Who Is Pushing "Hate Crime?"

Another shooting in a synagogue today, this time in San Diego, California. Not to far from my neck of the woods depending on where you come from relative to this forum. Allegedly, one (1) person died and three (3) more were seriously wounded enough to need EMT transport. So, one code blue and one code purple.

I said that I would never watch mainstream media again. However, ironically, I had just got back from the range after shooting an early morning IDPA match and just as I make may way through the garage, down the hall and past the family room, my Wife tells me "honey, there's been another one today." I knew what she was talking about because she knew what I doing this morning. She's watching CNN "breaking the news."

CNN, hovering over the scene like a vulture, has an anchor chomping at the bit to make the call, "its a hate crime." She can't actually say its a hate crime yet, because law enforcement has not yet charged the suspect who was somehow immediately arrested (how that happened so quickly at a remote synagogue, I don't know). With a seemingly urgent desire to name the event, the anchor finally gets an interview with a senior San Diego Law Enforcement Officer. The Officer gives his statement about the current state of affairs at the scene to CNN via live phone call. At the very end, the Officer says: "Its a hate crime." The CNN anchor, with a bizarre gleeful relief in tone response, "And, this is a hate crime!" The Sheriff, repeats himself, "It's a hate crime." The CNN anchor, lets the Sheriff go to his at the scene press conference, turns to the camera and using a dramatic out before commercial says, "....will be investigated as (slight pause) a hate crime." Queue the dramatic CNN exit to commercial music.

If someone walks into a church and starts shooting up the place, why must society be so queued up to define the crime as "hate?" It would seem to me that all violent crime is predicated upon "hate." Hateful people do hateful things. That's the nature of some people and that is the result of their hate.

They cannot say "Racially Motivated Crime." Why? Because, they media and our political system that invents the law, cannot define "Jewish" people as a "Race." This thread is not only about wacky nutcases who are mentally and emotionally unstable and unable to control themselves before acting out as a moron who kills either discriminately or indiscriminately, but this thread is about the Politics of Hate and who is pushing the political side of so-called "hate crimes."

 

And, by the way, you might as well also queue up the Ban Guns Brigade just as well. It won't be long before anti-Constitutional types flood the air waves, radio and the internet with more illogical and irrational presuppositions for why private firearm ownership should be outright banned in the United States of America. No doubt, that wave of "hate" against Firearms is on its way - piggybacking on yet another seriously tragic situation in Poway, California (San Diego).

 

I don't understand what your point is. Is it that the media should not report when nuts go into churches and start randomly shooting at people because it might make people think twice about the se-called "right" to carry assault weapons? Or is it that you don't agree with the semantics of this being called a "hate crime"?

 

At the end of the day, it is not about Hate. That's the point.

Like a fine Swiss made timepiece, CNN rolls out a "Rabbi" and asks him "how do we stop this?" The Rabbi, doing what Rabbis do, spoke to the horror and pain of the shooting and then immediately linked that horror and pain to: "...I look forward to a day where we have no more assault weapons in America....". CNN, then follows up with another interview on the heels of the Rabbi's interview with a Democrat Presidential Candidate who echos the "need to do away with the most dangerous assault rifles...".

Anti-Constitutionlist are going to take advantage of any and every event involving a firearm, whether legally owned or illegally owned, to continue its assault on alleged "assault weapons." They never explain to you what makes an "assault weapon." However, they always use shock treatment language such as "assault style," or "military style," or "mass killing style," or "combat style." The use stylistic language to penetrate deep into the subconscious brain during a time of legitimate deep emotional reflection within America.

We went to war in Afghanistan this way, folks. Your heart strings were toyed with after a deeply emotional experience. You were then lulled into doing something that was flat out immoral and unethical. You supported your government as it targeted and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with the cause of the emotional trauma you experienced. That same playbook is being used to subvert the Constitution at Amendment Number #2.

Which Amendment #? will they target next once they are successful in getting you to go along with abandoning the Number #2? Will they target Number #1? How long will it take for them to target and remove Number #5? What about Number #14, how long will it take before that one is completely obliterated by those seeking to control and manipulate you deeply at the emotional level?

These are not vein questions. This is happening right now, directly under your nose and on your watch. When your children's children are left with no ability to defend themselves from tyranny, what will your offspring say about what you are being emotionally manipulated to do right now? Folks, you had better start thinking about this stuff. They are talking serious societal problems and using them to play you. You are being played.

 

It's not? What is it about, then?

And why do you assume that they have to? Why don't proponents of weapons used for personal protection define what is not an "assault weapon" or a "military style weapon" and we take it from there?

