Orlando Shooting

Obama Mentions Guns But Not Radical Islam in Orlando Pulse Shooting Remarks

"This massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon," says Obama.

|

Obama
the White House

President Obama described the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando last night as "an act of terror and hate," but did not mention the killer's self-proclaimed ties to ISIS or presumed radical Islamic ideology.

"This was an act of terror and an act of hate," he said during his early afternoon press conference. "As Americans, we are united in grief and outrage and in resolve to defend our people."

The president urged the public not to leap to conclusions yet about the motivations of the gunman, Omar Mateen. Mateen had been previously investigated by the FBI.

"We are still learning all the facts," said Obama. "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred."

While Obama did not speculate about Mateen's motivations, news outlets are reporting that Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS shortly before his attack on Pulse. His family has thus far maintained that he simply hated gay people, and this hatred was not connected to his Islamic faith.

After declining to blame the attack on radical Islam, the president impugned the U.S. lack of effective gun control.

"This massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon," he said. "We have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be, and to actively do nothing is a decision as well."

For more coverage of the Orlando Pulse Shooting, go here.

NEXT: Why our emotional reactions to terrorist attacks and other tragedies are a poor guide to policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. I have not heard that term used in a long time

      1. There’s a great documentary on Morton (pablum puking!) Downey Jr.
        Sad story actually.

    2. Of course he did. That’s because guns have can walk and can think and can pull the trigger.

      Obama is a dumb f*ck. He epitomizes the absolute moronic career politician.

    3. You mean “pabulum”?

  1. Fucking douchbag

    1. Now THIS term on the other hand……….

    2. “We are still learning all the facts,” said Obama. “We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred.”

      Sounds like a definitive judgement. The guy could have been filled with love of Allah, no hate at all.
      Not really his fault that Allah hates the gays.

      1. Yaweh isn’t too terribly fond of them either.

  2. Go

    FUCK

    YOURSELF,

    ASSHOLE..

    srsly

  3. Editor = stop calling it “Pulse shooting”

    The name of the club is irrelevant and confusing; if you wanted to call it, “nightclub-shooting” it would be clearer, but still more information than is necessary in a headline.

    not to mention that when you’re covering a mass-killing event, phrases like “Pulse shooting” suggests graphic bleeding and sounds like you’re sensationalizing (even though you’re not).

    1. How about “terrorist attack”? We don’t call 9/11 the world trade center planing.

      1. Equally valid point.

        Though…. as per my earlier remark re: “calling brock turner a rapist” even though he was never convicted, and other news orgs went to pains to point out that he technically was not….

        …its generally bad-form for a journalist to draw conclusions in advance of the Authorities or courts. even Obama parses words and calls it an “Act of terror” without saying its officially a “terrorist attack”.

        CNN, NYT… both amusingly have links in Google News which say, “Terror attack” in the link itself… but the story headlines specifically avoid saying so, both using the term “Nightclub Shooting”

        Its become standard operating procedure for News orgs to actually update and modify the headlines & links to news items as perceptions gradually shift, while leaving the original reporting the same. I don’t know how much other people have commented on this practice, but it sometimes makes for potentially very-unethical behavior.

        e.g. Reuters pulled an amazing shift in their “EPA Cause Massive Chemical Spill Into River” story….which 24 hours later was titled something like, “Mine Disaster: EPA Overwhelmed by Corporate Pollution”

        1. It’s so overt and arrogant, I’m surprised the media isn’t called on it more often. I bet someone could write an algorithm that tracks this and automatically tweets the new narrative perpetuating headline.

    2. Nightclub shooting sounds like you’re denying the fact that this took place in a gay venue. A nightclub shooting could be any one of many incidents in Chicago or Baltimore of Philidelphia or LA.

      1. Nightclub shooting sounds like you’re denying the fact that this took place in a gay venue.

        Sure, but “Pulse” isn’t any more specific. Its less-so, in fact. Its just silly to use the club’s “brand name” as though people are supposed to instantly recognize that’s what its referring to.

          1. I hear “Heat” and I immediately clear the bench

            1. Fighting in basketball? Do they think it’s hockey?

              1. Google “Charles Oakley Fights”

                The Knicks in the 1990s made you really think before you fouled them. Him and Anthony Mason were like…. the 2 shortest-tempered people in professional sports at the time.

                Then there was “chris childs punching out kobe”, and “greg anthony hits ejected denver player on back of head with chair” and “coach Van Gundy hilariously tries hanging on to Alonzo Mourning’s leg during melee”

                1. That is the whitest thing I’ve seen today.

                  1. Van Gundy will be remembered for that *Forever*

                    Tho he was carrying on a proud tradition set by Pat Riley of throwing his body in between players. I can’t find the photo …

                    (this one is good; which was the ‘wrestling greg anthony – not even suited up – to the ground after assaulting opposing team’)

                    …. but there’s a great one of him right in between Ewing and… mourning again i think… where they’re throwing punches past his head while he’s got a fistful of each’s jersey. Much more manly. PLUS his hair remained perfect.

                    1. Tho he was carrying on a proud tradition set by Pat Riley of throwing his body in between players. I can’t find the photo …

                      Difference of course being Pat Riley is on same physical scale as typical NBA’er, whereas Van Gundy getting in such a melee looks like midget tossing gone wrong.

                    2. Shaq says Riley basically dared him to throw down

                      How much of a badass is Pat Riley? Enough of a badass to go toe-to-toe and face-to-face with Shaq. Sure, Riley’s not exactly diminutive at 6’4″, but Shaq is nine inches taller and 27 years younger than him.

                      His players were always hotheads partly because he was himself a “Win or Die” psycho. But his teams did win (*when jordan let them)

                    3. Robert Knight would like the beg to differ, WWE style.

                    4. Much more manly. PLUS his hair remained perfect.

                      Werewolves in the Garden?

                      I’ll let myself out before the gaze hits… lol

                2. Him and Anthony Mason were like…. the 2 shortest-tempered people in professional sports at the time.

                  McFilthy and McNasty beg to differ…

                  1. I believe they preceded them by a few years.

                    Rodman and Barkley were contemporaries of those 2 who played the same way (all elbows and hip-checks) and wouldn’t give an uncontested inch to them. I’m sure there were others as well, but no pair on par.

                    1. I will concede the point, re: contemporaneousness.

      2. It must be coincidence, and nothing to do with causality, but the Republican and Islamic interpretations of the First (coercive exercise thereof) and Second (except around the Demon Rum) Amendments sure look a lot alike to simple-minded freethinkers.
        But it is convenient for followers of the Prophet Mohammed that everywhere infidel liquor is served, Christian prohibitionists make damn good and sure nobody would be able to shoot back in self-defense. If the Second Amendment were the law of the land, anchor baby Omar would have been riddled with bullets, not the patrons.

        1. The Republican and Islamic interpretations of the First (coercive exercise thereof) and Second (except around the Demon Rum) Amendments sure look a lot alike to simple-minded freethinkers.

          WTF are you talking about.

    3. The Orlando Pulse Shooting sounds like something that happened in the clubhouse of a semi-pro baseball team.

      1. I thought it was closer to

        “Someone at Epcot Center got ahold of a “Pulse-Weapon” and started going PEW PEW PEW PEW”

      2. Actually it sounds like what probably goes icon in the back rooms, just with a different kind of gun. Amd a lot stickier.

    4. Nightclub-gate?

    5. Isn’t it likely it’ll be known in hx as the Pulse shooting? Sandy Hook? Watergate? Bretton Woods? Hindenburg? Titanic? Historic events commonly become known by a location or a vehicle name.

  4. Did he mention the most dangerous threat stalking America, Islamophibia?

    1. Islamotibia?

    2. Islamophibia

      Is this some sort of Newt?

      1. The Islamophibians are in league with the Lizard people. This is known.

        1. Pretty much…they’re general ugly, they taste like sweaty leather, and aside from the occasional rampage they are boring as hell.

          Your Future Reptilian Overlords look forward to clearing out some desert realestate via kinetic rock dropping

          1. Like the Lizard People, they are also fond of camels – if for very different reasons.

    3. Let me be clear…um..uh.uh.uh.umm..Islam is THEE religon of piece. Not long ago der…er…um..eh..uh..um.. Christian Crusaders would yada yada yada

      1. “And make sure you understand that there have been more deaths in this country from straight white male terrorists since 9/11 than Islamists….. er, what? Not any more? OK, never mind.”

        1. So much for that stupid NY Times graph.

      2. Let me be clear…um..uh.uh.uh.umm..Islam is THEE religon of piece. Not long ago der…er…um..eh..uh..um.. Christian Crusaders would yada yada yada

        Let’s not fall for a bunch of okie-doak.

      3. You forgot ‘if if if if if if if if if if uhhh if if if if if if if if if’. The great orator.

        1. That was so great. I thought he was having a seizure of some kind.

    4. Islamophibia

      get a rash anytime someone says “Allah u akbar”

      1. He was actually yelling ‘Admiral Ackbar’. As he is a Star Wars fan.

    5. No, I’m sure he said our biggest threat is global warming.

      -jcr

  5. His hated for gay people was not connected to his Islamic faith.

    Maybe. Probably connected to a pervy Afghan uncle though.

    1. If that’s true I wonder how the MSM will report it.

    2. His hated for gay people was not connected to his Islamic faith.

      Bullshit.

    3. Of course it isn’t connected to Islam. Just the way that gays are burned alive and thrown from roofs of buildings throughout the Islamic world has nothing to do with Islam. Right?

    4. #NoIslamtoSeeHere

  6. I’m delighted that our fearless leader had the good taste not to immediately stand on a pile of bodies and use it for political purposes.

    1. He’s obviously maturing: the Obama of 2009 wouldn’t have had the restraint to wait all the way until 1:30 in the afternoon.

    2. The important thing to remember is that this is all the more reason we need Hilllary/Trump as president, whichever way you need that to come out.

    3. Mohammedans are a minority, barely 11% of the Kenyan population. Minorities, not individuals, have rights. Whaddaya think this is, 1957?

  7. “We have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be, and to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

    THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST A FUCKING PIECE OF PAPER

    1. To be fair, he was just listening to Freewill this morning and it stuck in his brain.

      1. +1 Rush reference

  8. to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

    because “passively doing “something” no matter how useless in affecting crime, or damaging to people’s rights” is somehow morally-superior

    Do Somethingism‘ is the national religion. HE TRIED!! YOU ARENT TRYING. TRYING MATTERS

    1. “But this is a time of national emergency! Why are you trying to be philosophical in a time like this! It’s a national emergency! You have a moral oxidation to do SOMETHING at a timemail like this!”

      -paraphrase of James Taggart

      1. Obligation not oxidation… and time, not timemail.

        Why does autocorrect onyou phone suck on the reason site but hardly anywhere else?

  9. Whether the government bans gunz, gheyz or Muzlemz doesn’t matter. The important thing is…they are keeping me safe.

    1. It’s not an either-or. Ban it all.

      1. If the government would simply ban people from leaving their homes…

        …NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!

