A profound tweet I read today

a reply to: jimmyx

So you vote liberal because a liberal put your family in an internment camp....? Makes sense

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: dfnj2015
This will make you think, or not.

Brown guy kills 8 with a truck: "WALLS! BANS! BARRICADES!"

White guy kills 59 with guns: "well what can you do"

The problem is, it's completely false.

Sad how many people don't realize it.

Actually, it's embarrassing.

I swear people are more emotionally retarded now than ever before

You only see in other people what you do not like about your own character. You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character. Look in the mirror and think about it.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Islam does not command or encourage any Muslim to kill innocent non-Muslims.

It is kind of funny, though, how angry people get when innocents are killed by a terrorist, but when innocents are killed by a non-Muslim, it's "meh, stuff happens".

This is the point of the whole thread. But people just can't think about anything but through the prism of gun rights.

a reply to: imthegoat

Don't forget about spoons, baseball bats, hammers, screw drivers, oh frying pans, fast food, sugar, soda, pasta, red meat, as much as this pains me... Bacon.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: dfnj2015

The most profound tweet i have read to that was in response to a piece of paper that said: "It's okay to be white".

The profound tweets were calling it "racism" and ripping them down and saying "get the f#$% outa here".

I don't think the issue was about it being okay to be white. I think the tweet is more a commentary about people's reactions to certain events with different circumstances.

There may be truth to how people react crimes. It wasn't that long ago when we had Jim Crow laws not allowing black people to participate in jury duty. It may be racial. But regardless, the idea you can't do anything about guns is something to think about.

It's not really "people" whose reactions are biased....it is the "msm" spin/agenda that is going on. Regular people, like us here on ATS are against it all as much as the person who posted the tweet.

Maybe they are doing it that way to incite civil war, which in turn will further their agenda along more quickly.

a reply to: dfnj2015

What white guy killed 59 people?

And are you saying that the reaction would be different if it was a brown guy?


Are you saying the reaction to the NY attack would have been different if the guy was white?

And, finally, what exactly about this profound to you?


Bonus question: How old are you?

a reply to: dfnj2015

The only thing I'd add is that if someone is killing someone else, and giving a reason...then that reason is why they killed that person. So the terrorists claiming to kill in the name of Allah...that means that they are saying their religion is violent.

It is in no way improper to take their self proclamation, especially when echod by millions more, as being a factual interpretation of Islam.

I mean, i've read the Koran. Its no more or less peaceful than any other religious text i've read (they are all pretty violent, as humans are violent by nature). But its practice....speaks to what Islam actually is in reality. Because the practice is the reality.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Only wishing I could been there to shoot the guys MYSELF,since law enforcement can't do search and destroy squads,reflexively when attacked,but until I have complete data,any conclusive choices would be both premature and obviously unwise in the extreme ...
BUT YOU go ahead,you aren't a predator.

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: imthegoat

I have to step in on this one for a second.

This argument is not valid and borderline ridiculous. You cannot compare guns (especially gun violence) with automobiles and knives etc.

What were cars, trucks, knives and such manufactured for? They have their own purpose but can be used to commit acts of violence against other people. However, firearms are designed to kill. (and don't step in with "but target shooting", because that is only used to the degree of practicing your aim for live targets)

And to say "it's the shooter not the weapon" ignores the fact that it would be much more difficult for that person if he were not holding a firearm. Firearms themselves may not be causing the deaths, but they sure as f**k make it a lot easier.

And if you step in with the ignorant line of thought "i've left my gun out all night and it didn't shoot anybody", you are anthropomorphizing an inanimate object and therefore being obtuse.

It's one thing to love your guns. Hell, I love mine. But it's another thing to try and divert the attention away from the damage modern weapons can inflict. Please understand, regulation does not equal banishment.

)0( Blessed Be )0(

The argument is completely valid, actually. Guns were manufactured to kill, they're machines of war, I highly doubt anyone will argue with that, but for law abiding citizens they're also a means of protecting oneself and their family. Guns are only a problem to the liberals when they're used in heinous acts against our own civilians, and for some they're a problem because of hunting. If it weren't for idiots killing each other with them, then there wouldn't be a national debate about them being regulated or banned, correct?

Now when other items start being used for the exact same heinous acts -- how is it not relatable? If box vans were being used on a regular basis for killing people; would that spark a debate about regulation and banishment? Probably not, because like firearms, theyre also tools. Tools of a different trade, but tools nonetheless. As with hammers, knives, bathtubs, ropes, swords etc. Its not about the tool, its about the operator. Until people fully see that, and understand it, we will unfortunately be stuck on an endless rail ride on the debate train, until that train derails and causes a catastrophe.

I will gladly repeat the now cliche line; "America has a mental health problem, not a gun problem."

The underlying cause of these acts -- whether guns are involved or another tool -- is mental health. No sane person wakes up and decides to shoot, run over, stab, or blow up people. Plain and simple. Its equivalent to blaming computers for hackers.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Tanks? Missiles? Class A explosives? Where do you draw the line?

Nukes.. Let everyone have their own personal nukes. Then we can all feel safe and express ourselves when we so wish.

a reply to: purplemer

Agreed

a reply to: kaylaluv

Except it does..

I think PROFOND and tweet are QUITE misplaced here,but MY training/education are better that that of the speaker of the tweet.

a reply to: purplemer

No we won't let civilians have them or we will be forced to kill you...it's a SECRET we vets all know...seriously...BY ANY MEANS ...

a reply to: cavtrooper7


Why not. Its in the constitution. I have the right to bear arms and protect myself against the government.
If i did have them how would you kill me.. I would just nuke you. The last thing you would see would be you ashen glowing snowflakes hit the ground.

a reply to: purplemer

WE are JUST that good at it....UNLESS YOU also have a TR3B.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: dfnj2015

Tanks? Missiles? Class A explosives? Where do you draw the line?

Nukes.. Let everyone have their own personal nukes. Then we can all feel safe and express ourselves when we so wish.

Nukes are the only real defense or should I say deterrent against the government, we are seeing that play out in real time with nth Korea.