Horrible - 50+ dead in Orlando nightclub shooting spree

[PedroDaGr8]

I'm not privy to the deep secrets of NICS, but afaik being on the watch list isn't a known legal reason for denial. It may be in the NICS database, but if it is it's a secret, and the law hasn't been changed to make it that way. The reasons for denial are specified in the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended, and would need an act of Congress presumably to change the criteria.

BTW, i wholeheartedly support such a change.

You support banning people on the Terrorist Watch list from owning guns or am I misunderstanding you? This list which has been almost as problematic as the No-Fly List (we all know the problems here), Sexual Predator Lists (there is no way that someone who took a piss in the bushes deserves the same treatment as someone that raped a kid), and others? Just recently I read an article about a family trying to get their three year old removed from the Terrorist Watch List. Considering, this administration, and the lasts, proclivity to label people that disagree with the government as terrorists I just can't agree with the idea of using this faulty list as a reason to bar someone from a fundamental right.

[suncat05]

The guy worked for the Geo Group, which has domestic and international security contracts in a lot of places. To get those D & G licenses he had to pass some kind of background check. And he was a native born American anyway, not foreign born as first reported. But to get that job and qualify for any clearances he would have had to go through some trainings that are federally, state and company mandated. So of course he was qualified to own and buy any commercially available firearms.
As far as being on or not being on any watch lists, in that regard, he was not currently on any list, but possibly had been prior. Cause for concern, absolutely. But if he wasn't deemed a threat, then life goes on. Of course, as I stated before, and have said many times here, the U.S. government is not concerned with OUR SAFETY AS AMERICANS so much as they are with protecting guys like this. Under this current administration our safety means nothing, while we bring in thousands and thousands of unvetted people from the Middle East under the guise of them supposedly seeking refuge from terrorists.
But hey, what do we know? We're just the Americans that this Islamists jihadi trash wants to kill while our own government looks the other way.

[CitizenBBN]

You support banning people on the Terrorist Watch list from owning guns or am I misunderstanding you? This list which has been almost as problematic as the No-Fly List (we all know the problems here), Sexual Predator Lists (there is no way that someone who took a piss in the bushes deserves the same treatment as someone that raped a kid), and others? Just recently I read an article about a family trying to get their three year old removed from the Terrorist Watch List. Considering, this administration, and the lasts, proclivity to label people that disagree with the government as terrorists I just can't agree with the idea of using this faulty list as a reason to bar someone from a fundamental right.

yes the list is flawed and my choice would be to create a separate list that is maintained with an actual gatekeeper in the judicial system and those people on that list are deemed too high risk to purchase firearms.

is it 100% fair in that sense? No, but the current preclusion based on domestic violence also has a lot of problems with it, but we've decided that it's better to deal with those flaws than to allow people who may be domestic abusers direct purchase access to firearms.

Now, do I think it will make much difference? ONLY if ATF/FBI gets their act together and uses the instant background check system properly. Specifically, when someone who is on that list goes to try to get a firearm that should set off a red siren somewhere and they need to go and directly investigate that person. Right now when felons try to buy a gun and get flagged by NICS there is no action taken to pursue that person, despite the fact that they almost assuredly just committed another felony by lying on the 4473 form.

In my view a person would be adjudicated not of a crime but of "ties to a terror organization" or some such, and if so adjudicated yes they are on the list and are restricted in several ways. yes that's a dangerous path to walk, but the only two alternatives are to a) live with this kind of ongoing terrorism in the US as there are no doubt tens of thousands of radicalized people living in the country, or b) make such associations a full blown crime and start trampling a whole lot more of the Bill of Rights.

We had the same basic problem with the 1950s Communist movement, but the difference was that while being a Communist might be seen as subversive, they weren't murdering people in cold blood. There's no basis to take away someone's Constitutional rights b/c they are a Communist, but I'm starting to seriously question it for those tied to this radical movement.

This guy apparently spewed this hate filled crap for a while, people knew about it, he would have already been disqualified had his first wife reported her abuse, his dad apparently thinks he's the rightful ruler of Afghanistan. Maybe we need to start looking at what we allow someone with that world view to do.

