Discussion in 'World Events' started by Yazata, Jun 12, 2016.
My, aren't we snarky!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The US Healthcare System is extremely regulated. Hyper-regulated. Obamacare was a huge step in the wrong direction. But, as you suggest, different topic.
I find your North Korean argument quite bizarre.
You claim that North Korea is a "safe dictatorship". Previously I asked you whether you were aware of the many abuses this dictatorship commits against its citizens. You did not reply.
You seem to assume that there are no people "shot to death" in North Korea. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but it is false.
In short, you have not made your case that North Korean citizens are "safer" due to living in an oppressive dictatorship, in terms of gun deaths or in any other way.
Okay, let's do some comparisons. According the CIA Fact Book:
Gun crime in Communist North Korea vs Australia, Democratic Australia has 25 times more gun crimes than Communist North Korea.
Gun crime in Communist China vs Australia, Democratic Australia has 3 times more gun crimes than Communist China.
Gun crime in Communist Cuba vs Australia, Democratic Australia has 3 times more gun crimes than Communist Cuba.
Perhaps Communist countries are safer when it comes to gun crime? Seems to be statistically. But, this is the thing, to implement gun control as implemented in Communist countries, in Australia would involve altering the agreement Australians have with their government. Likewise, we in the USA do not derive our Civil Rights from our Government nor from our Constitution. Unlike Australians, US Citizens are sovereign. In this sense, we are more akin to your Monarch. Whom is also sovereign. Of course, being sovereign doesn't mean she or he or we can go off willie-nillie doing whatever we like. That would be unlawful. The difference is, our laws are crafted with the legal concept of natural rights. Laws that are written that impede our natural rights, of which there are many, are unconstitutional. Not that this appears to bother many Americans, 1 in 5 of whom would have a hard time sounding out some of the words in this paragraph, let alone grasping the concepts contained therein.
Is this getting through to you? You seem to have this idea that "The Government" can remove our right to own a gun. That's just not legally possible to do in the USA without violating the US Constitution. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you? Or perhaps you think we should do things like you do in Australia? Which is why I gave the example of North Korea. I have certainly come across numerous Chinese in both the USA and Australia who believe it would be much better if our societies were Communistic. Particularly given the meteoric rise in their economy over the last couple of decades, which they credit to their Communistic government - which looks out of the Citizens of China much better than our democratically elected government do. You know, they sort of see their government as a parent. (Sorry, but I see both theirs, yours and ours as a sociopathic nanny Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). But that would mean bringing to an end our form of government. Until that happens - and it may, we will retain our natural rights and civil liberties, including the right to own a gun.
Note: Given government only delineates itself from other groups of citizens in it's ability to legally initiate violence against morally innocent citizens contained within the geopolitical boundaries of it's nation state - why anyone would want to give these people even more power? I can only guess that it is probably a direct result of their childhood and upbringing. Perhaps as well as a 12 year dose of normalization, in-group preference, propaganda about the Nation State and, in the recent-modern day, the rise of cuckolded beta-males who box-ticked their way into power positions in various public institutions and whom are looking to virtue signal to females and other betas. (I see it all the times on these boards Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
IMO, adults who hail from sound solid childhoods, with loving parents and who can think reasonably; develop into secure adult males and females. These types of people will generally lack a fear response to something so insignificant as being shot by a gun given it's so unlikely to happen. Particularly given you're 3 times more likely to die on your drive to the store. It'd be like wetting yourself when getting into the car to go buy groceries. Sort of sad.
The real story here, is how a Bronze Age superstition, one that taught a gay man to hate himself, is tolerated by the very same virtue-signalling betas who want to pass more gun control laws. Why this superstition is not denigrated for it's intolerant beliefs about perfectly natural homosexual dispositions is beyond belief - however, I'm sure it has something to do with said childhood upbringings (see above). We don't have a problem with gun. We have a lot of other problems. One of them being our current belief in cultural relativism. Sorry, but some ideas are indeed, better than others.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Michael - do you believe someone with a history of violent behavior and sociopathic tendencies, along with proud racism or bigotry, should be allowed to own a gun, simply because it is an "unalienable right"?
Do those rights not end where they violate the rights of others? It almost sounds like you advocate for absolute deregulation (anarchy?) more than anything.
Of course not.
