Isn't that what the shooter wants...

And I believe that most sites don't allow this stuff to be posted, including Muslim extremist shit. The internet shouldn't go out of their way to normalize this type of shit any more than can be helped. It should be mocked, shamed, villified, and kept shocking to the public.

I grew up on Wild West internet the days when 4 and 8 Chan were considered dark net compared to todays back then and beheading videos on Ogrish and Liveleak and ebaumsworld, there were alot more fringe forums then too hosting all sorts of content, you just have to know where to look. Its been normalized since the mid 00s its a little too late for that no matter how hard the bleeding hearts and the humanists who consider themselves with higher senses of "ethics and moral values" try.

Like I said this is now a historical event and the video and manifesto are evidence of that, you don't see people trying to white wash and revise historically proven events like the World Wars. ( I mean there are some but those people are a minority and super weird) just because it happened and there is evidence that it happened doesn't mean we should try to scrub it away or just look away and ignore it like it didn't happen, you have to look at it for what it is no matter the circumstance.

Difference between legal and wrong, so just putting both out there. Is it wrong to do exactly what the shooter wants and post his manifesto wherever you go so people can "decide for themselves" whether or not Muslims deserve to be slaughtered for existing? Yeah, I think it's safe to say you'd just be doing what the shooter wants for the sake of nothing. Likely isn't illegal or anything pending on where you post it, though it's 100% understandable if moderators remove or block said links (or in some places even going as far as banning the offending members - not sure it'd be taken that far here, though).

If anyone is really that interested, they have fingers, they can search for themselves. It's pretty irresponsible to make it as easy as possible to find propoganda garbage designed to lead to race war and genocide, in my humble opinion. Of course it's impossible to prevent said spread of propoganda - it only takes a few radicals for something like that to spread like wildfire - but to facilitate in it by posting it yourself would be helping the problem spread even more than it already has.

legally wrong: no but your right depending where I posted it really depends, I guess its just I don't like being told what I can and can't do and people making decisions whats best for me/others. regardless its part of the story and shouldn't be discounted.

yeah that's true, let people do it themselves if they wish to see the content that was released.

Most mainstream sites will try to do everything they can to contain extremist content, though to fully stop them is a rather Sisyphean task, considering that you have to take satire/parody and free speech into account. (Before anyone gets the wrong idea, something like the mosque shooting or other real-life violent acts should be taken down)

Fringe websites like 4chan, 8chan and the like aren’t bound by the same rules, and attract a whole different audience. Like the mainstream sites, it’s a tall task to eliminate the extremist content within those websites for the reasons above, but in addition it’s simply a waste of time and effort, partly because of obscurity and lack of quality control that no one bothers to attempt to control.

Yeah, I'll say!

Fuck Nazis, and White Supremacists can all go to hell! Some dumbass terrorist ain't going to tell us Americans that we have to follow suit just because he tries to credit our leaders in his stupid ramblings! We're smarter and stronger than that, as a nation.

Certainly this was the point you were trying to get across - just tryin' to help you out, there! :)

The act of such an atrocity will always be reported, giving notoriety to the perpetrator, and attention to his cause. There is simply no way around that. But mitigating it by not reporting every aspect, or posting the online raving of that person, funnels that remaining digital detritus to those fringe sites where they are better observed.

If you look at the very first post of this thread, that would-be terrorist was stopped in part because of his online activity to white nationalist sites - including viewing the 2011 manifesto of that Norwegian terrorist.

About the New Zealand shooter, I did some research on him.

After carefully checking his manifesto and trying to identify the date he created it, the .DOCX file dates back to ‎Monday, ‎July ‎02, ‎2012, ‏‎9:52:14 AM. That's most likely the time and date he began writing it down, I'm pretty sure he was radicalized at the age of around 19 or 20. From further analysis I noted that he visited forums which are well known to be highly offensive and tend to have a large group of racist teenagers as users. He began traveling to certain countries, most likely reconnaissance.

After carefully reading the entire manifesto the attack was more racially motivated with mixture or hints of religious and historical biased concepts.

In other words, he wasn't working on the attack 2 years ago, he was at it at the starting of the year 2012. Most likely, at the peak when the media began promoting hate.

