June 12, 2016

"We know enough to say this was an act of terror and an act of hate."

"The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror. We will go wherever the facts lead us... What is clear is he was a person filled with hatred."

Said President Barack Obama.



The President talks about the need to find out all the facts and to be careful about what we say before all we know we can, but notably, he called it an "act of terror": We know enough to say this was an act of terror....

It's also notable that in the second half of his statement, he merged the Orlando incident with the general problem of gun violence. We're asked to think about how easy it is to have and use a gun: "And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be." He didn't state which policy he favors. He leaves it to democracy. There's no mention of the looming presidential election, perhaps because he doesn't even know yet how Hillary Clinton will choose to respond. As I've said (in the previous post), I don't think Clinton will go the gun-control route, so I think Obama is satisfying the gun-control crowd by mentioning the subject, but getting out of the way.

ADDED: Hillary weighed in on Facebook. She structures her statement very much like Obama's, with the act of terror/act of hate combination and then gun control thrown in at the end:
This was an act of terror.... For now, we can say for certain that we need to redouble our efforts to defend our country from threats at home and abroad... It also means refusing to be intimidated and staying true to our values.

This was also an act of hate.... We will keep fighting for [the right of LGBT people] to live freely, openly and without fear. Hate has absolutely no place in America.

Finally, we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.
Unlike Obama, she does embrace a policy position on guns, complete with a statement that the guns this person used should be classified as "weapons of war" and completely banned.

And Trump has 4 more tweets:
Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn't he should immediately resign in disgrace!

Reporting that Orlando killer shouted "Allah hu Akbar!" as he slaughtered clubgoers. 2nd man arrested in LA with rifles near Gay parade.
AND: I relistened to Obama's presentation, and he did refrain from saying "radical Islamic terrorism" or making any reference to the murderer's religion. 

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
Quaestor said...

Obama studiously avoids the obvious.

eddie willers said...

He mailed it in.

chuck said...

> Obama studiously avoids the obvious.

Nothing studious about it, it is pure reflex.

Original Mike said...

Yeah, but did he identify the motivation for the terrorism? Of course not.

Big Mike said...

The President talks about the need to find out all the facts and to be careful about what we say before all we know we can ...

So maybe the President has learned something from the Henry Gates and Trayvon Martin incidents?

If so it's the first thing he's learned in seven plus years.

buwaya puti said...

The fellow they caught with a carload of weapons in LA seems to now be in FBI custody. Aiming at LA Pride.
ISIS was claiming they would go after gay targets, plural.
No news re identity of the LA person.

Danno said...

Big Mike said it all!

Skipper said...

It was neither. It was an act of theology.

Basil said...

He talked just like a guy who just had to cancel his tee time.

n.n said...

It may have been an act intended to terrorize a population. It was not an act of "hate" or fear or anything of the kind.

The motive is clear. Transgender behaviors, dysfunctional heterosexuals, abortionists, planners/cannibals, etc. are objectively antithetical to evolutionary fitness, notwithstanding any claims by the Pro-choice cult to the contrary. Some people just take opposition to dysfunctional and debasing behaviors to an equal extreme.

The issue is reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives. The Muslims have a long history of failing to reconcile these imperatives. The left-wing Atheists have a shorter, but equally glorious history of failing to reconcile these imperatives. Other groups have exceptional people and circumstances where these same failings occurred.

cubanbob said...

Captain Obvious has spoken. We can all be at ease.

Naturally the cargo cult mand magical thinking gun control believers will be out in full force while ignoring these type of terrorist attacks in countries with strict gun control laws.

hawkeyedjb said...

The talking heads yak about the guns so they can avoid talking about the Mohammed Coefficient and its relevance to these murders.

dreams said...

I thought it was the guns, we're doomed. Obama wanted to fundamentally transform our country, mission accomplished.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


But, he does have a sonorous voice that captured Ann's heart and vote, first time around.

Michael K said...

Obama cannot mention Islam as he is determined to rehabilitate it.

Flooding the country with radical Islamists will not rehabilitate anything. Germany is learning that.

AReasonableMan said...

dreams said...
Obama wanted to fundamentally transform our country, mission accomplished.


This guy is US born, born well before Obama became president. He was most likely born here thanks to efforts of the strategic genius's who thought it was a good idea to stir up trouble in Afghanistan back in the day.

1.5 billion Muslims. They are fucking crazy. Reagan had the right idea in Lebanon.

Original Mike said...

"The talking heads yak about the guns so they can avoid talking about the Mohammed Coefficient and its relevance to these murders."

One wonders how long they can keep this up.

robother said...

Obama can't say definitely that this was an Islamic terrorist act, but he can say it was an act of hatred. Really? What facts lead to this kind of certainty?

For all he knows, Omar believed sincerely what the Imam preached in Orlando on April 22: that killing Gays and Lesbians was an act of compassion. But the Democrat Narrative must be maintained at all costs, truth and self-preservation be damned.

AprilApple said...

Obama will NEVER say "radical Islamic terror". Never. Give it up.

Hillary (D-corrupt) will always use these horrific circumstances to advance her radical anti-2nd amendment extremism.

madAsHell said...

I'll guess that a box of 9mm will be up around $15/50 rounds by Tuesday.
Cabela's will have a limit of 10 boxes per customer, and the hand guns in the display case will be significantly diminished by Friday.
But, Barry says we just need another feel good law for gun control that is completely un-enforceable, and easily ignored.

n.n said...

Trump is right, mostly. Like Marxism, Christianity, and similar, Islam is a universal religion (i.e. moral philosophy). The difference is that Islam and Marxist derivatives have a conventionally violent and coercive orientation for conversion and proselytization.

Clinton, Obama et al are advocates for excessive (and illegal) immigration, selective exclusion, infringement of rights, [class] diversity, evolutionary dysfunction, etc. The a-religion/morality of the Pro-Choice cult.

Char Char Binks said...

This terrible act may have stemmed from the killer's hatred of gays, or of Western secular society in general, and that hatred may have stemmed from the killer's cultural and religious background, but that doesn't mean it was terrorism in any useful sense. There's no evidence that I know of that shows any political motive or military objective to this violent act.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The fundies are glad to have other groups willing to do their dirty work for them.

gspencer said...

Our POS president, "What is clear is he was a person filled with hatred."

True enough, but to be filled with that hatred he was first filled with Islam.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I think the Dems will circle back to their Watch List gun restrictions. That seems to be a twofer. One gun control and two tough on terror.

My guess would be Trump will back that as well.

dreams said...

"This guy is US born, born well before Obama became president. "

And this is your defense of Obama.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Let's see, we already took the Confederate flag down in SC, so what else can we do to stop hate?

Darrell said...

Perhaps we shouldn't be letting a couple hundred "Syrian refugees" come her on their own every week. And we shouldn't be bringing in the hundreds of thousands, like the last couple of years--until we can be sure that they are not part of the war on Western Civilization.

Will Obama admit his policies are wrong and dangerous? Never. Let just push through the Lefty agenda, as per usual.

Jack Wayne said...