          1. Why is murder not illegal??!

            1. We’re gonna need a cavity search.

              1. *cough cough

    2. Just get rid of all the progressives and muslims. Right there most of our problems are solved.

    3. Safe… the way a plastic spoon is safe?

  10. Maybe Barry could borrow some of France’s gun control measures. Oh, wait..

    1. Or Canada’s knife control measures.

      1. He’ll settle for borrowing Egypts internet-control measures so he can make everyone shut up about it.

  11. I think the only way to respond to the gun grabbers is to simply push them into admitting that they want to ban guns and confiscate them.

    Accept no other mealy-mouthed bullshit non-answer.

    1. Or you could use their abortion tactic back on them:

      “If you are anti-gun, just don’t buy a gun.”

    2. You can also point out the futility of it. There are over 300 million guns in existence. And it’s not a terribly complicated thing to manufacture. You can already 3D print a gun, and that’s only going to get easier. So a ban will be as effective as a ban on a weed that’s easy to grow anywhere.

      If they accept that premise then they may have to start thinking outside their box.

      1. Lefties suck at orders of magnitude.

        “We could balance the budget if we taxed carried interest.”

      2. Well of course that would require a much more powerful state to implement and enforce, so win-win for them. They also get to posture as the morally superior group, even when these measures fail (because obstructionism!) so there’s that to

        1. *too

      3. I have a family member who works for the Center for American Progress. We got into it over guns on Facebook after San Bernadino and he was very open about his desire to gradually move policy towards a total ban on guns. I pointed out how pointless prohibition always is and was met with the standard “so you don’t want to do anything!?!?!” bullshit. I responded that the most logical and intellectually honest gun control measure would be to end drug prohibition and undercut the gangs who commit most of the gun violence, and I was all for that. From there he started calling any of my friends who had also commented names, somehow maneuvered the conversation to be about Singapore’s government and left in a huff.

        1. Your family member is probably beyond saving. Have you considered taking them to the vet to be euthanized? Letting a rabid animal run free is dangerous.

          1. “Please, have your loved ones spayed or neutered”.

        2. Spay and woodchipper your pets: It’s the humane thing to do.

          1. At least the progressive ones.

            1. Indeed, my neighbors loud dog is clearly alefty puke that needs to be woodchipped.

        3. Lefties want an open porous border where anyone and anyTHING can come across. Plus make this a welfare nation. What could possibly go wrong??

    3. Ask them about grabbing IRS, DEA and BATF guns…

  12. Hah. This incident is more or less exactly what this lowlife scumbag wants, though he would certainly much prefer it if the victims were redneck republicans in flyover country than his own gay supporters. On the inside, he’s probably ululating with joy.

    Nevertheless, you can’t make an omelette or destroy a society without breaking a few eggs in the process. It’s called “fundamentally transforming America”, and it’s happening at breakneck pace, one Muslim terrorist massacre at a time.

    1. Wouldn’t gun banners prefer a white perpetrator?

      1. Yes they would. This is not what he wanted. They will get their smug on for a few days and then drop this case down the memory hole. This doesn’t fit the narrative and must be made to go away.

        1. He probably is extremely disappointed it wasn’t the Westboro “Baptist” “Church”.

          I am disappointed that the killer wasn’t trained by the Star Wars Stormtrooper gun academy. 50+. Terrible.

          1. Hayeksplosives

            “We have a 10-66! A 10-66!”

            1. To be fair, William the Conqueror *was* pretty suspicious

          2. This guy’s killed more gays in one night than the Westboro Baptist Church ever have or ever will. Kind of hard to take this “not baking us a cake is violence” crap seriously when a no-kidding Muslim just used actual violence to murder over 4 dozen of them.

            1. I have no doubt that when I am forced to interact with progtards tomorrow that they will draw all kinds of false equivalencies with Christianity.

        2. Exactly what John said!! This doesn’t fit the narrative.

      2. Most would, but Mofo doesn’t care all that much about banning guns. His main goal is to help his fellow jihadis take over the world.

      3. they would but ultimately, there is a pecking order among SJWs. If a few dead gays meanings protecting Muslims from insult AND moving toward making gun ownership icky, it’s a double win. Jeez, dude; someone’s gotta sacrifice for the cause.

    2. It’s going to backfire on Obama. Trump will get the public on his side, because it’s another ISIS connected attack on American soil, on Obama’s watch. Which does not bode well for Cankles.

    3. This incident is more or less exactly what this lowlife scumbag wants, though he would certainly much prefer it if the victims were redneck republicans in flyover country than his own gay supporters.

      No, he wants the *perpetrator* to be a redneck republican. Having the victims be gays is actually a plus, because it enables him to rail against bigotry. The fact that the bigot in this case is a radical Muslim inconveniently complicates the narrative.

  13. “We are still learning all the facts,” said Obama. “We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer.”

    Yeah, right, whatever, lying asshole.

    1. But God help us all if this shooter had a Confederate flag in his house…

    2. The son of a bitch is a demagogue. Tailoring this tragedy to fit his narrative.

    3. But we do know that something like this never would have happened if firearms were not so freely available!

      1. Right, just like in France.

      2. It’s like they live in a different world that just doesn’t exist.

      3. Or if the magical, gun control force-fields ever worked.

        1. I’ve wanted a force field since I was five.

          1. What would five year old you have done with it? Haha just a funny image

    4. Except for the fact that the terrorist called the police and specifically told of his motivations. Gawd, Obama’s a duplicitous asshole.

      1. Same as Ft Hood. Nadal actually got frustrated that the prosecution wouldn’t call it a jihadi act and kept insisting it was. But nooope, it was workplace violence.

  14. How nice to have a pres who’s willing to smear himself in the blood of innocents from bodies that aren’t even cold yet for political gain.

    Man, I bet they were disappointed when they heard this asshole’s name.

    1. They all probably had to finish masturbating to a picture of Dylan Roof. So sad.

  15. The adherent of a religion that requires the imprisonment or death of gays, just went and murdered 50 people for the crime of attending a gay club. And all the people who most claim to care about gays and gay rights can talk about is guns and how great the adherents of said religion are.

    1. Progressives are ultimately an even bigger threat to humanity than Islam.

  16. It was easy for this guy to get an armed security guard license?

    1. Forget it, he’s rolling.

      1. Forget it, he’s trolling.

    2. Why not? What does getting one of those get you? Nothing that would make it easier do something like this I don’t think.

      1. In CA, it allows you to open carry a loaded firearm in places where you otherwise couldn’t. IDK about Florida.

        1. Of course if you plan to do something like this, you won’t worry about breaking the law on the way to do it.

          1. If there were no guns, this couldn’t happen. In Brazil, it’s nearly impossible for a citizen to legally own a firearm of any type. That’s why there are no guns there and no gun crime at a… oh wait, never mind…

            Tony was in a thread earlier saying that the USA has the world’s highest rate of gun violence, lol, is the guy really that fucking stupid?

            1. There are countries whose non-firearm homicide rate exceeds our total homicide rate.

            2. Homicide rates are often difficult to compare anyway, due to completely different requirements across the world for calculating those numbers.

            3. il narrativo, senor…

              1. Oops forgot that Brazilians speak Portuguese! Pardon me while I go self-flagellate my bigotry out of my body.

    3. HOW TO GET A SECURITY GUARD LICENSE IN FLORIDA


      Step 1
      Meet the basic requirements for a Class “D” license. You must be at least 18 years old, a U.S. citizen and have a permanent address. Legal aliens authorized to work in the U.S. can also apply for a license.

      Step 2
      Complete the required training. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Licensing reports that you must complete 40 hours of training through a licensed security officer school or training course b

      Step 3
      Print the Class “D” Security Officer License application

      Step 4
      Complete every section of the application including work, criminal and military history.

      Step 5
      Provide a passport-style color photograph with your application

      Step 6
      Obtain a copy of your fingerprints using the provided card.

      Step 7
      Pay the required fees. As of this article’s publication, you must pay a $45 fee for the license and a $42 fee for the fingerprint card. Attach your photograph, fingerprint card and fees to the application. Mail the application to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

      The Handbook for the required training is here

      1. I don’t see anything in there suggesting they have the right to carry wherever they want to go, but i get a headache reading bureaucratic manuals after a few sections.

        not that it matters. the guy had a rifle. presumably he shot the guards/bouncers anyway.

      2. Wow, that sounds awfully complicated for some of the security guards we’ve met. Are they allowed to have a helper fill out the forms for them?

        1. It’s not so bad.
          I think most security guards are just rejects who couldn’t handle the rigorous hair-braiding licensing process.

        2. I would assume an employer does most of the paperwork. I didn’t have to do most of that in Indiana (but I have a sqeaky-clean record; not even a traffic ticket).

      3. So, the Dept. of Agriculture licenses security guards?

        1. Yep. It makes no sense, but that’s how Govt works. You find those weird quirks all over the place.

        2. Soon there will be an internet article titled ‘Get a Security Guard License Using this One Weird Trick’.

        3. In Florida the Dept. of Agriculture also issues concealed carry licenses.

    4. Florida has two levels of Security Guard License.

      D, which Gilmore mentioned below and G, which appropriately allows open carry of a handgun.

      I have yet to see which license the perp had obtained.

      1. Does anyone know if Paul Blart has weighed in on this?

  17. “A licensed security officer, Mateen also had a Statewide Firearms License, Fox News reported.”

    via fix.

    So he had a background check presumably?

    1. Via fox.

      Damn phone.

      1. I thought maybe you heard it here.

    2. Would the FBI ask a Muslim if he hated gays? Or would that be racial profiling…

    3. The “proper” conclusion being, it is impossible to preemptively stop crime the criminal is intent upon committing and attempting such simply violates the rights of the innocent.

      Of course, the conclusion “reached” will be…we need to take away more rights to keep you safe.

      1. But we should still do something “symbolic” like close the gun show “loophole” (even though there’s no evidence that’s a problem) for the children!

        1. What is the “gunshow loophole”?

          Seriously. I have no idea what that is, even though people talk about it all the time.

          My coworkers are all convinced it means anyone can buy any gun at a gunshow without any kind of checks.

      2. If we just keep doing the same thing over and over again, we’ll get a different result.

    4. What the fuck is “a Statewide Firearms License”???

      /people who live in Florida

      1. I’d wondered that as well. Florida has a Stand Your Ground for both home and vehicle, and you can conceal in your car without a permit. At least, last I checked. It’s been a few years. What does a Statewide Firearms License do?

        1. Ah. It’s a state permit for working security.

          Well, at least we know he was trained and certified by the finest bureaucracy money can buy.

          1. Except with those low taxes I keep hearing about you’re not really getting the finest, are you?

            /snarc

    5. So he had a background check presumably?

      see above. He would have had to have at least 2 additional regular firearms permits. (“D” and “G”) and minimum amount of certified training time.

    6. Of course not, there are no background checks, everyone on the left said so. Didn’t you notice that every time this happens it’s only because the person with a gun didn’t pass a background check?

