• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

El Paso TX Shooting. 10+ dead.

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Define "truly horrible policies". Chicago (and the whole state of Illinois) already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. WHy do you expect that "more basic restrictions from a national level" would have any impact? This is wishful thinking, at best. Your ideas don't work and your only retort is to try your same ideas, but to make them more restrictive and to try them at a larger scale.

Recipe for disaster.
Um dude. I already explained all of this. I'm not here to play tag.

We need more gun laws at a national level.

You say that anything won't work or be practical, but I say that we have plenty of room to try had we the green light to do so.
[/QUOTE]
You haven't explained it, especially when the plain facts of the situation contradict your assertions. Ratcheting up more of the failed gun laws is a recipe for disaster, and Democrat megacities are proof of it. If we cannot effectively police cities, how are we going to police an entire country? The idea is nonsensical.
Are you serious right now?

Illinois Gun Laws:
Require license or permit to buy a firearm
Requires waiting period for buying any firearm

Chicago (Cook County) additional gun laws:
Assault weapons ban
Concealed carry permit

Bonus (but not laws):
It tried to ban handguns in city limits but that was deem unconstitutional.
It tried to ban gun shops and shooting ranges.
Ended gun registry program in the late 60s.

Once again:

Having neighnbors with weak ass laws undermines Chicago's laws (borders are permeable), and they can't keep those guns out of the city in any kind of legimiate of way.

What's more is that their laws aren’t as strict as they used to be.

The results? Chicago criminals are kept well-supplied with guns.

Considering all of this, is this proof the Chicago's laws, or that better laws won't work on a national level? Nope.

Is it proof that the states or city's regulations aren't doing any good? Nope.

So what next? We could talk about national laws. Let's look at New York and LA who have stricter laws (note I'm not exactly a fan of banning everything)
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
724
1,110
380
Not legally. You have to register that sale and transfer the title. And you have to be licensed to operate that vehicle.

Finally, please, please, please show me a car that costs $100 that you can drive away. I'll buy it.
I even found you one with racing stripes :messenger_smiling_hearts:

$300
Offer them $100-200 cash and see what happens. Enjoy that sick whip bro.

But perhaps you want something more sophisticated?

$400 Mercedes
Again, low ball them with cash.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
LOL we're not the problem it's our neighboring states

that might be the dumbest fucking argument i've ever read
Places with strict gun laws are only as strong as the places that border them.

And Chicago's laws aren't that tough now anyway. Peak/theoretical Chicago had tough laws, but that is long lost.

There's a statistic that over 60% of guns confiscated on the street in Chicago come from Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin. This makes the case for universal background checks and other such laws.
 
Last edited:

ilsayed

Member
Nov 7, 2018
172
94
180
The Left: Destroys national unity with the 1965 immigration act.
The Left: Destroys gender relations with feminism
The Left: Destroys the family unit with single motherhood via welfare policy.
The Left: Destroys religion and replaces it with dogmatic racism and sexism.
The Left: Blames the people who created the most free, fair, safe civilization on the planet for everything.
The Left: Can't be racist against whites.
The Left: Can't be sexist against men.
The Left: Attacks anything pro or neutrally white via constant calls for 'diversity.'
The Left: Attacks anything pro or neutrally male via constant calls of misogyny .
The Left: Attacks Western Civilization via constant calls for 'multiculturalism.'
The Left: Institutionalizes everything above via college, the media, Hollywood, and big tech.

The Left can't help it self now has to push harder.

The Left: Calls for open borders.
The Left: Calls for the killing of freedom of speech.
The Left: Pushes increasing levels of sexualization on children via 'L.G.B.T.' indoctrination in schools.
The Left: Harasses the religious through constant litigation that resist.
The Left: Abuses children via transgenderism medication or worse.
The Left: Constantly trying to suppress boys being boys.
The Left: Constantly putting boys on medication for being boys.
The Left: Calls for the killing of local government by trying to divert all power to the federal government.

The Left goes on and on and on. . .

People of all backgrounds become nihilistic.
People of all backgrounds start acting nihilistically.