I cannot get you drunk, or drug you, or you are of unsound mind - then have you sign a contract, and the contract be valid. To be valid, you must be of sound mind. Likewise, you sign an unwritten contract when you walk into a mall that you will not steal and break stuff. Suppose you were drugged, or otherwise of unsound mind, then you cannot be allowed to walk about the mall without attendance because you cannot agree to the unsigned contract that you will not break stuff or steal and etc... A person with an unsound mind cannot sign the contract that they will not use the gun to damage private property, which is against common law. Therefor they cannot own the gun, because they cannot agree to the unsigned (or actually signed) contract when taking possession of the gun.
Another way to put it is a child. A child is not of sound mind and cannot sign a valid contract. They cannot own a gun as they must be of sound mind to agree to the contract at purchase. They cannot buy or sell drugs. They cannot engage in sex. And etc...
In this case, the arguments would be around contract-law, private property rights and mental soundness.
In an anarchy, the rules for gun ownership would depend on the people within the anarchy. They may be must more stringent or less so. What we would know is, they'd be voluntary. I also believe that in a modern day anarchy, electronic money would be much more transparent and that most people would give up some right to privacy for the right to access such money because of it's other inherent values. Thus, if a person was found to have sold a gun to a person of shady character, then others would be legally allowed to refuse him trade - like food and water. I believe most people would act kindly (or else you'd just end up with a nation state again) and I also believe social ostracism would play a major role as would social championing. In effect, rewarding good behavior while punishing bad behavior. Notice that in an anarchy, there is no public space. All property is privately owned. That's also something to consider.
That being the case Michael - may I ask why it sounds as though you are against firearms regulations? I mean, as in your example - you wouldn't give a car to someone incapable of handling it properly, and so we have tests to show capability and understanding of how to drive. Why give a firearm to someone without doing the same? (granted, I think many of our drivers tests are far too easy, and should be re-issued every few years, but that's a whole other argument)
Interesting post. The answer is quite complicated.
Firstly, in the USA the Government is not supposed to regulate who can and can not drive a car for personal reasons. IOWs you should not be required to have a driving licence. That licence is unconstitutional. Of course no one wants people driving who cannot drive properly. The answer to this should have been something that did not require passing a 'regulation' that violated the US Constitution. We didn't do that because it's easier to simply crap on the Constitution. Which is what we will continue to do until we're living in a total Nineteen Eighty Four Police State (which is actually quite close, I personally feel much freer outside the USA, rather than inside - particularly the police pretense in the US).
Now, let's review what I said. I said it is illegal for the Government to require a private citizen to be licensed to drive a car for personal reasons. You are only required to have a licence for business purposes. This is the thing, as soon as I mention this, people go ape shit and cannot seem to hear any further argument because all they think is: WHAT?! You want people driving on the roads that don't know what they doing?!? Blah blah blah....
Of course not.
When I suggest Income Tax should be ended - oh, then I don't care for the poor. Which is idiotic, of course I do.
When I suggest the Central Bank should be ended - oh, then I want the richest 1% to live like kings. Which is idiotic, of course I don't.
When I suggest Government Schools should be privatized - oh, then I don't care for children. Which is idiotic, I'll probably end my medical research career, end medical training, and open a private school of my own. At huge financial cost to myself with little, or no, recovery. By 'cost' I mean, I'd probably have to live INSIDE the school with my family. But, that's okay. I view the world differently Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have gun regulations now.
We do not have a gun problem.
We do have a lot of other problems.
We have a Natural Right, one that is actually enshrined / protected by the US Constitution through Amendment, to own and carry a gun. Notice, that Civil Right is protected - not granted. That f*ck-tard Paul Ryan actually stood on the floor and said owning a gun is a Constitutional granted right. See? These people either are clueless, or couldn't care or worse, actually work to undermine our notion of civil liberty.
Anyway, of course I don't want people walking around me with guns. Why carry a gun? What I am not willing to do is to rely on the Government's special use of initiating violence against morally innocent people to satisfy my desire that people around don't carry guns. We have to find a non-violent manner to ensure people are safe from being shot. IMO this can only come about through peaceful parenting, in a society at a certain level of development, with a people that have an inherently high IQ level (either Ethnically/culturally or genetically or epigenetically, or all of the above and/or some other reason - essentially smart people) where people use sound money and live in a free society (free markets) with laws that protect property and uphold contract.
I think Sweden or Germany maybe, could have gotten there. We were well on our way. Now? Now we have a set back. We have to wait as Government, like the cancer it is, expands, destroyed our prosperity (perhaps even instigates WWIII) and then try again Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The good thing is, each time, we're getting closer. And, at this time in history, technology may make it inevitable. We're at the point now, where we may end death itself - at least through natural aging processes. Then I wonder, which societies will be set up to thrive?