I wouldn't give a crap about "stylistic" or non-stylistic" language. I care about people not being killed. If "stylistic language" saves lives.... power to it!

The rest of your message might be of interest in a different discussion. But let's not digress..

 

No, it is not. Getting ride of Firearms is the point. If it were truly about Hate, then the focus would be on rearing responsible, ethical and moral People, who would consider it anathema to kill outside of pure Self-Defense where the legal doctrine of Disparity of Force was at play. If Hate, was the source, then society (including politicians, media and parents) would be 100% focused on accepting the personal responsibility of bringing Life into this world and then doing whatever it took to ensure that their offspring developed into well adjusted individuals. If it was truly about Hate, no government would want to makes its citizenry even more open to crimes of the hater by disarming the law abiding and the morally well adjusted.

When CNN zooms in on the face of a Rabbi, who tells the world in a moment of great pain and suffering that he thinks its time for "assault weapons" to be banned in America, while never taking the time to define an "assault weapon" to any degree whatsoever, you know right then and there that "Hate" is the smoke screen and the real agenda has been embedded in the deep psychological which is not stipulated my the master puppeteer, yet there nonetheless.

That would be a neat magic trick, but it won't work on the analytically minded. The reason that magic trick won't work is simple. Always analyze First Cause, First Premise to any argument brought before you and then note whether or not Causation exists as Premise, or whether the author has magically removed and supplanted First Causation with a False Premise. You will never get caught behind the eight ball by doing this and you will always catch the underlying False Premise of the author.

As a proponent of the Second Amendment, I would never step forward and assume that the label "Assault Weapon" has ever been valid or truthful as fact in the first instance. That's the underlying False Premise, which can only lead the author to making a subsequent False Supposition. Any weapon used to "assault" someone is by any reasonable, rational or logical definition an "Assault Weapon." Ergo, if someone takes a spoon from their kitchen drawer and gouges out the eyeballs of their target victim, when the prosecution finishing with its cup of Starbucks that morning, it will put a photograph in front of the jury of the "Assault Spoon." It will then hammer the defendant about the head and shoulders with questions regarding the fingerprints, blood and other biological material their labs found on that "Assault Spoon."

By the time the prosecution is done with that particular defendant, the media will rush outside to its mobile unit, stand in front of the court house and proclaim to the world that "Assault Spoons" should now be banned. Later, you will walk into Macy's at some point searching for "spoons" to outfit your new kitchen at home and not find a single one available, because some Legislator banned "Assault Spoons." You will then say, quite vehemently, that you have no way to adequately address the critical needs of your kitchen without "spoons." Your government will reply to you: Sorry, it is not a "spoon." It is an "Assault Spoon." You will, of course, walk away with a dumbfounded look on your face realizing that your legislator is a stone cold idiot who lacks the fundamental intelligence necessary to legislate their way out of a thimble, let alone produce legislation that would actually address people who decide to kill with "spoons."

If you truly cared about saving lives, then you would support the Agenda for Better Parenting in America. You would be talking about what it takes to produce well adjusted individuals in America, through better Parenting. You would rail against Raising children like cattle on a hill and you would support Rearing children like the fully sentient beings they are. You would support strong Family units having a Father and a Mother. You would support a broader society that produces more intellectual pursuits than pursuits requiring little to no intellect at all. You would demand better Educational Systems for young, growing and developing minds that taught the truth in schools as opposed to lies. If you were truly concerned about saving lives, you would be all about the business of building an American Society that placed its Children's Mental and Emotional development First, above all else. Of course, this is not truly your concern.

You are concerned about the Gun. You are concerned about a Paper Weight. You are concerned about a totally useless tool that literally has no value unless and/or until a Fully Sentient Being places their hands on it. If you follow "Mr. Cooper's Four Rules to the letter, then all you have is an expensive Paper Weight until and/or unless Disparity of Force is levied against you, putting you into a position of pure Self-Defense, which is by the way your right to engage.

I'm going to have to create a word here: Media + Politics. Polimedia. Let's go with that. Your Polimedia has decided that its all about the Gun. They are not talking about the things I just outlined above as a real solution to the problem of people needlessly getting killed. The just want to go after the Gun. Timothy McVeigh, never used a Gun to commit his "Hate Crimes." Yet, it was "Hate" of "something" that drove him. I don't see anyone rushing to place an outright an on Ryder Trucks.

 

Wait...so this person shot up a synagogue to get rid of guns? Um...ok...sure.

