Liberal Free Chat Zone

[basserdan]

Was Mercer An ISIS Plant?

by Karl Denninger
2015-10-05 11:13

Things get more curious by the day...

First, there has been floating around for the last few days a report that the shooter in Oregon was on a Russian Terror Watchlist -- one that that Obama administration refused to consider. All the sources on this point to a somewhat-sketchy European point of origin, but it definitely bears watching.

Then there is the "curious" CNN whitewash of the shooter's face. The shooter was clearly a black man and yet CNN did severe violence to his complexion, whitening it to look like a white guy who had never seen the outdoors! In the process, however, the managed to delete the moles on his face, which gave away their deception since the image that they used as a source with the background intact (and thus easily compared) is still around. Why, CNN, did you attempt to change the apparent race of the shooter?

Third, if this man was indeed not crazy but instead an ISIS/ISIL/MuzzieNutjob or both then that destroys the narrative being pressed by Obama (and now Hitlery too) on gun control, doesn't it? Never mind that Hitlery's "forefront charge", she claims, is facially bankrupt. She has said she wants "100% background checks at gun shows" and has promised to do so via "executive action" should she be elected. Well, Oregon already has that via state law. It did nothing to change outcomes, did it?

I remind everyone that virtually every mass-shooting, with a couple of exceptions over the last two decades, has taken place in a so-called "gun free" zone.

Obviously criminals prefer to shoot at unarmed peasants (and, possibly, other criminals) rather than face the possibility that an armed, peaceful citizen might be present. If we really wanted to do something about these sorts of situations we'd encourage people to be armed since the clear history shows that criminals prefer places where the absence of defensive armament has been declared. Remove that and they'll have to face the odds of someone prepared and able to offer effective resistance.

There are also those who claim that "nobody" (as in "civilian") has ever stopped a mass murder incident. False. I have a few examples that required no research whatsoever; they are entirely from memory. The first was the Clackamas mall shooter that a concealed-carrying citizen confronted; the shooter, who was armed with a rifle killed himself upon being confronted -- the concealed carry holder was almost-certainly seen targeting him after he drew as he was forced to seek cover by the gunman; his line of fire was obstructed by innocents who might have otherwise been hit. The second was very recent; an armed Uber driver this spring shot and stopped a gunman who opened fire into a crowd of people at Logan Square Mall. The third was the nutjob in the food plant in Oklahoma a year or so ago; he was shot and killed by the COO who grabbed a firearm and ended the assault.

Then there is the case of a civilian that ignored the rules and had a gun anyway, even though he wasn't supposed to. That would be the doctor in the psychiatric clinic in Pennsylvania, where an enraged man shot and killed a caseworker and then shot the doctor, wounding him. Despite the office being a posted "murder here all you want" (that is, "Gun Free") zone the doctor had a gun, drew it and shot the perpetrator, ending the assault.

Why is it that Rolling Stone intentionally lies about this, along with the rest of the media and politicians? It's because they know good and damn well that if you face the facts head-on you cannot prevent someone hellbent on murder from acquiring whatever they wish to use. You can try, but you will fail, and when (not if) you fail you then have simply turned the populace into targets on a shooting range. This is unacceptable and that the politicians know this is true is evidenced by the fact that Hillary, as a former Secretary of State and First Lady, and President Obama along with the "important" people in both major political parties have gun-toting guards around and with them 24 hours a day.

The first thing we must do as a society is take down the "Unarmed Citizen Shooting Range" signs from our schools and other venues around the country. It is utterly outrageous that we advertise to crazed felons-to-be that they have the best odds of completing their crimes unopposed in places where our children are present, among others -- but the worst part of this outrage is when we consign our children to such a place and they are both forced to be there and incapable mentally of consenting on their own. If you wish to walk into such a place voluntarily (e.g. a shopping mall) that's your call but you have no right to force others, especially young people without the ability to give or decline consent under our legal system, do so.

Second, we must recognize that once any person is willing to commit murder all the other crimes you can concoct for him or her to be convicted of up to and beyond that point are immaterial. This is basic logic; you cannot execute a man nor imprison him for life more than once. Since a nutjob needs only one firearm or, for that matter, any other implement of destruction to commit his act you would need to get rid of all of said implements, or substantially all of them, to make them inaccessible. Unless you intend to start by disarming the police, Secret Service and similar (and we know you're not) you're wasting your time.

Third, we place AEDs in public places and encourage private businesses to have them because if you're having a heart attack the 3 minutes it takes for the ALS folks to get there is 3 more minutes than you have and the presence of that AED might save your life. The same 3 minutes is required for the cops to get there when a bad guy shows up and starts shooting; the presence of armed civilians might save your life. There are no guarantees in either circumstance but I will take all the odds-shifting I can get in my favor should something ugly of that nature occur, whether it be a heart attack of a nutjob with a gun. For this reason I want to encourage people to be armed and, in my opinion, so should you.

Finally, we as citizens have a duty to call out all of the politicians and media who intentionally lie about these matters. These are not mistakes, they are intentional acts. CNN didn't "accidentally" alter the shooter's appearance and neither Rolling Stone or any other media outlet accidentally reported that "no armed civilian has stopped a mass-shooting."

Both are blatant falsehoods and when it comes to media outlets they exist on advertising dollars. It is your duty as a citizen who has an interest in the truth to boycott every single advertiser associated with or running ads on any media outlet that intentionally runs a false narrative when it comes to matters of life and death.

The reason for this is simple: The life or death involved next time may well yours or that of someone you love.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3390128