Florida Pulse gay club attacked in Orlando - 50 dead and 53 injured

[Indus Pakistan]

You and Omar Mateen (Orlando Pulse nightclub) have a common bond: The religion of Islam.

I and Tim McVeigh (Oklahoma bombing) have a common bond: 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

And yet, YOU claimed the right to refuse guilt by association but expect me to feel guilty for believing in my Constitutional right.

Not taking any sides in this discussion (although I support 100% gun control. No civilian should have a gun unless specfic need arising out of job they are doing) but your comparison is akin to comparing chalk with cheese.

Islam is very loose definition of a very multiverse belief system with ever increasing number of interpretations. On the other hand 2nd Amendment is a very tight legal precept and definition with specific effect. In other words those who believe in 2nd Amendment share more in common than those who call themselves Muslim.

 

[Vassnti]

Even if Mateen wounded only ten people with a kitchen knife, the root cause is still important, and it is a convenient distraction that firearms were involved so that gullible people will refocus their attention on guns, the American insistent on our Constitution, and the American society in general.

Though that would have been 90 fewer casualties.

With the greatest respect Sir for the quality of your contributions here and with respect to your interpretation of the second amendment. The US goverment regulates, who can drive who can drink and who can take pharmecuticals with out breaching peoples constitutional rights.

I live in Tasmania, not far from here 20 years ago martin bryant used an AR-15 to kill 35 and wound a further 24 people.

Laws were passed, rules were changed and maybe we were just lucky but we havent had anything as bad in 20 years.
We can still hunt we can still own a gun but we chose to make buying a gun harder than picking up a six pack on the way home from work.

All things require balance, perhaps the balance in favor of the second amendment has gone too far perhaps there were things Jefferson thought were more important?

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life"

 

[SQ8]

"onslaught"......is an interesting and seriously wrong term. This is America we are talking about.The most welcoming and most accepting nation on the planet. I would be highly surprised if things go to that level where people are attacked, this is simply not the American society who does crap like this. We know better.

I was referring to some increase in discrimination at employment and some issues economically with businesses and stuff. But nothing too drastic. But the American Muslims will be protected under the same constitution I or anyone else is. We are not India where a minority member can be killed like a fly because he or she ate beef, or China, where someone can be disappeared if they talked about "the Party in a disobedient way".

America doesn't work like that, its that simple. We respect humanity even if we have strong feelings about some issue. On my way home every day, I see an Islamic Center off of one of the main roads I drive on. The beauty of America is, even after these attacks, we know that Muslims are humans and not everyone's a bad guy. In fact, 99% have lived here peacefully for decades, going back to 1900's. So, keeping that in mind, I saw double the police presence their today due to these sad incidents that took place, just to protect any retaliation. I saw the same on a Synagogue and a big Church this morning too.

ONLY in America, you'll find this level of constitutional protection. Nowhere on Earth will this happen like this. That moment, these things make you proud of your country , the system and the law enforcement guys who understood that no matter what happened yesterday, they needed to protect general public and stop another yesterday from happening. This speaks volumes for our American values of protecting human rights and lives.

The only caution has to be taken with white folk, Vietnamese(yes, the more white than white class) and Hispanics(same more white than white). Echoing the words of Muhammad Ali, no nigger ever called me a terrorist.

 

[gambit]

Not taking any sides in this discussion (although I support 100% gun control. No civilian should have a gun unless specfic need arising out of job they are doing) but your comparison is akin to comparing chalk with cheese.

If you support %100 gun control, which mean no availability at all, you have taken one side of this debate. I have no problems with that. Just be honest about it.

Islam is very loose definition of a very multiverse belief system with ever increasing number of interpretations. On the other hand 2nd Amendment is a very tight legal precept and definition with specific effect. In other words those who believe in 2nd Amendment share more in common than those who call themselves Muslim.

Actually...Not true.

If you study the debates on the 2nd Amendment, going all the way back to the first Constitutional Convention...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)

...took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787...

What perceptions about the 'right to bear arms' today are still as varied and hotly debated as back then. Anything from the interpretations of what is a 'militia' to what is a weapon.

The conventioneers did not specified 'firearms' which would be in line of what you said -- specificity. Rather, they broadly declared 'arms' which means anything that could be used AS a weapon and anything specifically designed TO BE a weapon.

