Orlando Gay nightclub terrorist attack leaves 50 dead

[dbair1967]

With 10,000 open terror investigations ongoing right now, law enforcement is stretched thin. A halt to catch up makes sense

Wow, they are up to that many now?

 

[NoMoRedJ]

The "process" has become untenable.

 

[Bluenoser]

You can get an AR-15 in Canada but you can't having a clip over 5 rounds. To me that seems reasonable. I'm not for banning guns but maybe change the process up for how you can get certain guns, example 1-2 week waiting period, some kind of background check. (Someone that was being looked at by the FBI for being radical shouldn't be able to go buy a gun just like that.)

 

[dbair1967]

some kind of background check. (Someone that was being looked at by the FBI for being radical shouldn't be able to go buy a gun just like that.)

We already have background checks.

And the question the media seems to be avoiding is why (and on who's authority) was the Orlando guy taken off the terror watch list. Dooms alluded to this earlier in this thread I believe.

 

[onlyonenow]

We already have background checks.

And the question the media seems to be avoiding is why (and on who's authority) was the Orlando guy taken off the terror watch list. Dooms alluded to this earlier in this thread I believe.

he was taken off the list because he was a muslim and working for a Homeland Security contractor.

now which of those had more to do with it would be an interesting question.

one problem with the list is look at some of the people who have been on it at one time or another:

Ted Kennedy
an 8 year old boy for like 3 years

and so on.

those lists are basically lists of people that for one reason or another someone has some suspicions about. And that is all- suspicion.

so should you lose a constitutional right on a SUSPICION?

 

[NoMoRedJ]

so should you lose a constitutional right on a SUSPICION?

If you're a towel head? Yes

If you're from any muslim country? Yes

If you look middle eastern? Yes

If you attend a mosque? Yes

Why? Because ALL muslims are primarily concerned with advancing islam in every part of the world and jihad, or whatever it takes is just fine with ALL of them. Anybody non muslim isnt even worthy of hearing the truth in their religion/world view. Actually islam isnt a religion. Its a form of govt.

Look at the mess the towel heads have made of Europe. They dont want a better way of life nor do they want to assimilate into any culture or society but their own. Their goal is world dominance. They are barbaric nasty people.

Personally I think Trump while better than others on the rhetoric is not going far enough. They should all be rounded up and sent packing. Get them outta here and make islam illegal in any way shape or form in the USA. Any adherence to it should bring the death penalty. If it isnt eradicated completely it will always be a problem.

 

[ZeroClub]

As a wise man once said, Ill shove the bottle up your ass and my ass fucker.

 

[Iamtdg]

I agree, a bar isn't the best place to have a loaded weapon, but my point remains.

These cowards only pull this shit where the least resistance is possible.

And the liberal politicians that spend their time trying to convince their sheep that guns are bad, well not too far from where they stand when they say this shit, there are heavily armed people who are paid to keep them from being killed by crazy people that have guns.

So I say this, until the government wants to provide every citizen with an equal security outfit, they can go fuck themselves with a thousand dildos dipped in glue, glass, and AIDS blood.

 

[Hoofbite]

I disagree; it's the primary thing we should be discussing because if we don't admit or acknowledge that these folks shouldn't be here, then we'll continue to allow them in like the Syrian refugees.

It's not too late when we continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. This should be another wake up call but it won't be.

So we should just continue down the same path? Is that your answer? Our immigration policy hasn't worked. Our current environment and situation should dictate a response and it should start with securing our borders and keeping people from high risk countries and religions from entering this country. And that's just a good start.

No, that is not my answer. I just don't think closing immigration and building a wall does anything.

I'm not even sure how anyone can. Closing immigration doesn't do anything to stop people who are currently immigrating illegally. They've already moved beyond giving a shit about what the law says on the matter. Building a wall won't work unless there is someone there to prevent people from finding ways around, over, or through that wall. Walls can be bypassed. Since the invention of the ladder, getting on top of high shit has been pretty easy.