  18. “As Americans, we are united in grief and outrage and in resolve to defend our people.”

    And how are we suppose to defend ourselves once you strip us of our right to bear arms, asshole?

    1. More cops and domestic spying?

      1. Sadly, it will most likely be a combination of all the above once this is all said and done. Christ, this monster just had to do this during the election cycle.

        1. My first reaction after hearing the guys name and that he called 911 in advance was, “is ISIS trying to get Trump elected?!”

          1. Yes ?

          2. At least it will hurt Hillary.

            1. I think if there’s another Islamic extremist attack 4 weeks from election, trump will win. Given the attention span of your typical American voter (heaven help us) this particular incident will be either forgotten or rewritten as Libertarian pro-gun guys’ fault by then.

    2. Obama and the gun control fanatics have certainly united a good portion of the country against them. So he’s right that we resolve to defend our people – from him.

    3. Breaking into our iPhones?

    4. The cops will be there in 3 hours after someone starts shooting at you, don’t worry, you’re safe.

  19. In the wake of this horrible tragedy, I would like to just take a moment to stand on the bodies of the victims in order to attack my political enemies.

    1. Playa, you might have Chipotle’d the link. I’ve got nothin’.

          1. An unrelated Bible quote is an attack?

    1. She doesn’t look very s-m-r-t.

      I’d probably lose interest after a few hours.

      1. Pass her down the line

    2. We live in a beautiful world, aye.

    3. WTF is a “Tyga”?

      1. Something that boinks underage Kardashians.

  20. Well, I’m done with today. Game of Thrones, Silicon Valley and Veep are on tonight. Maybe I’ll nap until then.

      1. I’m having pork in recognition of the Islamists.

        1. Me too. I need an excuse to lapse from my vegan diet anyway. Might have some ribs later.

      1. THERE IS NO HOCKEY BEING PLAYED RIGHT NOW!

        *cries into 1996 Chris Chelios jersey*

        1. +1 Scotty Bowman

        2. My husband had to buy the newest Blackhawks championship summary banner a few weeks ago to step himself back from the ledge after the Hawks were eliminated by the Blues. He resisted getting it last year because he wanted to wait until a 7th cup was added.

          I tried to tell him that 3 championships in 6 years isn’t shabby, but sometimes a guy just doesn’t want to cheer up right away.

          He’s still clinging to the 85 bears too. I love that dumbass.

  21. Obama Mentions Guns But Not Radical Islam in Orlando Pulse Shooting Remarks

    As they say, this is my shocked face.

    1. Actually, guns should be prominent in this discussion.

      As in: “Yet another mass killing in yet another gun-free zone.”

      The 2016 Florida Statutes
      Title XLVI: CRIMES
      790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.?
      (12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
      ?
      12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;

  22. Barack Obama is an asshole.

    1. One silver lining to anding up with Trump as president is that he might actually have the stones to criminally prosecute Obama’s crimes. That whole administration should be in a Supermax facility forever.

      1. I’m praying for Trump to crack down on Hillary and Obama! And if Bernie got called out very publicly for his absolutely moronic plans and praise of brutal regimes…

  23. What does Obama think he is accomplishing by not mentioning Islam except to piss people off and make them more likely to vote for Trump?

    1. Like I’ve said before, sometimes it really feels like Trump’s supposed enemies are really, really trying to get him elected.

      There are two other (more plausible) possibilities:
      1) Obama and his ilk are true believers that actually think the things they say.
      2) They’re politicians just politicking and really are so insulated in DC from the rest of us in ‘flyover country’ that they haven’t the slightest idea what’s going on out here. Still. After everything in the last year.

      1. I think it is probably both. Look at the people on here that deny Islam had anything to do with this. It is much easier to pretend this is just one of those things than face the reality that this was a terrorist act done for a specific reason and to achieve a specific affect and is almost certain to happen again. That is a really shitty state of affairs and not something people like to think about.

        1. But remember, ‘you’re more likely to be hit by lightning than to be hurt in a terrorist attack on US soil.’

          (of course, if you define all terrorist attacks as ‘hate crimes’ or ‘domestic violence’ or ‘workplace shootings’ no one will ever get hurt in a terrorist attack in the US)

          1. Remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and his treatise, “Defining Deviancy Down.”

          2. At least I don’t feel like the lightning was a predictable consequence of decades of non-assimilation preached by academia and politicians as superior to melting pot loyalty to America. It’s just freaking lightning.

            1. It’s just freaking lightning.

              And you can see it coming from miles away.

        2. Of course Islam is to blame. It’s a vile, bloodthirsty, animal cult. There is no equivalence in any modern major religion anywhere on earth. And progressives are their enablers.

          1. Animal cult?

    2. Maybe he really is that stupid. I’ve thought he knew half of what he said was stupid but he did it to play to his base. But now…

      1. I am starting to think he really is that stupid. That he really is a well meaning rube who is totally out of touch with what is going on with the country and has no idea the effect of the things he does.

    3. Obama wants to increase Muslim immigration. That’s why.

      1. Heaven help you; Europe won’t.

        1. Good to see you back here, btw.

    4. The rule of identity politics… nothing a non-white, non-male, non-hetero, non-Christian, etc does is bad. Why? Because you want them to vote for you. It’s the oy way to keep everyone in the big tent happy.

      Politics is a game and the left knows how to win. Pragmatism over justice six ways from Sunday every time. It has nothing to do with moral judgements of right and wrong. Only one question… does it increase my power?

    5. The rule of identity politics… nothing a non-white, non-male, non-hetero, non-Christian, etc does is bad. Why? Because you want them to vote for you. It’s the oy way to keep everyone in the big tent happy.

      Politics is a game and the left knows how to win. Pragmatism over justice six ways from Sunday every time. It has nothing to do with moral judgements of right and wrong. Only one question… does it increase my power?

  24. If this administration would stop giving fully automatic and heavy weapons to al-Qaeda in Syria and logistical support to the GCC coalition’s war on Yemen, we could have a more honest conversation about guns, but I think we can all see that won’t be happening.

    1. Guns are evil and the cause of all violence in the world, except when they are sent to Islamic fanatics by the US government. That is totally different.

      1. Or Mexican drug gangs.

  25. It does not matter that the new gun laws we will propose would have done nothing to stop this from happening. What matters is that we further the democrat agenda towards nationwide gun registration and eventually confiscation. Then we can pretty much do whatever we want.

    1. I do not think that will happen. He is just going through the motions. This case doesn’t fit the narrative. Muslims are peaceful and it is the evil Trump people who are the threat. They will bitch and moan for a couple of days and this will drop off the radar with a “we can never really know what happened there”.

      1. I agree, I really don’t think Obama wants to get into this right now, considering the subject, the word that he doesn’t want to mention ‘Islam’. I think he’d just rather it go away, especially considering that his hand picked successor, like himself, wants to increase Muslim immigration significantly. I think this goes away pretty quickly.

  26. But in all seriousness, fuck you and your fucking hobby horse, Obama.

  27. According to assholes, these tragedies mean whatever they want them to mean.

    If it were George W. Bush, he’s be telling us this means we need to send 200,000 troops to Iraq.

    Obama says it’s all about gun rights.

    If the Green Party’s candidates were up there, they’d be talking about how this is a result of global warming.

    Fuck them all.

    Insha’Allah, this crisis will go to waste.

    1. In all seriousness, what is the libertarian line on this? I can’t really think of anything except that interventionism MIGHT have stopped this.

      It’ll be interesting to see what, if any, position the Libertarian Party will take, or Johnson/Weld.

      1. ***less interventionism***

      2. Johnson’s been blowing his message already, but I’ll vote for him anyway.

      3. Something that’s been overdue for decades is for the US to just leave the Middle East alone and say, “sorry, we’ve tried for a long time, but we can’t fix this region. If you happen to advance beyond 700 A.D. and you want to be friends again, drop a line. Otherwise, have fun killing each other.”

        It’s not a quick solution, but I think that ultimately, many Islamic terrorists are just pissed off that we’re fucking around in their countries.

        1. It’s not a quick solution, but I think that ultimately, many Islamic terrorists are just pissed off that we’re fucking around in their countries.M

          It would be nice if that were true but it is not. They are no more doing this because the US screwed with their countries than communists became communists because of US actions. They are doing this because they have joined a movement that aims to cleanse the world and make it just and tells them that their duty is to do things like this. They are no different than communists who murdered Kulaks. In both cases, the person doing it believed they were part of a larger movement that was going to change the world.

          There may be good reasons to get out of the Middle East. But doing that in hopes that it will get radical Muslims to stop attacking us is not one of them. Revenge on the US is not what motivates them. They don’t want revenge, they want to bring about a new world. If you don’t believe me go read ISIS propaganda. It doesn’t talk about getting the evil US out of the middle east. It talks about ushering in the rule of God and cleansing the earth of its sin and the infidels.

          1. Why can’t it be both? Some of them (e.g. bin Laden) specifically wanted the US out of the ME.

            1. It can be both sure. But if it is, eliminating one doesn’t solve the problem. If they are no longer motivated by the desire for revenge on the US, they are still motivated by the desire to advance the cause.

              And remember, most of the people doing this are not immigrants from bombed countries. They are natives or immigrants from countries we have never been at war with. So they are being inspired to do these things by a lot more than US foreign policy.

              Think of it like communism. Would leaving the world alone have caused the communists to leave us alone and stop trying to create the world wide revolution or stopped communists in the US from taking their inspiration from the USSR and trying to create that system here? Hardly. Same is true with these people.

              1. Would a failing economy of impoverished nations supplied by peasants have been able to stand against the mechanized might of American industrialism?

        2. I’m not sure that’s entirely true. I think these radicalized types really do believe they have a religious duty to inherit the world. Whether or not that’s always been true and the extent to which they’ve intended to act on it… I’m not sure.

          But that cat’s outa the bag now.

        3. just leave the Middle East alone and say, “sorry, we’ve tried for a long time, but we can’t fix this region. If you happen to advance beyond 700 A.D. and you want to be friends again, drop a line. Otherwise, have fun killing each other.”

          This only works if no one from there can leave and bring their 700 AD-ism with them.

          You can’t build a wall, but you can refuse a visa.

      4. The Libertarian take is that is the way it goes. Libertarians have no solution to this other than arresting or shooting anyone who does it and cleaning up the bodies. That is it. Libertarians would never support refusing entry to someone unless they have already committed a crime. They have no answer than people getting murdered by the score in a gay club is a sad but necessary price of freedom.

        1. Considering he was born in NY (supposedly), it would have been a little hard to deny him entry.

          Unfortunately, it is a necessary price of freedom.

      5. “what is the libertarian line on this?”

        Conceled carry, no permit needed.

        1. Yup. I packed heat today at church with my glock strapped to my thigh under my dress. We have outdoor services in summer and are in an increasingly Muslim suburb of Minneapolis.

          1. “….trapped to my thigh under my dress….”

            Please, go on.