What is a 'militia' ? The accepted context is that a 'militia' is a group of loosely organized and armed individuals that are under no official government control unless this group willed itself to be under such control. The contested context, at least in the US, is that a 'militia' under modern day concepts of nation-states and warfare is an official branch of the government would something like the National Guards and the 'people' would be the individual citizens under state governments. The generally accepted context is broad. The contestant context is much more narrow, hence, more restrictive in terms of weapons availability.

A much more broad challenge to the 2nd Amendment is that since the conventioneers specified 'militia', which is a group %99 created in times of dire national defense, items that are specifically designed to be weapons, like firearms or swords or spears, must be prohibited from popular ownership. Self defense would be limited to items that can be used AS a weapon, like a baseball/cricket bat or a golf club or a kitchen knife. This challenge is not accepted as a valid interpretation, but it is still presented nonetheless.

So yes, our Constitution can be as varied in interpretations as your Islamic principles.

 

[Viper0011.]

The only caution has to be taken with white folk, Vietnamese(yes, the more white than white class) and Hispanics(same more white than white). Echoing the words of Muhammad Ali, no nigger ever called me a terrorist.

Well echoing the words of Muhammad Ali is one thing. But looking at these back to back incidents, do you think he wouldn't have reservations if he was alive today? And why is the caution needed for Whites, Asians and Hispanics precisely?

 

[SQ8]

Well echoing the words of Muhammad Ali is one thing. But looking at these back to back incidents, do you think he wouldn't have reservations if he was alive today? And why is the caution needed for Whites, Asians and Hispanics precisely?

He had reservations already. The issue for caution has to do with the ethnicity of people spreading the hate. Again, caution is taken NOT with the race itself;but just as it is IMPORTANT to profile muslims these days because omar mateens and Farooks ARE among us, it is important for muslims to be wary of the most common people spreading hate.

That does not call for a 60's black supremacy movement but one looking to avoid trouble areas like the rural mid and southwest. So far, its better not to walk into a biker's club or bar where you are to find the less educated. Sticking to the educated in most races is always the best; look for the blue collar and things get wary from there.

The sad bit is , that Omar mateen isnt an actual case of terrorism as much as a deranged man with anger management issues. But farooq sayed is, as are the people who just stabbed a policeman and his wife in France today.

 

[gambit]

Though that would have been 90 fewer casualties.

With the greatest respect Sir for the quality of your contributions here and with respect to your interpretation of the second amendment. The US goverment regulates, who can drive who can drink and who can take pharmecuticals with out breaching peoples constitutional rights.

I live in Tasmania, not far from here 20 years ago martin bryant used an AR-15 to kill 35 and wound a further 24 people.

Laws were passed, rules were changed and maybe we were just lucky but we havent had anything as bad in 20 years.
We can still hunt we can still own a gun but we chose to make buying a gun harder than picking up a six pack on the way home from work.

All things require balance, perhaps the balance in favor of the second amendment has gone too far perhaps there were things Jefferson thought were more important?

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life"

I will not disagree with you in that the removal of certain weapons WILL reduce the casualty count. But what you are asking for simply cannot be done in the US.

A constitution is a virtual dictator. Every proposal for a law, aka a 'bill' or whatever equivalent in Australia, must pass constitutional scrutiny, meaning is this bill philosophically in line with this virtual dictator ? If yes, then the bill becomes law. If not, then either the bill is revised or simply die away.

When this dictator said that the right of the people to 'bear arms shall not be infringed' it is difficult to go 'too far'. Extremists have argued that 'shall not be infringed' equals to owning whatever the person can afford, meaning a tank or grenade launcher. But when the Supreme Court, a cadre of legalism high priests who claimed quasi mystical insights into the Constitution, divined that the dictator did not meant for ordinary citizens to own tanks and grenade launchers, we have gone as far from that extreme as possible without completely doing away with the 2nd Amendment.

In trying to understand the American society and people, one must readied the US Constitution. Just like the Quran have the hadiths, the US Constitution have accompanying commentaries from various people throughout US history, and those must be readied as well. What you asked for is essentially a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, thereby allowing the federal and state governments to establish laws regarding firearms as they see fit. Constitutional changes are not new. We have 27 of them. The older a particular amendment, such as the right to speech or the right to bear arms, the more intellectually and emotionally entrenched that amendment became in the collective American psyche, and the greater the efforts required to remove that passion from Americans at large.

