Jump to content

Church Shooting


Recommended Posts

And Dave in Norfolk is no longer the biggest racist. The hits just keep on coming with this guy.

Dave in Norfolk? Dave in Elma was the one you guys lamb basted as a racist. I usually stuck up for the guy since few or none of his posts were individually racist, but after the first hundred or so referring to blacks I figured out that there had to be an agenda there. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dave in Norfolk? Dave in Elma was the one you guys lamb basted as a racist. I usually stuck up for the guy since few or none of his posts were individually racist, but after the first hundred or so referring to blacks I figured out that there had to be an agenda there. :D

Yup, it was definitely the Elma dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF? Peter Pan links are one thing but tricking someone into clicking on that?

 

 

Tweet analysis:

 

First, my feelings,.

 

Second, my agenda.

 

Third, oh right, the victims.

 

 

How very Hillary

 

 

You left out the cutesy signature which favors hipness over sincerity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama’s Political Two-for-One: Using a Black Racist’s Murders to Blame Guns and Minimize the Terror Threat
by David French
Earlier today I was urging caution in ascribing racial motives to the Virginia shooting. While there’s certainly evidence the shooter was deeply disturbed, the evidence is now overwhelming that this shooting was in large part about race. The shooter wanted vengeance for Charleston, he wanted a “race war,” and he was known for angry, unfounded accusations of racial persecution:
’Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…’ ’
What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.’
’As for Dylann Roof? You [redacted]! You want a race war [redacted]? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …[redacted]!!!” . . .
He goes on to say that he has faced both racial and sexual discrimination as a black, gay man and that he was just waiting to explode.
So, how does the President of the United States respond? It’s the guns of course, and the guns are worse than terrorists. No, I’m not making this up:
His quote: “It breaks my heart every time you read about or hear about these kinds of incidents,” Obama said. “What we know, is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.”
So now we’re using domestic racial violence to not just bolster the case for gun control but also to diminish the threat of international terrorism? This statement is almost beyond belief — even for Obama. Look for the shooting to trigger another round of gun control proposals, none of which would have stopped this crime.
As for terrorism? The hundreds of thousands of victims of jihadist violence since 2009 could not be reached for comment. Nor could the recently-gassed Kurds. Nor could the young Yazidi sex slaves. Nor could Iranian nuclear scientists. They’re too busy trying to engineer the apocalypse.

 

 

 

 

The Virginia Shooter Passed a Background Check
by Charles C. W. Cooke
Buzzfeed confirms that the shooter passed a background check:
Thomas Faison, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told BuzzFeed News Wednesday that investigators had recovered a Glock 19 pistol that belonged to Flanagan. Faison said the gun had been purchased “weeks ago,” and that he had apparently passed a required background check.
They pretty much always do.
Why does this matter? Well, because Terry McAuliffe today suggested that this incident showed the need for background checks on private sales. Because Hillary Clinton said that we need to “do something” — most likely extend the background check system. Because the White House once again proposed “sensible” gun control. Because a host of instant experts on social media suggested that if we Second Amendment advocates would get on board with reform, this could have been prevented.
And what do these people want, when pushed? They want an “assault weapons” ban; they want a magazine-size limit; and they want background checks on private sales. And, clearly, they are quite happy to point to this incident in order to make their case. But, as we now know, this shooting has nothing to do with any of these things. The killer used a Glock 19 handgun, which is not an “assault weapon” in any universe. He fired eight shots in total. And he bought his gun legally from a dealer. In other words, he did nothing that even intersects with their coveted laws. Once again, one gets the horrible impression that the gun-control movement is in possession of a laundry list of desires, and that they bring it out whenever anything bad happens, relevance be damned . . .

 

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave in Norfolk? Dave in Elma was the one you guys lamb basted as a racist. I usually stuck up for the guy since few or none of his posts were individually racist, but after the first hundred or so referring to blacks I figured out that there had to be an agenda there. :D

You're right. Apologies to Dave in Norfolk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not racism! lol

 

We need to de-power that word. I'm happy to be called a racist.

 

I hope one day we can have a world where a white man can approach a black guy on the streets and call him a nagger, and the black guy will reply with "hey, you honkey," and then they high-five before separating to go to work as small business owners that create jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not racism! lol

 

We need to de-power that word. I'm happy to be called a racist.

 

I hope one day we can have a world where a white man can approach a black guy on the streets and call him a nagger, and the black guy will reply with "hey, you honkey," and then they high-five before separating to go to work as small business owners that create jobs.

 

Just !@#$ing stop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not racism! lol

 

We need to de-power that word. I'm happy to be called a racist.

 

I hope one day we can have a world where a white man can approach a black guy on the streets and call him a nagger, and the black guy will reply with "hey, you honkey," and then they high-five before separating to go to work as small business owners that create jobs.

Obviously united over stuffing millions of Latinos into ovens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not racism! lol

 

We need to de-power that word. I'm happy to be called a racist.

 

I hope one day we can have a world where a white man can approach a black guy on the streets and call him a nagger, and the black guy will reply with "hey, you honkey," and then they high-five before separating to go to work as small business owners that create jobs.

Tales from the trailer park ? How's that camo hat holding up ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yeah, the presence of a guy who will murder people on camera leads me to the conclusion I should be disarmed.



And once again, the White House implies that “gun violence” is on the increase.



It’s not. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423112/white-house-lies-about-gun-violence-again-charles-c-w-cooke …"



Yes - the rate of gun violence has gone down - From the highest in first world countries to....the highest in first world countries....



We have the most liberal gun rights around ....and with freedoms comes some ugliness....


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not racism! lol

 

We need to de-power that word. I'm happy to be called a racist.

 

I hope one day we can have a world where a white man can approach a black guy on the streets and call him a nagger, and the black guy will reply with "hey, you honkey," and then they high-five before separating to go to work as small business owners that create jobs.

ok then why censor yourself? be bold and say it.

 

We have the most liberal gun rights around ....and with freedoms comes some ugliness....

 

why do people always tend to start arguments with such an emboldened statement? there is no arguing with a person who does this, even when they are factually wrong and that's the point. when you start an argument as matter of fact and the fact is wrong the argument is then null.

 

you fail at this. but im an idiot so what do i know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...