Slashdot Mirror
Invoking Orlando, Senate Republicans Set Up Vote To Expand FBI Spying (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set up a vote late on Monday to expand the FBI's authority to use a secretive surveillance order without a warrant to include email metadata and some browsing history information. The move, made via an amendment to a criminal justice appropriations bill, is an effort by Senate Republicans to respond to last week's mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub after a series of measures to restrict guns offered by both parties failed on Monday. Privacy advocates denounced the effort, saying it seeks to exploit a mass shooting in order to expand the government's digital spying powers. The amendment would broaden the FBI's authority to use so-called National Security Letters to include electronic communications transaction records such as time stamps of emails and the emails' senders and recipients. NSLs do not require a warrant and are almost always accompanied by a gag order preventing the service provider from sharing the request with a targeted user. The amendment filed Monday would also make permanent a provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the intelligence community to conduct surveillance on "lone wolf" suspects who do not have confirmed ties to a foreign terrorist group. A vote is expected no later than Wednesday, McConnell's office said. Last week, FBI Director James Comey said he is "highly confident that [the Orlando shooter] was radicalized at least in part through the internet."
Of course it gets expanded.
More powers, greater reach, which will also be used for anything else they can justify (if they have to), or want.
Time to do some random (?not exactly random?) searches, emails, messaging, texting and such.
Keep them busy.
And sue the F&#k out of them when they try a false arrest.....
1984.
If you have no illegal porn to hide, you have nothing to fear.
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If you are the silent type of guy and just go grab your gun and shoot people, how would all this surveillance help?
CNN article: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/1...
For what it's worth, this has been down-played in media (haven't seen it blasting twitter and stuff much)
So basically NONE OF THE PROPOSALS would have prevented him from getting a gun.
As a voter, I'm sick of intelligent and informed voters being sidelined by media and legal cowboy politicians.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
> The Democrats want to take our guns [...] the Republicans want to spy on us [...]
Great! Let's compromise and have both! What's not to like?
Radicalized by the Internet? Lets build a wall -- a Great FireWall! And make the radicalizers pay for it. Only government approved spreech should be allowed on these inner tubes.
Trump 2016!!!
I can only suppose that it is a weird form of projection when our politicians use this phrase.
who the fuck uses that anymore? here's a hint.... not islamic radicals, that's who not. email is for spam and amazon receipts, not for recruiting into cults and terror cells.
dear lawmakers. count to 10 before doing something really stupid after a major event.
that Republicans stand up for the constitution and freedom.... my ass they do.
They're nothing but a bunch of neo-fascists doing the work of their corporate overlords.
And the Democratic party isn't much better.
Vote Green Party.
despite ALL the evidence gathered prior to the shooting, no one (gov't agency-wise) did anything. ...things that make you go "hmmmmm"
It's almost like they knew, but waited, so they could use it as an excuse to get more power...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
We need to dismantle this thing right away, It sounds dangerous!
What happened to the party of small government and suspicion of government interfering with people's personal lives?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
That shooter took away my freedoms! Thank you politicians for doing the right thing. Freedoms!
Counting the 50+ deaths in Orlando as the act of an Islamic terrorist, which is at least debatable, there have been fewer than 100 deaths in the US since 2001.
This is not exactly the sort of threat that sane men forfeit their liberty for.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
What incentive does the government have to actually capture these lone wolf nut jobs? You could easily capture 90% of them and let the other ten get away with their crimes just to justify a "budget" increase.
There's a special place in hell for these do-nothing bureaucrats.
And call his office and call your own congress critters instead of just spouting off here.
I see both parties have pulled out their favorite whipping boys, the Democrats are blaming all of societies woes on an inanimate object and roll after roll of useless red tape, at the same time the Republicans are blaming it on the government not having a complete lack of oversight and a runaway defense/law enforcement budget.
Like Australia did then this is the next best thing. I don't think mental health services would have helped the shooter. It's been suggested he was a repressed homosexual taking it out on the night club attendees. That was likely due to his religious upbringing so It'd be hard to insert mental health services into that without at least the appearance of attacking his religion. America is big on hard-line religion. Basically take gun control and the prospect of mellowing out religion away and I can't think of any other tools. And when you're only tool's a hammer...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The guy was also a religious nutjobs. Can we disarm all religious nutjobs as well?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am surprised it took them this long to try to renew their illegal spying programs. For the children, of course.
