America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?

[B]

I'd like to see Obama withdrawal his nomination upon Hillary's election.

I feel like that'd just be extremely unprofessional and mean to Garland. We shall see.

I agree. I feel bad for wanting it.

My guess is that Obama made Garland fully aware of everything that could happen after he got nominated, including this scenario. If I were a Democrat, I would not feel bad if it happens.

I know he did, but Garland gave such a heartfelt speech upon his acceptance that i'll break my heart for him to not get the slot.

[Jorge]

a perfect illustration of the collective stupidity and dishonesty of our media.

It's not that unreasonable. Surveys show that most NRA members favor expanded gun control, but the fear of this kind of horsehit keeps them supporting the NRA who plays on that fear.

But they're not trying to take away Ruddo's guns...

If we take the Statue of Liberty to be a symbol of... I don't know... LIBERTY, its rather easy to see that the NRA isn't a particularly immediate threat to it (and may in fact be too protective of it), unlike the people responsible for the Hebdo attacks, the Paris attacks and now Orlando, who are diametrically opposed to it, and who are getting little to no mention by the media or the president. Drawing a cartoon of a Muslim terrorist with a gun to the Statue of Liberty's head just won't do. This is willful and calculated obfuscation and exploitation.

I don't like the NRA's scorched Earth policy of dealing with gun rights either, but this isn't a gun rights issue, and the NRA didn't kill 50 people in Orlando. The Left is dead set on ignoring this, and are willfully changing the story to suit a more convenient narrative.

I also reject the idea that Islamic terrorism is some kind of unstoppable problem and we just have to live with it, or strip American citizens of their rights in order to prevent it. Its sheer cowardice.

I've read this post a couple times and while I agree with some points you're making (namely that the steadfast refusal to identify radical Islamic extremism as a real tangible threat helps nobody and is myopically born out of avoiding perceptions of racism and xenophobia), I also think you're either forgetting or ignoring the fact that there is a mass shooting epidemic in America that largely doesn't involve Muslims, that is exacerbated by lax gun laws, and that can be proactively improved with some minor concessions from the pro-gun side. What it comes down to for me is:
- Islamic extremism = huge fucking problem, really fucking scary
- Mass shooting pandemic = also huge fucking problem, also really fucking scary
It seems like the political cartoon above was aiming for one and not for the other, probably because of that sensitivity I mentioned earlier, but also because it seems like the issue that America could more easily act on if it really wanted to.

[BurtReynolds]

a perfect illustration of the collective stupidity and dishonesty of our media.

It's not that unreasonable. Surveys show that most NRA members favor expanded gun control, but the fear of this kind of horsehit keeps them supporting the NRA who plays on that fear.

But they're not trying to take away Ruddo's guns...

If we take the Statue of Liberty to be a symbol of... I don't know... LIBERTY, its rather easy to see that the NRA isn't a particularly immediate threat to it (and may in fact be too protective of it), unlike the people responsible for the Hebdo attacks, the Paris attacks and now Orlando, who are diametrically opposed to it, and who are getting little to no mention by the media or the president. Drawing a cartoon of a Muslim terrorist with a gun to the Statue of Liberty's head just won't do. This is willful and calculated obfuscation and exploitation.

I don't like the NRA's scorched Earth policy of dealing with gun rights either, but this isn't a gun rights issue, and the NRA didn't kill 50 people in Orlando. The Left is dead set on ignoring this, and are willfully changing the story to suit a more convenient narrative.

I also reject the idea that Islamic terrorism is some kind of unstoppable problem and we just have to live with it, or strip American citizens of their rights in order to prevent it. Its sheer cowardice.

I've read this post a couple times and while I agree with some points you're making (namely that the steadfast refusal to identify radical Islamic extremism as a real tangible threat helps nobody and is myopically born out of avoiding perceptions of racism and xenophobia), I also think you're either forgetting or ignoring the fact that there is a mass shooting epidemic in America that largely doesn't involve Muslims, that is exacerbated by lax gun laws, and that can be proactively improved with some minor concessions from the pro-gun side. What it comes down to for me is:
- Islamic extremism = huge fucking problem, really fucking scary
- Mass shooting pandemic = also huge fucking problem, also really fucking scary
It seems like the political cartoon above was aiming for one and not for the other, probably because of that sensitivity I mentioned earlier, but also because it seems like the issue that America could more easily act on if it really wanted to.

I agree totally, I'm only pointing out that the way the Left is portraying similar events is purposefully misleading, to the point of willfully ignoring facts:

Charlie Hebdo : terrorism
Paris: terrorism
San Bernardino : gun issue
Orlando : gun issue

Is the Right ignoring similarities between this shooting and, say, Sandy Hook? Sure, but they can generally be counted on to do that. The Left CAN DO BETTER, or so I'm told.

