Mass shooting at LGBT nightclub in Orlando.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:10:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Mass shooting at LGBT nightclub in Orlando.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
Author Topic: Mass shooting at LGBT nightclub in Orlando.  (Read 13426 times)
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #275 on: June 12, 2016, 09:33:52 PM »

That isn't surprising. Pressler already broke with the GOP and ran as an Indy in 2014.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #276 on: June 12, 2016, 09:40:59 PM »

Well he was technically taken off the watchlist, but regardless, once you've been investigated by the FBI twice in the last 5 years for terrorism ties, you should not be able to pass a background check for an AR-15. And if he's such a danger that failing the test and alerting him that he was being investigated is unacceptable, then he should be watched continuously until law enforcement is very confident that he poses no danger, regardless.
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #277 on: June 12, 2016, 09:43:35 PM »

I'm asking whether or not there's reason to believe that he is mentally ill, not whether or not there's reason to believe that he was an abusive husband. 'Mentally ill' has a specific meaning, not that you'd know it from the way the concept gets thrown around in mass shooting discourse.

By all accounts he was an angry man, who besides the wife beating, used racial and homosexual epitaphs constantly and talked about killing to his coworkers.  He killed 50 people and basically committed suicide by cop  leaving a 3 yr old behind.  Whether that makes him mentally ill or just an angry bigoted narcissist I am not professionally qualified to tell.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #278 on: June 12, 2016, 09:45:55 PM »

To use tragedy as an attempt to push for something is bad, whether you like it or not. You won't change my mind about that.

So, USA should not have entered WWII after Pearl Harbour? After all, it's the result of a tragedy.

Military bombing of naval ships by a racist and militarist empire is definitely the same as a shooting by a Muslim man which kills fifty civilians.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #279 on: June 12, 2016, 09:53:09 PM »

I'm just appalled by this script that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens that if somebody does something horrible then they must be mentally ill, so clearly some sort of improvements to mental health treatment (which, granted, are necessary, just not necessarily for this reason) would have prevented it. Has the American right seriously talked itself into thinking this way? What happened to personal responsibility for one's actions? What happened to not trusting rationalized institutions like the psychiatric profession to come to all the decisions about people's lives? It's just amazing to me that those philosophical presuppositions are getting contorted to conform to the predetermined reflexively pro-gun Issues stance, rather than letting the Issues stances flow out of the philosophical presuppositions. It shouldn't surprise me but it does. It's the only thing about this whole argument that does any more.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #280 on: June 12, 2016, 09:53:52 PM »

I do think the left needs to address the hatred of women, gays, Western values in general, etc. that is allowed to breed within fundamentalist Islam. They certainly have no problem (correctly) calling out the Christians who do the same. Plugging your ears and singing "lalala I can't hear you!" isn't going to fix the problem. And using the "who are we to judge their culture?!" excuse is even worse.

The reason it hasn't happened, in my opinion - and I do believe it would have otherwise happened by now - is that the Right...doesn't know when to just shut its fycking mouth. They spew putrid accusations about every group that is different from them, and they don't bother making distinctions between the ones in those groups who are "good" versus those who are actually bad (and when they actually do, it comes across as so transparent that it's laughable).

The Left has grown completely desensitized to any of their concerns because their boy-who-cried-wolf act labels just about any minority group in this country as some sort of civilization-ender. The Left instinctively reacts against this because it's a case of "you say these things about everybody and it's usually just bigoted ramblings justifying bad treatment for the groups you naturally despise". The Right has poisoned the well too much for the Left to embrace rational positions with regards to Western values within the Right's hemisphere, because that's how our politics work.

There'll never be consensus on issues like this as long as they're flapping their gums, and they're never gonna stop flapping their gums.

So when conservatives call out radical Islam, it's their fault, even when they're correct in doing so. Maybe the problem is liberals that are so partisan that they refuse to denounce this just because conservatives did it first.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #281 on: June 12, 2016, 09:54:55 PM »

I'm just appalled by this script that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens that if somebody does something horrible then they must be mentally ill, so clearly some sort of improvements to mental health treatment (which, granted, are necessary, just not necessarily for this reason) would have prevented it. Has the American right seriously talked itself into thinking this way? What happened to personal responsibility for one's actions? What happened to not trusting rationalized institutions like the psychiatric profession to come to all the decisions about people's lives? It's just amazing to me that those philosophical presuppositions are getting contorted to conform to the predetermined reflexively pro-gun Issues stance, rather than letting the Issues stances flow out of the philosophical presuppositions. It shouldn't surprise me but it does. It's the only thing about this whole argument that does any more.

