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.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.
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.
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?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.
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.
Posts
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211@Harold: 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.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Greeson said that Howell harbored no ill will toward gays or lesbians and added that Howell was bisexual.
None of it makes sense but we know there are plenty of lunatics running around since the courts decided they can't be institutionalized.
It's keeps getting better and better. He worked for a security contractor for the Department of Homeland Security--even though his father is a nutball running for President of Afghanistan who pledged support to the Talban. We mustn't judge.
R&B: "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."
And thus does R&B concede every point made today re: islamists.
For who can doubt that if R&B were placed into a room with 1000 constitutionally protected gun bearing American Christians with a billboard showing all his most neighborly quotes about them that he would emerge unsxathed?
Yet even he knows that would not be the case with the members of the "religion of peace".
All I know is that Justice Scalia invented an "individual" right into the amendment.
Not at all. It goes to original intent.
Scalia's opinion in Heller vs DC is here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
It doesn't seem poorly reasoned to me, or that Scalia is simply inventing an individual right to bear arms. An example:
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.
Liberals do a lot of virtue signaling. It is very important to them to be on the side of progress and not be associated with the people that they consider their moral and intellectual inferiors. So instead of actually reading the opinions in a case like Heller, they read commentary on the decision by approved liberal sources. That tells them what they can safely think and say about the decision. Citizens United is like that -- the arguments made by the government were chilling. A bureaucrat could order the confiscation of books if he or she felt they were in violation of the law. Ebooks could be erased from computers and ebook readers. Rather than defend the arguments of the government, the liberals speak with one voice, that the decision said that 'corporations were people', when, in fact, it said that people who pooled their interests in corporations did not give up their individual right to free speech, consistent with US code #1, section 1.
Ginsberg's opinions are terrible. She cherry picks precedent in a deceptive way. She believes that the SC needs to correct the people when its representatives are insufficiently progressive. She does not believe the constitution has any fixed meaning; if the SC says banning political speech is constitutional, than it is constitutional, the plain meaning of the words of constitution do not matter at all.
Obama doesn't seem to get angry about much, except his political foes. He seems angrier at Republicans not passing his preferred legislation than Muslims slaughtering Americans.
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.
Have you SEEN the UK recently?
Boy, reading the comments...That Rhythm and Balls poster certainly is an ignorant asshole...
grackle said...Most gun owners know that M-16s and AK-47’s are not legal for civilians to own. Apparently not this gun owner.
Miss grackle, You've obviously never been to a gun show in Oklahoma.
At every gun show you can find the stuff you need to make an AR-15 an M-16. Legally, these people don't care about your statute.
grackle said...Most gun owners know that M-16s and AK-47’s are not legal for civilians to own. Apparently not this gun owner. Miss grackle, You've obviously never been to a gun show in Oklahoma. At every gun show you can find the stuff you need to make an AR-15 an M-16. Legally, these people don't care about your statute.
Really? Got any proof of that? Got any photos or articles about an Oklahoma gun show showing anyone selling off the counter parts whose purpose is to convert semi-auto to full auto? We’ll be waiting …
I personally know a couple of gunsmiths who can convert most semi-autos into full auto with a few modifications if they wanted to. This is well-known in the gun owners community. They do not do it because it is against the law. They do not want to go to jail.
I repeat: It is illegal for civilians to own fully automatic weapons unless they possess a special license. These exceptions are heavily regulated and fairly rare. It’s unlikely though not totally impossible that such a license would be issued to someone who would end up turning into a jihadist. For a comprehensive look at the question go to the article below:
http://tinyurl.com/nr596eu
grackle said...Really? Got any proof of that?
Do a google search on demilled M-16, missy.
Blogger coupe said...
grackle said...Most gun owners know that M-16s and AK-47’s are not legal for civilians to own. Apparently not this gun owner.
Miss grackle, You've obviously never been to a gun show in Oklahoma.
At every gun show you can find the stuff you need to make an AR-15 an M-16. Legally, these people don't care about your statute.
A little more complicated than that. To make an AR15 into an M16 takes a bit of engineering. AKs aren't semi auto only what you see at gun shows aren't AKs. They just look like one. All NFA rules apply.
Post a Comment