ARM, Reagan had the right idea FOR THAT INSTANCE. It is not the right idea for ALL instances. My take is straightforward: we are in the midst of an Islamic Reform. A religious reform is NOT a liberalization. It is always a return to the old time religion. What usually follows is a long (centuries) period of warfare. Possibly it may lead to liberalization such as religious freedom. But it is not the usual outcome. Inasmuch as the Muslims are killing each other as well as others, the correct path, in my opinion, is to punish those transgressions brutally within a short time frame. A long-term war is just stupid. If we grant that that the Iraq war was proper, then Bush should have invaded Iraq, killed a million or so and pulled out as soon as Sadaam and his sons were dead. I don't think it was proper but it happened anyway and Bush screwed the pooch.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

Althouse said: "Unlike Obama, [Hillary] does embrace a policy position on guns,"

Like Obama, Hillary will not mention the source of the terrorism.

Darrell said...

Do you know why the British didn't allow millions of young German men to immigrate to the UK from 1939 to 1945?

Because they weren't fucking stupid, that's why.

PB said...

In Obama's world blacks cam o little wrong and the same goes to Muslims. White's and police are immediately branded as having acted stupidly.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Have a blessed Ramadan.

coupe said...

I think the Constitution would NOT be harmed if certain weapons were declared WMD.

I'm a gun owner, but I have no use for an M-16 or an AK-47, or any of the thousands of like weapons, which rely on the need for Mass Destruction.

I realize these are super cool to collect, and to fire, and that right should be limited to those who can prove they can secure the weapons.

I would have a one year amnesty where these weapons can be registered as WMD by the owner, and reimbursed with credit for those who the weapon can't be trusted with.

For example, if you live in a housing project, you can't own WMD, etc.

That's my compromise for the day.

AReasonableMan said...

Darrell said...
Obama admit his policies are wrong and dangerous?


How about dealing with the real problem. What purpose was served by us getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place? Paranoia about communism, now largely replaced by paranoia about Muslims. Ask the right question. Who benefits from this constant effort to stir up trouble abroad? It sure as shit wasn't the veterans who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq or the gays in Florida attending a club.

Michael said...

Obama considers himself an intellectual and these remarks, like all of those on this topic before, are his idea of what an intellectual would remark.

Stunning, actually, to discover that our president is actually dumb.

PB said...

"The guy was born in the US, well before Obama became president."

Yeah, but was he radicalized when Obama was president?

Darrell said...

ARM, you are right. We shouldn't have gotten involved in Bosnia.

FleetUSA said...

Char Char pls define "terrorism". Terrorizing doesn't need politics or military immediacy IMHO

Drago said...

ARM: "What purpose was served by us getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place?"

You should ask Jimmy Carter and the world community (from Wikipedia):

"In January 1980, foreign ministers from 34 nations of the Islamic Conference adopted a resolution demanding "the immediate, urgent and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops" from Afghanistan,[33] while the UN General Assembly passed a resolution protesting the Soviet intervention by a vote of 104–18.[33][34] Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of aid, military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[9] paid for primarily by the United States and Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf."

Oh, that's right. It was all Ronald Reagan fault! And all this happened before he was even elected.

But hey, what good is a lefty narrative if you are going to look at actual timelines?

Drago said...

ARM: " Paranoia about communism, now largely replaced by paranoia about Muslims."

Were the muslims in Afghanistan right to be paranoid about communism?

Of course, in the west we are not allowed to question the wisdom of those Soviet paragons of virtue and "men of the people".

David Begley said...

1. Maybe the most pathetic address EVER by a president. Radical Islam scores its biggest body count since 9-11and we get gun control and "hate" from Obama? Was Ben Rhodes unavailable?

2. There is a place for hate in America. I HATE Hillary. I hate her because she is a criminal and incompetent. She will loot this country and destroy it.

She has already FAILED in foreign policy. Why would we elect her?

robother said...

We know that this guy's fellow workers and others had reported him to the FBI and that they had investigated him twice in the last 3 years. But Obama has so terrorized the FBI and the guy's employer about appearing anti-Muslim that no one was willing to pull the trigger on labelling him a terrorist or firing him, despite open statements of support fro ISIS and the Tsarnaev bros. Same deal with Hillary.

Trump needs to point out that these people's blood is on Obama's hands. And demand that Hillary explain how confiscating every gun from law-abiding US citizens would have saved any lives, when the Orlando police stood outside that bar for 3 hours while a guy shouting "Allahu Akbar" calmly shot over 100 people.

Johnathan Birks said...

Our president is either stupid or feckless to think guns, rather than religious fanaticism, is the core problem.

Drago said...

It's simply unfortunate that Jimmy Carter did not have access to the all-powerful hashtag campaign weapon like we have today when the islamists, who apparently are just like Christians, sexually enslave small girls.

coupe said...

It should be harder to buy a military style weapon, than it is to get into an airport.

The reason these people shoot people with a rifle, is because we've made it real difficult to buy explosives.

Hint, hint. If we can live our lives without dynamite, I believe we can live our lives without guns that require 30 round clips of high velocity ammo.

AReasonableMan said...

Darrell said...
ARM, you are right. We shouldn't have gotten involved in Bosnia.


And when one of the 7 million Serbs goes nuts and shoots up a gay club in Florida, that will be even clearer. For these largely individual acts, numbers count: 1.5 billion versus 7 million.

An actual conservative philosophy would recognize that 1.5 billion is not a thing to be trifled with. Actual conservatives understand that there are limits to anything in this world, whether it is ideology, religion or military power.

Obama may be just putting a rhetorical band aid on things, but it is the smart, conservative move. Let the nuts kill someone else. The business of the US should be doing business. Unfortunately the finance industry sold most of it to China.

Darrell said...

If and when Serbs become a problem in the US, we'll deal with Serbs.

Phunctor said...

"The Fundies are glad..."

What is it like to live in a pit of hatred, R&B? Jesus loves you anyway.

Jack Wayne said...

Actually Coupe, you are full of it. If the Minutemen had not had access to cannons and explosives, we would still be English.

coupe said...

Johnathan Birks said......guns, rather than religious fanaticism, is the core problem.

Access to weapons is the problem.

All the other things are harmless.

We shouldn't make it easy for the insane to arm themselves.

exhelodrvr1 said...

coupe,
If all guns were magically confiscated, how long would it be before the criminals had guns? Especially considering the unwillingness to actually monitor our border? Think before you post!!

Rusty said...

Blogger coupe said...
I think the Constitution would NOT be harmed if certain weapons were declared WMD.

I'm a gun owner, but I have no use for an M-16 or an AK-47, or any of the thousands of like weapons, which rely on the need for Mass Destruction.

I realize these are super cool to collect, and to fire, and that right should be limited to those who can prove they can secure the weapons.

I would have a one year amnesty where these weapons can be registered as WMD by the owner, and reimbursed with credit for those who the weapon can't be trusted with.

For example, if you live in a housing project, you can't own WMD, etc.

That's my compromise for the day.

The horse you wish to collar, shoe, and brand left the barn decades ago.
So many avenues to approach this..............
I bet you own some shotguns. Amirite?
Fisrt of all An M16 is an automatic weapon and to own one you'd need to be fingerprinted, photographed and pay a 200 dollar tax. A AK $& is also a fully automatic weapon same NFA rules apply.
Here's one you won't like. My Browning A5 shotgun is much more deadly at short distsnces than any AR15. With an extended magazine it can hold eight rounds of double ought buckdhot. There are 9 9mm balls in each shell. 9x8 = 72. 72 individual 9mm round balls.
Are you sure you're a gun owner?
I don't think you are.
But whatever you go ignore the motivation that allowed the misuse of the tool.
Let's register muslims as WMDs.