The guy's manifesto was heavily based on the Norwegian terrorist, who killed over 70 people in Norwway. And I believe it had more to do with the alt-right movement, and Trump, than the general media.

double posted

Yes, but the media was fueling right vs left conflict. So I thought I'd let other people know although some media networks were neutral.

Whenever I talk about the media I try to distinguish it by differentiating the partisan sites (that are more commentary than news) from the more neutral media sites that just report the news. It saves on confusion.

There are multiple reasons for this type of stuff, not just the media. The war between partisan sites has been going on for the last 40 years or so, and while some of these sites have gotten worse (with some of them outright promoting fake news and identity politics), they are still a small part of the media. It also doesn't help that certain leaders, politicians, or those who have a large following, are stoking identity politics.

What has changed the most, recently, is the way people get their information, and communicate, with the advent of the internet. There are a lot of snowflakes out there who can't handle what other people say about them, their race, religion, or culture. I have noticed that a lot of them support certain parties/politicians just because of those reason, while being very ignorant about policies/laws that could actually benefit them, or hurt them. And politicians, and partisan media site, exploit that.

Then there are dark, fringe, sites, places where certain insecure, angry, people can congregate from all across the country/world, to commiserate over some shared sense of wrong, or unfairness, they think is being done to them. These places foster radicalization and extremism over superficial reasons. It's these sites that often lead to these tragic events.

So, Trump is bemoaning about how he's being blamed for the New Zealand massacre, while Kellyanne Conway ( who gives meaning to blond women jokes) is promoting the manifesto by telling people to read it in desperate hope to distance Trump from it because he was mentioned in it.

The name Edy is merely as anonymous as the user - in other words, it's not my real name. But I do not promote hatred of other races, or religions, like Trump does, so your analogy fails.

Trump is prominently mentioned in the manifesto because he promotes identity politics (in a slap in your face way). It's why white nationalists flock to him, as he promotes fear and hatred towards Muslims and immigrants, and even black minorities, as he villafies them as extremisst and criminals. He calls certain non-white countries "shitholes", and espouses that he rather see immigrants from more European countries like Norway - his wife is also an European immigrant.

You can't mistake his words for anything else, not when he is the first to yell Muslim, or immigrant, in terrorist or murder acts, while ignoring, or downplaying when they come from a white nationalist or a white person. He even uses white nationalist words like "invasion" to describe immigration from Mexico, to make it seem worse than it really is, while ignoring the fact that much of it comes from other countries on expired visas.

His policies don't make sense from a national security standpoint either. He focouse on countries that are no threat to us, but have large population of Muslims. He wants to build a wall when most people who aren't outright xenophobic don't think it will work, considering they just go under, over, or around it with airplanes and boat - or even let through the border gate. No, There is a reason why White nationalist back Trumpo, because he makes them feel good about there race, while vilifying others. You can't say this about any other modern president.

Did I punt? Or are you just trying to deflect by trolling because of your insecurities in your support of a pathological liar, and thin skinned narcissist, who platforms off of white nationalism, in the White House, and is leading to more divison and extremism from whites. This tells me all I need to know about you. 😉

Yeah! This guy knows what it's about - he's a huge SJW Nazi-hating moderating influence on this forum, just like many others on here. I mean, just check out his other pro-Muslim, pro-global peace post above; I trust he's being 100% truthful and actually found Edy's name in the Manifesto (which he probably read multiple times, of course, just to better arm himself against the Nazis!).

You'd best come clean, Edy, before Mr. Mom Fuker 666 gets all crazy on you. This hero for us anti-facists is on to you, and he won't take no for an answer!

Get em', Mom fuker!

I'll never forget the time when I was called a racist by some guy auguring that blacks had smaller brains and beleived in UFO religions. Or when a black woman was accusing me of being racist because I supported a black Democrat politician (Obama). Or the numerous times I have been called anti-semtic for not supporting certain far right polices by the Israeli government. There are all types out there, just loosley throwing out these words when they don't get their way.

Ayways, let's just end it here before I ask one of the mods to remove all these unnecessary posts.

