Shocker - School shooter was a gun enthusiast

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[2aguy]

The Democratic Party existed in both the North and South -- would you have us believe it was fighting itself?

Well...considering the war was known for brother fighting brother...yeah...that isn't a stretch...considering the facts on the ground confirm that northern democrats didn't launch a revolt against their republican colleagues..

 

[2aguy]

So, you really don't understand that the two main political parties have essentially traded places in our history?

You really don't know that???

That you believe that shows that you are a product of an education system that is controlled by government schools run by the education wing of the democrat party...the party that decided that they couldn't keep freed slaves from voting and that in order to get power they had to change tactics...not beliefs...

that you can think the two parties changed their feelings on race says a lot about you...try not to play in traffic...

 

[Pogo]

The Democratic Party existed in both the North and South -- would you have us believe it was fighting itself?

Yes...some democrats didn't want the Union broken up just to own slaves...the party that actually decided to fight a war to keep slaves...was the democrats...hmmmm...how many Republicans fought on the side of the south...to keep slaves...?

Now you're saying Lincoln was a Democrat?.
Are you related to Special Ed?

You guys have got to get an education that isn't run by the party that actually owned slaves...it isn't a coincidence that the democrats...who owned the slaves and who now run government schools have you brain washed into believing the republicans are the racists....you know...the guys who freed the slaves after the war....

I know nothing about "government schools". Never seen one.
Political parties have never owned slaves. And btw slaves were all over, not just the South. Including Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, and Lincoln's own ancestors. None of which had anything to do with a political party.
Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

The Democratic Party existed in both the North and South -- would you have us believe it was fighting itself?

Well...considering the war was known for brother fighting brother...yeah...that isn't a stretch...considering the facts on the ground confirm that northern democrats didn't launch a revolt against their republican colleagues..

Which way you wanna play this, kid? You started out claiming a political party started the Civil War,

So, you really don't understand that the two main political parties have essentially traded places in our history?

You really don't know that???

That you believe that shows that you are a product of an education system that is controlled by government schools run by the education wing of the democrat party...the party that decided that they couldn't keep freed slaves from voting and that in order to get power they had to change tactics...not beliefs...

that you can think the two parties changed their feelings on race says a lot about you...try not to play in traffic...

That you believe a political party -- ANY political party -- establishes a platform for itself and then never adjusts to changing times ever, demonstrates your rhetorical bankruptcy.

That's why people leave parties and go join another one.

DUH.

Political parties exist for one reason and representing an ideology is not it. The purpose of a political party is to acquire organized power. That's it. If the avenue to that power means crowing "I like kittens" in State A and crowing "I hate cats" in State B, then that's what it does, the idea being to acquire power in both. Not to represent some "ideal".

 

[Ava]

View attachment 33263 Who would have thought?

Do you think it would not have otherwise been a knife or a hatchet?

 

[2aguy]

Now you're saying Lincoln was a Democrat?.

Wow...you really are that stupid...or your reading comprehension is about what is to be expected from someone educated in a government controlled school run by the education wing of the democrat party...

And btw slaves were all over, not just the South. Including Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, and Lincoln's own ancestors. None of which had anything to do with a political party.
Dumbass.

Wow...and at the time of the Civil War...was Jefferson alive...Franklin, Hancock...you are the dumbass...and a moron to boot...and which political party controlled the southern slave states at the time of the Civil War...dumbass...

 

[Iceweasel]

That you believe a political party -- ANY political party -- establishes a platform for itself and then never adjusts to changing times ever, demonstrates your rhetorical bankruptcy.

That's why people leave parties and go join another one.

If you are going down the "they flipped sides" route, back it up.

 

[2aguy]

If you are going down the "they flipped sides" route, back it up.

He will only trot out the things he learned in the public school the education wing of the democrat party taught him...will it be a surprise if it confirms the lie...

 

[Pogo]

Now you're saying Lincoln was a Democrat?.

Wow...you really are that stupid...or your reading comprehension is about what is to be expected from someone educated in a government controlled school run by the education wing of the democrat party...

And btw slaves were all over, not just the South. Including Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, and Lincoln's own ancestors. None of which had anything to do with a political party.
Dumbass.

Wow...and at the time of the Civil War...was Jefferson alive...Franklin, Hancock...you are the dumbass...and a moron to boot...and which political party controlled the southern slave states at the time of the Civil War...dumbass...

No they were not. And neither was either of these political parties -- which was your original claim.
Dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

View attachment 33263 Who would have thought?

Why are you insulting his native american culture?

 

[2aguy]

The biggest magic trick of American political history...when the party of slavery...the democrats...convinced the world that the Republicans...the ones who freed the slaves...switched sides...over night...

The Myth of the Racist Republicans Republican Review of America

Electoral Patterns

In all these ways, the gop appears as the national party of the middle-class, not of white solidarity. And it is this interpretation, and not the myth, that is supported by the voting results.

But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that “racial and economic conservatism” married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism’s economic populism.

Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition.

Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.

Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to “offer,” so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth’s own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren’t plausible codes for real racism is that they aren’t the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.

Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP’s appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.”

Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, not least the South.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm a gun enthusiast and the biggest pacifist you'll ever meet.

I'm not worried about gun owners, just gun nuts.

I wish more people who bought guns thought like you.

There are many like him, but they don't fit the anti-gun narrative.

 

[2aguy]

And neither was either of these political parties -- which was your original claim.
Dumbass.

And at the time of the Civil War...dumb ass...which political party represented the slave owning states...dumb ass...?

You really need to escape your leftism...it isn't good for your mental health...

 

[skookerasbil]

The OP is confused.

Evidently......74% of the country are gun enthusiasts.

Well.....according to Gallup anyway....... Gallup Poll Support for gun control is waning opposition to handgun ban at all-time high

 

[Truman123]

I haven't found much that I agree with Delta4 on yet, but I like him.

 

[2aguy]

There are many like him, but they don't fit the anti-gun narrative.

Most gun owners are like him...but they don't help push the anti gun agenda in the media...

 

[2aguy]

Why are you insulting his native american culture?

They do this because he was obviously a "White" native American, the same way they had to call George Zimmerman a "White" hispanic after the media saw his picture and his family...

 

[TemplarKormac]

What strikes me here is the penchant for people to use tragedy for means of politicking. Yeah, such a shocker (not).

 

[2aguy]

What strikes me here is the penchant for people to use tragedy for means of politicking. Yeah, such a shocker (not).

Sadly, the left started this as well...with each tragedy, they raced in front of cameras...before the dead bodies had even cooled, and started ranting their anti gun liturgy...to a national media who is biased against guns in the first place...so, those who favor the 2nd amendment and the right of people to defend themselves either stay polite out of respect for the dead and injured and their families...and lose actual political ground to those who would end that right...or we speak out as soon or before the anti gunners do...Having spent 47 years watching this dynamic at work...I will no longer allow the anti gunners a free run at the media while I try to be polite...the left has no manners...anything for power is their motto...