I don't have the answer. If the problem was easy enough for every random person to solve, it wouldn't be a problem. That said, there are things that I can say won't work. Like when treating cancer, I don't have the cure but I can tell you that fruit juice and prayer isn't it.

 

[Hoofbite]

So....you can kill a lot of people in public places? Is that the pattern?

Pretty sure there were plenty of guns at Ft. Hood, Boston, and Madrid. Plenty of police at all of those locations. This aside from the fact that nothing would have been prevented in Boston or Madrid even if every person there had a gun. Not unless gun bestowed X-ray vision upon people so they could identify bombs hidden in bags.

This is an honest question, but how many people would have even been carrying in any of the gun free zones if it were permissible? I think this argument greatly exaggerates the number of people who would carry if they could. I mean, if a police presence by itself isn't enough, what percentage of people would need to carry in order to stop these attacks? Seems to me that if a short response time like you would expect at a military base, airport/subway station, or during an event like the Boston Marathon isn't enough then you would need nearly 100% participation to actually stop these events from getting out of control.

 

[Iamtdg]

So....you can kill a lot of people in public places? Is that the pattern?

Pretty sure there were plenty of guns at Ft. Hood, Boston, and Madrid. Plenty of police at all of those locations. This aside from the fact that nothing would have been prevented in Boston or Madrid even if every person there had a gun. Not unless gun bestowed X-ray vision upon people so they could identify bombs hidden in bags.

This is an honest question, but how many people would have even been carrying in any of the gun free zones if it were permissible? I think this argument greatly exaggerates the number of people who would carry if they could. I mean, if a police presence by itself isn't enough, what percentage of people would need to carry in order to stop these attacks? Seems to me that if a short response time like you would expect at a military base, airport/subway station, or during an event like the Boston Marathon isn't enough then you would need nearly 100% participation to actually stop these events from getting out of control.

The point is, you can make all the laws you want concerning guns, but the criminals aren't going to abide by them. Also, the ones intending harm are choosing gun free zones because of the lack of resistance these places inherently present. In turn proving that the more guns present, the less chance of people shooting places up.

 

[Hoofbite]

The point is, you can make all the laws you want concerning guns, but the criminals aren't going to abide by them. Also, the ones intending harm are choosing gun free zones because of the lack of resistance these places inherently present. In turn proving that the more guns present, the less chance of people shooting places up.

Not sure it proves anything. They choose places with a large number of people. How many of such places allow guns? I'd wager it'd be a minority. I guess maybe if there were a comparable number of places that hosted large populations and allowed guns and it was only the gun free locations that were being shot up we could say something about the relationship.

Pretty obvious the number of people present is the key factor. Past experience with said location also seems to play a role and there's nothing that says either of these would be superseded by the presence of guns. I mean, whats the deterrent? Most are killing themselves anyway so it's hard to imagine injury to self being a big road block for these guys. The only real positive is the ideal possibility that a gunman would be neutralized before killing as many people as he otherwise would have. Comes with no guarantee and additional risks of course.

But back to my question. If the presence of guns at an airport, massive public event, or even the nightclub in Orlando couldn't deter or minimize the casualties, what is the prerequisite percentage of persons carrying that would be needed to prevent such an attack? I believe it would have to be very high. Is such a percentage realistic?

 

[Sheik]

I think the point is, at least in my mind's eye, none of these attacks are STOPPED until a gun is firing back at these pieces of shit.

Stopping these attacks and preventing these attacks are two extremely different discussions to be had.

Preventing attacks, I'm not even sure our current President is interested in doing that. I'm anxious to read a book called "See Something, Say Nothing.", from what I can gather, the guy that wrote it was in charge of seeking out and identifying terrorist networks. He supposedly retired from his post when he was told by his superiors that on order from POTUS, he was to delete all the information he had gathered on ANY potential terror suspects and the groups they were affiliated with.