This should be obvious, but I guess politicians need to be seen doing something, and apparently reasonable gun control in a country that makes up a 1/3 of violent gun crimes just isn't going to fly.
The guy was nuts. He had a documented history of being nuts. His friends thought he was nuts. His family thought he was nuts. And yet, he could still get plenty of ammo and guns. The problem wasn't that there wasn't enough surveillance. The problem is that no one was paying attention to the information that was ALREADY AVAILABLE.
"Oh, I see you have a history of being bat shit insane. Here, let me get you a special discount on our Sandy Hook signature line of guns."
~X~
" Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and sponsor of the amendment"
Why am I not surprised. McCain never saw a tyrannical action he couldn't embrace. . .
We can't possibly do anything to prevent (or even slow down) people from getting guns, because reasons. So instead we'll expand domestic spying, which we all know works so well and never has any negative consequences. That's the ticket, right there.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It was John McCain who used the Orlando shooting to justify a bill legalizing the collection of meta-data.
Translation: Politicians lose backbone, again. Opportunists demand more police powers instead.
Then again, when Dianne Feinstein demands the government blocks "gun purchases by anyone on a terrorist watch list", one knows they're posturing. Such a law wouldn't have stopped the Boston bombers, the 9-11 attacks, Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber; terrorists who committed the most murders.
Sure, let's do everything except what will actually help, which is to restrict assault rifles.
They're like fucking Nero. I am so totally disgusted by the state of politics in the United States it makes me sick.
There's a good book of the same title by Naomi Klein.
It's a simple concept,. and the summary summarizes it for this situation: exploit a mass shooting in order to expand the government's digital spying powers.
Here's what we know:
1. Born in the US, thus a US citizen (child of immigrants, but most all of us are)
2. Had two wives (and one divorce) and a small child
3. Worked in security (where they carry guns)
4. Was investigated twice by the FBI (someone he attended religious things with had reported him)
5. Was legally able to purchase firearms
I'm sorry government of the United States, you weren't going to stop this guy. Except, he had been investigated and vetted as not a threat. THAT IS WHERE THE SYSTEM FAILED!
Could the system have been successful? We will probably never know. But:
* Him researching guns wouldn't have raised any eyes (it shouldn't have anyway).
* is father was rather wordy and seemed supportive of some "bad" groups (him searching for such things could have easily been painted as "know thy enemy" or simple curiosity).
He's basically Timothy McVeigh but against the gay community rather than the Federal government (and also no where near as deadly as Timothy).
BlameBillCosby.com
But, then Capitol Hill would be empty.
And the bad part about this being...?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yay! More surveillance, who couldn't be super-duper happy about that? Remember, citizens, it's for our own good and it will never be used for anything bad, okay? Alrighty then, carry on!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
What a coincidence right? Seeing how quick the US took advantage of this "tragedy" makes me believe in those false flags theories as time passes by....
He was a self loathing homosexual and a bigot as much as anything else, so oh no, no propaganda at all.
Come on baby, give it to me harder. Yea, that's the way I like it. Can I just put the surveillance equipment on my gun?
Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops
Now, while the outrage at the politicians may make one feel better, the truth of the matter is that they have been elected by the people again and again. The Supreme Court justices were put in place by those same elected officials.
But when people do want change, do they get a rational statesmen? No. They support people like Trump who have nothing but feel good unrealistic "solutions". Or they fall back on a name they recognize because of "electability" or some nonsense.
If anyone thinks that Trump is going to bring change, you are just as stupid as the masses who are behind Clinton.
It's unfortunate that folks who are true leaders and statement don't make it very far in US politics. The assholes usually make it to the top these days.
No more Eisenhowers or Trumans or Fords coming our way.
This is the beginning of the end for Republicans I think.
They keep trying to play the villain when the American people need heroes in the government.
The fact they don't realize this and they keep pushing for what the country doesn't want, they will not keep their jobs.
Look at Boehner's example.. he realized he wouldn't win and did the reasonable thing and left. There is a right thing to do when you are a conservative.