Anyway, I hope that clarifies my position.
I take it you'd prefer anarchy, Michael. Is that right?
Kant identified four kinds of government:
Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
Law and force without freedom (despotism).
Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
Force with freedom and law (republic).
I'd concur with his assessment, the preferable society is the one with law and freedom, but not dependent on the initiation of violent coercion against morally innocent human beings. There's numerous kinds of Anarchism, Noam Chomsky details why he's an Anarchist (here), if you're interested in the topic.
Because official records of statistics of gun crime always accurately reflect the amount of gun crime, as we all know. The same goes for things like the incidence of rape, and other crime statistics. And crimes committed by governments, for some reason, rarely seem to make it into the "official" statistics. Funny about that.
That's a fiction, like I said. Your constitution is an agreement you have among yourselves, nothing more. Moreover, it is not an edifice. It can be altered by agreement.
Do you think your rights derive from God? Or that they are innate? If they are innate, why doesn't every human being on the planet have them? Is it because of the exceptional people you Americans are?
You are talking about legal conventions as if they make any practical difference to the day-to-day lived experiences of citizens in the two nations. In practice, Australia has a sovereign in name only. We have a constitutional figure head. The day-to-day government of the nation is done by an elected Parliament. Similiar, in the US "the people" are sovereign on paper in the Constitution. But the day-to-day government of the nation is done by your legislature and President.
Australia shares many of the same political and philosophical traditions as the US. The idea of "rights" is by no means unique to the United States. The fact that you have chosen to attempt to codify certain rights in your Constitution is just a legal choice that to a large extent exists equally in Australian law in other ways. Your insistence that your rights are somehow "natural" is merely a philosophical position.
I have expressed no such idea. To legally remove that right completely you would need to amend your Constitution.
Gun control does not have to involve the abolition of guns and their removal from all citizens. But you're always one to jump to an extreme straw-man version of anything that smacks of "regulation" as opposed to anarchy, aren't you Michael?
Australia has had no mass shootings since 1996 when reasonable gun control measures were passed. We didn't abolish guns. We didn't remove citizens' rights to own guns. Sure, you should do things like we do in Australia. Those things would help solve your gun problem.
All human behaviour is a result of childhood and upbringing, plus genetics and some rational choices.
You sound angry again, Michael. Unresolved issues?
Will they also lack a fear response to having their guns taken away by the nasty evil governmentses?
Weird. One minute you're ostensibly talking about natural rights and gun control, and the next you're off on a rant about gay people and male power structures. Are you angry because you feel repressed, Michael?
You've lost me. I'm sure it makes sense to you, though. Maybe you should try to get out more. It can't be healthy obsessing about how wrong your society is all the time.
I'm not aware of any Supreme Court challenges to the requirement that drivers hold licences. How many have there been, and why did they fail, seeing as it's unconstitutional and all?
Ah yes. The "something" solution. Sounds like a much better idea.
I guess the anarchy would just decide to help the poor if you overthrew the evil government.
I guess in the anarchy all resources will be distributed equally and everybody will be happy in the paradise to come.
I guess in the anarchy nobody will need to be qualified to be a teacher, and therefore the education system will be far superior to what exists today.
Which are manifestly inadequate to control the problem.
I guess the anarchy will spontaneously decide that people walking around carrying guns is a bad idea and things will settle down after a few decades or centuries of dog eat dog warfare.
Obviously, reducing or getting rid of guns would not help at all. People would still be shot ... er... somehow.
Will eugenics be a good idea in the anarchy, too?
So let me get this right. The People are sovereign, and have all these natural rights and other good stuff. But they elect this government thing that is not the People, but which is just about uniformly evil and out to destroy The People. So, what The People need to do is to overthrow their elected representatives and establish a good 'ol People's Anarchy instead. Then there will be fluffy bunnies all round and everybody who matters will be happy and safe.
Do I have that right?
All of this points toward questions of the watch lists themselves, which really do need to be addressed, and did even before the Orlando atrocity.
Nonetheless, if this person is dangerous enough that we should suspend liberty for the sake of suspicion―e.g., no-fly list, extraordinary surveillance including a priori justifications filed post hoc, &c.―then this person is dangerous enough that we should suspend liberty, leading in turn to two main questions:
• Accepting at the outset that we have a history of finding reasons to suspend liberty, does this particular suspension meet the historical standard?
