Posted on 07/27/2008 8:43:01 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
It's a true semi-automatic. Recoil operated, like almost all semiautomaic pistols. The very first semi-auto shotguns were recoil operated. In fact, IIRC, the first semi-auto shotgun was designed by the same gentleman who deisigned the "Colt" 1911 Hi Power pistols (also recoil operated), the "Colt" Potato digger" the M1917 and M1919 machine Guns and the M2 .50 cal machine gun. John Moses Browning.
Both Remington and Browning made "humpback" semi-automatice shotguns to the JM Browning design.
Even here on Free Republic, most of the people you encounter are at least relatively moderate. It's easy for the real zealots to be lost in the crowd. However, they are out there. I have encountered two people who I can say with one hundred percent certainty would be more than willing to kill someone because of what that person believes. I have encountered many, many more who have expressed such a willingness, but whom I do not feel I know well enough to say anything with 100% certainty. Are these people a tiny minority? Yes, but it only takes one.
My purpose in posting here is to try to make you aware of the fact that this was not necessarily an isolated event. It is rather the most egregious symptom of an underlying problem, one that most in the Right do not realize exists. There is a tremendous amount of hate on the Right, and it unfortunately is very, very mainstream. That is why we were not surprised when this happened, and why we would not be surprised were it to happen again.
If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, read this even-handed editorial by Leonard Pitts, and this substantially more pissed off one by Lee Russ.
As for your contention that FTL was talking about double standards, he specifically mentioned "the next civil war".
As for you telling me to "calm down and read a book", I'm currently perusing a grammar of Khotanese Saka, as part of a project that I've been working on in my free time to catalog the evolution and differentiation of the Indo-European language family. I have refrained from insulting your intelligence, and would appreciate it if you would extend the same courtesy to me.
Guess they weren’t clinging to GUNS OR RELIGION, in their bitterness of course.
/s
What I don't understand on a site that is dedicated to revealing all of the details the mainstream press suppresses, I have yet to see anybody mention his “Liberal” motive, though it has been on all of the MSM. Could it be that we freepers are no different than the liberals at consciously or unconsciously ignoring news that does not please us (the logicians’ “Proof by Pleasure” fallacy)?
Perhaps he took the “NO MORE LIBERALS” happy face on freerepublic too seriously. I wonder if he was one of our posters...
We are looking at a covert op here, using another mind-controlled patsy.
www.knoxnews.com...
—From one of the people who tackled the gunman: “The only thing he said was he was asking us to get off of him, that he wasn’t doing anything,” Parkey said.
This indicates Adkisson had no conscious knowledge of what just occured.
A neighbor told 10News Adkisson described himself as a “Confederate” and a “believer in the old South.” She says Adkisson self-identified in this way to her on more than one occasion, but that she didn’t know what he meant by it. This reminds me of Wedgewood Baptist Church shooter Larry Gene Ashbrook(9-16-99, Ft Worth, TX, 8 dead), who was linked to a far-right group called the Phineas Priesthood by a local reporter. Buford Furrow, who shot up a Jewish day-care center in Los Angeles in August of ‘99, was also allegedly linked to that group.
en.wikipedia.org...
They are painting the guy as being anti-’liberal’; this could be an indication that even the traditional liberal left is getting ready to jump the NWO ship, and this op was designed to stampede them back into the pro-gun control line.
The reason the books by right-wing radio talk show hosts were found at his home is part of a slow moving attack on talk radio. Like the internet, they want to get rid of all public forums. I doubt somebody on food stamps would spend any money on these books, so I figure they were planted.
Note also the military is being very cagey on Adkisson’s military records, which show Adkisson was a private in the U.S. Army on active duty from 1974 to 1977. He served as a helicopter repairman for the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell. The military wouldn’t release Adkisson’s discharge status. Sounds like he did something bad, got busted down in rank and given a Bad Conduct Discharge(BCD). So what’s the big secret? Probably because he was confined to the mental wing of a military hospital.
There was also some talk of Adkisson being a Vietnam Vet. He graduated high school in 1968, and didn’t go to college, so he would have been subject to the draft.
Should I have told you to watch TV or play a videogame instead? Instead of defining down your intelligence(you are still being irrational) I told you to calm down and do something else besides get crazy on here. You are not a troll, but your hyperbole on the first post makes me wonder if you will go over to the Middle East and tell Ahmadinejhad to calm down his inner demon. Afterall you did say that the Left loves bringing themselves down to the level of an unrepetant psychopath. It beats actually having to do something right?