The 'right to bear arms' is not the same as the right to self defense. No one is asking for Americans to not defend themselves and their properties. Everyone in all countries have the right to self defense. But this is about the right to weapons to defend themselves, whether it be from government tyranny or petty thieves. This is about the right to have weapons, not the right to use things AS weapons. An attacker, be it the government or the petty thief, fears a weapon more than a thing that can be used AS a weapon. It does not matter if the government have a machine gun and the citizenry have the single shot rifle. The lethality of a weapon increases the hesitancy of a potential attacker to become an attacker. The citizenry will always outnumber the military and if there are enough single shot rifles, that military will be defeated. All governments know this.

In sum, asking for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is no less alarming than asking Americans to repeal the 1st Amendment. The argument is that the 2nd make possible and defend the 1st.

 

[Viper0011.]

I will not disagree with you in that the removal of certain weapons WILL reduce the casualty count. But what you are asking for simply cannot be done in the US.

A constitution is a virtual dictator. Every proposal for a law, aka a 'bill' or whatever equivalent in Australia, must pass constitutional scrutiny, meaning is this bill philosophically in line with this virtual dictator ? If yes, then the bill becomes law. If not, then either the bill is revised or simply die away.

The 'right to bear arms' is not the same as the right to self defense. No one is asking for Americans to not defend themselves and their properties. Everyone in all countries have the right to self defense. .

Gambit, I thought exactly how you do till yesterday. But then I saw the pain, drama and suffering of ordinary people with my eyes. And after 911, this was the second time I saw this sort of in person. If you can understand the feeling, it was a punch n the gut to say the least to see so many suffering Americans in ONE place as little as two Coffee shops and a tiny parking combined.

That's when I realized, can we, the Americans, through our second amendment in tact, STILL carry weapons as the second ammendment allows for it.......JUST not the combat / most lethal ones (an example the lovely and famous AR-15)? Remember, AR-15 was a preferred weapon that killed so many in these attacks, attacks that happened the last time and the attacks on Sandy Hook school.....I now believe we can still carry weapons as we please, it just can't be the most lethal combat rifles that easily serve as preferred killing machines in these sad incidents. May be stricter laws should be in place for someone to go through a mental stability examination who MUST have an AR-15? Just putting ideas out there. We have to do something about the free flow and availability of these lethal weapons to be honest. I've changed a lot on this topic just since yesterday!!

 

[Thorough Pro]

I am sure you meant "Ayah" (complete sentence), "Surah" (Chapter) or "Para" (book). Quaran is The "Word of GOD" and does not contain any "Hadith" which is "Saying or Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)............we get your point but comparing "man made" constitution with the "Word of GOD" is not a perfect example, constitution can be amended/revoked

I will not disagree with you in that the removal of certain weapons WILL reduce the casualty count. But what you are asking for simply cannot be done in the US........................
In trying to understand the American society and people, one must readied the US Constitution. Just like the Quran have the hadiths, the US Constitution have accompanying commentaries from various people throughout US history.........................

 

[Red-Bull]

"Word of GOD"

and what does this 'word of god' say about homosexuals ?

 

[-SINAN-]

now believe we can still carry weapons as we please, it just can't be the most lethal combat rifles that easily serve as preferred killing machines in these sad incidents. May be stricter laws should be in place for someone to go through a mental stability examination who MUST have an AR-15? Just putting ideas out there. We have to do something about the free flow and availability of these lethal weapons to be honest. I've changed a lot on this topic just since yesterday!!

No, Gambit can't give up his assault rifle....because it's his right. He will write down a wall of text, accuse people and religions for that right.

Victims are just "collateral damage" for him.

I heard that assailant went to local gun-shop bought an AR-15 and a pistol. Then entered the club and massacred people.....Just like that you can slaughter people....sounds surreal for me.

 

[Thorough Pro]

@mods @Oscar @waz please check this troll

and what does this 'word of god' say about homosexuals ?

 

[Red-Bull]

heh

 

[-SINAN-]

You avoided the double standards you gave, so I will remind the readers.

According to YOU...Since I share common beliefs with my fellow Americans, in particular the right to weapons, therefore any tragedy that involves guns, I must share some measure of guilt for that tragedy.