I can see the right trying to downplay, or deny, these white nationalist terrorist attacks, like Trump did. And it's going to become more popular by right wing media sites. Rush Limbaugh, a political far right radio commentariat, who has an audience of under 10 million listeners, is already claiming a conspiracy that the New Zealand attack is a false flag operation, without evidence. He's always been bad, making shit up when it's convenient, to protect his own ass, but this is really bad.

Related

But i mean hey, let's all act like the right wing and act like people like Alex Jones are comedic relief and give them a free pass for their rhetoric.

The guy who burned down 3 predominantly black churches in Louisiana has been caught. Turned in by his father, who was also a sheriff in the area. Motive is unknown, but some suspect that it may be the fact that he was into "black metal" music, which is often describes as satanic and anti-Christian...

So, this week in extremism... A militia group, called United Constitutional Patriots, is taking the law in their own hand by illegally detaining immigrants who cross the US Mexican border. The leader so f the group has been arrested on a weapon charge, because he has a criminal record. It's also alleged that the militia was plotting to kill Obama, Clinton, and Soros - though, how serious that was is questionable.

As I said, you have to start questioning those who rapidly buy a dozen or more guns in a year or two. Given the context of this thread, it has little to do with collectible type of firearms, but more modern ones, especially assault weapons (I'll explain this further down), large capacity mags, and a lot of ammo. And I think gun trafficking, which often supplies the drug trade, and other criminal elements, speaks for itself. And I am a firm believer in closing gun show loopholes, which basically allows people to sell whatever without any type of background check on individuals buying a gun.

That just becomes an excuse to do nothing. I've had this argument several times.

I use to have a friend who sold guns, and one time he was asked where he would draw the line on what is too much in a gun. He refused to answer it. He was even given a hypothetical question of a gun having nuclear capabilities, for a laugh, but he refused to even draw it there. And I come across a lot of others who don't believe guns are becoming more dangerous, or their shouldn't be a line drawn between what is practical and what is excessive, or impractical, because they don't see a difference between a Glock and a AR 15.

We have had several of the biggest mass shootings in this country history in the last 10 years, with the biggest being Las Vegas, with over 500 hurt, and over 60 dead. Guns are evolving, and becoming more dangerous (along with their accessories) for public consumption, and that is a selling point (I'll explain this later). Instead of addressing this, and the increasing frequency and numbers of people being killed in a single mass shooting, the more radical gun rights supporters who value the 2nd amendment over all other rights, or profit from gun sales, are distracting with excuse and claiming to be victims of an even smaller amount of gun control activists and regulations. Unfortunately, they have the biggest voice in the country, and the money, to promote the most propaganda over guns.

And yet, we are now seeing a rise in their use in really big mass shootings since the end of that ban. In part, because of the way they look, to intimidate. But, mostly,because they can be customized into something that most closely resembles something you can find on the battlefield, with the closest specs. You can easily convert them to a full auto with a bump stock, and you can have just as many bullets with high capacity mags.

The question is why do we need them?They are not that great at hunting, compared to more traditional hunting rifles, and they are a bit overkill for home defense. I have yet to come across a sound argument that justifies them for public consumption, outside of exotic selling points and being fun to play with, which are not a good reasons to own when they are becoming the number one choice for mass shooters who want to kill dozens of people.

Do you really need that many? And most gun laws usually grandfather what you already have.

My simple philosophy is to ban certain firearms, and accessories, and limit the number of sales of certain firearms, to keep other rights. All you are arguing is to grow government to spy on the people, and invade our privacy, in the defense of certain firearms you can't really justify in owning.

The reality is we have a broken system over gun regulations in this country, and the narrative is being controlled by a small group of people who value objects over the lives of others, because they simply don't care about what their hobby does to others, as they care more about their hedonistic pleasures, or profit, over guns, which is what the 2nd amendment was never about.

double post

So a Washington State Representative in Republican leadership was caught conspiring to help with right-wing militia violence against leftist groups, offering to use his resources for psy-ops, gathering info on potential victims' places of work, homes, etc.

I think that counts as right wing extremism, in a place of high authority, no less, and the shit they were/are plotting is pretty nasty.