Nobody on the American right is calling this mental illness. Theyre calling it Islamic terrorism.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #282 on: June 12, 2016, 09:56:26 PM »

So when conservatives call out radical Islam, it's their fault, even when they're correct in doing so. Maybe the problem is liberals that are so partisan that they refuse to denounce this just because conservatives did it first.

I mean, when the right makes a specific phrase a political shibboleth and explicitly treats getting Obama to say it as some sort of win condition, of course the left is going to want to avoid giving them that victory.

Nobody on the American right is calling this mental illness. Theyre calling it Islamic terrorism.

I've seen the mental illness talking point trotted out in this thread already, more than once. I've also seen it trotted out literally every other time a mass shooting happens.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #283 on: June 12, 2016, 09:58:52 PM »


His former wife, who left him in 2011 fearing for her life, said he was a violently abusive man who wanted to be a police officer.

"He was not a stable person," she said.

"He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn't finished or something like that."


In a separate interview with The Washington Post Ms Yusufiy, who left the suspect in 2011, said he was violently abusive.

It's a shame he was never prosecuted. A misdemeanor domestic assault conviction would have kept him from buying guns regardless of whether or not he was on the no-fly list, which may not have been the case.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #284 on: June 12, 2016, 10:13:46 PM »

I'm just appalled by this script that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens that if somebody does something horrible then they must be mentally ill, so clearly some sort of improvements to mental health treatment (which, granted, are necessary, just not necessarily for this reason) would have prevented it. Has the American right seriously talked itself into thinking this way? What happened to personal responsibility for one's actions? What happened to not trusting rationalized institutions like the psychiatric profession to come to all the decisions about people's lives? It's just amazing to me that those philosophical presuppositions are getting contorted to conform to the predetermined reflexively pro-gun Issues stance, rather than letting the Issues stances flow out of the philosophical presuppositions. It shouldn't surprise me but it does. It's the only thing about this whole argument that does any more.

Nobody on the American right is calling this mental illness. Theyre calling it Islamic terrorism.

Yes, it's only "mental illness" to conservatives when it's non-Muslims shooting up the place.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #285 on: June 12, 2016, 10:14:41 PM »

I'm just appalled by this script that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens that if somebody does something horrible then they must be mentally ill, so clearly some sort of improvements to mental health treatment (which, granted, are necessary, just not necessarily for this reason) would have prevented it. Has the American right seriously talked itself into thinking this way? What happened to personal responsibility for one's actions? What happened to not trusting rationalized institutions like the psychiatric profession to come to all the decisions about people's lives? It's just amazing to me that those philosophical presuppositions are getting contorted to conform to the predetermined reflexively pro-gun Issues stance, rather than letting the Issues stances flow out of the philosophical presuppositions. It shouldn't surprise me but it does. It's the only thing about this whole argument that does any more.

Nobody on the American right is calling this mental illness. Theyre calling it Islamic terrorism.

Yes, it's only "mental illness" to conservatives when it's non-Muslims shooting up the place.

Do you honestly think this was a case of "mental illness"?
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,657
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #286 on: June 12, 2016, 10:21:16 PM »
« Edited: June 12, 2016, 10:43:31 PM by Meclazine »

Nathan,

I understand your argument, and no he isn't legally 'mentally ill'.

I am just saying he's a few french fries short of a happy meal.

It looks as though he was not treated or prosecuted for domestic battery which would have helped to prevent this massacre.



Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #287 on: June 12, 2016, 10:29:32 PM »

Yes, actually.  It would have stopped this from happening.

What, banning Muslims in the 1980s? This guy was born here a long time ago. We didn't really have these same problems back then. You can't just argue all this stuff in hindsight. I can come up with an infinite number of "solutions" to problems that started decades or even centuries ago.

Further, you can't seriously think banning Muslims would come without consequences, could you? That would damage our relations (even more) with Muslims for a long time. Banning Muslims now would only encourage more lone wolves who would be appalled by such treatment, on top of all the other issues driving these people.

