It happens every time. Like they were following a script or something. Even the media should be getting bored with it by now. Oceans 11 was pretty good the first two times you saw it. But after every station in your cable lineup plays it every week, you really have no interest in seeing it again.
But it keeps happening.
1. We really don’t know what happened. Initial reports are always wrong. Always. I’m not buying any conspiracies about false flag or double false flag ops. I’m just saying, wait and see. In this particular case, the events seems pretty unremarkable and the facts will be known sooner than in other events.
2. That word, “terrorist” does not mean what you think it means. In the common vernacular used by our media and political class, it means “my enemies”. But it actually has on older meaning. A useful meaning. The whole point of using special words to describe unique ideas is because those ideas ARE unique and the other words don’t quite fit. If you already have a word that fits, you don’t need the new word. The word “terrorist” is meant to describe a person who intentionally uses terrorism as a tactic to accomplish a larger goal. A terrorist is characterized by being a part of a larger organized effort and his tactics are directly related to that organization achieving it’s goals. Simply killing a lot of people does not make one a terrorist. Killing a lot of people is easy. It doesn’t happen more often because most of the human race have nothing to gain by doing that. People who kill people just to kill people are called Psychopaths. The unique difference is in how you treat them. A terrorist can be mitigated by attacking the larger organization or by delegitimizing them. There are lots of tactics for doing that. But a psychopath can only be mitigated by attacking the individual psychopath. See? There is a difference. A special and functional difference. But go ahead and call everyone a terrorist as if it doesn’t matter.
3. Communists, Marxists, and Establishment Pogues will immediately turn it into a gun control argument. They are of course totally wrong. In every case, there is no evidence that making guns harder to get would have prevented or mitigated the attack. This is basic logic. Following the logic trail from supply, to motives and to action, each element can be examined. In every case the guy who really wants to do this, can find a way. In the last case, guns and ammo can be manufactured at home. It is 17th century tech. But you can always get guns. At the very least, you know the police have them. So. Sucker punch a cop and now you have a gun and plenty of ammo.
4. Gun rights advocates will always say, “if only one victim had been armed, this would have ended differently”. This is, of course, wishful thinking. There is no evidence to prove this case. It is just as likely that the first guy shot will be the armed man who never sees it coming. It is also likely that he returns fire ineffectively and then dies. It is further possible, but very unlikely, that the presence of an armed defended simply confuses other armed defenders about who the assailant is. This is simply the wrong argument for gun rights advocates to make. The right argument is, “It is not up to you to decide for me how I may protect myself. Self-defense is THE most basic of all human rights and you may not restrict it, vote it away, or ask me to trade it in exchange for some guarantee of police protection”.
5. Karl Rove made some remarks that have him in hot water. Here is what the headlines say:
Here is what he actually said:
WALLACE: How do we stop the violence?ROVE: I wish I had an easy answer for that, but I don’t think there’s an easy answer…
Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.
See? Nothing crazy at all. He did NOT say we should repeal the second amendment. He said you cannot remove guns from society without repealing the 2nd amendment. See the difference. It is simply a true statement, not advocating the policy. No one should be upset about this.
He also said that the way to reduce these types of incidents would be to remove guns from society. He did not say restrict guns. He did not say only police can have guns. He did not say “and criminals can keep their guns”. He said “remove guns from society”. That means an impossible and purely hypothetical standard of ALL guns, even the ones you hide under your mattress. This, again, was not advocating gun control legislation. He is simply stating an irrefutable fact. If there are no guns (no guns anywhere), killing lots of people gets harder. You can’t argue against this. It is logically irrefutable. It is the whole point of manufacturing and owning guns.
So. Stop making me defend Karl Rove. I despise establishment Republicans. But even more, I despise people on my side failing to use their own brains and instead leaping onto band wagons and knee-jerk cheerleading campaigns. THINK FOR YOURSELVES, PEOPLE!
6. They caught the perp. What a moron. His stated goals were something about, “all you blacks get out”. Blah… blah… blah… something about blacks being criminals. But he doesn’t use his guns and ammo against real criminals. I am sure South Carolina has a few bad neighborhoods. he could have gone all Taxi-driver on them. He could have killed drug dealers, pimps, and gang bangers. But no. He went to a church where no one would fight back. Moron. He had the inspiration to “do something”, but was unable to connect the dots between his actual targets and his actions. Hopefully, he gets the death penalty in short order. There really can be no doubt that he did it and he deserves it. There is nothing to be gained letting him live and get any appeals.