During an interview on Meet The Press, Sen. Bernie Sanders reacted to the horrific mass shooting in Orlando by calling for automatic weapons not to be sold in the US.
:mic drop:
Well if semi-auto rifles can do this kind of damage, I'm thinking auto weapons are right out, no?
The US is special among western countries due to it's lack of gun control (and thriving gun market) and it's high frequency of gun related crimes. At this stage I'm pretty much apathetic to the gun lobby and the gun control lobby. I think the US has too many guns in circulation for changes to make any difference in the short to medium term. If you want to make it a multi-generational issue, that might produce long term beneficial effects but the impediment to just starting the conversation on gun control is monstrously huge. Getting anywhere productive is a Herculean task, and most politicians don't have the intestinal fortitude for it.
Newt Gingrich wrote:Let me go a step further, because remember, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando involve American citizens. We're going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists and we're going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship. And we're going take much tougher positions. In the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt was faced with Nazi penetration in the United States. We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis. We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We're going to presently have to go take the similar steps here.
What could possibly go wrong? Oh wait....probably all of the things that went wrong the first time. At least they put Un-American right in the name though, they aren't even trying to hide it.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
"The terrorist in Orlando had been investigated multiple times by the FBI. He had a government-approved security guard license with a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. Yet his former co-workers reported violent and racist comments," the National Rifle Association said. "Unfortunately, the Obama administration's political correctness prevented anything from being done about it."
Spoiler Alert: It's Obama's fault, because of political correctness.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
I can't imagine this is going to end well for her.
Newt Gingrich wrote:We're going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists and we're going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship.
How many perpetrators of these domestic incidents openly pledge allegiance to ISIS before they act? Like meaningfuly before, not as they're driving to the target or pulling down their Balaklava. And how long would it take them to learn not to do so to avoid any interference?
Sadly, it's not just empty rhetoric though. The unworkable solution, once accepted in principle, will give way to the easy solution: the taking of liberty. The only fight will be over whose and how much.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
I can't imagine this is going to end well for her.
Yeah, I don't care how innocent you think you are, you keep your mouth shut and lawyer up immediately. No one on the government side of things is your friend. It goes without saying that the media sure as hell isn't. And if you don't think you're innocent, wtf are you talking to the police/media?
Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
I can't imagine this is going to end well for her.
Yeah, I don't care how innocent you think you are, you keep your mouth shut and lawyer up immediately. No one on the government side of things is your friend. It goes without saying that the media sure as hell isn't. And if you don't think you're innocent, wtf are you talking to the police/media?
It's quite possible she doesn't care. Her husband just shot over 100 people, is a mass murderer and terrorist. And he's dead. She's very likely not thinking too clearly or logically right now. No doubt the feds are taking advantage of that and it's likely she feels like it's what she has to do regardless of the legal ramifications.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
I can't imagine this is going to end well for her.
GreenGoo wrote:
The US is special among western countries due to it's lack of gun control (and thriving gun market) and it's high frequency of gun related crimes. At this stage I'm pretty much apathetic to the gun lobby and the gun control lobby. I think the US has too many guns in circulation for changes to make any difference in the short to medium term. If you want to make it a multi-generational issue, that might produce long term beneficial effects but the impediment to just starting the conversation on gun control is monstrously huge. Getting anywhere productive is a Herculean task, and most politicians don't have the intestinal fortitude for it.
I read somewhere that incrementally tightening gun laws doesn't make any difference in places with a strong gun culture, whereas strict gun laws in places without such a culture are highly effective (and welcome). So I tend to agree that one must encourage cultural change before laws can make much difference. I have no idea how you do that, but it's probably not going to be top-down. Cowboys gonna be cowboys.
Xmann wrote:If this is true, she should fucking burn
I'm appreciative that she's apparently doing the right thing now and hopefully helping to fill in the gaps of missing information, but yeah I agree. It's not likely going to be the FBI or police that stop this type of attack in the future (and let's not delude ourselves into thinking it won't happen again). It's going to be a friend or family member that picks up on the fact that a person is unhinged and likely about to cause harm.
Jamaica's attorney general says a decision to fly the rainbow flag at the U.S. Embassy following the Orlando gay nightclub massacre is an affront to the island's anti-sodomy laws.
On her social media accounts, Marlene Malahoo Forte condemned the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history but says she found the Kingston embassy's decision to fly the rainbow flag "disrespectful of Jamaican laws."
The attorney general described this as her personal view.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Embassy said it is flying the rainbow flag "in solidarity with the victims who were targeted for being members of the LGBT community." U.S. embassies across the globe have also been flying the pride flag following the Sunday violence.
They're just showing solidarity with the dozen states that still ban sodomy.
Warbelow says that in addition to Louisiana, anti-sodomy laws remain on the books in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.
Xmann wrote:If this is true, she should fucking burn
I'm appreciative that she's apparently doing the right thing now and hopefully helping to fill in the gaps of missing information, but yeah I agree. It's not likely going to be the FBI or police that stop this type of attack in the future (and let's not delude ourselves into thinking it won't happen again). It's going to be a friend or family member that picks up on the fact that a person is unhinged and likely about to cause harm.
