Another shooting fueled by an extreme right wing white supremacist

[Epic Beard Man]

People who dislike the media report things in an inaccurate and sensationalist manner.

I'm sure you are against this as a general principle.

Dude I live here. Media or not some guy's 6 year old kid is dead. Some beloved person whom a family loved dearly is dead. There is no sensationalism in the fact that people died and that there are grieving families. They died over someone's sick mind set.

 

[Shad]

Jesus, you come with no argument.....You're ridiculous learn to debate man

I quoted the specific point in the post which people can disagree with a specific point of your conclusion while still thinking WS is an issue. Try again. You have merely assumed that I am debating something instead of making a statement. Yawn.

Now try linking evidence with your conclusion. Evidence mind you not your projection. Which statements of Trump motivated this shooter?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well you're an exception and unfortunately not the rule.

And how exactly would YOU know that?

 

[SugarOcean]

@SugarOcean

What is your opinion of this:

Then watch

Did you watch the videos?
Nothing wrong with the excerpt in the first one. Though it is the admittedly fake news network CNN reporting.
It was fair what the President said concerning his overall knowledge of the subject and the sporadic acts of wicked people making tragic news.

The second video. Trump isn't responsible for how white nationalists see him. They idolize Hitler for God's sake. If that doesn't inform us that they're not thinking straight in and of themselves, we certainly can't fairly claim what they think of Trump, as someone who speaks their language, is valid. Especially not when Trump has condemned racism and white nationalism repeatedly so as to clear up the wrong thinking some have in that regard.

 

[SugarOcean]

What were the races of his victims?

Um, notice how they didn't link an article ?

 

[SugarOcean]

It's the exact same reason why the police have guns and the military have guns.

It never is nor ever was the tool.

It's the person who's using the tool and if you really want figures, these people and incidents as tragic as they are, remain very much in the minority considering our population which is estimated around 327 million people.

The tally from the shootings are pretty much a drop in the bucket from a demographic perspective, but the Socialist Democrats wouldn't want you to think that, but rather they want to think and do shout from the rooftops through the bias media there's basically a swath of psychopaths hiding in your neighborhood in every town and every city in the United States hoarding guns just clamoring at the opportunity to shed blood just hoping you give up your constitutional rights.

It's easier and more beneficial for the Socialists to vilify Guns and attack the Constitution, than address the reason why we are collectively breeding numerous Psychopaths and 'glorifying' them in the media.

The transparent part of the argument arrives for public view when rich politicians scream for gun control while they're protected by armed security. They're not talking about all guns being controlled or even eradicated from the American landscape. They're talking about the 99% of non-rich peers being disarmed.

It's the hypocrisy that is a standard in D.C. . Like Pelosi's idiocy when she claimed walls are immoral. Thinking everyone forgot that when Obama was in office she was all for funding the border wall and at billions more than what Trump wants now. Oh, and she lives in a walled gated rich community.
An immorally walled gated rich community.

I like the politicians and opponents who claims walls don't work. They're a hoot.

 

[SugarOcean]

No I didn't know that - where does it say that?

It begins with the Declaration of Independence. The guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which the last part, happiness, was formerly, pursuit of property.
..."self-governing individuals should bear the responsibility for defending themselves."
Self-Government and the Unalienable Right to Self-Defense


The second Amendment does not give American's the right to bear arms.

The second Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We are already empowered to bear arms. The second amendment guarantees that right cannot be infringed.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Constitution does not empower the government. The Constitution is a Federal law document that protects we the people.And insures our rights from the government trespass and infringement of them.
The U.S Constitution creates a national government and limits and enumerates that governments powers.

 

[InChrist]

I'm not disputing this at all. What one does is on their own accord, but nevertheless, we are influenced by the words of others case in point are not you not influenced by the words of Jesus? Are you not a follower of Jesus' example and try to emulate him via his teachings?

Yes, people are influenced by the words of others, but there are always influences positive or negative around us. Each person must choose and is responsible to think or not think, act or not act according to those influences. Obviously, you are influenced by the culture which trashes the name of Jesus and chooses to use it in vain like common profane language..

