(05-16-2022 05:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 04:51 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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:  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.

His gun control screed is written as lucidly as his white nationalism screed. I guess Tanq is right - you chose to misunderstand what doesn't fit your narrative.

LOL to the bolded.

Dude, the explanation (bolded) that you provided was complete gibberish to me. Perhaps it is clear to you and others. I'm happy to say that gun control was part of his intent but I'd like to understand the mechanics behind that opinion.

You'd like to understand the writings of a mad man. Ok, one more time:
a) New York's strict gun control laws, in his mind, made it unlikely he'd encounter anyone heavily-armed enough to stop him. Here, he used the "cucked" language to mock laws like the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines. (Not my opinion, his, in case it's necessary for me to point that out.)
b) He hoped to encourage the passage of gun control laws against assault-style rifles - hence, his choice of weapon.
c) He hoped that the additional gun control laws would trigger a backlash against gun control.

Ergo, New York and an assault rifle - obviously his racial choice of victims was not part of his gun control philosophy - but surely you can understand that his multiple objectives did not require him to have multiple targets.

Clear enough?