Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problem with ISIL is the same as the problem with Al Quaeda.

There is an organisation called ISI/ISIL/Daesh who are Islamic terrorists, but they didn't invent radical Islamic terrorism. It arises because of a variety of social pressures in various ME countries. ISIL and Al Quaeda before them are an expression of this radicalisation, not the cause of it though naturally they are both facilitators by using various methods and publicising their conquests together with religious based propaganda.

Consequently there is easy access to materials and propagandists which make it simple for a western based Muslim with psychological/social problems to become inspired to do a deed like this "in the name of XXX" (Al Quaeda/Islam/ISIL/Boko Haram, etc...)

This is a completely different thing to ISIL setting up networks of terror cells, sponsoring them with money, training and equipment. There isn't much evidence that ISIL have been doing this.

This Orlando shooting is another example of the so-called "lone wolf" terrorist.

Obviously this is of no comfort to the victims and their families or to the security forces and the body politic in general. It would be much easier to work against this kind of terror outbreak if it was all being planned by a SPECTRE like organisation. There would be a network, a communication system, messages and bank accounts to trace and so on.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As pointed out earlier, it's a massive difference between pledging allegiance to ISIS and ISIS being directly responsible for the attack.

I take your point, but given the fragmented nature of ISIS, it's a bit difficult to separate the two.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As for the father, and I could be wrong on this, I think he's been misquoted. I'm pretty sure he said that it's for God to judge these things, not God will punish them, will is a big difference.

Fair enough, far be it from me to accuse him falsely, it was just something I read on the news.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

...

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.

And look what I found in this "this is a legal contract" page:

Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.

So, wherever this "moderators can't remove stuff they don't like" rule is it isn't in the legal document. If it exists at all it must be in some informal code of conduct, much like the dakka forum rules.

Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"?

Sure, that's Reddit's target audience. But you made a comment about society as a whole disapproving of Reddit's actions. If you want to change that to "some of Reddit's target market may be unhappy with the product they are offered" then that's a much less impressive claim.

First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point.

And I'm also talking about values. Aside from the legal question any position that a private website does not have the right to control what content they publish is a value that is not dealing with reality. If you're being a in my house I am free to kick you out without any value conflicts at all.

Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?

Of course I do. You just don't seem to understand the concept of private property rights involved here. Reddit is not a public space. It is a private website owned by a corporation. It has no obligation to allow unrestricted discussion, and it is not reasonable to expect it to. And this is where the confusion comes from: you've decided that Reddit is something that it isn't, and you act like it's some kind of assault on your values when Reddit doesn't act according to your expectations.

You would have a point about your "free speech as a value goes beyond US law" idea if there was some kind of suppression of speech going on, but that's not the case here. Nobody is hacking an unpopular website to bring it down and silence the views it publishes. Nobody is stealing unpopular books off the shelf and destroying them so that nobody can read those unpopular ideas. A private website is simply saying "we don't want to publish this". There are still plenty of places for you to speak and publish whatever things Reddit will not allow. In fact, given that this seems to be a problem with subreddit moderators rather than Reddit policy as a whole, you can even speak ON REDDIT if you want. You might not get as much of an audience as if you published your thoughts elsewhere, but your freedom to speak is not being denied just because nobody wants to listen to you.

Hmm, I think this is probably my last response to you, as it seems almost unfailing that whenever talking about any topic in the vague vicinity of Social Justice your replies are either intellectually dishonest, manage misconstrue my points or simply factually wrong. Putting aside the goal post moving and other quibbles, the above post is a fine example of this: you made a very specific claim, on which rested the entirety of your other points, that "the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it".

This isn't a little wrong, but rather completely wrong, as I pointed out. Because this one point was wrong, every other point in your analysis is wrong. Even the quote you supplied undermines your argument; "Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.." Having signed a formal, legal agreement there is a contractual relationship between Reddit and its users, not the relationship between a homeowner and an invitee.