I will respond to the rest as I find you to have more tact than a Murray Mom, and I just will ask you to link to a post that has you acting like a missionary to the Left. Did FTL advocate death? No. Instead what he said was that, as usually found on DU, the Left is itching to start something. And that the government and the Media is only eager to help, the Media bringing PR, and the government legalizing it. Understand now?
BTW, Liberals did do the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. So I don’t really think that Liberals are non-violent. Shock and awe in revolutions is a Liberal trademark. Also using the word “Hate”. So what is so bad about hate? Do you hate President Bush? Do you hate somebody on the street?
So if you hate something like that, do you align yourself with those who want to kill? The answer may be no.
Remember this gunman was a nut who only went after the Liberal movement because they were “taking his jobs”. Out of all of the criticisms of Liberals on here, do we find some passionate Conservative who ran out of food stamps advocating that Liberals are bad because they are taking the good jobs? Part of being a Conservative is realizing that there might be a bias in employment in the opinion centers but that Free Market values advocate making a tree out of a seed.
I hate to tell you this but your arrow is rusted and the target is 500 miles away.
I spend very, very little time here; both of the people I mentioned were on other sites (though they may post here too, for all I know). If you would like some other examples, take a look at this, this, and anything that Ann Coulter has ever said about anything.
"Why not journey over to DU and check out the reactions whenever a conservative is ill or dies."
And I have spoken against that whenever it has happened. My point is not that there isn't also a lot of hatred on the Left, it's that nobody on the Left has been driven by that hatred to gun down conservatives.
"you are still being irrational"
Were these posts, which were made before the gunman's motives were made public, also irrational?
"This is a symptom of a culture that feels free to spew venomous hatred and bigotry against people of faith. There is no doubt we will begin to see more of this."
"However, I do believe the current anti-religious bent of the press and certain institutions offers an 'excuse' to those with loose screws."
"If not some sort of secularist/materialist 'absolution' for reducing the number of 'those dangerous religious people'.
"Or some sort of 'Sam Harris/Christopher Hitchens Medal of Honor'."
"Unbelievers don't see the difference between Bible-based churches and non-Bible-based churches. They hate them all. I think it was yesterday that police shot an armed man who was preparing to attack a Christian radio station.
"Obviously we don't have the details yet, but the anti-Christian fervor that's building in this country and being fanned daily by the MSM, could easily have played a role."
"Another Theo-phobe on the loose."
And so on. Yes, there were quite a few people who disagreed with these comments, but none who considered them "hysterical" or "irrational".
"your hyperbole on the first post makes me wonder if you will go over to the Middle East and tell Ahmadinejhad to calm down his inner demon."
How many people do you, personally, know whose lives have been destroyed by Ahmadinejad? I know quite a few. Before it was outlawed, Ahmadinejad belonged to an organization devoted to the extermination of my religion. Incidentally, I actually have briefly communicated with Ahmadinejad via his blog (though he edited my post to make it seem as though it was supportive of him), and also once sent him an email regarding his country's nuclear program.
"I find you to have more tact than a Murray Mom"
A what?
"and I just will ask you to link to a post that has you acting like a missionary to the Left."
And bring a swarm of Freepers down upon our heads? No thank you. However, if you tell me how to send it to you privately, I'd be happy to.
"So what is so bad about hate?"
I defer to Those more eloquent than I:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you..." —Matt 5:43-4
"The attributes of God are love and mercy; the attribute of Satan is hate. Therefore, he who is merciful and kind to his fellowmen is manifesting the divine attribute, and he who is hating and hostile toward a fellow creature is satanic. God is absolute love, even as Jesus Christ has declared, and Satan is utter hatred. Wherever love is witnessed, know that there is a manifestation of God’s mercy; whenever you meet hatred and enmity, know that these are the evidences and attributes of Satan." —'Abdu'l-Bahá
Sheesh, 3:43 and I am replying to this. I hope that you have the patience and the attention to deal with my lengthy reply. If not the conversation is over. I don’t know what else to say. This thread is basically dead except for a few more posts.
“yet you’ve seen TWO posters out of hundreds of thousands here on FR exhibiting this ‘very, very mainstream’ hate?”
I spend very, very little time here; both of the people I mentioned were on other sites (though they may post here too, for all I know). If you would like some other examples, take a look at this, this, and anything that Ann Coulter has ever said about anything.”
