I'll Stick to My Guns

In light of the recent gun shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvadle, Texas I will say this: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are inanimate objects - just like a car, a pencil, a knife, a baseball, a machete or a shovel. Each item mentioned can be misused against anyone or thing. Alone the object cannot cause harm unless it's a bomb which is meant to self-destruct by its very nature. 

Don't believe me? Well, you ignore reality. People don't blame guns or the lack of gun control when nations go to war. If you're in a combat position you'll either be dead via bomb or by gun. Yet there's no calls for "gun control" when it comes to war - no one's saying the soldiers should use tasers or batons. Nope. The people who despise guns are not to be found here. What they do say is that X or Y war isn't necessary. Ah ha! So you're appealing for people to not declare war or to invade a country! People! It's the people! It's the head of the government responsibility to send or not to send troops in X or Y country. 

If people are going to call for gun control if not an outright ban of guns (see: Australia, UK), then you'd have to take a good look at cars and knives - both of which have been used as a means to harm or to murder someone - or alcohol which has a long, long, long history of abuse. But nope. Brittons won't have their pubs turned into literal watering holes, now, eh? 

On the end of the spectrum I do think those who extoll the goodness of America's 2A should tactfully bring up the issues of the lack off mental health in America. We have innocent people dying at the hands of psychopaths, sociopaths and the mentally unstable. Just last year an Asian women was pushed in front of an NYC train as she waited by a mentally unstable person. There was no serious national call for better care of his kind. 

Once again, we don't have a gun issue in the States. We have a mental health issue in the states which has been going on much longer before the likes of Columbine or Sandy Hook came into the picture. In my mind it's better to attack the root cause of it, not the means of it because it simply scares you (I myself have never handled a gun - in fact I'm intimidated by a gun not shown in a picture so there's that, yet I refuse to fall for the narratives of the anti-2A types). 

We don't need Woke education to be taught in American schools. Training and resources towards it are wasted time and money. What there needs to be put in schools at least one trained individual - who is vigilant and courageous at all times - to protect the one main entrance. That's a matter of life and death - or else all those kids who were to be killed won't grow up to be the physicians, engineers, social workers, teachers, moms, dads, astronauts and welders they were meant to be. Chuck out the Wokeness (which warps and later destroys them) and put in individuals who will protect our society's most innocent population. 

I can smell a liberal a mile away.

Not really, but you get the idea.

I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter. I was on CAF earlier this morning and there was a thread about an Indianapolis 4 yr old shooting her mother and herself due to an unsecured firearm. Both are in stable condition. It's a horrific event nonetheless. But here's what the OP had to say -

Robert Sock: "When will people learn that having a gun in the house is a bad thing! Please pray for the girl and her mother."

and: " Guns scare me"

Those who are anti-gun tend to be largely scared of guns. Which side is filled with fear/phobia again?

He then says that anyone who keeps a gun due a break has mental problems: "Explore the statistics on this, what are the chances of somebody breaking into your home to do violence to you or your loved ones? Anybody who believes that the chances are great is a bit paranoid, perhaps even schizophrenic"

The poster has been like this for the entire time I stumbled upon his posts. There are others like him, but I'm not sure if he's being a troll or half-serious or actually serious. Either way he's an idiot.

Black. Gay, er, Unhappy. Gun.

You're a liability.

Don't hire a person who believes modern victimhood statuses of blacks, women and the LGBT.

Flanagan, 41, worked as a reporter at WDBJ for less than a year before he was fired in 2013 for disruptive behavior, the station manager Marks said.

Bryce Williams, real name Vester Flanagan, posted his own video of the shooting on social media, which disappeared in minutes.

Marks called Flanagan "an unhappy man" who "quickly gathered a reputation of someone who was difficult to work with."

When Flanagan was fired, he had to be escorted out of the building by police, Marks said. Shortly after that, Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint against the station.

In tweets days before the shooting, Flanagan posted pictures of himself as a child, teenager and former TV anchor. He also alluded to a modeling career and being raised as a Jehovah’s Witness.

. . . . 

You want a race war (expletive)? BRING IT ON THEN YOU WHITE...(expletive)!!!" the fax says.

Meanwhile, he praises Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, calling him "my boy" and crediting Cho for killing "NEARLY double the amount" of people as Columbine High School shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.

William also writes that he was often attacked for being a gay, black man, and says Jehovah spoke to him and told him to do the shooting.

Given what was said in the article, I don't think Jehovah spoke to him and issued him permission to kill people.

Before anything else is assumed, I can only go off what was said and reported in various articles. Williams seemed to have an inferior complex and his poor work relations with colleagues were due to this inferiority complex. His is issue with the two slain reporters had to with race: it is said that Alison Parker, the broadcaster, said something which he took offense to in the past and he and the cameraman, Adamn Ward, did not get along on an assignment.

He complained about the South Carolina shooting writing a 23 page rant, his supposed victimhood of bullying of his sexuality and his skin color. The first understandable, but he wanted an actually race war. The second and third is just par for the course when it comes to modernism and wanting to feel society is against you.

What Williams did was of person with mental issues. Him liking the dick and thinking white men hate him just added to his mental rocking.

I can see SJWs and the media pointing out the fact that he was able to purchase a gun in forms of further gun control momentum and will probably jump on the "God told me so" card to put religion in a darker skeptical light, as well as the "equality" card for LGBT.

A leftist tactic.

Using Ronald Reagan to play "gotcha."

Here are two examples. The first is on granting illegal aliens citizenship.

It's clear that many true conservatives do not support Amnesty. What does the left do to implant the "Isn't-ironic-that-your-god-Reagan-thought-differently"? Note what Reagan said in support of the Immigration Reform and Control of 1986. Fair enough. But so what. I suppose in the right's stubborn, bigoted and antiquated world view, according to the left, that those who do not support Amnesty should seriously re-think their position because their beloved Reagan had opposite feelings.

Yea, no. Reagan had his thoughts and reasons and those who do not support Amnesty have their thoughts and reasons. The non-supporters of Amnesty did not make up their stance out of a vacuum whose foundation, as the left truly believes in, is based on the lack of compassion and not respecting the dignity of the illegal alien to become a "first class citizen" (it's the same fat that underlies the social justice warrior's heart as they feverishly supported same-sex "marriage")

The second is on gun control, most particularly the ban on so-called assault weapons. Enter Pierce Morgan interviewing Ben Shapiro.

Transcript (10:12 mark) :

"Why did Ronald Reagan want these assault weapons removed?
"You know, I don't why Ronald Reagan wanted these assault weapons -- "
"You like Reagan, right?
"I like Reagan in many ways. He's not a god. I don't agree with him on everything."
"Do you agree -- "
"He also believed in the progressive tax rate. I don't believe in that."
"Did you agree with him about assault weapons?"
"Um, if, um, I believe what you're saying, sure. I don't believe ... I don't agree -- "
"Did you know his position on assault weapons were?
"I don't know what his position on assault weapons was. Why don't you tell me."
"Well let me read the letter in full. This is a letter he penned alongside President Ford and Carter in 1994 to Congress ... (reads letters - Morgan puts emphasis on "statistics prove" and the appeal of "we urge you") ... That was Ronald Reagan."
"Okay. So? I mean I can disagree with Ronald Reagan."
"You keep framing it as a left-right debate. I'm putting it to you that one of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me."
"So?"
"So it's not left or right is it?"

- Morgan says stuff about how the NRA through the years have framed it as a left vs right, the left attacking the Constitution; tells Shapiro that he arrogantly comes in and brandishes "his little book" (holds up pocket size version of Constitution); Shapiro takes offense on how Morgan calls the Constitution "little book" and reminds him that it's the Constitution, Morgan says he knows what's in the Constitution and states he's been debating this subject for many years -

Is it a debate between left vs right? Yes and no. Yes because those who tend to support the ban are on the left and those who don't support the band are on the right. The right always appeals to the 2nd Amendment being violated while the left appeals to inaccurate, skewed statistics (science and facts are on our side card) and the dead bodies of those killed by gun violence (emotional appeal). No because I'm not sure how clearer it can be stated that gun ownership, assault or not, is an actual right of the US citizen for defense (you need to be aware of US history starting from its colonization). There is no appeal to the 14th amendment as a back up.

Let me be honest: Those who do support the ban on assault guns usually come from it out of fear. The don't like how guns look (they aren't 'cute' and 'beautiful' like two people of the same-sex kissing, holding hands and both wearing wedding gowns or tuxes). They don't like the sound a gun makes. They attribute the guns with the military and the left tends to see the military as hired murderers by the rich, white 1%, sent out to invade and kill innocent civilians for oil. This is how the left usually views guns, the military and war. This is their worldview. This is not anywhere near inaccurate or exaggerated.

Note that Pierce's attempt to refute the left vs right narrative; that it is, instead preferred, a "those-who-are-civilized-not-Neanderthals" narrative. The left's tactic to remove left vs right is the same thing to cast doubt on right vs wrong, no such thing as a country's border, no such thing as a baby in resemblance of a fetus, that the connection between marriage (between two people of the opposite-sex) and child should be regulated to antiquity standing - that the child has the right to choose its own parents, preferably non-biological (in great favor same-sex guardians), as it always should've been according to one California law professor. 

Also keep in mind that what Pierce did is the same tactic the same-sex "marriage" supporters did to those who oppose same-sex "marriage." Replace Reagan with "your non-straight friends/family member/police officer/teacher." Replace "little book" with the Bible. The "I read your book" is the same thing atheists and social progressives say when dismissing any social conservative stance.

It's the same play in the same playbook just with a different issue.

Next up, abortion and transgenderism.