• If a person so dangerous as to not be allowed passage on an airplane is not so dangerous as to prohibit firearm acquisition and possession under law, then I would propose the whole idea of these watch lists is pretty toothless or, at best, arbitrarily applied, leading in their turn to questions of the watch lists themselves.
Kim Zetter↱ of Wired explained, last week:
Authorities placed Mateen on a watch list in May 2013 after coworkers at the Florida courthouse where he was a security guard told authorities he boasted of connections to al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations. He remained on the list for 10 months, and FBI Director James Comey told reporters this week that during that time the agency placed Mateen under surveillance and had confidential sources meet with him.
But the feds removed Mateen from the list in March 2014, after concluding that he had no significant links to terrorism beyond attending the same mosque as an American suicide bomber who died in Syria. “We don’t keep people under investigation indefinitely,” Comey said, adding that he doesn’t see anything that his agents should have done differently.
Comey didn’t identify the list Mateen was on, but an unnamed official told the Daily Beast that he was in two databases, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database and the Terrorist Screening Database, more commonly called the terrorist watch list.
What Is the No-Fly List?
This narrower list, derived from the terrorist watch list, includes people who haven’t done anything to warrant being arrested, yet the government deems too dangerous to allow onto commercial aircraft. Mateen reportedly did not appear on this list. The list included 2,500 individuals when Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff released the tally for the first time in 2008. Six years later, Christopher Piehota, director of the Terrorist Screening Center, told a House subcommittee it had 64,000 names on it. That sounds like a lot, but the list includes dead people and multiple versions of names.
The No-Fly list is also notorious for ensnaring the innocent whose names resemble those of suspected terrorists. Senator Ted Kennedy, for example, was repeatedly prevented from boarding planes because his name matched that of someone on the list.
In between those sections is a discussion of various lists, how one gets on them, and the general critique against them.
Your questions point back to the watch lists themselves. Your caution illustrates a functional problem. To the one, this person is so dangerous that despite our power to search him inside and out in order to guarantee he has no weapons, we still will not allow him on a commercial airplane. To the other, we have no problem with a person so dangerous walking around on the ground, bristling firepower. This is its own question, regardless of the seemingly necessary discussion about the watch lists itself. As it is, though, the disparity reminds of American priorities: We can search him, literally inside and out, and he's still not safe enough to allow on a plane, but we're just fine with him acquiring and possessing guns.
In the Orlando case, it's a little less direct, but the common question here is whether or not these watch lists serve any real purpose.
Think, for instance, how far away our American discourse is from rational consideration of questions concerning recidivism. Okay, so someone landed on the watch list; you and I alike share certain concerns. But thrice investigated? It seems at some point the FBI ought to be able to just knock on his door and say, "Look, you're conducting yourself in such a manner that people are calling us to inform. Over and over. And we get it; you're just venting and trying to sound scary in order to feel better about this or that, but this is ridiculous. Three times you've behaved in such a manner that people have called us with specific complaints that we cannot, according to our very job descriptions, ignore. We would very much prefer to not worry about you at all, sir, so we need you to find a clue, right now, and stop behaving like this."
That is to say, what is the middle ground between crashing the joint and simply closing the case?
But at some point, maybe once a guy shows up outside her apartment at the wrong time, and it's not stalking but just a misunderstanding. By the third time, though? The police are generally fretting at that point.
The watch list issue seems to require two primary questions, one of method and one of priority. To what degree will the question of priority disrupt consideration of method? That's a political question, but one generally predictable at present.
You know, in the tradition of government not working, Sen. Cornyn's bill suffered a fatal flaw of establishing a process that is essentially impossible to fulfill; it was a toothless proposition for show. But here's a fun one, because it illustrates the problem with priorities: Consider medical billing; over the years we've seen more and more reduction of diagnostic and procedural information to code numbers designed to uniformly represent diagnoses and procedures throughout health care practice. One can think what they want politically, morally, and ethicallly about this result; it does have some bearing. But the practical point here is that it was a long, arduous, complicated bureaucratic task politically fraught throughout. Now consider various discussions of "free tuition", and the proposition of getting every public college and university onto the same accounting system, curriculum standards, and other bureaucratic outlooks and procedures. As I said, our political or moral outlook has some bearing, as our subsequent horror derives and expresses differently; to wit, from the thought of such a federalized bureaucracy in and of itself or trying to conceive of the complexity of such a bureaucracy―the E&O potential is downright terrifying, regardless of the political principles.