            1. Y’all never cease to crack me up. 🙂

          2. *swoon*

            1. The thigh holster sounds sexier than it is. I adapted it myself and sewed it to adjustable velcro so I can wear it just below my knee (preferred because it never budgets) or up higher if I have a shorter dress. I am a pale Brit descendant so I usually wear long dresses. But it was windy today, so I wore higher. Makes me walk a little like a freshly fucked squirrel though.

              1. What manner of mockery is this? We all know there are no female libertarians. And if there were, they would definitely have been run off by the scallewags that hang around this place.

                1. DesigNate: I am beginning to think we need to refine the theory to be that there are no *single/available* libertarian women. Many of the women who post here refer to their hubbies or significant others. All the single women I know (with one notable lesbian exception, and she’s a trump supporter) are hopelessly Libtard.

                  I happen to enjoy thoroughly being married to a real man. But the feminists would say I am suffering from false consciousness.

                  1. I think that’s probably a more accurate description.

                    TIWTANSFL. Hmm, not bad.

                    “suffering from false consciousness.”

                    I like that one, it’s almost as good as “gender traitor”.

                  2. Ya know, if I wasn’t married….

                  3. Man I really like you! I’m up an hour up the road to your Northwest in STC by the way.

                2. “…and this led to the mistaken theory that there ARE no dwarf women”

                  -Gimli, son of Gloin

              2. Makes me walk a little like a freshly fucked squirrel though.

                Did you steal this line from Dan Rather?

              3. “Makes me walk a little like a freshly fucked squirrel though.”

                Do go on …

                1. “do go on…”

                  I’d say “wide stance” but that conjures a very different mental picture. 😛

                  1. I’ve always wondered how you CC in a leg holder without ruining the lines.

          3. an increasingly Muslim suburb of Minneapolis

            This may come in handy…

            1. Yikes! Both impressed and saddened that someone invented that.

          4. Dana Loesch, you gorgeous heat-packing liberty warrior, is that you?

        2. Which helps how? Remember during the Tucson Safeway shooting, one of the bystanders was concealed carrying, but decided not to take a shot because there were innocent people all around the bad guy, and he couldn’t guarantee he woudn’t hit them. Which according to the rules of gun safety is the right decision. A crowded nightclub would be even more messy.

          Let alone that a handgun vs. AR-15 gunfight is not going to go well for the handgunner, and FL is shall issue for CCW anyway.

          1. Because there will always be a few of us willing to risk ourselves to get very close and take the good shot. Todd Beamer logic: if you’re probably going to die anyway, take the risk and save a few innocents.

            Remember in Texas at the draw Mohammed (May shit be upon him) contest when 2 jihadists went in guns blazing and were immediately cut down by good guys with guns? That sort of thing does factor in to the desire to perpetrate these acts, especially when you consider some of them want to survive instead of go straight to Paradise (see Boston, San Bernardino).

            The fact this guy was unimpeded in killing over 50 is going to be a huge inspiration to sick fucks like him. The Texas thwarted attempt? Not so much.

            And you are definitely right about the correctness of not attempting a shot with innocents near the line of fire.

            1. If there are innocents in the line of fire, I’d try to find a better location and wait for the first opportunity a good shot.

              1. Yep.

                They teach in the gun courses to just get out of there if it is in public (vs being cornered in your house with your family), but I can’t see running to my car when the whole congregation is being mowed down. I would risk it to find a better spot or just go kamikaze.

      6. The great thing about being a libertarian is that once you agree that we should all be free to make our own choices, we don’t have to agree on much else.

        And let’s face it, we don’t agree on much else!

        If there’s a case that can be made that your solution maximizes liberty or is done in the defense of our rights, then it’s probably a libertarian solution.

        1. Well said.

          On this we agree.

      7. My line is that this should (but probably won’t) give a few people the idea that you’re screwed if you’re going to just stand around depending on the government to protect you from bad things happening. What should the government do, what can the government do to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Anything I can think of involves such a massively intrusive and expensive security state that you might just as well hope for somebody to shoot you in the head and get it over with. Not that it’s going to stop a lot of people from demanding that the government do something, but if you can’t be arsed to do even a little something to look out for yourself, why shouldn’t the government treat you like a helpless babe? If you want them to keep you safe, they’re going to have to keep tabs on where you’re going and who you’re going with and if you’re not back by 9:30, buster, you’re getting grounded so fast it’ll make your head spin. And don’t think you’ll be spending your timeout playing X-Box with your friend Billy, either – grounded means you’ll be doing chores around the house and no TV, no internet, no cellphone, no desserts for a week. And you can stop with the rolling your eyes at me like that! Do you hear me, young man? I mean it! I’m serious!

        1. Anything I can think of involves such a massively intrusive and expensive security state that you might just as well hope for somebody to shoot you in the head and get it over with.

          Because we automatically rule out any kind of immigration restriction? Nothing is going to *fix* it. Severely curtailed immigration from certain parts of the world certainly wouldn’t hurt.

          I certainly don’t think govt can solve this. But it is a real problem. It’s going to get worse. It’s natural to try to find solutions when there are problems.

        2. Okay, Lets arm the public and tell them they are on their own. There are worse solutions. Now, when the public decides they really don’t want to wait around for the next Muslim nut case to get the drop on them and gets together to take some preventative action, what then?

          We all make fun of the Progs for screaming about the dangers of Islamophobia every time something like this happens but they are not entirely off base. If the government can’t protect people, they will take action to protect themselves. And that action is not likely to be very precise or show too much concern with individual justice.

          Libertarians always talk about an armed society taking care of this problem, but I don’t think they really understand what that means. Sure it can mean an armed citizen taking out a terrorist at the start of an attack, but it doesn’t have to mean that. Let there be enough attacks and it will mean a mob burning down Mosques and houses. Sometimes government solutions to things are not the worst options.

          1. “Sometimes government solutions to things are not the worst options.”

            I’m believing that less and less the older I get. They could do a better job of convincing me of that if they just did their fucking jobs instead if turning everything into political bullshit.

            1. Start having real mob violence and you will come around again. Government solutions are the worst options in the US because we have a largely peaceful society. If that ever changes, government solutions will look a lot better.

              Which is worse, the government telling Mosques they can’t preach that Islam requires homosexuals to be killed or mobs showing up at Mosques and burning them to the ground along with everyone they have walled up inside? It wasn’t the government that murdered all of those people in Bosnia back in the 1990s. It was basically a private mob of armed serbs serving some lunatic warlord. That is the kind of shit that happens when people get pissed off enough and there is no government around to either protect them or restrain them.

              I can think of few worse things to do than what we are doing . We are importing millions of immigrant Muslims, holding them to no standard of behavior, and then calling anyone who points out there is a problem a racist. Let that fester long enough and let there be enough attacks like this and things will get really ugly.

              1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnALEecbZ-k

                good documentary on Srebenica

              2. mobs showing up at Mosques and burning them to the ground along with everyone they have walled up inside?

                You mean like this?

              3. What inflames emotions is when we keep getting told that we we see right in front of our eyes isn’t true, and the people we trust to do something about it pretend it doesn’t even exist.

      8. The only interventionalism needed was a private citizen with a gun putting a bullet in this assholes brain. As stated, conceled carry, no permit needed. IOW, less government, not more

      9. The libertarian line, according to me, is more open carry rights.

        1. In Ohio, open carry has always been legal. We had an incident with an off duty local cop a few years back where he saw a guy wearing a holster with a gun and the cop freaked out and pulled his gun on him. The cop had no idea it was legal. I had known that since I was a kid.

        2. How does open carry stop this incident in a way that CCW does not?

          1. Well their looking for soft targets to do as much damage as possible. If you’re casing someplace out and see a shitload of sidearms that now becomes a hard target in your mind and may get scratched off your list.

            1. That was my point, thanks.

            2. Doesn’t that rely on said venue allowing you in? Even if the state allows it, a private business may ban weapons.

              1. And people can choose what businesses they frequent accordingly.

      10. Depends on the facts, which we mostly don’t know.

        How did he get past the bouncers? Were they armed? Nightclubs are actually a relatively hard target due to the fact they do have some security at the door. Harder than movie theaters or supermarkets, at least.

        1. He had an initial shoot-out with the outside security guard (an off-duty cop) before getting in to the club. From the cellphone ‘amateur video’ that CNN’s been running, it looks like he drew the security and bouncers outside, hobbled them with gunfire, then ducked inside to barricade the entry and start taking hostages/shooting the crowd.

          (why the calls to police regarding a gunfight in the parking lot at 2am didn’t bring any response sooner, even before the three-hour ‘standoff,’ is another question)

      11. Clearly, this is a call for open borders, and an increase in government budgeting to bring every single islamic refugee from around the world here, and without any form of screening. Also, it clearly means we need to grant VISA’s to as many people as possible from Islamic countries. Because blind unlimited immigration is just the ginchiest.

      12. The libertarian line on this is, don’t shoot people in nightclubs. WTF else can be said? Don’t pull the fire alarm either?

    2. That is right Ken. It just happened for no reason at all. It is just as likely to have been global warming or the Broncos winning the Super Bowl as anything.

      Nothing to see here.

      1. He didn’t say it happened for no reason. He merely said that political opportunists use bad events to advance their political agendas. It doesn’t matter how tenuously connected the events are to the agendas; opportunists gonna opportune.

      2. There isn’t anything we should do because of this tragedy that we shouldn’t have been doing before. If it made sense before this big emotional tragedy, then it still makes sense now

        On the other hand, anything that didn’t make sense before this tragedy doesn’t suddenly make sense now.

        So run around in circles with your panties in a wad if you want to, John. The rest of us shouldn’t be swayed by assholes using anything and everything bad that happens for the [insert whatever] agenda.

        1. On the other hand, anything that didn’t make sense before this tragedy doesn’t suddenly make sense now.

          People have joined a world wide Utopian movement that condones and promotes murder as a way of creating a more just world. And some of the people are following through on that command by actually doing it.

          It is very simple to make sense of. You only pretend that it is hard because you don’t want to make sense of it for whatever reason. This wasn’t a senseless tragedy. It was a very sensible tragedy that was done in the name of a specific ideology and for a very specific reason.

          1. What’s your solution, John?

            Do you want us to invade Syria because of a shooting in Miami?

            Did you want us to invade before this shooting?

            What’s changed because of this shooting?

            1. I am not sure to be honest. But how about as a first step we stop lying about it? How about that? So lets start out by admitted the truth that Islam had everything to do with this and that Islam has a terrorism and violence problem. Once we identify the problem, perhaps we can come up with some solutions.

            2. Invade? No. Maybe just suspend Islamic immigration as much as is possible. Deport as many muslims as is legally possible. Things like that. We need less of them, not more.

    3. i blame SJWs and Obama, who invaded Iraq

      1. Do you blame libertarians because Bush invaded Iraq?

        That would be strange.

        Do you blame libertarians for supporting gay rights?

        That would be weird, too.

