Orlando: Worst Mass Shooting In US History

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by rowech

Had they done this outside of the Capitol building, I wouldn't care. Doing it in the chamber is what makes it bad to me.

But how is that different than sit-ins inside of private businesses to desegregate the South? The purpose of a sit-in is to sit INSIDE to ground business to a halt. So what's the difference?

And yes, this was for you. I know what Jon would have said and I don't really care about his opinion on the matter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And yes, this was for you. I know what Jon would have said and I don't really care about his opinion on the matter.

My bad, I think the confusion about the intended target for the question is understandable.

[miked]

Originally Posted by rowech

Even though I would like some changes, this is the most childish thing I've seen in from Congress which is saying something. It's a horrible way to go about doing this.

Man, I need to go back and see your disdain for Ted Cruz reading green eggs and ham on the floor during his day long speech to defund Obamacare for the 57th time. I guess you were complaining about the childishness of shutting down the government and attempting to default the country to get what they wanted as well.

This is about the least-childish thing that has come out of congress in a while, and it's still pretty dumbo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Man, I need to go back and see your disdain for Ted Cruz reading green eggs and ham on the floor during his day long speech to defund Obamacare for the 57th time. I guess you were complaining about the childishness of shutting down the government and attempting to default the country to get what they wanted as well.

This is about the least-childish thing that has come out of congress in a while, and it's still pretty dumbo.

Did Cruz break any existing rule of the body?

[miked]

I guess not, but that is not what the topic at hand was. I still think it is silly that you put a peaceful protest by representatives elected to respond to their constituents on the same level as psychotic zealots willing to behead children to destroy the world. But you gotta keep that image up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

I guess not, but that is not what the topic at hand was. I still think it is silly that you put a peaceful protest by representatives elected to respond to their constituents on the same level as psychotic zealots willing to behead children to destroy the world. But you gotta keep that image up.

The two groups have about equal legitimacy. One is simply evil, the other are both damned fools AND pure evil. Neither is worth a thimble filled with warm piss.

Locking them in a room together would suit me just fine.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But how is that different than sit-ins inside of private businesses to desegregate the South? The purpose of a sit-in is to sit INSIDE to ground business to a halt. So what's the difference?

And yes, this was for you. I know what Jon would have said and I don't really care about his opinion on the matter.

When you take that oath and you are sworn in as a memebr of the house then you play by the rules of the organization. You can't just do this everytime you don't get a bill that you desire because the next step is to do it when a vote doesn't go your way. It's a dangerous slide from there. There are rules for the body for a reason -- like them or not -- and when you're a member of congress you sign up to play by them.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by miked

Man, I need to go back and see your disdain for Ted Cruz reading green eggs and ham on the floor during his day long speech to defund Obamacare for the 57th time. I guess you were complaining about the childishness of shutting down the government and attempting to default the country to get what they wanted as well.

This is about the least-childish thing that has come out of congress in a while, and it's still pretty dumbo.

I felt the same then. You won't find a post about it if you care to look. Disdain is way too strong of a word for either situation.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by rowech

Had they done this outside of the Capitol building, I wouldn't care. Doing it in the chamber is what makes it bad to me.

This just seemed like an incredibly dumb political stunt that I guess violated unwritten rules but didn't actually prevent any work from being done. Some bills still got passed, and they were already planning to recess. The Democrats making a big stand, talking about their new resolve, then quitting after 24 hours after accomplishing nothing other than some praise in their social media echo chamber? Seems par for the course.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by rowech

When you take that oath and you are sworn in as a memebr of the house then you play by the rules of the organization. You can't just do this everytime you don't get a bill that you desire because the next step is to do it when a vote doesn't go your way. It's a dangerous slide from there. There are rules for the body for a reason -- like them or not -- and when you're a member of congress you sign up to play by them.

And if you believe the rules are unfair, just suck it up? Can't one say that as a citizen you play by the rules of the United States, including trespassing?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And if you believe the rules are unfair, just suck it up? Can't one say that as a citizen you play by the rules of the United States, including trespassing?

When the sit-ins went on, you were absolutely prepared to be arrested for it because you were in fact breaking the law by trespassing. In many ways you hoped to be arrested to draw attention to your cause.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by rowech

When the sit-ins went on, you were absolutely prepared to be arrested for it because you were in fact breaking the law by trespassing. In many ways you hoped to be arrested to draw attention to your cause.

You don't think that the Congressional sit-in'ers weren't prepared for whatever legal consequences would arise? I'm sure John Lewis was perfectly fine with them.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You don't think that the Congressional sit-in'ers weren't prepared for whatever legal consequences would arise? I'm sure John Lewis was perfectly fine with them.

What would they be charged with?

