Slashdot Mirror
Senate Rejects FBI Bid For Warrantless Access To Internet Browsing Histories (zdnet.com)
Zack Whittaker, reporting for ZDNet:An amendment designed to allow the government warrantless access to internet browsing histories has been narrowly defeated in the Senate. The amendment fell two votes short of the required 60 votes to advance. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) switched his vote at the last minute. He submitted a motion to reconsider the vote following the defeat. A new vote may be set for later on Wednesday. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the amendment as an add-on to the commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill earlier this week. McCain said in a statement on Monday that the amendment would "track lone wolves" in the wake of the Orlando massacre, in which Omar Mateen, who authorities say radicalized himself online, killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in the Florida city. The amendment, which may be reconsidered in the near future, aims to broaden the rules governing national security letters, which don't require court approval. These letters allow the FBI to demand records associated with Americans' online communications -- so-called electronic communications transactional records.
Only records approved by a judge with probable cause can be demanded.
This NSL shit has got to stop.
A clear violation of the 4th amendment.
The founders would be rolling in their graves if this passed.
If there is evidence that Achmed is a terrorist, go before a judge, prove probable cause, then all his stuff will be inspectable, including his home.
Because he attacked a gay nightclub, appears to have been homosexual himself, and conflicted about his sexuality. Why is there this need in some circles to eliminate the homophobic nature of the attack?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Don't think for a second that they're done. The all out assault on our liberties by statists is non stop. The FBI failed to stop Omar Mateen after meeting with him twice, but somehow that is justification for asking for MORE spy powers? Orwellian move by the Oligarchs.
Please submit your phone, laptop and office computer browsing histories for public inspection before the vote. After all, you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, right?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
In the context that it was used, that he was gay, the nightclub was gay or anyone or anything else was gay is irrelevant. The context here is not why, but rather what happened. That the place it happened is frequented by gay people is irrelevant.
The message here is: A nutjob killed people, and so let's try to stop that and not just gay or homophobic nutjobs targeting gay establishments. So why bother mentioning the gay aspect?
Is there anyone in Washington who has forwarded a sensible proposal in response to this tragedy?
All you hear from the left is "take away freedom A" and all you hear from the right is "take away freedom B".
All the while, the government had all the information they needed to act on this, they just governmented the whole thing up.
> killed 49 people at a gay nightclub
What does the fact that the nightclub was oriented towards gay people have to do with the nutjob whacking 49 people in it?
Why does it matter that it was a nightclub? Wouldn't it have been just as terrible an event if it were at, say, a grocery store?
The statement could have been "killed 49 people in a big building."
Wait, does it matter that the building was big? Or, that it was indoors?
Let's make it "killed 49 people in a place."
For those not familiar with parliamentary rules, this is the archetypal dick move:
>Mitch McConnell (R-KY) switched his vote at the last minute. He submitted a motion to reconsider the vote following the defeat.
In generic rules of order, when a motion is voted down, only someone who voted against it is allowed to submit a motion to reconsider. So if it looks like you don't have enough votes to pass you motion, you vote against it and then file a motion to reconsider. The motion to reconsider has a lower vote threshold, so the failed motion is resurrected like a zombie.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
So other than the 16 cosponsors and 1 sponsor, which 58 sacks of shit voted for this.
Time to offend someone
Wouldn't it be a simpler task to track sales of guns? The government knows when I buy a car, when I withdraw or deposit a large sum of money and when I vote, shouldn't they also know when I buy a gun?
I find it funny how when the FBI and the other letters always think that our losing our rights will stop future crimes. It won't. Because when something happens under their watch, they will just say once again, well, if we can access X without a warrant, we can keep this stuff from happening. Yet bad shit still happens anyways.
You want to stop terrorists? How about we stop making them and stop supplying them with weapons, stop giving them money for oil. Stop killing their family and friends with drones. How about we, the USA be the bigger fucking person and apologize for how we have treated the Middle East for that last 70 years. How about we stop fucking giving Saudi Arabia weapons and money.
And seriously, I'm not against guns at all, but we need smarter laws on purchasing them.
Be seeing you...
The message of your post is "I don't want to hear about a gay nightclub being targeted..."
