New York Daily News Tells NRA "Thanks" for Worst Mass Shooting in US History

[Botany]

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/06/new-york-daily-news-tells-nra-thanks-worst-mass-shooting-us-history

The cover comes after Omar Matteen shot and killed 50 in a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. Here...

:large

[Botany]

2. thanx Fuck the NRA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027900780

[Night Watchman]

6. In contrast, here's the Post's:

[DinahMoeHum]

27. Yellow journalism at its worst.

n/t

[valerief]

48. Bullshit rag. It's the NRA against the U.S. nt

[aikoaiko]

3. Unfortunately, the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban would not have stopped this massacre

First, a little context. Gun restrictionists often blame the expiration of the 1994 AWB in 2004 and with massacres such as the Sandy Hook mass murder where a criminal used an AR15 style rifle. They often don't realize that the state of CT implemented a state-version of the expired federal AWB and the Lanza rifle was completely compliant with that law. I bought an AR that was compliant with those standards in 2003 -- my rifle didn't have a flash suppressor or bayonet lug, but otherwise functioned like a normal AR. As we saw at Sandy Hook, AR15s that are AWB compliant can still be used by criminals to inflict massive causalities.

Some lawmakers decided that the problem with the 1994 AWB was that it wasn't prohibitive enough and developed a harsher version after Sandy Hook -- the 2013 AWB. However, the only thing that needed to be changed on the Lanza rifle to make it compliant with the 2013 AWB was the hand grip. A simple (one screw in and out) and inexpensive ($30) replacement grip where you could not wrap your thumb all the way around the grip would have made the Lanza rifle compliant.

I'm sure the Mateen rifle was not compliant with the 2013 or 1994 AWB, but I assure you that the lack of a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or standard pistol grip would not have changed the outcome.

There may be solutions to reducing this kinds of shootings, but an AWB is not one of them.

[louis-t]

4. Oh, so 'do nothing'.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

[aikoaiko]

5. My point is that passing an Assault Weapons Ban is actually doing nothing.

It might make anti-gun folk happy and pro-gun folk unhappy, but it won't save any lives.

[justiceischeap]

7. Then what, in your opinion, will?

When every single mass shooter that's used an AR-15 type weapon has obtained them legally (except the Newtown shooter, whose mother obtained it legally).

How do we stop these (mostly) men from getting access to mass killing machines? If Mateen only had access to handguns, do you think he could have shot over 100 people with just two handguns?

I see a lot of people on DU saying no to any and every suggestion and that's all they offer...no, nope, nada, zilch, zero. So if you're such experts on the subject, offer a comprehensive solution to the problem other than no because your no's are about as helpful as the GOP thoughts and prayers.

[Marengo]

9. How about we examine more restrictions on the freedom of expression, religion,

And reconsider the 4th amendment in it's entirety in addition to expanding gun control.

[aikoaiko]

10. Focus on identification of legitimately prohibited people and the NICS background check

In this case, Mateen committed domestic violence and a police report was filed, but no arrest or conviction occurred, according to his ex-wife. Even a misdemeanor conviction would have led to a NICS denial.

I think there is room for developing better due process for listing and delisting people on NICS based on danger due to ties to terror groups or mental illness. Paired with universal background checks these actions might reduce gun violence (mass shootings and non-mass shootings).

You asked if Mateen could have shot over 100 with two handguns. The answer is absolutely yes. Two Glock 9-mm handguns with 3 or 4 33-rd magazines could have easily produced the same casualties if not more. Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, used two handguns and his massacre was the previous macabre record holder for most deaths. Glocks are typically much cheaper than AR15 and the 30+round magazines are plentiful although a little more expensive than AR15 mags.

Just remember that Lanza used an AWB compliant AR15 and having that law did nothing to prevent the tragedy and reduce the tragedy.

[lark]

13. Think there may be a flaw in that.

If the AR whatever had 100 bullet magazine that many could be fired without reloading. The Glock would require reloading 3-4 times to produce the same carnage. That's 3-4 times the victims could fight back and stop the carnage. Still need to stop allowing any sales of large capacity magazines, it would definitely save lives.

