No one loves a mass shooting more than democrats

Loading

 

democrats are quick to lambaste Trump and Trump supporters following any terrible event but they really ramp it up following a mass shooting. Mika Brzezinski said “I mean, this is a president who seems to want these things to happen.”



No. democrats want these things to happen. They love mass shootings. The bodies were not cold and services had not taken place before democrats were using the tragedies to score some campaign cash.

Item 1

The Democratic National Committee is fundraising off the weekend’s tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, seeking donations for the fight to “prevent gun violence and save lives.”

The DNC sent an email to supporters on Monday, signed by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, encouraging donors to “split” a donation of $10 to $200 between the DNC and Giffords’ PAC.

“Friend,” the email begins, “… We can’t afford to wait another day, or for another massacre to happen in our country, for lawmakers to address this. Yet the defenders of the status quo—the gun manufacturing lobby and every single politician who is paid to defend it—will tell you that horrific acts of violence are beyond our control.”

 

Item 2

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) sent a fundraising email Monday on the heels of two mass shootings, urging donations to Democratic Senate campaigns.

Shooters in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, over the weekend killed a combined 29 people, reigniting a fierce debate over gun rights.

Warren, a 2020 presidential candidate, didn’t solicit donations for her campaign, but rather for Sens. Doug Jones (D., Ala.), Tina Smith (D., Minn.), and the eventual Democratic nominees in states holding Senate elections in 2020.

Warren blasted the lack of action on gun control in the Republican-led Senate, lamenting its “inexusable” failure to pick up legislation passed by Democrats in the House expanding background checks and waiting times.

“It’s clear Republicans don’t have the courage to do something about this crisis. We can’t wait for them to act — because they won’t,” she wrote. “If we’re going to address the gun violence epidemic in our country, we need to take back the Senate in 2020. I’ll fight my heart out to make sure Democrats win up and down the ballot in 2020—but if we’re going to beat Republicans and the gun lobby, it’s going to take a grassroots movement.”

Item 3

Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) sent a fundraising email on Sunday asking her supporters to contribute to Giffords PAC, as well as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, two political advocacy groups.

Her campaign has defended the fundraising email, saying the three groups it is raising money for are “gun violence prevention organizations.”

A sober and sad voice speaks to this

The father of a victim in the Parkland, Florida, school shooting told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight that politicians should not be focused on pushing their agenda right after a mass shooting takes place.

Andrew Pollack told Tucker Carlson Monday that there needs to be more of a focus on law enforcement finding out what happened in the early moments of the shooting than on political grandstanding, citing the the Dayton and El Paso shootings as examples of what not to do.

“These politicians jumped on these events to push their political agendas and the victims aren’t even in the ground yet… and they’re pushing an agenda without even looking at the facts of what went wrong,” he said.

“Let the police do their job and look into what happened. They’re pretty pathetic.”

Pollack— whose daughter Meadow was killed in the 2018 Parkland, Florida, shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School— said when lawmakers tried to politicize the tragedy it affected him personally.

“There are no words that I could put on it to tell you how it affected me when my daughter got murdered,” he said.”I’m so damaged by what happens with these people. To push a gun control agenda and take our rights away from victims— I’m not going to be a victim.”

Don’t let them kid you. No one loves a mass shooting more than a democrat

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

No-one-loves-a-mass-shooting-more-than-democrat,,,,, if, and only if, it fits their narrative.

In June, Devon Robinson shot two gay men and one transgender man. The shootings, which took place during Pride Month, according to a spokeswoman for the Detroit prosecutor’s office, targeted and killed the victims “because they were part of the LGBTQ community.” Had Devon been white, there’s little doubt that there would already be a play, a movie and a monument to his victims. But instead it’s been buried.
The Robinson shootings demonstrate how the media negotiates its own intersectional cover-ups.

DeWayne Craddock, a Virginia Beach government employee murdered 12 people at his workplace. The victims were both white and black. Even though Craddock was the deadliest workplace mass shooter of 2019, there’s been very little coverage of his case.
Craddock’s killing spree got far less coverage than Santino William Legan’s attack on the Gilroy Garlic Festival even though he killed 4 times more people than Legan did. White mass shooters like Legan are seen as more newsworthy because they make a better case for gun control than black shooters like Craddock.

Around the same time that the media was focused on the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, 60 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend. 24 of those people were shot in four hours.
Baltimore reached its 200th murder victim of the year during its “Ceasefire Weekend”.
4 people were killed in 4 days in Kansas City.
6 men were shot in Philly during the filming of a rap video.

But CNN ignored all this because it didn’t fit their narrative that, “mass shootings are a white man’s problem.” https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/opinions/mass-shootings-white-male-rage-modan-opinion/index.html

This was on the Facebook page of a woman who lost both her brother and sister-in-law in the El Paso shootings.

“It’s such a shame that two of our local politicians (I refuse to say their names as they don’t deserve it) are saying that our President is not welcome on Wednesday. I cannot believe how these monsters are using the tragic event to push their political agenda. I lost my brother and sister-in-law on Saturday. My family and I are living a horrible nightmare. The visit from our President will be more than comforting to my family. He will not be here for a political agenda. The two monsters from El Paso, who do not deserve to be mentioned by name nor even the nicknames I have for them, are just pure evil. My brothers body was still laying at Walmart on Saturday night when they decided to make this into a political issue and push their agenda by blaming our President for this. Rather than focusing on the situation and the individual who destroyed the lives of many, these evil people selfishly turned this into a political war. I’m equally as angered by those two as I am with the person who took my brother and his wife from me, typing this I think I feel more animosity towards those two evil politicians. – Deborah”

Robert Francis O’Rourke was asking for people to donate to his campaign just a few short hours after the shootings. Meanwhile, Robert Francis, and the rest of the Democrat cabal, say things that are meant to divide us.

Democrats, the party that never let a crisis go to waste.

Allow me to toss in this little thing from Microsoft News

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/red-flag-gun-control-bills-pick-up-momentum-with-gop-in-congress/ar-AAFqNjB

What do you support legislation to help law enforcement take guns from those who pose an imminent danger, called “red-flag” legislation?

Yes 22%
No 72%
No opinion 6%

Based on 1,099 responses. Snapshot of real-time results. Learn More.

@Boris Badenov: From your article:
In states that lack red flag laws, judges typically require a diagnosis of dangerous mental illness before a person is barred from owning firearms. And despite the pronouncements of politicians who are quick to blame mass shootings on people who are mentally ill, research shows that past violent behavior is a much better indicator of whether someone will turn violent. White extremist ideology also drives many deadly shootings.

So, in NON-red flag states it takes a judge and a doctor to get guns removed from someone.
In red flag states a neighbor (read Soros-run campaign targeting all non-progressives) can get guns removed from someone.

Unless the one purporting to claim you are an ”imminent danger” is vetted and found to be someone who knows you and cares about you, it could be anyone.
It could be a covert way of getting guns away from everyone except the gov’t.

Democrats are nothing but circling vultures. The only difference between actual vultures is that THESE scavengers have the capability to help CREATE the carrion.

@Boris Badenov: Instead of purging youth criminal records or not having them recorded at all based on race, this should be in a database available for background checks. Further, violent and criminal acts need to be recorded more thoroughly in order to establish violent tendencies.

What scares people off is the ideological element involved or can be involved, such as how social media censors non-liberal expression. Red flag laws can be helpful, but widespread government abuse is possible. If it cannot be secured as objective, NO red flag laws.

Take note I am well aware that I supported the Patriot Act’s honorable and legitimate purpose to surveil terrorist activity, though it has been horribly abused by liberals. Again, if dangers such as this cannot be prevented, then red flag laws are not possible.

Looks like Vultures are not the only opertunists so are the Democrats idiots like Cory Booker and Beto Orourke blame Trump for the mass shootings the fact that the El Paso shooter was a big tome Eco Freak just like the Unibomber who was inspired by Al Gore and his book Earth In The Balance

American Digest has a compilation of the last 98 mass shooters:

http://americandigest.org/wp/memo2file-exhibit-a/

66 of the 98 are black.

I thought murder was illegal. Isn’t taking a life bad?
If that law does not work, fix it.
What am I missing?
So 20 dead bodies gets you three hots and a cot for 20 years?
How about 30 days and a guillotine?
How hard can it be when the perp is caught in the act?

