(05-16-2022 04:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 04:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 03:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 02:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  He says in his manifesto -- the best way to make sure that guns are prohibited is to commit an atrocity with them. He wants to demonstrate that the 'cuck laws' of NY arent good enough.

He specifically chose NY state because of their laws (in his manifesto), and he chose the Bushmaster to call even more attention to that style of firearm. Further, he chose NY because the 'cuck laws' (his verbiage) would highlight how overpowering a weapon of that style with a normal magazine would be against what the security guards are allowed to carry.

So, in the case of WN, you are stating that because he called that out in his manifesto, then WN is to blame.

But yet when it comes to the explicit reasoning (i.e. from his own statement) on his anti-gun stance, and deciding to gun down people to instigate an anti firearm backlash, and even more explicitly using an AR style weapon to highlight the backlash --- you are dismissive.

So for the item that fits your narrative you promote that in a massive way.

For the item that doesnt fit your narrative, you seemingly automatically dismiss that.

Both are using his statements, and his rationales. But one you conveniently dismiss. Funnily it happens to be the one that you dont highlight in a brilliant manner to the exclusion of everything else in this nutjob's explicit rationale.

Dude, I think he was trying to instigate a PRO gun law backlash against what he viewed as incorrect anti-gun laws and politicians.

He is calling these "cuck laws" because he disagrees with them, and therefore more people should have access to these weapons. He said that the resulting backlash of laws "that would be pushed" would help his case to gain attention for the purpose of the attack.

No one calls a gun law they agree with, you know, the stricter ones of NY, a "cuck" law if they agree with it.

He starts his gun control “rationale” by stating that New York’s strict laws will make it unlikely he’ll encounter anyone heavily-armed enough to stop him, but then goes on to explain that he hopes to inspire stricter laws against assault-style rifles, to ratchet up the gun debate by impiring resistance to gun control. Sounds kinda crazy? I think so, too.

Again... because I still can't connect the dots between whatever the bolded means and his shooting up that market I am ascribing less of his intent to the gun issue than to the white nationalism.

Probably he has a whole mish-mash of issues contributing to his intent BECAUSE HE IS A NUT.

My issue with you has nothing to do with how much of his lunatic attack was due to WN and how much gun control, and how much to ethanol, and so forth.

It goes back to this sentence:


The amount of actual violence that white nationalists participate in dwarfs that of Antifa

Dwarfs?

YOU chose to make this claim, and cannot and/or will not substantiate it.

Nobody here thinks white nationalists are good, or even rational. But there is NO comparison between the occasional isolated attack by a lone nut and the 100 days of well-organized rioting and vandalism and physical attacks and arson that you want to minimize by describing it as mostly peaceful, and by claiming it is significantly less than WN.