Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[katmai]

Yeah a friend of mine who lives in Orlando had worked with a victim on tv productions, closest to any personal involvement to this incident.

[jimmy olsen]

I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.

I know you are for mass democracy now but be careful what you wish for. 
Gay marriage exists in this country because the courts overrode objections to it on constitutional grounds.  Most of the ballot initiatives went the other way.  Your new right wing buddies are happy to talk nice now about gays if it can be used to put down the Muslims.  But they will put the kinds of judges in place that voted with the dissent in Obergefell.

They would lose most of those votes if they were held today, the county has changed.

[Valmy]

They would lose most of those votes if they were held today, the county has changed.

Well one would hope so.

A list of the victims, including many of the pictures Marty posted earlier, but also with bios of many of them: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/12/481785763/heres-what-we-know-about-the-orlando-shooting-victims

So Goddamn senseless.

[jimmy olsen]

Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.

Beware the wave of radical Hindi terrorism of the 2040s!

[Razgovory]

That's what I don't get.  Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it.  If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay.  Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria.  Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population.  OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS.  So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.

It all seems backward.

The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.

I'm afraid of America looking like Europe does today in 20 years, and even more afraid for Europe itself 20 years from now. Like I said, "real" terrorists, those who operate with al-Qaeda or ISIS, generally they have easier ways to get into a Western country than going through the refugee program.

My impression that a big problem in European countries is lack of Birthright citizenship.  The very thing that Trump rails against.

[stjaba]

Seedy's "self hating gay" theory may be correct:


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-nightclub-omar-mateen-profile-20160613-

http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316

[Razgovory]

Huh, heard this was some kind of Latino night at the club.  So it's win/win for Trump.

[mongers]

.....

My impression that a big problem in European countries is lack of Birthright citizenship.  The very thing that Trump rails against.

Aren't some American Samoans involved in a case about this at the moment?

[OttoVonBismarck]

.....

My impression that a big problem in European countries is lack of Birthright citizenship.  The very thing that Trump rails against.

Aren't some American Samoans involved in a case about this at the moment?

I wouldn't be surprised, while they used to share this with several of the other island territories the unincorporated territory of American Samoa, by virtue of being the last "unincorporated" territory,  does not confer birthright U.S. citizenship to persons born there. They are the only people now who at birth become U.S. nationals, but not U.S. citizens (I believe they've been unique in this regard since 1950, when Guam was organized.)

The difference is not that meaningful though, as non-state residents citizenship only really changes anything meaningful for them if they move to the United States (where they would be unable to vote in most Federal and State and local elections.) Since U.S. national is a permanent status, they still have permanent rights to live in the U.S. (and any of its territories), get a U.S. passport and work in the U.S. Plus, the citizenship process for nationals is the easiest of any--they only have to live in the U.S. for three months and then take a test and swear an oath. But is a weird situation, and I'm unsure why it's persisted for so long after all the other territories were organized.

[Siege]

Careful Shel, Marti is gonna come after you.

It was clearly an islamic attack and a homophobic attack. Why are these two different things? Muslims have been persecuting gays forever, while trying to achieve all their other goals, like destroying israel, America and the West.

Where muslims are a minority, they are all about minority rights, where muslims are the majority, there no minority rights.

[derspiess]

Huh, heard this was some kind of Latino night at the club.  So it's win/win for Trump.

Make sure you mention this one next time you go to confession.

[dps]

I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.

Trump is not running on a conservative platform.  See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles.  Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.

That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.

I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.

I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.

I don't think I've ever really expressed my position on homosexuality and gay rights here.  So let me take the opportunity to do so:

1)  I think that homosexual behavior is sinful

2)  That said, it's God's place to punish sin, not the place of any Earthly government and certainly not the place of any individual.  And there are lots of other behaviors that I think are sinful, such as cheating on your spouse, or cheating on your taxes, or just being a liar.  I don't go around shooting people who cheat, or who are liars, or who engage in other behavior I consider sinful;  nor do I condone others shooting sinners. 

3)  Some things that I think are sinful, such as theft, are also crimes.  The state does punish crimes, which of course it should, but in general, we don't let private individuals do so, and I'm perfectly OK with that--I don't endorse being a vigilante under normal circumstances (and, for the record, I'm uncomfortable with it even under abnormal circumstances, such as a complete lack of rule of law).

4)  I don't think that homosexuality should be a crime.  In general, I think that what happens between consenting adults in private is no one else's business.

5)  I'm not in favor of gay marriage.  You want what you do in private to not be anyone else's business, don't make it our business by asking us to put the state's stamp of approval on it.  (To be honest, I feel that way about marriage in general--it really should be a private matter, not regulated by the state.  In practical terms, though, getting the state out of marriage law would require massive changes to our tax and inheritance laws, and I'm not sure how you would even go about getting the state out of child custody disputes and other divorce issues [though those exist even with couples who have children and/or joint property but aren't legally married, so I guess it's really not a problem]. 

