100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Breaking: Orlando Florida, Mass Shooting | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark: Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals; Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual. Rights overrule privileges. but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations the only other right you have under the Second,is NOT to have a Firearm! That's the only right you have,other than to own one! Besides,what is your Interpretation of,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ON? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my advice comes from a munitions specialist and doctor, if that makes it as valid as the self professed gun slingers who have drawn and protected in this thread,,lol and I do blame the individual and have not asked for 'lawabiding' gun owners to pay anything |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark: Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals; Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual. Rights overrule privileges. but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations My Declaration of Independence says my rights are "unalienable" and my Constitution that they shall not be infringed"..... What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable I don't know whose you are reading from! 
the same one that says,,'a well regulated militia',,and goes on to talk about militia organizing,, not private ownership It doesn't mean what you think it means,besides,the 2nd has two different parts,a Milita-Part,and a Guaranty of the Right to own and Bear Arms by the Individual! The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) 3 The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 4 The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. Texas Court Decision Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as trying comparing driving a car with gun ownership, you are way off the mark: Driving your vehicle is a Privilege granted by the State to individuals; Firearms ownership is a Right guaranteed by the US CONSTITUTION to the individual. Rights overrule privileges. but rights as spelled in the constitution can have limitations of LAW for instance, the right to practice reigion is tempered by the limitations of the law if your religion tells you to go out and punch a woman,, your right will not precede the LAW that is there for protection the right to free speech is tempered by the limitations of the law if your speech is libelous or slanderous,, your right will not precede the LAW That is there for protection rights written in the constitution are not blind to detail,,,,and therefore not blindly applicable to all situations My Declaration of Independence says my rights are "unalienable" and my Constitution that they shall not be infringed"..... What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable I don't know whose you are reading from!
the same one that says,,'a well regulated militia',,and goes on to talk about militia organizing,, not private ownership It doesn't mean what you think it means,besides,the 2nd has two different parts,a Milita-Part,and a Guaranty of the Right to own and Bear Arms by the Individual! The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) 3 The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 4 The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. Texas Court Decision Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] laws, like supreme court decisions, always evolve what may be interpreted by the law one way today,, can always be revisited later,,,,which decision then was 'right' and which was 'wrong all subjective,, everyones interpretation will remain a matter of individual perspective,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
eldarbeast
on
Tue 06/14/16 03:26 PM
|
|
Such events have taken place - they just aren't reportedby the national medias as these stories confict with their desires to disarm the American public. Slaves are easier to control when they lack the ability to defend themselves. Why do you, msharmony, desire to be a slave...? lol,,seriously? 
Ive lived nearly half a century,, survived without ever owning a gun
the only 'defense' against a gun is being a faster draw,, a skill I find about as necessary as wearing rubber shoes to avoid the potential of a lightning strike Bully for you. I have lived 60 years, lived in nines States, visited 37 States and eleven countries in the Middle East, Europe and North Africa. I have had several instances where I have had to produce my firearm to defend my life and property here in the States, and have been grateful to be able too. Do not give away my Rights because you feel the need to salve your 'guilt' for the actions of others. PS Reports are now surfacing that people being shot at by the Orlando shooter just stood there waiting to be shot while he reloaded. Having been on the sharp end of the stick, I definitely would have taken the battle to him since my life was already forfeit. when did I post anything about taking your right? my response is to the allegation of my 'enslavement' merely by choosing to not have a gun personally and for supporting caution in who is roaming the streets with what,,, If that is the case, what you truly believe, then there are already more than enough laws to do what you desire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep, and I have a better chance taking the bus than driving,,
What do you know about firearms 'risk'? Other than what you may ha e read or what some "doctor" told you? Self admittedly you ha e no actual real world firearms experience.
