The Left politicizes him.
It’s what they do, it’s who they are. And as usual, the perp turns out to be one of them. And as a bonus, there’s this:
Beyond that, some might argue that Rodger was a prototypical liberal male, only carried to a pathological extreme. Consider the profile: socially awkward, convinced of his own brilliance but not notably successful in life, hungry for revenge against those who have done better despite their obvious inferiority, eager to gain power over others, but through political influence rather than firearms–is this not a typical liberal on Twitter, or elsewhere on the internet? Or, for that matter, in the Obama administration? Isn’t state power the legal path to the long-awaited revenge of the liberal nerds? This strikes me as a plausible suggestion.
Me, too.
I have to say, though, that it might help if we didn’t give him so much notoriety. In this case, though, it might not have mattered.
He was a “devoted liberal” because he followed one thing on YouTube? I guess the fact that I stop by this website from time to time makes me a “devoted libertarian”. Or if I follow some Republican on Twitter I’m a “devoted conservative”.
Michael Moore bringing up gun control policy might be “politicizing” the issue, but if talking about it after a mass shooting isn’t the right time to discuss it, when would be? What seems like ridiculous politicization is claiming that he’s a “devoted” whatever when there’s scant evidence that he had any kind of political leanings, and when his motives seem clearly to be that he was a misogynist nutjob.
if talking about it after a mass shooting isn’t the right time to discuss it, when would be?
Let’s see: when you have a chance to discuss the issues rationally and properly study any evidence on both sides?
But the left can’t handle that, which is why they pray for another shooting so they can exploit the dead for their political ends. They should be ashamed, but don’t even understand what the word means.
So, obviously, we should rush through new laws in the wake of a widely-publicized news event and demands that the government must ‘do something!’, because that’s worked just so well in the past.
But the left can’t handle that, which is why they pray for another shooting so they can exploit the dead for their political ends.
Nobody on the left prays for another shooting. People react because a horrible tragedy happened. We can disagree with critics on either side, but is it really necessary to reduce them to 2D charicatures?
They reduced themselves. When you act like a villainous clown, like Michael Moore is for example, don’t complain when you get called on it.
What did Moore do that was so awful? He questioned gun policy in this nation. How does that make him a villainous clown?
The sum totality of Michael Moore, his works and his pathology is what makes him a villainous clown. Blaming Americans for this shooting makes him a villainous clown. He didn’t ‘question’ anything, he made disingeunious accusations in a cheap attempt to delegitimize his opponents. He is simply waving the bloody shirt.
To copy Rusty Shackleford from Powerline: “Regarding the worthless coward punk killer in California: All the magazines the shooter used were no larger than 10 rounds. He followed all of California’s vaunted gun control laws including three background checks and three waiting periods. Laws lauded by the Brady Campaign as a model for the nation. Blaming Wayne LaPierre for killing them is even stupider for blaming Sara Brady for not saving them.”
One more background check would have made the difference.
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-has-toughest-gun-laws-in-country-study-finds-20131209-story.html
If there was a miss in Elliot Rodgers, it was that he wasn’t picked up for a fight he got into
a few weeks before. He tried to throw a couple of girls off of a ledge, if they had
arrested him then and brought him in, they could have worked him better.
Early news reports on events like this are almost always filled with errors, so anything we read today will likely be corrected in the days and weeks to come. One early report said that the killer was interviewed by police officers recently but there was nothing they could hold him for. While it sounds like a missed opportunity, the police likely saw nothing out of the ordinary.
This punk killed three men, reportedly with a knife, but all we hear about is the terrible shooting of those women. He passed three background checks when he legally purchased the guns. If he did have a history of mental illness, it wasn’t in any of the databases, perhaps because of the HIPPA laws. There is a fundamental disconnect between people’s legitimate medical privacy and the need to keep people with dangerous mental illness from legally buying guns. There’s nothing that will stop those who buy their weapons illegally.
There’s nothing that will stop those who buy their weapons illegally.
Everything I’ve read states that he bought his firearms and ammo with full compliance to the law.
Yep, in full compliance with the toughest gun laws in America, touted as a model by the Brady Campaign! He even limited himself to 10 round magazines!
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-has-toughest-gun-laws-in-country-study-finds-20131209-story.html
And yet this proved futile and a miserable failure, as myself and many other people with more than a handful of functioning brain cells predicted before they were enacted.
if Elliot Rodgers had more firepower he would have done more damage.
That he shot some people is true, but he could have gone all adam lanza
if he had more firepower.