Darrell said...

If you can't be guns, you take them from people who have them. Our Federal Gov't has made that easier by arming every small town LEO and library SWAT team to the teeth with full-auto weapons.

Rusty said...

coupe said...
It should be harder to buy a military style weapon, than it is to get into an airport.

It is.

The reason these people shoot people with a rifle, is because we've made it real difficult to buy explosives.

Now I know you're a liberal poseur. I can still buy explosives. Just fill out the paperwork. It's just that it's a lot easier to make them.



Darrell said...

They should make suicide bomb vests illegal.

Drago said...

ARM: "Let the nuts kill someone else."

Apparently ARM has not been following the news very closely for the last 18 hours.

Drago said...

R&B's: "The fundies are glad to have other groups willing to do their dirty work for them."

How oddly generic this statement is. Similar to the Miriam talking points.

It's almost as if being a leftist means there are things you are never allowed to mention.

Phunctor said...

Coupe, I'd love to believe you're simply ignorant. But actually you're a disingenuous equivocator, placing unrelated terms in proximity to form neural linkages between them in your targets. God help us all, this has replaced honest argument, because it works.

David Begley said...

I think the FBI's immediate statements that this was an act of terror and all the subsequent Islam connections is a direct pushback against Obama. He made his statement AFTER all the FBI info was out. IOW, FBI told Obama that this was Islam and he refused to say it.

This has implications for Hillary. Either indict her or see he most massive leak ever by the FBI. The new Deep Throat is already talking to Brett Baier.

The Godfather said...

There are no "common sense gun controls" that would have prevented Mateen from obtaining the weapons he used to commit these horrendous acts, so Hillary! needs to up her game: Presumably she'll propose another "assault weapons" ban (because it was so successful last time). Mateen was a native-born American, so banning all Muslim immigration, or all immigration from Muslim countries, "until we figure out what's going on", won't solve the problem; Tromp needs to up his game: Perhaps he'll propose surveillance and infiltration of Mosques and Muslim organizations, arrests of "radical clerics", requiring loyalty oaths for government employement ("are you now or have you ever been a Muslim?").

Isn't it peculiar how whatever happens turns out the be a reason to support the kinds of policies we already favor, only more so?

coupe said...

Jack Wayne said...If the Minutemen had not had access to cannons and explosives, we would still be English.

The minutemen were terrorists. They killed people in order to form a breakaway country.

If we were still part of the UK, we'd be better off than the Communists we have running for President, ever since they threw out Hoover.

Hoover was the last President before the socialist takeover. $22 Trillion and counting...

pst314 said...

Ann "We're asked to think about how easy it is to have and use a gun: 'And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be.' He didn't state which policy he favors. He leaves it to democracy."

Obama insinuated loud and clear.

Furthermore: the killer was a licensed security guard and had Florida firearms license(s). As usual, Obama shoots off his mouth where an adult would remain silent.

jimbino said...

Obama says to "say a prayer" for the victims in Orlando. He needs to be reminded that it is Catholics, not Protestants, who say prayers for the dead.

pst314 said...

ARM "Paranoia about communism"
We all know that you are fond of left-wing totalitarianism, even in its most imperialistic and genocidal forms, but that doesn't mean that we have to blind ourselves to please you.

Rusty said...

No. We were rebels. We faced the British in nearly every battle we fought with them we went toe to toe.
Not batting a thousand today, are you coupe.

n.n said...

The goal of assimilation is to reduce recidivism. There should be an investigation if the mass abortionist acted alone or was aided and abetted by people with a similar moral behavior, including building confidence through progressive numbers.

William said...

I feel that paranoia about Islam is directly linked to Muslims committing acts of mass murder. If Muslims would refrain from acts of mass murder, more people would have a positive view of the Muslim religion.......I know that I'm advancing a very subtle and complicated argument here, but it's, nonetheless, true.

Jack Wayne said...

Coupe, the fact that the Revolutionaries were stupid and betrayed by their leadership has nothing to do with the fact that they would not have been in the position to attempt a limited government without guns and explosives. You're just being contrary and silly.

Michael K said...

thanks to efforts of the strategic genius's who thought it was a good idea to stir up trouble in Afghanistan back in the day.

I assume you mean Brezhnev or Gorbachev.

You do know the history, right ?

Reagan made serious mistakes in Lebanon, the worst of his presidency. I can't believe you thought that was a good period for him.

rhhardin said...

What's all this automatic hate about? Cool and calculating is more likely. Do something important and meaningful like killing Jews or gays.

It's a self-esteem thing, in a culture that honors that.

Judge a culture by what it teaches the young to admire.

Consider that for blacks, for instance, closer to home.

DarktheKnight said...

"weapons of war"

Her mouth is a weapon of war. It's time we muzzle her for our safety.

Hillary wants to go after fundamental rights? We should go after every single one of hers.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

coupe is trolling. Stop feeding the troll.

Also, Obama said we needed to decide what kind of country we want to be and that not deciding is a decision.

Yep, got that right CPT Obvious.

It seems to me that we have decided what kind of country we want to be IRT gun control. Obama and Hillary don't like it, but there you are.

Char Char Binks said...

@FleetUSA

I got dragged across the coals the last time I cited a dictionary here. I'm not falling for that again!

DanTheMan said...

Coupe,
They have very strict gun control in France. And Belgium.
Full auto AK's were used in the Paris attacks.

Do you see the flaw in your proposal yet?



AReasonableMan said...

pst314 said...
We all know that you are fond of left-wing totalitarianism, even in its most imperialistic and genocidal forms, but that doesn't mean that we have to blind ourselves to please you.
.

Remind me again, who do our new found allies in Vietnam identify as? A philosophy as transient and subject to the winds of change as yours is no philosophy at all. It is certainly not conservative, bouncing from one mortal enemy to another within a lifetime. More like a fashion, or a fad, or the mania of adolescent with ADHD.

James Pawlak said...

Without giving dangerous details, there are at least two WMD as can be easily obtained as can destroy large buildings and entire neighborhoods--Only one of which requires even a minimum of technical/mechanical skills.

As President Jefferson and others have maintained, the real reason for a well armed citizenry is NOT foreign threats but domestic tyrants (eg Those who attack the Bill Of Rights), especially by "Executive Orders" as avoid/ignore/destroy democratically-enacted laws.

Char Char Binks said...

@Darrell

We dealt with the Serbs in the 90s when Hillary's UCK buddies drove them out of Kosovo with help from US warplanes. They weren't a problem for US then or now.

AReasonableMan said...

DanTheMan said...
do you see the flaw in your proposal yet?


Let me get this one. The open border policy of the EU.

FullMoon said...

This was also an act of hate.... We will keep fighting for [the right of LGBT people] to live freely, openly and without fear. Hate has absolutely no place in America.

Yeah, pretty sure the guy hated Jews, Christians, Americans, and everybody else.
Wonder what his feeling were about transgender restrooms?

n.n said...

There is another possible motive. The last transgender/homosexual narrative unraveled as a drug-laced, domestic violence dispute.

Clyde said...

Like the San Bernardino killer, this guy was born in the U.S. to Muslim immigrant parents. Suffice it to say that if we didn't have undiscriminating immigration from Muslim countries, those parents wouldn't have been here and their sons wouldn't have had the opportunity to conduct mass murder, and 60-some-odd people would still be alive today. I realize that not all Muslims are violent terrorists, but it seems that a disturbing percentage of them are. I'm not advocating for booting all Muslims out of the country, but I can't see any legitimate reason to bring any more of them here. It's more of a risk than we need to take.