September 1, 2019 – Texas loosens firearm laws hours after the state’s latest mass shooting left 7 dead

A series of new firearm laws go into effect in Texas on Sunday, just hours after a shooting left seven people dead in the western part of the state.

The laws will further loosen gun restrictions in a state that’s had four of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern US history, including the El Paso shooting last month, when a gunman stormed a Walmart and killed 22 people.
The new measures were all passed during the 2019 legislative session, which ended in June….

It’s hard to dispute the assertion that there’s a mental health issue involved.

@Greg: These only affect the law abiding. No laws restrict what criminals will do. The mental health problem is liberals expecting (or, really, PRETENDING to expect) criminals to suddenly turn law abiding and respect gun laws and restrictions.

Provide the law relaxed or the new proposed law that would have prevented ANY of these shootings. Take your time.

@Greg:

September 1, 2019 – Texas loosens firearm laws hours after the state’s latest mass shooting left 7 dead

A criminally misleading headline created specifically so idiots like you will repost it.

@retire05: Liberals don’t know when they are being misled. In fact, they prefer it. Facts hurt.

@retire05, #11:

A criminally misleading headline created specifically so idiots like you will repost it.

Texas House Bill 302, effective September 1, 2019:

House Bill 302 amends the Penal Code and Property Code to prohibit the owner or landlord of an applicable condominium or rental property, a tenant or guest of such an owner or landlord, or a guest of a tenant from being prohibited from lawfully possessing, carrying, transporting, or storing a firearm, any part of a firearm, or firearm ammunition in the applicable property, in a vehicle located in the property’s parking area, or certain other locations unless prohibited by state or federal law. The bill establishes related defenses to prosecution for the offenses of criminal trespass, trespass by a handgun license holder with a concealed handgun, and trespass by a handgun license holder with an openly carried handgun.

So you, the property owner, no longer have any right to have a “no firearms” clause in a lease or rental agreement pertaining to your own property. If you’re the owner of a duplex or multi-apartment home that you yourself live in, you can’t do that. If you own a complex that welcomes families with small children, you can’t tell the twitchy tenant who came with the property when you bought it that he can’t keep an assault rifle two sheets of drywall away from the neighbor kids’ bedroom.

Is there something misleading about pointing out any of that?

The article in question provided links to the new Texas gun laws. They do, in fact, represent a loosening of firearm regulation.

@Greg:

So you, the property owner, no longer have any right to have a “no firearms” clause in a lease or rental agreement pertaining to your own property.

True. Because, first, Biden’s “gun free zones” have been a dismal failure for keeping people safe. They are, in fact, a magnet for murder. An apartment building that burglars can be assured will be filled with unarmed, defenseless citizens, would be a happy hunting ground. Also note the “lawful” modifier. Lawful gun owners are rarely the problem.

Second, what other rights are denied a renter? Free speech? Unlawful search? Anything? Why should the 2nd Amendment be prohibited?

NO ONE legally owns an assault rifle. Their ownership is strictly and expressly prohibited. You might keep up with the law before you further make a total fool of yourself.

Is there something misleading about pointing out any of that?

Only all of it.

@Deplorable Me, #14:

No one is forcing any prospective tenant to sign a lease with a landlord who wants no firearms on his or her own rental property. Texas has just diminished every property owner’s control and authority over his or her own property. If you think your crazy tenant may be stocking up for a shooting spree, you’ve now got one less basis for making a police report allowing someone to check. Hey, your tenant can stockpile firearms and ammunition in the room you’re renting to him if he wants. You’ve got nothing whatsoever to say about it, just because you own the place.

NO ONE legally owns an assault rifle. Their ownership is strictly and expressly prohibited. You might keep up with the law before you further make a total fool of yourself.

Screw the NRA’s bogus public relations and sales campaign arguments. In popular usage, the term “assault rifle” describes a weapon of obvious military design that has been reconfigured to allow it to be sold on the civilian market. Properly accessorized, they’re the favored tool of those intending mass homicide everywhere. Witness the alarmingly increasing frequency with which they are used in this fashion. They’re appreciated by the active shooter of the week for their ability to accept high capacity magazines and their ability to sustain a high rate of fire. They’re really not well suited to home or personal defense, nor are they traditional sporting firearms. Basically, they’re a civilian version of highly efficient military killing tools.

