Obama has done it now - Nine Shot dead in church

[funinspace]

Mike Huckaloogie came out charging, and quoted Jesus his favored savior: “the time is coming when anyone who kills will be offering a service to God. They will do such things because they know the Father and me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them” and “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”, so Jesus is leading us to defend ourselves from murderers.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...e-been-prevented-if-church-members-were-armed

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Mike Huckaloogie came out charging, and quoted Jesus his favored savior: “the time is coming when anyone who kills will be offering a service to God. They will do such things because they know the Father and me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them” and “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”, so Jesus is leading us to defend ourselves from murderers.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...e-been-prevented-if-church-members-were-armed

Starnes ended the brief interview by castigating Obama for “playing politics” and “scoring cheap political points on the graves of the innocent” when he should’ve remained silent.

 

[arkirk]

Mike Huckaloogie came out charging, and quoted Jesus his favored savior: “the time is coming when anyone who kills will be offering a service to God. They will do such things because they know the Father and me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them” and “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”, so Jesus is leading us to defend ourselves from murderers.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...e-been-prevented-if-church-members-were-armed

Starnes ended the brief interview by castigating Obama for “playing politics” and “scoring cheap political points on the graves of the innocent” when he should’ve remained silent.

I remember Reagan. When he got shot, he still kept his mouth shut about the obvious....that we need to reduce the general availability of weapons that kill people. Obama did not make this murder rampage, but it was facilitated by folks like the NRA. They of course will be doing their best to make politicians respond to their wishes at this time and suggesting anything but NRA policy is not allowed.

I feel that the gun control issue is clouded with paranoia, some of which appears clearly justified, but when viewed in the round we need to put this away. We have to realize that the six gun did not conquer the west. It was law and order...as far as it went. If a person finds himself at odds with his country, he is not going to fix his differences with a gun. That is the cold reality of the matter. If a person finds his neighbor despicable, he cannot solve this problem with a gun. We need other kinds of solutions and to give the guns a rest....probably in perpetuity.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Now for anyone determined to make this incident abut anything BUT RACISM, knowing the facts of the case, ask yourself this question:

It is obvious now was wasn't necessarily so early on.

Actually, it was. The witnesses on the scene on that night were doing what they had been told to do. They were saying who did it and why. If you couldn't bring yourself to believe them, that's all on you. You may need to ask yourself another question. Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

 

[arkirk]

It is obvious now was wasn't necessarily so early on.

Actually, it was. The witnesses on the scene on that night were doing what they had been told to do. They were saying who did it and why. If you couldn't bring yourself to believe them, that's all on you. You may need to ask yourself another question. Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

Come on, Derec, this was AME. One of the founders of this church was executed in the early 1800's for opposing slavery.

 

[Ford]

It is obvious now was wasn't necessarily so early on.

Actually, it was. The witnesses on the scene on that night were doing what they had been told to do. They were saying who did it and why. If you couldn't bring yourself to believe them, that's all on you. You may need to ask yourself another question. Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

Not that I'm defending him in the least, but he's being consistent. When a white on black crime is committed, he automatically assumes the black victims are exaggerating and/or making it all about race, while the white perpetrator must be assumed to be either innocent until proven guilty and/or not motivated by race.

If this had been a case of nine black women being raped by a white guy, he'd insist the women were lying because Duke rape case, and that the white guy was being unfairly accused because political correctness.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It gets worse:

Roof, 21, has told police that he "almost didn't go through with it because everyone was so nice to him," sources told NBC News.

And yet he decided he had to "go through with his mission."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The purpose of a hate crime is to instill terror.

This doesn't sound quite right to me. What grasped my attention beyond the assumption that every such crime has the aim to instill terror is that, if there is a purpose, that instilling terror is it. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be room for hate based crimes to have no such motivation. There is also the possible conflation of effect with intent that is troublesome. If a serial sniper targets blacks only (because he hates blacks), that may very well instill fear, but if (for instance) there is intent to conceal the crimes, it seems unlikely the hate crime has the purpose of instilling fear--even if an unsuccessful concealment leads to the spread of community-wide fear.

It could very well be that I'm making a big mistake. I could be underestimating the scope of the term's meaning. There is a danger of misinterpreting multi-worded terms. The mistake often comes from the mistaken assumption that the meaning of such terms are derived by combining the meaning of the constituent words. Often times, the meaning of multi-worded terms evolve beyond their original use, and that's why it's an assumption and sometimes a mistake. Also, it could be a technical term. I don't know enough about it to make a comfortable judgement.

I don't think you're making a mistake, but rather the word "terrorism" has been rampantly misused in recent years.

To me, the prime characteristic of terrorism is the attempt to instill fear in the target population. Note that nobody actually needs to be hurt for it to be terrorism.

Consider the hypothetical announcement: "We destroyed MH370 in the name of Allah because of the blasphemous behavior of your employees. Malaysian Airlines, attire your women properly (burqas) or we will strike again."

They didn't actually harm anyone (they're taking advantage of a mystery, they didn't bomb the plane) but this will certainly instill fear.


Thus an attack not designed to instill fear (for example, the dragging death I mentioned earlier) can't be terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Murderers don't normally publicize their crimes. This guy told survivors to tell others what he did and why he did it. Klansmen and their Kin leave bodies displayed to send a message. Now there are outliers in any group, but I doubt that most or even many hate crimes are committed and then the murderers try to keep the hate a secret or to keep the target group feeling good and safe about the whole thing.

You don't need to take steps to publicize it for it to be terrorism--often the press provides all the publicity you need.

Hate crimes are committed because of the class the victim belonged to, not for gain or revenge. There is nothing about them that must be public or must be hidden.