We don't live in a conservative world, to try to live in the past is idiotic and a sure fire way to make yourself irrelevant to the people you serve.
Conservatives by their very nature, are working to move us backwards. Our direction is forward!
piss on the Constitution and wipe their dirty jackboots with the Stars and Stripes? I'm a Canadian so to a certain extent I don't have a horse in the race; but even so, this really bothers me, if for no other reason than the US government's history of getting its own laws and practices and Peeping Tom-ness implemented extraterritorially. If I actually lived in the States, I'd be ready to chew battleships and spit out nails over this latest attempt to circumvent due process.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
No, no bad part. You could rent the space out to immigrants :)
the number of fags in the population is very low
Most of the democrats are gay
If there are so few democrats, then they're probably not going to be a very relevant party for much longer.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
the FBI has become public enemy number 1.
I firmly believe that the right would allow all of their constitutionally acknowledged rights be siphoned away, as they are simply just too distracted polishing their guns to notice.
Second reply: Yes, a determined killer will kill. But easy access to guns makes it much more likely that an unhinged person will take down a whole bunch of others. It's exceedingly unlikely that a guy with a glass bottle or a knife would kill 49 people before being stopped.
Look at Australia's experience with gun control. In the 18 years prior to 1996, they had 13 mass shootings (defined as 4 or more victims.) Since 1996 when they brought in draconian gun laws, they have had zero mass shootings. Zero.
Not only have mass shootings been drastically reduced, but the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That's because a lot of homicides and suicides are not planned, but occur in the heat of the moment, and are much likely to take place if there's easy access to deadly weapons. Here's the reference (PDF).
Where I do agree, though, is that gun control probably will not work in the US. You have way too many guns in circulation, and you're poisoned by 200+ years of the Second Amendment. Fixing that is well-nigh impossible, but just ignoring the problem is not going to help.
I's not necessarily fair to say that all Republicans are for more FBI/etc domestic spying - the Libertarian wing of the party certainly isn't.
Yeah, all three of them. Amash & Massie in the House, Paul in the Senate.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Hint: the men guarding the Japanese internment camps containing both naturalized and natural born citizens during WW2 are not civilians.
The government obeys law when it's convenient.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Heads I win (FBI spys on people like the secret service in East Germany, arbitrarily at any whin and no oversight/controls) or Tails (remove all individual rights to the point we are sheep to be herded). The terrorists have indeed one, America is no more and we are all cowering a cattle without the guts to do anything significant to truly stop it. The terrorists we have to worry about, are governments in the USA creating environments no different than Russia, we who open condemn. (But I wonder if we are taking cues from him in fact given news like this...)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Shouldn't somebody be hired to look at how useless this all is? Every time something bad happens, your government rushes to spend more money on "Security" but in the end, mass tragedies still happen. I think they really need to go back to the drawing board and find a more effective way to resolve these issues.
Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu, die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren. (Terror is the best military strategy to manipulate the masses.)
I know you are being inflammatory, but there is a serious question lurking back in that..
In the USA, the government CANNOT infringe on a person's constitutional rights without due cause. So, you cannot go collect guns from "religious nutjobs" (assuming there was a legal way to determine that) unless the government can show reasonable cause.
For instance, to many, I'm a religious nut case. Some of the families in my religious group are HEAVILY armed and we routinely have "fellowships" out at the private range where we bring and share food, weapons and ammo for an enjoyable day of gun safety training, target practice, and tactical training. We bring the kids and shoot some pretty interesting weapons and have a blast. Are you planning to take MY weapons?
I sure hope not, because there is nothing about this that is a problem in my mind. We are not advocating violence, just self defense and fun. Some of the guys get into heavy weapons for the fun of it, not plotting the overthrow of the government or advocating that somebody use these weapons to attack/kill people who oppose our common religious, political or world views. Quite the opposite.
So I ask you the question... How do you decide who to take guns from and who gets to keep them? Surely a religious test is going to be unconstitutional no matter how you slice it...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
...It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Let's see the FBI already was talking to the buy but they BUNGLED it badly. so we need even more spying capability?