@Greg:

No one is forcing any prospective tenant to sign a lease with a landlord who wants no firearms on his or her own rental property.

Never said they were. No one is forcing anyone that doesn’t want to own a gun from owning one either, are they?

Texas has just diminished every property owner’s control and authority over his or her own property.

Property owners don’t have the right to deny an illegal immigrant from renting, either, yet they could be deported and leave the owner with unpaid rent, remaining tenants without the means to pay and damages. Now, how absurd is it to not be able to restrict their leases to those in the country lawfully? But, some idiotic people think illegal immigration should be subsidized and encouraged.

Hey, your tenant can stockpile firearms and ammunition in the room you’re renting to him if he wants. You’ve got nothing whatsoever to say about it, just because you own the place.

That’s right, as long as they violate no laws. Remember that “lawfully” part? Apparently not. Apparently, to the liberal, when someone does something they don’t like to look at, it magically becomes unlawful. This from the people who think all laws only apply to other people.

Screw the NRA’s bogus public relations and sales campaign arguments.

It has nothing to do with the NRA. Just because you are ignorant doesn’t give you the right expect others to accept your examples of your ignorance.

The term “assault rifle” describes a weapon that is selective from semi-automatic to full automatic. I would expect a combat veteran to know that.

How a weapon is used if fully up to the user, not the weapon. Biden’ “gun free zones” has been responsible for more shootings than a pistol-grip on a semi-automatic rifle. Yet, no liberals will address what the true dangers are because you would all rather exploit tragedies for the goal of disarming all citizens, making them easier to control. Control is the goal, not safety. If it was safety, they would not be so blatantly stupid.

Again, as related to home defense, “they” are illegal, so no one uses them for home defense. However, if one lives in liberal cities where illegal immigrants are attracted, illegal immigrant criminals are released from custody so they will not be deported, law abiding citizens are banned from gun ownership while criminals can have all they want and the police are discouraged from performing their function, a fully automatic weapon would be the perfect home defense weapon.

@Deplorable Me, #16:

Never said they were. No one is forcing anyone that doesn’t want to own a gun from owning one either, are they?

You missed the point. Prior to the law change, a landlord could set the rule on his or her own property. If a prospective tenant didn’t like a no firearm restriction, he could choose to rent elsewhere.

Now a landlord cannot set the rule for his or her own property. A tenant can bring firearms onto the landlord’s property if he wishes, against the property-owner’s will. Other tenants will be deprived of any choice about whether their children live in a firearm-free environment or not. The option of making such a choice when they decide where to live has just been taken from them by the government of Texas. In Texas, that freedom to choose has just been abolished by people who pretend to champion individual freedom, and they limited the property owners’ property rights with the same stroke of a pen.

@Greg:

You missed the point. Prior to the law change, a landlord could set the rule on his or her own property.

They COULD? Could they set the rule that no blacks could live there? Could they set the rule that no gays could live there? Could they set the rule that no Muslims could live there?

No. They couldn’t. And there is absolutely no reason they should be able to ban a law abiding citizen from having a gun in their home.

Other tenants will be deprived of any choice about whether their children live in a firearm-free environment or not.

Well, like you say… no one forces them to live there, do they? The choice is the choice NOT to violate a Constitutional right.

@Greg:

Now a landlord cannot set the rule for his or her own property. A tenant can bring firearms onto the landlord’s property if he wishes, against the property-owner’s will. Other tenants will be deprived of any choice about whether their children live in a firearm-free environment or not. The option of making such a choice when they decide where to live has just been taken from them by the government of Texas. In Texas, that freedom to choose has just been abolished by people who pretend to champion individual freedom, and they limited the property owners’ property rights with the same stroke of a pen.

Well, Holy Cow, Batman, you have decided that property owners have rights. I am sure you will also agree that those rights extend to other issues as well, right? Perhaps the property owner is a American vet of the Vietnam war and doesn’t like Vietnamese. He should be able to refuse to rent to them, right? Or maybe the property owner doesn’t like those who drink beer, drive a Prius or are gay. No apartment to those people because it is the property owners choice, right?