Source that firearms are evolving firearms ballistics have been pretty stagnant since the late 80s early 90s due to the fall of the Soviet Union, its simple ballistics and physics which just finding the Caliber to Cartridge sweet spot for performance.

I've posted how firearm ballistics works and how nothing has truly change you're being disingenuous with your bullshit

it ties into with the rest of the Constitution with the debate, you want Universal Background Checks? show me the causation much less legal precedent of government interference between to parties engaging in the exchange of PROPERTY (property rights) of a firearm (2nd) and the Due Process (5th) where thats legally allowed, and I haven't even gotten into illegal searches and seizures and the fact that this example can be used on other things since its became dangerous legal precedent.

you can already get and customize a hunting rifle to a something tactical, custom barrels with tactical or wildcat rounds. you can use a rubber band or a belt to bump fire.

Traditional hunting rifles are more powerful in terms of cartridge and caliber size, ammunition sizes used by the military are smaller usually in the 5MM-7MM/ .223-.320 range.

it was about self defense, supplying a fledgling America with a fighting force and a way to ensure rights.

And therein lies the problem, and why there is widespread gun trafficking problem, and why gun walking programs fail, and why government grows to spy on it's citizens, knocking on the door of privacy rights and due process.

As one politician put it "that's like putting lipstick on a pig". It don't do much.

Yet, the frequency, and numbers of killed, in mass shootings, are rising. When you see certain types of firearms, and accessories, have become available for public consumption, then that is an evolution of some sort with a noticeable result - due to certain key features in today's guns. You certainly didn't see anything quite like this a few decades back, except on occasion. These features are promoted and sold to the public as something people should desire and need, even if they are impractical, or overkill.

Not everything is political, or racially motivated, a lot of this shit comes from the mentally ill as well.

I'm not sure if Trump's executive order made them illegal or not, but no, they were not illegal to convert those firearms into full autos (just the selling of full auto firearms is ilegal) at least a year back. And it's not difficult for a person to figure out how to convert those firearms into full auto - plenty of how-to-do-it your self YouTube videos on that.

As for accessories, pretty much anything that the average person doesn't need - silencers, armor piercing bullets, high capacity mags, bump stocks.

So Trump says.... but what does his words mean anymore, when there is often no teeth behind them, and there are millions of them already floating around out there.

*sigh

We both know that's a bunch of BS. Just because you can insert any size mag into almost any gun doesn't change the fact that they have been used in a growing epidemic of abuse - and there is no good reason for those high capacity mags. The arguments for them often comes down convenience, or having bad aim, for the need for more bullets in one mag, which just boils down to arguing that people with ill intentions should benefit from it to.

I'm am well aware of the 1% who claim to use it for pest control, and the small portion of people who use them at sports events, but that does not change the fact that the majority of people just play with them, or covert them. Again, not good reasons to make them available to everybody based on what a small segment of the gun owning demographic use them for legit reasons, when they can easily be misused to easily kill dozens of people in mere seconds.

Why not? Is it out of necessity, or just obsession, for why people would by that many. If you can't give a strong reason for needing that many, then you don't have a strong argument for that.

You are inadvertently arguing for that, whether you want to believe it or not. By shutting down options, you are directing it towards another direction, and that is growing government and invading privacy, all so you can keep having access to any type of firearm, and accessory for them. And it's up to law enforcement to try an prevent their missus, not on you, which leads to other rights be violated, or eroded, in that process.

You might argue that it's all about going out after extremists, but they have to cast a pretty wide net, looking for keywords, and internet searches, and that is far reaching, because they can't just focouse on the usual shit hole sites that actively promote it, like Stormwatch. I can guarantee that they round up innocent people, and confiscate their equipment, in their attempt to stop just one terrorist attack. You have billions of dollars, and countless man hours, involved, and even with that they can't stop every terrorist attack which just make them cast a bigger net. This is just getting worse, because the public wants something done, so that a small minority of people can get their way on something. And these are just extremist, which make up a small portion of recent extremist attacks. A lot of it comes from the mentally ill. You going to take away more privacy, and due process, to go after them, to protect your ability to choose any type of gun, or accessory, you can't really justify?

