PseudoSABR

That was a good bunt. I saw that Buxton wore the result with dismay, but I hope he appreciates the quality execution.

Hate will come under a different banner before we know it. Yes, Islam, as a religion and a political tool, produces vile rhetoric that motivates people to atrocities, but I don't think focusing on what's wrong with Islam really gets us much of any where in terms of practical solutions to preventing tragedies like this.

In an effort to change the conservation, there's this. A new Bloomberg poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent.

Nice straw man you got there. I certainly haven't said that (or implied it). Again the issue I took was definitively categorizing the act as terrorism as opposed to being motivated by homophobia/homosexual-desire. (It's both, and unlike foreign-motivated terrorist attacks). For like the fifth time, let me say it again, Islam is obviously part his motivations, and largely radical Islam is bigoted and dangerous.

I wanted to deal with this separately. Islam did not carry out the shooting in Orlando. Omar Mateen did, and it looks he did so on his own. There's a difference in being motivated by Islam, and attacks being organized by Islamic organizations. Just like there's a difference in Dylan Roof being motivated by the KKK (or racism generally) and Dylan Rook acting as part of the KKK's organization. It's a meaningful distinction (nuance) that's getting lost in this debate.

Nuance? I'm the one asking for nuance--sweeping generalization of 'terrorism' and 'radical Islam' obscure nuance! And seriously, quit panting me as some sort Islam-terrorist-denier. Islam, as I just said above, is of course a sources of great intolerance and when radicalized is horribly destructive. That said, I don't like Islam's intolerance, I don't like Christianity's intolerance, I don't like the KKK's intolerance. I don't like any of it. What matters is not that it's Islam or the KKK, but rather the extent to which these hate-groups are organized and actually effectuate violence. There will always be preachers and sources of hate, but our attention should be drawn to their organization, not the premise of their hatred. A Muslim who carries out an attack acting as part of terrorist network is very different from the Muslim who acts on his own accord to enact the hate he believes Islam is calling for. The first instance is what I'd call terrorism, the second is more complex and deserves nuance when examining what truly motivated the individual and our capacity to stop such acts. (And the notion that liberals somehow don't despise how inequitable Islamic countries are just isn't true. (God that case out of Qatar the other day, where the woman was charged with infidelity for being raped!) The resistance to labels like "Islamic radicalism" is that it hides the ball in terms of what the public is willing to do to solve such problems. The problem isn't sourced overseas on Arabian peninsula, it's here. And we can do things here, and not there, to help prevent these heinous acts).

You're being a bit dishonest about what actually trying to assert, yourself there. Islam's lack of tolerance, of course, is a huge part of the problem. No one denies that. (Again, my issue was with the statement "Looks more like terrorism to me.") It's too often that we speak of Islam not in terms of beliefs and cultures but as people that we can identify, exclude, or snuff out. But Islam does not have a monopoly on hate; and it is hate, and the means to act on hate that I will continue to try to steer the conversation towards. It's important to investigate and prevent any kind of organized hate, whether foreign or domestic, whether religious or secular.

I'm all for restricting gun ownership of those being investigated by the FBI for terrorist ties (or further the potential to commit hate crimes). Clearly such a restriction would have had an affect here, even if the suspicions turned out to be not true. The danger is what to do when investigations reveal that suspicions were unfounded, do we restrict such people anyway? My point is NOT that it wasn't motivated by Islamic hate; or that it was somehow more motivated by his own homophobia/homosexuality. My point is that definitively calling the mass shooting either one forecloses how we go about solving the problem.

Hey if our culture begins to purge itself of homophobia, I'm all for it. My point is that calling it "terrorism," (or not) hides the ball in terms of what we can do hear domestically to prevent mass shootings predicated upon hate.

1) I'm making a plea to resist the urge to affix labels to a complex situation. 2) We don't have all the facts, as you suggest. We don't know how much Islam or homophobia or the two together motivated him. It's important to withhold making declaration that serve specific ideological interests. 3) People are super-eager to yell Islam and focus on eradicating ISIS rather than what can be done domestically. (Take a look at Trump's tweets on this.) 4) We should explore all avenues of investigation to prevent these kind of attacks, but declaring this terrorism either terrorism or lone-wolf forecloses areas of investigation. I don't see a lot of value in coming to determination that he was more motivated by Islam or his own struggles with homosexuality/homophobia; I think people are eager to ideological frame the issue to suit their preferred course of action (e.g. ban the Muslims, not the guns!).

Mother Nature, you so crazy! http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/3747333+_0c13c00f7d4cede0e352d705e61685cf.jpg

I don't understand why it matters when the person who does the shooting is an American citizen. Does it matter that his violence was motivated by Islam, insanity, or gay-hate? When Dylann Roof gunned down people in church in Charleston, did we blame the KKK? Or try to find a connection to other white supremacists to see if they encouraged him somehow? (Or when Robert Lewis Dear shot up planned parenthood, did we try to trace that to the pro-life movement or Christianity?) Outside of proof that Omar Mateen was acting on orders from ISIS, it doesn't make a difference whether you call it terrorism or a lone wolf mass shooting, in terms of how to prevent such tragedies from happening.