Ah, not to answer for the other poster, but I find it very interesting that you would point out that everything Anne Coulter has said is hate. Seems like you are indeed a very fickle hypocrite if you really do think that she is overflowing with hatred, as it is you “hate” her. I actually think that she is very funny, her comment on converting Muslim leaders to Christianity was very appropriate so close after 9/11, and her commentary on Christianity being more perfect is an endorsement of her religion. My problem with the Left is that hate is defined as those who do not agree with them.
“Why not journey over to DU and check out the reactions whenever a conservative is ill or dies.”
And I have spoken against that whenever it has happened. My point is not that there isn’t also a lot of hatred on the Left, it’s that nobody on the Left has been driven by that hatred to gun down conservatives. “
If I can recall, Cho might’ve been a member of the Left. Same thing with that one mall shooter, perhaps there was one that didn’t make the news(like the many Anti-PC stories that are ignored). Just because somebody on the Right(a deranged guy) grabbed a gun doesn’t mean a thing, the same thing with the Left. He was desperate and needed an outlet to target his rage. He was a Conservative, I agree, but a very mixed up one.
I am not getting
Into your self-righteous indignation which is very similar to how Bill Clinton reacted after the Murrah Building being bombed. Certainly for every Unabomber there is that lunatic. For every Ted Bundy there is a John Wayne Gacy.
“you are still being irrational”
“Were these posts, which were made before the gunman’s motives were made public, also irrational?
“This is a symptom of a culture that feels free to spew venomous hatred and bigotry against people of faith. There is no doubt we will begin to see more of this.”
“However, I do believe the current anti-religious bent of the press and certain institutions offers an ‘excuse’ to those with loose screws.”
“If not some sort of secularist/materialist ‘absolution’ for reducing the number of ‘those dangerous religious people’.
“Or some sort of ‘Sam Harris/Christopher Hitchens Medal of Honor’.”
“Unbelievers don’t see the difference between Bible-based churches and non-Bible-based churches. They hate them all. I think it was yesterday that police shot an armed man who was preparing to attack a Christian radio station.
“Obviously we don’t have the details yet, but the anti-Christian fervor that’s building in this country and being fanned daily by the MSM, could easily have played a role.”
“Another Theo-phobe on the loose.”
This might have to do with the fact that the initial ideas of who the killer is(like the DU branding the two Beltway snipers to be white redneck hicks) is that the guy was an Anti-Christian kind of nut like the guy who burned a few Baptist churches recently. Look at the comments again, they are all supposing that with a country that worships at the altar of atheism or of that with no faith, that it was a guy pushed on by the trappings of bigotry against religion to commit this. Remember there were some Churches that were burned some months ago. Later on it turned out that the guy was an Anti-Christian nut.
Surely you can even believe that a climate hostile to a religion may produce a few ruffians would it not? Or would focusing on that be called “hate” to you?
Let’s see: some people believing that because a gunman shot up in a Church that the guy wasn’t a bible believer or a guy with a particulary kind relationship to Christianity is irrational. Yet, you breaking down and acting like a missionary because the guy happened to be Conservative is not irrational? I also think, like most Liberals, you don’t get much of Conservative politics. You don’t understand so it becomes a foreign language that leaves us all looking like a tribe of cannibals.
“And so on. Yes, there were quite a few people who disagreed with these comments, but none who considered them “hysterical” or “irrational”.”
Ah, unfortunately for you I wouldn’t consider them hysterical and irrational. Personally I believe that you might as well open your mind if you do come on here. Just as how you probably believe that certain social groups are victimized by society, we here believe that certain social groups are victimized by the Left.
“your hyperbole on the first post makes me wonder if you will go over to the Middle East and tell Ahmadinejhad to calm down his inner demon.”
“How many people do you, personally, know whose lives have been destroyed by Ahmadinejad? I know quite a few. Before it was outlawed, Ahmadinejad belonged to an organization devoted to the extermination of my religion. Incidentally, I actually have briefly communicated with Ahmadinejad via his blog (though he edited my post to make it seem as though it was supportive of him), and also once sent him an email regarding his country’s nuclear program.”
Ah, so you are actually not on Ahmadinejhad’s side. Yet you believe that talking to him would play a role in a peace process. Can I ask you something?