but that don't make me ignorant,,,for taking the 'risk' You would rather limit me....a law abiding firearms owner, for the actions of a few...on soft, gun free zones no less. BTW.....even as 50 y/o former jarhead...I still remember cover and concealment and slicing the pie....and my sight alignment and trigger control is still pretty damn good. I wouldn't expect you to know what those things mean Ms.I've never Owned a Gun In Half A Century...... I only know common sense where 'risk' in general is involved and that which my loved one who is a munitions expert, ex naval captain and emergency room doctor tells me and a loved one who was a gunners mate but perhaps I should put more trust in the advice of strangers on the internet who have 'fired' or 'owned' weapons yes, if I was in a contract with the military to put my life at risk in hostile environments,, I would feel it necessary and logical to own a weapon,,, but,, that's not my situation 
that's your right,but you have absolutely ZERO Rights to force that Choice on others! I have neither the right , nor the authority,, which is why I haven't and don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep, and I have a better chance taking the bus than driving,,
What do you know about firearms 'risk'? Other than what you may ha e read or what some "doctor" told you? Self admittedly you ha e no actual real world firearms experience.
but that don't make me ignorant,,,for taking the 'risk' You would rather limit me....a law abiding firearms owner, for the actions of a few...on soft, gun free zones no less. BTW.....even as 50 y/o former jarhead...I still remember cover and concealment and slicing the pie....and my sight alignment and trigger control is still pretty damn good. I wouldn't expect you to know what those things mean Ms.I've never Owned a Gun In Half A Century...... I only know common sense where 'risk' in general is involved and that which my loved one who is a munitions expert, ex naval captain and emergency room doctor tells me and a loved one who was a gunners mate but perhaps I should put more trust in the advice of strangers on the internet who have 'fired' or 'owned' weapons yes, if I was in a contract with the military to put my life at risk in hostile environments,, I would feel it necessary and logical to own a weapon,,, but,, that's not my situation
lol,, wasn't aware I had the power to do that either,,,but if posting my views 'interferes' with your situation perhaps we should both spend less time in a public forum,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another appalling mass murder in the US, the bloodiest yet, has once again focused world media attention on the Indispensable Nation. 50 dead, 53 wounded, and all the work of one ISIS-sympathizing, rabidly homophobic (though closet gay, apparently), Muslim-American, tax-paying, Mecca-visiting (yet non-religious), divorced, 'disturbed', 'gentle', NYPD-loving, America-hating, father-of-one terrorist working a steady job for 9 years with the world's biggest private security firm.
An Everyman for our times then, it would seem. The story goes that, at 2am on Sunday 12 June 2016, 29-year-old Omar Mateen walked into a dark nightclub packed with 320 people having a good time. Mateen is carrying an AR-15 rifle and 30 magazines of ammunition on his person. In the dark, beneath the flashing and strobing lights, he begins shooting and goes on to reload and empty his AR-15 rifle 30 times, firing nearly 1,000 rounds of .223 ammunition. In the process, he achieves the remarkable feat of killing or injuring one third of the people around him, the majority of his victims being shot multiple times, some as many as 12 times. And he does all this in under 7 minutes. Alone. That, dear readers, is the 'official story', aka, 'all the news that's fit to print'. Here's the list of victims: Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34 Stanley Almodovar III, 23 Luis Omar Ocasio-Capo, 20 Juan Ramon Guerrero, 22 Kimberly Morris, 37 Luis S. Vielma, 22 Eddie Jamoldroy Justice, 30 Amanda Alvear, 25 Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25 Jean Carlos Mendez Perez, 35 Christopher Andrew Leinonen, 32 Jonathan Antonio Camuy Vega, 24 Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40 Luis Daniel Wilson-Leon, 37 Tevin Eugene Crosby, 25 Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22 Darryl Roman Burt II, 29 Deonka Deidra Drayton, 32 Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21 Anthony Luis Laureanodisla, 25 Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25 Franky Jimmy Dejesus Velazquez, 50 Martin Benitez Torres, 33 Mercedez Marisol Flores, 26 Xavier Emmanuel Serrano Rosado, 35 Gilberto Ramon Silva Menendez, 25 Simon Adrian Carrillo Fernandez, 31 Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26 Miguel Angel Honorato, 30 Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32 Jason Benjamin Josaphat, 19 Cory James Connell, 21 Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37 Luis Daniel Conde, 39 Shane Evan