quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

"Islam for Dummies," "The Koran for Dummies" and "Arabic for Dummies" from Amazon before they left for Syria.

And I bet those books are written by muslim apologists which has nothing but peaceful interpretations in it!
Let me tell you what is one problem with Islam. The authentic book is in Arabic. But the English versions. Can have like 2 completely opposite translation of the same verse, depending on which English translation you wanna follow.
I highly doubt a "dummy guide book", is following the one that most sharia law countries that follows the authentic and original arabic version, follows.
So what proof is that exactly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
For fuck's sake there is a clear differential between military armaments and civilian and NO, the founders did not intend for civilians to be armed with military weapons and using predator drones for home defense you insufferable fucking moron.

I believe you're wrong about the founders belief and would ask you for a citation?

The Second amendment is a) Specific to a well-regulated militia and b) a collective right, not a personal right.

The militia is significant because the founding fathers regarded standing armies as "engines of oppression". They distrusted the very notion of a standing army and felt that a disciplined organisational unit made up of citizens was an important component of the collective defense. Basically, they were afraid of a military coup.

Article II, Section 8, Line 15 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". In other words, the Militia is a component of the national defense including defending the people against any who rebel against the government. Line 16 says, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The second amendment provides for the participation of citizens IN that militia. It is not a right to arm yourself with a molotov and firebomb your neighbour's house because his dog keeps you up at night.

The "well-regulated militia" is known as the National Guard. Not "The National Guard of the United States" which is part of the military. All members of the National Guard are automatically members of the militia of the United States SPECIFICALLY spoken of in the Constitution as specified in Title 10 of the United States Code.

If you're not part of the militia of the United States, then the second amendment simply does not apply to you.

What you're saying, again is a, made up from whole cloth, argument of the left in order to make fascism safe and palatable to people.

quote:


Legal scholars have discussed it for years and it's easy to google the errors in your thinking.

quote:

For example, your interpretation would make the 2nd amendment the absolute only part of the constitution that was interpreted in that manner and with that English usage. Applying that logic to the rest of the constitution would significantly change the entire thing. When you apply common English usage used in the other parts of the constitution to the 2nd amendment your entire thesis falls apart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
Random attacks like this are the result of psychopathy/sociopathy, and a brief moment of rage. The issue there is easy access to deadly weapons during those moments.

quote:

Terrorism is result of political pressures which galvanize people (almost always young men) around a certain cause whilst giving them a reason to fight and to die (there is, psychologically, very little difference between a terrorist willing to die for a cause and soldier willing to die for his country, they both see the world the same).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Awareness, when a person is driving a car and a cop is outside shooting at him, pretty much all the cop has is a head shot because the car covers center of mass.

Look, I hate to break this to you, but car doors don't stop bullets. All those movies you see where people are crouching behind cars? Useless. Unless it's the President's car which is basically a tank.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The Pulse building is fairly small compared to other gay clubs in the area. There is one main entrance, and then two doors leading out to a back patio bar area for the smokers. The patio is fenced in, for privacy. I've been there dozens of times and can't picture any other exits, though I'm sure there has to be one. Aside from the bathrooms, a dressing room for the strippers and drag queens, and an office area, everything is fully open. One huge dance floor, with the bars positioned around it.

The security at Pulse is usually no more than one off duty officer, and a security staff of maybe 6 to 8, depending on the crowd expected, and they are more to take care of asshole drunks after they've been cut off. I've read nothing yet to indicate an off duty officer was there on Saturday.

There were about 300 people at the club when the shooting began just before 2am. It was Latin night, which isn't as popular as other nights. A week prior would have been Gay Days, with a much larger crowd.

The terror lasted for 3 hours before the shooter was killed. Some climbed over the patio fence to escape, others managed to bust part of it down and go through it.

50 people dead, including the shooter. Another 53 injured, including an OPD officer saved by a Kevlar helmet.

