Orlando gay nightclub shooter was a registered Democrat

Strange.

Here it is again, this one worked.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

 

Go back and read what I was responding to. The guy asked me what religion white supremacists were. They are atheistic Nazis. You are the one that needs the clue. I just gave it to you.

 

Thanks. Like the NYT says, still up in the air.

 

Fascism is at the far left of the political spectrum, contrary to the incessant drumbeat of cacophonous liberals.

 

Not according to the FBI, who went through his history, as well as the history of the people who claimed to have had "encounters" with him.

They found nothing.

So that means either you believe the FBI, or Miguel "no-last-name"'s interview by world-class journalists from Univision. I almost typed that whole thing with a straight face.

 

Really? All of them? https://intercontinentalcry.org/mandate-god-christian-white-supremacy-us/

Get a clue.

 

Often you see the numbers that say if democrats would quit killing people, murders would be down 90% in the country.

 

A disproportionate number of male Blacks are killing other Blacks and a disproportionate number of Black men are Democrats. Perhaps that's where the link arises.

 

Abortions and sex changes affect the person having them, not 100+ other people in the room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Where do you get that idea? Terrorism, it was terrorism there are you happy? All the left wants, and all Obama wants is to make it harder for terrorists to get guns. Even the conservatives on the radio this morning agreed that was a common sense goal to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. The right just thinks we should keep letting them buy guns and if they try anything, shoot them first. What is the right doing to keep guns out of the hands of loons like this guy? I don't give a flying F what his religious background is. It was terrorism regardless if he was Muslim, gay, straight, black or white. Why are we selling guns to people like that?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Did they actually know he was a terrorist before he began murdering those people? It's very difficult to define 'people like that' until after it happens.

 

He was "suspected". No one is a terrorist until they've acted... don't we want to prevent terrorist attacks? Meaning stop people before they become "terrorists"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sure Obama wants to stop terrorism by bringing more terrorists into the country. Interesting strategy.

Please explain to the class how he could have been prevented, as a security guard with a background check and a mental health assessment, from purchasing a firearm.

 

That wasn't really the point now was it?

The issue is one of "need". Do homosexuals really NEED to be homosexual? Couldn't they just grin and bear it?

Not to mention I'd argue abortions and sex changes affect everyone, especially when our tax dollars fund it.

 

WTF! Seriously??? Grin and bear it?? That is beyond bizarre! Do you really need to be heterosexual? Could you "grin and bear it" if the tables were turned?

As far as your precious tax dollars go, the government does not fund abortion although my fund transgender medical issues in some circumstances. In any case, when people do not get the medical care that they need, we all pay in the long run, one way or the other. When children are born to persons ill equipped to care for them we pay. When transgender people have mental health problems that they don't get help with we all pay.

Have you thought much about any of this? Apparently not. And what the hell does any of this have to do with Orlando?

 

This is how ridiculous your position is on do people "need" guns when that right is as ingrained in our Bill of Rights as the freedom of speech.

See how that works.

And actually, yes, we do fund Planned parenthood.

 

We are not talking about guns right now. Guns are objects. We are talking about human beings. We are talking about human sexuality and reproductive rights. We are talking about privacy, equal protection under the law, and due process all of which is also enshrined in the constitution. Do you think that you can win by obfuscating the issue by interjecting guns? Guns have something to do with freedom of speech? You continue to be rather bizarre.

Yes we fund planned parenthood but not for abortions which is only a small part of what they do. And you ignored my comments on the cost of not providing assistance for reproductive heath care and transgender people.

It is also note worthy that you have not even tried to defend your ridiculous remark about gays not having to be gay and just "grin and bear it" What about that bubba?

AND WHAT THE HELL DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ORLANDO!!??

 

How do you propose we stop them before they've acted? Therein lies the problem.

I'm all for Mosque Watch and don't much care if Muslims protest about 'Religious Profiling' but, despite the terrorism taking place all over the world for decades, many still have fears of 'Islamophobia' and, in the case of many politicians, don't even acknowledge there's a problem within Islam. Until this problem is publicly acknowledged there won't be any real changes. In fact BHO said another terrorist attack can be 'absorbed', suggesting he is more interested in just making it to the end of his term than having any real strategy.

And now Turkey.

 

You still don't get it do you?

We're actually talking about rights of human beings, and my right to own a gun is no less important than your right to sleep with whoever you want.