[Neuqua]

Originally Posted by rowech

What would they be charged with?

Civil disobedience?

[ISiddiqui]

I believe that if the House stayed in session, they could have the Sargent at Arms remove members who are out of order. After Ryan declared the House to be in recess, I'm not sure if trespassing may apply.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I believe that if the House stayed in session, they could have the Sargent at Arms remove members who are out of order. After Ryan declared the House to be in recess, I'm not sure if trespassing may apply.

That's my opinion as well. I really don't think they broke any laws once he adjourned.

[cuervo72]

Texas Woman Killed By Police After Fatally Shooting Her Two Daughters

Horribly tragic, y'all.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Texas Woman Killed By Police After Fatally Shooting Her Two Daughters

Horribly tragic, y'all.

The comments on this story (and pretty much any story like this now) shows how divided the country is and how vile people can truly be.

[Edward64]

Seems reasonable. If I'm a law abiding citizen, I don't see why I should be worried about this.

Hawaii Becomes First State to Put Gun Owners in FBI Database

Hawaii passed a law making it the first state to put gun owners on a federal criminal record database and monitor them.

Hawaii Governor David Ige signed the bill Thursday, which allows police to enroll firearms applicants and individuals who are registering their firearms into “Rap Back,” a Federal Bureau of Investigation database that monitors criminal activities by people under investigation or in positions of trust, Reuters reported.

The law takes effect immediately. “Rap Back” allows Hawaii police to be notified when a Hawaii firearm owner is arrested anywhere in the U.S. In addition, the law allows Hawaii police to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue owning a gun after being arrested.

[RainMaker]

Kind of an interesting twist.

Federal officials: No evidence gunman used gay apps, looked at gay porn, had boyfriends - Orlando Sentinel

Reminds me of Columbine a bit where the media wanted a certain narrative (bullied kids in a trenchcoat gang) that turned out to be 100% false.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If I'm a law abiding citizen, I don't see why I should be worried about this.

I'm not opposed to a registry and I'm certainly actively for a lot of the common sense basic improvements I see mentioned with things like background checks, but you lose me with this statement. Its just too much of the "If I have nothing to hide, I should be ok with" privacy violations and more restrictions that came from the Patriot act and NSA actions.

Whether these things are acceptable or not should never be judged through the lens of "I've got nothing to hide so I'm ok with it".

[CU Tiger]

If you have nothing took hide, you are fine with regular searches of your house right?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If you have nothing took hide, you are fine with regular searches of your house right?

Hmmm ... not sure how you inferred this from my post?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If you have nothing took hide, you are fine with regular searches of your house right?

It's a list that only becomes relevant when you get arrested/break the law.

So the equivalent would be having your house searched after you got arrested, which depending on the crime I guess is standard procedure?

If you get done for speeding, no actionon your guns. If you got done for a violent crime, might be different I would guess.

Out of interest does the US have the equivalent of our DBS scheme: when anyone takes a job in schools, or works for a building company for example that does a job on a school site, their details are checked to see if they have any convinctions? If there are any child related convictions, sexual crimes or drug dealing they won't be allowed to do the role. I think this is a good system, I am regularly checked as I go into schools a lot through work, and have zero problems with it.

This Hawaii list seems similar to that to me: it only kicks in when you get arrested, and then doesn't mean you can't have guns, just that it is assessed depending on the crime involved.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Out of interest does the US have the equivalent of our DBS scheme: when anyone takes a job in schools, or works for a building company for example that does a job on a school site, their details are checked to see if they have any convinctions? If there are any child related convictions, sexual crimes or drug dealing they won't be allowed to do the role. I think this is a good system, I am regularly checked as I go into schools a lot through work, and have zero problems with it.

Sounds like DBS is similar to background/drug testing which some companies and (think most) government organizations will do before offering you a job. Pretty sure they do that for teachers also.

[CU Tiger]

No it would be like searching and photographing your house and then promising to only look at the photos if you are convicted of another crime.

Every citizen of this country who hasn't otherwise lost their rights has the right own a gun. It should just be assumed that all of them have a gun. Adding them to a watch list just because they buy a gun is clearly a violation of 2 and 4

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

No it would be like searching and photographing your house and then promising to only look at the photos if you are convicted of another crime.

Every citizen of this country who hasn't otherwise lost their rights has the right own a gun. It should just be assumed that all of them have a gun. Adding them to a watch list just because they buy a gun is clearly a violation of 2 and 4

Assuming that everyone owns a gun, it would follow that if the law was written that when you're arrested/convicted your right to own a gun is assessed, you would be OK with it?

That way everyone is equal so no infringement on right (real or perceived), and it has the same effect.