The Left: WHOA WHOA WHOA . . . how could this happen?!!? Guess we better ban guns.
this is absolute insanity. its honestly amazing.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,048
2,630
670
Canada
In Canada we have very restrictive gun laws. You have to take an expensive gun safety course, we have two classifications of Firearms, each with their own course. Restricted and Non-Restricted. All handguns fall under Restricted. All Non-Restricted have a small magazine capacity (5). Handguns top out at 10. You are subject to rigorous background checks.

That doesn't stop criminals from saying fuck that and buying illegal guns smuggled across the border. You don't have to be just a neighboring state. If you ban guns or restrict them enough criminals will just buy guns smuggled from another country like they do here. Most gun crime in this country is committed by people using illegal guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,431
6,588
615
it is good Trump has come out in favor of doing something. both parties need to work together to put in place some safeguards. we can't stop this forever but we can minimize access to guns, at the very least we can do it smarter than we have been doing. it doesn't help anyone for Dems to instead pout and sit on their hands.

banning guns is never going to happen. best to just not entertain the idea and work on common sense solutions.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
Ok, so this isn't totally on topic with the shooting, but it kinda is. Neil Degrasse Tyson made a comment on twitter about it, people didn't like it and got outraged.

And for some reason this came up on my timeline, I don't follow this guy. But he has a lot of followers, and it annoyed me. This is exactly why you don't throw around labels at people like racist, rapist, predator, etc. It's also why you wait for the facts to come out and don't rush to judgement. NDT did nothing wrong, those "sexual assault" claims were always laughable and MeToo gone too far, and this dude with hundreds of thousands of followers is calling NDT a "sexual predator" and people are going to believe him and think he is. For no reason. All because he touched a woman's arm to look at her tattoo.

 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
Ok, so this isn't totally on topic with the shooting, but it kinda is. Neil Degrasse Tyson made a comment on twitter about it, people didn't like it and got outraged.

And for some reason this came up on my timeline, I don't follow this guy. But he has a lot of followers, and it annoyed me. This is exactly why you don't throw around labels at people like racist, rapist, predator, etc. It's also why you wait for the facts to come out and don't rush to judgement. NDT did nothing wrong, those "sexual assault" claims were always laughable and MeToo gone too far, and this dude with hundreds of thousands of followers is calling NDT a "sexual predator" and people are going to believe him and think he is. For no reason. All because he touched a woman's arm to look at her tattoo.

Neil de Grasse is 100% right.

Nobody gives a shit about other kinds of deaths (like the ones listed) because they aren't spectacular. Half of the list aren't even publicized because the government tries to keep it hush hush (doctor fuck ups and suicides).

And nobody will ever click an article because someone died from the flu.

Here's an example, which will get more clicks???

1. Farmer dies falling into wood chipper

2. Senior citizen dies from old age in nursing home

I know which story I'm clicking on.
 
Last edited:

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
1,244
1,310
445
Indeed, exploiting the genocide of 6 million people for a theatrical photo-op to score cheap political points is absolutely in poor taste.

Trying to whip out cheap "who looks the most sincere and affected" comparisons for point scoring purposes in a thread concerning a recent atrocity is absolutely in poor taste.

Every time "same energy" has been used to make cheap, low-hanging fruit associations is absolutely in poor taste.

I'm glad we agree.
I'm talking about the Obama pic
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795

Sam Harris gets into it a little bit.
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,431
6,588
615
Neil de Grasse is 100% right.

Nobody gives a shit about other kinds of deaths (like the ones listed) because they aren't spectacular. Half of the list aren't even publicized because the government tries to keep it hush hush (doctor fuck ups and suicides).

And nobody will ever click an article because someone died from the flu.

Here's an example, which will get more clicks???

1. Farmer dies falling into wood chipper

2. Senior citizen dies from old age in nursing home

I know which story I'm clicking on.
there is an average of over 3,000 deaths in road crashes per day.

however there is something to be said for understanding the social niceties and there is a time and a place for placing death in context and immediately afterwards is not the time and Twitter is as always not the place.
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,899
1,695
1,545
Montreal, Quebec
The reality is that Trump wants to increase jobs for Americans, and part of what he's done is to implement much harsher requirements for work VISAs. Ask any immigration lawyer right now how unnecessarily long and laborious the process has become. I don't think he inherently hates foreigners, he just wants to block them, at least for some time. I heard about his "immigration reform", but I also heard about his "healthcare reform", how'd that turn out?

