I second this message without reservations (and edited only for region). We may have policy differences about cakes and marriage laws, but we share a basic human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Senate has scheduled votes on four gun control measures today. Two of them are Democrat proposals for gun control, one for background checks on all gun sales ("gun show loophole" bill) and the other a proposal to allow the Attorney General to block gun says to people on the watch list without due process. Two of them are Republican proposals for more reasonable changes to the background check system (one a proposal to block watch list sales with at least a nod to due process, and the other focused on mental health reporting improvements to the background check system).
To be honest, based on the information I have about the proposals, I'm not sure I want any of them to pass. The watch list is useless as an attempt to block gun purchases; remember that the Orlando murderer that created this crisis wasn't even on the watch list when he bought his guns. The "gun show loophole" bill is even more useless, because the terrorist bought his guns from a licensed dealer and passed not just one background check when he bought the guns, but multiple background checks in his career as a security guard, despite raising red flags going all the way back to his high school.
The Republican watch list bill is better, but still puts the buyer on a secret list preemptively and forces them to put a lot of effort into getting off the list. That reverses the presumption of innocence. And, again, the terrorist wasn't on any lists when he bought his guns and passed multiple background checks.
The Republican mental health bill is sort of the definition of "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it." The Orlando attack at this point seems to have little to do with mental health. The legislation might make some improvements to the background check system that would be a good idea, but it certainly doesn't address this particular situation at all.
But the votes are going to be held today, so write your Senators and tell them to vote no on gun control. Consider calling, too, but write them first; you may have a hard time getting through on the phone.
It seems to me that when there is a lone shooter trapped in a building without any hostages, patience is likely to produce the same outcome without the excessive destruction of what turned out to be an innocent family's home.
He needed to get one in order to carry a gun as part of his work as a security guard. (Normal gun owners who do not work as police or security do not need a psychological evaluation in most states). But the psychologist listed in his file says she never saw him and was not living in Florida when it was conducted. So unless the doctor is doing Clintonian-level word parsing, someone faked the record. On the other hand, the doctor is listed as clearing another employee who ended up shooting people, so it's possible she's the fake.
Either way, it looks bad for G4S, the security contractor who employed the terrorist.
UPDATE: Just to add a brief thought. This fact pattern (a known, obvious terrorist investigated for terrorism and erroneously cleared multiple times and still able to work as an armed security guard on government contracts) blows a huge hole in the argument that "only the police, the military, and security guards should have guns". As well as the idea that any amount of background checking and psychological screening can reliably detect a mass murderer before they strike.
Sure, this attacker could have been imprisoned based on his behavior, and put on a prohibited list for firearms purchases and that might have stopped him. But he wasn't. No system is perfect, not even a competent one run by someone who isn't an apologist for Islam.
We have to focus our efforts where they can do the most good. For individuals, that means making sure you are in a position to shoot back if you ever find yourself in a terrorist attack. For our society, we need to focus our efforts on identifying dangerous terrorists and actually doing something about them. It does no good to "watch" them. Take the wife-beating, the terroristic threats, the claimed affiliations with ISIS, and charge them with a crime. Because those things are, in fact, crimes.
They'll still be able to get a gun on the black market, once they get out of prison, but at least they won't be working for the government as a security guard when they commit their terrorist atrocity.
What does it mean that Clinton email admin has use immunity?
The most immediate practical meaning of the "use immunity" agreements is that Pagliano is not off the hook for potential prosecution. The FBI won't be able to use anything he told them directly in court against him, and they won't be able to use anything they found out about because of what he told them against him either (that's the "derivative" part). But if, for example, someone testifies that Pagliano was a major mover and shaker in the whole plan and personally emailed Hillary thousands of top-secret documents, the FBI could charge him on the basis of that testimony. They couldn't use anything Pagliano said against him in court, but they could use anything else they found that wasn't based on what he told them under the immunity agreement.
That's why Pagliano is arguing that he can plead the 5th to avoid testifying in the Judicial Watch FOIA case. Anything he tells Judicial Watch would be available to FBI to charge him with. Thus he's really reluctant to tell Judicial Watch anything at all, which is entirely understandable given his situation.
So why would the FBI give Pagliano only use immunity?
Democrats praise victims for accepting death; Republicans shoot back
It may take courage to wrap your arms around a child instead of trying to run away (and if you're going to run away and you have some courage, why not grab the child so you can both try to run away?). However, that course of action doesn't solve anything. It is the epitome of helpless victimhood, which is exactly the state of mind and emotion that encourages dependence on government and thus increasing government power.
How much more effective would it be if Anne Marie Murphy had used her dose of courage to calmly stand in front of that six-year-old child while shooting back at the terrorist?
She wasn't allowed to do so, of course, because Florida law says you can't have guns in bars, even if you aren't a terrorist. The terrorist was not deterred by that policy, of course. And no, there are no certainties that if any of the victims had been armed it would have been sufficient to save their lives. But it would have been a better chance than they got, packed like sardines in a club that didn't allow them to defend themselves.
Democrats claim GOP agreed to hold gun votes after Democrats wasted 13 hours filibustering. Which is just sad; it's not like the GOP is moving business through the Senate productively anyway with Obama in office, so why not just let the Democrats filibuster and ignore them like they did when Ted Cruz filibustered Obamacare funding?
It looks like there will be four proposals (two from each party) and they will all need 60 votes to pass, with votes scheduled for Monday. It's time to start calling your Senators. My take is to tell the Senators to vote no on everything, but certainly no on the two Democrat proposals.
Obama wants to ban guns based on your browser history
How does the FBI "know" this person is an ISIL sympathizer? Well, they're hooked into the NSA's unconstitutional internet surveillance program, and picked up that someone visited a few ISIL websites. Maybe he really is an ISIL sympathizer, or maybe he's a journalist or a blogger doing research. Maybe he's just trying to keep up with the news, or felt he had to see first-hand how horrible ISIL can be. The FBI doesn't know and can't know, just from looking at what websites someone visited. But Obama wants to deny people the right to own a gun based on what that person chooses to read, "evidence" that the government obtained unlawfully without probable cause or a warrant, with no due process.
Especially now, when there's a full-court press on for gun control, anyone in the media you talk to will do their best to twist everything you say into something you didn't mean.
If you're not already media-savvy, this is a good time to say "No comment." If you think you're media-savvy -- and there are some of us out there who are -- then bring your own recording device, and keep control of the footage you take with it. Your own recording may be your only way to speak out after they leave your facts on the editing room floor.