Tomlinson, 33 Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25 Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera, 36 Jerald Arthur Wright, 31 Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25 Jean C. Nives Rodriguez, 27 Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33 Brenda Lee Marquez McCool, 49 Yilmary Rodriguez Sulivan, 24 Christopher Andrew Leinonen, 32 Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28 Frank Hernandez, 27 Paul Terrell Henry, 41 Antonio Davon Brown, 29 Christopher Joseph Sanfeliz, 24 Akyra Murray, 18 Now let's take a closer look at The Timeline (one version of it anyway), as reported by CNN: The first shots were fired just after 2am, presumably at patrons inside the club. A police officer was on duty at, or in the vicinity of, the club. He was initially joined by two more police officers and they exchanged gunfire with 'the shooter', who was apparently outside the club at this point, but who then ran back into the club. How he got into the club in the first place, armed to the gills, isn't disclosed. Anyway, the first 3 cops were joined within minutes by "about 100 officers from the Orange County Sheriff's Office and the Orlando Police Department." At 2:09 am, nightclub employees sent a message via Facebook telling patrons to "get out of Pulse and keep running." Then nothing happened for 3 hours, ostensibly because the remaining patrons were being held hostage. Police officials said they had to hang around all that time "to access the situation, get armored vehicles on the scene and make sure they had enough personnel." Access the situation? That's either a typo and it should read 'assess the situation', or too many of those cops were idling in the nearby Dunkin' Donuts. The only thing of note, we're told, that took place during that time was that the shooter called 911 to tell police that he was doing this for the leader of ISIS, who he named and pledged loyalty to, before expressing solidarity with the supposed perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings (which took place in 2013, before 'ISIS' existed) and solidarity with the Florida man who died in 2014 as a suicide bomber in Syria for Al-Nusra Front (a terrorist group the US State Department is working around the clock to distinguish from ISIS as 'moderate' because it is arming and funding it). At about 5 am, SWAT police units used an armored vehicle to smash their way into the club, confront the suspect "in the doorway and shoot and kill him." Another variant of that ending has the 'lone wolf' engage in a one-hour shoot out with SWAT units, subjecting them to "a hail of bullets" before he is killed. Job done, everyone goes home. Florida governor Rick Scott then gave the 'Orlando Strong' speech... "This was an attack on our people, an attack on Orlando, an attack on Florida, an attack on America, an attack on all of us." US president Barack Obama followed up with the 'Love and Light' speech... "In the face of hate and violence, we will love one another. We will not give in to fear or turn against each other, instead we will stand united as Americans to protect our people, to defend our nation, and take action against those who threaten us." And that's it; end of story. There are, however, a few small details to iron out, like squaring the above with the following testimony provided by several people who were actually there at the club that night: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/wftv-arrest-expected-in-orlando-nightclub-mass-shooting/340918422/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunmans-wife-talk-attack-officials/story?id=39841580/ http://wreg.com/2016/06/14/report-wife-of-orlando-terrorist-may-have-known-of-attack-plan/ http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/nbc-killers-wife-knew-about-orlando-shooting-tried-to-talk-him-out-of-it/ 
A thought? Woman who breastfeeds her boyfriend reveals it leads to SEX most times http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-who-breastfeeds-boyfriend-reveals-8145872 * Maybe his "wifey" should have tried to "Breast-Feed" the Postal Lunatic? That way instead of going ballistic at the club; he might have been satisfied with some hot monkey-lovin? ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/wftv-arrest-expected-in-orlando-nightclub-mass-shooting/340918422/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunmans-wife-talk-attack-officials/story?id=39841580/ http://wreg.com/2016/06/14/report-wife-of-orlando-terrorist-may-have-known-of-attack-plan/ http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/nbc-killers-wife-knew-about-orlando-shooting-tried-to-talk-him-out-of-it/
A thought? Woman who breastfeeds her boyfriend reveals it leads to SEX most times http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-who-breastfeeds-boyfriend-reveals-8145872 * Maybe his "wifey" should have tried to "Breast-Feed" the Postal Lunatic? That way instead of going ballistic at the club; he might have been satisfied with some hot monkey-lovin? ? 
