Topic: Today's shooting - The Sandy Hook Memorial Thread - Thoughts and Prayers

[Solomon Grundy]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/745027121756659712

BREAKING: Senate blocks Democratic bill to ban the sale of guns to suspected terrorists.

Just read the comments from some guy called Samuel Low underneath that. 

[Jimmys Casey]

What was the reason the Islamic nut job's 9/11 call had omitted words in the release?
What did he say that was so bad that the public can not know?

[TepidT2O]

What was the reason the Islamic nut job's 9/11 call had omitted words in the release?
What did he say that was so bad that the public can not know?

Loads of reasons....

If could be to protect the innocent, it could be to protect the identities of others that the authorities may wish to pursue.

Things like this always seem utterly innocuous when you see the un-redacted form.

[PhilV]

Just read the comments from some guy called Samuel Low underneath that. 

Yeah, not word for word but it's the usual "we need guns to be free" and when someone says "well what about MY freedom when someone comes at me with a gun" and Samuel Low's response is "well that's why you're free to have a gun also!"


They have such a fucked up mentality, I mean I know he's an idiot but he showcases it well, Trump said about Paris attacks they would have been less deadly if the French all had guns too? They are pure crazy when it comes to gun mentality, I mean they take kids under 10 to shooting ranges to fire full automatics and whatnot!! (obvs not all Americans but generally addressing the gun mentality that plagues them here)

[Lush is the best medicine...]

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/745039215520514048

[lindylou100]

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/745039215520514048

Blood money. Looks like John mcCain was the most expensive. It'd be good to have names, the constituency they represent and their party affiliation added.

[Ray K]

"Senate Republicans rejects four separate gun control measures following mass shooting in Orlando"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/index.html?adkey=bn


This is why most americans opinion of congress ranks somewhere between cockroaches and colonoscopies.

Fixed CNN's headline

[Haemoglobin]

Worth noting that the 'Grand Old Party' currently has majority control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives over there - normally both the Democrats and Republicans dominate one each, the Senate until fairly recently being the Democrat stronghold, with obviously a far greater chance back then of getting these more progressive bills passed in there, and thus have a hope in hell of actually getting anything put into practice.

So, essentially their whole Congress is fucked up and highly unbalanced right now, weighted towards the anti-gun control crowd with their NRA lobbyist backhanders and entrenched beliefs that the mere concept of restrictions on the sale of modern warzone automatic firearms to practically anyone who wants one is unpatriotic and unchristian or whatever. Un-American is what they would say, 'cause that covers it all nicely, their whole thing.


There is ample evidence now to simply say that they are just fucking crazy, and fucked. Good luck to anyone trying to accomplish any significant positive change over there with such an obstinate and wacko ingrained culture, you're probably going to need to stage a revolution... ironic, no? 

[GBF]

Well at least the terrorists can't buy Kinder Bueno in US

[whiteboots]

The American's love affair with guns defies reason. They like them.

[Chakan]

The American's love affair with guns defies reason. They like them.

Not really, they like something, they buy something. It's pretty simple really.

The availability of the guns is baffling though.

[PhilV]

Well at least the terrorists can't buy Kinder Bueno Surprise in US

FTFY

They say the toys in the eggs are dangerous to kids 

[lindylou100]

Senate Republicans Call For More Surveillance After Orlando Massacre

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-republicans-call-for-more-surveillance-after-orlando-massacre_us_576938ffe4b0fbbc8beb9dfc?section=


"U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set up a vote late on Monday to expand the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s authority to use a secretive surveillance order without a warrant to include email metadata and some browsing history information"


Hmmm for all their bleating about protecting the constitution, NRA shills Mitch McConnell ($1.2m) and John McCain ($7.7m) are quite happy to use the Orlando massacre to dick over peoples 4th amendment rights (the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure) in order to protect gun makers profits. Bunch of dicks.

[thisyearisouryear]

The American's love affair with guns defies reason. They like them.

