Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50504356]Christ, first that Youtube singer gets shot in Orlando and I'm like "thank god I was just leaving" then I wake up at home in Indiana with this news.
[editline]12th June 2016[/editline]
Are you people really using this thread to shit talk Trump? It's not even been a fucking day. Biggest mass shooting here, at least 50 people died, wtf.[/QUOTE]
I generally agree with your sentiment, but it's not exactly off topic. They're discussing Trump sending out a tweet that basically said, "I told you so! No need to keep congratulating me on being right!"
Which, like, if you want to talk about "wtf" comments less than a day after the biggest mass shooting in US history... Some incredulity is definitely warranted.
All arguments aside, I am overly heartbroken. I'm not religious but I surely pray for those affected by this attack.
I hope if anybody here on the site was affected, they are getting good support.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50502135]Florida actually has stricter gun laws than some traditionally liberal states like Minnesota. They do have a permit to purchase, whomever wrote the artical mistook that as a permit to own.[/QUOTE]
But if you purchase don't you own? What is the difference?
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50504356]
Are you people really using this thread to shit talk Trump?[/QUOTE]
Yes since it's relevant; so far out of all the reactions to this event, his has to be one of the worst.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50504478]But if you purchase don't you own? What is the difference?[/QUOTE]
A permit to own implies that one must have that permit in constant possession in order to own firearms. That would mean if your permit to own expired and you did not renew it you would be illegally possessing those firearms. A permit to buy, to which that is dependant on individual state law in reguards to which type of firearms require it if at all, does not have that limitation. Your permit to purchase can expire and you would still own the firearms you purchased legally.
[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50504420]If you look at the aftermath of terrorist attacks, you can find that many of the them, pretty much the majority, have been under surveillance in the past.
Now the question is, do they just have a lot of people under surveillance, are they tied by law to act slowly, are they doing waiting on purpose or are they incompetent.[/QUOTE]
I think the problem lies in the fact that it's easy enough to fall on the FBI's radar, but still quite difficult for them to prove any actual intent. They might be able to say, "yeah, okay, this guy is exhibiting some suspicious behavior," but unless they have solid evidence that he has ties to extremist groups and/or specific intent to carry out an attack, there's not much [I]to[/I] do other than try to keep tabs on him. You can't arrest everybody who ends up on a watchlist.
Given that this guy was apparently a registered gun owner, and the weapons he used were his own legally obtained guns (please correct me if an update has shown this info to be false), when would the FBI have been able to step in and stop him? If they'd taken his weapons on suspicion alone, every Gun Rights Activist in the country would have been redfaced and screaming.
Apparently Mateen worked for G4S, which is a massive security company centered in the UK since 2007.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-mateen-s-employer-we-are-shocked-and-1465757349-htmlstory.html]Source[/url].
Here's [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S]just how good[/url] G4S is as a company and how happy we should be to allow them to take contracts from the US government.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50504629][img]http://i.cubeupload.com/GbVeBg.png[/img]
Oh my God.[/QUOTE]
-snip- PICS NOT BROKEN HOLY SHIT!
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436504/orlando-horror-shows-once-again-why-jihadists-must-be-crushed[/url]
More neoconservatism please sincerely a neocon named FlashMarsh
[QUOTE]This is what happens when the world gives jihad oxygen. It thrives on carnage, and each new attack is seen as a glorious victory for the cause. But when we inflict the carnage, jihad tends to retreat. Americans have an exactly opposite understanding of the role of death in the jihadist project. We think that our military success merely creates more martyrs. This is wrong. Jihadists love their own deaths when it is in a victorious cause, not when they are pulverized and defeated by superior forces. So long as they have hope and can create the impression of momentum and success, recruits will flow. When they flee the battlefield, and their black flags burn, the cause craters.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]To be clear, the jihadist impulse in Islam waxes and wanes. It never entirely disappears — which is exactly why a nation cannot ever relax its vigilance and give jihad room to grow. But that’s exactly what we did. And now jihad reaches further and inspires more people than it did even in the days leading up to 9/11, when al Qaeda And the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.
It’s time to remove the inspiration. It’s time to show the world that jihadists are paper tigers. It’s time to make them run in terror. Until we do, there will continue to be men and women the world over who rally to the black flag, and — as they rally – Orlando will become just another city on an ever-growing list. We need to crush the head of the snake. Only then will the long tail that stretches through the west finally wither and die. [/QUOTE]
I think we need background checks and I think they should also screen for possible extremist views.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50504629][img]http://i.imgur.com/nUdLpqu.png?1[/img]
Oh my God. Trump's really being smug about this.
Imagine him having to make a statement as the president after each shooting that happens.[/QUOTE]
what would a ban have done? wasn't the shooter born in NY? unless trump can go back in time and win the presidency 30 years ago i doubt there would have been any difference lol
[QUOTE=Bobie;50504730]what would a ban have done? wasn't the shooter born in NY? unless trump can go back in time and win the presidency 30 years ago i doubt there would have been any difference lol[/QUOTE]
I hate Trump, but you're missing his point here. He's arguing that more Muslims in the US pose a security risk, and that their security risk will be reduced via preventing Muslim entry to the United States. Of course there are currently Muslims the US, he is arguing that they should minimise the growth of risk whilst cracking down upon Muslims already in the country. I think this is very nasty and divisive, but don't be facetious.