David Begley said...

Trump 20 minutes ago:

"What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough"

Smart. Real smart. Playing on fear. But it is legit fear. And then he points out how bad Obama and Hillary have been on this issue.

I still can get over how bad Obama's address was.

Rusty said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
DanTheMan said...
do you see the flaw in your proposal yet?

Let me get this one. The open border policy of the EU.

Nope. Try again.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What is it like to live in a pit of hatred, R&B? Jesus loves you anyway.

Does he judge me, too?

I dunno. The statement was sort of half tongue-in-cheek, almost as much to break the predictable monotony of grief. These mass shootings unfortunately become too boring after a while to really retain their rightful power to horrify. We're a society of lemmings, in a way. I refuse to pretend that this is unforeseen. I'm sure there will be another one in a couple months, and then a few months after that. It's just a question of how often you want to see it. Or maybe you must like the grief. Either way, seems like a ludicrous price to pay for someone's definition of "freedom." I'm done pretending that the roots of these policy catastrophes aren't obvious.

coupe said...

exhelodrvr1 said...If all guns were magically confiscated, how long would it be before the criminals had guns?

This is the number one argument against any law. That we would restrict law-abiding citizens, because of the presence of criminals.

That if we ban something for law-abiding citizens, then only criminals will have them.

My thinking is that we don't need 50,000 of these things coming out of the factory each month. Sooner or later it will be just like heroin, and everyone will have some.

Is that a desired outcome?

Rhythm and Balls said...

At least his rights as an individual to bear arms weren't infringed.

virgil xenophon said...

Just a little side commentary here. Turns out the owner of the nightclub is a woman who lost her brother to Aids and built the club to honor him as a place where people like her brother could come to have "fun." So let me get the logic of all this straight. To honor her brother she builds an establishment that attracts the very kind of people and their associated risky sexual activity (both on and off site) that killed her brother in the first place. Does such thinking make ANY kind of logical sense? Some kind of monument to her late brother....Might not have the money used to build the club have better been used to contribute to Aids medical research, etc? Something, ANYTHING that did not encourage such an obviously dangerously promiscuous and destructive life-style?

virgil xenophon said...

***"might the money used..."

Rhythm and Balls said...

Everyone knows how much easier it is to ban a belief or thought system than it is to keep tyranny at bay without guys like whoever it was that did this. He's definitely one of the first people I'd pick to put on my state's "well regulated militia."

Ban his belief system, not his completely uninfringeable sacrosanct right to bear some arms. It's obvious which one option makes more sense.

I sure hope he wouldn't have lost this uninfringeable "individual" right once in custody, had he survived. At that point we might have actually seen the Constitution self-combust. Alla-hu akbar!

virgil xenophon said...

Clyde@4:07pm hits it square in the nuts..

David Begley said...

Virgil

She built the club to make money. I hate it when people make up these altruistic motives. She saw a market with an unmet need and she took it.

Real American said...

Here's a lesson for all the leftists out there: this attack - murdering gays for being gay - is a real act of hatred. Not agreeing with your policy preferences regarding gays or tranny bathroom options - not hatred. Now if you'd stop lumping these things together the Country would be better off.

coupe said...

DanTheMan said...They have very strict gun control in France.

France has no gun culture. They are what we call "a soft target".

It's true you can kill them, but it is not true that arming the civilians will improve their lives.

The French pay out the nose for protection. There is no guarantee you will die in bed, and they don't want to give up life for a police state, like the one we have in America.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I really think that freedom might have died if in any way his so-called "individual" right (as Scalia put it) to bear arms had been in any way infringed. Unfettered access to guns unlinked in any way to actual militias are great ways to maintain the security of a free state.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Jack Wayne said...If the Minutemen had not had access to cannons and explosives, we would still be English.

The minutemen were terrorists. They killed people in order to form a breakaway country.

*************

They killed soldiers, not civilians. soldiers serving an oppressive monarch. cf The Declaration of Independence for reasons.

More than "nuance" involved in the difference.

I take it you're one of those "gun control" types, who would disarm the citizenry so that all-powerful "government" can do what it wants to us. IOW you're a totalitarian.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Ban his belief system, not his completely uninfringeable sacrosanct right to bear some arms. It's obvious which one option makes more sense.

So says the learned R & B --- AS IF the many regulations, controls and barriers placed on firearms ownership reflect a "completely uninfringeable sacrosanct right."

You're a dull tool, man. If you were a knife in the kitchen drawer, you'd be the clam knife.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

. It also means refusing to be intimidated and staying true to our values.

This was also an act of hate.... We will keep fighting for [the right of LGBT people] to live freely, openly and without fear. Hate has absolutely no place in America.


So the first sentence means that we will continue to encourage the importation of radical Muslims as "migrants" and "refugees." That's not up for debate. It's "true to our values." Although I don't see how welcoming large numbers of people who don't even believe in democracy, much less don't share our liberal values is actually being true to our values.

"We will keep fighting for LGBT..." I am doubting that she means that she intends to send the new Muslims to "fun camps" to get their mind right, what she means is that she will continue to fight for the right of men to go into women's rooms and call it a civil rights issue.

We are ripe for another Cervantes to come along and skewer the ways in which our betters simply cannot discuss obvious truths.

Roughcoat said...

What purpose was served by us getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place? Paranoia about communism, now largely replaced by paranoia about Muslims.

Al-Qaeda (Usama bin Ladin and his followers) used Afghanistan as their base of operations for striking at the CONUS on 9/11. They did so with the support and connivance of the Taliban. In doing so the Taliban carried out an act of war against the United States of America. That's why we got militarily involved in Afghanistan, i.e. to strike back at our enemies who had conducted the first major attack by on the CONUS since the War of 1812 and who were using Afghanistan with Talibani support to conduct future operations against the CONUS.

coupe said...

wholelottasplainin' said...I take it you're one of those "gun control" types, who would disarm the citizenry so that all-powerful "government" can do what it wants to us.

I'm not a paranoid insane person like you. The only time I think about the government is when I pay my taxes.

I worry more about the cars around me. 40,000 killed last year. The government lets us drive our WMD, so we can give up the mere plinking tools, with that kind of power.

tim in vermont said...

Ban his belief system, not his completely uninfringeable sacrosanct right to bear some arms. It's obvious which one option makes more sense.

We should also outlaw free speech, while we are at it, I mean look what that movie did to incite those otherwise peaceful people in Benghazi!

Hillary's first response, and the response of her puritan followers is always the same, take away human rights first! "Outlaw steak! Babies can't chew it!" The desire to spend the one life you have been given for a brief instant in the infinite age of the universe as you wish is to fetishize freedom! Don't you know that countries where freedoms are the most heavily restricted are the happiest!

buwaya puti said...

The hate here, implied in every word, is not that openly discussed, of Muslims or gays. The subtext is his hate of the Americans.

tim in vermont said...

What purpose was served by us getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place? Paranoia about communism, now largely replaced by paranoia about Muslims.

Is it paranoid to react to an armed invasion of an expanding empire? I guess so. You learn something new every day.

Carol said...

arming every small town LEO and library SWAT team to the teeth with full-auto weapons.

Wait, what?? Has there been an incident where police have used machine guns? Seems a rather imprecise response.

