HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama to gun owners — I’m...

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:38 PM

Obama to gun owners — I’m not looking to disarm you



Pay very close attention to his comments from 2:00 on ISIS supporters.

Then there are reports that the FBI investigated Omar Mateen before:

FBI investigated him before
His full name was Omar Mir Seddique Mateen and he was born in New York. His parents are originally from Afghanistan, a U.S. official said.
The FBI interviewed Mateen in 2013 and 2014, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper told reporters Sunday.
"Those interviews turned out to be inconclusive, so there was nothing to keep the investigation going," Hopper said.
Mateen was not under investigation at the time of Sunday's shooting or under surveillance, Hopper said.
"The FBI first became aware of Mateen in 2013 when he made inflammatory comments to co-workers alleging possible terrorist ties," Hopper said.
The investigation was closed, Hopper said, after investigators "were unable to verify the substance of his comments."
In 2014, the FBI interviewed Mateen again over possible connections with an American suicide bomber.
"We determined that contact was minimal and did not constitute a substantive relationship or threat at that time," Hopper said.
Officials earlier said Mateen was one of hundreds of people on the agency's radar suspected of being ISIS sympathizers. There was no indication he was plotting to carry out an attack, the officials said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/index.html


And ask any Republican exactly why they want ISIS supporters to have the right to keep and bear weapons of mass murder. As if ISIS is a well-regulated militia organized to throw tea into a harbor to avoid taxes?

24 replies, 1506 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama to gun owners — I’m not looking to disarm you (Original post)
IronLionZion Jun 2016 OP
Igel Jun 2016 #1
Darb Jun 2016 #2
Kentonio Jun 2016 #3
linuxman Jun 2016 #4
Kentonio Jun 2016 #5
linuxman Jun 2016 #9
Kentonio Jun 2016 #10
linuxman Jun 2016 #11
Kentonio Jun 2016 #14
linuxman Jun 2016 #15
Dem2 Jun 2016 #6
linuxman Jun 2016 #7
mythology Jun 2016 #12
linuxman Jun 2016 #13
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #8
Odin2005 Jun 2016 #16
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #17
Odin2005 Jun 2016 #18
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #19
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #20
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #21
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #22
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #24
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #23

Response to IronLionZion (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:49 PM

1. Ask any privacy supporter exactly why they want ISIS supporters to have a right

to encrypted phones and secure communications."

Ask any property owner exactly why they want ISIS supporters to be able to own property instead of having it confiscated upon suspicion of wrong-thinking.

Ask any free speech advocate exactly why they want the KKK to be able to have free speech and right to assembly, instead of limiting speech and forbidding groups to gather without formal government permission.

And so it goes. I personally don't own a fire arm. My brother does. But his ownership and exercise of the right should be defended, just like mine to freedom of religion and others' to freedom of association or speech. If we can't defend rights of those we don't like because of altruism or principle, view it selfishly: by asking that others' rights be restricted, we're asking for our own to be rescinded or to yield to dictatorship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:53 PM

2. Not.

 

It should be severely restricted. The 2nd doesn't say what you think it says. Is there much else you agree with Scalia and Thomas on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:58 PM

3. Which well regulated militia is your brother a member of?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:02 PM

4. Which ruling says that's how it works?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:03 PM

5. Have you actually read the second amendment?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:16 PM

9. No, what's that?

 



Have actually read any of the SC rulings on it, heard constitutional scholar president Obama's thoughts on it, or read anything at all related to it which explains in clear detail that like everything on the BOR, it protects the right of the people?

Your understanding of the 2nd is facile. I'd hate to see you interpret the first ammrndnent. You'd be telling me I can't say what I want on the internet because it's neither spoken word nor printed from the news.

Constitutional literalists aren't very strong in the critical thinking dept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:26 PM

10. The relevance is the reason why the second amendment was written in the first place.

 

America was intended to be a nation with no standing army. Militia were intended to be the defense against foreign invasion, and so a well regulated militia was indeed an essential thing for the country.

All the constitutional interpretation since has been around trying to justify what is nothing more than an obsolete and completely outdated 'right' which is retained despite its original purpose being no longer existent. Yet the same tired arguments are trotted out time after time, usually in the bloody aftermath of another atrocity, for why this crap is supposedly an essential part of American society.