Gun control cannot be the only topic discussed because it is absolutely not the only issue at hand. But we can't ignore that any combination of guns, religious extremism, hate for minorities of any kind, and mental illness just doesn't mix. Especially not when the chosen targets are more vulnerable because of inadequate security.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
I might also say, especially for a Singapore cop using a fifty year old Smith 38 special shooting 158 grain soft lead bullets at well under Mach velocities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
For fuck's sake there is a clear differential between military armaments and civilian and NO, the founders did not intend for civilians to be armed with military weapons and using predator drones for home defense you insufferable fucking moron.

I believe you're wrong about the founders belief and would ask you for a citation?

The Second amendment is a) Specific to a well-regulated militia and b) a collective right, not a personal right.

The militia is significant because the founding fathers regarded standing armies as "engines of oppression". They distrusted the very notion of a standing army and felt that a disciplined organisational unit made up of citizens was an important component of the collective defense. Basically, they were afraid of a military coup.

Article II, Section 8, Line 15 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". In other words, the Militia is a component of the national defense including defending the people against any who rebel against the government. Line 16 says, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The second amendment provides for the participation of citizens IN that militia. It is not a right to arm yourself with a molotov and firebomb your neighbour's house because his dog keeps you up at night.

The "well-regulated militia" is known as the National Guard. Not "The National Guard of the United States" which is part of the military. All members of the National Guard are automatically members of the militia of the United States SPECIFICALLY spoken of in the Constitution as specified in Title 10 of the United States Code.

If you're not part of the militia of the United States, then the second amendment simply does not apply to you.

What you're saying, again is a, made up from whole cloth, argument of the left in order to make fascism safe and palatable to people.

That's emotive bullshit and anyone with half a brain can see that possession of a gun doesn't do a damn to protect you against the United States government. They have drones, tanks and all manner of military gadgets - you may as well use a pop gun.

And the US government doesn't have to oppress you anyway. You're all too fucking apathetic to actually vote and you care more about what corporations tell you than anything else. Any nonsense you gun nuts mutter about "disarming the citizenry" is just empty rhetoric. The average citizen is HIGHLY dependent upon the good graces of the US government and even more so - the corporations to whom you have ceded so much power.

quote:


Legal scholars have discussed it for years and it's easy to google the errors in your thinking.

It's easy to google self-serving arguments made by gun nuts and the NRA. That doesn't constitute quality argument.

quote:

For example, your interpretation would make the 2nd amendment the absolute only part of the constitution that was interpreted in that manner and with that English usage. Applying that logic to the rest of the constitution would significantly change the entire thing. When you apply common English usage used in the other parts of the constitution to the 2nd amendment your entire thesis falls apart.

Bullshit. Prove it.

The second amendment is pretty clear that it's talking about a militia. The NRA has had a vested interest in promoting firearms for decades and their ongoing activism has corrupted the original intent of the second amendment. And basically, you guys can't be trusted with guns. You're too unstable. And your society is fucking falling apart at the seams because of it.

People can 3d-print guns now. What do you think is going to happen when everyone uses guns to settle their disputes? Do you have any understanding of how likely it is that the US will devolve into a third-world nation torn apart by domestic disputes solved with armed drones?

Honestly, the psychological need you people have for guns is disturbing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Look, I hate to break this to you, but car doors don't stop bullets. All those movies you see where people are crouching behind cars? Useless. Unless it's the President's car which is basically a tank.

Having shot through my share of car doors I don't think you understand the point of the discussion. For instance you can google the FBI Florida shootout. You could start your education on the matter there and actually learn about that which you are discussing. But, as that occurred in something like 1985, or so, you appear to be at least three decades behind the times and evidence. I might also say, especially for a Singapore cop using a fifty year old Smith 38 special shooting 158 grain soft lead bullets at well under Mach velocities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Some extracts from a very interesting piece in today's Guardian on the Florida shooter:
"When asked why she thought he went regularly to a gay club, Yusufiy told CNN: “When we had gotten married, he confessed to me about his past that was recent at that time, and that he very much enjoyed going to clubs and the nightlife … I feel like it’s a side of him or a part of him that he lived but probably didn’t want everybody to know about.” Asked if she thought he was gay, she said: “I don’t know.”

