Support NeoGAF

[HyperionX]

It's really quite amazing how entrenched this country is with their guns. Seriously, why is it so important to be able to own guns?

To keep you safe? Owning a gun just statistically increases your chance of being killed by gunfire, thanks to accidents, escalating problems that shouldn't be escalated, and by having one of the easiest and most successful suicide options at easy access. For every rare circumstance of a gun saving a life, there's many others where a life was taken, solely because of a gun.

To hunt? Is the sanctity of a fairly niche sport is really worth the countless lives of human beings lost to gun violence?

Because it's in the constitution? Is an amendment written by slave owners really that sacred and relevant to today's society that we can't even question it?

Because we wouldn't be able to enforce it? America is one of the biggest manufacturers of guns in the world. Illegalizing it would put a huge dent in the availability of guns. Even if it were somehow impossible, why not at least try?

To overthrow the government and keep the police in check? You really believe the government is scared at all by the prospect of a violent revolution, when they're clearly still scared of a simple democrat vote? And the police are way more quick to shoot people largely because they're so afraid of the fact that every single person on the street could easily be hiding a gun that can be shot at them in a split second.

And yet people are terrified to even ask the question, "Should the 2nd amendment be repealed". Not even just politicians running for office, but your average uber-liberal internet blog, or your local Democrat meetup. Even in these liberal spaces there still plenty of hardcore pro-2nd amendment people, while the opinion singled out as controversial is the one that even asks if we can even have background checks.

Maybe the answer is to get various liberals from the ones on internet boards to the ones writing for the New York Times to finally go full out and say "Fuck the second amendment" if only to move the overton window on the issue. Trying to focus on middle of the road things clearly isn't working politically or in public discourse, which isn't surprising considering that these solutions would barely make a dent on the type of problem we're facing.

Agreed. Guns are vastly more likely to do harm than any good: link. I'd love the see a major newspaper or institution of journalism start opening advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment. And not some tiny op-ed, but make it their front page article. Basically, make it clear that it is a right that is no longer relevant and should be ended.

Eh.... i don't particularly care about hunting, but arguing that the sorta rifles used for hunting are contributing in any meaningful way to human violence seems a bit weird. Got any data to back that up?

My belief at this point is that all guns are equally capable of harm, and that mass shootings have been committed with nearly every kind of gun. All guns, handguns, rifles, etc., need to be either banned or heavily regulated unless specifically needed in a particularly case. Trying to differentiate between them is a waste of time IMO. Besides, hunting can be done with bow and arrow, so in some sense guns are hunting are totally unrelated issues.

 

[Coriolanus]

My belief at this point is that all guns are equally capable of harm, and that mass shootings have been committed with nearly every kind of gun. All guns, handguns, rifles, etc., need to be either banned or heavily regulated unless specifically needed in a particularly case. Trying to differentiate between them is a waste of time IMO. Besides, hunting can be done with bow and arrow, so in some sense guns are hunting are totally unrelated issues.

My belief at this point is that all cars are equally capable of harm, and that mass deaths have resulted with nearly every type of vehicle. All cars, motorcycles, trucks, etc., need to be either banned or heavily regulated unless specifically needed in a particular case. Trying to differentiate between them is a waste of time imo. Besides, moving can be done with legs, so in some sense locomotion and driving are totally unrelated issues.

My belief at this point is that all knives are equally capable of harm, and that mass deaths have resulted with nearly every type of blade. All knifes, shanks, machetes, broadswords, powersaws, etc., need to be either banned or heavily regulated unless specifically needed in a particular case. Trying to differentiate between them is a waste of time imo. Besides, cutting can be done with teeth, so in some sense, blades and slicing are totally unrelated issues.

This is why i'd like data, mate. If memory serves, handguns are the major prob and those yurop countries that still allow only larger firearms (or restrict handguns and automatic weps, like glorious canadia) do ok. Trying to pass a blanket, needlesly restrictive measure will only put you up against even more antagonism than it should.

Of course, you can just get around the whole issue and nuke the argument from orbit by pointing at the firearm deaths from countries that went with a near total blanket ban.

Wouldn't go whole hog on those, however, since you've also examples like Brazil, where harsh legislative measures took place to restrict gun rights and...well, the data is in the previous link. Would go out on a leg and guess that guns are a smaller part of the gun deaths conundrum than most people think. Which is generally the case with most crimes, tbqh.

 

[TacticalFox88]

It's really quite amazing how entrenched this country is with their guns. Seriously, why is it so important to be able to own guns?

To keep you safe? Owning a gun just statistically increases your chance of being killed by gunfire, thanks to accidents, escalating problems that shouldn't be escalated, and by having one of the easiest and most successful suicide options at easy access. For every rare circumstance of a gun saving a life, there's many others where a life was taken, solely because of a gun.

To hunt? Is the sanctity of a fairly niche sport is really worth the countless lives of human beings lost to gun violence?

Because it's in the constitution? Is an amendment written by slave owners really that sacred and relevant to today's society that we can't even question it?

Because we wouldn't be able to enforce it? America is one of the biggest manufacturers of guns in the world. Illegalizing it would put a huge dent in the availability of guns. Even if it were somehow impossible, why not at least try?

To overthrow the government and keep the police in check? You really believe the government is scared at all by the prospect of a violent revolution, when they're clearly still scared of a simple democrat vote? And the police are way more quick to shoot people largely because they're so afraid of the fact that every single person on the street could easily be hiding a gun that can be shot at them in a split second.

And yet people are terrified to even ask the question, "Should the 2nd amendment be repealed". Not even just politicians running for office, but your average uber-liberal internet blog, or your local Democrat meetup. Even in these liberal spaces there still plenty of hardcore pro-2nd amendment people, while the opinion singled out as controversial is the one that even asks if we can even have background checks.

Maybe the answer is to get various liberals from the ones on internet boards to the ones writing for the New York Times to finally go full out and say "Fuck the second amendment" if only to move the overton window on the issue. Trying to focus on middle of the road things clearly isn't working politically or in public discourse, which isn't surprising considering that these solutions would barely make a dent on the type of problem we're facing.

The second amendment will never be repealed. Let's not start getting delusional.

Sandy Hook should've told you ALL you needed to know about the state of the gun debate in America.

I say let America make its own bed. Its quite obvious the citizens don't give a fuck. They let the deaths of children go to waste.

 

[Plinko]

Oh, Kansas.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/valdenia-winn-kansas-racist-sanction-hearing

An African-American lawmaker in Kansas could be expelled from the statehouse for accusing supporters of legislation that eliminated tuition breaks for undocumented immigrants of being racist. State Rep. Valdenia Winn (D) of Kansas City will face a special investigative committee in a hearing June 26 that will weigh possible sanctions against the lawmaker for the remarks.

 

[HyperionX]

My belief at this point is that all cars are equally capable of harm, and that mass deaths have resulted with nearly every type of vehicle. All cars, motorcycles, trucks, etc., need to be either banned or heavily regulated unless specifically needed in a particular case. Trying to differentiate between them is a waste of time imo. Besides, moving can be done with legs, so in some sense locomotion and driving are totally unrelated issues.

My belief at this point is that all knives are equally capable of harm, and that mass deaths have resulted with nearly every type of blade. All knifes, shanks, machetes, broadswords, powersaws, etc., need to be either banned or heavily regulated unless specifically needed in a particular case. Trying to differentiate between them is a waste of time imo. Besides, cutting can be done with teeth, so in some sense, blades and slicing are totally unrelated issues.

If guns were as heavily regulated as cars that would be a huge improvement over what have now. Futhermore, cars are as safe as well possibly make them, and if there was a way to make them even safer we'll ban existing cars and replace them with something safer (see self driving cars). And no, walking is not a sustitute for cars, but bow and arrow are fully capable of replace a gun in any form of hunting. Cars are actually important to the economy in a way guns are not. Knives are too far down the list of dangerous tools to worry about in the same degree as guns. We see that in East Asian nations how knife attacks can be contained.

This is why i'd like data, mate. If memory serves, handguns are the major prob and those yurop countries that still allow only larger firearms (or restrict handguns and automatic weps, like glorious canadia) do ok. Trying to pass a blanket, needlesly restrictive measure will only put you up against even more antagonism than it should.