What is your point? That he is a homegrown, nut case with ,self esteem & marriage issues, that didn't get laid properly, by his 1st, 2nd & possibility 3rd wife.... so he got cranky & did a mass shooting, at a club that just happened to have 350 people who are or support an LGBT lifestyle. ACH...NO. 
He is an Islamic Terrorist. Who slaughtered 49 Americans on American soil. Who hates the United States & homosexuals & probably women. And most of the country knows it. And will not make excuses for him. Or use wordplay to downplay & will call a spade a spade. Wakey Wakey 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/wftv-arrest-expected-in-orlando-nightclub-mass-shooting/340918422/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunmans-wife-talk-attack-officials/story?id=39841580/ http://wreg.com/2016/06/14/report-wife-of-orlando-terrorist-may-have-known-of-attack-plan/ http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/nbc-killers-wife-knew-about-orlando-shooting-tried-to-talk-him-out-of-it/
A thought? Woman who breastfeeds her boyfriend reveals it leads to SEX most times http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-who-breastfeeds-boyfriend-reveals-8145872 * Maybe his "wifey" should have tried to "Breast-Feed" the Postal Lunatic? That way instead of going ballistic at the club; he might have been satisfied with some hot monkey-lovin? ? Fallen for Barry's Red Herring? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why does Hillary Clinton keep terror enabler Melissa Mark-Viverito on her team? Even as the victims were bleeding out in Orlando early Sunday, City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito was tweeting her support for another terrorist, unrepentant bomber Oscar Lopez Rivera. Kudos to Seth Barron of City Council Watch for flagging her ill-timed obsession. The speaker is a fervent Puerto Rican nationalist, you see. And since that’s Rivera’s cause, too, she plainly doesn’t care about his victims (not even the New Yorkers killed by his bombs), or the fact that he’d have won release from federal prison years ago — had he been willing to renounce violence. Then again, Hillary Clinton — at the time seeking Puerto Rican votes in her run for a New York seat in the US Senate — played a key role in then-President Bill Clinton’s pardon of most of Oscar Lopez Rivera’s fellow imprisoned FALN terrorists. Maybe the two Democrats really are peas in a pod. http://nypost.com/2016/06/14/why-does-hillary-clinton-keep-terror-enabler-melissa-mark-viverito-on-her-team/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited for belittling others opinions.
They are every bit as valuable as your own. soufie Site Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep, and I have a better chance taking the bus than driving,,
What do you know about firearms 'risk'? Other than what you may ha e read or what some "doctor" told you? Self admittedly you ha e no actual real world firearms experience.
but that don't make me ignorant,,,for taking the 'risk' You would rather limit me....a law abiding firearms owner, for the actions of a few...on soft, gun free zones no less. BTW.....even as 50 y/o former jarhead...I still remember cover and concealment and slicing the pie....and my sight alignment and trigger control is still pretty damn good. I wouldn't expect you to know what those things mean Ms.I've never Owned a Gun In Half A Century...... I only know common sense where 'risk' in general is involved and that which my loved one who is a munitions expert, ex naval captain and emergency room doctor tells me and a loved one who was a gunners mate but perhaps I should put more trust in the advice of strangers on the internet who have 'fired' or 'owned' weapons yes, if I was in a contract with the military to put my life at risk in hostile environments,, I would feel it necessary and logical to own a weapon,,, but,, that's not my situation
that's your right,but you have absolutely ZERO Rights to force that Choice on others! I have neither the right , nor the authority,, which is why I haven't and don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep, and I have a better chance taking the bus than driving,,
What do you know about firearms 'risk'? Other than what you may ha e read or what some "doctor" told you? Self admittedly you ha e no actual real world firearms experience.