What's your problem? You don't like gay people? You don't want to admit that this was a hate crime? Please explain why you have such an allergy to an obvious attack on gay people being referred to as an attack on gay people?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What possible "response" do you need?
Rumor has it the guy caught AIDS from one of the patrons of the club, so he shot up the place.
the sensible proposal is to do nothing in the immediate, gather as much information as possible, and use it within the bounds of the constitution
so no... unfortunately no one in washington has made that proposal
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Didn't use to be that way. Very disappointing
Assuming the accuracy of the summary, shame on those who voted for this.
Consider a simple hypothetical. Suppose a piece on Al-Jazeera critical of America gets flagged so that when the reader interacts with a customs official or a police officer or a TSA agent, "reads anti-American Al-Jazeera articles" comes up as extra information on that public servant's screen.
Guess who is going to be retaliated against for having once followed a link to a web page? Guess who is going to risk losing the ability to fly?
This proposal discourages freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, criticism of any actions of the US or the Administration here and abroad, research on the enemy, and simple academic free thought. It is the equivalent of monitoring you for checking "subversive" material out of a library.
As someone who very occasionally reads foreign news sources so that my view of the world is a little less dependent on the domestic American narratives and worldview that dominate the American Press, I find the potential for abuse here staggering. As a practical matter, this kind of surveillance penalizes thinking and reading.
The only way around that would be VERY strict controls on when it could be used, combined with good oversight and accountability, which right now we simply do not have. There are lots of very nice and good people involved in the three letter agencies, but they are not the only ones there and the system as a whole has incredible potential for abuse and keeps getting caught abusing its power. Expanding NSL Authority is not the answer.
Real lawyers write in C++
How is "killed 49 people at a gay nightclub" any more informative than "killed 49 people at a nightclub".
It's informative about his motivations. It wasn't random, he was deliberately attacking gay people. That is useful to know to understand that particular crime.
The question you probably should have asked is what does it being a gay night club have to do with enhancing government spying privileges. Either enhancing spying to stop mass murders is OK or it is not. It doesn't matter what particular aspect of the victims set him off, some other nut job will have some other criteria for the same result. Throwing "gay" into the mix in this case may dampen the crime for the majority of people who are not gay, because they are now less afraid.
Regardless, this is just a power grab, and it is shut down however narrowly, yay.
Since when hasn't the government not known about when you buy a gun? Where is it possible for you to purchase a gun, legally, that the government wouldn't know about?
Any time you purchase a firearm from a private party. I can go through all of the checks etc when I purchase a firearm from an licensed dealer. But there is nothing stopping me from deciding I don't want it any longer and reselling it to another person. As far as I know I'm allowed to sell it to another person in most (if not all) states without performing a background check.
Sam Harris had a podcast which contains an audio clip of an imam teaching that it's OK to kill gays, that it was the compassionate thing to do. I got the impression from the 'cast that the clip was from an imam in the Orlando area, and that it was taken a week or so before the shooting.
(I can't link the specific podcast at the moment because the site that I read it at is temporarily offline.)
We have often thought that the right to practice religion is absolute, but I'm wondering now if it should be.
Does being a religion give you a license to say anything you like? We have laws against hate speech even though we have free speech in general, and we have laws against speech that encourage a specific crime.
We guarantee freedom of religion, but we also guarantee freedom of life.
Which one has priority?
Maybe it's time to prioritize freedom of life over the freedom of religion. Maybe we should say categorically that you *can't* preach that it's OK to kill people of a certain class, whatever the class might be.
This would apply to any religion, even Christian ones ("thou shall not suffer a witch to live"), and it would apply to all cases: people who leave the religion are free to go unmolested (Islam, Scientology), people that the religion dislikes would be free to go unmolested (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism), and so on.
So for example, I would cite The Westboro Baptist church claiming that gays should be put to death, or evangelists calling on their flock to assasinate abortion providers.
As a country, I think we might legitimately say "not in this country" to these extreme views, and in these specific cases maybe intervene and say "no, you can't preach that even if your religion believes it".
Personal safety should be absolute, and the right to religion isn't more important.
In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, imams haven't stopped teaching that gays should be killed.
Perhaps they should.
