Press "Enter" to skip to content

Creepy little jihadi mass-murders gays while media aims at innocent gun owners

I hadn’t heard the news when I posted earlier. Fifty killed and 53 wounded last night at a gay nightclub in Orlando. I probably wouldn’t have let that links post go live if I’d known, but there it is.

The NYT, in an article I won’t link to, tried to spin the slaughter as some “confluence” of terrorism and a strictly American phenomenon of mass shootings. (Has the NYT not read any news from Europe or Africa the last few years?)

But even the Times, in an article loaded with scary gun photos, admits that mass murderers usually pass background checks — while nevertheless giving off abundant signs of their evil nature and evil intentions.

The latest creep is no exception. Heck, this guy was even some sort of “security” official and a wannabe cop. But also a wife-beater, a vocal racist and homophobe, a target of an FBI investigation, and a past honoree of the TSA’s no-fly list. And somehow the fedgov never noticed this guy was Not Good? Nobody noticed he was Not Good? But of course, none of that is what matters. What matters is that you and I and millions like us have eeeeeeeeeevil guns. And of course — the guns did it! Not some violent loser who imagined his vicious god was on his side.

Funny how, at the same time they’re so eager to spout “facts” about “assault rifles” the MSM are busily hedging on whether or not the perp was actually an “official” jihadi. (It also appears that the guy’s own employer gave him a free pass because of his religion. A co-worker repeatedly tried to alert their employer that the soon-to-be killer was an unhinged loon with lots to say about all the groups he hated. But the creep kept his job. Apparently just Because Muslim.) Can’t offend those murderous religious fanatics, you know. Must be fair — except where the subject is guns.

Hold onto your hats, fellow gun owners. And hold onto your firearms, your ammo, and most of all your principles. We’re headed for a bumpy ride.

Meanwhile, we can hope that all 72 “virgins” the perp plans to rape in the afterlife will actually be used up old crack wh*res with multiple STDs.

18 Comments

  1. Jim B.
    Jim B. June 12, 2016 9:08 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, this prove that the government wants the people to be secured but not provide security for the people. As far as they are concerned, they are not here for us, we are here for them, to be used and exploited.

    I’ve heard the guy had been “interviewed” at least 3 times and let go. That they’d somehow figured out he’s more useful to them not in custody than in. The old adage of them not letting a crisis go to waste was invoked yet AGAIN.

    That’s my opinion and gut feeling and I’m sticking with it.

  2. Bob G.
    Bob G. June 13, 2016 7:08 am

    The truth is that most states do not restrict concealed carry in bars. I’d treat this like we do driving: if you’re caught carrying with a high blood alcohol level, you’re in trouble. In other words, carry in bars should be OK, but drinking and guns don’t mix any more than drinking and driving.

    So I’m calling for a little LESS gun control to “harden” some soft targets, such as the Pulse nightclub.

    I’d be happy to be a “designated defender” for my group on an evening out. I don’t touch alcohol when carrying, anyway.

    Just a few handguns scattered in the right hands in that club, and the bad guy would have been shot in the back when shooting or reloading, resulting in much less loss of life. And the media would now be trying to spin the kind of story they don’t like, rather than dancing in the blood of the 49 victims. BTW, it’s my understanding they’re counting the murderer among the death toll, so that means 49 victims, not 50.

  3. Claire
    Claire June 13, 2016 10:12 am

    Shel — How absolutely despicable! And how gross that sites decrying Islamic extremism are “hateful” but apparently Islamic extremists who kill people aren’t hateful at all; they’re just driven mad by the eeeeeevil guns in their hands.

  4. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty June 13, 2016 10:48 am

    Seems most folks forget that defense is a reaction, and that bad things can rarely be predicted and prevented. If presented with the fact that someone was harming others, whatever weapon he/she/it chose to use, only then is defensive force justified. It doesn’t really matter if the person (or persons) are Muslim, 7 feet tall, or dressed in a Santa suit… It is the initiation of force that is the problem, not who or what they are/were.

    The best outcome is the death or serious injury of the aggressor, preferably at the hands of the intended victim.

  5. Ellendra
    Ellendra June 13, 2016 11:23 am

    “Just a few handguns scattered in the right hands in that club, and the bad guy would have been shot in the back when shooting or reloading, resulting in much less loss of life.”

    Heck, just one person with a broken bottle could have stopped it, given the number of times he supposedly stopped to reload. Every bar has glass bottles.

    If a person’s mind is not geared towards defense, they become helpless no matter what weapons are at hand. Although I will say that carrying a gun has a tendency to get people to think tactically where they wouldn’t before.

  6. Shel
    Shel June 13, 2016 11:33 am

    And they even depict those who voice valid concerns about transgender use of women’s rest rooms as hateful.