        1. You’re punching down, Ken.

          1. Way down.

      2. If Radical Islam didn’t ram a plane into a building, then we don’t invade Iraq.

  28. Well shit, trump might have just won the election.

    1. Electoral Map aside, Paul, I am inclined to agree with you.

    2. I’m not so optimistic (for gun rights, not Trump). Trump will most likely blame this on all Muslims and call for tougher bans on immigration, coming off as a total asshole.

      1. will he sound worse than the progs who blame ALL guns and gun owners? You’re going to here how “this does not represent Islam as a whole” but you never here that the vast, vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. And the percentage of non-violent gun owners is far higher than the percentage of Muslims either willing to commit violence or supportive of it.

        Trump may well pull a dick move but the gun grabbers are a Hillary movement – no one trusts them, pure and simple. That a Muslim did what Islam has no problem with is is true.

  29. Sad that both Hillary and Obama are waiting for the facts to come out about what happened instead of showing some leadership by getting out there and quickly finding a Youtube video to blame it on.

  30. The thing that will probably make this situation less likely is to build a 30 ft wall on the Mexican border. One suggestion:add a moat infested with crocodiles.

    I give this Islamic asshole a little bit of a break though since he was obviously triggered by homosexuals and their SJW allies. Not his fault entirely.

    1. Forget to switch to your other ‘nym before posting, amsoc?

      1. Limited government is fine and good during normal times, but it’s really time for Trump whenever a Mooslim kills a White person.

        1. It was Latin night at the nightclub you fucking retard.

          That is seriously a hilarious amount of stupidity on your part. Go fuck a cheese shredder.

          1. They could have been white latinos. It is Florida, after all.

            But I reckon these will be reported as as brown as Hispanics can get since, you,know, the goal now is to use it to take guns away.

            1. White latinos who shot harmless young black boys!

            2. Almost all the Cubans in Florida are white

        2. Too bad it couldn’t have been you, Mary.

    2. “This attack makes us look really bad on several fronts. Get out there and muddy the waters on the usual blogs, stir up shit, anything but letting people think about how it relates to our retarded policies.”

      “Yes, my master.”

      *AS slithers from hole*

    3. One suggestion:add a moat infested with crocodiles.

      It’s like you’ve never heard of invasive species. You are an ecological disaster waiting to happen.

    4. What about a moat filled with ill-tempered bass?

  31. Obama decries availability of guns…
    …while standing behind his personal, armed cadre.

    Fucking scumbag. What gives you the right to security but not me? Because some Islamist fuckface went and killed a bunch of innocent people?

    Die In A Fire

    1. A metaphorical fire, like perhaps one in hell.

      Wait, that’s not safe either.

      1. I was thinking more along the lines of that Buddhist monk. Or Shireen Baratheon.

        1. Okay, see, now you’re articulating a specific threat.

          1. No, I’m not saying I want to tie him to a stake and burn him to death or douse him in gasoline and toss a match at him. I’m suggesting he do one of those things to himself because he’s a horrible piece of shit that wants to climb on a pile of dead bodies and use it as a pretext to take my rights away.

            1. he’s a horrible piece of shit that wants to climb on a pile of dead bodies and use it as a pretext to take my rights away.

              How does that make him any different than any other regressive?

      2. No. It isn’t.

  32. “The thing that will probably make this situation less likely is to build a 30 ft wall on the Mexican border. One suggestion:add a moat infested with crocodiles”.

    That actually made my laugh, specifically the moat with the crocs. Sadly, it won’t be far off from all the nonsensical proposals politicians are itching to impose on us.

  33. We did decide what kind of country we wanted to be in regards to easy access to guns. 250 years ago. Obama will be gone in 6 months. Just have to wait him out.

    1. Except, you know, for the whole Supreme Court being able to undo rights as they see fit.

      1. They don’t undo rights. They refuse to recognize inalienable rights and grant the government the power to violate them. Not the same thing.

        1. It is the same thing if-and-only-if the populace is unwilling to hold them accountable. I see no evidence that the populace is willing.

    2. Hillary would be just as bad as Obama, maybe even worse since she’s more ruthless and has a more competent political machine than he does. (Obama’s people are good at running a campaign but nothing else)

      Trump is a wild card, npi. It wasn’t long ago that he favored banning “assault weapons” too and he hasn’t proven himself trustworthy on anything.

  34. “This massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon,” he said.

    If he’d simply stuck to just the bomb strapped around his chest like in every other civilized, industrialized nation.

    1. IKR? Or went the more classical route and used a blade.

  35. “We did decide what kind of country we wanted to be in regards to easy access to guns. 250 years ago”.

    Fucking-A right we did.

  36. I love that on Facederp I see a million posts about gun control and gun violence and being tired of it and something must be done. Many comments in agreement and how they could see a Trump supporter doing this.

    Then, someone mentions something about terrorism and asks how gun control helps. Immediately the calls are to “DON’T POLITICIZE THIS!”

    I hate everyone.

    1. You are not alone

    2. That’s the mindset of the typical leftist for ya.

  37. Sheriff in Orlando is bragging about the conference call nationwide LEOs had with DHS this morning and the confidence they have in their mission in keeping Americans safe…

    There’s 50 thousand fucking LEOs running around Orlando. Doing WHAT???

    1. Did he say “we are confident we can do our job and keep America safe…starting NOW.”?

      1. Well, since the TSA we haven’t had any more hijackers flying planes into the WTC, have we? I’m sure whatever solutions they come up with you’re not very likely to see another mass shooting at Pulse, just like there’s not been any more mass shootings at Columbine or Aurora or Sandy Hook. How can you argue with results?

    2. I don’t think those 50 dead people feel very safe.

    3. Seizing assets and beating black people, obviously. It’s all about priorities.

    4. I used to have an anarchist flyer that said “In government, nothing succeeds like failure.”, meaning they’ll probably get a budget increase.

    5. There’s 50 thousand fucking LEOs running around Orlando. Doing WHAT???

      Collecting lots and lots of overtime.

    6. Orange County Sheriff is a fucking tool.

      And his wife (former OPD Chief) is now running for congress for the umpteenth time to make Corrine Brown look like a Mensa recruiter.

      Good God, I hate Orlando.

      Or at least what it has become under Mayor Buddy.

  38. Hillary’s initial statement also referenced gun control. They really got their act together on this one.

    So the guy calls 911 and pledges allegiance to ISIS before heading out with his weapon’s permit and security license to do some killin’…… aaaaand we gotta blame republicans for not passing gun control and deftly avoid condemning Islamic terrorism. Nicely played, team blue, nicely played.

    1. The scary part is that just as team blue is excellent at winning elections… team red (while they do sucks on their own as elected officials but…) is just as good at getting team blue elected.

  39. :”We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred.”

    If the first part of that sentence is true then the second part is false, and vice versa.

    1. A is not A. Leave philosophy to the experts. Stop thinking.

  40. Solution: ban gay dance clubs. It would be impossible to go on a murder spree at a gay dance club if gay dance clubs didn’t exist.

    1. Ironclad logic.

  41. NYT comment

    paul naples 2 minutes ago
    Now there is a big push to put this on ISIS. The fact is this jerk bought the weapons legally and also had a concealed weapons permit.

    That is the problem. We need a Australian type solution.

    This genuinely scares me.

    1. There are a lot of scary things at the NYT.

    2. I don’t think Paul Naples is signing up to come take your guns, so I wouldn’t worry too much.

    3. I suggest that since no one else seems willing, that this guy just get right on taking everyone’s weapons away. He can go door to door.

    4. This is why I’ve been trying to buy as many guns as I can afford through private party sales (before that becomes illegal). So when they do go door to door, they’ll only get the ones I purchased at gun stores. The rest shall be secured elsewhere.

    5. Never mind that Australia had nowhere near the amount of guns or history with gun before the ban, or that they had really shitty compliance with the gun band, or that total suicides (the leading cause of death by firearm in Australia) stayed steady even as firearm suicides dropped after the band, or that several areas in Australia have actually increased the number guns after the ban according to a bunch of estimates. I’m sure banning firearms will go over super well in America!

  42. Orlando learns that tragedies come in threes. The Pulse nightclub massacre. Before that, the Christina Grimmie murder. Before that, the Libertarian convention.

  43. Look, we don’t have time to worry about these terrorist attacks anyway, there are things that we should be way more worried about:

    My biggest fear is being raped at Stanford

    1. Wander the vaunted halls of Stanford University and you’ll feel like you’re trodding on manicured grounds fit for a king. Mind you, rapists roam here too.

      In the spirit of Barfman… Barf!

    2. She might as well just get it out of the way then so she can relax. Kind of like when you get your first new car and your worried about it getting scratched. And then it inevitably happens. At first you’re pissed, but you’re no longer worried about it.

    3. I’d really love to see the statistics showing what percent of “SJW Online Media” is actually consumed by “right-wing” people (i presume that includes us) who link to it because they think its freaking hysterical.

      I think with some of the more-obscure writers, its got to be like 50% of their total clicks.

      With some of the super-duper-retarded stuff (i’m thinking EverydayFeminism, AutoStraddle, etc.), i think its probably 80% of their readership.

      We keep them in business by endlessly goofing about how outrageous they are.

      1. It’s the same with the reaction to the alt right retards. Retards on Twitter are mean to media people and the solution is to embolden them by harping on their retard Twitter harassment.

      2. AutoStraddle?

        Isn’t that something you would see film of on a pr0n site?

      3. Wait, you mean we are literally feeding the trolls. Dang!

  44. “Past interviews were inconclusive.”

    At least the FBI took down Denny Hastert.

    1. I’m looking forward to a reporter asking Hillary if she thinks this tragedy could have been prevented if the 50 agents looking at her emails were instead looking for terrorists.

      1. It’s scary when you can think like them.

  45. But what’s really important:

    “How I spoke to my 9-year-old son about sexual assault and white privilege”

    http://www.salon.com/2016/06/1…..privilege/

    1. Thank gog she is able to use her interactions with her son as a way to social signal which is how Salon writers make their living. I suppose it’s better than her being on welfare though.

      1. Think “gag”.

  46. Hey Obama, fuck you and that ugly ass Alinsky you rode in on. Douchenozzle.

  47. And yet he passed two background checks. What would have stopped him getting the gun?

    1. If guns were not available at all. Duh.

    2. See, that’s why we need better background checks. /derp

    3. No fly no buy. That’s the current avenue the grabbers are pursuing. So this is the perfect attack for their purposes. Their base is already united for whatever gun control measures the Party dictates, they just need to bring aboard the center, and threats of terrorism is exactly the ticket.

      1. But he didn’t just pass background checks, he got a license to work as an armed security guard. Would the gun grabbers outlaw private security? Do they react to police shootings by agitating to disarm the police? Maybe limit gun carry to lieutenant & above?

  48. Serious question, if a communist had murdered 50 people at a Wall Street happy hour, would the people on here view that as a reflection on other communists? If not, why not? And if so, then how is a Muslim murdering 50 people in a gay bar not a reflection on other Muslims?