 

Oh.... I thought you meant that the shooting was not about hate. You meant to the media. To them it's about ratings. Any time they can put "Breaking News" all across the screen, they have more audience. That's how corporations work.

Let me see if I understand you. You expected a Rabbi to define what an "assault weapon" is?

So many words... and you didn't answer the question. Why don't you, an expert in weapons, define what types of weapons are not assault weapons? Instead of asking a Rabbi or a journalist.... neither of which is an expert, to define what it is?

Who cares? It's just a name! Would you be happier if we call them "Lilly Daisys?"

I see. And what would be your argument in case that jurors, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, the general public and legislators are not all either stupid people or mindless robots?

Your assumption is one of the most absurd I have ever seen.

I don't know what that is. That may be one way of showing I care about saving lives. Another way to show I truly care about saving lives is to support banning criminals and people who have been adjudicated as mentally "dangerous" to own weapons and banning everybody from owning assault weapons (as explained above)

Each person has their own way.

Oh? And what is "truly" my concern then?

You said it buddy! Because if those hands are of a nut.... innocent people die. Unnecessarily!

But, then again look... we just circled back to "saving lives".

Ryder Trucks are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: to transport things. They can be used to kill people, but that's not what they were designed for.

Assault weapons are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: to kill. They can be used to drive in a nail, but that's not what they were designed for.

 

Anybody want to go down the road that EVIL is real.

 

There is no such thing as a hate crime.

This human filth committed murder and attempted murder. Nothing more or less.

 

An utterly ridiculous claim. The real debate is the distinction between a hate crime and an act of terror.

 

Can we also say there can be brainwashing by leftist groups as well as these racist groups on what is believed to be the right?

And, where does mental illness fit in?

It was so much easier when we said, "Lock him up until we get the scaffold built". Then, hand the rest over to the psychologists and feds to figure out who the terrorists are and arrest them for whatever crime they are committing.

 

The guy was full of a hate (against Jewish people).

He's a scumbag "white nationalist" who hung out on 8chan with other "white nationalist" scumbags.

These people are terrorists...they are nuts...they are like the white Christian version of ISIS or whatever. No different.

 

Left groups tended to be classified as terrorist (Marxism, nihilism etc.).

Arguably more likely to be related to hate crime, but fascism and mental illness are correlated.

 

They have a ways to go to get to the level of ISIS and Sharia law. Right now, they are more a racist gang of thugs brainwashing anyone with enough mental issues to listen. This guy was one. However, Christianity does not talk about purifying the world to create a new world with one race. "love thy neighbor" comes to mind. The definition of neighbor was in there. Also, the apostles were charged with spreading the good news to all the world, not just white Europeans. That would seem odd, since Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew. So, nah, your hypothesis isn't holding water.

My condolences to those killed, injured, and their families and friends. It's a sick world.

Wow, that was a messy post. Maybe it's time to stop for a while?

 

Isn't that only when they force their ideas on others?

 

My "hypothesis" has nothing really to do with any actual religion (I could not really care less about any of that).

It has to do solely with people who's heads are filled with insane hateful ideas and are prompted to do insane violent things.

So in that regard, they are no different.

 

You'll find those groups tend to be irrelevant today. You'd have a point if we were talking about the 70s

 

Agree, it's insanity, but you mentioned a religion. Religious beliefs, not condoning hating some and doing violence to them if they do not comply and convert are not the same as insanity, nor those who are compelled to believe such things.

 

So today, it's okay to force your ideas on others?

 

Nope. You're just failing to hit home in the relevancy stakes. We know that both hate crimes and terrorism are heavily skewed towards the right.

 

I mentioned it because they mention religion and race.

This guy thinks he's fighting for the white race...or the Christian religion.

But he's just a hateful useless lunatic whose head was filled with rubbish.

 

Religious nuts have killed innocents for centuries. Wars have been fought over religion. Hate can cause crime. It's plain murder. Maybe we should ban religions rather than guns.

 

For purposes of this discussion, hate is attacking a group, or individual, based on the identity that the person is targeting. It is REALLY domestic TERRORISM. Trying to make those folks identified too scared to get full citizenship.

Terrorism
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/domestic+terrorism

 

Anti-Semitic open letter posted online under name of Chabad synagogue shooting suspect

The attached note is similar in both format and tone to the one written by Tarrant, who killed 50 people last month
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ed-online-under-name-chabad-synagogue-n999211

It is a HATE MOVEMENT. AS I warned all of you. I said that Steve Bannon was there to keep the anti-Semites pacified. I told you how Jewish cemeteries were being desecrated.

None of you right wingers listened.