Do you think these things "enshrined" in the Constitution are any different than the 2A?

They are not.

It has EVERYTHING to do with Orlando and the lefts desire to throw due process and gun rights out the window.

If it can happen with the 2A, you might find yourself losing the rights you care about.

 

Actually I do get it, bubba. First of all I am not against the right t o own guns. I only questioned the right and need to own high capacity semi automatic weapons. But that is really beside the point. By pushing that issue, you are avoiding the actual issue and doing it by employing my favorite logical fallacy. Learn this word:

That is all that you have and it is truly pathetic. In addition, you continue to avoid defending your assertion that gay people don't really need to be gay and that they can just "grin and bear it' I'm not letting that go. You can't put crap like that out there nd not expect to be called on it to defend it .

 

I'm afraid you're still not getting it.

For you to try and differentiate between an AR15 and a shotgun, it's no different than someone telling you that you can have sex, but only with women.

There is no logical fallacy in pointing out your hypocritical argument, since your argument itself is wrong and I just explained why.

Banning AR15's is just as much an assault on the 2A as someone telling you you have your right to privacy....with limited pre-approved choices.

You have no right to decide for me what guns I get to own under the 2A, than I do to decide who you sleep with.

No logical fallacy here.

 

You’re not using logical fallacies.?? Really? If you believe that, you don’t really understand logical fallacies. First you use an appeal to hypocrisy by claiming that I’m being inconsistent for not supporting your right to have certain guns under the 2nd Amendment while supporting gay rights and citing the constitution in doing so. In addition, you have also created a false equivalency by comparing the issue of gun rights to human rights. While both issues are related to the Orlando tragedy, they are vastly different matters. Finally, you are using the issue of guns as a red herring fallacy to avoid a discussion of the human aspects of this, and to burry your idiotic question about “why do gays have to be gay” and “can’t they just grin and bear it”

 

I'll bet the majority of the people killed or wounded were Democrats.

 

I understand completely. A tu quoque is only a logical fallacy when the position you present is sound. The position you have presented is not sound. I'm not just attacking the hypocrisy, I'm attacking the root of the argument.

There IS NO false equivalency between what you call "gun rights" and "human rights". My right to own a gun is based on my human right to self defense you see. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to ensure individual freedoms, and the 2A is as much a part of those "human rights" as any of the other amendments in the BoR. Gun rights ARE human rights.

The truth of the matter is you're equating less value to some of the amendments in the Bill of Rights than others, and they are all equally important....that is true regardless of you agreeing with it or not. Gun rights are no less important than speech rights, or your right to choose your own sexuality.

Additionally this entire argument is not about guns at all, it is about human behavior. Terrorists aren't going to stop killing people because you ban AR15's. It certainly didn't stop them in France.

Do we prevent suicide by taking away sharp objects from people? Well, we can, but eventually if someone wants to kill themselves they're going to do so. The solution is to address the desire for someone to kill themselves, not attack the method. Terrorism is no different. Going after gun bans is the true logical fallacy here when the problem is that they're going to try and kill us regardless.

If an AR15 ban would be put in place today it would only infringe on my right to defend myself, it would in no way prevent someone from mass murdering others because of their religious zealotry. And no, it wouldn't even make it "harder", as if that matters anyway. A terrorist is not going to stop because they can't get an AR15 at Cabela's.

You brought up the question of do we "need" AR15's. I countered this stance with something I knew you wouldn't like to point out the hypocrisy of your position. The underlying argument here is also not sound. You are committing a logical fallacy by assuming that an AR15 is "more dangerous" than a handgun or a shotgun on a crowded dance floor. It is not. Would you rather be shot by a 12 gauge shotgun slug at 10 feet, or an AR15? Not much of a choice, but I know which I would prefer. A person who practices with a pump shotgun can rack, load, chamber and fire in a split second.

The previous record holder was a guy with 10 round mags, a .22 handgun and a 9mm handgun, and he wasn't as surrounded by targets as the Orlando shooter was.

The "need" argument is a very, very dangerous one to fall into....and so easily can we be sucked in by it.

You see when you support encroachments on rights you don't care about or don't support, what you're doing is allowing for the potential to have the rights you DO care about to be encroached on. Even worse, you support encroachments that will have zero effect on terrorism.

For the record, I support the right for someone to have sex with whoever they want, modify their own body however they want.....and defend themselves....however they choose to do so.

 

Many were probably concerned with "Islamophobia".