I agree it's disturbing, but we have no vehicle for deporting US born citizens with these proclivities either, and that's exactly what we'd do if they were foreign nationals.

Trump is wrong for wanting to ban all Muslims, but he's not wrong to highlight the fact that we have a real threat here and one that is not easily identified and thus will slip through the cracks in our current system with relative impunity.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW, you are a restricted person for gun purchases even if you have a restraining order against you. At one time those were tough to get, but now judges hand them out with great regularity and without much due process. A woman can make that claim and get a restraining order on just about anyone, and boom your guns are gone.

So we already have ares in which the bar is pretty low and devoid of an actual conviction. that's not all good, and I hate those policy slippery slopes, but that is where the laws stand as of now.

[UKHistory]

The guy worked for the Geo Group, which has domestic and international security contracts in a lot of places. To get those D & G licenses he had to pass some kind of background check. And he was a native born American anyway, not foreign born as first reported. But to get that job and qualify for any clearances he would have had to go through some trainings that are federally, state and company mandated. So of course he was qualified to own and buy any commercially available firearms.
As far as being on or not being on any watch lists, in that regard, he was not currently on any list, but possibly had been prior. Cause for concern, absolutely. But if he wasn't deemed a threat, then life goes on. Of course, as I stated before, and have said many times here, the U.S. government is not concerned with OUR SAFETY AS AMERICANS so much as they are with protecting guys like this. Under this current administration our safety means nothing, while we bring in thousands and thousands of unvetted people from the Middle East under the guise of them supposedly seeking refuge from terrorists.
But hey, what do we know? We're just the Americans that this Islamists jihadi trash wants to kill while our own government looks the other way.

Not just the Middle East. During the Bosnian crisis of the mid 1990s, many, many Muslims came to this country.

[CitizenBBN]

Pedro, there's also one other angle to this.

If we don't do something, there will be more and more pressure to start banning classes of guns and taking other actions, and that will restrict the rights of ALL Americans b/c we aren't willing to examine restricting the rights of people who have shown to be a high risk to others through their radical beliefs and associations.

I'm not keen on either outcome, but in an imperfect world I'm not sure what else we do to address it. I seriously doubt people will simply accept these kinds of incidents without some kind of action on the part of the government to prevent them, and that action could end up being a lot worse for our rights than the option I outlined.

[Catonahottinroof]

What I find laughable is that banning of this weapon would have prevented this. McVeigh used fertilizer, the 9/11 crew used box cutters and someone who is about to commit capital murder as many times as he can is not going to comply with a gun law, or any other law between him and his criminal objective.

[Doc]

This nutjob graduated from Martin County HS which is a block from my office. My son is districted for that school but we send him to another school. He has a 4 year old child (the shooter, not my son).

As stated above, the GOP and gun advocates need to just shut up on this one for now and let Obama and crew shoot themselves in the foot for now (no pun intended). Let them go with the "gun argument" for a few days then make them look stupid because this isn't a gun issue. They want it to be one because it take the message away from the real issue which is terrorism, something Obama is woefully inadequately addressed. Let the left spend energy politicizing this about gun control then counter punch with terrorism because THAT is the issue. Making this a gun issue falls into their trap.......again.

Additionally, the GOP should use this as a means to reach out to the gay community in an election year.

[Doc]

What I find laughable is that banning of this weapon would have prevented this. McVeigh used fertilizer, the 9/11 crew used box cutters and someone who is about to commit capital murder as many times as he can is not going to comply with a gun law, or any other law between him and his criminal objective.

Exactly, which is why is isn't a gun issue. Its a terrorism issue.

[Doc]

You support banning people on the Terrorist Watch list from owning guns or am I misunderstanding you? This list which has been almost as problematic as the No-Fly List (we all know the problems here), Sexual Predator Lists (there is no way that someone who took a piss in the bushes deserves the same treatment as someone that raped a kid), and others? Just recently I read an article about a family trying to get their three year old removed from the Terrorist Watch List. Considering, this administration, and the lasts, proclivity to label people that disagree with the government as terrorists I just can't agree with the idea of using this faulty list as a reason to bar someone from a fundamental right.

Unfortunately you are giving examples of government screwups rather than the norms.