And then there’s the fact that Seddique Mir Mateen told media that Omar had been angered after seeing a gay couple kissing in public while he was out with his three-year-old son.

If analysts are already weighing up the implications of possible links with Isis, if presidential candidates are taking it as read that Mateen was part of a web of Islamist terror spreading across the globe, let me imagine a situation in which sex, not sectarianism, plays a part. Transgressive sexuality and conservative religion can be a toxic mix. If Mateen felt conflicted about his interest in gay men, it could have been because he believed his faith would condemn him for it. There’s no easy answer to this. “Ban religion,” say some atheists, but it’s not that simple. We must encourage the compassionate and disparage the dogmatists. Strive for conditions which promote kindness, rather than judgment.

When I interviewed him recently for another article, the distinguished psychologist Samuel Juni told me: “Running away and trying to get in touch are psychologically not contradictory ... When you’re running, part of you is running from something that you would very much like to be in touch with but you can’t.” The annihilation on Sunday morning may have been Mateen’s final attempt to run away from the thing that obsessed him.

All of this poses a problem for the likes of Donald Trump, who told his Twitter followers, as the blood on the bathroom walls of Pulse was still drying, that he “appreciate[d] the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism”.

If a heady combination of shame and sexuality were part of what drove Mateen’s decisions that morning, how is that to be policed? How can we, to borrow the language of counter-terrorism, “eradicate” the “scourge” of internalised homophobia? Of a feeling that one’s desires are dirty and humiliating? You can’t easily make a homeland secure against self-loathing.

Donald Trump, meet human nature, in all its messy, depraved and self-defeating complexity. Sadly, complexity was never your strong point." (emphasis added)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/omar-mateen-gay-men-terrorism-pulse-jackd-sexuality

If homophobia and self loathing is at the heart of the shooter's motives, then all the gun control or lack of it, and all the bomb the ME into a sheet of glass belligerence aren't going to make a shred of difference preventing another attack for the same reasons. Regardless of what action is taken in other spheres, there is no excuse now not to adopt serious measures to minimise incitement against queers and queer phobia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If homophobia and self loathing is at the heart of the shooter's motives, ..................there is no excuse now not to adopt serious measures to minimise incitement against queers and queer phobia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
I might also say, especially for a Singapore cop using a fifty year old Smith 38 special shooting 158 grain soft lead bullets at well under Mach velocities.

Does that mean it's a difficult shot to make? Surprising, it was just one bullet hole through windscreen. Seem to be just a one shot, one hit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Look, I hate to break this to you, but car doors don't stop bullets. All those movies you see where people are crouching behind cars? Useless. Unless it's the President's car which is basically a tank.

Having shot through my share of car doors I don't think you understand the point of the discussion. For instance you can google the FBI Florida shootout. You could start your education on the matter there and actually learn about that which you are discussing. But, as that occurred in something like 1985, or so, you appear to be at least three decades behind the times and evidence. I might also say, especially for a Singapore cop using a fifty year old Smith 38 special shooting 158 grain soft lead bullets at well under Mach velocities.

If it's a 158 grain bullet then it's the .38 Special Hi-Speed which was specifically developed so law enforcement could shoot through car bodies and body armour. And since car bodies have gotten WEAKER over the years with crumple zones designed to protect the occupant (as opposed to say, a Buick) then its ability to penetrate car bodies has improved over time, not degraded.