Are you under the impression that the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill actually banned the production, sale, transfer, or possession of anything related to the Orlando attack?
It didn't, unless 49 people were killed by a bayonet lug or flash suppressor.
Specieist!!! By specifically mentioning "people", are you implying that human lives are more important than other organisms?
"49 organisms died" All other details are irrelevant and will offend someone.
How is "killed 49 people at a gay nightclub" any more informative than "killed 49 people at a nightclub".
You really need to have that explained? "killed 49 people at a gay nightclub" is more informative than "killed 49 people at a nightclub" because it contains more information.
True. Seems like there are way too many these days.
Why does it matter that it was a nightclub? Wouldn't it have been just as terrible an event if it were at, say, a grocery store?
The statement could have been "killed 49 people in a big building."
Wait, does it matter that the building was big? Or, that it was indoors?
Let's make it "killed 49 people in a place."
This is the U.S. Mass killings are so common that we need to be specific so you know which killing someone is referring to.
You better be very careful.
All private sales in California must employ a licensed firearms dealer as middleman, and the dealer must perform a background check. Connecticut and Delaware require background checks on all private sales. Each county in Florida may or may not require a check. Hawaii requires anyone purchasing a firearm from anyone to acquire a permit involving a background check. In Illinois, anyone not a licensed firearms dealer must coordinate the transferee's Firearms Owner ID Card with the state, and await approval. Illinois does have a loophole for gifts to close relatives. In Iowa, anyone providing or acquiring a handgun without the transferee possessing a valid annual permit is a criminal. Private transfers of handguns and "assault weapons" in Maryland must be conducted through licensed dealers, with a background check. Massachusetts basically outlaws private transfers completely, but with a loophole for "not more than four" weapons in one year. Private sales must be reported by both sides to the "Department of Criminal Justice Information Services". In Michigan, when purchasing a handgun from other than a licensed firearms dealer, the buyer must have a handgun purchase license or a license to carry a concealed handgun. New York requires a National Instant Criminal Background Check by a licensed dealer before any private transfer other than to immediate family. Oregon requires private sellers to perform a background check. And so on.
TL;DR: it's a hodgepodge of state laws. Plenty of states require background checks, and just about all of them make it an illegal act to knowingly transfer to an unsavory party. And there are a significant number of states where it is almost impossible for an ordinary person to legally even POSSESS a firearm, let alone carry it.
Still too qualified. How about, "killed 49 people without cause".
Following that logic:
Why does it matter that they were gunned down ? I'm pretty sure 49+ people died today from other non-natural causes, yet we never hear about them.
Why does it matter that it was 49 people at all ? I'm aware that we have to cross some imaginary threshold before mainstream media gives a damn about
it but, apparently, unless we set a new record or is somehow unique ( Gators at Disney for example ) most folks really don't give a damn. ( sadly )
We can kill millions of animals every year for various reasons and no one even gives it a second thought.
Thousands of people die every damn day and we cherry pick which ones we're going to be outraged about :|
My understanding on the matter is confused, but apparently the CDC is banned from studying gun violence. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
All you hear from the left is "take away freedom A" and all you hear from the right is "take away freedom B".
Same bird. Wings are being clipped. And people wonder why we are flightless chickens.
Stop voting for the side that is clipping wings, because it will eventually cause your side to fall out of the sky too.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
But but but but ....
"We must do something! THIS IS SOMETHING! We must do it!"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I hate rider bills totally unrelated to the primary bill just to get some nasty thing passed that can't get passed on its own.
Motivation is important when you want to prevent a repetition. If you just want to be outraged, it is completely irrelevant of course.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Correction, the fact that the person was even human, or that it happened on the planet Earth are clearly irrelevant. I used to think the fact that a gun was used was relevant and that's irrelevant as well. The only thing that's important is that something happened that got some critters restless for maybe a week or two, but never fear they'll be back to their usual selves.
Until that changes, that's what really matters.
Or maybe make it "killed around 50 people in some place"? Or maybe we do not want to stipulate a person did it? Now I have it! "A kinetic impact happened in some place at some time." Unspecific enough?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
And just exactly why should the government know when you buy a car (they actually don't they know when you register a car)? Why should they know when you withdraw a large sum of money from the bank another private entry, that you work with? Its all your personal property and none of the business and should not be unless there is probably suspicion of a crime.