A cartoon of an NRA member holding a gun to a lady's head as a representation of the Orlando shooting without any mention of the actual killer or his motivations is rather despicable to me. Granted, its a cartoon and not really the medium for nuance, but the Left (including most people here) seem to think the same way, so its an accurate representation of the Left's reaction. I'm not seeing much outrage toward the ideology that's more directly responsible for the shooting, but plenty towards the NRA, which is not directly responsible.

When everyone's first response to the Orlando shooting is to run to the gun thread and rail against the NRA, one has to wonder where their head is at. Or are we just so defeatist about the threat of terrorism we don't even bother being outraged by it anymore?

[Strat]

Burt i really dont understand where you are getting this from. i dont know maybe you have different friends on the left.

i dont know one lefty that is not calling this terrorism. The conversation is, why are we allowing terrorists easier access to guns. its both. Its terrorism and its a gun issue. That is the dialogue i hear. That is the conversation on the left. This goes hand in hand. Obama has said its terrorism, hillary said she has no problem using radical islam.

Im sorry for posting videos from people you (RM in general) dont find funny nor should have any say in the matter but the Daily Show really fucking nailed it for me on this.

[Strat]

and we ran to this thread because when it first happened nobody knew the details and we wanted to discuss another mass shooting.

[b_i_revisited]

A cartoon of an NRA member holding a gun to a lady's head as a representation of the Orlando shooting without any mention of the actual killer or his motivations is rather despicable to me. Granted, its a cartoon and not really the medium for nuance, but the Left (including most people here) seem to think the same way, so its an accurate representation of the Left's reaction. I'm not seeing much outrage toward the ideology that's more directly responsible for the shooting, but plenty towards the NRA, which is not directly responsible.

The cartoon aside, which Platty explained well, I agree with this. IMHO, there are really three issues here that lead to your overarching issue:

1.) The ridiculous availability of high powered weapons and ammunition in the US
2.) Islamic Terrorism
3.) Homophobia / Violence against the LBGTQ community

It's easy for the Left to attack #1. You can hear it in Noah's 'NRA voice' in the video above (ironic given that he is from South Africa where there are 9.41 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year and 12.7 guns per 100 people vice the US where there are 10.2 gun deaths per 100,000 but 88.8 guns per 100 people, meaning a 700% increase in guns yielded less than a 10% increase in gun deaths. Almost like there is something else at play). Present your ideas then dismiss the pro-gun crowd with a dumb redneck voice and you dehumanize them and don't have to evaluate the merits of their ideas. Trump used this same technique against his opponents in R. primary.

The second two issues, really their combination in this unique instance, is were I am thinking your and my opinions line up. This event was not only a gun crime, it was terrorism. And it was not only terrorism, it was a hate crime targeting a specific community. A community given protected status by the Left. And it was not only a hate crime, but a hate crime motivated by religion. And this same religion has repeated this same hate crime again and again and again all over the globe. BUT, the same religion is also given protected status by the Left. So we end with a situation where two protected groups are in conflict (intersectionality is real!) and thus the Left (in it's constant denial of reality) simply tosses both out and focuses on issue #1, because to admit that Islam is intolerant of LGBTQ people, would be to force them into deciding between Islam and LGBTQ rights. And based on President Obama's response, I think we know which side they have chosen.

[B]

I agree totally, I'm only pointing out that the way the Left is portraying similar events is purposefully misleading, to the point of willfully ignoring facts:

Charlie Hebdo : terrorism
Paris: terrorism
San Bernardino : gun issue
Orlando : gun issue

Is the Right ignoring similarities between this shooting and, say, Sandy Hook? Sure, but they can generally be counted on to do that. The Left CAN DO BETTER, or so I'm told.

I would argue at all 4 of those are gun issues and to varying degrees terrorism, but if the purpose of terrorism is to coerce people who were not killed in the attack, San Bernadino and Orlando were impressive failures. The perpetrators of Charlie Hebdo and the Paris attacks had specific action they wanted undertaken by the media and/or government. The second two just wanted to kill a bunch of people.

There's little difference in execution, but a lot of difference in the reaction. Republicans only want it called "terrorism" so that they have an excuse to spend money and resources bulking up our military and fighting ISIL, something that will do nothing to reduce mass shootings in the US, and will likely increase ISIL's ability to recruit more terrorists.

[Jorge]

And it was not only a hate crime, but a hate crime motivated by religion

, and a serious case of self-loathing + internalized homophobia, it's looking like.

And this same religion has repeated this same hate crime again and again and again all over the globe.

Some people I've spoken to argue that these are cultural problems, not religious. They cite Indonesia as an example, being the most populous Muslim country in the world, and for the longest time, they've had roles for queer and trans people. I haven't researched enough to know how much of that holds up. But I've read the stuff in the Hadith, and it's pretty bad.