It is beyond baffling. There is this irrationality that overcomes people (the pro-gun lobby) when talking about guns. They genuinely have it ingrained in their psyche that a bloody gun is a symbol of their freedom. What i don't get is what can you possibly have against stricter background checks! Why would any law-abiding, gun loving person have a problem with that? I understand the profit motive of politicians and NRA et al. It is the thinking of normal people that stumps me.

I freelance from time to time and had this nice American lady as a client last year. She added me on FB. She is a blogger of sorts and has a nice homely family with 5 kids and a husband. Her usual posts are filled with cooking and updates about her kids etc. Suddenly in the last few weeks, she has started filling my feed with these pro-gun posts. Turns out she is a staunch republican and Trump supporter who thinks people in support of gun-control are anti-national wimps who want to destroy the American way of living.
Baffling!

[Redman0151]

Breaking: Gunman on the run 'after three people shot in Orlando including 4-year-old child' bit.ly/28NhnQs

[Chakan]

Breaking: Gunman on the run 'after three people shot in Orlando including 4-year-old child' bit.ly/28NhnQs

If only the 4-year old had a gun of it's own it could have defended itself.

[Haemoglobin]

I keep envisioning Disneyworld with conspicuously-armed guards stationed all around the place, looking dead serious with their shades and curly wires coming from their ears, stood with hands clasped in front of their crotch like they do. Mickey and Donald and Goofy et al packing a piece too, just in case. Pat-downs upon entry to the Magic Kingdom.

And it all makes perfect, realistic sense too in this day and age, it's not a far-fetched image at all. It's perhaps the most succint, and telling, outsider's image of the USA that I can dream up. Fast food brand outlets everywhere, slightly-saccharine wholesome entertainment for the whole family in the sunshine, and heavy-duty firearms on hand for when one of those mass shootings breaks out every so often. Have a great day now.

[Corkboy]

Don't forget white, gun totin', country club, flat tax Jesus.

[PhilV]

If only the 4-year old had a gun of it's own it could have defended itself.

It would be funny if I wasn't positive someone over there actually thinks kids should be armed too.

Also, did anyone see the FB post doing the rounds where a Mother was saddened that her kids in pre-school or whatever (aged 4) were being taught how to hide from gunmen in a potential shooting scenario by standing in he toilet, etc... mental!

The only country where these shootings happen on a regular basis, so much so even kids as young as 4 are being taught about it... and they do not change a thing.

SMH.

[ShrewKop]

The American's love affair with guns defies reason. They like them.

The NRA has more money than anti-gun lobbyists, it certainly doesn't mean the majority of Americans love guns. People that sell guns would lose a lot of money if tighter controls came into effect, and money is more important than morals for some people. Until the laws on lobbying Congress changes, the NRA will dominate, guns will be sold to the wrong people, and innocent people will die.

[vagabond]

How does one even justify this? I can't even.

Perhaps because we shouldn't discriminate against people that have been placed on government watchlists without ever being charged for something? I'm all for gun control but selective gun control against people that have never been convicted is clearly a civil liberty issue and not a gun control issue. Surely nobody is naive enough to believe that the no-fly list is not a discriminatory, extra-judicial watchlist that disproportionately profiles brown skinned folks with muslim names and other undesirables. As I saw somebody post the other day, I'm old enough to remember when the 'no-fly' list was considered a draconian Orwellian Bush-era overreach into civil liberties. It still is.

[Redcap]

Perhaps because we shouldn't discriminate against people that have been placed on government watchlists without ever being charged for something? I'm all for gun control but selective gun control against people that have never been convicted is clearly a civil liberty issue and not a gun control issue. Surely nobody is naive enough to believe that the no-fly list is not a discriminatory, extra-judicial watchlist that disproportionately profiles brown skinned folks with muslim names and other undesirables. As I saw somebody post the other day, I'm old enough to remember when the 'no-fly' list was considered a draconian Orwellian Bush-era overreach into civil liberties. It still is.

