[aurinku]

how sad.. that young lady was only in her early 20s too.... goes to show how quickly life can change in the blink of an eye

[ECfromDC]

I knew I could find the 2nd video here (boooo Liveleak). This is sad sad sad tho :/.

[AmericanIllusions]

News is shit anyways. Corporate controlled Hate Fuel. Good riddance

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by shoottokill ↗

If you live in the U.S. he is your president. Simple as that...take that fact and swallow it, because it's a reality. the 2nd amendment is outdated and was meant for the time period during which it was written. hard line republicans and gun fanatics of course disagree. the right of people to bear arms should be infringed. especially if they are incompetent, or unstable, or have a criminal background, etc etc. I dont see a problem with ordinary Americans (who meet the standard) who have guns for self defense, since they are afraid or for target practice..since they wanna shoot deer etc(i have an issue with that, but that's another matter). simply put guns kill lives...the less guns, the better.
tell me since you created this scenario...would you shoot at a U.S. soldier who was ordered to take your weapon from your home?

See what I mean about falling on deaf ears? You still want to blame an inanimate object rather than the perpetrator of the crime. I, nor anyone else, said anything about not keeping firearms out of the hands of bad people. Prior to this, what had this guy done? I'm not saying that automatically makes him eligible to purchase a firearm, I just don't know what his legal history was. He took the time to write the names of the Charlston church shooting victims on the bullets, as though his actions would somehow balance the books.

Yes, there are terrible people doing terrible things all the time, and they must be dealt with harshly. Very harshly. This is where personal accountability comes into play. Would you be willing to concede, or at least consider that point? This guy blames everyone else for all of his own problems instead of looking at himself, and when he lashes out and kills two people and shoots a third innocent person in the back, you blame the tool instead of him. I do not mean to accuse you of sharing the same logic, but it sure does sound like a similar thought process.

The founding fathers were very clear in many of their writings as to the intent of the second amendment. It was not put there for the purpose of hunting, sport/target shooting, not even simple self defense. Here's one of many quotes:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

I have made a reasonable attempt to use evidence and logic rather than emotion to make my points. Seeing as how that approach does not work with the collectivist mindset, I would likely just be repeating myself to respond further regarding the topic. Maybe I can find a different way to say it next time that might get through to you.

As to your last point regarding a hypothetical scenario involving confiscation of legally owned property from innocent citizens, I hope the day never comes, but if I must, I will defend my life, liberty and property against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic.

[OhSisterMagdelene]

He looks like such a narcissistic prick in that photo. Even though she was oblivious to his presence, he probably perceived that as yet another snub to his overblown, yet fragile ego. So pathetic. Burn in hell maggot.

[Teon]

Thanks for posting. I can always count on D.R. to have posts that were quickly removed posted.

[vsin]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

You're clearly going in a direction.

You say you aren't thinking on this situation. Then you a post a link about how this is a false flag. I see the direction.

You claim you are known to post from other perspectives. My understanding from this is, there are facts and there are "other perspectives". We continue in that same direction..

I said IF THIS WAS 9/11. I did not say your post has anything to do with 9/11. To answer your question back- Did you actually read what I wrote?

YOU are clearly going in a direction... in a direction of trying to paint a paranoid purpose and agenda to my reason for writing here today. You claim to know more of what's in my head than I do. Kudos to you if you are able to accomplish such. And thanks for basically calling me a liar in your round about way.

YOU are clearly going in one of trying to silence anyone sharing anything YOU don't like nor agree with.

YOU don't care why they did it (the person writing here what they did).

So you ignore all my words and try to inject an agenda to what I said but yet accuse me of doing such. So who is the paranoid person here?

I made myself clear.

Twist all you want.

I have not position to defend.

I am open on any possibility at this point.

You clearly are not open to any possibility except to what you have made your mind up about and you clearly wish to silence any mention of anything you don't want someone to say.

If Mike's thoughts are considered crazy, fine, go tell him so. But because I made what he thought known here you gut paranoid nuts about me after I clearly state my intentions and thoughts? Dude, you got serious problems.

And it's quite clear that I am thinking on this situation but I guess you missed those points in my words where I made that VERY clear, point blank stated, so I guess I am a liar to you (and you focus on a link that you take out of context of all my words and comments shared here) or you are just choosing to ignore them. I said quite the contrary if you bothered to read everything I said in all I have posted.

Of course if what you claimed I was doing and saying, then why would I keep denying it? Is that what those types of people do? No, they try like hell with closed minds as you to defend their position.

If you have all facts, then please, contact the FBI since you claim all facts are out already and that you are omniscient.

You focus on the link, less than %2 of all I have wrote so far here but it's the only part you focus on. I see how your mind works and have fun with being like you are. You are as bad as the ones you accuse me of being though I am not responding, talking, or anything like you or they do. And of course I have bluntly and clearly made my thoughts and intentions known.

[pervM]

I first wondered how nobody in the filming crew seemed to pay attention to him even when he was so up close. But yeah, if he was a colleague of them, much easier to sneak right at them. Almost makes it worse when it does not come from some complete stranger nutjob but a dude youve been working with for a long time and hes secretly been a nutjob psychopath the whole time.

[vsin]

And before a grammar nazi jumps in, I sliced open a finger very badly just hours ago and I am person who actually types, you know, with both hands on the home keys. So I feel I am doing good considering that and I would edit correct the grammar but I don't think there is a way to do that with comments posted.

[IIvIIRRIIvII]

Some people seem confused as to why the reporter and cameraman ignored the suspect while continuing to film the interview. What you need to keep in mind is that the killer knew precisely how to succeed in his attack. If you're filming a live segment the reporter nor the cameraman isn't going to take the focus off the interview, even if they feel another persons presence. In their job it's extremely common for people to come up and watch the reports from the side.