[KeithKSR]

As one with Libertarian leanings I am not for the restricting of rights of others as a general rule. The problem with the DHS lists is that it is too easy for government Abuse to occur. Obama considers all right wing conservatives to be extremists. I could easily see him abusing a law that would disqualify those that appear on any kind of list from gun ownership.

[KeithKSR]

BTW, watching the news last night one of the idiot Dems (Congressman from Florida?) made an absurd comment that Mateen used an automatic weapon that fired 700 rounds in a minute. That rate of fire with 34 mag swaps, if using 20 round mags, isn't possible.

Another idiot said that the semiautomatic AR-15 is easily convertible to full auto, you just have to google to get easy instructions. The M-16 isn't full auto to begin with, and the internals aren't all that similar.

Idiots confuse the masses who are ignorant and deceive them.

[CitizenBBN]

As one with Libertarian leanings I am not for the restricting of rights of others as a general rule. The problem with the DHS lists is that it is too easy for government Abuse to occur. Obama considers all right wing conservatives to be extremists. I could easily see him abusing a law that would disqualify those that appear on any kind of list from gun ownership.

Like I said I'd want the list to be nothing more than a list of people adjudicated as a threat, not put there by bureaucrats. I'm not keen on it even then, but I'm not sure what else we do.

Do we expand the laws to basically bring back the terrorist version of sedition as a crime? The problem is these people aren't guilty of anything till they go out and kill a bunch of people. That's true of any criminal though, and then we're back to just living with these attacks.

I'm completely open to suggestions, b/c I don't really like any of mine.

[PedroDaGr8]

yes the list is flawed and my choice would be to create a separate list that is maintained with an actual gatekeeper in the judicial system and those people on that list are deemed too high risk to purchase firearms.

is it 100% fair in that sense? No, but the current preclusion based on domestic violence also has a lot of problems with it, but we've decided that it's better to deal with those flaws than to allow people who may be domestic abusers direct purchase access to firearms.

This is a very different scenario, that what it appeared you were originally proposing. I would be perfectly fine with your scenario if 1) there is judicial oversight 2) people can check to see if they are on the list and 3) they have means to be removed from the list if errors occur like same name, wrong target etc.

FWIW, you are a restricted person for gun purchases even if you have a restraining order against you. At one time those were tough to get, but now judges hand them out with great regularity and without much due process. A woman can make that claim and get a restraining order on just about anyone, and boom your guns are gone.

So we already have ares in which the bar is pretty low and devoid of an actual conviction. that's not all good, and I hate those policy slippery slopes, but that is where the laws stand as of now.

Thankfully, there is getting to be a judicial backlash against this practice, as many are now adopting "keep away or no contact orders" instead of restraining orders. They are less serious and have less negative effects.

Unfortunately you are giving examples of government screwups rather than the norms.

It is the screwups which are the important cases. Otherwise, everything the government does is amazing.

As one with Libertarian leanings I am not for the restricting of rights of others as a general rule. The problem with the DHS lists is that it is too easy for government Abuse to occur. Obama considers all right wing conservatives to be extremists. I could easily see him abusing a law that would disqualify those that appear on any kind of list from gun ownership.

This is the same fear I have, without some sort of oversight, it becomes VERY easy to label people terrorists just because you don't like what they say. We already see the police, FBI and current administrations using the terrorist designator for people that they don't like. Terrorism has ALREADY been used to strip away large swaths of essential liberties. Each step takes us further and further along that path.

[Doc]

BTW, watching the news last night one of the idiot Dems (Congressman from Florida?) made an absurd comment that Mateen used an automatic weapon that fired 700 rounds in a minute. That rate of fire with 34 mag swaps, if using 20 round mags, isn't possible.

Another idiot said that the semiautomatic AR-15 is easily convertible to full auto, you just have to google to get easy instructions. The M-16 isn't full auto to begin with, and the internals aren't all that similar.

Idiots confuse the masses who are ignorant and deceive them.

I didn't see or hear but idiot congressman would be Bill Nelson.

[PedroDaGr8]

It has emerged that the shooter was a regular at the club, meeting guys, getting drunk and using gay dating apps like Grindr. He also claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and ISIS. Not realizing that those three are more or less mortal enemies of each other. He also was not really a practicing Muslim according to his friends. He didn't pray 5 times a day, ate pork, drank alcohol, etc.