Well argued. And I'm sure that's exactly the Republican senate's reasoning when they voted it down

[vagabond]

Well argued. And I'm sure that's exactly the Republican senate's reasoning when they voted it down

Hah, perhaps not. But the Democrats should know better. If they want gun control then have the courage to come out for gun control. If they're willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of the under-privileged just so they can posture in an election year, then they're not only cowardly but hypocritical.

[Redcap]

Hah, perhaps not. But the Democrats should know better. If they want gun control then have the courage to come out for gun control. If they're willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of the under-privileged just so they can posture in an election year, then they're not only cowardly but hypocritical.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but gun control is so important an issue and so difficult to get a political toehold on that I can understand why the Dems would want to throw anything at it that might somehow stick. I think they've set the lowest possible bar - a bar that they probably thought might be bipartisan enough for the GOP to get behind, and they were still shot down.

[vagabond]

Ordinarily I'd agree, but gun control is so important an issue and so difficult to get a political toehold on that I can understand why the Dems would want to throw anything at it that might somehow stick. I think they've set the lowest possible bar - a bar that they probably thought might be bipartisan enough for the GOP to get behind, and they were still shot down.

I don't mean any offense, this is a difficult issue, but this reads like "I'm ok with collective punishment of brown people by unaccountable security agencies just so we can stop them from buying guns while refusing to do anything about guns for the rest of the 99 % of american society". How do you think this makes brown people feel?

[capt k]

". How do you think this makes brown people feel?

browned off ?

[Redcap]

I don't mean any offense, this is a difficult issue, but this reads like "I'm ok with collective punishment of brown people by unaccountable security agencies just so we can stop them from buying guns while refusing to do anything about guns for the rest of the 99 % of american society". I'm a brown person, how do you think this makes me feel?

I apologise. I didn't mean any offense either.

I don't want any kind of legislation that discriminates against any group. I do want a legislative win to 'stem the tide' of loosening gun controls. Of course I'd love it if the US magically did a 180 and adopted comprehensive gun control laws like Japan or Australia, and disbanded the NRA, but I don't think that'll happen. Certainly not overnight. I think it'll be a series of smaller victories that'll get us there.

But maybe a ban on sales to people on a suspected-terrorist watch list isn't the answer.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I apologise. I didn't mean any offense either.

I don't want any kind of legislation that discriminates against any group. I do want a legislative win to 'stem the tide' of loosening gun controls. Of course I'd love it if the US magically did a 180 and adopted comprehensive gun control laws like Japan or Australia, and disbanded the NRA, but I don't think that'll happen. Certainly not overnight. I think it'll be a series of smaller victories that'll get us there.

But maybe a ban on sales to people on a suspected-terrorist watch list isn't the answer.

No but perhaps its a start.  Unfortunately this is The US we are talking about. It seems they have no shame in racism. However that aside, you cant stop gun control as it may offend brown people.  By brown people Im assuming you mean Muslims?

If this had of got past it would have been interesting to see the definition of terrorist.  The trouble with terrorists in US and the race issue is that the white terrorist, to my knowledge dont belong to specific organisations. They, I think are loan wolves as it were. Im thinking of the white guy who opened fire on the church that was used mainly or exlusively by black people. How do you know he's a terrorist until he becomes one.  You then have the issue of certain sections of American society in believing he is a terrorist. 

However you cant halt gun control to protect racial sensibilities that are in fat not racial sensibilities anyway they are religious sensibilities.

However it never got passed so is a moot point now.

[vagabond]

However you cant halt gun control to protect racial sensibilities

It's always easier to sacrifice the rights of others.