Now, while that difference is important and undermines the rest of your points, the thing is... you're kinda creeping me out. In all our back and forth discussions, the closest you've ever come to expressing an understanding of tolerance as a virtue or a moral responsibility is... "Of course I do", followed by two paragraphs demonstrating that, in fact, you do not. So I'm going to leave you be; you've cemented some suspicions I've had about social justice and its adherents, but mostly you've convinced me that whatever star guides your moral compass, it's not the North mine points to.

So have a good week.

Oh for the love of...

Reddit user agreement wrote:your access to reddit

4
Without advance notice and at any time, we may, for violations of this agreement or for any other reason we choose: (1) suspend your access to reddit, (2) suspend or terminate Your Account or reddit gold membership, and/or (3) remove any of your User Content from reddit.

5
We reserve the right to monitor reddit, and your use of the Service means you agree to such monitoring. At the same time, we do not guarantee we will monitor at all.

You didn't even read your own link, did you?

This Reddit argument is rather off topic, isn't it?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.

But it is now being used by Democrats (including both Obama and Hillary) to call for more gun control. Evidently he had even served as security at a Florida courthouse.
He is an ISIL terrorist not a "mass shooter." This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Benrardino...

but its all about gun control...

 Frazzled wrote:
This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Benrardino...

but its all about gun control...

In fairness, Trump also jumped straight on the Paris attack, by saying "if they only had guns", like it couldn't happen in the US. Obviously, it can happen, and the first responder was still a police officer.

If this guy was an agent of ISIL who had been supplied his weapons illegally by his sponsors, then gun control would obviously be useless. Hopefully though, such an setup would be more detectable by the various security organisations.

If he was a lone wolf, who got his guns on a legal licence, the question is whether his previous behaviour should have alerted authorities to the possibility he might "kick off", and therefore ought not to have that licence.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.

Errr, yeah but he was under FBI investigation twice and was a "person of interest". How in the world does someone like that get a license to carry? I'm as Pro Firearm as you're going to get, but that's screwed up.

Not a license to carry. Even more so-he had a license to be an armed security guard.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Benrardino...

but its all about gun control...

In fairness, Trump also jumped straight on the Paris attack, by saying "if they only had guns", like it couldn't happen in the US. Obviously, it can happen, and the first responder was still a police officer.

Night clubs are gun free zones in FL (since they make most of their revenue via alcohol sales).

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll.

Indeed.

Not everyone agrees that the 2nd amendment is worth as many lives as it costs, even if both sides have their points.

I only hope it will be a long time before something like this happens again, but given the trend that is not likely.

Paris, Belgium, Morrocco, hotels in Central Africa.

For me, this is not a gun control issue, this is an issue of American values.

Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc

and has now turned against those values with deadly effect

Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For me, this is not a gun control issue, this is an issue of American values.

Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc

and has now turned against those values with deadly effect

Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?

Crazy person being crazy. He just found ISIS as a nice cause to latch on to which was happy to have him aboard.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc

and has now turned against those values with deadly effect

Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?

Actually, that's a fairly typical bio for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to what people expect, most of them grow up westernised, often drink and have girlfriends, and take very little interest in religion prior to their "conversion".

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.

But it is now being used by Democrats (including both Obama and Hillary) to call for more gun control. Evidently he had even served as security at a Florida courthouse.
He is an ISIL terrorist, not a "mass shooter." This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Bernardino...

but its all about gun control...

He's not really an ISIL terrorist. Just saying I <3 ISIL on a 911 call doesn't make him part of that terrorist organisation. He received no instructions from them. He was just using that to justify what he was going to do. He got upset because an LGBT couple made the smoochies in front of him and his family, and had a HUGE overreaction. Don't get me wrong, I feel uncomfortable when I see it(it's a well-known fact that PDA makes people uncomfortable, not hating here). I don't stroll into the nearest gun shop and go on a shooting spree about it because it goes against my beliefs etc.


They're not saying gun control will fix everything, though. We know it won't. What it will do, is greatly reduce the occurrences. Which is the entire point. That doesn't strike me as unconstitutional- just sensible.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll.

Indeed.

Not everyone agrees that the 2nd amendment is worth as many lives as it costs, even if both sides have their points.

