…unless, like Bricker and Okrahoma, they support your side of the argument. Then they’re just people making sensible points.
You know who’s dancing right now? These guys:
Boy, Okrahoma and Bricker, you’re quick to jump on the bandwagon of one media report being a lie. Okrah of course has the reputatioin of saying anything convenient to his political side, but Bricker if I recall generally has correctly applied the term “lies” to refer to statements that were fabricated with an intent to deceive. The quoted news report is in error, but the more likely cause is bad editing and fact-checking, and much less likely an attempt to deliberately misinform by conjuring nonsense into facts.
I would like to point out that now is also not the right time to talk about hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico. Let’s let FEMA and the National Guard do its job, and then we can discuss whether the relief efforts were successful in another four or five years. People really shouldn’t be trying to politicize the issue by saying things like “we need to do more.”
I am willing to wait. But even in the event you are right, there is no questions that the use he put it to is not protected by the Second Amendment.
I’d rather address the ignorance as it spews forth fresh. RTFirefly has no real interest in telling the truth, as his repeated posts demonstrate, but readers may be interested in facts as opposed to bullshit.
I seriously doubt either think I’m on their side. 
Most likely, I’m the only one in this thread on my side, as usual.
Sure, why not? Hopefully it won’t be too much of a hijack of the outrage aspects of the thread. 
I’m good with universal background checks across the board, and certainly with heavy restrictions on people with known mental images being able to purchase or own a firearm (though how that would work out I’m not sure…devil is in the details). I’m also good with a more national registration system for guns owned, as long as it’s not part of a wider gun grab. I’d be good with a federal level license for carrying concealed with heavier restrictions and penalties. I’m not sure how much any of this will help, but I’m good with at least trying.
But of course the guy wasn’t walking around with his rifle openly carried. So the abolition of such laws would have done no this to deter him, just like all the other gun grabbers’ strategies that disarm lawful intentioned citizens and leave criminals free to ply their criminal trade.
Not as much as you disgust me. The only fuck you give about people killed in gang-related violence in Chicago is that you can use their deaths as an excuse not to be horrified enough at mass shootings to want to do anything about gun control.
When I see even one bad editing, bad fact checking report from Newsweek that puts guns or gun rights in a mistakenly better light, I will be more inclined to accept that possibility. When each “mistake” helps the same agenda, the possibility of neutral, honest error becomes less credible.
Oh really! Guess you didn’t read up in law school on what a lie is.
If that’s the case, I apologize. That’s what I heard reported.
Well no, but so what? There are abundant ways to obtain illegal weapons.
If you learned that the reporter who wrote the article was a London-based British journalist whose beat is actually Africa and the Middle East, would that lead you to suspect:
- He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in terms of the 1994 AWB and his factual error slipped by the editors; or
- He is engaged in a political conspiracy to spread propaganda through Newsweek’s dozens and dozens of daily readers, and concocted the beginning of this Russia-RT-like propaganda campaign within hours of the tragedy occurring?
Oh, who am I kidding. The topic of guns is involved, so your feelings are more hurt than if the news story was talking about your dear mother. Of course you’re going to choose #2 until the last possible moment that you can.
I presume a society with limited access to firearms would have a lot fewer “dead African-American gang-bangers in Chicago” as well. Sorry if I failed to be pre-emptively outraged about everything you might have brought up.
Why is that important? I assume there are multiple ways he could have obtained a fully automatic weapon, and I’m not sure of the relevance of this guy’s particular means of doing so to this discussion, which is why I haven’t brought that up.
I’d damn sure like to have less blood to wallow in. That’s what I want. I’m goddamn pissed that there’s so much damn blood, but somehow it’s ‘gleefully wallowing’ to be upset about it in real time. Fuck that shit.
When the others are done sticking their head in the pig, your turn is next.
I don’t mind that in the least. You seem to be fucking disgusted about all the wrong things.
What I don’t get is Jason Aldean using the hashtag #stopthehate . Wasn’t this one lone nutter and not part of some systemic “hate”??
When you take one mistake on my part, and turn it into repeated accusations of lying, the possibility that you were doing so by neutral, honest error becomes less credible.
Your turn in the pig next.
I don’t own any guns, don’t really give a shit about guns. The people who worship the second amendment need to fix this shit. It’s your fucking problem. Clean up your own fucking mess.
Maybe it’s just me, but I prefer to reserve a bit of disgust for some deranged mook mowing down a bunch of random people from a hotel window. YMMV.
For what purpose would anyone need to own these types of weapons?
Why are people allowed to own weapons with this type of firepower?
What the fuck is wrong with this country?
- The author is careless and/or ignorant. The editors are strongly anti-gun, which animates their fact-checking decisions. An statement that supports an anti-gun agenda is not fact-checked, because it doesn’t ring false. A statement that strengthens the gun rights argument is carefully fact-checked because the editors don’t want it to be true. This means that false statements that support gun restrictions easily make it to publications, and false statements that support gun rights are reliably detected and squelched. This endemic bias is fairly characterized as “lying,” because it arises from more than neutral, honest error.
(1) “You deliberately stabbed this guy with your knife and he’s dead! What the fuck’s wrong with you?”
(2) “You deliberately beat this guy with your baseball bat and he’s dead! What the fuck’s wrong with you?”
(3) “You deliberately ran this guy over with your car and he’s dead! What the fuck’s wrong with you?”
(4) “You deliberately shot this guy with your rifle and he’s dead! Why don’t we do something about guns? What the fuck’s wrong with this country?”
Sorry, but speaking as a statistician, fuck that shit.
If you know that if you leave things unchanged, X number of people are going to do Y bad things, but you just don’t know which ones, then sure, each time there’s an individual responsible, but it’s the leaving things unchanged that leads to the sequence of individual actions.
So a sane society will try to change those things in a way that makes X and Y smaller. If a small but determined subset of our society, call it Z, manages to keep that from happening, then yeah, I’m gonna be more upset about Z than about the individual X’s.
Insights into yesterday’s X isn’t going to keep tomorrow’s X from shooting a bunch of people, so why the fuck should I care about him? If he were still alive, the criminal justice system would execute him or lock him up until he dies, and they wouldn’t need my rage to make that happen anyway.
Tomorrow’s X will have an easier time getting his hands on higher-powered guns and kill a lot of Y’s thanks to Z. I don’t know who tomorrow’s X will be. But I know Z.
Well, here is what’s knows about the deranged mook thus far:
So, we know fuck all about this crazy asshole so far. We don’t know what, if any motivation he had, where he obtained the majority of his weapons or really much of anything wrt solid information. Just that he was a fairly reclusive (seemingly) old white guy who had no contact with the police prior to this mess.