You are a leader of a country. You might be a big-time leader high on top. You and your religion believes that there is a sort of messianic fervor to stay on top. You are a human being driven by desires like everybody else.
Now it seems like a country wants to deprive you of nuclear weapons, or of anything used to justify attacking foreign countries. Yet somehow that same country who you see as evil, in a moral relativistic state, has nukes and other weapons. So why would you give them up?
After a while there is very little to talk about. There might be compromises but that not only bruises an ego of somebody who is fielded off as a dictator but the dictator also feels better after the dictator breaks the agreement. Thereby my meaning to this is that only force can guarantee a lasting result, and if you want the agreement to be infinite, than overthrow the leader. Just like the simplest gun, nukes are good but only for those sober enough to use them wisely. Yet, like guns it is not the fact that a dictator has a weapon. It is the fact that the dictator is a dictator and has some moral screws loose somewhere down the road.
Than you might say sanctions will work. Well, my question is that are you punishing a country, a country’s people or their leader? Sanctions are just floating through dollar bills, giving leaders with immediate trade beneficiaries, and black market donuts to bypass them. So if a sanction doesn’t work, do you go into battle? Name me a rational end result guaranteed by talking? The closest might be Reagan and the USSR.
I do believe that it would be good to readily assess a situation with the minimalism of war, but on the other hand I believe that war could do a lot better than leaving people hostage to an out of control maniac. World Welfare buys Rock Concerts, in answer to a tag-line, but doing the dirty work brands you a villain for life. Ain’t it funny how the world works?
“I find you to have more tact than a Murray Mom”
I apologize, Murray Mom is the regular Liberal on here who usually hoists her pom poms for any Liberal strategy on here.
“and I just will ask you to link to a post that has you acting like a missionary to the Left.”
And bring a swarm of Freepers down upon our heads? No thank you. However, if you tell me how to send it to you privately, I’d be happy to.”
So what is the big deal? In fact I should really check your current posting history to see if you have answered other posts and not shown up as a provocateur enticing us to relive our lives declawed and neutered.
I will say one thing. Even though you act very typical for one of the Left, you have calmed down a lot after your hysterical first post on the subject. I still will note that perhaps on this scuffled dead thread to show us your results. In fact show us a thread or some link that dignifies why you came here all of a sudden and started throwing G-d’s name around like a preacher. Islam honor killings are indeed a widespread sin to induce hysterics but a guy acting on losing a job and killing two people. It makes me wonder what would’ve happened if Cho wasn’t such an angry against America nut.
Can I tell you a little secret? I have been looking for a good Receptionist/Clerical Job for many months. I am not fond of Liberals but then I do not want to act like I am disenfranchised and ready to cry like a baby, by also taking some people with me.
“So what is so bad about hate?”
I defer to Those more eloquent than I:
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...” —Matt 5:43-4
“The attributes of God are love and mercy; the attribute of Satan is hate. Therefore, he who is merciful and kind to his fellowmen is manifesting the divine attribute, and he who is hating and hostile toward a fellow creature is satanic. God is absolute love, even as Jesus Christ has declared, and Satan is utter hatred. Wherever love is witnessed, know that there is a manifestation of God’s mercy; whenever you meet hatred and enmity, know that these are the evidences and attributes of Satan.” —’Abdu’l-Bahá”
Ah, indeed even though I am not a religious person. The problem is that either blind love or blind hate is not an answer of sorts. Blind hate does lead to all kinds of bad things but blind love tolerates it.
I do not hate, nor do I “hate hate”. I think that hate is indeed a natural human passion. But if you indeed confuse hate with anger, it is your passion to do so. Let me note that you hate “hate”. I am not saying that hate is a great thing, yet I am saying that to put yourself on a pedestal as a guy surrounded by flames of hate is a bad role of playing the victim.
I also believe that hate and greed, sorry to make your lips tremble at the heathen of humanity’s laws, but both actually should not be worshipped but rather should be given a second look. It is like how some actually take second looks at fear. Yet, as you know the hatred, as I do believe in it, from some of the posts is through passionate disagreement. Stop it, and the cold chill rushes in and freezes the human race.
If you do induce religion into this conversation, I would you prefer to read many of the religious posts on here. There are lots more on here who can debate theology more eloquently than I.
Well you had better tell the church yourself now of what you have done if they dont not know already
That is why I’m sittin’ next to YOU next Sunday! Just knowing you’re loaded will make me feel a whole lot better, I’m sure. It’s a sick world out there, when going to church increases your chances of getting shot.