I only hope it will be a long time before something like this happens again, but given the trend that is not likely.

Paris, Belgium, Morrocco, hotels in Central Africa.

And the one that really started the 'gunmen against soft target' trend: Mumbai.

 Frazzled wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.

Errr, yeah but he was under FBI investigation twice and was a "person of interest". How in the world does someone like that get a license to carry? I'm as Pro Firearm as you're going to get, but that's screwed up.

Not a license to carry. Even more so-he had a license to be an armed security guard.

Being a "person of interest" in an investigation is meaningless, it's a made up term by law enforcement that isn't a legal distinction of anything it's just a way for law enforcement to kinda label somebody as maybe possibly being a suspect if they ever find enough evidence to warrant declaring that person a suspect. The shooter was investigated but the FBI never found a reason to charge him with any crimes and he was never convicted of anything. Therefore he had a clean criminal record on the federal level and since he was able to pass background checks and screenings for his employment as a security guard he had a clean record with the state of Florida too. If he had a clean record then the system treats him as innocent until proven guilty and he retains all of his rights as a US citizen. That's how our system works and how it should work. We can't start stripping rights away from people preemptively just because they get investigated. Lone wolf attacks like this don't tend to be preceded by obvious bread crumb trails of criminal activity that would have given authorities cause to detain and arrest the attacker.

We're not going to get rid of the freedoms of speech, of religion, of assembly, to own firearms and to be treated as being innocent until proven guilty. If we're going to live in a free and open society then we aren't going to be able to protect such a society from homicidal zealots who decide to go to a school or church or nightclub or anywhere else and commit mass murder.

 Smacks wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc

and has now turned against those values with deadly effect

Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?

Actually, that's a fairly typical bio for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to what people expect, most of them grow up westernised, often drink and have girlfriends, and take very little interest in religion prior to their "conversion".

And honestly, 2nd generation are more likely to radicalize than their parents, and are often targeted for radicalization.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.

Alternatively if America had any meaningful gun control, hadn't been getting involved in the middle east for years, etc, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive this morning, and this type of attack would be far less likely.

But then again, if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak...

Alternatively more massive damage could have been done with 100 dollars worth of gasoline.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.

But it is now being used by Democrats (including both Obama and Hillary) to call for more gun control. Evidently he had even served as security at a Florida courthouse.
He is an ISIL terrorist, not a "mass shooter." This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Bernardino...

but its all about gun control...

He's not really an ISIL terrorist. Just saying I <3 ISIL on a 911 call doesn't make him part of that terrorist organisation. He received no instructions from them. He was just using that to justify what he was going to do. He got upset because an LGBT couple made the smoochies in front of him and his family, and had a HUGE overreaction. Don't get me wrong, I feel uncomfortable when I see it(it's a well-known fact that PDA makes people uncomfortable, not hating here). I don't stroll into the nearest gun shop and go on a shooting spree about it because it goes against my beliefs etc.


They're not saying gun control will fix everything, though. We know it won't. What it will do, is greatly reduce the occurrences. Which is the entire point. That doesn't strike me as unconstitutional- just sensible.

Taking away the right of a law abiding US citizens to own guns would require a new amendment to the constitution and any attempt by state or federal government to do so without amending the constitution as it currently exist would be unconstitutional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.

Alternatively if America had any meaningful gun control, hadn't been getting involved in the middle east for years, etc, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive this morning, and this type of attack would be far less likely.

But then again, if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak...

Alternatively more massive damage could have been done with 100 dollars worth of gasoline.