As for the news, I did admit that was the case. I think some of your ideas are more black and white than mine, lots of all or nothing thinking. The media is partly responsible, but how can a person who promises to "lock her up", constantly trashes democrats, has people yelling "send her back" and encourages it as his rally (but later apologizes), calls people's countries shitholes, calls US cities "rat infested", not be provocative - that is just the tip of the iceberg. Let's not forget how he takes to twitter to further provoke the media and politicians to give him attention.

As for AOC, you're right, there would still be a progressive wing to the democrats, but they would not be getting this much attention (that is my hypothesis, I suppose we cannot know). And is Bernie such a horrible person for wanting some basic human needs covered like healthcare and education? He may have his math wrong on the economics but both healthcare and education are real problems in the US which Trump did nothing about despite having both congress and senate.

And as for mental health, it's not clear cut to me. What illness was this person suffering from? Anxiety, depression, perhaps schizophrenia? Are Islamic suicide bombers also all mentally ill? Or is it just that anyone who follows a religious ideology based on interpreted texts and wishful thinking suffering from mental illness, in that case I would agree with you (but we both know that's not the case). It's really easy to scapegoat "mental illness", but if you read the guy's manifesto, he knew exactly what he was doing. The thing is, ideology is extremely powerful, religion being a good example, but also political ideology like during nazi Germany leading to the extermination of millions of innocent Jews. But let's say it was mental illness as you say, how would you address it? If you want people to get mental help through the healthcare system, good luck, given how expensive and hard to access it is in the US. On the other hand, if you were willing to have anyone wanting a gun subject to a mental health evaluation and have to take some sort of test to show responsibility (eg. like they do with automobiles), then I could agree with you. I fear that for some people, they will not realize the danger of lax gun regulations until they find themselves in such a situation or lose a relative or friend. The sad part is that there is plenty of evidence gun regulation works. But then again, there is plenty of evidence other countries are paying half the cost for health care and get better results than the US, and yet politicians here get nothing done in this regard. Should we even be surprised at this point?
It's difficult to sell comprehensive immigration reform while ignoring the flow of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants across the southern border each year. The Democrats understood this a decade ago under Obama and are now trying to brush it under the rug because they don't want Trump to succeed where they failed. If there are concerns about how Trump is handling legal immigration that should be the focal point, but illegal immigration is very different and usually much more straightforward, so conflating the two makes any progress in conversations difficult. It poisons the well.

I also don't see how Trump would ever be granted a fair shake by the media. They were out to get him during the election because they wanted to see the first woman president. I'm sure you've seen the compilations of all the politicians, celebrities and journalists laughing at the idea that Trump could ever win, point being that objectivity/impartiality got tossed out the window long before he ever took office. They set the stage for this dirty game, what possible good could it do him to play nice now? Many still view him as a Russian conspirator despite the findings of the Mueller investigation. He explicitly condemned white supremacists, KKK and neo-Nazis yet the media edited his words to make it sound like he was calling them "very fine people." It's a completely lost cause.

I like Bernie more than any of the other 2020 Dem candidates, the only reason I brought up his name was to show that those pushing AOC/Justice Dems are even more driven than he was/is at achieving their common goals. Bernie still thinks he can win by playing nice and he'll lose in the primaries again because of it, whereas Saikat and co. haven't shied away from using everything at their disposal to get ahead, including the same media tricks Trump employs.

As for mental health, I used it as a broad catch-all. I don't consider someone that's entertaining the idea of killing people to be mentally healthy even though they're able to lead what appear to be normal lives on the surface. It raises a red flag. This shooter's LinkedIn profile alone would give me enough reason to want to have a long face to face talk with him if he was my son/brother/friend. There's more to it than just professional mental help and gun control because while the prevalence of serious mental illness in the US is alarming to me, so is the attempt to stop mass shooters with "sensible regulations" that most of them meet or bypass anyway.

There are a lot of potential factors that can negatively impact a person's mental health, but two that touch billions of lives and could bring forth drastic change in short order are the media platforms. Social media platforms practically reward bad/anti-social behavior, despite the general impression their suspensions might be sending. Mainstream news sources in particular, which are also tied to social media, are fueling strong, divisive opinions and the negative behavior that stems from that. Some of that could be fixed with a few simple industry-wide guidelines, like not hiring former politicians or members of a former administration as journalists for political coverage - the conflicts of interest are staggering. I could go on about this forever, but I digress.
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
There are a lot of potential factors that can negatively impact a person's mental health, but two that touch billions of lives and could bring forth drastic change in short order are the media platforms. Social media platforms practically reward bad/anti-social behavior, despite the general impression their suspensions might be sending. Mainstream news sources in particular, which are also tied to social media, are fueling strong, divisive opinions and the negative behavior that stems from that. Some of that could be fixed with a few simple industry-wide guidelines, like not hiring former politicians or members of a former administration as journalists for political coverage - the conflicts of interest are staggering. I could go on about this forever, but I digress.
I said something similar in my post #390.

There are too many people who get influenced and radicalized over the media. Most people don't and don't give a shit, but there will be ones who go nuts killing and writing manifestos.

This shit doesn't happen overnight. It happens after someone watches and reads material they hate for years and at some point it overwhelms them. Nobody buys a cache of guns and plans a killing spree from reading just one article the night before.

The problem is the media can slant stories into rating grabs. And people doing Twitter and YT videos have zero journalistic integrity as almost none them even have training. They just film themselves ranting hoping people subscribe. And the internet has so much info and can be read at any time, it's basically a forever pile of influencers.

People trying to go nuts over reading day old newspaper articles only go so far. There's only so much info in a newspaper, and not many people are going to keep piles of old newsprint. The internet is there forever to read over and over again anytime.

There's too many outlets of media to control, and any government trying to control it will lead to people saying the government is censoring people's free speech.

Isn't the US supposed to have "the best healthcare in the world" as some claim? OK, where's all the psychiatrists and meds to keep people under control?
 
Last edited:

Whataburger

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
6,424
4,855
755
I said something similar in my post #390.

There are too many people who get influenced and radicalized over the media. Most people don't and don't give a shit, but there will be ones who go nuts killing and writing manifestos.

This shit doesn't happen overnight. It happens after someone watches and reads material they hate for years and at some point it overwhelms them. Nobody buys a cache of guns and plans a killing spree from reading just one article the night before.

The problem is the media can slant stories into rating grabs. And people doing Twitter and YT videos have zero journalistic integrity as almost none them even have training. They just film themselves ranting hoping people subscribe. And the internet has so much info and can be read at any time, it's basically a forever pile of influencers.

People trying to go nuts over reading day old newspaper articles only go so far. There's only so much info in a newspaper, and not many people are going to keep piles of old newsprint. The internet is there forever to read over and over again anytime.

There's too many outlets of media to control, and any government trying to control it will lead to people saying the government is censoring people's free speech.

Isn't the US supposed to have "the best healthcare in the world" as some claim? OK, where's all the psychiatrists and meds to keep people under control?
???
Ban political talk nationwide outside selected websites
Ban Twitter and social media

There no more shootings.
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
???
Ban political talk nationwide outside selected websites
Ban Twitter and social media

There no more shootings.
Never said that.

But there's got to be something to help curb it.

If there's someone prone to being a drunk, you send him to help. And when he gets home you don't let him surround himself with cases of beer.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,110
9,372
715
I don't think all concessions necessarily lead to giving more though. I'm not saying it's a complete and total impossibility, but sometimes making a concession is just that and it does stop there. Gun control advocates can push as much as they want, it doesn't mean they'll get their way. And caving in one area doesn't mean they'll continue to get their way. There's no way a universal gun ban would ever pass in congress. I really don't believe any kind of precedent would make that realistic. Do you really think it could happen?
Yes. I mean, they'll never actually get all the guns, so we'll still have gangs, criminals, and mass murderers with guns, but yes, it's possible over generations. I mean, look how far the left has moved in just a few years, talking about open borders, full term abortions, and universal health care as human rights.

I don't want to live in a country where only criminals and the govt have guns. I believe in our right to protect ourselves. Given i don't think gun control is the answer, and, in fact, i think the answer is actually training up civilian volunteers to protect soft targets [ie, church or synagogue members get certified, etc], i do not want to move an inch in that direction.