Its also true that unlike your VERY EXPLICIT Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, there is no such explicit right to keep and drive autos, only implicit ones under the 9th and 10th. So that is another difference, that may be key. The government could in theory legislate away your right to operate and potentially own that car, so they have an implicit interest in tracking ownership. They cannot legislate away your right to own a gun, well except under completely bogus SCOTUS rulings that upheld the assault weapons ban and the fire arms control act etc. So many (maybe most) gun owners rightly feel that baring the effective tracking and registry of weapons is sensible as it provides a barrier to government abuse.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Nightclubs themselves don't identify with any sexuality at all considering the bulk of buildings in my experience have been fully asexual. Calling a nightclub, service station, or your local YMCA, 'Gay' just doesn't fit.
I would be terribly uncomfortable coming across a gay building specifically if it were male, not knowing how it would manifest it's desires for me. Or worse, entering a female building without permission thereby perpetuating 'rape culture', or *cough* Interrupting two buildings 'getting it on'. Could get a bit messy.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
That flew so far over your head it may just knock the moon out of orbit...
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
the sensible proposal is to do nothing in the immediate, gather as much information as possible, and use it within the bounds of the constitution so no... unfortunately no one in washington has made that proposal
The constitution was written before the first computer existed so it's tough to apply it to modern day laws. If you want enforcement to actually catch people then your privacy must be disregarded.
Mass shootings happen so frequently that it's helpful to describe some characteristics so that we can tell them apart.
Don't be fucking absurd. There are numerous gay clubs and bars in the world that identify as such. Jesus fucking christ, the efforts some people go to try to deny that this was a homophobic attack.
No one cares that it was an attack on a homosexual club. It was a terrorist attack on the American people. Period. The bill was presented to give the FBI more power to track and find Terrorists. No one sits around and says this piece of evidence isn't credible because they are talking about killing a Lesbian Biker club. Let's follow up on the threat against the day care center instead because they matter more. They are both covered by this bill.
What could they have done? He hadn't committed a crime when they talked to him. You can't start locking people up before they commit a crime, because that set includes everyone.
The gun store owner called the FBI to tell them this guy in particular, they should watch. A member of his mosque (which a previous terrorist shooter also came from) called the FBI to tell them this guy in particular, they should watch. This guy was nothing but red flags.
You don't have to lock him up, but you can keep an eye on him in real time. You can also pay him a friendly visit in person, and just directly ask him. That will derail just about anyone's plans.
If you've ever credibly threatened the president, then when the president is in town a Secret Service agent will come visit you. He's not there to arrest you, but he will say high, and ask to sit with you while the president is in town (you can say no, of course, but I suspect few people do). It's labor intensive, but quite effective. The FBI could have spared an agent.
That's what they could have done. It would have saved 50 lives. They chose poorly.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
or better yet, deal with the external threats that radicalize people to shoot up nightclubs and the like.
Maybe they should stop approving military actions that cause unnecessary wars that lead to blow back... err... oh, you mean they *want* all that to lead to an erosion of our freedom?
:T:R:A:N:S:
Because he appears to have specifically targeted the nightclub because it was a gay nightclub. That's why it's relevant.
That's only relevant to sell more advertising dollars when you publish it in the news.
They communicate with anybody? If they do their not Lone...
Had the ban from the 1990s still be in existance
Like the ban on these weapons in France prevented Bataclan and Charlie Hebdo?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
This is one reason why I am in favor of Trump. As a Republican I can't stand stuff like this and it is usually my party leading it. Trump is a pipe bomb tossed into the RNC. I'm hoping that we either get a re-positioning or a forking of the party.
Homophobia as a factor is irrelevant to certain narratives.
Radical Islam as a factor is irrelevant to certain narratives.
What matters is 1. Ban guns and 2. Some modern adaptation of Blame America First.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If he couldn't get a gun, he could have used an Axe, Hammer, Machete or Bats etc.
Right, because you can bump-fire an axe.
--
BMO
It would only take a majority vote to pass the bill. However, you must first close debate and bring the question. In the US Senate since 1975, you need 3/5 of the duly sworn and chosen Senators to allow the bill to be voted on.