Honestly, This is insane. Every single thing those asshats ask for is insane.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He didn't settle on Disney Springs. Also there's several interviews of folks talking about how he flirted with the night club patrons. You don't need to do that just to case a joint..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States"
Missing or ignoring the obvious answer has always been the problem. But hey, I'm sure MORE surveillance will solve that.
So a pound of cure (the further 1984ization of the country) is better than an ounce of prevention (gun control)? Good enough for government work, I guess. Winchester cathedral, you're bringing me down.
They didn't need to have warrantless spying on the guy in Orlando. They could have gotten a warrant on him. They interviewed him. Twice. Anyone interviewed by the FBI twice probably has done enough to get an electronic records warrant on them. The question is what to do with guys who are just talking smack vs the guys who are really ready to snap and act on it. I think a continued surveillance warrant is justified to observe a potential proverbial ticking bomb. But warrantless surveillance? Of browser history? That's a bad idea not only from civil liberties point of view. It's a bad idea from a technical point of view. Part of extracting of information from data is culling of data. The more data is collected, the more difficult the complexity of analytics. And the big-O of analytics grows as O( (n!)^K ), where K is constant, but n grows as the amount of data grows. In other words, it grows even faster than the exponential O(n^k). Even under the best case scenario, the computational capacity grows as exponential. So the amount of collected data will very quickly outpace the amount of analyzable data. If nothing else, warrants act as a way to cull to the data to be analyzed. The fact the data is initially analyzable can create a false sense of security and allow complacency of investigators to set in. This is not just wrong. This is dangerous.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Well, I guess they decided to target at least one amendment in this shitstorm, and if the 2nd can't be infringed, they'll settle for that old punching bag, the 4th.
Ironic, since the Republicans got their Senate majority in part by the running of ads claiming O is spying on citizens. (Disclaimer: the group who created the ad may be independent of actual Senate candidates.)
Table-ized A.I.
"The People" should be surveilling their employees - anyone working for the state.
Choose: Guns or your imaginary friend. It's been shown time and again that insane people and weapons don't mix.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's interesting that you vouch for all of the other members of your group. How can you be sure that the interest in heavy weapons isn't research for the next mass killing? Also what's stopping the next killer from copying and pasting your safe/patriotic excuse for owning and using weapons frequently?
Please remember that Republican constituents do not want this kind of invasive spying.
This asshole set up the false flag: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Buddy_Dyer.jpg
It isn't email related or metadata related either.
Privacy advocates denounced the effort, saying it seeks to exploit a mass shooting in order to expand the government's digital spying powers.
This is precisely what it is.
They cause spooky terror then claim to need more authority to save you from it. It is not as tricky as you would think or as they would have you believe.
This is a mini-9/11.
Who the fuck is this?
216.34.181.48 - Geo Information
IP Address 216.34.181.48
Host star.slashdot.org
Location US US, United States
City Chesterfield, MO 63017
Organization Savvis
ISP Savvis
Central Intelligence Agency.
But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings)
No it doesn't. It just allows people to try to return fire. It does nothing as a deterrent.
This is the sort of soft headed thinking that got us into the current mess. Guns are not shields, they are swords. Swords don't protect you from harm, they just allow you to stab back.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Guns Rights - PROTECTED. CHECK AND CHECK, SIR!
My rights to a little guaranteed privacy? Not so much.
I can't seem to find what the actual bill number is for this bill. I would like to contact my representatives and tell them to vote against this... but I need better info. Anyone have the details on this bill?
How about one needs 10 people to vouch for him before he can buy his next gun? If anyone on the list says "No." to the government privately, then his request is denied anonymously, and permanently, for so many years.
will this admendment extend the FBI's authority to include spying on the CIA (or even the NSA)?
when you can be held indefinitely until you surrenders the encryption key?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I supported US PATRIOT act because it was about giving NSA the power to spy. Oddly, after the neo-cons pushed it, they then removed gov. oversight.
NOW, these same GOP/neo-cons, joined by the tea*, wish to give this same power to the FBI.
Note the difference. NSA has ZERO POWER. They can not go out and arrest you. All they can do is pass on intelligence to the intelligence directors.