These killings horrify all of us. But if i were ever in a situation where an active shooter put my family in threat, i would never forgive myself if i surrendered my right to protect them. That core truth is fundemental to my being.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,573
21,319
1,300
Australia
I love how Connor has flipped from most conservative GAFer to one of the most liberal. It’s highly entertaining.
 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
2,964
164
445
These killings horrify all of us. But if i were ever in a situation where an active shooter put my family in threat, i would never forgive myself if i surrendered my right to protect them. That core truth is fundemental to my being.
The irony here is that the active shooter you fear will have gotten their extremely deadly weapons (which require you to have similarly effective guns) for the same reason, to defend themselves.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
Yes. I mean, they'll never actually get all the guns, so we'll still have gangs, criminals, and mass murderers with guns, but yes, it's possible over generations. I mean, look how far the left has moved in just a few years, talking about open borders, full term abortions, and universal health care as human rights.

I don't want to live in a country where only criminals and the govt have guns. I believe in our right to protect ourselves. Given i don't think gun control is the answer, and, in fact, i think the answer is actually training up civilian volunteers to protect soft targets [ie, church or synagogue members get certified, etc], i do not want to move an inch in that direction.

These killings horrify all of us. But if i were ever in a situation where an active shooter put my family in threat, i would never forgive myself if i surrendered my right to protect them. That core truth is fundemental to my being.
That's where I'm gonna disagree. Again, not saying it's impossible, but I just don't see it. For one, I don't think a total gun ban would even remotely be feasible to carry out even if they wanted to. I actually genuinely think it could lead to a civil war. I don't mean civil war like north vs south, I just mean you have factions form that refuse to give up their guns and fight back against the government, I think it would get really ugly and really bloody. And when you think of how anything government-ran is usually horribly managed, I mean shit they couldn't even get the Obamacare website working properly so people could sign up for healthcare for months, how the hell are they going to execute a plan to acquire 350 million guns?

Maybe I'm naive, but a total ban isn't something I think would ever happen, and I'm not even sure most on the left even want a total ban. I think the farthest most on the left go is a semi-auto ban, it's really the far left that push for a total ban.

I read someone today who said they wanted a total gun ban including government and police officers. I read that and was like "ummmmm... yeah...." what are the police going to use to protect us, a batarang?
 
Last edited:

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
338
699
300
That's where I'm gonna disagree. Again, not saying it's impossible, but I just don't see it. For one, I don't think a total gun ban would even remotely be feasible to carry out even if they wanted to. I actually genuinely think it could lead to a civil war. I don't mean civil war like north vs south, I just mean you have factions form that refuse to give up their guns and fight back against the government, I think it would get really ugly and really bloody. And when you think of how anything government-ran is usually horribly managed, I mean shit they couldn't even get the Obamacare website working properly so people could sign up for healthcare for months, how the hell are they going to execute a plan to acquire 350 million guns?

Maybe I'm naive, but a total ban isn't something I think would ever happen, and I'm not even sure most on the left even want a total ban. I think the farthest most on the left go is a semi-auto ban, it's really the far left that push for a total ban.

I read someone today who said they wanted a total gun ban including government and police officers. I read that and was like "ummmmm... yeah...." what are the police going to use to protect us, a batarang?

Simple. We simply model positive behavior and encourage self correction. If that doesn't work we have police officers engage in fisticuffs with violent criminals with nothing to lose. " Diversity is our strength, unity is our power. "

 

TheExorzist

Member
Jun 17, 2006
9,416
1,057
1,350
Ok, so this isn't totally on topic with the shooting, but it kinda is. Neil Degrasse Tyson made a comment on twitter about it, people didn't like it and got outraged.

And for some reason this came up on my timeline, I don't follow this guy. But he has a lot of followers, and it annoyed me. This is exactly why you don't throw around labels at people like racist, rapist, predator, etc. It's also why you wait for the facts to come out and don't rush to judgement. NDT did nothing wrong, those "sexual assault" claims were always laughable and MeToo gone too far, and this dude with hundreds of thousands of followers is calling NDT a "sexual predator" and people are going to believe him and think he is. For no reason. All because he touched a woman's arm to look at her tattoo.

Wow, reading that Twitter comments was just sad. Reminded me once more why I usually stay away from this toxic waste dump.