Some hate crimes are also terrorism. Terrorism generally is a hate crime but not always--narco-terrorism has no hated group, it's just about being left alone to pursue their life of crime.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Murderers don't normally publicize their crimes. This guy told survivors to tell others what he did and why he did it. Klansmen and their Kin leave bodies displayed to send a message. Now there are outliers in any group, but I doubt that most or even many hate crimes are committed and then the murderers try to keep the hate a secret or to keep the target group feeling good and safe about the whole thing.

You don't need to take steps to publicize it for it to be terrorism--often the press provides all the publicity you need.

Hate crimes are committed because of the class the victim belonged to, not for gain or revenge. There is nothing about them that must be public or must be hidden.

Some hate crimes are also terrorism. Terrorism generally is a hate crime but not always--narco-terrorism has no hated group, it's just about being left alone to pursue their life of crime.

Loren, fall down.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This doesn't sound quite right to me. What grasped my attention beyond the assumption that every such crime has the aim to instill terror is that, if there is a purpose, that instilling terror is it. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be room for hate based crimes to have no such motivation. There is also the possible conflation of effect with intent that is troublesome. If a serial sniper targets blacks only (because he hates blacks), that may very well instill fear, but if (for instance) there is intent to conceal the crimes, it seems unlikely the hate crime has the purpose of instilling fear--even if an unsuccessful concealment leads to the spread of community-wide fear.

It could very well be that I'm making a big mistake. I could be underestimating the scope of the term's meaning. There is a danger of misinterpreting multi-worded terms. The mistake often comes from the mistaken assumption that the meaning of such terms are derived by combining the meaning of the constituent words. Often times, the meaning of multi-worded terms evolve beyond their original use, and that's why it's an assumption and sometimes a mistake. Also, it could be a technical term. I don't know enough about it to make a comfortable judgement.

I don't think you're making a mistake, but rather the word "terrorism" has been rampantly misused in recent years.

To me, the prime characteristic of terrorism is the attempt to instill fear in the target population.

True, he was only trying to be a spark to start a race war, he wasn't trying to scare anybody. So he is guilty of war crimes then, not terrorism.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Jon Stewart should know common sense was cast adrift on the good ship Gun Control after Sandy Hook. Come on, if that wasn't motivation enough, nothing is.
I hope Roof spends a good amount of time in solitary awaiting his fate. It would probably be easy enough to convince him that Obama made June 17th National Interracial Sex Day.
Here's a timely story from the Atlantic for those that think the impossible cannot be achieved: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

 

[maxparrish]

Clearly this is an opportunity for the anti-capital punishment & penal reformists to remind us that this poor lad ought to get no more than 15-25 years (max) ...you know, like in those 'progressive' countries?

Although their silence, when it comes to a mass murdering racist, is deafening.

 

[Derec]

Actually, it was. The witnesses on the scene on that night were doing what they had been told to do. They were saying who did it and why. If you couldn't bring yourself to believe them, that's all on you. You may need to ask yourself another question. Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

Those statements weren't released right away though. Or do you just have to contradict me whatever I write and can't help yourself.

 

[RavenSky]

NRA Leader Blames Senator Clemente Pinckney for the Slaughter of his own Church Members

Just when you think that NRA leaders can't sink any lower...

Gun rights activists have been out in force since the massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, once again blaming the slaughter on so-called gun-free zones, and claiming that an armed citizen could have otherwise stopped the attack. It's an argument that the gun lobby has used for many years, but on Thursday afternoon it was marked by a brazen new low with comments from Charles Cotton, a longtime board member of the National Rifle Association. Cotton wrote on a Texas gun-rights forum that slain pastor and South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney was responsible for the murders of his congregants because of his opposition to looser concealed-carry laws.

"Eight of his church members, who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church, are dead," Cotton said. "Innocent people died because of his political position on the issue."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/most-awful-reaction-charleston-mass-shooting-nra

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, it was. The witnesses on the scene on that night were doing what they had been told to do. They were saying who did it and why. If you couldn't bring yourself to believe them, that's all on you. You may need to ask yourself another question. Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

Those statements weren't released right away though. Or do you just have to contradict me whatever I write and can't help yourself.

The statements were released well before LP joined the thread.

Just when you think that NRA leaders can't sink any lower...

Gun rights activists have been out in force since the massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, once again blaming the slaughter on so-called gun-free zones, and claiming that an armed citizen could have otherwise stopped the attack. It's an argument that the gun lobby has used for many years, but on Thursday afternoon it was marked by a brazen new low with comments from Charles Cotton, a longtime board member of the National Rifle Association. Cotton wrote on a Texas gun-rights forum that slain pastor and South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney was responsible for the murders of his congregants because of his opposition to looser concealed-carry laws.

"Eight of his church members, who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church, are dead," Cotton said. "Innocent people died because of his political position on the issue."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/most-awful-reaction-charleston-mass-shooting-nra

Those people are sick. It is as if they have no sense of decency or perspective.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Actually, it was. The witnesses on the scene on that night were doing what they had been told to do. They were saying who did it and why. If you couldn't bring yourself to believe them, that's all on you. You may need to ask yourself another question. Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

Those statements weren't released right away though. Or do you just have to contradict me whatever I write and can't help yourself.

The statements were released well before LP joined the thread.

So again I ask

Derec, Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

 

[Derec]

Derec, Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

Huh?

 

[Derec]

he then took out a gun and shot 9 people to death and he reloaded five times to do it.

It might get dismissed as insensitive but I think it's a fair question: why didn't they overpower him while he was reloading?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Derec, Why can't you believe black people when they tell you their lived experiences?

Huh?

Did I stutter?

- - - Updated - - -

he then took out a gun and shot 9 people to death and he reloaded five times to do it.

It might get dismissed as insensitive but I think it's a fair question: why didn't they overpower him while he was reloading?

Why did he shoot them?