Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

B wrote:I'd like to see Obama withdrawal his nomination upon Hillary's election.

I feel like that'd just be extremely unprofessional and mean to Garland. We shall see.

I agree. I feel bad for wanting it.

My guess is that Obama made Garland fully aware of everything that could happen after he got nominated, including this scenario. If I were a Democrat, I would not feel bad if it happens.

BurtReynolds wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Stickman wrote:

a perfect illustration of the collective stupidity and dishonesty of our media.

It's not that unreasonable. Surveys show that most NRA members favor expanded gun control, but the fear of this kind of horsehit keeps them supporting the NRA who plays on that fear.

But they're not trying to take away Ruddo's guns...

If we take the Statue of Liberty to be a symbol of... I don't know... LIBERTY, its rather easy to see that the NRA isn't a particularly immediate threat to it (and may in fact be too protective of it), unlike the people responsible for the Hebdo attacks, the Paris attacks and now Orlando, who are diametrically opposed to it, and who are getting little to no mention by the media or the president. Drawing a cartoon of a Muslim terrorist with a gun to the Statue of Liberty's head just won't do. This is willful and calculated obfuscation and exploitation.

I don't like the NRA's scorched Earth policy of dealing with gun rights either, but this isn't a gun rights issue, and the NRA didn't kill 50 people in Orlando. The Left is dead set on ignoring this, and are willfully changing the story to suit a more convenient narrative.

I also reject the idea that Islamic terrorism is some kind of unstoppable problem and we just have to live with it, or strip American citizens of their rights in order to prevent it. Its sheer cowardice.

theplatypus wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Stickman wrote:

a perfect illustration of the collective stupidity and dishonesty of our media.

It's not that unreasonable. Surveys show that most NRA members favor expanded gun control, but the fear of this kind of horsehit keeps them supporting the NRA who plays on that fear.

But they're not trying to take away Ruddo's guns...

If we take the Statue of Liberty to be a symbol of... I don't know... LIBERTY, its rather easy to see that the NRA isn't a particularly immediate threat to it (and may in fact be too protective of it), unlike the people responsible for the Hebdo attacks, the Paris attacks and now Orlando, who are diametrically opposed to it, and who are getting little to no mention by the media or the president. Drawing a cartoon of a Muslim terrorist with a gun to the Statue of Liberty's head just won't do. This is willful and calculated obfuscation and exploitation.

I don't like the NRA's scorched Earth policy of dealing with gun rights either, but this isn't a gun rights issue, and the NRA didn't kill 50 people in Orlando. The Left is dead set on ignoring this, and are willfully changing the story to suit a more convenient narrative.

I also reject the idea that Islamic terrorism is some kind of unstoppable problem and we just have to live with it, or strip American citizens of their rights in order to prevent it. Its sheer cowardice.

I've read this post a couple times and while I agree with some points you're making (namely that the steadfast refusal to identify radical Islamic extremism as a real tangible threat helps nobody and is myopically born out of avoiding perceptions of racism and xenophobia), I also think you're either forgetting or ignoring the fact that there is a mass shooting epidemic in America that largely doesn't involve Muslims, that is exacerbated by lax gun laws, and that can be proactively improved with some minor concessions from the pro-gun side. What it comes down to for me is:
- Islamic extremism = huge fucking problem, really fucking scary
- Mass shooting pandemic = also huge fucking problem, also really fucking scary
It seems like the political cartoon above was aiming for one and not for the other, probably because of that sensitivity I mentioned earlier, but also because it seems like the issue that America could more easily act on if it really wanted to.

BurtReynolds wrote: A cartoon of an NRA member holding a gun to a lady's head as a representation of the Orlando shooting without any mention of the actual killer or his motivations is rather despicable to me. Granted, its a cartoon and not really the medium for nuance, but the Left (including most people here) seem to think the same way, so its an accurate representation of the Left's reaction. I'm not seeing much outrage toward the ideology that's more directly responsible for the shooting, but plenty towards the NRA, which is not directly responsible.

