convictions making it impossible to own a firearm. What I'm not OK with is some government list that precludes you being able to do so. People (like the President) point to the no-fly list and say things like "We wouldn't have allowed so-and-so on a plane but we can't stop him from buying a gun" which is why I brought up examples of completely innocent men ending up on that list (and trying for years to get off of it) or in Gitmo.

I absolutely don't think the government is one static thing, I think its made up of people who are either notoriously pretty bad at their jobs or just don't care. I trust them with as little as possible because history has taught me not to trust them. I'll give you an example. 1 year ago I set up my office. I went to the department of insurance, through my lawyer, to get their permission to set up my practice as a concierge membership model. They said it was fine and to have fun. 8 months later another doctor, using my same lawyer and the EXACT SAME business model/plan (down to our prices being identical) went to the same department and was told she couldn't do it because it constituted insurance. I almost had to shut down my practice because some bureaucrat changed their mind for no apparent reason.

When did the shooter publicly say he was going to kill Americans? He pledged allegiance to ISIS during a 911 call during the shooting, but I can't see anything about saying he was going to kill people prior to the shooting or even anything about ISIS prior to the event.

 

[lymphocyte]

And as I said previously, Axis 1 disorders don't usually do this type of stuff - too disorganized. Its the Axis 2 patients that end up causing problems, but they don't declare themselves until its often too late. Seriously, ask any psychiatrist if they think requiring psych evals prior to gun ownership is a good idea or even if they have a good history of predicting who among the mentally ill is likely to go do things like this.

I trust the justice system when its done openly (ie. trials, with or without juries). Most of us are OK with certain criminal convictions making it impossible to own a firearm. What I'm not OK with is some government list that precludes you being able to do so. People (like the President) point to the no-fly list and say things like "We wouldn't have allowed so-and-so on a plane but we can't stop him from buying a gun" which is why I brought up examples of completely innocent men ending up on that list (and trying for years to get off of it) or in Gitmo.

I absolutely don't think the government is one static thing, I think its made up of people who are either notoriously pretty bad at their jobs or just don't care. I trust them with as little as possible because history has taught me not to trust them. I'll give you an example. 1 year ago I set up my office. I went to the department of insurance, through my lawyer, to get their permission to set up my practice as a concierge membership model. They said it was fine and to have fun. 8 months later another doctor, using my same lawyer and the EXACT SAME business model/plan (down to our prices being identical) went to the same department and was told she couldn't do it because it constituted insurance. I almost had to shut down my practice because some bureaucrat changed their mind for no apparent reason.

When did the shooter publicly say he was going to kill Americans? He pledged allegiance to ISIS during a 911 call during the shooting, but I can't see anything about saying he was going to kill people prior to the shooting or even anything about ISIS prior to the event.

I believe this was cited in the WaPo article earlier posted and what prompted the original FBI interviews.

You make fair points and I see where you're coming from.

"Some list" would be created under due process with likely access to recourse under Heller and McDonald. The courts just don't view air travel in the same way as gun rights. They've acknowledged that gun rights are "fundamental" in way that air travel isn't.

I just think we could have done a much better job than we did for the reasons previously mentioned...

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Yeah, I am just a stupid European who needs an American to teach me the history and mentalities of my native continent.

There were a lot of truly Christian heroes in World War II, they were just not the rule. And there is still a ton of intolerance and hate in Europe.

I'm not calling you stupid. There are American history facts I don't remember. I am aware of he intolerance. It's not unique to this side of the globe.

 

[deleted171991]

I'm not calling you stupid. There are American history facts I don't remember. I am aware of he intolerance. It's not unique to this side of the globe.

Oh, you have no idea. Seriously. If you think we have intolerance in America, you ain't seen nothing. The average American is ten times more tolerant than the average European.

Europe is just a nice facade with a ton of hate behind. Just wait for the next big recession.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Yes, I did fellow bro-loser. That's I why specifically used the words "vocally" and "outwardly" and not "personally," which I acknowledged were "nuanced." It's a bit hard to converse when I almost literally have to re-quote every word I used...

Someone is mighty full of themselves. And I know it's hard to believe, but not everyone that posts here is a bro, bro.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Oh, you have no idea. Seriously. If you think we have intolerance in America, you ain't seen nothing.

I have lived and worked abroad. Traveled a little too. Not the same as living it like you have, but a taste.

 

[lymphocyte]

Someone is mighty full of themselves. And I know it's hard to believe, but not everyone that posts here is a bro, bro.

Sorry, but you called me a bro initially? ...

But I suppose our bro-ship has sadly ended.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Let's get back on topic here:

1. The GOP, of which I am a member, will never support any type of gun ban period.
2. Hillary and her soon to be liberal SCOTUS appointee (assuming she wins) will likely agree to let States and Cities restrict guns, assualt rifles, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see SCOTUS banning assault weapons from the bench in 2018.
3. ISIS type attacks will never cease until ISIS is destroyed. ISIS is a far worse threat than any other radical jihad organization. They have money, oil, territory and supporters throughout the USA. The very least we should do is take away their territory and money making it much harder to run their operations.
4. As a free nation with liberal gun laws (which I support) we are likely to have more shootings from nut jobs like this attacker.
5. Christians don't hate Gays anymore than they hate adulterers, thieves, etc. It's the sin we are supposed to hate and not the sinner.
6. Finally, I am a sinner and fully acknowledge that I don't measure up to the high standards of J.C.

Peace to all and my prayers to those injured in the Orlando Massacre.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Sorry, but you called me a bro initially? ...

But I suppose our bro-ship has sadly ended.

Machismo is going to get a bro.

 

[deleted171991]

I have lived and worked abroad. Traveled a little too. Not the same as living it like you have, but a taste.