 

[metis]

Up until the last SCOTUS (5-4) decision, the 2nd Amendment was always considered to be a reference to state militias, sometimes called "national guards", which is why the words "well-regulated" are there. The majority decision piped by Scalia is so bizarre as to be almost laughable if it wasn't so transparently partisan, and his attempted defense of that decision is even more so as he got stumped when being interviewed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The facts are that people able to defend themselves with firearms do on a regular basis. Every month the American Rifleman magazine records these incidents. My own daughter, trained by me, came home from her work late at night. she lives in a gated community, but the miscreant jumped the wall to get in. As he was coming toward her to attack her, she took her pistol out of her purse and told him if he continued, he was a dead man. He reversed course and ran to the wall and jumped over it. She is barely five feet tall and weighs a hundred pounds, without the gun she would have been robbed, raped, and maybe killed..

AS to the festival, bullets would not be flying everywhere, only where aimed.

I don understand the logic that says a defender might wound an innocent, so there should be no armed defenders, so the shooter can keep killing at will., Eliminate a risk, and accept a certainty. No, not logical.

Of course bullets would be flying everywhere. Are you under the impression that all gun owners are crack shots? Hell, police officers only hit their target something like 35% of the time.

More guns = safer, doesn't pan out in reality. More bullets flying equals more chance of them hitting something or someone.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Blacks aren't the only one's that play the victim card. The tragic part is when they throw that card they don't realize they're insulting their lineage and the history of blacks in America.

Those who told you that were racists that were race baiting.
They were also blind to the fact that Obama, had he been any race and behaved as he did for eight years in office, was a racist and a traitor. That he left office out of handcuffs, walking beside Hillary in her own set of bracelets, was a tragedy that will impact America for generations to come.

Um, what?

Trump plays the victim card on a regular basis, all while making racist and hateful statements about others.

What crimes did Obama commit? What treason? What racism? What on earth are you talking about? Are you sure you're not confusing him with Trump? Because if Obama had said or done just about anything Trump has said or done to date, Republicans heads would have been exploding and impeachment proceedings underway. Remember when you guys were all upset that Obama wore that tan suit that one time? I have no idea where you get your information from, but I find your posts to be almost completely detached from reality.

 

[SugarOcean]

That's why a black man was elected twice to serve as President.
No, black has nothing to do with it. What can't be tolerated is a traitor who , along with his deplorable wife, hated America and who also just happened to be black.

Of course that last part is crap. The collusion with Russia occurred under Obama and Hillary.

Re: the funny rating on that post.
Treason, Espionage, and Sedition, are not funny.

• FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

• Five things to know about Fusion GPS

• https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/25/top-10-things-to-know-about-dossier/​

 

[SugarOcean]

Um, what?

Trump plays the victim card on a regular basis, all while making racist and hateful statements about others.

Trump has never made a racist statement. Trump is not a racist.
"Illegals" , aren't a race.

Telling hate filled women representatives to go back to where they came from isn't racism.
People jump on that claiming it is. "All but one was born here!" , they yell. Where those three women came from was home. Their home states.They openly demonstrate in their public speaking contempt for America and hate for Jews.

In Antisemite, anti-Christian Omar's case as far as I'm concerned can return to where she came from;Somalia.
Naturalized citizen? Not a chance. When she took the oath, when she demonstrates in her public appearances speaking to terrorist sympathizer Muslim groups that she's a radical, her oath as a citizen was invalid according to Islam's own Qur'an.
Her oath and service is first and foremost to Allah. Making her oath when she became a citizen, under fraudulent circumstances being investigated currently, and the oath of office, they were meaningless and a display. Her allegiance and her only oath responsibility is in service to Allah.

What crimes did Obama commit? What treason? What racism? What on earth are you talking about? Are you sure you're not confusing him with Trump? Because if Obama had said or done just about anything Trump has said or done to date, Republicans heads would have been exploding and impeachment proceedings underway. Remember when you guys were all upset that Obama wore that tan suit that one time? I have no idea where you get your information from, but I find your posts to be almost completely detached from reality.