How did he get flagged by the fbi for links for terrorism then have no problems getting a gun. I mean I'm personally against bans on gun but that seems fucked up. They need better checks and they need to make it harder for people to get these weapons
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50504763]How did he get flagged by the fbi for links for terrorism then have no problems getting a gun. I mean I'm personally against bans on gun but that seems fucked up. They need better checks and they need to make it harder for people to get these weapons[/QUOTE]
They need to charge him with something in order to realistically stop him, which they didn't have the evidence to do. I think even if you're on the no-fly list you can buy a gun due to 2nd Amendment rights.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50504763]How did he get flagged by the fbi for links for terrorism then have no problems getting a gun. I mean I'm personally against bans on gun but that seems fucked up. They need better checks and they need to make it harder for people to get these weapons[/QUOTE]
Potential risk != guilty. No formal state of accusation means you cannot prevent him from exercising his legal rights.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
Also this guy is a fucking cunt:
[media]https://twitter.com/MATTHARDYBRAND/status/742041332684881920[/media]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50504760]I hate Trump, but you're missing his point here. He's arguing that more Muslims in the US pose a security risk, and that their security risk will be reduced via preventing Muslim entry to the United States. Of course there are currently Muslims the US, he is arguing that they should minimise the growth of risk whilst cracking down upon Muslims already in the country. I think this is very nasty and divisive, but don't be facetious.[/QUOTE]
my point is that a ban would require a length longer than that of any presidency. recent immigrants aren't the ones committing these shootings, it is inane to think that a short term ban on muslim travel would do anything whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50504763]How did he get flagged by the fbi for links for terrorism then have no problems getting a gun. I mean I'm personally against bans on gun but that seems fucked up. They need better checks and they need to make it harder for people to get these weapons[/QUOTE]
You can't ban people from buying firearms on accusations alone. He wasn't convicted of anything. If we could deny people their rights like that than what stops me from going around and filing complaints with the police on people I don't like that they're ISIS members just to get their rights revoked. If you can't prove an accusation than they're innocent in the eyes of the law.
[editline]12th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50504787]They need to charge him with something in order to realistically stop him, which they didn't have the evidence to do. I think even if you're on the no-fly list you can buy a gun due to 2nd Amendment rights.[/QUOTE]
The no-fly list is a bad example because thousands of innocent people are on it due to clerical errors. Boy Scouts, old woman, senators and so on have been put in the list due to having the same name as other people or having names close enough or even by complete accident. You see news stories pop up all the time about random people being hassled at the airport because they've mistakenly been put on the no fly list.
Essentially what I'm saying is no one should be able to revoke your constitutional rights without due process.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;50504802]Potential risk != guilty. No formal state of accusation means you cannot prevent him from exercising his legal rights.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
Also this guy is a fucking cunt:
[media]https://twitter.com/MATTHARDYBRAND/status/742041332684881920[/media][/QUOTE]
How is he a cunt?
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;50504802]Potential risk != guilty. No formal state of accusation means you cannot prevent him from exercising his legal rights.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
Also this guy is a fucking cunt:
[media]https://twitter.com/MATTHARDYBRAND/status/742041332684881920[/media][/QUOTE]
For a second I thought this was Tom Hardy.
Then I realized it was just an irrelevant nobody.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;50504802]Potential risk != guilty. No formal state of accusation means you cannot prevent him from exercising his legal rights.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
Also this guy is a fucking cunt:
[media]https://twitter.com/MATTHARDYBRAND/status/742041332684881920[/media][/QUOTE]
He's been a cunt for awhile.
Has Obama given a speech yet?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50504906]How is he a cunt?[/QUOTE]
Plugging your (very very very [i]very very [b]VERY[/b][/i]) shitty wrestling program while in the same tweet giving your condolences the biggest mass shooting in US history is a little... Uh... Y'know.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50504940][media]https://twitter.com/MATTHARDYBRAND/status/742062899829604352[/media]
At least he cleared things up. Met him a few months ago and regardless of what he said, he seems to have his heart in the right place.[/QUOTE]
Has he been cleaning himself up? I remember he used to be quite a dickhead.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50504933]Plugging your (very very very [i]very very [b]VERY[/b][/i]) shitty wrestling program while in the same tweet giving your condolences the biggest mass shooting in US history is a little... Uh... Y'know.[/QUOTE]
He's doing exactly what we've all been taught to do post 9/11. Don't stop your life because of these fucks.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50504978]He's doing exactly what we've all been taught to do post 9/11. Don't stop your life because of these fucks.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but there was probably a better way for him to go about phrasing that.
As it stands it sounds rather tasteless.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50504978]He's doing exactly what we've all been taught to do post 9/11. Don't stop your life because of these fucks.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but there's a time and place to promote your own stuff. Right after a massive tragedy and IN THE SAME TWEET where you talk about said tragedy is most definitely the wrong time and place.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50504978]He's doing exactly what we've all been taught to do post 9/11. Don't stop your life because of these fucks.[/QUOTE]
Dude could have separated those thoughts into different tweets.
Aren't we just playing right in into ISIS propaganda by (once again) redirecting all our hate on Muslims and the middle east?
[QUOTE=Jitters;50505070]Aren't we just playing right in into ISIS propaganda by (once again) redirecting all our hate on Muslims and the middle east?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you know what ISIS wants, after all you asked Al-Baghdadi himself and had regular chats with Jihadi John before his untimely demise
[QUOTE=Jitters;50505070]Aren't we just playing right in into ISIS propaganda by (once again) redirecting all our hate on Muslims and the middle east?[/QUOTE]
I can't remember if it has been posted in this thread, but there is a relatively recent video wherein a Muslim preacher in an Orlando mosque made a speech advocating the death of homosexuals.
This set of ideals has to be addressed, and claiming that there isn't a religious aspect to these terrorist attacks is just passing the buck and covering your eyes and ears.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.