Gahrie said...

Ban his belief system, not his completely uninfringeable sacrosanct right to bear some arms. It's obvious which one option makes more sense.

Actually neither option is available in the United States according to the Constitution.

Miriam said...

"Just a little side commentary here. Turns out the owner of the nightclub is a woman who lost her brother to Aids and built the club to honor him as a place where people like her brother could come to have "fun." So let me get the logic of all this straight. To honor her brother she builds an establishment that attracts the very kind of people and their associated risky sexual activity (both on and off site) that killed her brother in the first place. Does such thinking make ANY kind of logical sense? Some kind of monument to her late brother....Might not have the money used to build the club have better been used to contribute to Aids medical research, etc? Something, ANYTHING that did not encourage such an obviously dangerously promiscuous and destructive life-style?"

Ah, it's good to hear a "real" Althouse commenter. Enough with the sympathy, on to the usual gay bashing....

Darrell said...

Wait, what?? Has there been an incident where police have used machine guns? Seems a rather imprecise response.

There is a selector switch for full-auto on the weapon.
Not so smart now, eh Carol?

buwaya puti said...

If this person had murdered 50 in a brothel it wouldnt have made his crime any worse, nor would it have made the brothel a moral business.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"We will keep fighting for LGBT..." I am doubting that she means that she intends to send the new Muslims to "fun camps" to get their mind right, what she means is that she will continue to fight for the right of men to go into women's rooms and call it a civil rights issue.


Gays, want to fight for LGBT rights? Go into a Muslim-owned bakery and try to get them to bake you a wedding cake.

Steve Crowder tried that in Dearborn. The results are on YouTube. In every instance, the bakery owners immediately turned him down.

AReasonableMan said...

Roughcoat said...
Al-Qaeda (Usama bin Ladin and his followers) used Afghanistan as their base of operations for striking at the CONUS on 9/11. They did so with the support and connivance of the Taliban. In doing so the Taliban carried out an act of war against the United States of America. That's why we got militarily involved in Afghanistan, i.e. to strike back at our enemies who had conducted the first major attack by on the CONUS since the War of 1812 and who were using Afghanistan with Talibani support to conduct future operations against the CONUS.


Ahh, the transforming magic of amnesia. Was this the first time that you had heard of Afghanistan?

Gahrie said...

What purpose was served by us getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place? Paranoia about communism, now largely replaced by paranoia about Muslims

Why would anybody be paranoid about two murderous ideologies who promised to subjugate the world and acted on their intentions?

buwaya puti said...

Full auto weapons are available to Police Departments.
I see them (SWAT teams) carrying things like HK submachine guns sometimes.

tim in vermont said...

Ahh, the transforming magic of amnesia. Was this the first time that you had heard of Afghanistan?

The first time I heard of it was when the Soviets invaded a peaceful sovereign country that wasn't hurting anybody.

buwaya puti said...

Afghanistan - the Cold War, the Soviet Union, thousands of nuclear weapons and a Soviet army prepared to overrun Western Europe. Making trouble for the Soviets was worth it.
Whatever the Muslims get up to they are orders of magnitude less dangerous than that. For that matter the Chinese are far more dangerous now.

tim in vermont said...

Bill Clinton also launched missiles into that sovereign country, about two years prior to 9-11, when no state of war existed, and I can't imagine what precept of "international law" he was following.

robother said...

Treating an online declaration of allegiance to ISIS and its leader as merely free speech, with no consequences for your employment (as an armed security guard) or ability to buy weapons is insane.

But it is the logical consequence of Democratic (and sad to say Establishment Republican) refusal to acknowledge the state of war that exists between Wahhabi Islam and the West. Pretending that their attacks on the US homeland are merely a matter of domestic criminal enforcement places law enforcement in an impossible bind, particularly confronting a suicidal foe. (Consider the absurdity of Apple's defense of the San Bernadino shooter's privacy rights after his death. Or the 9/11 Commission's deleting any reference to Saudi funding of the terrorists.)

Especially in light of ISIS' call for Lone Wolf attacks on soft targets, the US needs to treat all followers of ISIS in the US as enemies, posing a clear and present danger. If we are too squeamish to impose the death penalty for treason, at least imprison them until ISIS formally surrenders.

mockturtle said...

If ISIS/ISIL calls itself a STATE, then we should be able to declare war on that STATE, including any members of the STATE living here in the US. They have vowed to kill us. What more justification do we need?

n.n said...

There are two circumstances for legitimate construction of diversity classes: commonly held principles and uniform action. Diversity classes constructed based on race, color, ethnicity, geography (other than natural imperatives), and gender are illegitimate, where the last is objectively relevant with sex-oriented, average physiological exceptions.

Christy said...

Is it possible to ban/export any who support Sharia Law? Sharia in the USA strikes me as treason. Can someone explain why it is not?

n.n said...

buwaya puti:

Americans are tolerant, even generous, to a fault. This evokes the hatred and fear from certain universal religions (e.g. Islamic, Pro-Choice, Marxist) and diverse secular authoritarian regimes.

gspencer said...

Well, let the gays strike back. Crowder had no luck in getting a Muslim bakery to do a gay wedding cake. But he simply didn't push it.

Now get some real gays in there to push the issue. Then we'll see some real fireworks.

A war of the alphabet letters,

GLAAD/ACLU v CAIR

n.n said...

Christy:

The answer is floating in the twilight zone (i.e. penumbra) as practiced and established by the State under pro-choice or selective legal, religious/moral, scientific, etc. principles. It is commonly understood as a "living" constitution. So, the problem is not Sharia or other Laws, but a constitution that is selectively interpreted, reinterpreted, and ignored for politically opportunistic causes.

Michael K said...

"they don't want to give up life for a police state, like the one we have in America."

Have you checked Napoleonic Law lately ? Have you been to France lately ?

ARM, I'm afraid you are the one with amnesia. You can decide we should not have invaded after 9/11. I don't think you would have gotten many people to agree then.

I was not in favor of a Big Army occupation like Obama has created. Bush kind of left it to Special Forces. Read "Jawbreaker," sometime.

Rusty said...

My thinking is that we don't need 50,000 of these things coming out of the factory each month. Sooner or later it will be just like heroin, and everyone will have some.

Is that a desired outcome?

Pay attention.
There are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country. Between them they own 300,000,000 firearms.
There is absoluttely nothing you can do about it short of arresting the gun owners and destroying all the guns. I'll save you some brain work. A logistical impossibility.

Miriam said...

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick deletes "You reap what you sow" tweet after mass shooting.

Ahhh, conservatives being "real".

Terry said...

Blogger Rusty said...
I'll save you some brain work. A logistical impossibility.

No, no, no, Rusty. Ridding the US of 11 million illegals is a logistical impossibility. Removing guns from the hands of private citizens simply takes courage, a few small changes to the law, and a reallocation of law enforcement resources.

Terry said...

From Miriam's link:
Patrick's adviser Allen Blakemore issued a statement explaining that the tweet was an unfortunate coincidence.
"Lt. Governor Patrick and every Texas is stunned and saddened by the outrageous act of domestic terrorism that has occurred in Orlando," Blakemore said. "... Regarding this morning's scripture posting on social media, be assured that the post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."
A Bible verse is tweeted from Patrick's account every Sunday at 7 a.m.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php?cmpid=fb-mobile

I guess I am just not into the 'sacrifice your integrity to push your narrative' business as much as some people are.

