Racist Terrorist kills 9 black worshippers :(

[Adramelek]

I can't help but feel this is a microcosm of about 90% of history. Pale mother****er shows up, they shrug and say "come on bro, we got food", and it all ends with most of them dead and the pasty-white guy sitting on a throne of corpses, sipping bourbon while the survivors have been re-purposed into farm equipment.

Hmm, an interesting take Nietzsche. If you ask me, this Roof guy should fry while sitting on the seat of "Ol Sparky".

 

[Father Heathen]

The kid looks strait up inbred. Probably from a whole family of kooky backwater racists. The fact that he thought murdering innocent people in a church would somehow trigger a "race war" shows a combination of mental illness and low intelligence.

Also, the bowl cut appears to be a trend among crazed gunmen.

 

[Father Heathen]

No doubt it'll be exploited over and over to promote gun control. This always happen when some gun related tragedy happens and some politicians will say "See?! If it wasn't for guns, he wouldn't have hurt those people!" It's just an excuse to promote their agenda. And it's rather pathetic that ignorant masses will see this and act as if one person represents an entire group of people. One crazy white doesn't represent an entire group of people. That goes for blacks and asians, too. Stay united no matter what. We're going to need to stay united for the future.

Guns cause racism and mental illness.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Guns cause racism and mental illness.

I assume you're joking. Or at least hope you're joking.

 

[Nietzsche]

No doubt it'll be exploited over and over to promote gun control. This always happen when some gun related tragedy happens and some politicians will say "See?! If it wasn't for guns, he wouldn't have hurt those people!" It's just an excuse to promote their agenda. And it's rather pathetic that ignorant masses will see this and act as if one person represents an entire group of people. One crazy white doesn't represent an entire group of people. That goes for blacks and asians, too. Stay united no matter what. We're going to need to stay united for the future.

Question; how many shootings have we had this year alone? And of those how many could've been prevented if we had required mental-health checks to buy a gun?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Question; how many shootings have we had this year alone? And of those how many could've been prevented if we had required mental-health checks to buy a gun?

Mental health checks mean nothing. All it is is another hoop that civilians have to jump through to get a gun. If a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it or use other weapons. I don't know if it's news to you, but criminals don't follow the law. That's why they are criminals to begin with, so they will get it through illegal means. Have people never heard of the black market? If somebody in that church carried some weapon there'd be less deaths or no deaths perhaps.

Gun control is people control. Always has been.

 

[Nietzsche]

Mental health checks mean nothing. All it is is another hoop that civilians have to jump through to get a gun. If a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it or use other weapons. I don't know if it's news to you, but criminals don't follow the law. That's why they are criminals to begin with, so they will get it through illegal means. Have people never heard of the black market? If somebody in that church carried some weapon there'd be less deaths or no deaths perhaps.

So why doesn't Europe, Japan or Canada have problems like these..?

Gun control is people control. Always has been.

Right, of course it is. See, I like guns. I own several. But I also understand that, you know, the "Right to bear arms" thing was put in place when 3(aimed) shots a minute was considered an almost super-human feat of gunnery.

 

[leibowde84]

It's worse than that.......
Roof is an avowed atheist.
Some RF members absolutely refuse to recognise that atheists could be violent against religions, churches etc.
I keep telling these denialists 'don't hold your breath'...........

That is a straw man, to say the least. RF members often refuse to recognize that atheists commit violent acts in the name of atheism, as many other religious people do the same in the name of their religion. This is certainly NOT an example of an atheist committing an act of terrorism in the name of atheism, as Roof explicitly stated that it was done because of race.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

So why doesn't Europe, Japan or Canada have problems like these..?


Right, of course it is. See, I like guns. I own several. But I also understand that, you know, the "Right to bear arms" thing was put in place when 3(aimed) shots a minute was considered an almost super-human feat of gunnery.

You don't seriously believe that the Founding Fathers didn't consider that guns would become advanced in the future, do you? They were intelligent, some were inventors, like Franklin, so they knew, and they knew that arming the population was to prevent them from being taken over from the government. It's pretty easy to control a population when they have little weapons to fight with, doesn't it? Why do you think so many fascist and communist governments supported such acts? For fun?

Europe, Japan and Canada isn't flooded with illegal immigrants, which is where a lot, but not all crime is connected to. Lots of druglords came through and lots of gangs will have illegal immigrants. That's just part of the reason why they have much gun violence in America.

 

[leibowde84]

Wow

We are witnessing more atheist inspired terrorism.
Iam afraid that Atheist Terrorism will provoke world war 3.

Atheistic Terrorism is terrorism done in the name of atheism. Since, this specific violence was done explicitly in the name of racism, it cannot be accurately defined as "atheistic terrorism" or even brought about by atheism, as there has not been any evidence pointing to this assumption.

Where did you hear that the violence was done "in the name of atheism" or that it was "inspired by atheism"? If so, can you provide it please?

 

[leibowde84]

You don't seriously believe that the Founding Fathers didn't consider that guns would become advanced in the future, do you? They were intelligent, some were inventors, like Franklin, so they knew, and they knew that arming the population was to prevent them from being taken over from the government. It's pretty easy to control a population when they have little weapons to fight with, doesn't it? Why do you think so many fascist and communist governments supported such acts? For fun?

Europe, Japan and Canada isn't flooded with illegal immigrants, which is where a lot, but not all crime is connected to. Lots of druglords came through and lots of gangs will have illegal immigrants. That's just part of the reason why they have much gun violence in America.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How do you reconcile the 2nd amendment's dependence on the "necessity of a well-regulated Militia" with anyone's thinking that they have a right to have personal weapons in their home?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How do you reconcile the 2nd amendment's dependence on the "necessity of a well-regulated Militia" with anyone's thinking that they have a right to have personal weapons in their home?

I've already seen people debate that and it doesn't work. It said that a well regulated militia is necessary, and it's the right of the PEOPLE to own it, not just the right of the militia. Plus there's numerous quotes of early American leaders saying specifically that disarming the entire POPULATION is dangerous and they should have a right to own a gun to prevent them from being taken over. Not to mention there were plenty of non militia folk that owned guns. You didn't see the government try to take them away, did you?

It's more often than not a trick for gun control advocates to use as a justification to disarm the population. It should never be illegal for a person who wishes to defend themselves and others. How many people at that church would have been attacked if at least one had a weapon? How many people would you see in the street getting mugged if people in big cities were allowed to carry a gun? A criminal is going to prey on the weak and defenseless first. They are going to rob a house with an owner who doesn't have a gun as opposed to an owner who does keep a gun. It's just common sense.

 

[Kirran]

A very sad occasion. White nationalism is a toxic ideology. My support is behind those brave people refusing to be divided by this.

Hats off to the son of one of the victims, who said 'We've forgiven him already'. Such kindness in the world

 

[Nietzsche]

You don't seriously believe that the Founding Fathers didn't consider that guns would become advanced in the future, do you? They were intelligent, some were inventors, like Franklin, so they knew, and they knew that arming the population was to prevent them from being taken over from the government.

I'm sorry, but you got any proof of that? Acknowledging gun technology would inevitably advance does not equal foreseeing machine-guns and rifles that can kill a man from a mile away.

It's pretty easy to control a population when they have little weapons to fight with, doesn't it? Why do you think so many fascist and communist governments supported such acts? For fun?

When the Nazis came into power they lowered the age which one could purchase a gun from 20 to 18 and removed ALL restrictions to the purchase & carry of long-guns and, as well as the ability to purchase any ammunition. Only Jews, criminals & other "Undesirable" groups in society couldn't own a gun. But the average German? Could buy any gun they wanted. The only in place(which had been in place long, long long before the Nazis started running things and thus were simply laws that were there) were in regards to handguns, and even then getting a permit to own a pistol, if you were a German national, was trivial. In fact, if you were a member of the NSDAP(which had a membership of around eight million) you didn't need any sort of permit whatsoever.

As for Fascist Itly, Stalin's Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba...they didn't ban guns either. In the case of the Soviet Union & Russia, gunlaws had been in a state of flux for centuries, and Stalin was merely continuing the laws that had been in place since before he was born. Pol Pot didn't ban guns either, he banned Vietmanese weapons' traders, this despite the fact his own army was short on guns. Castro's Cuba? Only rifles were regulated. Handguns? Nope. Castro supported the right to bear arms. How do you think he won his revolution?

Got any more historical fallacies I can wreck for you?

Europe, Japan and Canada isn't flooded with illegal immigrants, which is where a lot, but not all crime is connected to. Lots of druglords came through and lots of gangs will have illegal immigrants. That's just part of the reason why they have much gun violence in America.

Ahhhh, and here's the crux of the argument. "It's the ferriners' who're the problem, not us red-blooded white muricans!".

 

[Wirey]

Terrorism is a political strategy
What was the political agenda being promoted by this act of terrorism?

Racial segregation.

 

[Wirey]

Europe, Japan and Canada isn't flooded with illegal immigrants, which is where a lot, but not all crime is connected to.

Have you seen any of the European migrant stories lately? Or how many people are sneaking into Canada from the Philippines and Southeast Asia for work?

 

[Nietzsche]

Have you seen any of the European migrant stories lately? Or how many people are sneaking into Canada from the Philippines and Southeast Asia for work?

..ssshh...Don't overload him with facts now.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I'm sorry, but you got any proof of that? Acknowledging gun technology would inevitably advance does not equal foreseeing machine-guns and rifles that can kill a man from a mile away.


When the Nazis came into power they lowered the age which one could purchase a gun from 20 to 18 and removed ALL restrictions to the purchase & carry of long-guns and, as well as the ability to purchase any ammunition. Only Jews, criminals & other "Undesirable" groups in society couldn't own a gun. But the average German? Could buy any gun they wanted. The only in place(which had been in place long, long long before the Nazis started running things and thus were simply laws that were there) were in regards to handguns, and even then getting a permit to own a pistol, if you were a German national, was trivial. In fact, if you were a member of the NSDAP(which had a membership of around eight million) you didn't need any sort of permit whatsoever.

As for Fascist Itly, Stalin's Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba...they didn't ban guns either. In the case of the Soviet Union & Russia, gunlaws had been in a state of flux for centuries, and Stalin was merely continuing the laws that had been in place since before he was born. Pol Pot didn't ban guns either, he banned Vietmanese weapons' traders, this despite the fact his own army was short on guns. Castro's Cuba? Only rifles were regulated. Handguns? Nope. Castro supported the right to bear arms. How do you think he won his revolution?

Got any more historical fallacies I can wreck for you?


Ahhhh, and here's the crux of the argument. "It's the ferriners' who're the problem, not us red-blooded white muricans!".

So because Stalin was continuing it, that makes it ok? What are you on? He had an opportunity to change such laws.

Nevertheless majority of them were disarmed and were at his mercy. They would have had an easier time fighting them off if they had guns or something. Not every single communist nation will have a disarmed population but it's quite common to have them disarmed or at least have heavy restrictions. It's still around these days. Do you see many armed North Koreans around? I sure don't, and that's been going on for years.

Of COURSE the average German would have an easier time owning a gun. They weren't the main target, it was the Jews and other undesirables that they wanted to go after. Once they were disarmed, it didn't take too much effort to imprisoned them in those camps now did it? This is common sense for a totalitarian government. Disarm your enemies that take over. It's not difficult to comprehend here.

It doesn't take proof to know that the Founding Fathers, many of them being believers of science, could foresee that guns would advance. They weren't stupid. They knew it. It was the right to bear ARMS, not just guns. That means weapons in general, guns, swords, nunchucks, you name it.

A lot of the gang members are illegal immigrants and are involved in some crime. There's a lot of them, they end up living in poor conditions, and it isn't difficult to understand that poverty, more often than not, breeds crime, especially with a lack of education. They end up turning to crime and gangs and drugs. A lot of the gang ridden areas come from poor neighborhoods. Poverty breeds crime and surprise surprise, many illegal immigrants are poor. Do you see the puzzle pieces coming together?