Let’s take it even further, shall we? A Muslim baker doesn’t like Jews so the baker should have the right to deny selling anything to the Jew, correct? Or how about not serving a hamburger to a Christian because the property owner (who owns the burger joint and the land it sits on) is an atheist and doesn’t like Christians. That’s within the property owners rights, correct? Or maybe the property owner has Muslim tenants and the Muslims don’t want to live next door to Christians. That meet your standard for the rights of the tenants? Maybe those tenants with children don’t want to live next door to a couple of illegals. Their right, correct? The property owner should deny renting to the illegals because of the renters who don’t want them in their apartment complex.

Texas HB 302 was not a problem until radical left wing CNN decided it was. It is not a problem with Texans, so my advise to you, stay the hell out of Texas.

@Deplorable Me, #18:

They COULD? Could they set the rule that no blacks could live there? etc

A landlord can’t discriminate based on race, religion, or ethnicity, so it follows that they shouldn’t be allowed to impose conditions based upon anything else? I don’t think so.

Well, like you say… no one forces them to live there, do they?

Nor does that follow, because no other landlord in Texas that they might choose to rent from can set a no firearms allowed restriction, either. A landlord’s option of offering such an assurance has now been eliminated.

@Greg:

A landlord can’t discriminate based on race, religion, or ethnicity, so it follows that they shouldn’t be allowed to impose conditions based upon anything else? I don’t think so.

But you do think that a landlord should be able to discriminate against someone who chooses to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Got it.

Nor does that follow, because no other landlord in Texas that they might choose to rent from can set a no firearms allowed restriction, either.

You’re not concerned about the Texan property owner’s rights. If you were, you would support a property owner’s right to refuse to rent to anyone. You’re simply anti-Second Amendment. You’re as nuts as the idiot that just wrote that people should stop wearing ALL red baseball caps because they scare people. I doubt that idiot will be invited to a Cardinals baseball game. She might be triggered.

You liberals are all certifiable nut cases.

@retire05, #21:

But you do think that a landlord should be able to discriminate against someone who chooses to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Got it.

Yes. You got it. A property owner should have a fundamental right to decide whether or not people he rents to can bring firearms onto his or her property—and a property owner, did until yesterday, when the Texas State Legislature and Governor took that fundamental property right away.

Republicans should drop any pretense of supporting individual rights. You only support them so far as they allow you to impose your own views on others. Rights are absolute—until the moment you run into a consequence that bothers you.

@Greg:

A landlord can’t discriminate based on race, religion, or ethnicity, so it follows that they shouldn’t be allowed to impose conditions based upon anything else? I don’t think so.

No, they can’t, nor should they. They also shouldn’t make their property a Constitution-free zone. Legal gun owners are an asset, not a threat.

Nor does that follow, because no other landlord in Texas that they might choose to rent from can set a no firearms allowed restriction, either. A landlord’s option of offering such an assurance has now been eliminated.

Oh, now I get it. Yeah, now it’s clear. Like “gun free zones”, right? Assured and guaranteed that since YOU can’t have a weapon for self defense, no one else will either because, well, RULES. And, it always works to keep everyone safe… right? Here’s the scoop; just like in absolutely every other case, without exception, such rules only prevents the law abiding citizen from exercising HIS or HER right to self defense, not any criminal from being a threat. The criminal could not care less where they are “prohibited” from having a gun. THIS is why you and your degenerate party cannot propose ANY law that would effectively prevent any shootings; because you don’t accept REALITY.

The Midland/Odessa shooter failed a background check and was denied the purchase of a weapon… LEGALLY. So, how many lives did THAT save as opposed to the gun brought to bear against this shooter?

A property owner should have a fundamental right to decide whether or not people he rents to can bring firearms onto his or her property

And likewise they should be able to ban Muslims from renting and living in their property as well, right? Because SOME Muslims are terrorists, make bombs and go on shooting or stabbing sprees, don’t they? So, BAN THEM ALL. Right?

Republicans should drop any pretense of supporting individual rights. You only support them so far as they allow you to impose your own views on others.

Exactly correct. We want to impose the right to HAVE RIGHTS on everyone. YOU want to decide what rights people have (the right to self defense… no; the right to kill innocent life… OK) based on YOUR ideology. We support the right for you to have that vomitous ideology; you don’t support MY right to follow MY ideology, which includes having human rights.

Rights are absolute—until the moment you run into a consequence that bothers you.

You just described your ideology. That is also how you look at laws and justice. Read it and ask yourself if that is what you really believe.