[Alan_X]

Perhaps because we shouldn't discriminate against people that have been placed on government watchlists without ever being charged for something? I'm all for gun control but selective gun control against people that have never been convicted is clearly a civil liberty issue and not a gun control issue. Surely nobody is naive enough to believe that the no-fly list is not a discriminatory, extra-judicial watchlist that disproportionately profiles brown skinned folks with muslim names and other undesirables. As I saw somebody post the other day, I'm old enough to remember when the 'no-fly' list was considered a draconian Orwellian Bush-era overreach into civil liberties. It still is.

Yeah, of course, like the NRA actually gives a flying fuck about any of that.

[vagabond]

Yeah, of course, like the NRA actually gives a flying fuck about any of that.

Of course they don't. But the so-called liberals should.

[ericthered10]

Hah, perhaps not. But the Democrats should know better. If they want gun control then have the courage to come out for gun control. If they're willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of the under-privileged just so they can posture in an election year, then they're not only cowardly but hypocritical.

And meanwhile the republicans were putting up a bill to subvert the 4th amendment and allow the FBI to collect internet data indiscriminately without having to go through a judge, so the civil liberties argument doesn't really fly.
They had 58 votes for, not the 60 they needed, so McConnell is vowing to try again shortly.

[vagabond]

And meanwhile the republicans were putting up a bill to subvert the 4th amendment and allow the FBI to collect internet data indiscriminately without having to go through a judge, so the civil liberties argument doesn't really fly.
They had 58 votes for, not the 60 they needed, so McConnell is vowing to try again shortly.

I'm not arguing from a Republican perspective. I'm arguing that if you consider yourself a liberal then you should not find yourself on the wrong side of a textbook civil liberties issue like the 'no-fly' list.

[Chakan]

I'm not arguing from a Republican perspective. I'm arguing that if you consider yourself a liberal then you should not find yourself on the wrong side of a textbook civil liberties issue like the 'no-fly' list.

How would you regulate people getting a gun? What should a background check involve?

[ericthered10]

I'm not arguing from a Republican perspective. I'm arguing that if you consider yourself a liberal then you should not find yourself on the wrong side of a textbook civil liberties issue like the 'no-fly' list.

No, I agree with you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans condemning the inability of those on the no-fly list to buy a weapon for 4th amendment reasons, and then at the same time pushing through an expansion of FBI powers to subvert the same amendment they are using to decry a gun related rule. Both sides are being hypocritical at the moment, the democratic side had been pointed out so i wanted to point out the flip side.

[vagabond]

How would you regulate people getting a gun? What should a background check involve?

Oh I'm all in favour of universal gun control, strict training requirements, banning of assault rifles, closing the gun-show loophole etc etc. The democrats are currently riding a wave of political momentum towards getting something done towards gun control. Instead of grandstanding on any of those issues they decided to throw Arab-Americans to the dogs instead. There's a word for people who reject rights for a certain group based on racial profiling.

[Chakan]

Oh I'm all in favour of universal gun control, strict training requirements, banning of assault rifles, closing the gun-show loophole etc etc. The democrats are currently riding a wave of political momentum towards getting something done towards gun control. Instead of grandstanding on any of those issues they decided to throw Arab-Americans to the dogs instead. There's a word for people who reject rights for a certain group based on racial profiling.

Arab-Americans aren't the only people on the "No Fly" list as far as I know?

[vagabond]

Arab-Americans aren't the only people on the "No Fly" list as far as I know?

They are disproportionately tracked on the no-fly list compared to other groups. That's called collective punishment. And even if the no-fly list wasn't a form of racial profiling, it would still be extra-judicial and without accountability, in other words, it would still be a civil rights issue.

[oldfordie]

The choice is easy, carry on as you are and let the massacres continue or compromise and find a way to stop the madness. where theres a will theres a way, there is no will. simple as that.
Rest of the world are not impressed, I feel sorry for the likes of Obama and the people who want to make the USA a safer place to live. to be honest, been that disgusted with the attitudes to defend guns I view the NRA with contempt.

[KiNki]

100 or so gun law bills all kicked into touch in a year by NRA dickheads.

Well done democrats for todays sit in.

You've given me hope.