But yeah ok, it's us who lack 'critical thinking'..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:44 PM

11. As long as you admit it. :)

 

Thoughts on the thirteenth and 3rd ammendments? Why do we even need those? I mean, there are no more slaves, and the British aren't going to quarter in our houses again soon?



Maybe we should look at the thoughts of the people who wrote the 2nd to see what their intention was.



“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.” – George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.” – Richard Henry Lee.
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” – George Washington
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson.
“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” – Noah Webster.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin.
“A free people ought to be armed.” – George Washington.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson.
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington.



Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:13 AM

14. Did Washington, Jefferson and Franklin write those down themselves?

 

Or did they get their slaves to do it, while they held a gun just in case their 'property' got a bit uppity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:12 AM

15. Considering teaching slaves to read and write was illegal, you tell me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:03 PM

6. Bullshit.

I DO own guns and I couldn't disagree with you more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:03 PM

7. Why do you hate America?

 

To protect our freedom, we must gut and ass fuck it at the first misuse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:03 PM

12. You clearly haven't been paying attention if you think this was the first misuse

 

It's not just mass shootings like this. It's abusive guys killing their families, it's gang violence, it's suicides (the success rate goes up significantly with a firearm), it's all sorts of things.

We have limits on free speech where it's harmful or potentially harmful. For example, yelling fire in a crowded theater to incite a panic. Free speech kills far fewer people than guns do every year. But the NRA will gladly fight even the slightest gun access reform.

Oh and nice of you to use a homophobic slur like ass fuck when talking about a mass shooting at a gay club. Subtle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:34 PM

13. Um, can you not do that with a woman?

 

That's weird. I've been doing it wrong, I suppise.

Get over yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:16 PM

8. There are plenty of limits

There are restrictions against hate speech advocating for violence or threatening to do harm to innocent people. Also yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and similar situations.

Police do confiscate property on suspicion of crimes. They usually need a warrant or something to search and seize stuff in a drug investigation for example. But they can detain and search vehicles on probably cause.

There is close monitoring of the purchase of selected chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:43 AM

16. But plenty here on this website, do.

I comply support all the legislation Obama is supporting on guns, but I am so fucking sick of the people here who would be perfectly happy if all guns were banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:56 AM

17. People here don't make the law

There are plenty of common sense gun proposals from our lawmakers that are blocked because the NRA's supporters spew complete lies. They also put in restrictions on any government studies collecting data on the problem because it would support legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:01 PM

18. I agree completely, but it is the rhetoric from our side that drives the fears of gun owners.

I'm from a rural area in NW Minnesota and I know a lot of people who think that any sensible gun control legislation is just one step in the eventual banning of guns because of the confiscationist rhetoric widespread on our side every time a tragedy like this happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:13 PM

19. Obama used a rhetorical method that has served him well - the redirect.



The question was why does he want to restrict access to firearms to law abiding people instead of holding bad guys responsible for their actions.

The president answers by redirecting. He restates a question that wasn't asked and then answers that non-existent question with.... the notion that Democrats are hell bent on taking away your guns is just not true.

Maybe, but that wasn't the question that was asked.

But then he gives an example where he wants to ban someone from buying a firearm for merely visiting an ISIL website.

Oy, vey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:19 PM

20. He addressed both parts of the question

he doesn't want to "restrict access to firearms to law abiding people" and he has been "holding bad guys responsible for their actions".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:26 PM

21. But he does want to restrict access


He even used the example of someone who merely visited an ISIL website being someone who should be restricted from buying a firearm. He didn't say that person wrote violent things on the website, supported the website financially, etc.

The Assault Weapons Ban was clearly an effort to restrict firearms in certain configurations to law-abiding people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:02 PM

22. Who decides who is a bad guy?

and at what point is it bad enough? Saying bad stuff? Doing bad stuff? Providing material or financial support for bad stuff?

They can restrict people from flying or purchasing chemicals and other stuff, and keep them under surveillance.

There is also the Trumper extreme where it really doesn't matter what the person says or does, only how they look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:10 PM

24. Due process is the answer to your questions.


My biggest problem with adding the terror watch listees to NICS is that there is no due process involved. We don't know when we've been added, we don't know the criteria for being added, we don't know how to get off the list, and there is no accountability for officials for abusing that process.

Currently, all the ways of becoming a prohibited person from owning guns by government decree involve due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:05 PM

23. Would it kill us to not have guns?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread