Pratt: what media won’t tell you about the new zealand massacre

[FirstFiveEighth]

What was done in NZ was a monumental evil. The hate and fear that foul dictators like Trump and Putin have instilled in their people against the Muslims are equally monumental and precipitated acts such as these. These lies of muslim armies spreading across Europe, mass rapes, etc., have all enkindled flames of hatred worldwide. Don’t try to defend the promotion of gun proliferation. It is motivated by the old enemy, the love of money, the root of all evil. Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump, and the NRA love the sound of tinkling gold coins even if it means going into a house of God and murdering men at prayer.

Yeah we shouldn’t demonize people like those filthy money grubbing racist conservatives in the NRA do!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

I asked about an alternative for society at large.

There are many reasons why this is a bad alternative. One is the if everyone is allowed to do whatever they want, there will be a lot more accidental shootings if people are armed everywhere they go.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

if everyone is allowed to do whatever they want, there will be a lot more accidental shootings if people are armed everywhere they go.

“Everyone”?

“WHATEVER they want”?

 

[Cathoholic]

From then President Obama.

One of his most ridiculous statements ever (right up there with his America has fifty seven states comment) . . . .

In his June 18, 2015, remarks from the White House, Obama said, "Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.

Is Barack Obama correct that mass killings don't happen in other countries?

After a gunman shot and killed nine worshippers in a historic African-American church in Charleston, S.C., President Bar

www.politifact.com

 

[Cathoholic]

(name removed by moderator) . . .

and half doesn’t Cathoholic if you read the whole thing.

But then that same article called THAT a partial truth (even what you would call the “good part” of Obama’s ridiculous statement was only “partially” correct.

If you would have read the article, you would have known that.

Or if you would have seen him in person, you’d know this statement was a backtrack from another statement he earlier said without adding in the “frequency” propaganda.

For this article?

Cited article analysis of the first portion of my quote . . .

An important point to make right off the bat is that many of the critics have pointed to the first part of Obama’s claim – that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” As we’ll explain, the critics have a point here

(They love Obama and are not going to tell you about victims in France earlier. Can you imagine if “Trump” said this? The media would chalk it up as “lie” number fifteen for that given day! And all the readers here know it.)

Cited article analysis of the second portion of my quote . . .

However, the critics have truncated the quotation, leaving off the next sentence – that “it doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.” That’s also not fully correct, but it’s not quite as wrong as the first claim.

WHY was one stupid point “wrong” and the second stupid point “not quite as wrong”?

Because they are BOTH wrong taken in an absolute sense.

And if I recall correctly, Obama said this after a mass murder in France by radical Islamists which made it even more idiotic.

 

[Cathoholic]

no need to get stressed.

Thanks mate.

Not stressed.

Primarily wrote this for the other readers.

Don’t want them taking this story any way, but as it really happened.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

New Zealand Bans the Christchurch Suspect’s Manifesto (Published 2019)

The alleged gunman’s statement has been classified as “objectionable,” making it illegal to possess or distribute it anywhere in the country.

www.nytimes.com

So NZ citizens aren’t supposed to examine the manifesto on their own, who knows what opinions they might come with? That can’t be allowed…

Need to reemphasize that our inalienable right to life is meaningless without the corollary right to defend that life and the lives of those who cannot defend themselves such as the elderly, the infirm, the children and the unborn.

In the US, law enforcement officers have no constitutionally mandated duty to protect anyone, that has been decided by the Supreme Court. Apparently those persons in this thread who insist that we should give up our guns and trust the cops to protect us do not believe this at all. So here is a reminder from 2005:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - The New York Times

So them who want me to not have a gun are forcing me to seek protection by those who have no required duty to protect me. Worse yet they will almost always be minutes away when seconds count! Even worse modern day LEO’s are almost all about protecting themselves at the cost of everyone and their dogs they perceive a threat from.

Don’t Shoot The Dogs: The Growing Epidemic Of Cops Shooting Family Dogs - Activist Post

Police need to stop viewing themselves as superior to those whom they are supposed to serve and start acting like the peace officers...

www.activistpost.com

 

[Cathoholic]

(name removed by moderator) . . .