[cuervo72]

Of course an issue with that too would be how arrests/convictions are applied. Take drug enforcement. That's already not evenly applied based on race (as just one factor). I doubt this would be either.

[miked]

If only we protected the right to vote the same as the right to own guns.

[digamma]

If not for those pesky license plates, I could get away with all of my GTA hit and runs...

[Dutch]

Okay, fair points. Whose for this?

Require Drivers License
Require Gun License
Require Voting License

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay, fair points. Whose for this?

Require Drivers License
Require Gun License
Require Voting License

If partisan bodies (on both sides of the aisle) are not in charge of who can get these and where they can get them, I'd be completely in favor of this

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Require Voting License

If it had proper qualifications, that'd be the end of a lot of our troubles.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay, fair points. Whose for this?

Require Drivers License
Require Gun License
Require Voting License

I'm against all 3, to be honest , but I could at least support the consistency.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay, fair points. Whose for this?

Require Drivers License
Require Gun License
Require Voting License

I'm okay with all 3.

[JPhillips]

Is the gun license for the item or the owner? If it's for the owner, we already do that for voting. You have to register to vote, and it's public record who voted and who registered.

[larrymcg421]

Voting License if it can be acquired same day and at each precinct.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Voting License if it can be acquired same day and at each precinct.

Why not make it a requirement for all 17-year olds and sworn in immigrants?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is the gun license for the item or the owner? If it's for the owner, we already do that for voting. You have to register to vote, and it's public record who voted and who registered.

Right but how do you prove you are JPhillips.
Not long ago we had folks voting 6 years after their deaths and such...one rural SC precinct had an amazing 118% voter turnout in an election for sheriff

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Right but how do you prove you are JPhillips.
Not long ago we had folks voting 6 years after their deaths and such...one rural SC precinct had an amazing 118% voter turnout in an election for sheriff

Link?

[JPhillips]

Voter identity fraud happens, but in very small numbers. Study after study has shown this.

From HuffPost:

At the time, State Election Commission director Marci Andino said the agency had investigated a handful of cases where it appeared the names of deceased people had appeared on polling precinct signature rolls, but found nothing nefarious.

She explained that of the initial batch of six names of allegedly dead voters on the DMV’s list, one had cast an absentee ballot before dying; another was the result of a poll worker mistakenly marking the voter as his deceased father; two were clerical errors resulting from stray marks on voter registration lists detected by a scanner; and two others resulted from poll managers incorrectly marking the name of the voter in question instead of the voter above or below on the list.

The agency went on to investigate more than 200 other names on the dead voter list and found zero cases of illegal activity.

[CU Tiger]

Hey Media: Another Nightclub Shooting, This Time No Massacre

[RainMaker]

Religion of peace on a roll with Turkey and Bangladesh massacres this week.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Religion of peace on a roll with Turkey and Bangladesh massacres this week.

Surprised you are still spouting this demagoguery despite the hundreds of posts by people you don't know telling you are wrong. If this isn't the place to change ones mind, I don't what is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Surprised you are still spouting this demagoguery despite the hundreds of posts by people you don't know telling you are wrong. If this isn't the place to change ones mind, I don't what is.

Keep white-knighting a religion behind almost all the terrorist attacks in the world these days and some of the most disgusting civil rights abuses on the planet. Fuck women, gay people, and anyone from the Western world. These people have slightly darker skin and must be defended to the end!

[RainMaker]

People were hacked to death in a bakery if they couldn't recite lines from the Quran. But that has nothing to do with Islam.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Keep white-knighting a religion behind almost all the terrorist attacks in the world these days and some of the most disgusting civil rights abuses on the planet. Fuck women, gay people, and anyone from the Western world. These people have slightly darker skin and must be defended to the end!

Well if that's all you are trying to say, sign me up! But just to clarify, by "these people" are we hating all Muslims, or just the slightly darker ones?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People were hacked to death in a bakery if they couldn't recite lines from the Quran. But that has nothing to do with Islam.

Still think Adam Carolla's idea of having a Quran wristband on you like NFL QB's wear is a damn solid one.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well if that's all you are trying to say, sign me up! But just to clarify, by "these people" are we hating all Muslims, or just the slightly darker ones?

The culture around the religion.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by stevew

Still think Adam Carolla's idea of having a Quran wristband on you like NFL QB's wear is a damn solid one.

Is this idea based on the idea that purchasing and strapping a few phrases from the Quran to your wrist is easier and more convenient than just committing those handful of sentences to memory? Or is it based on the idea that Sir Chopsalot will let you go, even if you're obviously reading from a wristband, because the machete squad recitation rules are so strict and explicit? Neither makes much sense to me personally, but the latter reasoning seems particularly American.