The lack of condemnation of this act from the mainstream media is very chilling.  If murder for a political cause isn't an ugly thing in the eyes of the mainstream media, then lying about Trump and creating a false narrative to mislead the people is absolutely not beneath them either.   If these news outlets can't even do something as natural as condemning a mass-shooting, maybe it's time for us to stop trusting all the negative press we hear about Trump through the filter of the mainstream media and actually start listening to sources directly. 

1. So you would argue in favor of knife / sharp weapon control, but these murder hoses (love that goofy term lol, not like guns could be used for any other purpose: recreation shooting, hunting, hobbyists, etc no they are tools of murder and have no other function right?) are hogging the spotlight? What about baseball bats? A piece of lumber? A glass bottle (broken in half)? Should we regulate those too? Eventually we will just get to the point where the only way to truly protect people from this is to lock everyone in a padded cell because that would be the only solution. Almost anything can be used as a weapon. Guns are more efficient yes, but they are not even the most efficient (could do a lot more damage with a bomb or chemicals, or, as the Nice attack showed us, a properly driven truck ramming into a crowd of people). 

2. Don't give them any ideas. There are ways to ban things without actually banning them. High taxes / regulations already results in fewer cars on the road and thus less people with them. You are still evading my question though. If the goal here is to supposedly reduce casulaties by limiting access to deadly weapons / etc then how will you achieve that? Ban everything? The Nice, France attack as a recent prominent example was perpetrated with a rented truck. Should we put more extreme regulations on truck rentals now too? How will that stop someone from just stealing a truck? I believe the point ISIS was making with attacks like this and the stabbings etc is that there is nothing that you can do to stop them; they will always find a weapon of some form to commit terrorist acts and, in this case, they are right. What would possibly stop one of these attacks, however, would be an armed citizenry. Maybe one or several people with a sidearm could have stopped or slowed down that and other rampages before they claimed more lives. Considering the draconican gun laws in Europe, what does a terrorist have to fear? No one except for the police will be shooting at them so they can just go hog wild. 

3. This is a Gish Gallop site you are linking. I'm not going to respond to dozens of stories of supposed corruption. Interesting I see all the usual suspects on here, NYT, Washington post, NBC, Guardian, etc. Considering what we know about media bias against Trump thanks to this Harvard study http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jackson-richman/2017/05/19/harvard-study-agrees-mrc-media-biased-against-trump , I don't think a collection of highly biased and slanted stories warrants a charge of rampant corruption. Where is the smoking gun if this presidency is so wildly corrupt? Honestly, I would like to know, it would help fuel my anarcho-capitalist arguments. Also here is another Gish Gallop for you in regards to Obama's scandals (from a biased source on the right this time) http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/

4. Has the NRA / Republicans come out to say that this was a man rebelling against a tyranical government? I missed that story please link it. 

5. That is because it is not the NRA/ Republican's idea; it predates them both. They are referring to the likes of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, etc. who did actually meet to argue whether or not a revolution was justified prior to launching the American Revolution. There were debate and arguments and a tremendous amount of thinking/ planning that went into it ... our Bernie supporter, on the other hand, so far as we know acted alone and didn't exactly sound like a paradigm of good mental health and sound reasoned judgement. 

6. Again, the 2nd ammendment was meant to guarantee the right to bear arms, not to give a treatise on when / how a revolution should take place or be justified. For that I recommend reading up on the American and other revolutions throughout history. It is a question that greatly interests me as it may be the logical conclusion of the libertarian / annarcho-capitalist movement as some thinkers would argue. It is a difficult question to answer, but I think most people would agree that 1 homeless man living out of a van is not the political revolutionary we are looking for. 

1 If they somehow managed to compete with the efficiency, lethality and ranged effectiveness as murder hoses and rival their consumption of life---why not?

2 too late.

3 Ignore hundreds of indepently verified instances of corruption if you like.  Unfortunately, ignoring corruption doesn't make it go away. Dear Leader's regime is the gold standard for corrupfion.

4 The topic's victim is a noteworthy member of a demonstrably corrupt government--shooting him fits the long-held NRA/Republican talking point about taking arms against a corrupt government.

5 The 2nd A predates them as well, which is why I mentioned it, and I still see no formal time frame for how long it takes corruption to manifest.

6 Such a treatise would infringe on the right to bear arms.  He took arms--"necessary" for the "freedom" of the "State"--as 2nd A guarantees is his right. No other way to put it: the Second Amendment struck again.

1. ISIS has only been around since 1999, give them some more time. I'm sure they wil continue to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives to guns. You can't just ban everything since almost anything can be used as a weapon. 

2. lol got me there I guess.

3. Independently verified sources? I see nothing but a bunch of links to known left leaning media outlets. Show me Trump's Watergate scandal or anything even close to it. I would love to see it ... helps my grand argument like I said. Then I can have more ammunition to use when I debate against the existence of a state in general. 

4. Again, do we even know his intent? For all we know he was suicidal and figured if I go down then why not lash out while I'm at it. I think you are making an incredible leap here in arguing that this nutjob and the founders of the US are morally equivalent. 

5. Considering the time frame between the founding of the American colonies leading up to the outbreak of revolution, I think the founders would probably have said it takes more than 6 months ... especially considering that the US is not a dictatorship and the powers of the president are limited by design. 

6. Once again, context matters here. You are just assuming the motivation of the man based on nothing and pinning everything on the 2nd amendment; as though this man who not have gone on a violent rampage if only he didn't have access to a gun. What is more likely? That this guy was a nut living out of his truck that suddenly snapped after what sounds like a crappy life, or that he was a mastermind political revolutionary that was going to topple the US government by ... interrupting baseball practice?

1. I never said "ban".  You asked of regulations, and I answered of regulations.

3. Yes.

4. We know his actions are consistent with right wing murder hose philosophies.  

5.  I had no idea that the 2nd A waits 183 days before kicking in.  Dear Leader doesn't have much time before even you think he's fair game.

6. No, I am not.  I have spoken only of his actions, the Constitution, and Republican/NRA murder hose philosophies.  None mentioned intent, nor did any rely upon it for their respective positions.

The only assumption is that the aforementioned philosophies have internally consistent logic--though I do admit it's a bit of a stretch to give them that much credit.

Bye!