    1. Surely you jest. Communists do not waste their time killing 50 people, they kill millions.

      1. Okay, an amateur communist. Maybe a new guy or one that just wasn’t very bright.

        1. 50 people is the initiation ritual.

    2. No. Because we’re not collectivists.

      1. Okay. So you are never accountable for your beliefs and ideology? Someone who is say a committed Nazi is in no way to be associated with the Holocaust because it wasn’t them that did it?

        And while we are at it, I guess Libertarians have a real problem with Atheists who say things like “Religion is to blame for most of the evil in the world”. And it must drive Libertarians nuts when Bernie supporters are asked to explain what is going on in Venezuela like that is their problem or they had anything to do with it.

      2. No. Because we’re not collectivists.

        Well…some of us aren’t. Others have no problem sending innocent people to the camps…cuz they are “one of them.”

        1. Frank, you are not smart enough to be a collectivist. That would require understanding the concept.

      3. It is not “collectivist” to note traits common to adherents of a given ideology.

        1. It is not “collectivist” to note traits common to adherents of a given ideology.

          But it is to punish some within that ideology for the actions of others.

          Or isn’t that what you are proposing, Papaya? If not, what?

          1. It’s not punishment — it’s demanding people to justify their ideology, and to explain the violence that it causes.

            Some Muslims get this — Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and people associated with him say “Islam has some really bad parts to it, and political Islamism is all about pushing these ideas — we don’t believe in those parts, and we actively worship and engage in activism so as to decry them.”

            Saying #NotAllMuslims isn’t acceptable — it’s ducking the question. They all know what the text of the faith calls for, yet too many refuse to admit this.

            1. it’s demanding people to justify their ideology

              No one has to justify their ideology.

              All they have to do is follow the NAP. Past that, they can believe anything they want.

      4. If someone pledges allegiance to a group that is a vowed enemy of another group, then they proceed to slaughter that second group, are they not collectivizing themselves?

        1. You can collectivize ISIS which I did by calling them all sociopaths. What I’m not going to do is include all Muslims in that group. There are over 3 million Muslims in the US. If they were all in ISIS, we would be at war in the streets right now.

          1. Islam is entirely illiberal. If you look at some of those numbers, you’re crazy not to think that it’s going to end well to mix mass numbers of them into western society. They don’t want to assimilate to liberalism. They want to assimilate liberalism into their borg.

            1. They don’t want to assimilate to liberalism. They want to assimilate liberalism into their borg.

              So…don’t. Either of you. When either of you attempts to “force” the other to their will, you are perfectly justified in defending yourself. Until then…leave each other the fuck alone.

              NAP 101

              1. I’m not trying to force anyone to my will. Just don’t see why I’d readily invited a bunch of people over to fuck up my way of life. Which they openly admit to wanting to do.

                I’m not aggressing against anyone dipshit. I just have a very strong intuition that the other party isn’t going to abide by the NAP. Are you even familiar with Sharia?

                1. Just don’t see why I’d readily invited a bunch of people over to fuck up my way of life.

                  And there, is your false premise. Saying that ALL Muslims want to implement Sharia is disingenuous. It’s simply not the case. I have no problem with people standing against those who’d take our rights. What I have a problem with is lumping them all together under Islam. I have a problem with guilt by association. I have a problem with punishing innocent people.

                  I just have a very strong intuition that the other party isn’t going to abide by the NAP.

                  So, as I said, when they don’t…you get to fight back. But discriminating preemptively based on your feelz is inappropriate.

                  I’m not aggressing against anyone dipshit.

                  Was there something in my comment that you took as a personal attack such that you felt justified in calling me a dipshit? Have I wronged you in some way that you need to insult me?

                  1. And there, is your false premise. Saying that ALL Muslims want to implement Sharia is disingenuous. It’s simply not the case.

                    Read the link I left. ENORMOUS percentages of Muslims from certain parts of the world do want to fuck up our way of life.

                    I completely agree that there are exceptions within collectives. But when you’re looking at 75+% of people in one region hating and wanting to change rule of law, it’s crazy to just ignore that fact.

                    Was there something in my comment that you took as a personal attack such that you felt justified in calling me a dipshit?

                    You leveled an accusation of trying to force someone to my will. I didn’t take kindly. If you didn’t mean it personally, then my bad.

                    1. You leveled an accusation of trying to force someone to my will.

                      That was not my intention and after re-reading my post it still seems a bit of a stretch.

                      From your own citation:

                      Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.

                      …Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.

                      …asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia ? including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) ? relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law.

                      And I found nothing in the article that states the percentage of American Muslims that favor Sharia law.

                      several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably.

                    2. That’s why I was referring to immigration. Kicking citizens out of the country is absolutely out of the question. But I don’t see what good it does to knowingly let in tons of folks who want their official legal system to be Sharia law.

                      ISIS is far more violent than the general Muslim population, but a huge percentage of Muslims are committed to Sharia, which is antithetical to the rule of law.

                  2. OK, not all Muslims – but where is the point at which you have a problem? 1%? 5%? 25%?

          2. When someone voluntarily joins a collective, like Islam or the jelly of the month club or the Democrat party, then they have signed onto whatever that collective does or says…

            The Koran and the Bible call for the killing of Gays.
            The Jelly of The Month Club calls for… something.
            The Democrat and Republican parties call for the worship of the state.

            Don’t tell me your a Muslim that doesn’t want Gays killed.
            Don’t tell me your a Democrat that doesn’t want a well stocked plantation.

          3. Let’s look at the definition of collectivism, shall we.
            https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/collectivism
            So belonging to a group that prioritizes that group over the individual (Communism and, arguably, Islam) is collectivism. Recognizing that someone has pledged allegiance to a collective is not collectivism.

    3. Most gun violence in this country is not caused by Muslims. It’s caused by drug prohibition. But that’s mostly black on black crime so who cares.

      1. Most violence against black people in the 19th century didn’t involve lynchings. So were those not a big deal? I mean violence in this country had nothing to do with lynchings. I guess everyone that thought they were a problem were just being foolish.

      2. Most gun violence in this country is not caused by Muslims. It’s caused by drug prohibition.

        This isn’t even remotely true.

        1. Keep telling yourself that.

          1. No, you’re right. That’s why Singapore is such a violent hellhole.

            1. Huh?

              1. If drug prohibition causes lots of violence, so much that’s it’s the *majority* of violence in the US, then surely with places with draconian drug laws like Singapore or Japan *must* have lots of violence. Right?

                1. Singapore executes people for drug crimes.

                  1. Not to mention the major differences in culture and geography.

                    1. Well, if drug prohibition causes *most* violence, it’s not a stretch to figure that mountains and lakes and whatnot cause people to kill each other.

                      But I agree, the “culture” of killing people for no good reason is at least a minor factor in these things.

                    2. Japan is an island.

                    3. So is Jamaica. Probably the overbearing weed police there make it one of the most dangerous countries in the world.

                    4. Yes, and the gang shootings here have nothing to do with drugs. What other irrelevent country did you want to bring up?

                    5. They rarely do. If you even bothered to read the local crime reports, this would be obvious.

        2. What this country needs is oppression of progtards.

    4. I don’t think people here would view it as a reflection on other communists.

      Not a great analogy, as people here already dislike communists for other reasons.

      1. It is a perfect analogy. Communism advocates the death or punishment of the capitalist class. Islam says the same thing about gays. So how is a communist shooting up a bunch of bankers any different than this?

        1. It’s not any different; it’s an individual committing a terrible crime, and as I said, people here would not generalize that to the group he is a member of.

          If a libertarian went postal and shot up a police department, would you treat that as a reflection on libertarians?

          1. t’s not any different; it’s an individual committing a terrible crime, and as I said, people here would not generalize that to the group he is a member of.

            Why wouldn’t you do that? If I am a committed Nazi, you wouldn’t generalize the crimes of the Holocaust to me? I am not saying you would throw me in jail for things I didn’t do, but wouldn’t you associate me with antisemitism and murder? According your logic that would be wrong collectivist. But what hell are you talking about? I am a Nazi, how can I claim that my political beliefs had nothing to do with the Holocaust or that people should not rightfully associate me with such?

    5. I am assuming some stated ideological intention from the Muslim or Commie in question?

    6. The Koran is explicitly anti-gay. Every Muslim is supposed to believe the Koran is the perfect, final word of Allah. The excuses made amount to: “But most of them don’t practice all of their religion all of the time.”

      1. The Koran is pretty close to the Old Testiment in it’s essence due to the fact that Muhammad shamelessly plagerized the Bible when he wrote the Koran.

        1. Except Christians aren’t throwing gays into prison or off of buildings, as they do in Islamic countries. That should tell you something.

          1. Christianity had a 700 year head start so perhaps there is hope yet.

            1. And if Christians start doing that and some Christian murders a bunch of people in a gay club, every Christian should have to explain why they don’t support that and to disavow it or understand that people are going to associate them with such acts.

              You doing here exactly what you claim you reject. The Old Testament says that gays should be punished. And you expect Christians to explain why they don’t believe that if they don’t expect you to assume they do. You are associating all Christians with being anti-gay, and not without reason.

              Yet, Muslims are to this day killing gays by the scores and one just murdered 50 last night in Orlando and anyone who thinks Muslims should be required to explain why they don’t support that if they don’t want peopel to assume they do by virtue of being a Muslim is just being collectivist.

              No, you are jsut applying a double standard. You are plenty happy to be rational and collectivist if it involves a group that it is PC to attack.

              1. Is part of his post in white-colored text? Cause I can’t see half the stuff you’re attributing to him.

                1. No huffer. It is called deductive reasoning. Those are the rational implications of what he is saying. If he doesn’t like those, he ought to reconsider his position. You own not only what you say but also the rational implications of what you say.

                2. Yeah, no shit. I’m not sure who he’s talking half the time.

                  1. Reply to huffef

                  2. I don’t know why you have such a hard time with it JB. I don’t believe you are that dense. I really don’t. Deductive argument is not rocket science or something new. Yet, no one here ever seems to understand it. I think it is more that they can’t respond to it effectively and don’t like to admit they are wrong and thus pretend it doesn’t exist. I guess playing stupid is easier for some than admitting their opponent might have a point.

                    1. What is the deductive argument that leads from what he said to what you’re attributing to him?

                    2. “Deductive argument is not rocket science”

                      And yet you’re so bad at it:) I grew up in the midwest, there is no part of the city I grew up in that isn’t walking distance from a church (or a bar). I was raised Christian and pretty much everyone I know is Christian. I love Christians and am well aware that they are not all anti-gay altough some certanly are. I spent several years studying the Bible and read it cover to cover, along with other religious text including the Koran and also Ethics philosophy in general which is why I am now an Atheist:) We can argue this stuff, but you do not need to school me about Chrisianity nor assume I’m anti-Christian just because you’re anti-Muslim.