Xmann wrote:If this is true, she should fucking burn
I'm appreciative that she's apparently doing the right thing now and hopefully helping to fill in the gaps of missing information, but yeah I agree. It's not likely going to be the FBI or police that stop this type of attack in the future (and let's not delude ourselves into thinking it won't happen again). It's going to be a friend or family member that picks up on the fact that a person is unhinged and likely about to cause harm.
She seems like a special case, though: it looks like she knew that he was planning this particular attack on this particular target. I agree that (assuming we really know what she knew and when) she should have called the police.
Most of the time, intimates of the attacker just have a sense that they might someday snap, but they don't know when or where.
Do we know if she was also a victim of his abuse? That's a different dynamic too, if so.
The whole 25 minutes is worth hearing. (But if you just want the part where he tears Trump's proposals into tiny shreds, go to 19:10.)
I particularly liked the segment where he tears into the notion that saying Radical Islam is a thing that matters...at all. Good speech. I might not agree with him all the time but at least I am assured that his view on an issue is considered and he can support it.
I wonder how the Feds would get around spousal privilege, if she were to invoke it? She's well past the point of no return on that option, but I'm certain something could be constructed to work around it. That she drove him around would make her an accessory in any case, assuming she knew what he was up to at the time.
"Do you really think you are a champion of the gay community?" CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Bondi, telling her that a large portion of the LGBT community in Orlando had told him she was "being a hypocrite."
Bondi in 2014 had argued in court filings that recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states would "impose significant public harm" to the people of Florida.
On Tuesday, she sought to defend those words, telling Cooper she was simply seeking to uphold the state constitution.
"That's what I was defending," she said. "It had nothing to do ... I've never said I don't like gay people. That's ridiculous."
Cooper pressed on.
"But you were arguing (in court) that gay marriage -- if there was gay marriage, if there was same-sex marriage -- that would do harm to the people of Florida, to Florida society," he said. "Are you saying you do not believe it would do harm to Florida?"
"Of course not, of course not," Bondi replied. "Gay people -- no, I've never said that. Those words have never come out of my mouth."
"But that," Cooper responded in an increasingly tense exchange, "is specifically what you argued in court."
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
GreenGoo wrote:I wonder how the Feds would get around spousal privilege, if she were to invoke it? She's well past the point of no return on that option, but I'm certain something could be constructed to work around it. That she drove him around would make her an accessory in any case, assuming she knew what he was up to at the time.
To me there's the rub "she knew what he was up to". I myself have, in anger, made threats in the past. No one reported me because they were the kind of empty threats that lots of people make when they're mad. At what point does it cross from blowing off steam to being a real conspiracy? And what evidence do they have of it?
This is why I agree with people who say she shouldn't have talked about this stuff before consulting a lawyer. What to her might be a case of 'yeah he said this, he said that' and how was she supposed to know he was serious might to the authorities be an admission of just enough criminal guilt to toss her behind in prison.
malchior wrote:IANAL but have taken some law classes. My recollection is joint criminal activity is not privileged.
That's...odd. Wouldn't the 5th amendment + spousal privilege cover that scenario? I am definitely not a lawyer.
5th amendment...yes. Totally. However the realpolitik is they could be compelled to testify as long as they weren't incriminating themself. That lawyer would presumably need to convince the judge that it was joint criminal activity. Anyhow it is sort of moot. He is dead and she allegedly spoke about the attack scouting which would likely be her waiving her communication privilege anyway.
gameoverman wrote:This is why I agree with people who say she shouldn't have talked about this stuff before consulting a lawyer. What to her might be a case of 'yeah he said this, he said that' and how was she supposed to know he was serious might to the authorities be an admission of just enough criminal guilt to toss her behind in prison.
Yup. Especially the Feds. Any misstatements open you to prosecution for lying to a Federal agent. Even innocent ones.
GreenGoo wrote:I wonder how the Feds would get around spousal privilege, if she were to invoke it? She's well past the point of no return on that option, but I'm certain something could be constructed to work around it. That she drove him around would make her an accessory in any case, assuming she knew what he was up to at the time.
To me there's the rub "she knew what he was up to". I myself have, in anger, made threats in the past. No one reported me because they were the kind of empty threats that lots of people make when they're mad. At what point does it cross from blowing off steam to being a real conspiracy? And what evidence do they have of it?
This is why I agree with people who say she shouldn't have talked about this stuff before consulting a lawyer. What to her might be a case of 'yeah he said this, he said that' and how was she supposed to know he was serious might to the authorities be an admission of just enough criminal guilt to toss her behind in prison.
I don't know the law at all. But once they start buying guns and visiting the spot where you are planning the crime (and you know about it), doesn't that make you an accessory?
The more I read and hear about this, the more it boils my blood.
I'm speaking from emotion, but I'm damn tired of having these discussions. Enough is enough.
malchior wrote: Any misstatements open you to prosecution for lying to a Federal agent. Even innocent ones.
