06-16-2016, 05:30 PM | #1701 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
At the same time, I personally believe Mateen would have shot up the nightclub completely regardless of whether ISIS told him to or not. According to every account of his life, he was a sad and lonely man with a lot of bottled-up hatred both for others and for himself. So blaming the shooting on US policies about the middle east is stupid.
__________________
|
|
06-16-2016, 05:48 PM | #1702 | |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
06-16-2016, 07:07 PM | #1703 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
What? No. I was just saying that even though he's wrong, he's not being irrational or stupid the way the headline implies. The logic isn't that bad: shooter motivated by ISIS -> no ISIS, no shooter -> Obama has not been tough enough on ISIS and has made poor policy decisions regarding the rise of ISIS. It's just a wrong conclusion. You can be logical and make the wrong decision.
As for the argument being unrelated...I didn't want to accuse you of not reading the article, but what the hell deh? All I really did was summarize the article you linked. Also, you fantastically missed the point of my argument. Obama was far from the only one involved in creating the beast with two backs that is ISIS, and he barely encouraged it other than not being able to respond correctly to its looming threat and making a few poor choices. Not withdrawing troops as promised, drone strikes...i think that's basically it, unless there's something I haven't heard about. Fairly tame compared to stuff like Reagan and both Bushes.
__________________
|
06-16-2016, 09:54 PM | #1704 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
I could be wrong about this, but didn't the shooter declare allegiance to ISIS only immediately proceeding the shooting and did not actually have contact with anyone from ISIS?
This is political grandstanding, regardless. |
06-16-2016, 10:04 PM | #1705 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Building a home-made gun in America is incredibly easy. Heck, there's even a video about a guy who makes gunpowder from urine.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
06-16-2016, 10:36 PM | #1706 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
well yes, but the 3D printer would make them nearly if not totally untraceable and much, much lower effort to make.
__________________
|
06-16-2016, 10:38 PM | #1707 |
The Scientist
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,211
|
He seems to be a lone-wolf. But the FBI is far from done looking through his shit.
__________________
|
06-17-2016, 10:13 AM | #1708 |
Only Mostly Lurking
|
I found an article that I feel puts the situation neatly into perspective; during the 15 hours of the gun control fillibuster, there were 38 shootings resulting in 12 deaths and 36 injuries.
A person died in a gun-related incident every hour and a quarter of that filibuster. There was a shooting every 23 minutes.
__________________
[JAU]
Spoiler: show |
06-21-2016, 05:03 AM | #1709 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Senate Rejects 4 Gun Proposals Inspired By Orlando Attack (Source: NPR)
"To virtually no one's surprise, the Senate failed to advance any of the four gun control proposals — two offered by Democrats, and two by Republicans — that came in response to last week's mass shooting in Orlando, Fla. "Here are the results: "A proposal sponsored by Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, failed on a vote of 53-47, seven votes short of the 60 needed. It would have increased funding for background checks and changed the language barring people with mental health issues from buying a gun. "A measure proposed by Chris Murphy, D-Conn., expanding background checks to the sales of firearms at gun shows and on the Internet failed 44-56, 16 votes short of the 60 needed. "A bill by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to let the Justice Department bar gun sales to anyone who was on the terrorist watch list in the past five years failed on a vote of 47-53, 13 votes short of the 60 needed. "A bill offered by John Cornyn, R-Texas, failed on a vote of 53-47, seven votes short of the 60 needed. It would have allowed the government to block a gun sale for up to three days pending a court review. The government also would have to show probable cause that the prospective gun buyer was involved in terrorist activities."
__________________
|
06-21-2016, 05:43 AM | #1710 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
To no one's surprise the gun lobby once again wins over everything else. These are all things I would support to and this is just disgusting.
__________________
|
06-21-2016, 08:48 AM | #1711 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Ah yes I do love a good "compromise."
__________________
|
06-21-2016, 09:43 AM | #1712 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
I'm just glad the measures made it to the floor. They could have easily been murdered in committee.
__________________
|
06-21-2016, 10:08 AM | #1713 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
Fuck the NRA. This is all I have to say at this point.
__________________
|
06-21-2016, 01:21 PM | #1714 |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
I think this should put the issue of gun safety to bed until the next Congress, because it's been proven now that trying to pass gun safety legislation right now is just a symbolic gesture that the Democrats have been using excellently to rile up their base.
The one good thing happening in the Senate right now is that they've been responding very well to the TSA's personnel shortage that's been causing horrific wait times at airports nationwide. EDIT: Bernie Sanders' mission to reform the Democratic Party is proceeding smoothly, and the Party has been very receptive to this so far.
