Florida nightclub shooting: Two killed, 15 injured at Club Blu, Fort Myers

[lucky11]

Welcome to Obama's America.

Anyone think HRC will change it?

Pity the deputies weren't there BEFORE the shootings. I guess armed security will be a fixture at any gathering in the US from now on, or at least it should be.

Women are the fastest growing demographic owning guns in the US. Perhaps teenagers will be joining them now.

Don't blame Obama, blame the gun lobby - Obama wants stricter laws on gun ownership but his plea falls on death ears from those with a vested interest from the gun lobby scum who fend off any law changes!

To be honest, I simply don't have feelings either way when there are gun related deaths/massacres in the US any more as it is not newsworthy, in my mind. It is just another day in America as far as I'm concerned!

How about knife related deaths or cleaver related deaths or suicide vest related deaths or machete related deaths? Do you have a preference or it is it just another anti American thing?

Don't see the relevance of your post - what does this have to do with your crazy (open carry) gun laws whereby you can legally walk the streets toting your latest 'rambo machine' as long as you don't conceal it!!

If that is not asking for trouble..............!

[HooHaa]

No mention of nationality but i would not be shocked if he was a Muslim they love spreading their religion of peace.

No mention of Nationality, yet still you felt the need to point a finger.

Even if you are right, you are so very wrong.

It's attitudes like yours on both sides that are the cause of all this madness, with your smug superiority and effortless racism.

[thaibeachlovers]

To some of those who have commented on this above, let me say as an American, there is NO American thing in society at large about needing to have or use guns, despite what some folks from other countries would like to think.

There are, however, a couple of actual facts that bear on the subject:

--the U.S. has a bill of rights, now 225 years ago, back from the era of single-shot muskets and the U.S. fighting for independence from Britain, that guarantees U.S. citizens the right to "bear arms." The thinking behind that two centuries ago was that citizens should be able to defend themselves against an abusive monarchy/government.

--Because of that constitutional protection and court cases that have interpreted it over the decades, it's been very difficult to enact the kinds of gun restrictions that many Americans, sickened of gun violence both at home and abroad, would fully support. And then add to that, a very powerful and influential political gun lobby (the NRA, backed by a lot of right-wing gun fanatics) that too many politicians are fearful of opposing. And the end result is political gridlock for most gun legislation.

I believe in the Bill of Rights, and I understand the reason the gun ownership right was included in it. But for me, that 225-year-old provision, enacted in an entirely different world from the one that exists today, ought not be stretched to mean that anyone ought to be able to buy any gun they want without any meaningful background checks or waiting period.

Likewise, I understand the notion of self-defense and a historic gun right. But I've yet to have anyone convince me that somehow the possession and use of rapid-firing assault rifles that can spray bullets like the rain is what the founders had in mind, nor what is reasonably required for self-defense, sport hunting, etc.

I understand what you mean, but your conclusion is wrong, IMO.

There is probably more inclination for a government to try and become a dictatorship now than there was back then ( for proof, see what is happening in Turkey where an elected government is carrying out a coup against the secular population, and don't forget how Stalin and Hitler came to power ), and the only thing stopping them in the US is the knowledge that the citizens are armed.

As for the need for assault weapons- do you think the government would try to take over armed with muskets???????? Think Waco, if you want to know how the government acts in such a scenario.

[thaibeachlovers]

I believe in the Bill of Rights, and I understand the reason the gun ownership right was included in it. But for me, that 225-year-old provision, enacted in an entirely different world from the one that exists today, ought not be stretched to mean that anyone ought to be able to buy any gun they want without any meaningful background checks or waiting period.

Likewise, I understand the notion of self-defense and a historic gun right. But I've yet to have anyone convince me that somehow the possession and use of rapid-firing assault rifles that can spray bullets like the rain is what the founders had in mind, nor what is reasonably required for self-defense, sport hunting, etc.

Then you will be relieved to learn that anyone cannot just buy any gun they want, and that "rapid-firing assault rifles that can spray bullets like the rain" have been illegal for decades.

As for what the founders had in mind...I wonder where they would fall on the gender identity-bathroom issue?

Or on the whole LGBT thing. I doubt they even considered such a movement possible, Like Victoria who refused to believe women could be lesbians.

[thaibeachlovers]

"3 men arrested after deadly Fort Myers nightclub shooting"

"Derrick Church, 19, of Fort Myers; Tajze Battle, 22, of Fort Myers and Demetrius ONeal, 19, of Lehigh Acres were arrested."

http://wfla.com/2016/07/26/3-men-arrested-after-deadly-fort-myers-nightclub-shooting/

Nothing newsworthy here--just more black on black violence.

Just another bunch of young black males with a firearm killing children.

We certainly won't see any demonstrations talking about injustice.

If these mens great-great-great grandparents had not been slaves of the white man then this never would have happened.

Nothing from BLM about them, but I expected that. They are as silent as Obama is about the over 4,000 black men murdered in his home town during his watch.

[thaibeachlovers]

Welcome to Obama's America.

Anyone think HRC will change it?

Pity the deputies weren't there BEFORE the shootings. I guess armed security will be a fixture at any gathering in the US from now on, or at least it should be.

Women are the fastest growing demographic owning guns in the US. Perhaps teenagers will be joining them now.

