This is like, not how America, or laws, work.

If your response to an act of hate is just more thoughtless discrimination and hate, you're part of the problem.

I'm not even sure the wife is on the hook for anything unless she aided him somehow in carrying out the attack.

Wtf? There is, as always, more than one motivation for any given action. Eliminate or reduce the severity of any given motivation and this may not happen. There is never a single motive that will make every person go out and commit mass shootings.

This. Could be self-hating and also be radicalized.

I am not really sure what you are saying. Maybe I wasn't specific enough - or maybe only we locals are hearing all the details about the wife and father. But knowing what is known as fact - wife went to the gun store with the shooter to make purchases knowing what they were for, wife went with the shooter to "scope out" the target(s) - multiple times, wife tried to talk shooter out of the massacre - even on the night of the event, and never went to authorities. (all that was conveyed to the FBI during her interviews and again to TV reporters) By law this makes her complicit - not reporting a possible terrorist act is a crime.

The dad angle is simply meant to illustrate that when a parent is an over bearing individual that openly hates America and openly conveys that in the series of podcasts, YouTube sessions and online rants the beaten down son might eventually find the same path. Given that I still want the dad to go away.

So where you get the discrimination side of that I don't know. But if you are asking me if I hate the shooter for doing what he did - check. Do I hate the wife for allowing this to happen - check. Do I hate the dad of being a DB father - check. Am I part of the problem - you can't be serious.

Also one motivation might have inspired the shooting, the other the target.

I agree if this is the fact pattern, and the entire fact pattern, that she should be charged, but I don't think we can say those are known facts yet.

This

is pretty problematic though. What crime do you think the father committed?

Er, no. The dominant infantry weapons of the Great War on both sides were the Maxim-patent machine gun and the bolt-action box-magazine rifle. Although Sir Hiram Maxim was American-born, he chose to work in England. And the bolt-action box-magazine rifle was originated by James Lee, a British-born Canadian who moved to work in the United States -- but his invention was stimulated by the American Civil War and was for government military use, thus nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The best infantry rifles of the Great War were the German Mauser 98 and the British Lee-Enfield, both remaining standard issue during the Second World War.

The revolutionary German development of the sub-machine gun for trench fighting in 1918 was the work of Bergmann, Schmeisser and others relying on Mauser and Luger semi-automatic designs which owed nothing to Browning. The Allies did not have sub-machine guns at that time. The Browning Automatic Rifle appeared in US service in 1918 as a squad light machine gun -- but the British had already had the Lewis gun, much prized by Germans who managed to capture one, for some time. The Lewis gun, remarkably, enabled British infantry, advancing in the face of German Maxim-gun fire, to reply with fully-automatic, high-powered, rifle-calibre 'assault fire', from the hip, on the move: a dramatic tactical step-change, based on a US Army colonel's design, so nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

John Browning's 1903, 1910 and (with posthumous collaboration by Dieudonne Saive) 1935 GP pistols, which provided the pattern for modern government semi-automatics, were all designed for Belgium's Fabrique Nationale. And his famous 1911 Colt Government Model was, obviously, meant for the government, so, again, nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

You want to punish a guy for what he believes. Hate him if you want, but suggesting he should "go away" (whatever that means)- how different is that from what his kid did to gay people? He sure made those people with whom he disagreed go away.

Freedom of expression is a core American value.

The wife stuff is pretty well reported. Official statements from FBI and her personally to reporters, in the presence of her father in law. She wiped all her social media accounts the night of the shootings - before they actually happened. She knew what was planned.

My rant against the dad is simply based on what I consider being a good father is. And in this particular case my personal opinion is that he is not a good one. Just my opinion of course - take it for what it is worth. Not sure of any crimes - unless he in fact was also aware of the plot planning. In that case same as the wife. Other than that my statement - go away - simply refers to my being tired of hearing him speak. His on camera comments are opposite his online rants. But he has now been exposed. I make the same - go away - comments when I hear Trump/Clinton say stupid, hypocritical stuff. Just a phrase of discontent.

Read my last post. Don't get caught up on my verbiage. "go away" to me when used in this type context means I don't want to hear anymore from you.

It's a message board- all we have is your verbiage. When you've specifically referenced "the slammer" in the previous sentence it's impossible to read your post any other way.

Gotcha - I see that now. But certainly not the intent.

Is as it ever was

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...social_twitter

they love those icky gays just as long as those icky gays don't want to be treated like humans

Er, that's what I meant.

What a bunch of bags of cock

We don't need second hand information. I'm gay and I wouldn't want to live in any non-secular country, or Russia, or Uganda, or a host of other countries really. It's not truly about the particular religion that runs the government or the people.

Obviously that amendment should be passed, but I'm a little uncomfortable for the argument that says "We should do this now because it would be a feel good moment for the gay community". That's too easily argued against, and dances around the real reasons why that should be passed.


The reporting of the story annoys me, because there isn't much of a dig at the core objections to the amendment. To me a good version of this story has actual quotes from people justifying their potions. Here it just stops at "It was shut down because of rules".

There's no assumption or conclusion about gay men being more violent than straight ones. A percentage of all people who grow up in extremely homophobic communities (Christian was the one being mentioned btw) will be homophobic and that includes the LGBTers, though I'd assume in a smaller proportion. That internalized homophobia is going to cause them a lot of harm but it's going to manifest in lots of ways many of which will be non-violent. Overall as more will reject the homophobia it could easily be that LGBTers men are generally less violent but my default guess would be that gay vs straight is no predictor of violent tenancy among men.

I see homophobes are more violent. Probably so hateful people do seem more violent.

the FBI leaks yesterday made it sound like she'll be charged. some of the reported quotes, "I pleaded with him before he left that night 'don't hurt anyone'" in particular, gave me the impression she's cooperating fully without a lawyer. the full context is the husband said he was going for milk or w/e at 2am and that, combined with the strange way he was acting lately, gave the wife a bad feeling. that doesn't matter, the headline was "WIFE BEGGED 'DONT KILL'; 50 KILLED". she told the FBI she mentioned the particular club, too. like "please don't go kill those gay people at the gay club I know you go to", as a really good guess. you don't tell FBI agents that without a expert on your side, sitting at the table with you.

the FBI's play was to confront her with various pieces of surveillance footage of her and her husband around Orlando and ask if they were scouting targets together. they took her away very quickly after showing up at her house. I really hope she had a lawyer from the start of all this, have the sinking feeling the decision to charge her with *something* was taken before the FBI could have known her actual involvement.

She will just get a lawyer who will say she was afraid and abused by her violent nutjob husband who shot up 100 people and the jury will not convict her.

I'm just wondering where the line is. Does knowing someone is going to do something awful put any responsibility to stop them on you?

Not sure if it was covered elsewhere but Orlando PD chief has said that they are investigating whether some of the victims were shot by Orlando cops rather than the shooter.