BurtReynolds wrote: I agree totally, I'm only pointing out that the way the Left is portraying similar events is purposefully misleading, to the point of willfully ignoring facts:

Charlie Hebdo : terrorism
Paris: terrorism
San Bernardino : gun issue
Orlando : gun issue

Is the Right ignoring similarities between this shooting and, say, Sandy Hook? Sure, but they can generally be counted on to do that. The Left CAN DO BETTER, or so I'm told.

b_i_revisited wrote:And it was not only a hate crime, but a hate crime motivated by religion

b_i_revisited wrote: And this same religion has repeated this same hate crime again and again and again all over the globe.

b_i_revisited wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: A cartoon of an NRA member holding a gun to a lady's head as a representation of the Orlando shooting without any mention of the actual killer or his motivations is rather despicable to me. Granted, its a cartoon and not really the medium for nuance, but the Left (including most people here) seem to think the same way, so its an accurate representation of the Left's reaction. I'm not seeing much outrage toward the ideology that's more directly responsible for the shooting, but plenty towards the NRA, which is not directly responsible.

The cartoon aside, which Platty explained well, I agree with this. IMHO, there are really three issues here that lead to your overarching issue:

1.) The ridiculous availability of high powered weapons and ammunition in the US
2.) Islamic Terrorism
3.) Homophobia / Violence against the LBGTQ community

It's easy for the Left to attack #1. You can hear it in Noah's 'NRA voice' in the video above (ironic given that he is from South Africa where there are 9.41 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year and 12.7 guns per 100 people vice the US where there are 10.2 gun deaths per 100,000 but 88.8 guns per 100 people, meaning a 700% increase in guns yielded less than a 10% increase in gun deaths. Almost like there is something else at play). Present your ideas then dismiss the pro-gun crowd with a dumb redneck voice and you dehumanize them and don't have to evaluate the merits of their ideas. Trump used this same technique against his opponents in R. primary.

The second two issues, really their combination in this unique instance, is were I am thinking your and my opinions line up. This event was not only a gun crime, it was terrorism. And it was not only terrorism, it was a hate crime targeting a specific community. A community given protected status by the Left. And it was not only a hate crime, but a hate crime motivated by religion. And this same religion has repeated this same hate crime again and again and again all over the globe. BUT, the same religion is also given protected status by the Left. So we end with a situation where two protected groups are in conflict (intersectionality is real!) and thus the Left (in it's constant denial of reality) simply tosses both out and focuses on issue #1, because to admit that Islam is intolerant of LGBTQ people, would be to force them into deciding between Islam and LGBTQ rights. And based on President Obama's response, I think we know which side they have chosen.

b_i_revisited wrote: The second two issues, really their combination in this unique instance, is were I am thinking your and my opinions line up. This event was not only a gun crime, it was terrorism. And it was not only terrorism, it was a hate crime targeting a specific community. A community given protected status by the Left. And it was not only a hate crime, but a hate crime motivated by religion. And this same religion has repeated this same hate crime again and again and again all over the globe. BUT, the same religion is also given protected status by the Left. So we end with a situation where two protected groups are in conflict (intersectionality is real!) and thus the Left (in it's constant denial of reality) simply tosses both out and focuses on issue #1, because to admit that Islam is intolerant of LGBTQ people, would be to force them into deciding between Islam and LGBTQ rights. And based on President Obama's response, I think we know which side they have chosen.

Rob wrote:Religious fundamentalism seems to be the problem, and we ought to admit that perpetual conflict in the middle east is a big part of that.

Let's be honest... Why the fuck... should anyone... have an assault rifle?"

Iholdthepain wrote:

Let's be honest... Why the fuck... should anyone... have an assault rifle?"

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Also, why isn't the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment ever talked about?

Spoiler: show

B wrote:

Rob wrote:Religious fundamentalism seems to be the problem, and we ought to admit that perpetual conflict in the middle east is a big part of that.

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Also, why isn't the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment ever talked about?

Spoiler: show

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Also, why isn't the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment ever talked about?

Antonin Scalia wrote:Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.