What is 'guilt':

- the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.
- make (someone) feel guilty, especially in order to induce them to do something.

I cannot feel 'guilty' about an act unless I have accepted responsibility for that act, be it %1 or %100 responsibility.

And yet, for YOU and your religion, YOU refused to put yourself under the same standard.


You and Omar Mateen (Orlando Pulse nightclub) have a common bond: The religion of Islam.

I and Tim McVeigh (Oklahoma bombing) have a common bond: 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

And yet, YOU claimed the right to refuse guilt by association but expect me to feel guilty for believing in my Constitutional right.


Even if Mateen wounded only ten people with a kitchen knife, the root cause is still important, and it is a convenient distraction that firearms were involved so that gullible people will refocus their attention on guns, the American insistent on our Constitution, and the American society in general.

You simply do not like the fact that your religion in as much influential to Omar Mateen as the US Constitution is influential to American thoughts. You have no problems attacking our root cause -- the US Constitution, but insists that Islam cannot be the root cause, or at least a major psychological influence, in this tragedy.



No, mass shooting will not miraculously cease to exist, but at least we will not have to deal with one psychological influence.

Unbelievable....what i said, what i am trying to explain is gone to dust bin...i have talked all this pages for nothing....

I'm sick of your wall of texts....what are you trying to prove...Do you have any way to prevent this attack or no ? Even a tiny contribution can you do it or not ?

He follows the conversation just fine.

YOU would prefers that the conversation stay away from psychology and religion and focus on the tools of the trade and not the mentality of the tradesman.

I told, you several times....they are not normal people each had their motives....Yet, you keep focusing on my religion....I have nothing more to say.

I and a few friends recently took some Chinese friends to go shooting in the hills on public lands. In one afternoon, each of the Chinese, including the women, were able to empty 12 rounds in my Steyr M40 in less than 10 seconds. At 50 meters, I can center mass all 12 rounds at one round per sec. Each of our Chinese friends have never shot before, and in one afternoon lesson, each can center mass all 12 rounds at 25 meters and less distance. They did it with calibers from 9mm to .45 cal. We joked that when they return to China, they will have more firearms experience than %99 of the Chinese population. In a crowd and when the people in this crowd is in close proximity to each other, like a nightclub/bar setting, an amateur can do the same damage with a pistol as he could with a semi-auto like an AR-15.

In 'mass shootings', the shooters chose that environment because...

- The targets are always unaware that they have become targets, hence they have not mentally conditioned themselves to respond to any threat in any way.

- Exits are few and with crowd mentality, the people will continue to present ideal shooting condition as they flee towards those exits.

A weapon like an AR-15 is more for the psychological effect on the shooter than it is for efficacy, meaning how many people can the shooter hit. An AR-15 make him feel more 'badass' than a pistol could, and because of the scary appearance of the weapon, the media and gullible people like you inevitably focus on the scary tool and 'gun laws' and less on everything else, including psychological influences like religion.

At the Sandy Hook school shooting, from a strict technical perspective, could Adam Lanza have killed those 20 children with just a pistol ? Absolutely. But because he used a much more scary looking weapon, naturally most people, especially those who do not understand firearms, turned their attention to that scary looking gun. If Adam Lanza can be proficient enough to use an AR-15, he can be proficient enough with a pistol.

Here is what you do not understand and the anti-gun commentators deceptively omitted: There is nothing about a semi-automatic rifle that would make a person learn to shoot faster than with a pistol.

In fact, it is the opposite. If you want to be a good shooter, the progression should be, from simplest to most difficult: revolver - pistol - rifle. That was how I learned to shoot and how the vast majority of law abiding US gun owners learned how to shoot. Despite what Hollywood portrays, a rifle, even a semi like the AR-15, requires double the physical efforts than a pistol to operate. It is easier to shoot accurately single handed with a pistol than with an AR-15.

So why do gunmen like Adam Lanza and Omar Mateen in their mass shootings used the AR-15 ? Purely for their own psychological needs and not out of technical needs. Psychology and environment are more of an impact in mass shooting than gun laws.

A pistol and an assault rifle is not equally deadly....you are trying so hard to say otherwise, but it's not dude.

 

[New Resolve]

Live and let live.