It's not just the spying I have a problem with, it's also how we seem to want to fortify our school with many guards, and people being searched when they enter certain buildings or premises. After the Los Vegas mass shooting, you had one security guard casually saying that they're probably have to search people and their luggage, from now on. If this isn't a type of invasion of privacy, I don't know what is. I'm not happy about this.I don't care about what a small segment of society wants, when keep saying it not the gun fault. It people's fault. I rather do something about an inanimate object than take rights away from people - and owning every type of weapon, and accessory, is not a right, but a desire and a choice.

We have been down this road a lot, and you always take this argument that there has to be some huge advancment to be actual evolution, or take a certain direction for it to be true. The fact is, there has been a serious of incremental advances to improve their performance, from making bullets more aerodynamic (which I showed you that FBI video of), guns lighter, more accurate, ect. All this shit adds up over time, leading people like you to buy the latest version, instead of one made a few decades back. And if you can't imagine any major advance for bullets and firearms, then you lack imagination and foresight.

And as I was telling Entice, we have seen an increase in frequency, and ever higher numbers and deaths and injury, in large mass shootings, to show that there is quite a difference from a few decades back, with the use of certain firearms and accessories, that shows a noticeable result that we haven't seen in decades prior.

This wasn't even a debate 60 years ago. It's only recently that we have radical gun rights activist pretending that the 2nd amendment is some holy script, and that there is only one interpretation of it, theirs - even though history shows otherwise. The government has the right to regulate firearms, that is what the Supreme Court constantly establishes. It basically means that you can't own every single firearm in existence. And what we are now arguing over is about certain firearms, and accessories, that have been constantly abused, because gun laws have not kept up with the times because gun activist are constantly pouting about the end of their gun rights to stall those changes. We are now paying for this shit, as law enforcement agencies have to do something to prevent their misuse, because they are under constant pressure to do that, and sometimes inadvertently end up violating other rights in the process.

But time after time, you cry the same old song with your identity politics over guns, and about how mistreated the gun owners are, when YOU DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE REST OF SOCIETY BECAUSE YOU ARE A SOCIOPATH, WHO ONLY CARES ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS AND INTERESTS. You don't have a leg to stand on when you try to talk about rights of certain groups, or the morality of what happens to some of them. It's people like you who are the ones who are destroying gun rights, and other rights, because of your narcissistic ideas.

Thanks for proving my point.

Again, you prove my point.

So far, under Trump, I see far right gun owners supporting a totalitarian regime, that only grantees their rights and the few, while taking them away from other groups. It's why we got militias going down to the border to detain immigrants, and a whole a lot of armed people and groups who hate non-white races, and government,and are hoping for some rebellion or war to start. It's why right wing terrorism is on the rise, exceeding Muslim terrorism, in this country. It has little to do with self defense, especially over certain firearms and accessories.

there have only been a dozen or so knew rounds created, and some materials for ammunition other than that its still the same projectile being ejected by internal combustion down a tube. If I really wanted to I could make one out of a metal pipe and plumbing supplies right in middle of Home Depot, the platform and concept of a firearm is that easy.

have you ever thought that maybe people are getting smarter doing it? like I don't know actual knowledge of firearms ballistics and tactics and actually getting trained, the Las Vegas shooter knew a bit he used a sight at an elevated position to get a clean straighter shot with his ballistic trajectory because he was shooting downward toward his targets.

anything within reason is what was ruled under Heller and that goes for the AR-15. the only thing that is illegal (off the top off my head) are:

-firearms under 18 inch barrels

-smoothbore pistols

-fully automatic

Law Enforcement has no duty to protect you. and the only thing to keep the Law enforcement off of you are strong 4th and 5 amendment rights something you're arguing against.

one it isn't identity politics just because I introduces you to the concept doesn't mean its a catch all for everything, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue something that effects EVERYONE regardless of age, race, religion or sex or they exercise the right or not. what gun control activists advocate for is a very slippery slope that's on an incline that can and will be used by both sides of the isle, it doesn't just effect the 2nd Amendment it effects the 4th the 5th and if we want to play semantics we can go with the 10th as well, and that also doesn't include property and commerce law.