            2. LOL

              Because religion follows a natural progression from “superviolent to less violent”, which explains how Christianity started as a non-violent cult of worship, 1000 years later was a coercive, expansionistic faith, and 1000 years after that is again a non-violent cult of worship.

              I’m sure it also explains how Islam started hyperviolent and imperialist, became relatively more quietist after the Mongols, and is now reasserting itself as hyperviolent and expansionist in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

              1. It’s dangerous to paint with such a broad brush. The religion is theoretically the same at all times; what changes is its relationship to worldly wealth and power.

                Christianity started out as a minority oppressed religion. As soon as it gained worldly power it started violently oppressing people of other faiths, and indeed other Christians, to whatever extent it could get away with. When its base in Europe became fat, wealthy, and more concerned about contentment in this world, it became less violent and got seriously watered down.

                wealthy = nonviolent (or at least not violent in the name of religion)
                powerless = nonviolent
                powerful and poor = violent

                1. Well it was highjacked by the Roman Empire who made Jesus God and edited what went in the Bible to suit it’s needs. The kings of Europe certainly used it as a weapon of power as well.

            3. Ok, so for there next 700 years let’s keep all the Muslims away from us until they catch up.

          2. As a wise man wrote six minutes before you,

            The excuses made amount to: “But most of them don’t practice all of their religion all of the time.”

      2. If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

        — Leviticus 20:13

        1. And you expect Jews and Christians to explain that don’t you?

          1. No, I don’t. Did you see me expecting that somewhere?

            1. So, someone says “I believe in this religion and think this is the holy book and truth of God” and you don’t expect them to explain the content of it or why and where they deviate from it? I could just call myself a Satanist and you would have no right to associate me with worshiping Satan?

              Whatever.

              1. I don’t because I know most of them are ignorant of the context and have never actually read the thing.

                1. Oh yeah. JB, No one here ever makes collective statements about Christians. Never. Just shut up. AT this point you are just trolling.

                  1. Lol. Who’s trolling? That’s rich coming from you John. You’re a trip dude. You should get out, maybe go hang out with some Muslims.

                  2. Maybe you should take it up with the people who make collective statements about Christians then.

                    Oh wait, you probably think that all Reason posters also must answer for what other Reason posters say, even if they disagree.

        2. There is a reason it’s the Old Testament. Those laws don’t apply. The reformation in Christianity and Judaism 700 years ago was a hell of a thing. Too bad the Muslims missed it.

          1. I have beat my head on that wall with these idiots for years. Forget reformed Judaism, these people can’t comprehend that Christianity created a new covenant with God and just the old Testament stopped being the final binding rule on things. It is just hopeless on some issues. They will forever pull up passages of the OT as evidence of what Christians believe.

            1. Christians believe in the inerrancy of scripture, including the Old Testament. Do you disagree with this statement?

              1. Yes, although exactly what “inerrancy” means is hotly debated. They also believe that with the shedding of the blood of Christ, a new covenant was sealed that brings reliance on the old law to an end.

                And on top of that, every Christian picks and chooses what sort of Christian they’ll be… because the book is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Pretty much the only core and inerrant belief common to all Christians would be that through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the need for sacrifice to atone for sins is washed away and we are forgiven our sins and made perfect for entry into heaven. From John: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (different John – this one never posted to HnR)

                Past that, you can probably find a variant that believes anything you’d like to come up with. They run the gamut from “God is love” feel-good televangelists to fire-and-brimstone “you are all condemned to hell” fundamentalists.

                The same is probably true about the 1.6 billion Muslims wandering about on the globe at the moment. That’s a whole lot of people to be unified in a single belief system without significant disagreements. I know we have trouble figuring out where to go for lunch if the group gets bigger that 4 or 5.

            2. It’s important for bitter atheists to be bitter little bitches about Christianity, and Christians.

          2. They certainly still apply in Judaism, and most Christian denominations still hold the OT as inerrant. I bet you’ve heard of the Ten Commandments from non-Jews.

            In the modern West, they continue to claim to hold the faith while explaining away or deliberately ignoring these passages out of embarrassment. Christians and Jews who currently don’t kill gays get absolved for having such horrible passages in their scriptures; Muslims who likewise currently don’t kill gays don’t get such absolution for some reason.

            1. See what I mean Dallas. Yeah, Christians still hold the OT as the Law, that is why they keep Kosher. And sure they believe in the Ten Commandments. Just ignore the Sermon on the Mount and Christ’s reinterpretation of its meaning.

              1. Which of us is ignoring the Sermon on the Mount?

                Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

                — Matthew 5:17-19

                The early Christians disavowed many of the dietary, circumcision, and other “uncleanliness” laws because they wanted to win Gentile converts. They have never disavowed the teaching against homosexuality.

                1. One distinction, huffer: one group doesn’t have a subgroup throwing gays off buildings.

                  1. From Galatians 5:
                    1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

                    2Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4You are severed from Christ, you who would be justifieda by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

                    link

                2. Christians may believe that homosexuality is a sin and an unhealthy lifestyle, but damn few go around killing gays. Maybe some call names or others don’t want to bake cakes or cater weddings.

                3. Except Christians don’t have government directed extermination of homosexuals. Islam does.

          3. “The reformation in Christianity and Judaism 700 years ago was a hell of a thing. Too bad the Muslims missed it.”

            I think they’re having that reformation now.

            ISIS and a lot of the other Islamist movements have become a reactionary response to modernity.

            It happens in the Christian world, too. The kids have found some new way to make their parents’ scared? Time to have another Great Awakening.

            http://tinyurl.com/h8toye6

            Satellite television, the internet, travel to the West for study, etc. These things only came recently to the Arab world. The reactionary response speaks to the Muslims who are relatively well off and American citizens going bonkers, too.

            http://tinyurl.com/mk3faez

            How do they explain why they’re unsuccessful, with a broken marriage, etc, when the Quran says they’re doing everything right? One explanation is that everything needs to back to the way it was when the Quran was first put to paper.

            1. Remember too that the Protestant reformation wasn’t people just arguing about theology and doctrine. It was decades of the bloodiest wars Europe had ever known. We’re talking upwards of 12 million people dying at a time when Europe’s population was less than 80 million.

              Anyway, if that’s the kind of conflict we’re talking about, then anybody thinking that we’re a policy change or a war or two away from peace and tranquility is missing the big picture. The Christian reformation was about people struggling with modernity, too. Literacy and the printing press were their internet and satellite television.

    7. Islamic jihadists are primitive sociopaths. Most muslims are not fanatics. I would consider them akin to Chistian fundamentalist. Mistaken and repressed, but not murderers.

      1. Most communists are not fanatics. And most communists are not murders. So, I guess all of the murders done in the name of communism don’t reflect on communism as an ideology? And if they do, then why shouldn’t the adherents of communism be required to explain why their support of communism is different or they shouldn’t be associated with those murders?

        You telling me I can be a committed communist and never have to worry about being associated with the murders done in the name of that ideology because that would be collectivist. Really?

      2. Most Muslims don’t practice their religion as they are supposed to. ISIS does.

        1. Like everything else you’re saying, that applies equally to Christianity and Judaism.

          1. Sure. And the day some Christian or Jew murders 50 people in a gay bar, Christians are going to owe some answers why that wasn’t consistent with their religion and why they disavow that if they expect people not to assume they are down with it.

            But somehow Muslims don’t have to do that. No matter how many people are murdered in the religion’s name, no matter how many Imam’s are recorded advocating violence, people like you are right there to call anyone who thinks the religion might have a problem a racist collectivists.

            1. Christians are going to owe some answers why that wasn’t consistent with their religion and why they disavow that if they expect people not to assume they are down with it.

              No they won’t. Any more than they owe an explanation for witch burnings, the Crusades, other internecine holy wars, the Inquisition, etc.

              1. No they won’t. Any more than they owe an explanation for witch burnings, the Crusades, other internecine holy wars, the Inquisition, etc

                Those things happened hundreds of years ago you half wit. The people alive today sure as hell owe an explanation for things done today in the name of their religion. The same way Bernie Sanders has to explain why what he supports is different than what is going on in Venezuela.

                1. Those things happened hundreds of years ago you half wit.

                  A random Christian living in 2016 has as much to do with the Crusades and Inquisition as a random Muslim living in 2016 had to do with these murders.

                2. The people alive today sure as hell owe an explanation for things done today in the name of their religion.

                  Prove your innocent! Prove it! Nope, not good enough! Prove your innocence! Prove it! Not good enough! Off to the firing squad!

              2. That’s funny. Every time there’s an attack on an abortion clinic one of the first things that is asked is why Christians think that’s ok.

                Of course that’s just as fucking stupid.

                1. Asked by whom? Certainly not by me.

                2. Of course that’s just as fucking stupid.

                  He can’t help it. He’s totally into guilt by association.

          2. If you can’t see the stark difference between the actions and words of Muhammed and the actions and words of Jesus, then you are part of the problem. False equivalences to prove a point about all religions are stupid.

    8. Communism does not proclaim the idea that individuals have an obligation to kill those who are different. It would happen… but by the state and as a byproduct of their economic and social ideologies and not as anice explicitly stated goal.

      The Muslim extremist on the other hand? Explicity stated goal by not just the individual actor but by the ideology itself. As such… he is acting as one would expect.

      A Commie doing this would not be. But he would still be a scumbag.

      1. The worker’s revolution was supposed to occur with no capitalists being killed?

    9. Whether an act “is a reflection on” other people in some group depends on whether the act is somehow associated with what binds those people together.

      So, a black American murdering someone is not a reflection on “black people” in general because there is no intrinsic relationship between black skin color and murder.

      A devout Muslim murdering a homosexual is a reflection on Muslims in general because killing of homosexuals is an explicit part of Islamic beliefs.

      For groups like communists, progressives, or Catholics, things get a bit trickier, because while these groups proclaim that killing others really is against their principles, in practice, all of them have a long and bloody history; if you choose to identify as a member of that group, you declare yourself that you generally believe that the killings committed by members of those groups were justified.

  49. if you wanted to create a situation where you could pass a law that says anyone “under investigation” cannot own a firearm, it would probably look a lot like this. i’m not that cynical, but i keep hearing just that, even from supposedly reasonable people who would lean towards the gun rights side.

    “that” being the idea that no one under investigation should be allowed a gun. their logic being, while this may be a constitutional right we’re talking about, he was obviously dangerous, and besides, guns are fundamentally different than any other right, etc.

    1. I think gun people, even of the more traditional hunting and skeet variety, are getting better at detecting these camel toe under the tent maneuvers.

      1. i probably agree with that, even though the real question is, are there enough people who smell it for the bs it is to stop it, especially at such an “emotional time”? but it definitely has been the “reasonable” and “common sense” approach of gun control advocates that has been most responsible more my transition, so i hope you’re right.

      2. I think I better google camel toe to make sure I understand

        1. Ever seen Hillary Clinton in a bikini?

          1. You are a monster

          2. He said camel toe – not moose knuckle.

  50. Was it Chapman who went after Ted Cruz for accusing the Obama admin of not being able to publicly name radical Islam for the atrocities they commit?