OTOH, what is the FBI? They are all powerful. The last thing that you want is to give them the right to spy on us at will. Why? Because not only will they spy at will, but they will be able to manipulate the evidence. That last is very important. We have already seen in Colorado and example of a GOP FBI agent that worked hard to give all sorts of lies and and misinformation to the GOP to attack a dem gov. candidate. He had access to this data but was not cleared to share with anybody else. And yet, he passed it on to his GOP party, esp. to those that had NO CLEARANCE.
And if anybody thinks that this will be limited to just the GOP, then you are kidding yourself. The dems will take the same information and also make use of it if given to them.
and allow mass arrests and genocide by the government.
Of all the three cases you've listed
1. Boston Bombing
2. Paris Attack
3. Orlando Massacre
... we can deduce them to 'failure' of the authority
However, were the "failures" accidental or intended?
There's only one reason enumerated in the 2nd amendment, true enough.
However, if you are seriously going to argue that in 1790, the authors of the constitution were not considering hunting and self-defense as valid uses of arms... I'm afraid you've simply talked yourself out of any chance of being taken seriously.
Now about rights: Rights pre-exist the constitution. The constitution doesn't "give you" that right. What the constitution does is forbids the government from infringing on that right. Here, let's read it:
See how that's written? It's an instruction to government. It's not an "award of a right." It was thoroughly understood that you had that right already. All the 2nd amendment does is tell the government they couldn't interfere with it.
If they do want to interfere with it, the only legitimate path offered by the constitution is found in article five, where the authorized mechanism to change the constitution itself is described.
Instead, the government is arbitrarily making laws that infringe. They have made many laws about specific arms you are forbidden to keep and carry. This is exactly the wrong (and unauthorized) way to go about solving problems. Why? Because if they can look at the 2nd amendment and say "nah, we're just going to do it the way we want to and to heck with that part", then this sets the stage for them to do it with the other amendments, and for that matter, parts of the constitution outside of the amendments.
And so it has played out. This precise kind of "nah, we'll just do what we want" behavior on the part of both the legislature and the judiciary has led to the de facto inversion of the commerce clause; search and seizure without warrant, probable cause, or specifics as to what is being searched for and what is to be seized; blatantly ex post facto laws that increase punishment after sentencing; government favoritism of specific religions; government taking of property for commercial purposes; government taking of property without warrant or due process; restriction of peaceful assembly; infringement on the right to keep and carry arms; compulsion to witness against one's self; the arrogation of rights that clearly belong to the states; and more.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"conduct surveillance on "lone wolf" suspects who do not have confirmed ties to a foreign terrorist group"
So basically everybody. You are no longer citizens, you are lone wolves.
You're fucked. Congratulations.
You should take a look at sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA bill, passed in closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing, and signed into law by President Obama in late 2011.
TL;DR: Posse Comitatus, not so much these days.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The 2nd does not mention "guns." The 2nd talks about "arms", which certainly includes, but in no way is limited to, guns. It also includes IEDs, non-improvised explosives, knives, bats, caltrops, arrows, bombs, grenades, rockets, etc. The founders were familiar with them all. And you know what they put in the 2nd? Not "guns", not "muskets", not "flintlocks", but this:
Arms.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The Rainbow Coalition set this up for a sympathy ploy. Those gaysexuals are very sneaky.
Blame the Internet, and not the real problem. They are too much of a pussy to take away assault weapons.
It is much easier to take away civil liberties.
But the "good news" is that no one they are spying on will be restricted from buying whatever firearms they want.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Gun control laws decrease shooting deaths, both homicides and suicides.
So says research and common sense.
If you don't care, then fine. Your rights are more important than (usually innocent) people's lives. But when you oppose gun control, you have blood on your hands.
As to the 2nd amendment? Stop holding it so sacrosanct. Don't forget that the 3/5 clause was part of the original constitution, too.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
...the elections. They are already making the laws as we type.
So let me get this straight: expanding the FBI's budget is preferable to providing real mental health treatments for those who need it?
This is how you know that the Republicans actually LIKE terrorism. They refuse to deny guns to suspected terrorists then turn around and do this. It's right out of The Shock Doctrine play book.