__________________
Last edited by deh74; 06-21-2016 at 04:37 PM. |
06-22-2016, 02:21 PM | #1715 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
The democrats in the house are staging a sit-in in protest of the stonewalling from the Republicans.
Scott Peters is broadcasting it on periscope as Paul Ryan ordered all cameras to be shut off. |
06-22-2016, 02:51 PM | #1716 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Whether this will have positive consequences or not, good on them.
I'm glad that some people in the government are willing to sit down for what they believe in and what their constituents do.
__________________
|
06-22-2016, 03:17 PM | #1717 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Fuck. Yes.
__________________
|
06-23-2016, 08:22 PM | #1718 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
I'm curious to see what will happen here.
Paul Ryan, who I was starting to like for standing up to his party a little, lost some points with me for trying to break up the protest by proceeding with unrelated votes. Like yeah, on one hand, I get that he is trying to do his job but like, c'mon. Why can't House Republicans just like, you know, vote on meaningful legislation like they're supposed to instead of acting like a bunch of ridiculous crybabies and shit themselves over the potential of gun laws? |
06-24-2016, 12:47 PM | #1719 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
This is a pretty politically charged time. I don't have a problem with reducing the political pressure on the legislative branch; both pro- and anti-gun groups are pushing really hard to get bills passed or killed. We could easily end up with legislation we don't want (a ban on guns that shoot ammunition larger than .5 cal, for example, which makes potato guns illegal but leaves handguns and semi-automatics alone), or have good legislation tossed out the window in the political turmoil of the gun debate.
I mean, I do reiterate that this is not my fight, but theoretically, if I wanted to get serious, effective gun control legislation passed, I would appreciate giving lawmakers time to connect with their constituents, read up on the facts, and hear both pro- and anti-gun arguments in order to make a reasonably informed decision. I would like to casually remind everyone in this thread that if you live in the US and care strongly about a political issue, you have 3 people who have been elected to represent you. Writing to them IS effective, they DO read it, and they DO value your opinion over a lobbyist's. Usually. If not, the voting booth beckons.
__________________
|
06-24-2016, 01:27 PM | #1720 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Shuckle, you don't have Mitch McConnell as your representative, so I concur.
|
06-24-2016, 01:45 PM | #1721 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
McConnell is a senior senator for Kentucky so I don't find it hard to believe that his voters are against gun control.
His strong stances currently tell me that at least 75% of the mail coming into his office is pro-gun. Which makes sense. Because he is the senator of Kentucky. He's also one of the most powerful Senators in Congress, so it stands to reason that he'd be taking a lot of action for things he and his constituents like. If your senator, like McConnell, has strong policy stances that disagree with your own, your mail will probably not cause him or her to reverse those stances. However, your mail has a very strong chance of tempering their stance and possibly encouraging compromise on bills that are pleasing on both sides of the issue.
__________________
|
06-24-2016, 01:56 PM | #1722 | |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
Quote:
|
|
06-25-2016, 03:31 AM | #1723 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Other than the continuing brain tumour that is attitudes to gun control in your legislature, two things have amused me recently:
Bernie is so incredibly childish that even though he has straight up said that he will vote for Hillary, he still refuses to redirect his voter base and campaign resources into helping her (or at least not hindering her). Hillary sent me an email last night which was essentially "the UK has fucked itself over, we cannot do the same, please give me $1". Hilarious. |
06-25-2016, 09:00 AM | #1724 |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
Honestly I feel like it's in everyone's best interests for him to wait for the convention to endorse her. The young people he turned out so many of for the election won't give two shits if Bernie endorses her, but they'll care if he gets free public college onto the Democratic platform. If he were to endorse her today without having received any concessions from her, he'd lose credibility in the eyes of much of his base, who would then vote third party or even defect to Trump. Waiting for the convention allows him to better spin a win for Hillary as a win for his "political revolution", which I don't think would be possible right now.
This said, with Clinton holding a comfortable lead in all potential swing states that have been polled except North Carolina and Pennsylvania, the latter of which she still holds a lead (though it's only an average of .5%), she really doesn't have much to worry about. Even if you give Trump Pennsylvania, Ohio (both of which he's losing), Colorado, and Virginia (which haven't been polled), he'd ALSO have to win Iowa (which voted for Gore in 2000 and Obama both times) and Nevada (which has a large Hispanic population) to stop Hillary from getting the magic number of 270. Combine that with Trump's money problems resulting him in being outspent in all of the Swing States, it's looking for right now like Hillary already has the election locked up. |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|