Here we go again.  5 people dead including the shooter.  Gun Free Zones? 2 areas.  Officers shot chasing the suspect.  Can't wait for more details. Witness said it was a big rifle.  Oh boy.

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Go Figure

As a member of our "armed" forces...give me back my rights to be armed and true meaning of the term ARMED forces of the USA!

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Go Figure

"Domestic terrorist"

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Go Figure

But look at the likable smile!

cowardly

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Go Figure

What a surprise.

No doubt Obunghole will pronounce it workplace violence or some other bullsqueeze to avoid implicating his favorite religion.

What a surprise.

No doubt Obunghole will pronounce it workplace violence or some other bullsqueeze to avoid implicating his favorite religion.

Obama is already using the catch phrase "lone gunman" to downplay his association with radical Islam.

Obama is already using the catch phrase "lone gunman" to downplay his association with radical Islam.

Nice double entendre there MD, well done.

 

Obama is already using the catch phrase "lone gunman" to downplay his association with radical Islam.

Is he associated with radical islam?

Is he associated with radical islam?

who? O bumma?  I'd say most likely.

A NY Times article claims they don't know what the motive is for the shooting. What a bunch of morons!!!

But look at the likable smile!

...
I would be smiling too if I had 72 virgins waiting for me.

A NY Times article claims they don't know what the motive is for the shooting. What a bunch of morons!!!

yup
his name could be "isis allahu ahkbar" and they wouldn't know the motive

someone is going to have a youtube video with the timeline of when the charleston shooting happened and the president was talking about hate crimes and racism and gun violence
versus this tennessee shooting and all the president can say is "we have a name" and "the motive is unknown"

There's going to be agendas being pushed from all sides on this ....as usual. Watching the WH briefing this morNing  ..a couple questions were asked about the attack then a reporter asked about the presidentS weekend time with his daughter/s and all of a sudden the mood went from a comment then  giggling and smirking?! Really?!  WTF kind of disrespectful and an awful way to respond is that crap?! . We all need to stay vigilant & let's make sure we (americans) dont/never get put in "checkmate".


Modified:: I'm going to re-apply for ccw again and for my reason for applying I will use this aND the past couple incidents as my "good cause". I know its taking up my time and money to reapply BUT now I feel like being a pain in the ass.

CNN talking head tries to drag the shooter's "Southern culture of guns" into the conversation in an obvious attempt to set up a dialog for gun control...

A NY Times article claims they don't know what the motive is for the shooting. What a bunch of morons!!!

Heaven forbid they try to be objective... Sure we can go around thinking it was radical islam related because of his name and the targets but good reporting should be neutral until more facts arrive. You think a prosecutor could win a court case off such weak circumstantial evidence?

Heaven forbid they try to be objective... Sure we can go around thinking it was radical islam related because of his name and the targets but good reporting should be neutral until more facts arrive. You think a prosecutor could win a court case off such weak circumstantial evidence?

being objective is one thing, but its pretty hard to not even MENTION that radical islam might have been involved considering he was Muslim, had just made a recent middle east visit, and shot up a military recruiting center of all places.

sure, it POSSIBLE it could have been another motive, but acting like the obvious explanation is somehow just as much a distant possibility as everything else IS part of the NY times bias. 

Heaven forbid they try to be objective... Sure we can go around thinking it was radical islam related because of his name and the targets but good reporting should be neutral until more facts arrive. You think a prosecutor could win a court case off such weak circumstantial evidence?

Their objectivity is selective.  They hide behind it when the truth doesn't fit their narrative.  Then they jump to conclusions when it suits them.

The newspaper was criticized for largely reporting the prosecutors' version of events in the 2006 Duke lacrosse
case.[143][144] Suzanne Smalley of Newsweek criticized the newspaper for its "credulous"[145] coverage of the
charges of rape against Duke University lacrosse players. Stuart Taylor, Jr. and KC Johnson, in their book Until
Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, write: "at
the head of the guilt-presuming pack, The New York Times vied in a race to the journalistic bottom with trash-TV
talk shows."[146]