[aikoaiko]

16. Not really a flaw in what I said.

There are 100 rounds mags for Glocks too.


In reality, the 30-round mags for Glocks and AR's are much more reliable than these 100 rounders. No one uses them in any kind of legitimate tactical situation.

[Jopin Klobe]

18. Ugly as shit ...

[aikoaiko]

25. yes it is and unreliable often

[catbyte]

61. Well, if that ain't phallic, nothing is. Ew.

[aikoaiko]

62. It appears more testicular to me, but to each their own.

[Jester Messiah]

26. Stop the cultural poison coming out of mosques, churches, and other radicalizing institutions

Stop allowing "leaders" to preach hate and then act all surprised when one of their followers actually acts on their words. For all that we treasure it, the First Amendment carries as great or greater potential for harm as the Second.

[Feeling the Bern]

50. Isn't that what gun humpers want? Do nothing, or pass the weakest laws possible that don't work

thereby fulfilling their masturbatory fantasy that there is nothing that can be done.

Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and they passed an assault weapons ban. Guess what: No mass shootings since. Same with Canada, Thailand, and all countries with universal gun control.

But here. . .well, we're America: World Police! Murika! BACON PANCAKES!!!

Remember also, the NRA has had many workshops showing people how to get around the law as well by modifying their killing machines.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. If laws don't make a difference than why fight against them?

[aikoaiko]

19. Because a law that makes no practical difference shouldn't exist.

All it does it interfere with the liberty of law-abiding folks.

As I said, I bought a new AR15 that was compliant with the 1994 Federal AWB, but it didn't have flash suppressor or bayonet lug. I had a great time with. There were plenty of 30-round magazines available.

But still it was an unnecessary restriction on my liberty to not have those features on my rifle and the ban on those features did nothing to protect lives.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. LOL! You consider owning a gun "liberty"?

[aikoaiko]

21. Yes, owning a firearm is a civil liberty protected by the 2nd Amendment.

What do you think the Bill of Rights protects? Hobbies?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

30. It was written when the local cops were Redcoats.

[aikoaiko]

33. Ok, but still it protects civil liberties.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. No. Laws do that. Not guns.

[aikoaiko]

40. Yes, keeping and bearing arms is a civil liberty protected by law (specifically the 2nd amendment).

Hopefully, we agree on that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. The Founders didn't believe in maintaining a standing army....

The founders wanted the raising of an army from the common citizenry in a time of need.

The militia was under the command of officers in the army. It wasn't a guy in his mom's basement jamming sandbags against the windows.

[Wibly]

31. I dont' think so

If you read the actual 2nd Amendment it does not say that owning a firearm is a civil liberty. It says that states have have a right to have a well armed citizens' militia.
It also says nothing about the sort of guns used in this situation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. It also says the militia should be "well regulated" and Conservatives are into deregulation.

[aikoaiko]

36. The Bill of Rights was written in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of govenment powers

Its a preamble thing.

Yes, the 2nd ensured state militia, but by protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms. As long as the people maintained their civil liberty to keep and bear arms, the state could form a well-regulated militia.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. First time I've heard of an amendment called a preamble.

[aikoaiko]

39. There is a preamble to the Bill of Rights which the 2nd Amendment is one.

Its probably been a long time since your civics lesson.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. The Bill of Rights is not part of the Preamble.

[aikoaiko]

43. Spit you are incorrect. The Bill of Rights is comprised its preamble and 10 amendments.

You're welcome.

http://www.billofrights.org/

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Do I REALLY need to post the dramatic reading by Shatner?

[elljay]

59. We do need to include that in the AWB

It is really not safe for listening without proper medical supervision. And a couple of stiff drinks.

[beevul]

24. Most Americans do.

This surprises you?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Actually, most Americans DON'T own guns.

[beevul]

54. Drop the goalposts. Put them down.

You said: "LOL! You consider owning a gun "liberty"?"