Alternatively people could stop espousing and believing the idea that it's morally just to murder people for being gay. If that kind of zealous religious hatred stopped being tolerated and condoned then there wouldn't be such strong motivations behind attacks like this. It's not like the gun filled this murderer with the desire to kill gays.

oldravenman3025 wrote:Whitman used a Sears 12 gauge autoloading shotgun (illegally cut down below legal barrel/overall length) to "secure" the top floor leading to the observation deck of the clock tower. He opened fire on the Gabour and Lamport families, who spotted Whitman after taking in the view topside, after he brutally knocked Edna Townsley unconscious (the volunteer working the desk at the entrance to the observation deck). His barrage killed Marguerite Lamport and Mark Gabour, and wounded Mike and Mary Gabour. He finished off Townsley with the shotgun before heading out and barricading himself outside. Most of his victims were killed and wounded at the beginning of his spree, and were carried out with his 6mm Model 700 Remington bolt-action hunting rifle with a Redfield 4x scope. (snip)

Gordon Shumway wrote:Huh, you know lots about this. Any dea how we can put some sort of curb on it, or to you just want to spank to the fact you know lots about guns. Hooray? What exactly does your post do?

He was rebutting the idea posted earlier that such a massacre would not be possible if people only had legal access to bolt action rifles.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Alternatively more massive damage could have been done with 100 dollars worth of gasoline.

Is that a fact? Better not tell ISIL.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

That led officers to inspect the car and find several weapons and a lot of ammunition as well as tannerite, an ingredient that could be used to create a pipe bomb.

Alternately, tannerite could be used by an actual recreational shooter, the kind that would have several weapons and a lot of ammunition. I mean, he may yet to turn out to be a dangerous lunatic yet, but this doesn't mean anything to me yet.

I realize that we don't know all exactly what he had at this point, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch that whatever is was is probably illegal in California, since many firearms related things are.

As an update, the guy with the shooting irons was going to the gay pride parade to look for his friend, is dating a dude and is bisexual - he had no violent plans at all.

Unfortunately for him, he was on probation from an earlier adventure so he's still in quite a bit of trouble.

As Hordini suspected, Tannerite is not legal in California, whether prepared or still in it's binary component form.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
I'll leave it to others to try and pretend that making a gun with a bayonet lug illegal would have prevented this

Who was doing that?

The people that support the assault weapons ban, or more specifically my Governor Cuomo.

 Breotan wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
or that Christianity wasn't pulled kicking and screaming out of dark-age ideology by other Christians.

What does that have to do with this?

Only that I think Islam can change, but that change can only come from within. The Catholic Church once burned witches and tortured non-believers. They didn't change on their own. Christian liberals and reformers forced that change. And it's a battle that's still going on, but one that the liberal reformers are winning. The pope has come out saying its basically not that bad to be gay, while many respected imams and mullahs are calling for their murder. Of course each faith has some of both in their midst, but I guess I respond more to the ones that are vocal.

Islam does not need to change. Christianity did not change either. Medieval and modern Catholicism is pretty much the same. The religion itself is unchanging. What changes is not the religion, it is what people do with it. The people and their culture changed.
There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Any dea how we can put some sort of curb on it...

There is a clear chain of consequence from the shooter beating his (now ex-)wife, to being found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence, to being banned from purchasing or owning any firearm, to not being able to commit this shooting. As we learn more about the shooter's history, we will know where this chain broke.

Indeed. That there is a point where the background should have denied purchases.
Note: Frazzled believes background checks should occur on the person not with firearm purchases. If something occurs to where the person would not pass the background check, then it should automatically update, and a process begin to where the person's firearm's could be confiscated. They would have legal right to appeal, but it would have caught several of these guys who purchased firearms but later twerked-particularly on the psychology stuff.

This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are. Do not allow businesses to restrict concealed carriers or make them liable for lawsuits if something does happen on premises. Look at every mass shooting of the last 20 years in the US, how many were in gun free zones? Almost every single one. Kennesaw GA where every household is required by law to have a gun has had only a few murders in the 20+ years that law was enacted, guess where every single one of the murders were(last time I checked)? Gun free zones. They are dangerous places to go and that is proven. They make soft targets even softer and easier, again proven. Its about time we use some logic on this. Everywhere that concealed carry permit numbers have risen, crime has decreased. The areas that have Nazi-level laws about citizens carrying weapons, crime is rampant. Those are facts.

Further gun control would have made zero difference to this guy. He was an armed security guard at a court with a license to back it up. That's a harder to get license than a concealed carry permit. To get both that and the job he would have had extensive background checks done, not just a quick call to the ATF for a brief scan for the obvious.

