I hear that... All you wolverines wannabes salivating at the notion of resisting... something about tyranny, left over from a time when you had no professional military... let alone one that costs more than all the welfare and education programs of the developed world combined. But be honest... why wouldn't the NRA demand the right to phase pistols? Flintlocks gave way to revolvers gave way to magazines, while lead balls did the same evolving into whatever the latest ammo thing is. So why not a concealable focused energy weapon?
It's as if you saw post 689 and slapped a 'dumb' rep on it all without reading it. I do hope my observation was wrong, and if so, demonstrated why.
He only slapped a dumb rep on it after @garamet pointed the post out to him. But if he read it, and if he is unaware of the events I describe or somehow believes the NRA should be allowed to break the law, I doubt we will ever know, especially since FF has introduced the 12 hour full reset rule.
Ok. What label would you use to describe the close causal connection between the crimes committed by the NRA and the murders that were made possible by those crimes?
Apparently what he means is that unless a member of the NRA personally accompanies the killer on his shooting spree, the information in Post #689 is a "non story."
If I'm talking to my coworker about my boss and i say, "I could just kill him" and then the next day he's found dead, but I had nothing to do with it, I'm accessory to murder?
Hmmm... A "far right political extremist" who is engaged to a Fillipino woman shoots up a Country Music concert? On the surface that doesn't make much sense to me, but I look forward to reading the article to see how they connected the dots.
There's a lot of things that don't add up, and I'm curious to see if the new article actually sheds any light or is just (as I suspect) an attention-grabber.
Is it the idea of "far right political extremist" who is engaged to a Fillipino woman that is odd? Because I know at least one guy who is ... a total right wing nutcase who is, currently married to a Mexican woman and has two kids with her. And, he was previously married to a Puerto Rican woman and had two kids with her. and for some reason, these women had stayed with him despite his less than stellar decision making abilities. It is weird, though ... I've always liked his current wife - well, his ex-wife as well, but that's another story. Anyway, his current wife was always pretty level headed. But, ... I haven't spoken much to any of them over the last ten years. My ex-husband got custody of those friends. It's just as well. They all lean right wing. Which is weird cuz my ex-husband's family is definitely left leaning. Except his dad. But, we all have shit in the woodpile somewhere. The point is, nationality of the wife and taste in music would not necessarily discount a person from being a mass murderer.
not sure what's so odd about an extremist conservative hooking up with a south Asian woman? I've known a few over the years and outside of race, it tends to be fairly "traditionalist" (likely from a few hundred years of colonialism/conversion)-either some form of evangelistic protestant or old school catholicism. Oddly enough, there was a church of christ (yeah, like Dayton) at the end of our street when I lived in the west end that was mostly Pinoy.
Nothing to do with his choice of spouse. The target selection is also puzzling, but not because it was a country music festival. I'm not saying the shooter wasn't alt-right or an extremist, but putting any kind of label on him in the absence of facts is nothing more than mere speculation.
Off the cuff, here's what we do know about the shooter: 1. He left no note or posted any manifesto that we know of. 2. The choice of venue is puzzling if he was attempting to make a political statement. 3. He was an avid poker player. 4. He owned a lot of guns, but accumulated most of them several months before the shooting. 5. His family claims he had no religious or political affiliations. I'm going to bet the "new" article is going to be rife with speculation and hearsay.
The author seems like he's trying to draw a line to his political views, particularly his strong support for the second amendment, and the shooting, but it sounds to me like he just went bat-shit crazy. There seems to be no clear line between his political views and the shooting that I can see... other than him having access to 80 weapons.
It's not that.... it's just... typically, right wing extremest who go on to commit mass murder like that tend to have a twinge of "white supremacist" to go along with it... and the choice of a country music concert with mostly white/ likely conservative fans? Why would a right wing, 2nd amendment supporting extremest shoot up an event attended by most likely right wing fans? What sort of political statement does that make?
Yeah, I realized that article is full of shit as soon as I hit the third paragraph. No new information, lots of speculation, and lots of rehashing of interviews from unreliable sources. This is shit journalism at its finest.
true I think it's more common ground on who and what they hate... like there are a couple of self proclaimed hindus who march with the anti Islam groups here. I try not to know enough about country music to recognize the left/right progressive/traditionalist dichotomies (other than Dolly being a saint). Maybe it was a Footloose sort of thing motivating him?
He had previously rented a hotel room in Chicago overlooking Grant Park during Lollapalooza. For whatever reason, he didn't carry out the attack at that point. So it was probably more of a "target of opportunity" thing rather than any specific desire to shoot country music fans.
bat shit crazy and guns is a bad mix. Hard to say which is easier to manage. The Intercept hasn't crossed my reading much. It appears a little too far left for my taste. An article about The Intercept on Politico is more interesting than The Intercept. link
They are a bit "erratic." They manage to suss out a story before the MSM picks it up often enough that I keep an eye on what they post. I don't track them too closely any more because they became erratic on international issues related to the US once they got a large infusion of cash. (If the US does something in response to the actions of another country, the Intercept doesn't ask if the US took the appropriate action, instead they claim, for a while, that the US acted without the other nation doing anything at all.) This felt like it might be a story that uncovered something new (even if it was minor), but obviously not.