The picture that emerges is beginning to look like a gay man in denial (you know the stereotype, some of the biggest homophobes are actually gay men in denial), combined with a psychopath, attempting to attach himself to one of these groups, not because he believes in the cause, but because he wants his move to be part of something greater and/or he believes that these movements give a degree of validity to the psychopathy he feels. So it isn't so much he self radicalized as much as it is, he found an outlet for the psychopathic tendencies and self-hatred that he felt. They justified his internal feelings and gave him delusions of greatness so he attached himself to them.

Basically, he was a gay man in denial and a psychopath. He attached himself to these groups not out of a misguided sense of devotion to Islam, but because they confirmed his own internal self-hatred and psychopathy. They validated his feelings, which is why he attached himself to ALL of them.

Not that it makes this tragedy any better, but it is certainly painting a much more complex picture.

[PedroDaGr8]

Saw this quote that kinda sums things up:

He was like Clayton Bigsby on steroids. A heterosexually-married gay muslim democrat who was also a racist, homophobic, wife-beating, legal gun owner who dreamed of being in the NYPD/Hezbollah/Al Qaeda and ISIS. You can't make this **** up.

Clayton Bigsby of course being the Dave Chapelle character of the black white supremacist.

[Krank]

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/en...b053e2197933bf

[suncat05]

I didn't see or hear but idiot congressman would be Bill Nelson.

Idiot Senator. Same-same. And an Obama accolyte, in addition to being a Democrat obstructionist.

[KeithKSR]

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/en...b053e2197933bf

All terrorism is due to the hate of a group of people for some reason or other. It wasn't society that committed the terrible acts in Orlando, is was a specific individual supporting groups known for such acts.

[KeithKSR]

I didn't see or hear but idiot congressman would be Bill Nelson.

He was one of the two.

[UKHistory]

Saw this quote that kinda sums things up:


Clayton Bigsby of course being the Dave Chapelle character of the black white supremacist.

The layers to this massacre are unreal. If the situation was not tragic I could laugh at the Clayton remark.

[Doc]

He was one of the two.

In FL, we have our fair share. We got Alan Grayson (no relationship to Grayson Allen--who is also from FL) who is famous for saying the Republican health plan was "don't get sick," and "if you do get sick, die quickly." And of course there is the queen political progressive hack Debbie Wasserman Schultz who ironically has the initials DWS and shares the last name of the famous Sargent Schultz, best known for

[KSRBEvans]

It has emerged that the shooter was a regular at the club, meeting guys, getting drunk and using gay dating apps like Grindr. He also claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and ISIS. Not realizing that those three are more or less mortal enemies of each other. He also was not really a practicing Muslim according to his friends. He didn't pray 5 times a day, ate pork, drank alcohol, etc.

The picture that emerges is beginning to look like a gay man in denial (you know the stereotype, some of the biggest homophobes are actually gay men in denial), combined with a psychopath, attempting to attach himself to one of these groups, not because he believes in the cause, but because he wants his move to be part of something greater and/or he believes that these movements give a degree of validity to the psychopathy he feels. So it isn't so much he self radicalized as much as it is, he found an outlet for the psychopathic tendencies and self-hatred that he felt. They justified his internal feelings and gave him delusions of greatness so he attached himself to them.

Basically, he was a gay man in denial and a psychopath. He attached himself to these groups not out of a misguided sense of devotion to Islam, but because they confirmed his own internal self-hatred and psychopathy. They validated his feelings, which is why he attached himself to ALL of them.

Not that it makes this tragedy any better, but it is certainly painting a much more complex picture.

He was probably a conflicted gay man. He was also an ISIS sympathizer and wanted to carry out killings in their name. I know we all probably realize it, but the 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

He had also cased out other potential shooting spots, such as Disney Springs (f/k/a Downtown Disney) and Disney parks, in the past couple of months. IMHO he chose the Pulse not because of his conflicted feelings, but because it was a softer target than Disney Springs (where, among other factors, he couldn't be sure there wouldn't be someone carrying concealed) or one of the Disney Parks (where security checks bags and now has metal detectors).

