The Washington Post headline about the Pittsburgh shooter glossed over something

[DFW]

"Behind loner’s unremarkable facade lay hate-filled rage, Pittsburgh police say"

OK, we all get that part. But there are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of guys like that spread all around the country.

The point I would have wanted emphasized is that in the good old USA, 99% of them are armed to the teeth, which is why this is merely one more in a series of mass shootings that will be mourned, criticized, and added to the list as just one more statistic that Republicans will try to convince us is the price of "freedom."

[malaise]

1. This

[HopeAgain]

2. Guns over lives

Such is America.

[RVN VET71]

10. Uber alles, you mean.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. 2nd amendment

The holy 2nd amendment gives me the unabridged right to my Abrams tank with depleted uranium slugs and ICBM napalm and my bazookas and Gatling guns and my neutron bombs and AR-15 equipped drones and none of you snowflake libtards can get into my bunker to take them away from my cold dead fingers AMEN!!!!!!!!1!

Besides, I need all my weapons for hunting squirrels. They're tricky critters.

[Duppers]

5. 🇺🇸

[Rhiannon12866]

4. I really liked this video from Cease Fire PA:

A video from Cease Fire PA.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017517593

[oberliner]

6. Yes - there should be a wider discussion about access to these weapons

A discussions that always seems to get postponed.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. it's too soon

It's never too soon to suggest the entire country should be an armed camp nor too soon to blame the victims nor too soon to blame the news nor too soon to blame Democrats, but it's always too soon to suggest keeping weapons of mass murder off the market.

Tater tots and pears, though.

[oberliner]

8. I wonder how the response would be different if the shooter was an Islamic fundamentalist

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. omg

There would be spewage from TrumPutin that would damage the microphones. Every GOPer would mirror and amplify his zealous hatred while screaming for legislation (to be enacted after the midterms, except it would then be unnecessary). Rallies would become marches. Gun sales would skyrocket. And, of course, liberals would be to blame for the imminent destruction of civilization because Obama wouldn't say "radical Islamic terrorists".

Strangely enough, TrumPutin won't say "radical right-wing terrorists" or even "white supremacist terrorists".

[7962]

13. Well, last time we had one we STILL didn't really discuss new gun laws.

A good start would be preventing people convicted of domestic violence from owning a weapon. I think the lates shooter was one of those. We already know these types are prone to lose control and be violent, so that should be a good enough legal reason.

[watoos]

11. There should also be a discussion about hate speech,

and not just from the president. Other countries like Canada handle it quite well. Isn't Fox News banned in Canada on regular TV? You can get it by satellite TV I believe.

[oberliner]

14. Fox News is not banned in Canada

[7962]

15. No, They are not banned. But they dont own any broadcast stations there either.

You cant get Fox News over the air since its not a broadcast network. Cable or satellite, yes.

But if you want to start banning speech, remember that at some point YOUR speech will be examined by someone who doesn't like you.
Other countries dont have our Constitutional right to free speech, and we see people gagged for some reasons that we could never imagine.

[watoos]

16. Your argument would hold more water

and I would agree with it more if we hadn't eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, if we hadn't passed Citizens United. Money=speech now so yeah I have free speech but it is limited because my money is limited. The rich in America have superior free speech than I have because their money is basically unlimited.

[7962]

18. I certainly agree with the money part. But its a tight window.

Speech is speech. If you want to get your word out, hold a rally. Your point is right; YOUR speech isnt equal to someone with more money.

However, I dont agree with the fairness doctrine. If I own a radio or TV station, I shouldn't be forced to take a loss carrying someone that doesn't bring in revenue simply because they have a differing opinion from another show that DOES. If its a public funded station then it's fine, because there isn't any risk taken by an owner. I know that a minority opinion here, but that's how I see it

[HopeAgain]

12. Talk is cheap

Time to start banning.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

17. Republicans want us armed to the teeth and filled with fear.

That tends to keep us from talking from one another and it dissolves communities - thereby making us easier to control.

Right out of the playbook of their corporate masters that want every last penny we earn or have saved.

Gun arsenals, survivalist provisions and massive contributions to charities (to compensate for government inadequacy) and political campaigns (to counter-balance the oligarchs) help keep many Americans on the verge of bankruptcy or deep in debt.

Sorry Repugs, I don't buy into your fear-mongering...............

[DFW]

19. In other words, they want the whole country to be like them.

There is a reason the right wanted to replace E Pluribus Unum with "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

They prefer their own interpretation of something they can't (and will never) see to a tangible accomplishment.