I don't see anything being passed anytime soon. Not antagonizing doesn't seem to accomplished anything. If anything, insufficient antagonization is the bigger failure, seeing how little we've accomplished.

Of course, you can just get around the whole issue and nuke the argument from orbit by pointing at the firearm deaths from countries that went with a near total blanket ban.

Wouldn't go whole hog on those, however, since you've also examples like Brazil, where harsh legislative measures took place to restrict gun rights and...well, the data is in the previous link. Would go out on a leg and guess that guns are a smaller part of the gun deaths conundrum than most people think. Which is generally the case with most crimes, tbqh.

Brazil gun control are about as big of a failure as in the US. The country is totally messed in many ways.

 

[Coriolanus]

Brazil gun control are about as big of a failure as in the US. The country is totally messed in many ways.

Now now.

Huh, a cross section of gun related deaths and guns per capita with uruguay gives quite the peculiar result. Wonder if i can find a chart that compares guns per capita x gun related deaths per 100k
-
There we go.

Oh, Kansas.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/valdenia-winn-kansas-racist-sanction-hearing

Yknow that stereotype about black republicans? Yeaaah...

 

[benjipwns]

if there was a way to make them even safer we'll ban existing cars and replace them with something safer

Part of me thinks this would be more impossible than a broad gun ban.

but bow and arrow are fully capable of replace a gun in any form of hunting.

Have you ever shot with both?

Not to mention bows are less humane.

 

[benjipwns]

-

Have many people identified and commented on your Cheney avatar?

 

[Coriolanus]

Have many people identified and commented on your Cheney avatar?

One more than those who identified and commented on my Gaddafi avatar.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Fuck yeah benji's back.




oh and on topic. The National Review continues being racist. Reminder #11234

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420003/blood-stained-banner-charleston-ian-tuttle

But with respect to Ms. Kendall, this hateful man’s use of a slogan is no proof that the slogan itself is hateful. Elected leaders make this distinction constantly when it comes to Islamic terrorism, after all: The teachings of Muhammad, the Koran, the black flag with the Shahada (the flag of ISIS) — they have been “hijacked” and “perverted.” Why hasn’t Dylann Roof merely “hijacked” or “perverted” the main symbol of the Confederacy?

To that the obvious answer would be, Because the flag in question is the symbol of a cause rooted in hatred and racial oppression. But it is exactly that point on which persons of good faith can — and do — disagree. One does not need to think the Civil War was the “War of Northern Aggression” to think that the “Blood-Stained Banner” represents something more than visceral racial hatred. Yet much of the reason the Confederate flag is so contentious is because objections to it are not raised in good faith. Many opponents of Confederate symbols demonstrate not to promote the reduction of racial tensions and the advancement of a shared good, but out of a desire to impose their own moral outlook on dissenters — because it suits their present-day interests. Racial identity and the interests of one’s own racial group are of outsize importance in leftwing politics. Those interests are furthered when history can be invoked in one’s favor; thus today’s “racial activists” are keen to cast the the Civil War as a simple contest of Good-versus-Evil — even though it is obvious that, pace Ta-Nehisi Coates, the American South was not analogous to Nazi Germany, and the Confederate flag is not the Third Reich’s swastika. Arguments to the contrary have in mind not a proper interpretation of past events, but the manipulation of those events to bolster a present-day agenda.

Genocide isn't genocide if its 'mercer

More stupidity at the link from the "leading voice for intellectual conservatism"

 

[benjipwns]

From Cato's amicus brief on that Texas license plate case:

One research fellow at amicus Cato is a die-hard Sooners fan. While he appreciates the OU tag, he is offended by the very existence of Texas and respectfully suggests that, as an alternative way to dispose of this case, this Court could rule that Texas is unconstitutional. Or, better yet, make it part of Oklahoma. That would really help with recruiting.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I never knew kennedy was so good on justice issues.

He also signaled yesterday that he'd probably limit solitary confinement. Hope someone brings a case soon. Its about time, it's torture

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-justice-kennedy-solitary-confinement/396320/

 

[Poodlestrike]

From Cato's amicus brief on that Texas license plate case:

I think he's on to something.