[suncat05]

Doc, I am hearing grumblings of Alan Grayson running for Marco Rubio's Senate seat. Him winning that seat just cannot happen. Of course, all of his idiot followers in the near Orlando area will vote for him because they're as stupid as he is.

[Krank]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b072d1185b1a04

[UKHistory]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us...T.nav=top-news

The layers to this story continue. The FBI is interviewing the current wife (not the first who was physically beaten). This woman apparently drove Mateen to the club if I read it correctly.

Still sorting out her role, if any, and what she might have known.

[Krank]

All terrorism is due to the hate of a group of people for some reason or other. It wasn't society that committed the terrible acts in Orlando, is was a specific individual supporting groups known for such acts.

An Open Letter To Straight People On The Pulse Massacre


"Less than one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal across the country, finalizing a trend that began eleven years earlier in Massachusetts. Less than three days ago, over 50 people were murdered at Pulse, a gay night club in Orlando, in what is now the biggest mass shooting to occur in the United States. And it happened during our LGBT Pride Month.

Some of you may think that the LGBTQ+ battle is over, that it ended with the triumphant legalization of same-sex marriage. Some of you may even think that the LGBTQ+ community has been greedy and overreaching by “infringing” upon the “rights of the majority” — rights LGBTQ+ folks continue to be denied...

...As a whole, us humans like to distance ourselves from the past when it is ugly. We like to convince ourselves that we’ve reached some sort of fairy-tale ending, so that no one has has to deal with feelings of guilt or accountability. This kind of thinking is not new...

...We do this so we can wash our hands of the atrocities committed in our country on a daily basis. We do it so that when things like this horrific shooting happen we can chalk it up to an extremist madman instead of acknowledging that many of us played a role in shaping the culture needed for this type of crime to occur.

This kind of approach is easy and it’s comfortable, but it’s beyond dangerous. It does not fix the situation at all; it simply perpetuates the cycles of violence in place...

...The reality is that LGBTQ+ people are still discriminated against and victimized on a daily basis. Same-sex marriage does not change that and you cannot expect us to conveniently forget the past as some sort of payment for the rite of marriage. This mass shooting was not an isolated event, or remnants of antiquated homophobia, or just religious extremism. It stemmed from the very real homophobic culture that exists in our country — the culture many of us contribute to whether we’d like to admit it or not.

If you are a person who believes “tolerance” is enough, you are contributing to the problem. You don’t need to beat up an LGBTQ+ person to commit a hate crime or encourage another person to do so. If you misgender Caitlyn Jenner, say problematic and incorrect things about bathroom equality, cringe at the thought of gay affection, or use phrases like “no homo” or “that’s so gay” you are contributing to the culture that fostered this crime...

...If you are an ally, you must be an active ally and truly combat homophobia and transphobia when you see it. This means calling someone out when they say something hurtful or ugly. It means caring more about what you feel is right than what other people think of you. It means not tokenizing LGBTQ+ people, or dismissing their struggles, or spouting “liberal” thoughts just to score social brownie points. The LGBTQ+ community does not need to be patronized. What we need is for people to stand up for what is right.

The LGBTQ+ community is one of the most resilient groups in the world. We are full of vibrant survivors who continue to be joyous and loving in spite of the ugly battles behind us and ahead. The shooting at Pulse was an attack on LGBTQ+ love, an attack meant to break us, but the truth is we can never be broken. We have suffered through and survived too much to be destroyed, but at the same time just because we can withstand the worst of storms does not mean we should be subjected to them...

...We shouldn’t have to live in a world where our love is questioned and dismissed. We shouldn’t have to live knowing that many of our community members are on the streets or in the cemetery. And we shouldn’t have to live in a world where we have to mourn the deaths of fifty of our brothers and sisters. Because we deserve better from our government, from our society, and from you. Because we shouldn’t have to say 'it gets better.' We should be able to say 'it is better.'”

[suncat05]

She "knew", but didn't say anything? That makes her part of the problem. And very possibly an unwitting accessory to the crime. Or perhaps not so unwitting?

[Krank]

http://time.com/4368570/orlando-shoo...lse-survivors/