Ensuring Second Amendment rights isn't destroying anything, or supposed "other rights" There's even a new 2A case in the Supreme Court thats going to be heard. and its already caused New York and California to change how they issue permits but the case is still being heard.

that's way more control than the government should have telling us what we can and can't do trying to bypass the Constitution that's what I have a problem with.

and converting them to full auto is still illegal and customizing them is not as long as it isn't smooth bore or shortened then the ATF comes along and starts shooting women children and dogs.

then why are you going after "military style" when they're designed to wound instead of hunting which has the purpose to kill that makes no sense. military are usually in the 5-7MM range at lower pressures compare to hunting which are 6-8MM at much higher pressures. and I haven't even gotten into the difference between NATO rounds and commercial hunting rounds.

the militias at the border have been a thing since GW Bush and they've been pulling that crap for over a decade bud its well documented.

That's not the point I was making. I'm well aware that there has been a lot of mass shootings throughout history. But the point I was making was that certain firearms, and accessories, have been used in the biggest ones in recent history, which have become more frequent, because they are leading to higher numbers of injuries and body count in one go because of their easy accessibility.

Learn what loopholes are. As I said, It's illegal to sell a full auto, not converting a firearm to full auto, which is why bump stocks weren't outright banned, and the government didn't go after people who bought them when they knew the intent for them. Heck,even the ATF gave their blessing over bump stocks, because they couldn't do a damn thing about them. And again, whether there is any teeth behind Trump's executive order over them remains to be seen.

Yeah, I know, a former friend got one as a gift from his boss (a gun shop owner) so he could practice in his back yard without disturbing his neighbors. And up to last year, The GOP controlled congress was trying to pass a bill to relax regulations over them, but huge mass shootings just kept getting in the way.

That's because they were controlled, but if they weren't they would be abused. Guaranteed.

Again, the GOP Congress was trying to pass a bill up to last year, along with silencers, to weaken regulations over them.

Oh, yes, I am serious. Most people don't use an AR 15 style firearm for deer hunting because of the caliber size. They use a traditional bolt style rifle. I'm sure some might use a Bushmaster, but that is just plain overkill.

So, paranoia, extremism, and obsession, still do not make a good argument.

I'm well aware of what you are trying to say, but when you play these games with me, knowing full well after some of the largest mass shootings in this country history, and ever rising extremism from far right groups, that you are intentionally glossing over that shit with "collecting" is just not going to cut it with me.

Like many people who obsess over guns (because you don't respect them), you offer only half solutions, because you close off half the options to deal with the problem, to focouse on anything but guns, creating problems that often lead to the invasion of privacy rights and tapping against due process. You might not want to think of it as that way, but that is what it has led to, in desperation to stop these huge mass shooting. I don't mind some gun bans, and tighter regulations over certain guns and accessories, I also don't mind more funding to mental health, more focouse against extremist groups, and even more security for schools, but I would be naive If I believed all that was enough to stop all large mass shootings, or didn't see them create other unintended problems.

And we know that guns bans have worked, it was only after the ASW ban was let to expire that we began to see a huge spike in large mass shootings. And we know the full auto ban worked until the gun industry, along with the NRA, tried to find loopholes in it to sell firearms that looked and and almost felt like full autos, to reinvigorate sagging gun sales from the 90's onward.

The guy was not a US resident, and easily obtained his guns and ammo from out of state. And you also ignored the statistic that shows that the AR style rifles were the weapon of choice in the biggest mass shooting of the last 10 years.

I'm a huge believer in gun rights. I just don't like this view that they should be collected like Pokemon cards. Firearms are about defense, and to kill, not to be played with like toys.

I have the more conservative view over guns. Everyone has the right to own them, for defense, and for hunting, and that should never be taken away.

Currently, guns are not being taken serious in this country. They are being treated like toys. That's the worst thing you can have for them. A lack of respect for what they are, tools to kill, weapons.

And this is what most of the arguments for them boil down, to: "I want them". It's not about defense, not for hunting, not for government tyranny. Those are just tacked on excuses. It's all about a hobby, while ignoring, or making excuses, over what they have led to in the country with these large mass shootings, that are only growing in size in body count.

And when I look at Trump, and the rise of far right terrorism, and where most gun right activists reside on the political spectrum, I know who will be the first to support government tyranny in this country.