It's just not that simple!
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #288 on: June 12, 2016, 10:33:40 PM »


Taliban were not existing yet when they immigrated and their ancestor was CIA-backed (to fight against USSR). So, no, you are again totally missing the point.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #289 on: June 12, 2016, 10:38:24 PM »


Taliban were not existing yet when they immigrated and their ancestor was CIA-backed (to fight against USSR). So, no, you are again totally missing the point.

No. He was a radical back then, and a radical now.
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #290 on: June 12, 2016, 10:52:27 PM »


Taliban were not existing yet when they immigrated and their ancestor was CIA-backed (to fight against USSR). So, no, you are again totally missing the point.

No. He was a radical back then, and a radical now.

The proto-taliban would have been trying to overthrow the Soviet installed government of Afghanistan, so I guess to you he would have been a radical, Comrade.

Although reading the original story, it seems he's very tribal and anti-Pakistani.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #291 on: June 12, 2016, 10:57:14 PM »


Taliban were not existing yet when they immigrated and their ancestor was CIA-backed (to fight against USSR). So, no, you are again totally missing the point.

No. He was a radical back then, and a radical now.

So were all Americans then (as being a radical then in Afghanistan meant fighting against USSR).
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,657
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #292 on: June 12, 2016, 11:02:20 PM »
« Edited: June 12, 2016, 11:18:13 PM by Meclazine »


Taliban were not existing yet when they immigrated and their ancestor was CIA-backed (to fight against USSR). So, no, you are again totally missing the point.

No. He was a radical back then, and a radical now.

When he emigated to the USA, the USA was pro-Taliban.

Remember this:

https://youtu.be/ETP9kw4JPwo

Watch carefully, but Rambo was fighting with the Taliban against the Russians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_III

Never thought Rambo III would be used as evidence in an intellectual political discussion.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #293 on: June 13, 2016, 12:13:15 AM »

I do think the left needs to address the hatred of women, gays, Western values in general, etc. that is allowed to breed within fundamentalist Islam. They certainly have no problem (correctly) calling out the Christians who do the same. Plugging your ears and singing "lalala I can't hear you!" isn't going to fix the problem. And using the "who are we to judge their culture?!" excuse is even worse.

The reason it hasn't happened, in my opinion - and I do believe it would have otherwise happened by now - is that the Right...doesn't know when to just shut its fycking mouth. They spew putrid accusations about every group that is different from them, and they don't bother making distinctions between the ones in those groups who are "good" versus those who are actually bad (and when they actually do, it comes across as so transparent that it's laughable).

The Left has grown completely desensitized to any of their concerns because their boy-who-cried-wolf act labels just about any minority group in this country as some sort of civilization-ender. The Left instinctively reacts against this because it's a case of "you say these things about everybody and it's usually just bigoted ramblings justifying bad treatment for the groups you naturally despise". The Right has poisoned the well too much for the Left to embrace rational positions with regards to Western values within the Right's hemisphere, because that's how our politics work.

There'll never be consensus on issues like this as long as they're flapping their gums, and they're never gonna stop flapping their gums.

Yeah, pretty much. Everything is a political football these days. Any criticism would certainly be met with: "HA! THIS IS WHY THE TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN IS CORRECT! YOU ADMITTED IT!" gloating.

Their boy who cried wolf nonsense is tiring. It's why Obama or Hillary could rob a bank and commit mass murder and 90% of the left would dismiss it as a right wing conspiracy. They don't seem to understand the concept of "overplaying your hand" either.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #294 on: June 13, 2016, 12:25:13 AM »

Nathan,

I understand your argument, and no he isn't legally 'mentally ill'.

I am just saying he's a few french fries short of a happy meal with room temperature IQ.

It looks as though he was not treated or prosecuted for domestic battery which would have helped to prevent this massacre.
You have to actually report a crime for it to be known.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #295 on: June 13, 2016, 12:26:35 AM »

To be fair, he immigrated here in 1986, which was seven years before the Taliban was active. I know that because I actually got destroyed in a debate with (I want to say BRTD? I can't remember) on the subject back in like 2011. I don't think there was cause to reject his entry at the time.

That being said, I'm still no fan of the refugee policy and I am wary of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Syrians for a myriad of reasons, but let's be honest here: there was no reason to keep Mr. Mateeb out of the US. For all we know, he and his son might have radicalized here.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #296 on: June 13, 2016, 12:26:36 AM »

Why are you selling these semi-automatic guns to people on a terrorist watchlist?
Being on the terrorist watch list or on the No Fly list doesn't mean that one is an actual terrorist. It is not a conviction, so he hasn't lost any of his rights. In this case, the person on the terrorist watch list is actually a terrorist. That is not always the case.