What was that you were saying about education?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
I can snap, take a knife, and go on a stabbing spree, but as soon as people see me walking towards them with a blood-drenched dagger, wearing nothing more than a lunatic grin, they're going to run like mad. I might catch a few people, but there is no way that I'm going to kill 40 people in as many seconds even if they all line up nicely and wait to get stabbed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Some extracts from a very interesting piece in today's Guardian on the Florida shooter:
"When asked why she thought he went regularly to a gay club, Yusufiy told CNN: “When we had gotten married, he confessed to me about his past that was recent at that time, and that he very much enjoyed going to clubs and the nightlife … I feel like it’s a side of him or a part of him that he lived but probably didn’t want everybody to know about.” Asked if she thought he was gay, she said: “I don’t know.”

And then there’s the fact that Seddique Mir Mateen told media that Omar had been angered after seeing a gay couple kissing in public while he was out with his three-year-old son.

If analysts are already weighing up the implications of possible links with Isis, if presidential candidates are taking it as read that Mateen was part of a web of Islamist terror spreading across the globe, let me imagine a situation in which sex, not sectarianism, plays a part. Transgressive sexuality and conservative religion can be a toxic mix. If Mateen felt conflicted about his interest in gay men, it could have been because he believed his faith would condemn him for it. There’s no easy answer to this. “Ban religion,” say some atheists, but it’s not that simple. We must encourage the compassionate and disparage the dogmatists. Strive for conditions which promote kindness, rather than judgment.

When I interviewed him recently for another article, the distinguished psychologist Samuel Juni told me: “Running away and trying to get in touch are psychologically not contradictory ... When you’re running, part of you is running from something that you would very much like to be in touch with but you can’t.” The annihilation on Sunday morning may have been Mateen’s final attempt to run away from the thing that obsessed him.

All of this poses a problem for the likes of Donald Trump, who told his Twitter followers, as the blood on the bathroom walls of Pulse was still drying, that he “appreciate[d] the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism”.

If a heady combination of shame and sexuality were part of what drove Mateen’s decisions that morning, how is that to be policed? How can we, to borrow the language of counter-terrorism, “eradicate” the “scourge” of internalised homophobia? Of a feeling that one’s desires are dirty and humiliating? You can’t easily make a homeland secure against self-loathing.

Donald Trump, meet human nature, in all its messy, depraved and self-defeating complexity. Sadly, complexity was never your strong point." (emphasis added)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/omar-mateen-gay-men-terrorism-pulse-jackd-sexuality

If homophobia and self loathing is at the heart of the shooter's motives, then all the gun control or lack of it, and all the bomb the ME into a sheet of glass belligerence aren't going to make a shred of difference preventing another attack for the same reasons. Regardless of what action is taken in other spheres, there is no excuse now not to adopt serious measures to minimise incitement against queers and queer phobia.

Gun control, a complete ban on firearms for ordinary citizens, would make a massive difference to the scale and hazard potential of future attacks like this.

I can snap, take a knife, and go on a stabbing spree, but as soon as people see me walking towards them with a blood-drenched dagger, wearing nothing more than a lunatic grin, they're going to run like mad. I might catch a few people, but there is no way that I'm going to kill 40 people in as many seconds even if they all line up nicely and wait to get stabbed.

Assault weapons in the hands of joe public is a mind-numbingly bad idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
And yet it's estimated that guns in America prevent somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 violent crimes per year. I think letting you make any decision is a mind-numbingly bad idea. Especially if I were a woman who wanted to fight back against a big rapist dude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Dude, all that frantic back-pedaling doesn't change the fact that the weapon the Singapore cop was using will easily penetrate an automobile body. Cars don't stop bullets and the odds that a law enforcement officer (aside from SWAT) is even going to TRY to take and take a head shot are extremely low.

Everything else you brought up is just plain irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
And yet it's estimated that guns in America prevent somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 violent crimes per year. I think letting you make any decision is a mind-numbingly bad idea. Especially if I were a woman who wanted to fight back against a big rapist dude.

The NRA says that, but even they don't believe it.