6)  Right to get married or not, everyone has the right to not be murdered in cold blood, and the state has a positive duty to prevent murder and other crimes to the extent possible without trampling on civil rights.  Unfortunately, respect for civil rights means that the state doesn't even do that great a job of punishing crimes after the fact, and really can't do too much about preventing crimes before the fact.

If any of that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy's "self hating gay" theory may be correct:

I'm sorry, I can't hear you; my favorite show, The Streets of Languish, is starting...Tonight's episode: "A Wahabbist Most Vile"

[11B4V]

I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.

Trump is not running on a conservative platform.  See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles.  Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.

That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.

I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.

I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.

I don't think I've ever really expressed my position on homosexuality and gay rights here.  So let me take the opportunity to do so:

1)  I think that homosexual behavior is sinful

2)  That said, it's God's place to punish sin, not the place of any Earthly government and certainly not the place of any individual.  And there are lots of other behaviors that I think are sinful, such as cheating on your spouse, or cheating on your taxes, or just being a liar.  I don't go around shooting people who cheat, or who are liars, or who engage in other behavior I consider sinful;  nor do I condone others shooting sinners. 

3)  Some things that I think are sinful, such as theft, are also crimes.  The state does punish crimes, which of course it should, but in general, we don't let private individuals do so, and I'm perfectly OK with that--I don't endorse being a vigilante under normal circumstances (and, for the record, I'm uncomfortable with it even under abnormal circumstances, such as a complete lack of rule of law).

4)  I don't think that homosexuality should be a crime.  In general, I think that what happens between consenting adults in private is no one else's business.

5)  I'm not in favor of gay marriage.  You want what you do in private to not be anyone else's business, don't make it our business by asking us to put the state's stamp of approval on it.  (To be honest, I feel that way about marriage in general--it really should be a private matter, not regulated by the state.  In practical terms, though, getting the state out of marriage law would require massive changes to our tax and inheritance laws, and I'm not sure how you would even go about getting the state out of child custody disputes and other divorce issues [though those exist even with couples who have children and/or joint property but aren't legally married, so I guess it's really not a problem]. 

6)  Right to get married or not, everyone has the right to not be murdered in cold blood, and the state has a positive duty to prevent murder and other crimes to the extent possible without trampling on civil rights.  Unfortunately, respect for civil rights means that the state doesn't even do that great a job of punishing crimes after the fact, and really can't do too much about preventing crimes before the fact.

If any of that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

Not hypocritical, but selfish.

[11B4V]

1)  I think that homosexual behavior is sinful


2)  That said, it's God's place to punish sin, not the place of any Earthly government and certainly not the place of any individual.  And there are lots of other behaviors that I think are sinful, such as cheating on your spouse, or cheating on your taxes, or just being a liar.  I don't go around shooting people who cheat, or who are liars, or who engage in other behavior I consider sinful;  nor do I condone others shooting sinners. 

3)  Some things that I think are sinful, such as theft, are also crimes.  The state does punish crimes, which of course it should, but in general, we don't let private individuals do so, and I'm perfectly OK with that--I don't endorse being a vigilante under normal circumstances (and, for the record, I'm uncomfortable with it even under abnormal circumstances, such as a complete lack of rule of law).

4)  I don't think that homosexuality should be a crime.  In general, I think that what happens between consenting adults in private is no one else's business.

5)  I'm not in favor of gay marriage.  You want what you do in private to not be anyone else's business, don't make it our business by asking us to put the state's stamp of approval on it.  (To be honest, I feel that way about marriage in general--it really should be a private matter, not regulated by the state.  In practical terms, though, getting the state out of marriage law would require massive changes to our tax and inheritance laws, and I'm not sure how you would even go about getting the state out of child custody disputes and other divorce issues [though those exist even with couples who have children and/or joint property but aren't legally married, so I guess it's really not a problem]. 

6)  Right to get married or not, everyone has the right to not be murdered in cold blood, and the state has a positive duty to prevent murder and other crimes to the extent possible without trampling on civil rights.  Unfortunately, respect for civil rights means that the state doesn't even do that great a job of punishing crimes after the fact, and really can't do too much about preventing crimes before the fact.

1. Religious intolerance. Who are you to pass judgement. You are not more enlightened than anyone else. Less so as a matter of fact
2. Mumbo Jumbo
3. Yes vigilantism is against the law.
4. You already said it's sinful therefore a crime against God. Therefore a crime in your eyes.
5. Selfish
6. I don't understand the non sequitur. What does right to get married have to do with right not to be murdered. One is about living and the other not.