 

[Diablos]

Guns aren't the problem

I stopped reading here.

Yes guns are not SOLELY to blame, someone had to carry out the shooting. The relative ease of which mentally unstable individuals can get their hands on a firearm of ANY type in this nation is downright terrifying. We can put more limitations on access to firearms via legislation, and frankly, a SCOTUS that swings back to the left (please win in 2016 Hillary).

Banning guns outright in this country would never work; that would be a tough slog to say the least. But at the very least we can put more restrictions on what kind of weapons can be purchased, how they can be purchased, and by whom.

 

[benjipwns]

He acquired the gun illegally under current restrictions.

EDIT: Unless his father was unaware of his status of having been charged with a felony, and that gun was the one he used.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

He acquired the gun illegally under current restrictions.

EDIT: Unless his father was unaware of his status of having been charged with a felony, and that gun was the one he used.

I saw somewhere this morning that he bought it, but I can't find where I saw that.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Spoiler

I forgot what date my ban was up.

Oh, good. Benji's back. Benji, which president had the best hair ever, and how does that hair compare with Rand Paul's hair?

I saw somewhere this morning that he bought it, but I can't find where I saw that.

Probably CNN:

One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it.

 

[FiggyCal]

Benji! I missed you so much bro. ;_;

 

[Fenderputty]

Benji! I missed you so much bro. ;_;

lol my favorite conserva combo has been reunited in PoliGAF.

 

[pigeon]

Spoiler

I forgot what date my ban was up.

Way to acknowledge the legitimacy of the power of the state!

 

[NeoXChaos]

I dont want the country to burn. Some people are playing a dangerous game and acting like spoiled children who want to have everything or nothing at all. Benji is back. I am so glad.

 

[Crisco]

You just can't change some people's mind, no matter how many facts and statistics you throw at them. Every developed nation in the world with stricter gun laws than the US (all of them) also has significantly less gun violence. This isn't a coincidence. Neither is increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global warming. Neither is lower taxes and greater income inequality. Neither is increased access to healthcare, and uh, better health. All these things are related but that won't change the mind of ignorant assholes who'll keep their fingers pinned to their ears going "lalalalalala" because it doesn't fit their world view. It's why I don't bother anymore and just point and laugh while the black man fixes everything by implementing the exact policies they said would never work, to their total chagrin.

 

[ivysaur12]

Christopher Hayes ‏@chrislhayes
Daughter of one of the victims to Roof in the bond hearing. Weeping"I forgive you.You hurt me,you hurt a lot of people,but God forgives you"

:-(

 

[StopMakingSense]

I forgot what date my ban was up.

You done got yourself institutionalized.

 

[B-Dubs]

Spoiler

I forgot what date my ban was up.

LOL

Of course you did, good to have you back dude.

 

[BertramCooper]

I don't think the second amendment necessarily needs repealed.

We just need to license the fuck out of gun ownership. You have to be a certain age to own a gun. You have to take thorough training courses to own a gun, and have to retake them every few years. Every gun you own - even antique guns - needs to be registered with the government. If you're caught with unregistered guns, you'll be fined to oblivion. If you knowingly allow an unlicensed person to use guns licensed to you, you'll be fined to oblivion.

Yes, you have a right to bear arms. But you have to bear those arms with responsibility and accountability.

 

[Crisco]

Pfft, yeah right, if the government knows about my giant arsenal then they can easily come take it away. Now at least we have a fighting chance! /gunnuts

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...bush-2016-candidate-119191.html#ixzz3dXUOROk4

Kasich’s temper has made it harder to endear himself to the GOP’s wealthy benefactors. Last year, he traveled to Southern California to appear on a panel at a conference sponsored by the Republican mega-donors Charles and David Koch. At one point, according to accounts provided by two sources present, Randy Kendrick, a major contributor and the wife of Ken Kendrick, the owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, rose to say she disagreed with Kasich’s decision to expand Medicaid coverage, and questioned why he’d expressed the view it was what God wanted.

The governor’s response was fiery. “I don’t know about you, lady,” he said as he pointed at Kendrick, his voice rising. “But when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.”