And I replied "Most Americans do."

Clearly, we weren't talking about who owns a gun, but who considers owning one a liberty.

Most Americans consider owning a gun a liberty.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that you owning a gun is protecting MY liberty?

[beevul]

56. Who said anything about your liberty? Or protecting it?

Owning a gun is a civil liberty in America, and 3/4 of the American people agree.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. Just saw a Gallup poll that shows 55% believe we need stricter gun laws....

That's from years before all of this crap became the norm.

[MynameisBlarney]

15. Tl;DR version...

"It's too soon to talk about gun control."

[Lonusca]

8. And in today's edition, they have this

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tom-g-palmer-wake-orlando-gays-arm-article-1.2671568

What are your thoughts on this gentleman's article?

[lark]

22. BS, is what I think.

The # of victims would have been much higher if civilians had been shooting too. That theory of "good guy with gun" has never worked, it's just a NRA wet dream.

[niyad]

11. thank you, daily news

[MariaThinks]

12. This is an incredibly true description of what happened and who enabled it.

[Jopin Klobe]

17. The Second Amendment was written in the late 1700s ...

... anyone who thinks that the Founding Fathers - or anyone else sane for that matter - thought it was a beautiful concept of freedom to issue military grade, semi-automatic weapons to the general populace without restrictions is a God damned fool ...

[lark]

23. +1,000,000

EXACTLY right!!!!

[Dem2]

42. Agreed

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. So was the First- does it still apply to Internet postings?

[Duckhunter935]

52. well what you posted is just not correct

military grade

No, they are semi-automatic rifles. No military uses them.

without restrictions

Many laws and restrictions on the books, see PROHIBITED PERSONS and the Lautenberg law.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

The definition of 'convicted' can be found in the chapter 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) and has exceptions:

(33) (B)
(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

[HockeyMom]

28. Trump's statement

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/13/donald-trump-says-orlando-victims-could-have-saved-themselves-if/21394247/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D1407979108_htmlws-main-bb

Does he mean 103 club patrons should have been armed? Oh, again, MORE guns. My husband, Republican, lifetime NRA member, guns locked up in a safe, has a Florida Carry Permit but does NOT carry. He got that carry permit "just because he can". Apart from the fact that I will not go anywhere with him carrying, he has said that he is afraid he will be in situation where he might have use his gun, and hit an INNOCENT bystander. "I would rather die MYSELF that live knowing I killed an innocent person". Far too many pro gun people,Trump included, never consider this which it sounds like the COPS in Orlando did consider. Ironically, my husband was at a Florida Gun Show yesterday. "LOADED Firearms Prohibited". Oh, my. A Gun Show is a Gun Free Zone too!

My gun owner husband said what he would have done was JUMP the shooter from behind. "300 people in that club and nobody tried to jump and tackle him to the ground?" I suppose fear does set in, but as with the Gabby Giffords shooting, that CAN work especially with hundreds of people in a club with only one shooter.

Does anyone remember anyone remember Colin Ferguson and the LIRR shooting? Was he stopped by armed citizens? No, he was thrown to the ground by other passengers on the train. How many lives were saved by unarmed quick thinkers willing to risk themselves to take down an armed "bad guy"?

These politicians and the NRA who insist that MORE armed citizens are the only solution totally infuriate me.

[Wibly]

29. I agree with the sympathy but

The worst mass shooting of innocent people in US history happened at Wounded Knee, not in Orlanda Florida.

[mcar]

34. K&R

[liberalnarb]

46. Their titles and articles are usually spot on.

K&R

[valerief]

47. You gotta love NY Daily News for making headlines even Fox News viewers can understand.

And, of course, for printing the truth in them.

[many a good man]

51. We should begin referring to the NRA as the

National Massacre Association

[texasmomof3]

53. Yes because guns shoot themselves.

[SunSeeker]

58. K & R

[DonCoquixote]

60. it is nice to know

there is still some semblance of journalism