I could give you more historical stuff but it'd be nothing you'd comprehend, let alone debate.

 

[leibowde84]

I've already seen people debate that and it doesn't work. It said that a well regulated militia is necessary, and it's the right of the PEOPLE to own it, not just the right of the militia. Plus there's numerous quotes of early American leaders saying specifically that disarming the entire POPULATION is dangerous and they should have a right to own a gun to prevent them from being taken over. Not to mention there were plenty of non militia folk that owned guns. You didn't see the government try to take them away, did you?

It's more often than not a trick for gun control advocates to use as a justification to disarm the population. It should never be illegal for a person who wishes to defend themselves and others. How many people at that church would have been attacked if at least one had a weapon? How many people would you see in the street getting mugged if people in big cities were allowed to carry a gun? A criminal is going to prey on the weak and defenseless first. They are going to rob a house with an owner who doesn't have a gun as opposed to an owner who does keep a gun. It's just common sense.

I did not say I was against gun ownership. I just asked why you thought the first clause was included. Where does it say anything about militias being owned at all?

 

[Nietzsche]

So because Stalin was continuing it, that makes it ok? What are you on? He had an opportunity to change such laws.

No, I'm pointing out that he didn't ban anything. I am pointing out that the Communist & Fascist movements rarely, if ever, banned fire arms.

Nevertheless majority of them were disarmed and were at his mercy. They would have had an easier time fighting them off if they had guns or something. Not every single communist nation will have a disarmed population but it's quite common to have them disarmed or at least have heavy restrictions. It's still around these days. Do you see many armed North Koreans around? I sure don't, and that's been going on for years.

I think the crushing poverty has more to do with a lack of NK guns than anything else..

Of COURSE the average German would have an easier time owning a gun. They weren't the main target, it was the Jews and other undesirables that they wanted to go after. Once they were disarmed, it didn't take too much effort to imprisoned them in those camps now did it?

Right, because clearly the Nazis were stopped in their tracks by the well-armed German-Communist organizations and saved Germany from 12 years of...

Oooh. Wait..

Yeah. Their guns did nothing. Nor did the guns of the various Jewish groups in Occupied Europe, the Jews of Warsaw in particular.

This is common sense for a totalitarian government. Disarm your enemies that take over. It's not difficult to comprehend here.

But that hasn't happened, anywhere. An armed populace has never even mildly inconvenienced a totalitarian system. This argument that somehow a bunch of untrained, gun-toting miltiamen could successfully resist any government anywhere is pure fantasy. And no, the American Revolution isn't an example, because the militia were used to augment the actual soldiers fighting the Loyalists, not as a force themselves.

It doesn't take proof to know that the Founding Fathers, many of them being believers of science, could foresee that guns would advance. They weren't stupid. They knew it. It was the right to bear ARMS, not just guns. That means weapons in general, guns, swords, nunchucks, you name it.

I assume then you're alright with private citizens owning MLRSs', tanks, suitcase nukes, ect? Those are 'arms' too, and as you stated, it says right to bear arms.

A lot of the gang members are illegal immigrants and are involved in some crime. There's a lot of them, they end up living in poor conditions, and it isn't difficult to understand that poverty, more often than not, breeds crime, especially with a lack of education. They end up turning to crime and gangs and drugs. A lot of the gang ridden areas come from poor neighborhoods. Poverty breeds crime and surprise surprise, many illegal immigrants are poor. Do you see the puzzle pieces coming together?

Tell me, how often has some random schmoe with a gun ever put an end to someone shooting people in public? Not Police, not a soldier, off-duty or otherwise. Just some guy with a gun.

I could give you more historical stuff but it'd be nothing you'd comprehend, let alone debate.

You just claimed that the Nazis, Fascists & Bolsheviks disarmed their populaces. They didn't. Either they loosened gun laws(Germany) or the populace didn't have much in the way of guns to begin with(Russia/Soviet Union). You're the one making baseless, ignorant claims about history.