Seriously, has the Republican party gone mad?
Do they really believe that only a police state can be a free state?
Since when is the "war on crime" ALWAYS a war on the 4th Amendment, and now 5th (forced passwords)?
Time for a new Constitutional convention, to spell out prison for every police who violates any right, ever, for ANY reason, including claims of "ignorance".
What this actually means is that slightly under 3/5 of the senate is totally fine with this invasion of privacy clearly guaranteed by the fourth amendment, to say nothing of these "national security letters" which are a perversion of our justice system.
The sensible proposal is no guns for anyone which are capable of killing 30 people in 30 minutes.EVER
Nobody does a background check or require a cooling period for buying a car or licensing as a doctor and those kill WAY more people per year than Guns can even get close to.
Worst. Car analogy. Ever.
In order to legally drive a car, you need a driver's license which means you need to pass various tests--something you can't just do in the heat of the moment. It's not like I can go into a car dealership, buy a car, and drive it off the lot and run over someone. They'll let you buy the car without a license--hey, money's money--but they won't let you leave with it.
But you don't need to take a class or anything to own a gun.
If he couldn't get a gun, he could have used an Axe, Hammer, Machete or Bats etc.
Axes, hammers, machetes, and bats don't have the range of a gun. It's pretty difficult to kill someone from the other side of a room with an axe. And while you can conceivably throw the axe at someone and kill them, then you don't have an axe anymore. I suppose I could walk into someplace with 30 hatchets (which could weigh around 50 pounds) and throw them at people if I was talented with throwing hatchets. Of course, I have to have skills. So we need a psychotic with hatchet throwing skills. There are far fewer of those than there are psychotics, so you've already reduced the potential number of people who can kill lots of innocent people.
But you don't need to take a class or anything to own a gun.
You don't need a license to own a car either. To drive one yes. To conceal carry or open carry a firearm, you also need a licence.
There are far fewer of those than there are psychotics, so you've already reduced the potential number of people who can kill lots of innocent people.
Those people use Bombs which are already illegal everywhere. If you can't buy it, people will build it.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Let's try it this way. A person who had self-radicalized, in what appears to at least be in part as a reaction to his own homosexuality, targeted a gay club (as in a club that was well known in Orlando as being frequented by gay people, and by all accounts was marketed that way), decided to kill a large number of people in that club because of their sexuality and because what his religious beliefs taught him must be done.
Gay people were targeted because they were gay by a self-loathing homosexual.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The problem with your argument is that the possession of arms is a constitutional right. Driving a car is a privilege not a right.
When you remove people constitutional rights they have to already have done something (due process you know) or it's unconstitutional. Privacy is a constitutional right. Requiring a license to use encryption because you may or may not be a terrorist is unconstitutional. This is not rocket science you know. Arguing for the government to take away people constitutional rights without due process on the 2nd amendment and vigorously arguing for them to preserve those rights on the 1st amendment is at the very least hypocritical. If you don't like certain rights granted by the constitution then argue for a constitutional convention to take away those rights.
The majority of gun owners aren't against smarter laws on purchasing them. They are against ones that could be used for future confiscation, they are against ones that will cost inordinate amounts of money for ownership, and they are against giving the gun control lobby something for nothing. There is plenty of room for negotiation. First step, voters who support gun control need to know what is going on. They keep getting sold laws that already exist in our own country. Secondly they've got to understand and use their bargaining chips: Gun control has the NFA that is pretty stupid especially if we have proper background checks. They also somehow have managed to fend off concealed carry reciprocity, so gun owners have to figure out if they are still legally entitled to protect themselves when they cross state lines. Either of those should be a pretty easy trade for better background checks.
Police have been catching people for a long time, even while following the Fourth Amendment. It may make law enforcement less efficient, but that's a reasonable tradeoff.
Besides, what were the police and FBI going to do about the guy? Assuming they conclude he's likely to turn violent in the near future, what can they do? If it's due to mental illness they can request involuntary commitment, but the ability to hold someone indefinitely without a conviction is a civil rights nightmare.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not to mention that this isn't really a big deal. We have people being terrorized, 49 dead, lots of friends and family having a horrible night trying to find if their loved one is still alive. It's a tragedy.