The exchange left many stunned. About 20 audience members walked out of the room, and two governors also on the panel, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, told Kasich they disagreed with him. The Ohio governor has not been invited back to a Koch seminar — opportunities for presidential aspirants to mingle with the party’s rich and powerful — in the months since.

Wow. That response maybe harsh, but he's totally right. Not expanding medicare is despicable. Those people are putting the lives of poor people at risk to score political points, and it's nice to see someone from the republican party call them out on it.

 

[Macho Madness]

Is Kasich the Huntsman of this time around? I mean the guy who says some sensible things the base doesn't want to hear and therefore he never gains any ground.

 

[PhoenixDark]

TPM has really turned to trash. Headline:

Jeb Bush: 'I Don’t Know' If Charleston Shooting Was Racially Motivated
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charleston-shooting-remarks

from the article:

When pressed again about whether race motivated the attacks, Bush said, "I don't know. Looks like to me it was, but we'll find out all the information. It's clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, and they were African-American. You can judge what it is."

Pathetic.

 

[Coriolanus]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...bush-2016-candidate-119191.html#ixzz3dXUOROk4

Wow. That response maybe harsh, but he's totally right. Not expanding medicare is despicable. Those people are putting the lives of poor people at risk to score political points, and it's nice to see someone from the republican party call them out on it.

Holy shit. That truly is a glorious one-liner.

Is Kasich the Huntsman of this time around? I mean the guy who says some sensible things the base doesn't want to hear and therefore he never gains any ground.

Seems to be the case.

 

[BertramCooper]

Is Kasich the Huntsman of this time around? I mean the guy who says some sensible things the base doesn't want to hear and therefore he never gains any ground.

I think he'll be slightly more successful than Huntsman, but not by much.

Speaking of which:

Dispatch: Quinnipiac poll shows Kasich can beat Clinton in Ohio

 

[Oblivion]

Is Kasich the Huntsman of this time around? I mean the guy who says some sensible things the base doesn't want to hear and therefore he never gains any ground.

Yup.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I think he'll be slightly more successful than Huntsman, but not by much.

Speaking of which:

Dispatch: Quinnipiac poll shows Kasich can beat Clinton in Ohio

One of the handful of Republicans who could at least win their own state.

Naturally, he's a no-go in the Primaries. Gotta love the circus.

 

[BertramCooper]

It should be noted that Kasich, while clearly more moderate than pretty much everyone else in the GOP field, isn't nearly as moderate on social issues as Huntsman. Don't expect Kasich to voice support for same-sex marriage any time soon.

So it's an apt comparison in some ways, but definitely not in others.

 

[Oblivion]

TPM has really turned to trash. Headline:

Jeb Bush: 'I Don’t Know' If Charleston Shooting Was Racially Motivated
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charleston-shooting-remarks

from the article:


Pathetic.

I'm not seeing the issue, dawg.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I'm not seeing the issue, dawg.

I think the issue is that Bush actually said he believed it was racially motivated, but the headline is misleading because they said "he didn't know."

 

[B-Dubs]

I think the issue is that Bush actually said he believed it was racially motivated, but the headline is misleading because they said "he didn't know."

He literally started his answer with "I don't know." They quoted him directly.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

He literally started his answer with "I don't know." They quoted him directly.

"I don't know, looks to me it was" would be more accurate and less click-bait.

 

[Oblivion]

I think the issue is that Bush actually said he believed it was racially motivated, but the headline is misleading because they said "he didn't know."

This is what he said:

When pressed again about whether race motivated the attacks, Bush said, "I don't know. Looks like to me it was, but we'll find out all the information. It's clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, and they were African-American. You can judge what it is."

He said:

1) He "didn't know" whether the it was motivated by race.
2) Others can decide whether they feel it was motivated by race.

At bare minimum, it seems he's trying to be deliberately vague so that he doesn't piss off the base.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This is what he said:



He said:

1) He "didn't know" whether the it was motivated by race.
2) Others can decide whether they feel it was motivated by race.

At bare minimum, it seems he's trying to be deliberately vague so that he doesn't piss off the base.

