Jazzy D&#39;s Soul Notes

Albeit, indeed ..

From:

sabotabby

I fully don't understand why Americans can accept the NRA, which is basically a mafia organization, as an extra branch of government. Isn't the whole point of the Second Amendment to revolt against tyranny? The NRA seems pretty tyrannical.

From:

thewayne.livejournal.com

The sad thing is that the NRA says 'We're the voice of the people!' when less than 30% of their revenue comes from membership -- the rest comes from gun and accessory manufacturers. They are the de facto lobbying arm of the gun industry, but it's not a well-spread bit of information.

From:

seawasp

If he EASILY bought one, he violated the law. Full-auto weapons cannot be purchased in the USA without a full and detailed background check, an ATF license costing $250, a designated, licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon at your death, and you can't actually own a NEW one, so you have to buy an OLD automatic weapon, which in good condition will cost you 10-20x what an actual new one will due to the market forces.

That ain't easy.

So if we can't enforce the laws that already exist, what makes anyone think new laws will make a difference? The new ones will magically be enforced better?

From:

mercystars.livejournal.com

The shooter legally purchased those guns.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-bought-guns-previous-flags-fbi/story?id=39799861

From:

So if we can't enforce the laws that already exist,
Does that really justify not making better/stronger laws?
You can use that argument for any law we have. We can't enforce domestic abuse laws, so why have them? We can't enforce drinking and driving laws, so why have them? Etc, Etc, Etc... :(

From:

seawasp

To an extent, yes. Ultimately, laws come down to "Don't hurt other people". Now, we have good reason to make them more detailed than that. But at some point you do have to ask "what good will this particular law do? Can it be enforced? If it can, at what level of cost and effort? What damage could it do? Would the latter ultimately outweigh the former?"

I am *ALWAYS* suspicious of any additional lawmaking at this point. It's not like we have a terrible dearth of laws for all sorts of things. I am about ten TIMES as suspicious about laws promoted in the wake of any disaster; 9/11 and PATRIOT shows exactly why I am suspicious about it.

For instance, take the suggestions that "no one under investigation should have guns". It's really easy to trigger an investigation of someone, especially these days. Same goes for "no one on the watch list".

My personal beliefs are that (A) anyone who wants a gun of a given class (handgun, rifle, full-auto, etc.) needs to show competence in both the care and the proper use of the weapon (license analogous to drivers' license). However, this is ONLY true if the training and licensing are 100% free -- unlike driving, this is a Constitutional right, thus you cannot put barriers in the way of anyone who wants to take advantage of that right, any more than you should be able to put barriers in the way of someone who wants to vote.

(B) You cannot purchase a weapon of a given class unless you have a current license for the given class of weapon.

(C) people convicted of violent crimes are deprived of their right to firearms, the same as many states deprive convicts of their right to vote.

You will note that I do *not* include "and someone maintains a database of all firearms", because I don't think the government has a right to know if I have a firearm, how many I have, or what type they are, so long as I actually have the training and license to hold them.

Edited Date: 2016-06-14 01:48 am (UTC)

From:

However, this is ONLY true if the training and licensing are 100% free-- unlike driving, this is a Constitutional right, thus you cannot put barriers in the way of anyone who wants to take advantage of that right,
If you use this argument then...
You cannot purchase a weapon
Should all guns be free?

Personally I am of the belief that the Constitution gives you the Right to own a musket, not a semi or automatic rifle.

From:

baron-waste.livejournal.com

Is that the word used? Do you see it there?

It's possible to ignore what 18th century lawmakers and politicians actually said on the subject, but then one is and remains quite literally ignorant of the subject.

It can be unsettling. Facts are pesky things that won't do as they're told. Most inconvenient sometimes.

From:

seawasp

The problem with that interpretation is that it would imply that you should do this for the rest of the Constitution, meaning that, for instance, methods of communication not known in the days of the Founders (like this one) are not covered by the First Amendment.

Insofar as guns being free, they weren't in the Founders' day, and the Constitution says "keep and bear" not "obtain", so no. Although it would probably apply if, for instance, someone tried to enact a tax that made all firearms prohibitively expensive.

From:

baron-waste.livejournal.com

You can also use such instances as these as justification for taking all our dangerous toys away so we don't hurt each other.

It's called “the Nanny State.” You wouldn't want to live in the country you're suggesting America ought to be.

From:

Couldn't be any worse then the Gun State we live in now. :o

From:

I concur with your frustration.

From:

thewayne.livejournal.com

The rifle in question was an AR-15 or clone. It is not fully-automatic, it is a semi-automatic. It fires one round every time you squeeze the trigger. Only full-autos require ATF tax stamps and the more exhaustive background check. Regardless, it is still purpose-built for killing people with a high rate of fire and an easily changed magazine.

From:

seawasp

Then it's not a "military assault weapon". It's a semiautomatic rifle which in the close quarters of a club has little functional difference from a semiautomatic pistol with a long clip -- and almost all handguns these days are semiautomatics, with the exception of revolvers which are still used a lot at higher calibers. Yes, of course it's designed for killing, that's what all firearms were designed for -- or at least for shooting at targets with something that could easily kill people. But outlawing something like that is basically either saying "really, let's outlaw everything that isn't able to shoot more than once between black-powder reloads" or "let's outlaw this one because it looks scarier than the other".

Even restricting number of rounds to, say, 6-8 is silly. It's really not hard to eject one magazine and slam in another. Takes a couple seconds. This guy did this quite a few times during his spree, and no one took the opportunity to rush him. I doubt seriously that him having to do it a bit more frequently would've made any difference; the people under attack have to (A) recognize he's just run out, and (B) act on that recognition within the few seconds they have.