Roughcoat said...

Ahh, the transforming magic of amnesia. Was this the first time that you had heard of Afghanistan?

What is incorrect about my statement?

Note that I said "militarily involved"; by which I mean, conducting military operations in Afghanistan.

We were, of course, involved in Afghanistan before 9/11, providing material support to Afghan groups combating Soviet occupation forces.

Try not to use snark when and if you respond to my statement. I did not snark at you in my statement.

Terry said...

R&B wrote:
Ban his belief system, not his completely uninfringeable sacrosanct right to bear some arms.
And once again we have a liberal repeating the lie that anyone in the US can buy and possess a gun without limits or restrictions.
R&B, serious question, have you ever attempted to purchase a firearm?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I worry more about the cars around me. 40,000 killed last year. The government lets us drive our WMD, so we can give up the mere plinking tools, with that kind of power.

And what's the ratio of driver to pedestrian or other car bystander kill statistic on that one, fuzzy logic guy?

Rhythm and Balls said...

And once again we have a liberal repeating the lie that anyone in the US can buy and possess a gun without limits or restrictions.

It's not a lie that to point out where you people want the line drawn on that one - closer to more restrictions or less restrictions.

All I know is that Justice Scalia invented an "individual" right into the amendment. He looked at the living constitution and said that this was an individual, personal right. Not just a well-armed society. A personal right. Must have been a mighty fine looking penumbra to draw it out that far.

And that's fine.

All I'm wondering is how well that supposedly now individual right held up against the right of those gays to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Pretty well, it would seem. Pretty well.

Don't worry, gay potential gun homicide victims. The right of your attackers to keep and bear arms is strong and healthy!

virgil xenophon said...

Once again Ritmo gets it totally wrong. No less than that arch conservative jurist Lawrence Tribe holds the view that the second Amendment most certainly applies to individuals. Quoth he: "Because if it doesn't you don't get Lexington or Concord."

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ok so if Lawrence Tribe says something then i guess it just has to be so.

JCCamp said...

I'm not sure any of this means a stinking thing, but last year there were about 40,000 traffic fatalities, more than 30,000 fatal drug overdoses, and slightly more than 8,000 homicides from firearms. There are about 300 million guns in private hands in the US, while there are about 253 million motor vehicles on the road.

Proving pretty much...nothing. A large percentage of the traffic fatalities involved at least one party under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The same holds true for murders, to the degree homicides can be quantified in this sub-set.

Most of the mass shootings would not have been prevented by any of the proposed gun control devices except complete confiscation, in that those committing such were not convicted felons, etc. And "gun free" zones may simply invite violence, although such incidents (mass shootings) are so rare as to be anomalies and possibly not prone to characterization. No one has said so yet, but the club in Orlando may have prohibited concealed carry within.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Which individuals? Incarcerated felons?

Are they not individuals?

Do we ban their rights to speech?

Gahrie said...

All I know is that Justice Scalia invented an "individual" right into the amendment

Pure and utter bullshit.

Before the 20th century everyone understood that the right to won a gun was an individual one. The whole "militia" clause is dicta, not determinate, and everybody knew so.

As late as the 1930's you could buy a fully automatic Tommy gun through the mail from a newspaper advertisement.

Gun control is one more sad legacy of the first incarnation of the Progressives. It was a reaction to the rise in organized crime, which was a reaction to prohibition.

Terry said...

"Ok so if Lawrence Tribe says something then i guess it just has to be so."
It's distinguished law professor versus assertion by an anonymous blog commenter! Kind of a fifty-fifty thing I guess.

aritai said...

Gramma says her hearing seems defective because the words she reads in the heads of your reporters don’t resemble what they write. Your pTb didn't say "Ban" Muslims, he called for a “pause” banning Muslim immigration until you could figure out what to do to lessen the bleeding. Maybe put all mosques that request it under tight surveillance. If they didn’t ask and a homegrown murderer graduates from it, all the members would be returned to an opt-in mosque chosen by them when they said “no surveillance please) or somewhere else or a place willing to accept exiles and apply for re-admittance. Nor did he promise to kill the innocent families of those that committed acts of terror, he only threatened to Why? The same reason he refuses to declare his and the county’s weaknesses by stating any polices. Why? to cause doubt by all involved that sacrificing their sons would not earn their families several million dollars, fame and life on easy street, something Mr. Reagan would do on occasion that saved lives on both sides. Perhaps later before killing those who conspired to commit mass murder, your ptb would offer them the chance to surrender before killing them and removing any monetary incentive from their son’s terrorist act. A very humane approach, may stop a few sons out of fear for their families and the loss of their reward, and leave them the opportunity to surrender when this does not work prior to death from the sky. All accomplished with a few harsh words by a person with a backbone of steel not spaghetti. And only occasionally have to back up a threat with a fist of iron. Then again, in order to make this threat real, you need a wall of bricks not words. And you can’t have that either, you dirt worshipers. It might pollute the Rio Grande. Uh – oh, gramma is chuckling again, you must like to sacrifice your people on the altar of PC. Gun Free Zone, some one’s workplace, just more workplace violence, that they must have brought on themselves. The defenseless may never be allowed to arm up and defend themselves, besides less people are killed by bathtubs every year. So what does it matter? Might just as well abandon these innocents too, after all these murders believed in their heart, like all sjw’s, that the world must be rid of this and other evil and they regret they couldn’t figure out how to bury them alive or have the concrete walls fall on them.

You idiots. Ms. C is going to see you get what you deserve. Good and hard. Maybe Including having to check in the day before your flight and sleep in the new barracks at the airport to prevent the latest in intestinal explosives being used because your PC religion says you cannot use any intellect and judgement to counter these threats, no profiling permitted. Silly rabbit.

Anglelyne said...

Original Mike: One wonders how long they can keep this up.

They'll keep "it" up for as long as they can get away with keeping it up. It's apparent by now that the governing castes and the MSM of the West have decided to go jusqu'au bout with their folly.

They'll stop only if and when they are made to answer for that folly.

Gahrie said...

What kills me is the Left's belief that Scalia "invented" the Right to own a gun, but they have no problem with Douglas actually inventing a "right" to privacy or Blackmun using that right to invent a "right" to kill your baby.

Rhythm and Balls said...

People can decide to stay away from a road or outside of a car.

People can keep dangerous drugs can entering their system.

People can't stop themselves from violently and with great terror gunned down randomly in any public place in America.

And that's the way Scalia and his minions of yours over here seem to like it.

Just random killing anywhere at any time.

As Scalia said, we're a violent society. Always have been, always will be. That's the part that he felt he was sworn to protect and uphold.

Terry said...

"It was a reaction to the rise in organized crime, which was a reaction to prohibition."
Y'know, the 18th Amendment had broad and deep democratic support. When it lost that support, it was repealed. God only knows how we determine if a de facto constitutional amendment (like SSM) has failed, since it never depended on majority support in the first place.

Gahrie said...

Ok so if Lawrence Tribe says something then i guess it just has to be so."
It's distinguished law professor versus assertion by an anonymous blog commenter! Kind of a fifty-fifty thing I guess.


More importantly, Tribe is the Left's eminence grise on all things Constitutional, and would be expected to toe the Left's line on this one. This is definitely a statement counter to interest.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Before the 20th century everyone understood that the right to won a gun was an individual one. The whole "militia" clause is dicta, not determinate, and everybody knew so.

Total bullshit. Restrictions were regularly passed, enforced and not challenged or stricken down.

As late as the 1930's you could buy a fully automatic Tommy gun through the mail from a newspaper advertisement.

About the same time that you could do the same thing with radium, you dumbass. Once regulations were passed on both, (at around that same time), they weren't challenged. And even penumbra-reading, living constitutionalist Scalia admitted that those restrictions have every right to stand. He named them specifically.

Gun control is one more sad legacy of the first incarnation of the Progressives.

Nice speech. Did you write it yourself?

It was a reaction to the rise in organized crime, which was a reaction to prohibition.

Whereas gun violence in general needs no proximate cause other than lax regulation. So feel good about that.

Terry said...

Here is what the majority actually wrote in Heller Versus DC:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Darrell said...

Ritmo/Ballsucker wants all guns confiscated so that the Left doesn't get the bullets it richly deserves. Islam is the ward of the Left. The Left fucked you over, gays. It's what they do.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What kills me is the Left's belief that Scalia "invented" the Right to own a gun, but they have no problem with Douglas actually inventing a "right" to privacy or Blackmun using that right to invent a "right" to kill your baby.

It's killing you without a gun? Well all righty!

I'm just glad to see you concede that Scalia's bullshit "philosophy" had no coherence at all and was just an opportunistic way to promulgate his prejudices in as convenient a manner as he saw fit.

Gahrie said...

Which individuals? Incarcerated felons?

Are they not individuals?

Do we ban their rights to speech


Nope. The Right to speech is Constitutionally protected. It cannot be taken away by government.

The right to vote however, is not.

Gahrie said...

I'm just glad to see you concede that Scalia's bullshit "philosophy" had no coherence at all and was just an opportunistic way to promulgate his prejudices in as convenient a manner as he saw fit.

What? In what way did I concede any such thing? The individual Right to own a gun has nothing to do with Scalia, and goes back before the founding.

We are citizens, not subjects.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The individual Right to own a gun has nothing to do with Scalia.

Don't respond to me until you learn your facts.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ritmo/Ballsucker wants all guns confiscated so that the Left doesn't get the bullets it richly deserves. Islam is the ward of the Left. The Left fucked you over, gays. It's what they do.

I'd be glad to let a thousand constitutionally protected gun-bearing American Muslims into a room with just you and a human billboard sign over your torso quoting all your most neighborly quotes about them.

Jupiter said...

Gahrie said...
"Ban his belief system, not his completely uninfringeable sacrosanct right to bear some arms. It's obvious which one option makes more sense.

Actually neither option is available in the United States according to the Constitution."

Not so. What the First Amendment says is that "the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In fact, the only people who want to violate the First Amendment are the Muslims who want to establish sharia law.

Terry said...

Here is some of Scalia's "bullshit philosophy":
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Rhythm and Balls said...

OK so the Muslim guy in Florida was just expressing an ancient individual right that you, Terry, and whichever other cockroach here felt very strongly about upholding.

I just want to make sure I have that straight.

Jupiter said...

You do have to wonder, if there is anywhere else in Florida, where you could find 100+ adult males, out for a night on the town, without a single concealed handgun among them.

Gahrie said...

OK so the Muslim guy in Florida was just expressing an ancient individual right that you, Terry, and whichever other cockroach here felt very strongly about upholding.

No...the Muslim guy in Florida misused a tool to commit murder in the name of his murderous religion.

Gahrie said...

Not so. What the First Amendment says is that "the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Which means the government cannot ban the establishment of Islam in the United States.

However yes, an attempt to establish sharia law would also be unconstitutional.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You do have to wonder, if there is anywhere else in Florida, where you could find 100+ adult males, out for a night on the town, without a single concealed handgun among them.

I don't wonder that. I actually think it's great that they have something better to concern themselves with than violence and the tools for implementing it.

But I am not a Republican.

Maybe "conversion therapy" can include a component on the virtues of violence and a handgun course. It's what I'd call a Holy Trinity of Republican Proselytization.

mockturtle said...

Two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Rhythm and Balls said...

No...the Muslim guy in Florida misused a tool to commit murder in the name of his murderous religion.

Don't you feel glad about how easily you fast-tracked his access to that tool? ;-)

Gahrie said...

Don't respond to me until you learn your facts.

Fuck you, you ignorant Lefty troll.

I have the facts on my side, no matter how you try to deny it asshole.

Terry said...

It's not an ancient, individual right to murder people, R&B. Jeez.
Remember what the actual, real Heller vs. DC held?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Murdering gay people is not a traditionally lawful purpose. The law didn't recognize 'gay people', rather than people who commit or attempt to commit physical acts of sodomy, until rather recently.

Darrell said...

We shouldn't call him a Muslim guy in Florida. It should be a Democrat Muslim guy in Florida.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Well that's certainly progress.

Gahrie said...

Don't you feel glad about how easily you fast-tracked his access to that tool? ;-)

No..I feel bad that all the victims were denied access to that tool.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Is there anything we can do to increase the ratio of gun deaths by suicide to gun deaths by homicide?

Robert Cook said...

"Which means the government cannot ban the establishment of Islam in the United States."


What does that mean? Who would "establish Islam" in the U.S.? Only the government could, and they can't, as per the First Amendment.

Jupiter said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
"OK so the Muslim guy in Florida was just expressing an ancient individual right that you, Terry, and whichever other cockroach here felt very strongly about upholding.

I just want to make sure I have that straight."

No, you don't have that straight. The right is to be armed, not to kill people who annoy you. If a few of the people in that club had been exercising that right, Omar would not have been able to kill 50 people. Of course, if everyone in America had been disarmed, that would also have kept Omar from killing 50 people. I'll leave you to try to figure out whether it would be easier to disarm 300 million people or arm a few more.

Rhythm and Balls said...

No..I feel bad that all the victims were denied access to that tool.

Right. Because their access to effective policing is what you'd deny them in favor of turning every man, woman and child into a one-man defense force.

The Republican Mad Max Vision for Society.

Terry said...

Yes, I think the muslim thing is overplayed. The salient fact is that he was a Democrat.
Harry Truman: used a nuke to kill tens of thousands of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was a Democrat.

Rhythm and Balls said...

No, you don't have that straight. The right is to be armed, not to kill people who annoy you. If a few of the people in that club had been exercising that right, Omar would not have been able to kill 50 people. Of course, if everyone in America had been disarmed, that would also have kept Omar from killing 50 people. I'll leave you to try to figure out whether it would be easier to disarm 300 million people or arm a few more.

Well, somewhere between disarming everyone and disarming no one is where I stand. But I realize that's not as respectable as the Republican Thunderdome Vision of Social Stability that requires everyone to be armed.

Darrell said...

Once again, Orlando was a Gun-Free Zone. Democrats had your back.

Jupiter said...

jimbino said...
"Obama says to "say a prayer" for the victims in Orlando. He needs to be reminded that it is Catholics, not Protestants, who say prayers for the dead."

Muslims also pray for the dead. "Allahu akbar", is how the Muslims pray, when they kill some of us. In fact, I believe that prayer has already been said over these bodies, by the Muslim who killed them.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Once Republicans implement One-Party Rule no American will ever be allowed to leave his or her domicile without a firearm on their person.

If they do, they will give the police the power to shoot you down immediately. Just for offending society with your un-armedness.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Darrell hates the unarmed. It makes him feel worse about his desire to gun them down.