His immediate statement afterward was "looks to me like it was." The headline is deceptive clickbait bullshit.

 

[Oblivion]

His immediate statement afterward was "looks to me like it was." The headline is deceptive clickbait bullshit.

Yeah, he said that, but he also said "I don't know". Why would he say that along with it?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It sounds like he he thiks it is, he's sure it is, and he doesn't want to make an absolute statement without all the facts.

I don't like the guy, but if you have to truncate the statement or bold only part of it, maybe he's not saying what you want to make it look like.

Yeah, he said that, but he also said "I don't know". Why would he say that along with it?

You never qualify a statement with "I don't know" when you are 95% sure of something?

Consider that the guy is likely being peppered with attempts to snare him into making a damnign statement all day long-- I'd probably qualify everything I say, too. He's not providing any cover for the shooter by going on to say that he thinks that it is, and also implying that anybody else would come to that conclusion as well ("You can judge what it is.").

 

[BertramCooper]

Speaking of Kasich, I can't figure out why he's taking so long to declare his candidacy.

Jeb and Walker had/have the luxury of waiting. Kasich does not.

 

[Metaphoreus]

At bare minimum, it seems he's trying to be deliberately vague so that he doesn't piss off the base.

That, or he hadn't heard yet that the kid admitted to the police that it was racially motivated. I think I only learned about that this morning, and I'm not spending my days campaigning for the presidency.

 

[Coriolanus]

That, or he hadn't heard yet that the kid admitted to the police that it was racially motivated. I think I only learned about that this morning, and I'm not spending my days campaigning for the presidency.

What are you spending your days on?

 

[Metaphoreus]

What are you spending your days on?

Working with my fellow Supreme Court justices to finalize the unanimous opinion in King, naturally.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Working with my fellow Supreme Court justices to finalize the unanimous opinion in King, naturally.

Oh, thank goodness the decision to uphold the intent of the law will be unanimous!

 

[Oblivion]

It sounds like he he thiks it is, he's sure it is, and he doesn't want to make an absolute statement without all the facts.

I don't like the guy, but if you have to truncate the statement or bold only part of it, maybe he's not saying what you want to make it look like.

That, or he hadn't heard yet that the kid admitted to the police that it was racially motivated. I think I only learned about that this morning, and I'm not spending my days campaigning for the presidency.

If he wasn't aware of all the facts, that's one thing. Though 1) I would find it surprising he doesn't have most of the facts by this point, and 2) he seems to be aware that the gunman was White all 9 victims were Black. Personally I'd find it difficult to come to any other conclusion.

You never qualify a statement with "I don't know" when you are 95% sure of something?

Consider that the guy is likely being peppered with attempts to snare him into making a damnign statement all day long-- I'd probably qualify everything I say, too. He's not providing any cover for the shooter by going on to say that he thinks that it is, and also implying that anybody else would come to that conclusion as well ("You can judge what it is.").

The reason I would be suspicious about what exactly Jeb knows is that we've seen how the far right has tried to rationalize the shooting (blaming it on Christian persecution) and I would presume Jeb was just hopping on the memo.

And as far as that last line goes, it depends how you interpret it. For me, it sounded like he was saying "You have your opinion, I have mine. We can agree to disagree."

 

[Metaphoreus]

If he wasn't aware of all the facts, that's one thing. Though 1) I would find it surprising he doesn't have most of the facts by this point, and 2) he seems to be aware that the gunman was White all 9 victims were Black. Personally I'd find it difficult to come to any other conclusion.

The reason I would be suspicious about what exactly Jeb knows is that we've seen how the far right has tried to rationalize the shooting (blaming it on Christian persecution) and I would presume Jeb was just hopping on the memo.

The bolded is hardly more a rationalization than the inference that it was racially motivated (before we had the confession). He attacked a church. Everyone he killed was a Christian, in addition to being black. Inferring either as a potential motivation isn't "rationalizing" the shooting.

And I don't think it's hard to believe that he didn't know about the confession when he spoke today. Again, I have time to follow the news, so I read about it. I don't know how much time he has to keep up with breaking news.

Oh, thank goodness the decision to uphold the intent of the law will be unanimous!

But of course!