Since I've mentioned prohibited possession a few times, here's the actual federal law, there are nine different classes of people whom are prohibited. 18 USC 922(g) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who 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) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a 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 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) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B ) 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; and (C )(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) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. States have their own such laws, as well.

This does have its advantages in maintaining one's ideological outlook, on the other hand.

I'll defer to your technical prowess here. Whatever it takes. Although, I like the sound of an "assault weapon ban" more than a "modification ban."

The thing is gun ownership does fall under that area. Felons can't possess guns. People who have committed misdemeanor "crimes of domestic violence" can't posses guns. Gun-advocates like to ignore these laws, because they generally agree with them, and they fly in the face that such laws would be unconstitutional. And gun-advocates like to read "shall not be infringed" as "there shall be no infringement whatsoever." If the government limits the type of guns you own and how you go about owning them, your right to own guns has not been infringed, as you still are able to bear arms.

That's not what I said. I said that for most gun owners, their privilege and freedom would be unaffected. Some ideas that shouldn't be controversial: 1) Extended background checks with mandatory waiting period. 2) Close the gun show loop hole. 3) Limits/ban on high ammunition magazines. 4) Prohibited possession for people on the no-fly list (or for national security purposes). Some ideas that are controversial but I think will be good anyway: 1) Mandatory licensing for gunowners that includes safety training and anger management courses. 2) Ban/limitation on semi-automatic (AR-15 style) weapons that can be easily altered to become fully automatic. 3) Ban/limitation on body armor. 4) Take away the immunity of the gun industry. Make them liable if they negligently manufacture and sell weapons to criminals. 5) Limitation on arsenals. I don't think this could work without registry, but there's no logic in letting individuals stock pile. 6) Super high tax on ammunition. (Gun rangers, etc. would be exempt from the tax). 7) Prohibited possession for people who have diagnosed mental illness connected to violence. 8) Buy back program for semi-automatic weapons and hand guns at original cost (or maybe an additional 10%, provided there are means to prevent people from gaming the system for profit). This is just a start and off the top of my head, and there's plenty of room for negotiation. For most gunowners, their actual ownership of guns would be unaffected by such changes.

This. I think what really gets me when a person won't sacrifice one iota of their privilege/freedom/right as a matter of principal, when their actual privileges and freedoms would utterly be unaffected. Reasonable gun control laws could literally have zero affect on most gun owners.

Sorry for your loss, and thanks for being open about where things can go from here. I don't want to minimize your contribution here, but I do want to comment on the criminality of mass shooters, so I apologize for the aside (please just take it as that, an aside). Most (if not all) of the shootings have been committed by non-criminals, by people who seek to kill by gaining the means through operating within the law. Breaking the law to purchase gun does carry additional risks that sometimes gets overlooked.

These kind of procedures already exist for a host of administrative actions including the denial of disability and social security benefits, denial of security clearance, wrongful firing by the feds etc. And are premised under the Matthews v. Eldridge ruling years ago. Denial of security clearance is particularly interesting as the Supreme Court has held they are non-reviewable by regular courts because national security reasons (See Dept. of the Navy v. Egan). The fifth and sixth amendment protections for criminal defendants, of course, are inapplicable for non-criminal cases. We already have prohibited possession of firearms for persons who have committed a "crime of domestic violence," in addition to the punishment sentenced by the judge. We already have background checks where people can be denied firearms. This is nothing new. There already is a so-called 'presumption of guilt' in that there is up to a three day waiting period before background is approved or denied. In the world you are conceiving, we couldn't deny people guns based on background checks without having a full-fledged criminal trial, which clearly isn't what's in the Constitution, nor how it's been interpreted.

You can't expect people to stop debating guns when one side refuses to compromise at all. What's illogical is to expect people to just shut up about it after you've refused to discuss it.

It's simple really. You create a process by which a person can challenge a finding that they aren't suitable to own guns. FBI, or whoever, makes a determination that you are unfit to own a gun, and then you appeal if you believe they are wrong. As long as there is such a process where you can present evidence and testimony, due process will be satisfied. Moreover, there is broad authority for the abrogation of civil rights in the name of national defense.

I know another religion that "teaches" intolerance of gay people.... Whether hate emerges from Islam, or the KKK, out of Trump's mouth, from some eco-terrorists, or Uber hallucinations, Americans have way too easy of time arming themselves with death-machines. Hate will always exist, let's not be naive. The reason we keep talking about guns is nothing has been done on guns, because gun-advocates refuse to budge even in the most minor and sensible ways. If you want people to stop talking about guns, be willing to compromise on the issue, otherwise you can expect to hear about guns each and every time mass shooting happens.

They did. I think the confusion is calling her Caitlyn rather then Lady Blackheart.

Mother nature at work! The earth is so mysterious!