Cornyn's bill, in order to work properly, would need law enforcement to undergo a similar transformation because the main problem with his proposal is the impossibility of complying within the prescribed period; consider the uniformity and scale of the databases required in order to carry out the necessary procedures in seventy-two hours.
And we know it's not going to happen; such bureaucracy in support of such broad state authority usually unsettles libertarians, but in terms of poltical pitches it might be their least bad option because the result is a toothless system.
I'd throw in apparent recidivism because I really don't like the loose criteria for even the allegedly stricter no-fly list.
Two aspects, though, stand out: One has to do with standing problems in how the government functions; the other has to do with the proposition of finally getting around to these problems because something makes that a priority.
To wit, the Heritage Foundation↱ response to Meza-Rodriguez celebrating the Seventh's rejection of the non-citzen exclusion, but denouncing the proposition that the government can regulate firearm ownership and possession. And this is the point.
Look at what goes on within the packages; the Democrats are doing their usual rally up 'round the inadequate option that they think they have a snowball's chance in hell of finding a way to pass; the Republicans are still playing to make certain nothing happens↱.
Bolton, Alexander. "McConnell quashes Senate effort on guns". The Hill. 23 June 2016. TheHill.com. 24 June 2016. http://bit.ly/28URlgH
Kloster, Andrew. "Appeals Court Ruling Could Threaten the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens". The Herigage Foundation. 16 March 2016. Heritage.org. 24 June 2016. http://herit.ag/290uHz2
Zetter, Kim. "How Does the FBI Watch List Work? And Could It Have Prevented Orlando?" Wired. 17 June 2016. Wired.com. 24 June 2016. http://bit.ly/28MVf5J
Or it may be the Communist States govern their societies in a manner that makes shooting people difficult.
From Chicago Tribune (circa 1990): [Communist] E. Germany Paying Freedom`s Price: Crime.
It seems both reasonable, as well as empirically evidenced, that Communist States are better able to protect Citizens from gun violence when compared to Western Democratic societies. Further still, it appears that Communist societies are, in general, safer. Well James, how many Australians need to needlessly die by gun violence before Australians support sensible governance? How many senseless deaths are enough for you? What's the number? Is there even any number?!
True, and we prefer to align our governmental agreements with moral, rather than perceived pragmatic, arguments.
American exceptionalism refers to our lack of monarchy and personal sovereignty. As for our rights, they're derived from our unique human consciousness. Which is why a embryo has no rights, why children and mentally deranged have less rights and why animals are not afforded the same level of rights.
And, day to day life for your average Communist Chinese Citizens is, in generally, about the same. That said, our Government is quite a bit different than theirs - as well as Australia's.
Let me make myself clear, we have the right to own a gun. This right is not 'given' to us by our Government. It is not 'granted' to us by our Constitution. It is an inherent natural right. Further, our culture cherishes the protection of our natural rights more so than virtue-signalling by a few beta males. Thus, we'll be protecting our right to own a gun (which is actually quite heavily regulated as it is).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh really? Your entire premise that we have a gun problem is a straw-man. Because we don't. Not to mention the snarky nature of your post which concludes with another straw-man. LOL
I completely disagree.
Anger is a fantastic emotion. I wouldn't waste such useful emotion on an argument (philosophical) regarding a non-issue like gun control.
Are you sure you're not projecting James?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If I sound argumentative, it probably is on purpose. In this instance, it's to draw attention to the crumbling edifice of our mainstream 'media' and how they are used to manipulate Grade-6 reading level America (and Australia). The real story here, news if you will, is about a bronze age superstition that is incompatible with our modern belief systems - that taught a gay man to hate himself. The larger story being on the failure of moral relativism, sup-plots including notions of subjectivity, idealism and (again) relativism. Sorry, but some ideas are indeed, better than others and, at least in my opinion, the cracks are widening on the old, making way for something ... different. Let's hope it's not a Police State Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For though we love both the truth and our friends, piety requires us to honor the truth first.
Really? Have you even looked?
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets.
That's not how it works. Also, the vast majority of your life is lived anarchically and, what little contact you make with the government directly, is usually unpleasant. All of your relationships with family and friends, where you eat, what you wear, etc.... all of these best things in your life are anarchic.
The Internet is a wonderful example of Statism giving way to Anarchy (hopefully).
Is that your argument?
Who said that? You?