All of US military history is the big ol army repeatedly losing to a bunch of rebels with rifles, and even smoothbore muskets. For fifteen years the US military has been in Afghanistan fighting rebels with rifles and pickup trucks. (yes, they declared "victory" and evacuated most US troops a few years ago, but they are still fighting there too.) See also the USSR experience in the same location. The US began when the most powerful military in the world was defeated by a silversmith, a printer, and their drinking buddies. Between then we've had Vietnam (the US military can EASILY defeat a bunch of poor people in 12 foot fishing boats, right?) and several others.
These are all examples where the entire US military was united, the whole US military vs foreign rebels.How many US servicemen and women would fire on their own families, do you think? If YOU would in the air force and President Trump ordered you to bomb your home town, what you YOU do? I have a pretty good idea of what I would do, and it might involve an orange stain on the rubble on Washington.
How much of your guns helped out in Orlando? Or any other mass shooting?
When they help out you usually don't hear about it in the press.
That's partly because it's against most press outlets' (often publicly announced!) editorial policies to print anything that portrays self-defense use of firearms as desirable. And it's partly because, when civilian gun-toters stop an attempted mass murderer, the murdered mass is small to non-eixistent.
A case in point is the Clakamas Mall attempted mass shooting.
The wikipedia article is pretty sketchy, mentioning only one CCW carrier who showed his weapon. As I hear it, after this guy started shooting, while the store personnel were helping their customers out the service passages at the back, several mallgoers (not all of them armed!) started stalking him, and he noticed. This was in Oregon, where both open and concealed carry is legal and common, so the expectation would be that several armed people would be present, and this impromptu platoon would be a serious threat. So he retreated, eventually ending up in a dead-end passage where he killed himself.
Shooter with an AR-15 and 120 rounds (not counting the additional 30 in the magazine he dropped in the parking lot on the way in), opening fire in a mall crowded with 8,000-10,000 ordinary people. Score: Two victims dead, one victim seriously wounded, one perpetrator dead at his own hand. No shots actually fired by the defenders (mostly due to not having a good shot due to other civilians as backstops).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Can /. please link to the draft of the Bill so we can examine it in these stories.
Like Burr-Feinstein on Encryption this appears to be another 'look at the silly monkey' ploy. This time using the 'They're gonna take our guns' theme - while they make an attempt on your right to free association.
This is the game to be wary of that the mone^h^h^h^hcongresscritters are playing with people.
It's not even political anymore it's an all out assault on peoples rights via a shell game. Please next time this is submitted can we have the draft of the Bill to see if the definitions are similar. I would have looked for the draft myself however I am pressed for time.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The legally insane, yes, keep guns out of their hands, but that's not what you said before. Before you said "religious nutjob" which is far from a legally defined description of a group of people who shouldn't carry guns around.
Understand, I'm trying to get you to say what you *really* mean and drop the rhetoric designed to inflame...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I don't, but neither do you.
That's my point. There is a legal limit to what law enforcement can do to find and disarm people who wish to do others harm. Like it or not, unless a person is a known danger to himself or others and this danger can be proven, the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bear arms. Rights cannot be taken away on a hunch, the government MUST have and show there is a real reason before they can infringe on an individual's rights. That's why you cannot be summarily searched or be jailed without a trial or charges, why the government cannot force you to say or not to say certain things or why they cannot just take your property away. People have rights, even the weird dangerous looking ones...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The radical Islamics want nothing more than for the West to loose our freedoms, and they are winning that war big time here in the U.S. Fox News and CNN are their biggest and most effective weapons in that regard, and the American people are readily handing them over like candy on Halloween night.
Christ, Fox News' unyielding insistence on calling the Orlando shooting an act of terrorism by the radical Islamic State with no hard evidence, damn near before the sorry asses shells were cold, is proof of their desire to spread fear all in the name of ratings.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
We have Democrats demanding reasonable waiting periods and background checks for guns
We have Republican'ts demanding spying without probable cause
So who is attacking our "Freedoms"?
Not Democrats
Bill of Right let's the people bear arms,
but it didn't say the right to sell arms.
So ban all public/private gun shops and private sell of guns, if they want to stay in business they have to be for the government or move to limited located with regulations. Promote tranquilizer guns /sleep gas guns to replace as a safer lighter alternative.
Note this is not a ban to stop those good or bad people from building guns, bomb, cannon, rockets in their basement or using their 1980's rifle, it only stops the $49.99 on sell gun for the go.