However, that day, there were almost certainly more people killed in the US in accidents involving drunk driving. That was true for the day before and the day after, when there were no mass shootings. Each one of the deaths was also a tragedy, ending a life and causing great distress to friends and families.
If we're going to go for mass surveillance, wouldn't it make more sense to look for potential drunk drivers? The FBI interviewed the night club shooter twice, and couldn't do anything to stop him anyway. If the police find a drunk driver, they can do things to make drunk driving accidents less likely.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
While I understand your anger, I don't really think that makes much sense.
First, I'm Canadian. We have loads of guns here, but we don't seem to be as violent with them for some reason. I would say that this might be the first place to look.
Second, there is no modern gun on the planet that can't kill 30 people in 30 minutes. Or, even 30 people in 30 seconds. Even a cheap shotgun can take 5 or 6 slugs, and it isn't hard to saw one off and even take a spare.
But, let's say you ban all guns. Do you think that helps the people of the middle east? They have guns laying all over the place, but instead? They show up with home made bombs and blow themselves to bits.
And, many of these shootings I read about in the US, the person often turns the gun on themselves in the end!
So, you take away all the guns. Well then, what next? Bombs. Strapped to people.
Or, what? Poison? Knives?
I'm sure I could casually walk up to a group of people and stab at least 2 mortally, and a few that would soon bleed to death, easily.
And then there's the other side of the coin. Your (the US) has its biggest problems with just plain gun violence. As in, one or two people getting killed by a gun.
While these large unfortunate groups of people getting killed are terrible, and big news too, they aren't even where all the deaths come from. It's the hundreds and hundreds of people per week that die in the US, all in single, double or triple homicides by one person with a gun.
Many times, these people were co-workers, family members, friends, etc.
There are many ways to kill someone that doesn't see you as a threat. :(
And, for single or even double homicides? A knife, a chainsaw, an axe, a crossbow, gas and matches, and fire and mustard gas and your car or a baseball bat and on and on and on...
Guns aren't the problem here. Something else is.
And, surveillance isn't the solution, it will just add on extra problems.
I'm pretty sure no gun store told the FBI that this guy seemed suspicious. They told the FBI that *a* guy seemed suspicious, but they didn't have any information to provide about who the guy was.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
While we're at it we should ask Iraq, Belgium and France to also lay off the poor terrorists since they also seem to be triggering similar ire.
Yeah, I can think of a goddam good valid cause to kill 49 people. That is, if they are attacking you with deadly force.
Because guns don't kill people, right?
So let's test that bumper sticker bit of logic.
What's funny is that I left a gun on my front porch. The mail man delivered the mail and didn't get shot. Dozens of people walked up and down the sidewalk and not one of them got shot either. I thought maybe it was defective or something. But the manufacturer wouldn't take it back. They said it operated perfectly fine. But not one single person got shot. Imagine that.
How about you google bump-fire.
Because you clearly have no idea what it is.
--
BMO
>Climate change will exist so long as there's money to be made from it.
I just noticed this.
You're a flat-out moron. No, really. You think it's some sort of grand conspiracy. This view is just plain nuts.
--
BMO
>What's funny is that I left a gun on my front porch.
You're a shitty gun owner. You leave your weapon to be fucked with by passers-by.
You don't know what an "attractive nuisance" is. If a kid had gone up to your porch and shot himself with your gun, say goodbye to everything you own.
--
BMO
You're comparing an AR15 round to a .22 Long round?
Yes, they are of similar caliber, but you don't fucking understand F=M*A. You also don't understand that the AR15 round has so much force behind it that the damage isn't done by the round itself, but by the cavitation generated by the round going through the body.
Idiot.
--
BMO
To say they chose poorly is to make an assumption about what their goals were. When I look at the legislation introduced based on this attack I have to suspect that allowing the attack to go forwards was the action that they evaluated as having maximal positive effect.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So then he uses a bomb surrounded with nails and kills 100 people in under 1 second.
Or he just drives through a wall at 100 MPH.
Don't worry, I'm sure they will vote to do *something* about that problem too.
Because there is reason to believe he was specifically targeting gay people. It *is* relevant to knowing what his motive might have been.