For eight years there was reported evidence of the last part of your post and concerning Obama and Hillary. What am I talking about? Where have you been?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's why a black man was elected twice to serve as President.
No, black has nothing to do with it. What can't be tolerated is a traitor who , along with his deplorable wife, hated America and who also just happened to be black.

Of course that last part is crap. The collusion with Russia occurred under Obama and Hillary.

So Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia to lose the election? And Obama is a traitor? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Did you just totally ignore the Mueller Report and all the data from all intelligence agencies?

 

[SugarOcean]

So Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia to lose the election? And Obama is a traitor? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Did you just totally ignore the Mueller Report and all the data from all intelligence agencies?

Wow, I said all that? Hmmm. No.

 

[shmogie]

Of course bullets would be flying everywhere. Are you under the impression that all gun owners are crack shots? Hell, police officers only hit their target something like 35% of the time.

More guns = safer, doesn't pan out in reality. More bullets flying equals more chance of them hitting something or someone.

So, as I said eliminate the risk of a defender perhaps hitting someone by accident, for the certainty that a murderer will have no distraction or impediment in his slaughter. Critical thinking that is not.

Where did you get the 35% number ? I doubt it very much.

You imply that bullets will be flying all over the place. Have you ever fired a gun ? Have you ever seen how a crowd reacts to a situation like this ?

Very quickly it is not hard to identify the shooter simply by the reaction of the crowd, he has an ever widening zone of empty space around him as people flee.

Anyone carrying a pistol, as I do when I leave home, has from 5 to 15 rounds to immediately react with. One aims the firearm in the direction of the target, and tries to exert discipline in firing. Sure, misses will occur, but bullets are not flying all over the place. One husbands ammunition, to engage and spray and pray means you miss and get killed .

 

[siti]

It begins with the Declaration of Independence. The guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which the last part, happiness, was formerly, pursuit of property.
..."self-governing individuals should bear the responsibility for defending themselves."
Self-Government and the Unalienable Right to Self-Defense


The second Amendment does not give American's the right to bear arms.

The second Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We are already empowered to bear arms. The second amendment guarantees that right cannot be infringed.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Constitution does not empower the government. The Constitution is a Federal law document that protects we the people.And insures our rights from the government trespass and infringement of them.
The U.S Constitution creates a national government and limits and enumerates that governments powers.

What an utterly confused interpretation of your country's founding documents. Nobody wants to deny the rights of the people to bear arms in defense of the security of the state - your armed forces are there for that reason - a "well-regulated militia" - what some people are suggesting is that perhaps the right of individuals to carry lethal weapons into schools and workplaces and blast some people to kingdom come because they are pissed off about something really ought to be infringed. If you want to bear arms in defense of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, join the army - nobody's stopping you.

 

[Rise]

Yes...
But here it is almost impossible 19 year old people can own a firearm

So, wait... you're telling me more restrictive gun laws upon law abiding citizens don't actually stop mass shootings?

The ban on people under 21 owning guns should have solved this.

And if that didn't, California having a ban on so-called "assault rifles" was suppose to solve all this.

And if that doesn't work, why the hell didn't the fact that the Garlic Festival was a gun free zone stop him?

It's almost as if this criminal has no regard for the law.

 

[SugarOcean]

What an utterly confused interpretation of your country's founding documents. Nobody wants to deny the rights of the people to bear arms in defense of the security of the state - your armed forces are there for that reason - a "well-regulated militia" - what some people are suggesting is that perhaps the right of individuals to carry lethal weapons into schools and workplaces and blast some people to kingdom come because they are pissed off about something really ought to be infringed. If you want to bear arms in defense of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, join the army - nobody's stopping you.

OMG, you call my interpretation confused? And then post that?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So, wait... you're telling me more restrictive gun laws upon law abiding citizens don't actually stop mass shootings?

They sure seem to in every other developed nation on the planet.