I have to believe she was raked over the coals after the attack in Boston to find out what she knew, and yet:
Katherine Russell Tsarnaev now lives on a quiet street in New Jersey, hoping to live her life with her 5 year old daughter—— uninterrupted by questions of culpability and the shadow of suspicion.
Something interesting my dad pointed out: the media is actually wrong about this being the largest US mass killing. Wounded Knee? Sand Creek (2/3 of the killed American Indians were women and children for that one)? Ludlow? Not trying to take away from the insane tragedy of Orlando, but it's an interesting observation by my fairly conservative pops I thought.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Enough wrote:Something interesting my dad pointed out: the media is actually wrong about this being the largest US mass killing. Wounded Knee? Sand Creek (2/3 of the killed American Indians were women and children for that one)? Ludlow?
Those were all military actions, not lone gunmen. It's another way to deflect attention away from the problem that (some) pro-gun advocates don't want to face - that they can't explain away the facts on gun violence. So their only recourse is to distract by throwing up bogus examples and other forms of misdirection. Believe me, my dad has been posting "Wounded Knee" photos all over Facebook as if somehow an army killing Native Americans over a century ago is even remotely comparable to a guy shooting up a gay club.
Note, I'm not condoning those massacres in any way. But history should be used to learn from our mistakes, not to justify them.
malchior wrote:IANAL but have taken some law classes. My recollection is joint criminal activity is not privileged.
That's...odd. Wouldn't the 5th amendment + spousal privilege cover that scenario? I am definitely not a lawyer.
5th amendment...yes. Totally. However the realpolitik is they could be compelled to testify as long as they weren't incriminating themself. That lawyer would presumably need to convince the judge that it was joint criminal activity. Anyhow it is sort of moot. He is dead and she allegedly spoke about the attack scouting which would likely be her waiving her communication privilege anyway.
I guess my concern is that spousal privilege is supposed to give an out, so one spouse can't be made to testify about the other (at least that's how I think it's supposed to work. Correct me if I'm wrong!), but it was suggested that if it's joint criminal activity then spousal privilege doesn't apply. But if it's joint (how would they prove this without her corroboration?) then she wouldn't testify about her own activities (the 5th) and won't testify about her spouse's activities (spousal privilege).
This is probably easily answered by any experienced criminal lawyer, so I'll refrain from speculating any further.
malchior wrote: Any misstatements open you to prosecution for lying to a Federal agent. Even innocent ones.
I have to believe she was raked over the coals after the attack in Boston to find out what she knew, and yet:
Katherine Russell Tsarnaev now lives on a quiet street in New Jersey, hoping to live her life with her 5 year old daughter—— uninterrupted by questions of culpability and the shadow of suspicion.
The Feds were happy enough to fuck up the lives of his roommates, after they were stupid enough to panic and hide (poorly) his laptop. They also used the "lied to the fbi" crime on some relatively benign comments they made to drop them in the fire.
Enough wrote:Something interesting my dad pointed out: the media is actually wrong about this being the largest US mass killing. Wounded Knee? Sand Creek (2/3 of the killed American Indians were women and children for that one)? Ludlow?
Those were all military actions, not lone gunmen. It's another way to deflect attention away from the problem that (some) pro-gun advocates don't want to face - that they can't explain away the facts on gun violence. So their only recourse is to distract by throwing up bogus examples and other forms of misdirection. Believe me, my dad has been posting "Wounded Knee" photos all over Facebook as if somehow an army killing Native Americans over a century ago is even remotely comparable to a guy shooting up a gay club.
Note, I'm not condoning those massacres in any way. But history should be used to learn from our mistakes, not to justify them.
Interesting, the examples I've seen posted of it on FB are by people who are most definitely not in that camp, but now I can totally see it playing that way as well. I certainly don't mean it to deflect anything obviously, and of course it's implicit that Orlando is a different reality. I just viewed it as yet another example of where we had equally huge massacres that I had forgotten to consider. I also wish they would start calling this more than just radical Islamic terror, but then it's probably too long for a lede to say American homophobe with a history of domestic abuse, who likely found some fertile ground for his homophobia, misogyny and abusiveness in ISIS propaganda, heh.
And, to potentially belabor the point, at least Ludlow was sort of a hybrid military action with Rockefeller's boys from the private detective agency Baldwin-Felts having a key role (they sprayed the encampment with machine gun fire before they convinced the governor to send the CO National Guard in to "restore order"). Oh, and the Rockefellers paid the Guardsmen's wages.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
The whole 25 minutes is worth hearing. (But if you just want the part where he tears Trump's proposals into tiny shreds, go to 19:10.)
Thank you. I'll listen/watch tomorrow.
The other day I almost pulled over and demanded my aunt get out of the car when she said it was obama's fault. Instead I laughed rather loudly and said, "You're kidding right?" Can't stand it, absolutely blows my mind.
"Why do people say grow some balls? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding!" - Betty White