Your's reminds me of the Slave Owners' argument (it should be note, they prospered and benefited from the system of Slavery and therefor one could argue their's was a post-hoc argument based on history, normalization and cognitive biases). Anyway, the story went like this: Without Slavery we'd all die of starvation, of exposure and hunger. Oh, and the Slaves - THEY ALSO benefits from their enslavement. Let's not forget about this. Of course, given the thousands of years of history, there really was no good argument at the time. I mean, what were the Abolitionists going to say? Dinosaur juice crushed in the earth millions of years ago would run large automaton machines directed via space satellites so that 1 man could do the work of 10,000? And, that people would actually waddle around and die of obesity and not starve to death? That they'd throw clothing away - due to month-long/short changes in fashion trends? Who'd in their right mind believe that bullshit 150 years ago? Yet, it was all true.
So, they made the moral argument, which unsurprising to me, was the correct one to be made. One of us is on the wrong side of history, which we don't know. What we do know, is one of these arguments is moral, and that one is not yours.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is the inherent natural right to own a gun (that isn't specifically granted by government or constitution) the same as the inherent natural right to own a car, or a helicopter, or a private jet, or a tank, or any other machine?
In the USA, you have the natural right to purchase a car, helicopter, private jet or tank, etc... yes. Or attempt to build one of your own.
Why the USA specifically? Surely a "natural" right applies to any human being, regardless of culture?
I find the implications of this statement to be disturbing.
Natural rights are rights that are shared by all men regardless of whether they are recognized by their governments . You can say, as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, that these rights were endowed by our creator, or you can say that they are implicit to the nature of man.
Without natural rights, what moral standing would anyone have to question injustice? Slavery, genocide, rape, murder. What is the logical underpinning of any argument against even these atrocities in the absence of natural law?
Do you believe a woman has the right to not be raped, or that people have the right to not be murdered? Then how come people all over the world are murdered and raped every year? The existence of a right does not guarantee that it will be respected.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Via The Stranger↱:
Michael Volz was attacked on East Pike Street and 11th Avenue on Wednesday around 11:30 p.m. after leaving the Let Your Love Shine: A Queer Benefit For Orlando at Neumos. "According to Seattle Police, officers responded to a residential address to investigate the incident around 2:15 AM Thursday morning," Capitol Hill Seattle reports.
Officers are now investigating the beating, which occurred just two days before the neighborhood's Trans Pride march and rally, as a possible anti-trans hate crime, CHS said.
And the detail, from the GoFundMe↱ page established to help with the medical bills::
Michael was attending "Let Your Love Shine" at Neumos; a queer benefit show and fundraiser for the victims of the Pulse, Orlando shooting. Michael left a little bit before friends to walk to their car and get ready for work in the morning. As they passed the Wildrose they were approached by a white man in an orange sweatshirt with scruffy brown hair. The man - who was a stranger - said "Hey, happy Pride" and then physically attacked. Michael was choked, punched repeatedly in the face, and kneed in the abdomen. As the man was punching and choking, he said, "Show me your tits you tranny cunt." When he finished the assault he immediately left the scene.
This is just a reminder that it isn't new just because it was a Muslim.
This is pretty much just another day in queer America.
And Cap Hill? Might be our neighborhood, but long before some Muslim closet case shot up a club in Florida, regular, ol' fashioned, white, Christian, patriotic Americans wandered on up to go hunting.
You don't get to pretend it's new just because it was a Muslim.
"Michael Volz Trans-bashing-Support". Go Fund Me. 23 June 2016. GoFundMe.com. 27 June 2016. http://bit.ly/28WFo51
Knauf, Ana Sofia. "A Trans Person Was Attacked on Capitol Hill on Wednesday". Slog. 24 June 2016. TheStranger.com. 27 June 2016. http://bit.ly/29ejKdn
Putting aside the fact that this is a case still under investigation, Whats your point? That we don't get to "pretend" a nutjob killing 50 people in a nightclub in the name of an Islamic terrorist group is new because other people hate gays too?
It reminds me of the old TV series, Dallas. The main character, J.R., was shot in the season finale and it was a big cliff hanger. You see, a lot of people didn't like J.R.. Many people had a motive for killing him, yet only one actually shot him. (It was Kristin).
The fact that other people or groups may have had a motive for a crime does not negate the fact that only one did the deed. And there's no mystery here. We know who did it, and his declaration of allegiance to a group known for burning people alive and throwing gays off of roofs pretty much tells us why.
Separate names with a comma.