    FWIW, Florida law prohibits concealed carry in a portion of an establishment that has as its primary purpose (meaning gets over 50% of its income from, I think) sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. So if there’s a restaurant section and a bar section, you can legally carry in the restaurant part but not in the bar. I don’t think this is a bad law at all, actually. At least it makes sense. So at a night club they wouldn’t be allowed to carry. Another gun free – er, free fire – zone ripe for some kills. I choose not to go to those places.

    Fl Statute 790.06(12)(a): “A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:”

    790.06(12)(a)12: “Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose”

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

  7. Laird
    Laird June 13, 2016 11:41 am

    I’ve seen the statute Shel cited posted elsewhere, too, and believe he is correct about FL law. I also agree that guns and alcohol are a bad mix, so keeping them out of a bar isn’t a bad idea. But the bouncers, bartenders and managers could (and, in my opinion, should) be armed.

    But my question is, given that at least one of the weapons the killer used was a long gun (AR-15, maybe?), how did he manage to take it into the club without being seen and stopped? It’s not like he could hide it under an overcoat in FL in the summer.

  8. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty June 13, 2016 1:22 pm

    Laird, the whole deal is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep guns out of bars, or anywhere else if someone wants to murder people. The “law” has only one effect, which is to keep (most of) the GOOD guys from taking guns into those places. And that only happens when people accept the bogus authority of their chosen rulers to leave them unarmed potential victims. See how that works? The murders don’t give a rat’s *** about those laws, any more than they care about the law against murder.

    Anyone who thinks they can’t drink (drive, use a power saw, etc.) responsibly if they have a beer or two should be perfectly free to go unarmed any time and any place they wish. They simply have no legitimate authority to decide that for anyone else.

    I just had a wee dram of whiskey myself. I’m sitting here armed and ready to go. I am not in the least impaired or unable to use my better judgment should someone decide to knock down the door. I don’t go out after a drink, nor do I go to “bars,” simply because I choose not to do so. But that’s my choice. Those who choose otherwise simply must be prepared to deal with any consequences. And for millions who do so, there are none… or we’d be hearing about it from the antis hourly.

    So, steady there my friend. The guns and alcohol won’t mix purists are not supported by the facts of life. Excess is definitely a potential problem, but no “law” can define that, nor can it control it.

    The sad fact is probably that none of those victims were armed because they CHOSE not to be, for whatever reason. I sincerely hope they will choose differently soon.

  9. LarryArnold
    LarryArnold June 13, 2016 6:08 pm

    But my question is, given that at least one of the weapons the killer used was a long gun (AR-15, maybe?), how did he manage to take it into the club without being seen and stopped?

    Maybe he walked up to the entrance and said, “Get out of the way, I’m going in.” At that point, hiding the rifle is unnecessary.

    And once again I note that while 50 dead is tragic, and is the worst mass shooting, it isn’t one of the three worst mass murders.

  10. Kristophr
    Kristophr June 14, 2016 9:30 am

    Obama, if he was President in 1941:

    “We do not understand why the Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor, but the needed response is clear:

    We must ban privately owned aircraft.”

  11. Claire
    Claire June 14, 2016 11:10 am

    “We do not understand why the Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor, but the needed response is clear:

    We must ban privately owned aircraft.”

    So sadly, hilariously, true.

    Unfortunately, we seem to have only a choice between that and something like the George W. Bush position from 2001: “Hey, a handful of rotters from Saudi Arabia, abetted by Saudi Arabian big-wigs (which fact we’re going to hide from the public) created hell and havoc. So LET’S GO BEAT UP AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ!”

    Yeah, Obama’s an idiot who has minimal grasp of reality. And he’ll blame guns for anything. But governments are ill-equipped for the ideological warfare conducted by religious malcontents who are born or naturalized U.S. citizens.

  12. Shel
    Shel June 14, 2016 1:51 pm

    I don’t believe Obama’s an idiot. Bryce M. Towsley, in his book Prepper Guns (I don’t have it, BTW), stated “I have watched in horror as Obama has attacked America with the brilliance that has allowed him to succeed.” I don’t know how to improve on that wording. And I’ve heard the theory that he’s campaigning to become president of the U.N. I don’t see any behavior inconsistent with that hypothesis.

    I’m wondering if Obama really is gay, as Joan Rivers adamantly claimed (and not much later died under suspicious circumstances). If so, he’s painted himself in a corner pushing a religion that considers that behavior a deadly sin. Milo has noted this attitude http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/06/13/milo-yianopoulos-islam-is-the-problem/

    But at least we have LGBT to explain to us why the attack occurred. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/13/activists-blame-christians-orlando-attack/

Leave a Reply