ISIS has confirmed that this was one of their guys and they were warning about attacks in Florida last week. The FBI investigated him twice but found nothing, until now. He was friends with the first American suicide bomber in Syria. How did they miss that one? This is a terrorist attack pure and simple.

Now how do we stop it. 1. Get a concealed carry permit. Keep your pistol on you. Again one guy inside with a gun could have taken him down. 2. Do not frequent Anti-American establishments that do not allow weapons. 3. Write your congressmen for the abolishment of anti-gun zones
both in public and private buildings. You can force people to work for you, then you can force them not to deny your 2A rights. 4. Learn to use your weapon effectively. By that I don't mean going to the range once a year, sitting in a climate controlled environment and plinking rounds. Go to an outdoor range in the heat of summer. Do pushups and jumping jacks beforehand to get your heart rate up then shoot from standing or supported positions you would be likely to use in real life. If its a concealed weapon holster, practice drawing the weapon(unloaded) with various normal clothes over and over until its second nature.

5. Do not be a soft target. Know whats going on around you at all times. Look for people that aren't acting normal. Its actually kind of fun because you get to notice weird quirks about people in public. Just don't stare, don't be the creepy staring guy.

Col. Dash wrote:
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.

...

You can't really believe that a dark night club full of loud music, flashing lights and hundreds of people out of their heads on alcohol, drugs and adrenaline would be a good place for lots of people to be carrying guns.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
I'll leave it to others to try and pretend that making a gun with a bayonet lug illegal would have prevented this

Who was doing that?

The people that support the assault weapons ban, or more specifically my Governor Cuomo.

 Breotan wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
or that Christianity wasn't pulled kicking and screaming out of dark-age ideology by other Christians.

What does that have to do with this?

Only that I think Islam can change, but that change can only come from within. The Catholic Church once burned witches and tortured non-believers. They didn't change on their own. Christian liberals and reformers forced that change. And it's a battle that's still going on, but one that the liberal reformers are winning. The pope has come out saying its basically not that bad to be gay, while many respected imams and mullahs are calling for their murder. Of course each faith has some of both in their midst, but I guess I respond more to the ones that are vocal.

Islam does not need to change. Christianity did not change either. Medieval and modern Catholicism is pretty much the same. The religion itself is unchanging. What changes is not the religion, it is what people do with it. The people and their culture changed.
There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.

That's quite fair, I disagree with a particular point however, all religions are a problem for humanity, they need to go, and thankfully they are in the UK at least.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.

It's worth mentioning that there is some evidence that a religious upbringing with Islamic values, actually protects young men from being radicalised. Fighters and suicide bombers like many extremists, are characteristically young men (underachievers) who feel marginalized and angry.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For me, this is not a gun control issue, this is an issue of American values.

Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc

and has now turned against those values with deadly effect

Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?

The same problem everyone else is having with these guys. Evidently the FBI made their hundredth ISIL related arrest in the US this month.

Taking away the right of a law abiding US citizens to own guns would require a new amendment to the constitution and any attempt by state or federal government to do so without amending the constitution as it currently exist would be unconstitutional.

No it doesn’t. It takes one SCOTUS justice.

Alternatively people could stop espousing and believing the idea that it's morally just to murder people for being gay. If that kind of zealous religious hatred stopped being tolerated and condoned then there wouldn't be such strong motivations behind attacks like this. It's not like the gun filled this murderer with the desire to kill gays.

I think we have a thread winner.

Fighters and suicide bombers like many extremists, are characteristically young men (underachievers) who feel marginalized and angry.

Lots of marginalized teenage Buddhists who don't do that. Maybe we need a Buddha refresher.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.

...

You can't really believe that a dark night club full of loud music, flashing lights and hundreds of people out of their heads on alcohol, drugs and adrenaline would be a good place for lots of people to be carrying guns.

People wouldn't use their guns irresponsibly though. If nightclub patrons were the sort to regularly cause trouble, then nightclubs all over the world would need doormen and security and stuff... that's just crazy talk.