but that don't make me ignorant,,,for taking the 'risk' You would rather limit me....a law abiding firearms owner, for the actions of a few...on soft, gun free zones no less. BTW.....even as 50 y/o former jarhead...I still remember cover and concealment and slicing the pie....and my sight alignment and trigger control is still pretty damn good. I wouldn't expect you to know what those things mean Ms.I've never Owned a Gun In Half A Century...... I only know common sense where 'risk' in general is involved and that which my loved one who is a munitions expert, ex naval captain and emergency room doctor tells me and a loved one who was a gunners mate but perhaps I should put more trust in the advice of strangers on the internet who have 'fired' or 'owned' weapons yes, if I was in a contract with the military to put my life at risk in hostile environments,, I would feel it necessary and logical to own a weapon,,, but,, that's not my situation
that's your right,but you have absolutely ZERO Rights to force that Choice on others! I have neither the right , nor the authority,, which is why I haven't and don't
I do expect congress to pass laws and possibly amend the constitution as we now have a standing army and not 'militia' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep, and I have a better chance taking the bus than driving,,
What do you know about firearms 'risk'? Other than what you may ha e read or what some "doctor" told you? Self admittedly you ha e no actual real world firearms experience.
but that don't make me ignorant,,,for taking the 'risk' You would rather limit me....a law abiding firearms owner, for the actions of a few...on soft, gun free zones no less. BTW.....even as 50 y/o former jarhead...I still remember cover and concealment and slicing the pie....and my sight alignment and trigger control is still pretty damn good. I wouldn't expect you to know what those things mean Ms.I've never Owned a Gun In Half A Century...... I only know common sense where 'risk' in general is involved and that which my loved one who is a munitions expert, ex naval captain and emergency room doctor tells me and a loved one who was a gunners mate but perhaps I should put more trust in the advice of strangers on the internet who have 'fired' or 'owned' weapons yes, if I was in a contract with the military to put my life at risk in hostile environments,, I would feel it necessary and logical to own a weapon,,, but,, that's not my situation
that's your right,but you have absolutely ZERO Rights to force that Choice on others! I have neither the right , nor the authority,, which is why I haven't and don't
I do expect congress to pass laws and possibly amend the constitution as we now have a standing army and not 'militia' You do not understand the 2nd Amendment. It is there to force our government to respect the Rights of the People. An unarmed population ceases to be Citizens. They become no better than slaves. Pol Pot disarmed their population and murdered more than two million of them, mostly college and university educated - because they were the most dangerous to the Pol Pot regime. Similar events have occurred throughout history - especially in the last century. I don't want to see it happen here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep, and I have a better chance taking the bus than driving,,
What do you know about firearms 'risk'? Other than what you may ha e read or what some "doctor" told you? Self admittedly you ha e no actual real world firearms experience.
but that don't make me ignorant,,,for taking the 'risk' You would rather limit me....a law abiding firearms owner, for the actions of a few...on soft, gun free zones no less. BTW.....even as 50 y/o former jarhead...I still remember cover and concealment and slicing the pie....and my sight alignment and trigger control is still pretty damn good. I wouldn't expect you to know what those things mean Ms.I've never Owned a Gun In Half A Century...... I only know common sense where 'risk' in general is involved and that which my loved one who is a munitions expert, ex naval captain and emergency room doctor tells me and a loved one who was a gunners mate but perhaps I should put more trust in the advice of strangers on the internet who have 'fired' or 'owned' weapons yes, if I was in a contract with the military to put my life at risk in hostile environments,, I would feel it necessary and logical to own a weapon,,, but,, that's not my situation
that's your right,but you have absolutely ZERO Rights to force that Choice on others! I have neither the right , nor the authority,, which is why I haven't and don't
I do expect congress to pass laws and possibly amend the constitution as we now have a standing army and not 'militia' Then propose to send Men with Guns after Lawabiding Gunowners! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 06/16/16 12:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