OR they could just rush him and take him down, like the passengers on Flight 93 did. Yes, he'd shoot some of them. But one man against a mob is ALWAYS a losing proposition for the one man.

Another guy, armed with a firearm, might have been able to take him down, but this was in a club that serves alcohol, and as such it's already illegal for anyone to be carrying firearms inside (guns and booze being a known bad combination).

From:

wendelah1

OR they could just rush him and take him down, like the passengers on Flight 93 did. Yes, he'd shoot some of them. But one man against a mob is ALWAYS a losing proposition for the one man.

The passengers and crew on Flight 93 weren't a mob, they were hostages. Those individuals who decided to fight back against the terrorists weren't part of a mob, they were patriots. How are these two situations analogous? The people on Flight 93 had time to gather information, formulate a plan, and take a vote about whether or not they should act. The patrons of the nightclub were under fire by a determined murderer. If a member of law enforcement or the military, someone with some training, had been at the nightclub, they might have had the presence of mind to try to stop the killing. But I can't imagine ordinary civilians, who are not in a war zone, coming under fire like this and attempting what you describe.

I am in favor of more restrictions on the purchase of semiautomatic weapons but it's unclear that they would have made a difference, at least in this case. He would undoubtedly have passed muster--the FBI interviewed the shooter twice and didn't find conclusive evidence that he posed a threat. Yet he did.

It would be nice if members of Congress could get their heads out of their asses and figure out a way to prevent the people on the No-Fly list, people who have been designated a threat, from purchasing weapons legally. It wouldn't have helped in this case but it might save lives down the line.

From:

seawasp

Er, you can get on the "No-Fly" list for almost any reason. Multiple investigations and examples have shown that the No-Fly list does not just include people who are a threat. The very fact that the list is kept secret and the mechanisms by which people are selected is secret, and there is no real methodology in place for CHALLENGING your place on the list? Makes the list an UTTERLY unacceptable measurement for pretty much anything. Including who should or should not be able to fly.

From:

sabatoa.livejournal.com

I hate to wade into this- but the shooter did not have a military-grade weapon. It was just an AR-15, which looks scary but is no different than a common rifle. He didn't have modified magazines, he didn't have full auto. It was two guns, period. He just knew how to use them, and because police response was so horrifyingly slow and the people were trapped, it was shooting fish in a barrel.

From:

seawasp

So basically all he was using was a standard hunting rifle with scary-looking bits glued on and an extended mag?

From:

sabatoa.livejournal.com

Yeah, it was a .223 cal which some people think is too small to ethically hunt deer with. He also had a Glock 17 9mm.

The thing that sucks is that yes he was allegedly a domestic abuser, but had his ex wife charged him then it would have made him ineligible to purchase firearms. To my knowledge, she never pressed charges.

From:

seawasp

Which is a risk you have in a society where it's not really safe to rat out your abusers.

From:

sabatoa.livejournal.com

That's beyond my scope of understanding. To me it's just one of those sad "what-ifs".

From:

He was a security guard on a government service, to have a weapon and a permission to carry it around was a part of his job.

From:

WTF? Somebody under investigation for Terrorist ties was a government security agent? :o

From:

BBC says that he was employee of private security company G4S and worked as a guard in correctional institution for juvenile offenders, private or public BBC does not say. Do you call a jailer a "security agent" I don't know. Also according to Martin's former wife he was crazy in a medical way. (here is the link http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36513468)

Edited Date: 2016-06-14 06:41 am (UTC)

From:

Just plain jailor or guard covers it.
I wasn't sure what he was doing when you said it was a government position.

From:

I don't know how do you use the word "agent" in USA. For me this means a man in a suit (FBI, CIA etc.) but I can be wrong, American people know such things better. I'm not sure that it was a government position, it could be a private jail as well.

Actually, that guy Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin, had an attack on a police officer in his list, nevertheless he was a vigilante of a Neighborhood Watch and had a gun.

From:

Yeah, I would list an agent more along the lines of CIA or FBI.

Don't even get me started on that horrible excuse for a human. :o

From:

This is not an excuse, this is a fact.
The fact is that the guy with a crime record (Zimmerman) can have a gun and serve as a vigilante. Or the guy who is just plain crazy in the worst meaning of this and doctors know it can have a gun (put in this list Cho, Holmes, Loughner). And the guy who sympathizes to radicals can have a gun (Hasan, Martin).

From:

I don't mean excuse in that term. I mean that Zimmerman is a horrible person, and doesn't deserve to called a human. :o

From:

a-phoenixdragon.livejournal.com

THIS.

From:

This country, imho, SUCKS.
How can these things happen over and over and they can still tell me that guns are good and everybody should have them?
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hugs, Jon

From:

I totally agree with you there Jon- it just makes me feel so sad.

From:

pigshitpoet.livejournal.com

this is so fucked up

his father said he witnessed two men kissing. what was he doing in orlando anyway, he should be down in texas redneck country with the bush family..

he claims to have done jihad for isis. more like a skinhead posing as an islamic terrorist mind controlled by the cia and hired by the russians to bring the earth into orthodoxy...

and why can someone this deranged own an automatic weapon in america? deer hunting? thrrrrrrp!!

wtf
; P

From:

sidhe-uaine42.livejournal.com

http://sidhe-uaine42.livejournal.com/67681.html

This tragedy reaches far beyond either Orlando or Puerto Rico. The lady in the video now lives in Australia but she used to work at Universal Studios Theme Park.

An aside, the victim Robin speaks of was also tweeted about by JK Rowling. Yes, the lady who wrote the Harry Potter series.

From:

kabuldur.livejournal.com

These sort of guns wouldn't be available here.

I think with mental illness it needs to be 'picked up' more quickly. With all the publicity recently in my country, I'm thinking we need to be taught how to recognise it earlier.

From: