Why defend the school murderer?

Could you post the words of someone defending the murderer?

 

Hmmmmmm but we seem to have less trouble with our government than you lot seem to have with yours

 

It was what we call a “Furphy” or made up story

 

Damn, using fancy technical terms.

 

Why? You are the one who apparently can’t read and comprehend your own source. From Wikipedia.

Their claim of 1963 is undocumented. Documentable sources show the first actual sales on the books in 1964. If we go with Wikipedia, your source, the sporting name predates the 2009 claim by 46 years!

I’ve never seen a sale documented in 1963 but I suppose it’s possible. Wikipedia isn’t always accurate. For example it claims the military M4 inspired certain civilian models of AR-15s in 1977. Which is impossible as the M4 was developed in the 1980s and not seen in the military until 1994.

https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/u-s-a-assault-rifles/m4-m4a1-eng/


But wiki does get it pretty close on the Colt AR-15 Sporter. You just either haven’t read your own source or don’t understand it.

 

We know anti gun nuts don’t care about facts or posting accurate information. Nobody can get into trouble for that.

As I already pointed out to your countryman, the desire to violate rules is predicated on frustration with positions being founded on outright disinformation and false premises. Those of us who are knowledgeable and actually care about factual basis for beliefs and posting seem to have less desire to resort to fallacious arguments and outbursts.

When someone’s whole point of a post is based on a false premise, pointing out the false premise is not nit-picking. There seems to be a desire in the anti gun nut crowd to base all their posts and beliefs on false premises. I would think someone who claims to care at times about facts and accuracy would understand decisions based on false premises and disinformation are not helpful and can be very harmful.

Some have made claims here about analyzing information/evidence for veracity and relevance for a living. And yet when evidence conflicts with their preconceived biases on PF they abandon all desire for accuracy and factual nature of information.

Remember, monkeys pick nits for a reason—to help their compatriots and themselves live better lives. Without the behavior denigrated here the species could not survive. Likewise, some humans must ensure that public discourse and societal popular opinions remain free of the parasitic destructive effects of disinformation and false premises. When those people don’t exist in societies for one reason or another you get places like North Korea etc. where the disinformation and false premises rule a society of intellectual, technological, and social deprivation.

I’m fine with anyone calling me a monkey in this context. Honored. A monkey that picks nits is more inherently intelligent than a human who wishes to intentionally base their beliefs and actions on disinformation and false premise.

 

But it does not negate what I said.

If it means nothing, then why ask me the question. But then again, Trump is infamous for saying he knows more than the generals and that is bull.

see above

This whole subforum is political. But the point you were missing is that in your statement I specifically quoted, why else make the claim that the US Military would not stand a chance in an armed revolt? The logical conclusion would either you believe members of the US military would join and the remaining US military would be gutted or you think the armed citizenry is more capable than the military, a reference to Charles Hamilton in Gone with the Wind to Rhett Butler when the South calls for volunteers. History on one showed that did not come true, and the other is history repeating itself.

Again, you missed the point. The whole point was about military disclipline and how the generals and admirals have weeded out pretty much extremism in the ranks, which again makes reference to the assumption, by inferring, of the US military.

Nothing is out of context. You said what you said, and now you cannot back it up with the now infamous deflections on your part. Again, it goes to your premise that the US military would not stand a chance against an armed revolt. And the last time that truly happened was from 1861 to 1865.

For the most part yes. It is more than just juvenile bravado here. It is the appeal and stance that if an armed rebellion were to occur, from a conservative viewpoint, and conservatives who are the ones making this claim more and more now, they would be victorious. Again, inferring that either the US military would not act because their ranks were decimated with soldiers and airmen joining the cause or they are combat ineffective. And yes, they will shoot down civilians. It has happened before in a place called Kent State University. It almost happened on 9/11 when two fighter jets would have been given the order to shoot down flight 73. Instead, that flight crashed onto the ground because the few passengers decided to fight knowing they will die.

Yes they were. They were well trained, and orders to shoot under specific circumstances. Our missile bases and launch centers were well known in those days and they still are known even to this day. But the good news, if you want to call it that, is that Soviet/Russian ICBM have a three to four mile target range whereas ours is more like 900 yards.

If one threatens, then the next logical step is to take action. Again, going with the McVeign and Dylan Roof examples. Both threatened civil war, racial civil war because both read a book called the Turner Diaries. 3 Percenters, Stuart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers, and a whole bunch of others have threatened civil war, and with some, they thought January 6th was the launch point of that. It wasn't.

So, you were enlisted, how quaint. But again, for your father, that was very common in his day. General LeMay, if your father served in the 1940s and early 50s, or one of his successors if he served, were notorious for unannounced training or reaction missions. As soon as the Soviets blinked, bombers would go up in the air, part of them or all of them depending on what the situation was like. And once everything was clear, they would return home in that amount of time. It was so common, the locals really didn't notice at all.

BTW, as for my father, try USMC, LT, Recon. And he served in the late 50s to early 60s to give you an idea.

There is no reliable estimate that would happen. But it would depend on facts and circumstances. Those numbers would change if an armed revolt went to one of those bases and try to steal the US military equipment. When it comes to riots, which is where the US foreign policy article you are citing comes from, again, that would be facts and circumstances, and more often than not, National Guard Troops. Again, the last time was in the Civil War and by accident, in Kent University 1950s riots where 4 people were killed by gunfire. And that was because of reports of someone firing first toward the unit from the 101st. What would not happen is the US Military being given orders to fire first to clear the crowd, which is where your premise is coming from. But the riots or insurrection will be small, not large. Small means that the police would be used first, and National Guard used to control the curfews while showing law and order.

So, let's take a look at how large or small an armed revolt would take place in the US under worst-case scenario conditions. First, firearms are held by the local population. About 30% of the US population owns at least one firearm, with 3% of that group owning most of firearms. The rest of the gun owners own one. Then you have the 70% who don't even own a firearm. And no, this is not about gun banning or anything else. Just stats. So, your numbers have dwindled by 2/3 of the adults already in your scenario of those who would potentially join. In this case, the predominant group will be Republicans with some independents. However, not all Republicans will join, only those who express extreme political views for that violence to occur, assuming they own a firearm. That would mean 25% of the population who are registered Republicans potentially would join, but in reality, the actual group would be an even smaller number. We saw this on January 6th. You had over 100k who were protesting peacefully and another 1000 who were violent. That would be a good percentage comparison of who will actually join an armed revolt which is 1%. So, 1% of Republicans who hold extreme views would be the violent ones, with maybe a few independents, nationally, which would be more than enough law enforcement. And law enforcement would be local, county, and state. for instance, we have over 370 officers in Uvalde for a mass shooting by one individual with multiple police departments. And that would happen in any urban or rural area.

So, in essence, your thesis is not going to hold water here.

 

When someone doesn’t acknowledge the victims and turns the MURDERER or those of the same sexual orientation into the victims, they are in fact, defending the murderer. It’s also quite disturbing all the people on Tiktok justifying it. No one ever justifies a crazy white dude when he shoots children. Why?

When our president and other Democrat politicians defend 2 black politicians for acting like thugs, a week after a mass murder in the same city, there is a PROBLEM!!! And BTW, they barely make a peep about the mental state of this particular shooter, but blame guns instead. Not exactly screaming blame here.

When the MSM doesn’t mention how a Trans shooter killed a bunch of Christian people, A HATE CRIME, but instead talk about how the LGBT community is being terrorized that’s shifting the narrative and defending the shooter.

NO ONE in the MSM comes out and defends white straight males when they shoot up a school. NEVER!!! But they defend LGBT folks when they shoot up a school? Hello!!!!

 

So you are not going to post the words of someone defending the murderer

 

So you’re another one of those people? We can do this all day. Post the words of Trump telling people to storm the capital or commit violence? I’ll wait. Guess he’s innocent then

It’s called inconsistency in how someone treats a crime or refers to people when they commit the same crime.

By turning the murderer into a victim you’re justifying the crime. Why should the race or sexual orientation matter to Democrats? Yet it does.

 

What has Trump got to do with your claim that some were defending the murderer! Where have I said anything about the murderer? So I ask you again, post the words of someone defending the murderer

 

You mean like government forced lockdowns, dragging people to jail for not wearing a mask, taking excessive or disproportionate action against suspected lockdown violators. only allowed to leave their homes within a five kilometer radius for a limited time to buy food, needing permits to go to work, arrested a pregnant woman on incitement charges for posting a protest on Facebook, An Indigenous man riding his bike to work at about 5:30 a.m. on September 3 where Victoria police tackled, assaulted, and racially abused him. Police say the man failed to stop when asked for a permit check?

And the list goes on and on.
How is it that history proves over and over what happens when an armed population gives up their guns to their government, what the fallout is 100% of the time, but you guys just ignore it. Enjoy the continuing government tactics and human rights violations when you don't obey their commands.

 

You know we call Kool Aide “Cordial” here and we do not seem to have as many people imbibing in it as you seem to. But then if you are a Faux news viewer afraid to watch MSM because of, you know, might get infected with “Liberal” thinking then this was the sort of misinformation old Rupert was selling. Did you catch the hatchet job our ex PM Mal did on Rupert the other day - cutthroat but accurate

 

I agree, Liberal thinking is an infection but you don't get to hide behind Fox News when they don't really give a **** or talk about Australia when your own media has plenty
You mean like
WHY WE DON'T HEAD ABOUT AUSTRALIAN POLICE BRUTALITY & WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT
https://www.arc.unsw.edu.au/blitz/r...police-brutality-and-what-you-can-do-about-it
Violence and police culture in Australia
https://www.aic.gov.au/crg/reports/crg-17-92
Indigenous Deaths in Custody
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/indigenous-deaths-custody-chapter-6-police-practices
Police Brutality Escalates Under the Cover of COVID
https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/police-brutality-escalates-under-the-cover-of-covid/




You were saying something about Fox News?

 

"Believe Their Lies Or Pay The Consequences" - Tucker Carlson Blasts Trans Ideology As "Just Another Religious War"

"This is not about liberation, it’s just the opposite. It’s just another religious war, same as all the others. The people who think they’re God versus everybody else..."

'Having questioned the establishment's blockade of RFK Jr's presidential run, highlighted the military-industrial complex's reasons for destroying Trump, examined Joe Biden's dictatorship tendencies (and the bifurcated system of justice when it comes to his son), and dared to ask "why exactly are we at war with Russia?", former Fox News host Tucker Carlson likely went to '11' in the eyes of progressives in his latest 'Tucker on Twitter' episode - throwing shade at no lesser person than 'Admiral Rachel Levine' - America's first transgender health secretary (does anyone else feel like that sounds oxymoronic?).'

'“Few Americans in our history have come as far as Rick Levine. Here’s a fat guy in a Halloween costume who somehow became the federal health minister.'

'...What we have here is living proof that in this country, you really can be whatever you want to be,” Carlson said.

“If Rick Levine can become 'Admiral Rachel', why can't you be Napoleon? Or Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India? Ever see that guy’s uniform?”

'Levine’s “personal journey” is not to empower people, but rather to become more powerful', explains Carlson.

“Shut up and be proud of Admiral Rachel,” he continued.

'“She’s the one who has smashed glass ceilings, and you’ve just got some kind of weird fetish. So actually, now that we’re saying this out loud, it’s pretty clear that Rick Levine has no interest in liberating you from anything.'

'Rick from Boston is telling us he wants to be known as female Admiral Rachel Levine. Accept his lie or pay the consequences, bigot.'