[Kaius]

A cartoon of an NRA member holding a gun to a lady's head as a representation of the Orlando shooting without any mention of the actual killer or his motivations is rather despicable to me. Granted, its a cartoon and not really the medium for nuance, but the Left (including most people here) seem to think the same way, so its an accurate representation of the Left's reaction. I'm not seeing much outrage toward the ideology that's more directly responsible for the shooting, but plenty towards the NRA, which is not directly responsible.

The cartoon aside, which Platty explained well, I agree with this. IMHO, there are really three issues here that lead to your overarching issue:

1.) The ridiculous availability of high powered weapons and ammunition in the US
2.) Islamic Terrorism
3.) Homophobia / Violence against the LBGTQ community

It's easy for the Left to attack #1. You can hear it in Noah's 'NRA voice' in the video above (ironic given that he is from South Africa where there are 9.41 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year and 12.7 guns per 100 people vice the US where there are 10.2 gun deaths per 100,000 but 88.8 guns per 100 people, meaning a 700% increase in guns yielded less than a 10% increase in gun deaths. Almost like there is something else at play). Present your ideas then dismiss the pro-gun crowd with a dumb redneck voice and you dehumanize them and don't have to evaluate the merits of their ideas. Trump used this same technique against his opponents in R. primary.

The second two issues, really their combination in this unique instance, is were I am thinking your and my opinions line up. This event was not only a gun crime, it was terrorism. And it was not only terrorism, it was a hate crime targeting a specific community. A community given protected status by the Left. And it was not only a hate crime, but a hate crime motivated by religion. And this same religion has repeated this same hate crime again and again and again all over the globe. BUT, the same religion is also given protected status by the Left. So we end with a situation where two protected groups are in conflict (intersectionality is real!) and thus the Left (in it's constant denial of reality) simply tosses both out and focuses on issue #1, because to admit that Islam is intolerant of LGBTQ people, would be to force them into deciding between Islam and LGBTQ rights. And based on President Obama's response, I think we know which side they have chosen.

[Rob]

The second two issues, really their combination in this unique instance, is were I am thinking your and my opinions line up. This event was not only a gun crime, it was terrorism. And it was not only terrorism, it was a hate crime targeting a specific community. A community given protected status by the Left. And it was not only a hate crime, but a hate crime motivated by religion. And this same religion has repeated this same hate crime again and again and again all over the globe. BUT, the same religion is also given protected status by the Left. So we end with a situation where two protected groups are in conflict (intersectionality is real!) and thus the Left (in it's constant denial of reality) simply tosses both out and focuses on issue #1, because to admit that Islam is intolerant of LGBTQ people, would be to force them into deciding between Islam and LGBTQ rights. And based on President Obama's response, I think we know which side they have chosen.

Can you expand on this a little? I don't really understand the "protected status" argument. Shouldn't all minority groups be protected? Shouldn't everyone have a protected status? I think the left sees these groups as being discriminated against and works towards changing that. There is no choice between one or the other, there is simply a choice to fight discrimination or not.

Now if you want to argue that the left is too tolerant of Islamic ideals that run counter to American ideals, I'm with you. America is fighting the wrong culture war. I don't believe it has anything to do with Islam itself, though. A few hundred years ago it would have been easy to declare Christianity a religion of violence and oppression. And then it wasn't, even though the words of the bible still allow me to kill people and sell my daughters. Religious fundamentalism seems to be the problem, and we ought to admit that perpetual conflict in the middle east is a big part of that.

[B]

Religious fundamentalism seems to be the problem, and we ought to admit that perpetual conflict in the middle east is a big part of that.

[B]

Let's be honest, this guy was all kinds of fucked up. It's not clear that you can pin this on his religion b/c his parents, friends, and family don't share his affiliations. It's not clear that you can pin it on his homosexuality b/c he might have been gay himself.

But from everything that has come out thus far, you can certainly question, "why the fuck did anyone think this guy should have an assault rifle?"

[Iholdthepain]

Let's be honest... Why the fuck... should anyone... have an assault rifle?"

[LoathedVermin72]

Let's be honest... Why the fuck... should anyone... have an assault rifle?"

This is a pretty good point, actually.

[LoathedVermin72]

Also, why isn't the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment ever talked about?

[Strat]

Also, why isn't the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment ever talked about?

Spoiler: show

[E.H. Ruddock]

I'm all for regulating automatic weapons and I am a gun owner. I own my gun(s) for protection. A shotgun does a better job in the close quarters of my home than an AR-15 would anyway.

[Fuck You Jobu]

Religious fundamentalism seems to be the problem, and we ought to admit that perpetual conflict in the middle east is a big part of that.

What religions are currently having a frequent amount of extremely violent fundamentalism killings?

[Kaius]

Also, why isn't the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment ever talked about?

Spoiler: show

[Green Habit]

Also, why isn't the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment ever talked about?

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.