NDT was a big part of why I started to love science and seeing him talked to like he's a piece of shit because of some stupid accusations from a lunatic is the saddest thing ever.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,899
1,695
1,545
Montreal, Quebec
That's where I'm gonna disagree. Again, not saying it's impossible, but I just don't see it. For one, I don't think a total gun ban would even remotely be feasible to carry out even if they wanted to. I actually genuinely think it could lead to a civil war. I don't mean civil war like north vs south, I just mean you have factions form that refuse to give up their guns and fight back against the government, I think it would get really ugly and really bloody. And when you think of how anything government-ran is usually horribly managed, I mean shit they couldn't even get the Obamacare website working properly so people could sign up for healthcare for months, how the hell are they going to execute a plan to acquire 350 million guns?

Maybe I'm naive, but a total ban isn't something I think would ever happen, and I'm not even sure most on the left even want a total ban. I think the farthest most on the left go is a semi-auto ban, it's really the far left that push for a total ban.
It's not realistic, but the worry over the slippery slope with guns is justified. A friend challenged me to find evidence supporting the idea that Democrats ever wanted to ban all guns or repeal the 2nd amendment. It didn't take long, Pelosi and Biden among them:


"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."
-Bobby Rush, Former Representative from Illinois, 1999

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose."
-Major Owens, Former Representative from New York, 1993

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
-Joe Biden, 1993

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"
-John Chafee, Former Senator from Rhode Island, 1992

If I was on the opposite side of the aisle I would require some sort of guarantee in writing and a public statement on the record before even broaching the subject with Democrats. They dug that hole, they have to get themselves out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,252
851
890
All those black White Supremacists.. so sad. God please give them Playstations

edit - I mean god take away their Playstations.
 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
All those black White Supremacists.. so sad. God please give them Playstations

edit - I mean god take away their Playstations.
Kinda tone deaf to downplay the threat of white supremacists in a thread about the 7th worst shooting in US history carried out by an explicit white supremacist.

At least use the Ohio thread lol
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,252
851
890
Kinda tone deaf to downplay the threat of white supremacists in a thread about the 7th worst shooting in US history carried out by an explicit white supremacist.

At least use the Ohio thread lol
I hope one day to reach your level of empathy. You are an example for us all. Thank you lol
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

Helios

Member
Jun 13, 2018
2,503
4,329
680
Kinda tone deaf to downplay the threat of white supremacists in a thread about the 7th worst shooting in US history carried out by an explicit white supremacist.
Kinda tone deaf to downplay all the other people that died because of mass shootings not related to white supremacy . Are they not as important?


Before anyone takes this seriously.
Issa joke
 
  • Love
Reactions: Sub_Level
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
After a person has recently advocated that "[group] need a bullet", I think it's pretty clear just how reasonable they are.

And, given they did this in a thread relating to a mass shooting, I really don't think their concerns about 'tone deaf' statements can be regarded as credible.
 
Last edited:

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,529
2,930
385
Anyone: Trump did you support white supremacists ?

Trump:

I mean he already denied that about a 100 times so its clear that no matter what some people will keep lying anyway so there is that.
But hey by your "logic" democrats are responsible for the antifa mass shooter, the congressmen shooter and the ice shooter and contrary to trump who routinly distances himself from garbage that democrat media tries to attach to him democrats didnt distance themselves from antifa over the last couple of days.
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2018
1,985
1,768
515
I mean he already denied that about a 100 times so its clear that no matter what some people will keep lying anyway so there is that.
But hey by your "logic" democrats are responsible for the antifa mass shooter, the congressmen shooter and the ice shooter and contrary to trump who routinly distances himself from garbage that democrat media tries to attach to him democrats didnt distance themselves from antifa over the last couple of days.
Friend,
We are not going to argue to fight for that fat man, but I see that as president he has not done anything good for the world.​
 

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
726
467
335
Friend,
We are not going to argue to fight for that fat man, but I see that as president he has not done anything good for the world.
He’s saving the world, or at least buying the world more time from China’s takeover of all trade. If they’ll roll their own people under tanks, where does that leave us? At least he has the guts to stand up to their antics. He ran on and was elected on an America first policy, The world can sit down and watch the ‘fat man’ do what we elected him to do. Which so far, bitching aside, they have. I suppose we’ll have to drag the world kicking and screaming through the entire process, but in the end-it’s for the best.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and Tesseract