If you're shot with a .22 long, unless you're extremely unlucky, you're going to survive.
If you're shot with a Remington .223/5.56mm NATO in the abdomen, you're going to die, because it's made hamburger of your insides from the cavitation.
It's not the speed at which you can pull the trigger that's the difference, here. It's the fact that being shot with one vs. being shot with the other is the difference between "it's a flesh wound" and the EMT saying "he's dead, Jim."
Moron.
--
BMO
I qualify expert with an M-16 and I have a pretty good knowledge of firearms as I have been shooting my whole life.
The idea that an AR-15 is just as dangerous as a hunting rifle is stupid. I know I can kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time with an AR-15 than I can with any hunting rifle. The NRA(the gun manufacturers lobby) has successfully brainwashed a generation of people into thinking the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct and that it means you should be able to get any damned firearm you want.
There are many problems with this. One is that this country has changed dramatically over the last ~200 years. Technology has improved and population density has increased. Another problem is that traditionally as the west was being settled one of the ordinances a new town would enact is a no guns in town ordinance. It is a sign of lawlessness to have people running around in town with a gun. Rural settings are obviously different and should be treated differently. But in the cities and towns, guns are stupid and just asking for trouble. Another huge problem is the NRA. I used to be a member but those guys are fucking crazy. They block very sensible legislation and technology like single user gun tech. We can make guns that can only be operated by one or two designated users. This tech is sensible and would prevent many tragedies yet the NRA not only blocked legislation making the tech mandatory, they went further to prevent municipalities from requiring weapons like this for law enforcement. Think about that. The NRA didn't want cops to have guns that couldn't be fired by people who aren't police. Furthermore the NRA has blocked legislation that would make it easy to identify a shooter after the fact. We have forensic capabilities with tasers that will allow law enforcement to identify the person who purchased the taser cartridge, we could easily do the same with firearms, but the NRA won't have it. That's fucking insane.
I could go on for days but think about this. If there was a non lethal and better alternative to guns, would you be OK with getting rid of guns? If you ask someone who is pro gun that question and they can't answer in the affirmative then a couple of things might be at play. They are either too stupid to deal with a hypothetical or they have a deeply rooted religious belief about guns which can't be shaken.
Neither option is good and I don't really see a third. Generally a pro gun person will find all sorts of ways to try to show that the hypothetical doesn't or can't exist in reality, which is proof of the first option as the link above demonstrates or their belief is too deeply rooted.
Oh yes, I forgot the other option. They just like to kill.
I know exactly what it is.
You obviously just have no clue about how ballistics work.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I said people are making money from it and that's the honest truth.
You're the one that brought conspiracy to the conversation.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
This one gets it.
30 people in 30 minutes? That's pretty much any gun. How is that sensible?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Very well said. Banning guns tends to not decrease the murder rate more than the historical trend - gun deaths go down, of course, but murders generally don't (at least, not by more than they probably would have anyway, according to historical trends). Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, and banning guns doesn't meaningfully change the long-term suicide rate either.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Didn't the FBI talk to him a few times as part of their earlier investigations? I mean, sure, they should have followed up on him again, but having the FBI show up might have made him desperate. Desperate people do crazy things. He might have just attacked sooner or something.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You're a shitty gun owner. You leave your weapon to be fucked with by passers-by.
You have extremely poor reading comprehension to take my post seriously in any way what so ever. The entire point was in reply to the previous poster who seemed to think that guns kill people and that it's not the person pulling the trigger that is doing the killing.
Maybe they should play more D&D then.
Back in the real world the concepts of good and evil are mostly bullshit.
It's not about good vs evil but about conflicts of interests.
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
They didn't do a background check because they didn't trust the guy and told him to go somewhere else without starting any transaction.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Hold him using a material witness warrant.
It failed a 60 person vote by 2.
So 58% of the senate is in favor of taking away your rights and privacy. On top of the court that just said you have no right of privacy.
What's worse? *I can't vote them out*. I can only vote against one person, and not for another 2 years (not up for re-election this year).
At one point, judges were supposed to be the last defense of rights against abusive congress, and the judges even gave themselves lifetime tenure to prevent political abuse. Now, the judges are not even bothering to protect the constitution, and none of the political parties is making "Protect the constitution" their rallying cry.