Don't blame Obama, blame the gun lobby - Obama wants stricter laws on gun ownership but his plea falls on death ears from those with a vested interest from the gun lobby scum who fend off any law changes!

To be honest, I simply don't have feelings either way when there are gun related deaths/massacres in the US any more as it is not newsworthy, in my mind. It is just another day in America as far as I'm concerned!

How about knife related deaths or cleaver related deaths or suicide vest related deaths or machete related deaths? Do you have a preference or it is it just another anti American thing?

Don't see the relevance of your post - what does this have to do with your crazy (open carry) gun laws whereby you can legally walk the streets toting your latest 'rambo machine' as long as you don't conceal it!!

If that is not asking for trouble..............!

Do you have any stats to prove your case?

[ClutchClark]

I believe in the Bill of Rights, and I understand the reason the gun ownership right was included in it. But for me, that 225-year-old provision, enacted in an entirely different world from the one that exists today, ought not be stretched to mean that anyone ought to be able to buy any gun they want without any meaningful background checks or waiting period.

Likewise, I understand the notion of self-defense and a historic gun right. But I've yet to have anyone convince me that somehow the possession and use of rapid-firing assault rifles that can spray bullets like the rain is what the founders had in mind, nor what is reasonably required for self-defense, sport hunting, etc.

Then you will be relieved to learn that anyone cannot just buy any gun they want, and that "rapid-firing assault rifles that can spray bullets like the rain" have been illegal for decades.

As for what the founders had in mind...I wonder where they would fall on the gender identity-bathroom issue?

Or on the whole LGBT thing. I doubt they even considered such a movement possible, Like Victoria who refused to believe women could be lesbians.

Heck I never figured such a movement was possible and I was only born in the last century.

Democrats sure have funny priorities.

[dick dasterdly]

Has there been a reason given for the ideology behind these murders?

Edit - I apologise for bringing it back down to the basics, rather than the rants (against blacks, Moslems, Obama etc.) enjoyed by too many posters.

Edited July 28, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[dick dasterdly]

To some of those who have commented on this above, let me say as an American, there is NO American thing in society at large about needing to have or use guns, despite what some folks from other countries would like to think.

There are, however, a couple of actual facts that bear on the subject:

--the U.S. has a bill of rights, now 225 years ago, back from the era of single-shot muskets and the U.S. fighting for independence from Britain, that guarantees U.S. citizens the right to "bear arms." The thinking behind that two centuries ago was that citizens should be able to defend themselves against an abusive monarchy/government.

--Because of that constitutional protection and court cases that have interpreted it over the decades, it's been very difficult to enact the kinds of gun restrictions that many Americans, sickened of gun violence both at home and abroad, would fully support. And then add to that, a very powerful and influential political gun lobby (the NRA, backed by a lot of right-wing gun fanatics) that too many politicians are fearful of opposing. And the end result is political gridlock for most gun legislation.

I believe in the Bill of Rights, and I understand the reason the gun ownership right was included in it. But for me, that 225-year-old provision, enacted in an entirely different world from the one that exists today, ought not be stretched to mean that anyone ought to be able to buy any gun they want without any meaningful background checks or waiting period.

Likewise, I understand the notion of self-defense and a historic gun right. But I've yet to have anyone convince me that somehow the possession and use of rapid-firing assault rifles that can spray bullets like the rain is what the founders had in mind, nor what is reasonably required for self-defense, sport hunting, etc.

I understand what you mean, but your conclusion is wrong, IMO.

There is probably more inclination for a government to try and become a dictatorship now than there was back then ( for proof, see what is happening in Turkey where an elected government is carrying out a coup against the secular population, and don't forget how Stalin and Hitler came to power ), and the only thing stopping them in the US is the knowledge that the citizens are armed.

As for the need for assault weapons- do you think the government would try to take over armed with muskets???????? Think Waco, if you want to know how the government acts in such a scenario.

Much as I loathe guns (having grown up in the UK) - I have changed my opinion for the point you raised.

Things are getting worse as governments become more determined to impose their (and their corporate paymasters) will on the populace - and the populace need to be able to fight back when the govt. go too far.

[ClutchClark]

Has there been a reason given for the ideology behind these murders?

Edit - I apologise for bringing it back down to the basics, rather than the rants (against blacks, Moslems, Obama etc.) enjoyed by too many posters.

A reason?

Yeah, some young gangbangers got ahold of a couple pistols and were drunk/drugged up and someone looked at them wrong.

The logic behind these types of incidents is that they have no logic.

Fact: When a gangbanger gets a pistol then he is usually going to want to try it out within the week.

[alfalfa19]

No mention of nationality but i would not be shocked if he was a Muslim they love spreading their religion of peace.

No mention of nationality but i would not be shocked if he was a Christian they love spreading their religion of peace.

excellent, but probably beyond the grasp of many drunken cro-magnins.

...........who at the least, can spell Cro-Magnons.

yeah, you are right, i made a spelling error, i don't make many, bully for you. i wrote it in a hurrry.

[Scotwight]

No mention of nationality but i would not be shocked if he was a Christian they love spreading their religion of peace.

excellent, but probably beyond the grasp of many drunken cro-magnins.

...........who at the least, can spell Cro-Magnons.

yeah, you are right, i made a spelling error, i don't make many, bully for you. i wrote it in a hurrry.

Spelling correction normally not allowed on TV except for special people.