Also delete the existing police teams, the police system is stupid. Police shouldn't be doing everything from ticketing cars, resolve domestic issues, patrol street and shoot people, because no polices remember or follow all states and federal laws. If they do, they are called lawyers, not police. They should be separated where ticket police only care about transportation, domestic police act as middle man to stop both side from doing stupid things, and crime police only act when a thief occurred. Only then, can we trust police to help us. Otherwise, we will still need guns to protect ourselves from stupid polices that cannot stop eating donuts, meeting stupid ticket quotas, fearing for their life in emergency, punch people out in the blue and shooting brown people for free.
For counter argument that it doesn't matter the weapon the terrorists use:
Yea, it really doesn't matter.
When you compare the situation after they are armed with either guns, cannon or bomb, It.is.already.too.late. The victims or the officials at the site are only betting on luck of survival. Giving the victims a gun with a good aim may stop the terror, but not when it is organized. One fire only brings in more fires. Sleep gas or smoke bomb as emergency distraction may help the victims in the seconds of escape, but those all all betting on luck of survival.
The best way is still early detection. The bigger the source, the bigger terrorist's risk, the easier it is to track them. If illegal guns now has to be exported from the boundary, get the scanner. At least the source is the boundary line. If private bomb now need a basement lab for test, get the bomb dog. She's smell the source.
The Paris attack was too late from the start. However, if the authorities actually put the effort to track the source, it works better than spying on every single person. ($38k/yr to read 1mil spied image per day, who's going to find anything? oh and 459mil images to go) After the Paris attack, they tracked the bomb creator's room and stopped further terrorist attack. So it is a proven solution.
Note the above is only to decrease easy gun use, and forcing them to use alternative (and bigger and riskier) source for terror attack.
But for stopping terrorist, it has more to do with political, social, culture issues. Unfortunately with the 9/11 conspiracy, I doubt the FBI or the government is look for the solution.
I say that people who are mentally unstable should not be allowed near instruments of destruction. And that includes all groups that have a higher than average chance of going on a killing spree because they think some voice in their head thinks that's a really swell idea, or that some imaginary friend likes them so much more if they go and kill innocent people because their imaginary friend doesn't like them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So the US history is a lot of guerilla warfare victories against an incredibly powerful enemy. Only the sides shift from time to time.
And there's a reason I'm not in any army anymore. The chance of me standing against them when push comes to shove is one of them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... the shooter was a problem. They didn't know exact plans and timings, but they had successfully identified a potential problem.
As with so many previous incidents, the current 'spying' privileges allowed the identification of a potential problem.
What was lacking was funding to allow continued surveillance, NOT more in depth surveillance, just more surveillance. See the difference?
Is there a belief that deeper 'spying' will permit law enforcement to do more with increasingly less funding?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016
The more I see what the legislation is doing the more the Orlando incident is looking like a false flag!
...and you need re-education.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
... I know those guys need more spying power because they have a personal agenda, which is, to stop hearing voices. They have not stopped hearing voices and voices will be increasingly harder to FIND, so they ll need more tools to corroborate what they are hearing and relate it to whoever is their suspect for THAT REASON. Obviously some senators will agree! If only they could hear whoever is speaking and simultaneously locate him/her by email, they score a HIT. At the same time, the less voices they hear, the less some of them will be able to play the superagent, they will be at a loss, so again they ll need more tools, now more objective ones, to find anything. Problem is, the less voices there are the more tools they ll need to do anything, so this is not a start but a continuation into more and more spying; the more spying, the more they ll successfully eliminate their personal voices. But the more voices they eliminate, the more any voice will be just a spurious phenomenon and meaningless, so on principle they cannot win, but they can take this process to the ultimate in dictatorships and secret societies, fascism, etc., you name it. Only good thing here is that they will not want to suppress email because it gives them chance to locate more voices than without it, so as long as there is any match voices-email, they ll need THIS.
You are my enemy.
You are still not saying what you mean.. But hey, at this point you either don't really know what you mean and don't want to risk being called out or are just being abrasive on purpose.
I think it is the latter...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is exactly what I mean. I don't know what you want to hear, and frankly, I don't care, but I hope I may still decide for myself whether I am saying what I mean, thank you very much.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.