Omar Mateen was interviewed by the FBI about friends on an ISIS training watch-list from Syria.
If one of my Kuwaiti neighbors (who are of course law abiding, God fearing, good decent people who'd never harm anyone) were to join ISIS hypothetically, I'd probably be investigated simply because my number is in there phone and we text back and forth from time to time. There was no reason to believe at the time that Mateeb was going to commit these acts; had the FBI had reason to believe this, it'd be because there was definitive proof linking him to ISIS. They either screwed up, or they genuinely couldn't prove anything. Either way, they had no probable cause to strip away the rights of this monster, assuming they legally could to begin with.

How is it this person owns a fire-arm at all?
As noted above, he never had any prior offenses and the fact that the FBI showed that they couldn't nab him for his various ties to radical Islam shows that they couldn't have convicted him to begin with. Making radical statements to coworkers isn't a crime. You have a right to say what you believe here. You have a right to be an ISIS sympathizer. You don't have the right to kill/harm others in the name of these disgusting beliefs.

That is simply not a gun that a person in Orlando needs, especially a mentally ill homophobe who sympathises with ISIS.
Who are you to say? If someone wants a gun here, they can get a gun. And how do we know he is mentally ill? His ex-wife? Would she be holding a press conference calling him mentally ill if he didn't kill 50 people in cold blood? He wouldn't have been prevented from buying a gun on the grounds of mental illness even if there were background checks.


His former wife, who left him in 2011 fearing for her life, said he was a violently abusive man who wanted to be a police officer.

"He was not a stable person," she said.

"He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn't finished or something like that."


In a separate interview with The Washington Post Ms Yusufiy, who left the suspect in 2011, said he was violently abusive.

It's a shame he was never prosecuted. A misdemeanor domestic assault conviction would have kept him from buying guns regardless of whether or not he was on the no-fly list, which may not have been the case.
Agreed 100%.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,657
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #297 on: June 13, 2016, 01:33:53 AM »
« Edited: June 13, 2016, 01:39:37 AM by Meclazine »

Thanks,

Some good replies there.

And yes, i understand nothing of a US citizens rights under these circumstances.

One thing we can agree on. The extensive rights and freedoms afforded to US citizens have been grossly abused and taken advantage by a member of society who does not share the basic spirit of a free people.
.

Logged
MK
Mike Keller
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #298 on: June 13, 2016, 04:55:29 AM »

leftists are really starting to be exposed you cant have it both ways.  Defending a religion that is strongly anti-gay as they are killing thousands of homosexuals in the middle east, throwing men off buildings and other horrible things.  You then claim "Christianity" is the problem which doesn't even compare with atrocities the Muslim religion is doing RIGHT NOW.   Not only that, but you want to open borders and allow more into this country.  The response is to blame that awful 2nd amendment and some fantasy "assault weapon" whatever that means.   

Whats happening within Islam right now is like the 1930s with Hitler. Failure to acknowledge a evil before it gets out of control. 
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #299 on: June 13, 2016, 05:20:18 AM »

I'm just appalled by this script that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens that if somebody does something horrible then they must be mentally ill, so clearly some sort of improvements to mental health treatment (which, granted, are necessary, just not necessarily for this reason) would have prevented it. Has the American right seriously talked itself into thinking this way? What happened to personal responsibility for one's actions? What happened to not trusting rationalized institutions like the psychiatric profession to come to all the decisions about people's lives? It's just amazing to me that those philosophical presuppositions are getting contorted to conform to the predetermined reflexively pro-gun Issues stance, rather than letting the Issues stances flow out of the philosophical presuppositions. It shouldn't surprise me but it does. It's the only thing about this whole argument that does any more.

Nobody on the American right is calling this mental illness. Theyre calling it Islamic terrorism.

Yes, it's only "mental illness" to conservatives when it's non-Muslims shooting up the place.

Do you honestly think this was a case of "mental illness"?

I'm just trying to figure out at what point ideologically-motivated killings transition from perfectly-treatable "mental illness" to "terrorism". Perhaps it's at the point where the NRA doesn't feel threatened that the latest slaughter will devolve into a discussion that's actually about guns, because the profile of the shooter is advantageous for more dominant, alternative narratives and therefore serves as the perfect scapegoat? Maybe you can help?

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.