Sorry, I did not try to belittle your knowledge or experience. I am just trying to say that you don't know a people until you are part of them (not just a foreigner). And Europeans seem very nice and not much different, until you remember their history and what they do, and who they hate based on their national histories. And that's OK, nobody's perfect, as long as they don't try to rewrite history.

There are very few countries in the world that truly cherish diversity and tolerance. You could count them on one hand. Hint: they all have big national immigration programs.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Sorry, I did not try to belittle your knowledge or experience. I am just trying to say that you don't know a people until you are part of them (not just a foreigner).

I became a permanent resident. But even still, not the same. I didn't stay for a super long time.

 

[deleted171991]

Let's get back on topic here:

1. The GOP, of which I am a member, will never support any type of gun ban period.
2. Hillary and her soon to be liberal SCOTUS appointee (assuming she wins) will likely agree to let States and Cities restrict guns, assualt rifles, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see SCOTUS banning assault weapons from the bench in 2018.
3. ISIS type attacks will never cease until ISIS is destroyed. ISIS is a far worse threat than any other radical jihad organization. They have money, oil, territory and supporters throughout the USA. The very least we should do is take away their territory and money making it much harder to run their operations.
4. As a free nation with liberal gun laws (which I support) we are likely to have more shootings from nut jobs like this attacker.
5. Christians don't hate Gays anymore than they hate adulterers, thieves, etc. It's the sin we are supposed to hate and not the sinner.
6. Finally, I am a sinner and fully acknowledge that I don't measure up to the high standards of J.C.

Peace to all and my prayers to those injured in the Orlando Massacre.

And when ISIS is destroyed, and there is no Muslim or illegal immigrant left in the United States, somebody will invent another scary figure to hate and rally the electorate around.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

[BLADEMDA]

And when ISIS is destroyed, somebody will invent another scary figure to hate and rally the electorate around.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

We created ISIS; they are former SUNNI Muslims displaced from Iraq. We chose to invade Iraq and caused the nation to splinter. We then chose to NOT leave any troops behind to maintain the security of the nation which is bitterly divided along religious lines. ISIS is our fault and we must accept responsibility for its creation. Now, do we own up to the problem or just ignore it?

So, the "next scary figure" is probably a reality down the road but ISIS is on us.

FYI, I never supported sending a single soldier into Iraq; I even questioned the Wisdom of the Afghan campaign knowing full well the Russians had failed there decades before. Instead, we must wage a "hit and leave" type war against these jihadists rather than nation build.

 

[deleted171991]

We created ISIS; they are former SUNNI Muslims displaced from Iraq. We chose to invade Iraq and caused the nation to splinter. We then chose to NOT leave any troops behind to maintain the security of the nation which is bitterly divided along religious lines. ISIS is our fault and we must accept responsibility for its creation. Now, do we own up to the problem or just ignore it?

So, the "next scary figure" is probably a reality down the road but ISIS is on us.

What I am saying is that there will always be a Boogeyman.

Regarding ISIS, that's just another label, or container for the same fluid: religious hate. As long as there will be brainwashed people blindly believing in some sacred text, there will be hate and religious conflicts. Descartes and modern scientific education are not a favorite of any religious organization.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Got to love Texas:

http://public.tableau.com/views/Hea...:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y

 

[drmwvr]

Radical anything is a problem. FYI, fascism and the Second World War were fueled by radical Christians in many European countries.

Big difference between a person that can self identify as a member of a particular faith that then acts despite that faith and someone who acts because of it. Radical Christians give up their lives and live totally for others to such a degree as to be a contradiction to the worldly convention of material pursuit. Not aware of any of those people starting a war.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Oh, you have no idea. Seriously. If you think we have intolerance in America, you ain't seen nothing. The average American is ten times more tolerant than the average European.

Europe is just a nice facade with a ton of hate behind. Just wait for the next big recession.

Anyone who thinks Europeans are more tolerant than Americans obviously doesn't follow international soccer. It's gotten better in recent years but some of the stuff that happened in/around stadiums would never be tolerated in the US. There are no geographical boundaries on hatred, nor is it going away any time soon.

Don't really have a whole lot to add to the thread, other than that I don't think our only options are "Wild West" or"1984," though I realize that is what ideological arguments devolve into.

Also, down with ****ty memes.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

So you don't actually propose a ban of citizens with no convictions from buying semi-automatic firearms?

Nick Offerman is freakin great

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

View attachment 205056
Nick Offerman is freakin great

I know when I'm looking to make decisions or validations about my life, actors are the first people I look to. Especially for vaccines.

 

[deleted480308]

View attachment 205056
Nick Offerman is freakin great

He's wrong. Guns are how you let the good guys fight back agaisnt the bad guys. A bad guy with a gun goes attacking people and the first thing we do is call 911 and get some good guys with guns. I'm not interested in being defenseless while the good guy drives across town to bring enough guns to stop the bad guys. My family is ultimately my responsibility to protect and I'm not abdicating that because others don't grasp the severity of the threats out there in the world.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I know when I'm looking to make decisions or validations about my life, actors are the first people I look to. Especially for vaccines.

I'm not sure how he's wrong, no matter who he is. But that's you're prerogative.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

He's wrong. Guns are how you let the good guys fight back agaisnt the bad guys. A bad guy with a gun goes attacking people and the first thing we do is call 911 and get some good guys with guns. I'm not interested in being defenseless while the good guy drives across town to bring enough guns to stop the bad guys. My family is ultimately my responsibility to protect and I'm not abdicating that because others don't grasp the severity of the threats out there in the world.

You're making his point. He didn't say anything about taking anyone's guns, but definitely, your defensive reply indicates that's what you heard.