And yet this proved futile and a miserable failure,
I would predict it was a miserable failure because we don’t test for crazy f***ers buying three handguns and 400 rounds of ammo. What was your prediction based on?
“if Elliot Rodgers had more firepower he would have done more damage.”
Nonsense.
Complete and utter nonsense. Spoken by someone who must never have seen a gun much less practices with one.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to drop an empty clip and replace it with a full one? I can do it in less than second.
In a gun free zone, there’ s plenty of time to replace clips. Tons of time. No pressure.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to drop an empty clip and replace it with a full one? I can do it in less than second.
In a gun free zone, there’ s plenty of time to replace clips. Tons of time. No pressure.
Magazines, not clips. Words mean things. Rifles like the old M-1 Garand used clips. Virtually all semiauto pistols made in the last 100 years use magazines, which, as you correctly point out, can be changed very quickly with a little practice. Even without practice, a person can change magazines in 10 seconds or less.
“Magazines, not clips. Words mean things.”
Actually in the last American Rifleman, there was an article that tried to sort out those terms and the conclusion was that clip and magazine are interchangeable as terms.
He didn’t need to replace his capacity-limited by retard-law ten round magazines, he simply brought multiple guns, which I predicted would be the obvious response to the stupid laws a long time ago.
What was your prediction based on?
The fact there is no evidence that these laws have deterred a single crime. There are either legally available work-arounds (Like the multiple gun thing) or simply obtaining what you want on the black market. In Mexico, it is virtually impossible for average citizens to own a firearm, yet Mexican Citizens have armed themselves anyways with fully-automatic foreign weapons, from the looks of the pictures, mainly Kalashnikovs from Central America.
Even with their level of poverty, they had enough money to get what they needed. The black market will ALWAYS supply the demand if there is enough money available.
Yes, that’s what the current reports are saying (assuming they’re accurate). My point is that since medical conditions are generally not reported due to restrictions like the HIPPA regulations, a background check isn’t likely to turn up anything that would disqualify someone who may be mentally ill but has not broken the law. How we resolve the legitimate need for medical privacy with the also legitimate need to keep mentally ill people from legally buying firearms is a serious issue for discussion. I have no easy answers. Do you? My other point is that even with the toughest laws in place, he was able to buy weapons legally. It often isn’t easy to know if someone is mentally ill. How can we expect store clerks to diagnose potential gun buyers based on a few minutes interaction during a sale? Finally, criminals by definition don’t obey the law. Nothing is going to stop criminals from getting guns when they want them any more than laws prevent people from selling and buying illegal drugs.
So I hear the arguments that the shooter got a weapon legally. The wonder, where any of the victims deterred from getting a weapon to defend themselves. After all, a person crazy enough to cause mass murder can do so with all sorts of weapons. For instance, this guy also used a knife. He could have run down people on the street with a car. He could have started fires. All of these methods have been used by mass murderers. But when victims have access to fire arms, the body counts tend not to go too high.
“He could have started fires”
and
“But when victims have access to fire arms, the body counts tend not to go too high.”
Hmmmm. How does that work? It is almost as if you are saying that these “fire arms” are helpful in a fire.
“I shall save you” Leland called out to the damsel in the burning warehouse. As the flames closed in, Leland heroically shoveled coal into the burner of his steam-powered mechanical fire arms and then grabbed the controls and easily lifted her out of the flames!
People trying to use stories like these as evidence of a trend fail to observe that thirty years ago, this would have been a local story and never made national news. These things have always happened, they did not get the 24 hour newscycle, however.
Of course the Lib Dem Soccie’s know full well that the gun control laws they like to put forth will not stop events such as these. That’s the way they like it.
The objective is to take guns away from law abiding citizens. So after a tragedy, there are calls for new gun control laws which only inhibit law abiding citizens. When the next event occurs – and they know it will because they did nothing to prevent them – they click the next pawl in the ratchet with NEW gun control laws ….laws with also will not stop the events.
Neat plan huh?
I’m still waiting for some “liberal” (and by “liberal” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-lusting State-fellator”) to explain to me why A attacking* B gives C the right to attack D. (“A” being the shooter, “B” being his victims, “C” being the “liberal” Hive , and ‘D’ being your average peaceful gun-owner.) So far, nada. But remember we’re dealing with “liberals” who value their feelings over logic, and whose approach to life can be summarized by the satiric poster (shown on either the Looking Spoon or IMAO blogs) of some leftover hippie-chick at a protest and the caption, “My feelings overrule your rights.”
*attack/attacking= initiate force or the threat of force against
The problem with the idiots who back most gun control measures is they are always trying to stop the people who are not causing the problem.