    It takes brazen audacity to call this a terror attack (which it was) and not rally the nation against radical Islam which inspired it. And consider the cognitive dissonance in calling for strict gun control while also pushing to accept thousands of refugees from the most radicalized spots on the earth. Guns are a tool, Mr. president, and NOT inherently dangerous as radicalization that utilizes them. The Islamic state blew up a plane and killed 50 people only weeks ago.

    Obama should be disqualified from future offices and shunned by even community organizers. But his core supporters are also diseased maniacs who make enemies and hateful bigots out of ordinary Americans while straining to see the good in radicals who slit their throat without hesitation.

    What do you call people who can’t see and identify evil? What is the proper term? How do you explain people who burn a bakery to the ground because they won’t make cakes for gay weddings, but don’t blink an eye when ISIS drops gays from buildings? They compare Donald Trump to Hitler because he said some mean things about Mexicans, but heartily endorse a power hungry former SS who handled state secrets without protection from possible ISIS hackers?

    1. Neither this guy nor the San Bernardino shooter were refugees, both were native born US citizens.

      1. His parents were from Afghanistan. I can’t stop people from giving birth, but I can stop our country from becoming more regressive by importing backwards hillbillies.

      2. Not only are these children of Muslim immigrants NOT assimilating into Anerican society and culture, the exact opposite is happening and they’re even more radical and dangerous than their parents.

        They aren’t willing or able to adapt to modern western civilization, and they simply don’t belong here.

        1. I dunno. Seems like he was into selfies, steroids and cops, judging by the photos the news folks are using. That’s pretty hard-core USA right there.

    2. The truth is we’ve been murdered by Republican mystics since Herb Hoover and Tricky Dick Nixon decided to enforce Christian Sharia law. These mohammedans are simply more of the same and quick to exploit the legally disarmed. Only recently did La Suprema Corte stop politicians and bureaucrats from rolling queers. That it was to steal our thunder and keep gay pride from handing the libertarian party additional spoiler votes with which to unsear Republicans and repeal more idiotic laws is beside the point. The point is that reason is compatible with non-initiation of force, while mindless superstition isn’t compatible with any rights at all.

      So let’s see some retaliation against these berserkers possessed by mind virus memes. Enough disarming! This ain’t Vichy France or Kristallnacht Germany.

  51. Once again Obama gives a sly wink to the “Religion Of Peace”, while kicking Liberty and Individualism in the balls….

    I’m shocked!

  52. No-one’s response to this has been particularly intelligent. As far as I understand, the suspect is a US citizen meaning that short of stripping people of their citizenship en masse, there’s nothing that “acknowledging radical Islam” would have done to improve the situation.

    I’m not a big fan of opening immigration to Islamic countries. It doesn’t lead to good results IMO (especially in Europe) but it should be acknowledged that changing our immigration now wouldn’t have done anything to help and that the US’ Muslim population, while not an ideal immigrant community, has much better internal dynamics than Europe’s Islam problem and should be considered on its own merits.

    1. The problem is that Obama played dumb about the motivations of the killer, at the same time as he pointed the finger at gun rights as the cause of this event. I would have been fine with it if he had just said that we don’t know the motivations fully and should wait for the facts, and even more fine with it if he hadn’t opened his stupid mouth at all.

      Considering Obama knows nothing about this incident other than that the killer had a gun, his laying the blame on gun rights indicates that he does in fact think there should be a complete ban on guns.

    2. So I guess you’re good with just blaming the incident on the Second Amendment…
      Sorry trouser, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. I’m not advocating any government action, but it would be nice for the President to at least say: “Knock it off you Filthy Camel Fuckers”.

    3. there’s nothing that “acknowledging radical Islam” would have done to improve the situation.

      I think that pointing out what’s intrinsically wrong with Islam and expressing one’s disapproval of its message does quite a bit to “improve the situation”.

      but it should be acknowledged that changing our immigration now wouldn’t have done anything to help and that the US’ Muslim population

      The Muslim population can help itself, however, for example by reflecting whether they want to remain Muslim at all or instead convert to a more tolerant spirituality. After all, religion is a choice, nothing more.

  53. Islam — not just soi-called radical Islam — is garbage, as is Libertarianism. These are your terrorist heroes when they kill Jews in Tel Aviv or Mubai, India. Well, your favorite type people can be killed to — not just us Jews. By supporting the murder of the Jews through Sheldon Richman and other antisemites (self haters are antisemites, too). Keep cheering the Muslims as you; however, they will kill you, too. In fact, that John Mohammed guy severely wounded a Libertarian leader in the Washington D C area. It is a measure of your antisemitism, evil and, lack of respect for the Founding Fathers that you are such cheerleaders for Islam and Islamic terror.

    1. WTF underzog?
      Were you, like…. trying to say something?

      1. I wouldn’t play with this one. I think it’s broken.

        1. He’s been around a long time and has always been this deluded and broken. Just ignore it.

  54. If Muslim terrorists are shooting at you, getting a gun easily is a feature not to be taken lightly. The FBI interviewed shooter twice, same FBI that does background checks.

    1. Solution is simple. To avoid further misunderstandings, the following sign needs to be posted in Arabic and Farsi wherever saloon customers go to commune with the Demon Rum:
      Sec. 11.041. WARNING SIGN REQUIRED. (a) Each holder of a permit who is not otherwise required to display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall display in a prominent place on the permit holder’s premises a sign giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless the weapon is a handgun the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
      Q.E.D.

  55. Drinking sounds like a plan

  56. So ISIS is killing off Gays by the dozens…

    Bernie Sander’s response?

    -Disarm the Gays!!!!

    Pure genius.

    1. It worked for national socialists, so why not for Bernie’s book berners?

  57. The thing that bothers me about Obama whenever these tragedies occur is he can’t seem to avoid engaging in relativist talk (e.g. yeah but Christianity) or somehow inserting a ‘wedge’ angle (e.g. if I had a son he would look like Trayvon or ‘we need more gun control’) or even unwilling to state of such events for what they are.

    A true leader and statesman would rally his country. As a foreigner watching him in action, he underwhelms to the point of disappointment.

    President Obama: Rally the West once and for all. Have you not noticed it’s in sore need of leadership? And when the West looks for inspiration they look to the United States.

    1. You’re kidding, right? Rallying the west is exactly the opposite of what this fucking jerk wants to do. He’s getting exactly the results he set out to get!

      1. By rallying, I don’t mean militarily or by singling out Muslims or stuff like that. No interventionism necessary. Rather just by being a reassuring voice without the ‘wedging’ as I pointed out.

  58. Some ACLU asshole tweeted out that it’s all due to the GOP and right-wing Christians and their “climate of hate.” Yeah if not for them, Omar would’ve gone there and danced it up instead. Apparently the GOP and SoCons have been around since the 7th century influencing the backwards ME population. Mohammed himself must have been the first Republican, then.

    And now on the boob tube there’s some pastor with a rainbow flag behind her telling her flock basically that it’s up to “us” to stop being so violent toward one another. No more hating Muslims, Jews, LGBT, etc. “We” have to stop the hate. I won’t be holding my breath for a likewise broadcast from the local mosque. I guess we’re at that stage of grief already: what did we do to deserve this attack?

  59. it’s literally astonishing that the few people bothering to say we should wait until all the facts are in and not politicize this tragedy are either 1) the least likely to get any notice or response to their point or 2) are considered the most out of touch with what’s going on.

    it’s not really the shooting that makes me weep for america, but the comments about it (not you guys of course, you’re all cool!). just got thru reading my cousin -who is a bright, young, college bound person- go on a rant about how we all have blood on our hands because of all the anti-liberal ideas and policies that have been allowed.

    i’m not in favor of taking away anyone’s rights, but if this event were going to lead us to do so, i think all the suggestions so far are off track. we should probably aim more toward limiting free speech until everyone calms the fuck down so they don’t say so much stupid shit. again, not you guys of course, you’re all cool!

  60. RIP to the victims.

  61. “This massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon,” says Obama.

    This massacre is a further reminder that we’re disarming law abiding citizens in gun free zones, making it impossible for them to defend themselves or others.

    1. Easy for mystically programmed berserkers to get weapons… but not bar patrons. Come to think of it, I’d bet money ALL of the cops and troopers shooting unarmed kids in the back last year were Jesus freaks to a man. But the Second Amendment, according to mystical looters, says “only mystical looters can have guns”… so I guess that makes it OK for them to gun people down.

  62. Obama has the moral integrity of a retarded mollusk.
    Gay, and Lesbian Libertarians that respect property rights, and have armed yourselves. I salute you.
    That is all.

  63. His family has thus far maintained that he simply hated gay people, and this hatred was not connected to his Islamic faith.

    Bullshit.

  64. Bring it the fuck on. I’m ready to take on some muzzies.

  65. They keep saying this was the largest mass-shooting in US history. I saw the list of names. Are they sure this actually took place in the US?

  66. I just heard the anmt about NYPD’s response: police deployed to the Stonewall, more patrols everywhere tonight because bars & restaurants are vulnerable. Like it’s a response to some sort of worldwide coordinated attack?like it’s going to be worse tonight or this week or mo. (gay pride events) & then cool off by, say, a mo. from now. I guess it just means more tickets.

    What’d the police do in Orlando? Try to shoot everyone who emerged?

    1. Now they say they’re on alert at the bridges & tunnels. So yeah, more tickets, more overtime. They say it’s against the possibility of copycats. What, do police once out on patrol gain the magic ability to peer into one’s soul for evil thoughts?

    2. “I just heard the anmt about NYPD’s response: police deployed to the Stonewall, more patrols everywhere tonight because bars & restaurants are vulnerable.”

      Freaking ridiculous.

  67. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  68. my tow cents don’t jump to conclusions but you can always blame the gun

  69. There has never been a more rigid, petrified, ossified ideologue than President Obama. His brain is preserved in amber. He is pathologically incapable of digesting facts in a rational way.

  70. Why does every keep saying this is the “most deadly shooting in American history”??? (quoted Obama).

    There were numerous episodes involving Indians/Native Americans where they were either killed in large numbers or they killed either civilians or soldiers in large numbers.

  71. RE: Obama Mentions Guns But Not Radical Islam in Orlando Pulse Shooting Remarks
    “This massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon,” says Obama.

    If guns were illegal, then radical Islamists wouldn’t have guns.
    Just look at Syria today.
    That should tell you everything you need to know about gun control.

  72. Evan . if you, thought Gladys `s story is impossible… on saturday I got a new Alfa Romeo since getting a check for $5834 recently and-in excess of, ten thousand this past-munth . it’s definitly the best work Ive ever done . I began this 4 months ago and almost immediately started bringing in at least $80.. p/h . you could look here …
    ………………….. http://www.MaxPost30.com

  73. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  74. I just found this new site:
    http://www.offstreammedia.com/…..-straight/

  75. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

    ======> http://www.Today70.com

  76. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  77. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  78. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  79. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  80. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  81. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.