Terry said...

Wait a second . . . wasn't it just recently that liberals were telling us about the racism inherent in city police forces and sheriff's departments? And we want only those guys to have guns?
Just this morning I read that Eric Holder works for a legal team that represents Uber these days. He's against the fingerprint and background check requirement for Uber drivers because it would disproportionately and unfavorably affect minority Uber drivers.
HUD director Julian Castro says landlords cannot automatically refuse to rent to felons based on their criminal records.
That's the government, always looking out for our best interests, tirelessly working to protect law abiding citizens from criminals. Who needs a gun when people like Obama, Holder, and Castro have our backs?

Paul said...

Uh, wasn't the shooter a FEDERAL GUARD? Complete with gun and badge? So how are the gun control nuts gonna stop it? Ban guards from having guns?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Since Terry's a member of the Hawaiian National Guard, he only gets to be armed with tridents and spear guns.

Darrell said...

When it comes time, Ritmo, I'll be facing you, haven given you time to fill your hand.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I think tridents are pretty fucking awesome. I wish I had one.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Dear Lord what is Darrell the cigarette fellatrix even saying? Does anyone have a clue?

It's hard to hear him over the sound of the gun he keeps masturbating into.

Darrell said...

The cast of Hamilton have locked their muskets up for tonight's performance at the Tonies. Ritmo approves. No word about suicide vests, yet.

Darrell said...

Ritmo invokes the name of the Lord. Precious!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Darrell, it sure would be nice if you had a bigger vision in life than just how to go about gunning me down.

But given how beady eyed your avatar is, I'm not surprised that vision's not your strong suit.

Darrell said...

I don't think of you at all. You will shortly cease to exist.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Blogger Terry said...
Wait a second . . . wasn't it just recently that liberals were telling us about the racism inherent in city police forces and sheriff's departments? And we want only those guys to have guns?"

Great point. Just the other day, the WaPo reported that one of the Trump supporters in San Jose who was beaten by the leftist mob was a gay Hispanic. And the cops just stood there and watched. The comments were quite chilling but exactly what I expect from the totalitarian left these days: a gay Hispanic Trump supporter deserves to have the snot beaten out of him for thinking wrong thoughts. That's what "liberal tolerance" looks like in 2016.

Yeppers. The cops are racist pigs - but they are the only people who should have guns. Only they can protect us- unless we're people who are undeserving of protection, like Trump voters.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't think of you at all. You will shortly cease to exist.

You care to explain this?

I mean, I realize you're an underdeveloped, overaged guy in a basement somewhere with no social life who worships violence and has an active fantasy life.

But just for the sake of what the FBI should know about you, it might be a good idea to clarify.

Michael said...

Why don't we test drive the idea of no guns for Muslims and work from there on the balance of the population. We could sort of rule out ownership for those groups which seem prone to overusing weapons on humans versus clay or paper targets. I could be down with that approach, one demographic at a time.

grackle said...

I'm a gun owner, but I have no use for an M-16 or an AK-47, or any of the thousands of like weapons, which rely on the need for Mass Destruction.

Most gun owners know that M-16s and AK-47’s are not legal for civilians to own. Apparently not this gun owner.

I realize these are super cool to collect, and to fire, and that right should be limited to those who can prove they can secure the weapons.

Further descent into ignorance. Ordinary gun enthusiasts and collectors cannot legally own fully automatic weapons – it has nothing to do with whether they can “secure” them or not. It’s a full time job correcting the misstatements of the ignorant.

Hint, hint. If we can live our lives without dynamite, I believe we can live our lives without guns that require 30 round clips of high velocity ammo.

I can also live without toilet paper. Does that mean I have to stink?

Another anti-gun person who wants to limit my capacity to defend myself and my loved ones. Gun control talking points. This is what they mean when they say they want to have a “reasonable” conversation about Second Amendment rights – which is impossible since most of them have scant knowledge of the facts.

Mateen was a native-born American, so banning all Muslim immigration, or all immigration from Muslim countries, "until we figure out what's going on", won't solve the problem …

At this point we have to think of the future. Islamic terror shootings in Europe and America have taught us that a certain percentage of the sons of Muslim immigrants “get religion” and when they do it’s usually of the jihadi variety of the religion, which mandates the killing of non-believers.

coupe is trolling. Stop feeding the troll.

Keeping na├»ve readers from being misled by ignorance is a dirty job but someone’s got to do it. I’ll keep “feeding,” when I think it’s necessary, thanks anyway.

My thinking is that we don't need 50,000 of these things coming out of the factory each month.

What we don’t need is government control of the manufacturing of legal products. Supply should be determined by demand, not what the anti-gun folks believe is “best” for us.

Joe said...

One question I've been pondering: was this really an act of hate? Regardless, does it matter?

Darrell said...

It means you can only exist if I think of you. I'm that essential. You knew it wasn't a threat, you Left-wing asshole. Fens Law. It's all pretense with you junior college professors teaching Marxism to the young and impressionable. Soros may not even pay you for showing up today--you've been so unpersuasive.

Terry said...

" . . . require 30 round clips of high velocity ammo."
30 round clips? High velocity ammo?
Someone has been watching too many episodes of Mannix.

CWJ said...

Yeah. Sucks to have a life outside blogs. Nearly 200 comments in. I assume no one will notice. Sigh. But here goes. No comment about how this is part of some historical/cultural DNA. Slander Americans with the racist sin of Cain when it comes to Dylan Roof, but this is an act of terror (truly) but let's not make any generalizations beyond the individual. Sorry, the guy is slime. Yes today he phrased it all "correctly" but conpare it to his casual demonization of others in so many earlier statements.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Mateen was a native-born American, so banning all Muslim immigration, or all immigration from Muslim countries, "until we figure out what's going on", won't solve the problem … "

At this point we have to think of the future. Islamic terror shootings in Europe and America have taught us that a certain percentage of the sons of Muslim immigrants “get religion” and when they do it’s usually of the jihadi variety of the religion, which mandates the killing of non-believers."


Yes. Again, this is the pattern we see in Europe. The North Africans who settled in France in the 1960's largely wanted to assimilate. Their children and grandchildren do not. Those are the "Frenchmen" and "Brits" who are running off to join ISIS.

That pattern will be repeated here.

As Osama noted, everyone likes the strong horse. Islam is confident and getting bolder all the time. Western secular culture is decadent, weak, and riddled with self-loathing. Young Muslims who grow up in the West feel no allegiance or attraction to it. Why should they, when educated liberal non-Muslims seem to loathe their own country and culture so much?

mockturtle said...

We non-ISIS Americans should be uniting against a common enemy instead of battling each other. But, unless we get leadership who will call a spade a spade, that's not likely.

Harold said...

Just checked out the facebook page of the Santa Monica wannabe. Showed up on a name google search. Turns out he's a Sanders supporter. Which makes no sense at all... but there it is.

Terry said...

"Gosh, Mr. Ventura -- are you really going to help us rid our neighborhood of a terrorizing gang of pimps and drug dealers?"
"Yep. Load me up a thirty round clip."
"Low velocity ammo ok?"
"No! I didn't become the most feared wrestler in the WWF by pulling my punches! High velocity ammo all the way! And throw in a brick of Black Cats and a couple of roman candles. In a pinch they make one hombre seem like a whole damn army."
"Yes, sir!"

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»