So a mixture of truth and lies

No.

I wouldn’t say Obama mixed truth and lies so much as I’d say he mixed lies with half-truths.

And I think he did it to start proverbial political “fires”. Then purposefully did not call the fire brigade.

 

[HarryStotle]

RuthAnne:

LeafByNiggle:

So it is not as simple as saying “Let me do my thing and other people can do their thing.”

It is that simple. We have cops. As an additional safeguard, I carry. You do your thing whatever it is. I don’t care.

You are refusing to acknowledge the society-wide impact of a policy that lets everyone do what they want. As an analogy, do you think anyone ought to be allowed to raise hogs on a city lot if they want to? It is like that.

Seems to me that the US Constitution lays out in specific detail that citizens do, in fact, have specific rights to “do what they want” in their pursuit of happiness, provided that those rights do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

If you wish to curtail those rights even further, who do you propose ought to be the decider of NOT letting “everyone do what they want” besides what is spelled out in the Constitution?

The DNC? The corporate owned media? Far left activists? A straight majority? An agglomeration of minority groups? Academia? Current social trends? The monied elites?

Seems to me the US Constitution is the best possible statement of how to permit “everyone [to] do what they want” while at the same time establishing and maintaining law and order.

And I am not even an American, I just recognize a good thing when I see it.

We have very good reasons for thinking the Constitution is under assault by ideologues who have a dangerous zeal for control and power, and do not have the well-being of the US at heart.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

RuthAnne:

LeafByNiggle:

So it is not as simple as saying “Let me do my thing and other people can do their thing.”

It is that simple. We have cops. As an additional safeguard, I carry. You do your thing whatever it is. I don’t care.

You are refusing to acknowledge the society-wide impact of a policy that lets everyone do what they want. As an analogy, do you think anyone ought to be allowed to raise hogs on a city lot if they want to? It is like that.

Seems to me that the US Constitution lays out in specific detail that citizens do, in fact, have specific rights to “do what they want” in their pursuit of happiness, provided that those rights do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

First of all, bringing in the discussion of the Constitution in a discussion that started out in New Zealand and has been on a general level ever since is getting too country-specific. The US Constitution does not apply in NZ or in any other country.

But staying with the Constitution anyway, if you mean the 2nd amendment, it does not get very specific. It is as general as you can get: “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts have long held that this wording does not preclude all restrictions on firearms - only unreasonable or unjustified ones. And courts are the ones who decide what is reasonable and/or justified.

If you wish to curtail those rights even further, who do you propose ought to be the decider of NOT letting “everyone do what they want” besides what is spelled out in the Constitution?

As I said, the courts.

Seems to me the US Constitution is the best possible statement of how to permit “everyone [to] do what they want” while at the same time establishing and maintaining law and order.

I agree. It is a great constitution.

We have very good reasons for thinking the Constitution is under assault by ideologues who have a dangerous zeal for control and power, and do not have the well-being of the US at heart.

You may think so. Others may not.

 

[Cathoholic]

(name removed by moderator) (on half-truths and lies) . . .

Which is a mixture of truth and lies.

Sorry. You will have to equate “half-truths” with “truths” on your own.

I will continue to equate “half-truths” with “half-truths”.

And also for my affirmation . . . truths = truths.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Well, this is awkward.

Jews outraged after mosque leader blames Mossad for Christchurch attack | Newshub

"These conspiracy theories are dangerous lies."

www.newshub.co.nz

Ahmed Bhamji, chairman of the Mt Roskill Masjid E Umar, gave a speech questioning where the gunman got his funding from. He said he suspected it came from “Mossad” and “Zionist business”.

“I really want to say one thing today. Do you think this guy was alone… I want to ask you - where did he get the funding from?” he can be heard saying in video footage.

“I stand here and I say I have a very very strong suspicion that there’s some group behind him and I am not afraid to say I feel Mossad is behind this.”

Must be hard times for terrorists when they need outside funding to purchase 4 guns.