He said he was literally erasing all the info he had on a major attack and the attacker while he was listening to the white house press sec. tell the media gaggle that they had no such information prior to that particular attack.

Now, I don't know how much of that I believe, I heard it on Hannity in passing last week, but if any of it is true, something doesn't pass the smell test with that.

It seems like something this administration would do. The way he explained it, the administration wanted all the information on terror suspects deleted so that if anything ever came up, there was nothing to compare notes with. Weird conspiracy-like shit. IDK.

 

[Sheik]

I'm still blown away that gun control is the only thing people want to talk about after incidents like this.

Let's shelve that conversation until a gun law or lack thereof is actually to blame.

It's so weak go for the easy target that is guns and gun owners, all the while this problem with extremist muslims is staring us all right in the face. Show me a peaceful muslim that believes sharia law, I'll show you a Muslim that believes being gay is punishable by being put to death.

These fuckers are foul.

Time for the left to put their money where their mouth is. Stand up for the people you pander to, in this case the LGBT crowd. Stand up and tell these Muslims, in this country, being gay is not a crime. This country owes it's guests not a fucking thing. Fuck a Muslim's feelings.

 

[Midswat]

911 transcript will have references to Islamic Terrorism edited out.



In an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage.

"What we're not going to do is further proclaim this man's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda," Lynch said. "We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State]."

The Washington Post reported last week that the gunman made multiple phone calls while holding hostages: "The gunman who opened fire inside a nightclub here said he carried out the attack because he wanted 'Americans to stop bombing his country,' according to a witness who survived the rampage."

Salon reported that: “Everybody who was in the bathroom who survived could hear him talking to 911, saying the reason why he’s doing this is because he wanted America to stop bombing his country."

The Washington Post also noted that during his 911 call from the club, the gunman referenced the Boston Marathon bombers and claimed "that he carried out the shooting to prevent bombings, [echoing] a message the younger Boston attacker had scrawled in a note before he was taken into custody by police."

 

[NoMoRedJ]

I think the point is, at least in my mind's eye, none of these attacks are STOPPED until a gun is firing back at these pieces of shit.

Stopping these attacks and preventing these attacks are two extremely different discussions to be had.

Preventing attacks, I'm not even sure our current President is interested in doing that. I'm anxious to read a book called "See Something, Say Nothing.", from what I can gather, the guy that wrote it was in charge of seeking out and identifying terrorist networks. He supposedly retired from his post when he was told by his superiors that on order from POTUS, he was to delete all the information he had gathered on ANY potential terror suspects and the groups they were affiliated with.

He said he was literally erasing all the info he had on a major attack and the attacker while he was listening to the white house press sec. tell the media gaggle that they had no such information prior to that particular attack.

Now, I don't know how much of that I believe, I heard it on Hannity in passing last week, but if any of it is true, something doesn't pass the smell test with that.

It seems like something this administration would do. The way he explained it, the administration wanted all the information on terror suspects deleted so that if anything ever came up, there was nothing to compare notes with. Weird conspiracy-like shit. IDK.

I really dont know if Onumnuts is just a liberal in denial of reality, or if he is really a muslim or muslim sympathizer. An argument can be made for either or both.

Since liberals are fools and live in denial of reality while trying to live in a perceived reality they desire its possible he's following his foolish liberal ways. But he could be a closet muslim. Or at the very least a muslim sympathizer. He's obviously for all intents and purposes a "leader" with little bb sized nads, if he even has any.

There is no such thing as a good muslim. They just dont exist. You wanna know what muslims believe and how they think? You dont ask a muslim, they wont tell you the truth. You listen to what former muslims say. You listen to somebody that was a muslim but is one no longer, somebody who has converted to Christianity. And what will they tell you? That EVERY muslim wants to see the entire world completely dominated by islam. Thats the goal. And while all of them might not be willing to be a terrorist, they ALL approve of it. They are taught from a young age to hate non muslims. Taught to view non muslims as infidels, or as POS'. Taught that all non muslims are worthy of death, it what infidels deserve for being an infidel. Taught that ANYTHING that advances islam is a good thing and if lying to an infidel helps the cause, then its honorable to lie in that situation. Infidels arent deserving or worthy of hearing the truth, thus they arent owed the truth.