Killing conservatives was not Cho's stated goal. While he may well have been a liberal, what motivated him was his hatred of his peers.
"Look at the comments again, they are all supposing that with a country that worships at the altar of atheism or of that with no faith, that it was a guy pushed on by the trappings of bigotry against religion to commit this.... Surely you can even believe that a climate hostile to a religion may produce a few ruffians would it not?"
Look at my comment again, it supposes that with a movement that worships at the altar of conservatism, that it was a guy pushed on by the trappings of bigotry against liberals to commit this.... Surely you can even believe that a climate hostile to liberals may produce a few ruffians would it not?
"Ah, so you are actually not on Ahmadinejhad’s side."
Contrary to popular belief, virtually no one is. Most people on the Left view Ahmadinejad much the same way they view John Hagee.
"You are a leader of a country."
While Ahmadinejad does have an unusually large amount of political power, the actual leader of Iran is Ayatollah Khamenei.
"Now it seems like a country wants to deprive you of nuclear weapons, or of anything used to justify attacking foreign countries. Yet somehow that same country who you see as evil, in a moral relativistic state, has nukes and other weapons. So why would you give them up?"
This is the fundamental misconception regarding Iran. As an American, when you hear the word "nuclear", you automatically think of weapons. This is only natural, as we've had nuclear weapons aimed at all our major population centers for half a century. Iranians, however, are much more aware that nuclear technology has another use, namely, the generation of electricity. This is what they care about.
Now, at this point, you're probably thinking, "Hey, Iran is sitting on top of a zillion barrels of oil. Why on earth would they care about nuclear energy?" The answer is threefold. First, most of Iran's oil is exported, not consumed; Iran simply does not have the infrastructure necessary to process it. Iranians tend to view oil more as a commodity than a fuel. Second, Iran, like the rest of the Middle East, is keenly aware of the fact that they are going to run out of oil someday. They want to be ready when that day comes. Third, and most importantly, nuclear energy is a matter of national pride. The French are huge on nuclear energy, and the Iranians absolutely worship the French. Before the Revolution, the Shah was trying to bring nuclear power to Iran. When the Islamic Republic was established, this program was brought to a halt as part of the general pressure brought to bear against the new regime. Now the West is again trying to prevent Iran from attaining what it regards as the Holy Grail of modern technology. Most Iranians would be horrified by the thought of their government with nuclear weapons, yet most are strongly in favor of their country's nuclear program.
This is not, of course, to say that the Iranian government didn't appreciate, and covet, the power of nuclear weapons. It did, which is why it used to have a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Then, however, Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring nuclear weapons to be illegal under Shariah law. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons now, it would either have to admit that it was breaking Shariah law, or claim that Khamenei hadn't had any idea what he was talking about. Both would destroy any claim to the government's legitimacy — the first for obvious reasons, the second because it would verify that Khamenei was not in fact qualified to be Marja' of the world, that his assumption of that position was therefore purely political, and that the so-called Vilayat-i-Faqih (rule by the clergy) was in fact nothing of the sort, being merely a political organization with religious trappings. This is also probably why Iran still refuses to admit that it had ever had a nuclear program, and why it still refuses to cooperate fully with inspectors.
"In fact I should really check your current posting history to see if you have answered other posts and not shown up as a provocateur enticing us to relive our lives declawed and neutered."
The site I spend most of my time at is the target of a paid troll. If I were to act as a provocateur, I would be doing a much, much better job, having had a professional to show me how it's done. I still will not link to that site, but there is another site I frequent that probably wouldn't mind this sort of traffic: http://djkonservo.wordpress.com/
"The problem is that either blind love or blind hate is not an answer of sorts. Blind hate does lead to all kinds of bad things but blind love tolerates it."
The problem there is neither love nor hate, but blindness. I am reminded of a tradition attributed to Muhammad:
Anas said, The Messenger of God said: "Help thy brother whether he is the doer of wrong or wrong is done to him." They (his companions) said, O Messenger of God! We can help a man to whom wrong is done, but how could we help him when he is the doer of wrong? He said: "Take hold of his hands from doing wrong." (B. 46:4.)
"If you do induce religion into this conversation, I would you prefer to read many of the religious posts on here. There are lots more on here who can debate theology more eloquently than I."
I am not here to debate theology (I do that way to much in my regular stomping grounds). You asked me a question, and I answered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.