(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 inspiring resistance to gun control. Sounds kinda crazy? I think so, too.

Yeah, his manifesto is loaded with racism and anti-Semitism, but it's all crazy stuff that can't be addressed by a focus on white nationalism, unless we just start locking up haters for hating. What would be the plan? There's no target here - in the 1960's the FBI could go after groups perpetrating organized violence like the KKK, but this is just craziness looking for a cause.

Where does he say he actually wants stricter laws?

I believe he wanted to leverage the backlash from the left trying to impose stricter laws. One of his primary reasons for the attack explicitly states trying to leverage an overextension of his political enemies.

I cant believe I’ve actually read some of this manifesto because posters here continue to try and deflect of minimize what was clearly an attack by a white nationalist for white nationalist reasons.

Here is a screen shot of the “why” section. Read that and then see if you have any reason to try and say that something else is relevant when describing this sicko.

https://twitter.com/kaitain_us/status/15...bsKl_EtE2A