Muslims are vial barbaric people. They treat women like garbage. They treat gays like garbage and certainly see them all worthy of death. They are intolerant. Yet you have liberals proclaiming islam as a peace loving religion while at the same time hating Christianity because of the morality of the Bible that has been around for centuries and accepted as right and true. Ironically, Christianity was what spurred a better treatment of women centuries ago while the rest of the world treated them poorly. Christianity says all people are created equal, and equally valuable. Christianity says to love your neighbor as yourself, and to serve others and put the interest of others above the interests of yourself. But Christianity has a clear set of moral values and accountability that the liberals just cant stand. So liberals defend and dont want to hurt the feeling of muslims, while at the same time demonstrating a vial and open hatred for virtuous things and decency because of Christianity's morals. Oh the irony.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

911 transcript will have references to Islamic Terrorism edited out.



In an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage.

Unfuckingbelievable... But I guess it isn't with Lynch and this administration.

People are worried about the second amendment... I'm worried about the first amendment. Many of the powers that be right now would love for us to be like Sweden and other Euro countries where it's illegal to even speak ill of certain groups.

 

[peplaw06]

I'd love to see a list of those.

Meanwhile counselor, I hope you can weigh in on the argument about no-fly and/or terror list people not being able to make firearm purchases. I am arguing this is unconstitutional because you are conflating a right - 2nd amendment - with non rights. (Flight and to not be on terror watch list.) Neither of the two lists require any due process to get placed on. Seems that if you then attach a right to that, you're taking that right away without due process, or in the case of these lists - without even being informed of it or a chance to appeal. It's the same as saying that all who have invalid or suspended driver licenses, can't purchase firearms.

Anyhow I'd like your learned opinion on this please.

I agree that such purchases made when on either list, should be automatically FLAGGED, but not disallowed on the basis of being on one of these lists.

I absolutely think depriving anyone of their constitutional rights without due process would be the beginning of the end of our country. Trey Gowdy had a line of questioning on one of the witnesses testifying at Congress the other day, and he was 100% correct. What other rights, ones that are in the BILL OF RIGHTS, can be deprived simply because the government puts you on a list, which you can't realistically challenge or get off of? Can they take away your right to free speech? If you make the terror watch list, can they just ransack your home looking for evidence? Can they compel you to testify against yourself, and if you refuse, then you're automatically guilty?

It's unbelievable that they want to push this through, and they filibuster for 14 hours or whatever demanding we strip people of their Constitutional rights.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

I absolutely think depriving anyone of their constitutional rights without due process would be the beginning of the end of our country. Trey Gowdy had a line of questioning on one of the witnesses testifying at Congress the other day, and he was 100% correct. What other rights, ones that are in the BILL OF RIGHTS, can be deprived simply because the government puts you on a list, which you can't realistically challenge or get off of? Can they take away your right to free speech? If you make the terror watch list, can they just ransack your home looking for evidence? Can they compel you to testify against yourself, and if you refuse, then you're automatically guilty?

It's unbelievable that they want to push this through, and they filibuster for 14 hours or whatever demanding we strip people of their Constitutional rights.

Does anybody really think we still have the right to free speech anymore? Its given lip service too, but in practice individuals dont really have it unless its PC speak.

 

[onlyonenow]

the reality is that the liberals do not recognize that its a RIGHT. Therefore they can strip it of anyone they want whenever they want. They figure that Hilary will appoint a liberal that will see to it that the Supreme Court reverses Heller. So they just figure to get a jump on further denying rights to anyone they don't like.