Taking months to set up instead of minutes
Far better that only the dedicated can commit mass murder than any casual idiot.
No more WMD in America!
Right. You're going to open the bolt,
aim,
fire,
dismount the rifle,
release the shell casing,
anchor the bolt,
bring back to shoulder,
aim,
and fire,
repeat 5 times, reload, repeat, and repeat all 6 times, all in 30 minutes?
Seriously, less bullshit, more facts
Or 20 minutes. Bombs aren't rocket science.
Hitting a wall at 100 MPH certainly isn't hard to do.
The genie is already out of the bottle. I can fab a full auto anything in a weekend in a modestly stocked garage. Sure, my firearms will look like something out of fallout, but this makes them no less killy. Outlaw the legal avenue for semi autos and you will just empower those who would fill the gap. Black markets have sprung up around much less, and the market for firearms is already established.
Not to mention the MEEEELIONS of firearms currently in circulation.
Go fish.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
If you pre-package rounds into metal clips to reload faster, yeah, that's certainly doable. Harder than with a semiautomatic gun, sure, but doable. Have you every actually shot a gun before? You could kill 30 people in 30 minutes with a muzzle-loaded musket if you had ideal conditions and had practiced with it.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Clearly you have never loaded a bolt action for 30 rounds
My old 7mm absolutely would not fire 30 in 30 AND HAVE TIME TO AIM reliably
Bet yours would not either.
Empower them then, since non-mass murderers aren't going to be carrying such, and now we can imprison for life anyone making such products.
Bull, again, sh!t. You will not build a reliable rocket that kills 50 people in 20 minutes NOR will you aim into the correct spot on a building to kill 50 in 20 minutes.
What utter MORONS the right wing gun loons are!
Who the hell said anything about building a rocket? Certainly not me. Perhaps you read what you wanted to read so you could easily shoot it down?
The correct place to aim is typically the front door. In a crowd outside, aim for the people.
If you think I am anything like right wing, you *MUST* be crazy! I am not interested in self defeating feel good legislation from either side of the aisle.
Hey, what can I say?
idiot said "can't get gun, will use rocket or car"
Sorry there are too many replies of your kind of ignorance.
Bolt actions will not kill 30 people in 30 minutes in a moving crowd.
Good test of maximum permissible firepower.
Good enough for any honest use.
Again, you're the only person to mention a rocket as an option so I guess you're the idiot.
Are you claiming a car driven into a crowd by a nut case isn't capable of causing a great many deaths?
If your objective is to remove the possibility that a crazy person might be able to commit mass murder, you'll need to ban anything larger than a sub-compact at least.
A car could easily sustain the rate you suggest being too much, even by accident
shit is right, how many times are you going to move the goalposts before you admit yes you want to ban all guns???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
you have clearly never shot a weapon in your life if you believe that
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
no....you cant
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I have, actually; either your gun needed some maintenance or you had a bad model. One person per minute would not be hard, especially if we're talking about a scenario like the Orlando shooting where you're in a club and nobody will really be all that far away.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Once more gun nut, no one is going into a night club to murder 50 people with anything but a rapid fire large magazine gun
So stop pretending there is any other use for the things
Time for Americans to remember the MILITIA has the right to weapons, not the undrilled masses.
Once more with the telepathy
I said, bolt action...fine. Single shot....fine. NO LARGE CAPACITY MURDER MACHINES
Stop projecting
Yes, I have, from 10 guage to my old 7mm Remington to the .45 ACP to the .44 autoloader my friend Phillip loaned me at the range to various pop-guns and squitters, including a very odd muzzle loader replica.
Perhaps you don't know this, but at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the militia was understood to be everyone who owned a gun and was capable of firing it at an enemy. Well regulated just meant practiced.
Your tone suggests that you long ago made up your mind and are not open to rational thought on the subject. It also suggests that you learned everything you know about guns from action movies. It seems unlikely that you have ever fired one.
If you REALLY want to stop mass killings, the answer is to de-stress society and make mental health services more available. The killer was a licensed security guard and was investigated by the FBI twice in the last 5 years. Nobody even considered that he needed help. BTW, he used a semi-automatic weapon, not a rapid fire hollywood gun.