Dayton mass shooter supported violent Antifa movement

CIVIL WAR AS ENTERTAINMENT

Universal Pictures has produced a film called The Hunt (originally titled Red State vs. Blue State), which begins with rich liberals capturing “deplorables” from red states to hunt down and murder. If you lived in Dayton, Ohio, you might consider this a realistic premise, although I don’t think that is what the filmmakers had in mind.

This is the trailer; if I interpret it correctly, the “deplorables” fight back and win what looks like a civil war. In that respect, one might say that the film is realistic.



Hollywood Reporter headlines: “Ads Pulled for Gory Universal Thriller ‘The Hunt’ in Wake of Mass Shootings.”

In the wake of a trio of deadly massacres, the studio is evaluating its strategy for the R-rated Blumhouse satire in which elites stalk “deplorables.”

“Did anyone see what our ratf*cker-in-chief just did?” one character asks early in the screenplay for The Hunt, a Universal Pictures thriller set to open Sept. 27. Another responds: “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.”​

Hollywood Reporter repeatedly refers to the film as a “satire.” Apparently standards for satire have slipped over the years. More:

In the aftermath of mass shootings within days of one another that shocked and traumatized the nation, Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire. The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals.

The Hunt stars Betty Gilpin from GLOW and Hilary Swank, representing opposite sides of the political divide. It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey. The script from Damon Lindelof and Nick Cuse reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter revolves around third-rail political themes.
​

It is hard to say these days what “third-rail political themes” might be. Many on Twitter and other social media, along with mobs assembled–for example–on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s front lawn, are demanding that conservatives be murdered. Does echoing such homicidal intent in a movie constitute “satire”?

The script for The Hunt features the red-state characters wearing trucker hats and cowboy shirts, with one bragging about owning seven guns because it’s his constitutional right. The blue-state characters — some equally adept with firearms — explain that they picked their targets because they expressed anti-choice positions or used the N-word on Twitter. “War is war,” says one character after shoving a stiletto heel through the eye of a denim-clad hillbilly.

“Employees in different departments were questioning the wisdom of making such a movie in these times,” says one filmmaker with ties to Universal. “In light of the horrific [recent shootings], is this not the most craven, irresponsible, dangerous exploitation?”​

When has that ever stopped Hollywood?

 

And now we know his sister was trans supporting the already common scientific knowledge that psychological disorders can absolutely run in the family.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/suspe...lain-sister-was-reportedly-a-transgender-man/

 

There is no shortage of material to set off the mentally unstable. What about this thread set you off?

 

You obviously completely missed the point I made.

 

One killed because of race/ethnicity. The other just killed. Either way, these two should not have had access to military style weapons.

 

Yes, we do know that. All the evidence shows he wasn't a racist. He was a sick person who shouldn't have had access to guns. That's the point.

 

I agree; it is domestic terrorism when someone goes out and shoots dozens of people. I don't think there has to be a political motivation to make it an act of terrorism.

 

The reason they pulled the trigger is pretty irrelevant to the victims, its only those who wish to take advantage of the situation for their own political agendas that appear to care about such things. Every modern firearm is based and modeled on military style weapons, I fail to see how such an argument is meant to be compelling...

 

I just wanted to add that the El Paso shooter was not a right wing supremacist. He believed in universal basic income, universal healthcare, supported the green movement, and hated corporations. And he blamed both political parties. So that ain't no right wing supremacist. In his twisted logic, getting rid of illegals would free up resources to fund his far left positions of basic income, healthcare, and so on.

 

Here's my stance on Antifa

SNIP
All forms of antifa violence are problematic. Additionally, violence plays into the “victimhood” narrative of white supremacists and other right-wing extremists and can even be used for recruiting purposes.

That said, it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose. The antifa reject racism but use unacceptable tactics. White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms. Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders.
ENDSNIP

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa

Support the goals - Reject the violence

 

It isn't a political agenda that people want more gun control, SANE gun control. "But the poll found that 55 percent of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons, and 54 percent said they would support stricter gun laws more generally. Ninety percent said they would back universal background checks for gun sales." https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/poll-most-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban-1452586

Only people with absolutely no sense of human decency want to keep the lax gun control laws we have now.

 

lol.

 

There is nothing sane about unconstitutionally limiting the rights of citizens. Get an amendment, no more infringements. Anyone can manufacture poll results, just look at 2016...

 

Funny how.......

1) it's "hateful rhetoric" if Trump wants immigrants to obey our immigration laws and/or not abuse our weak asylum laws with fake claims, and it's "hateful rhetoric" if Trump stands up to liberals/ progressives/ democrats

2) Obama's hateful rhetoric was ok with the left

3) the left pretends to oppose "hateful rhetoric" but hateful rhetoric is ok when it comes from AOC, Omar, Pelosi, our presidential hopefuls, and any/every leftwing actor, talking head, or athlete who hates Trump

 

Boy, that's some twisted rationalization and likely based on disinformation. He was no lefty. He hated Mexicans and loved Trump so much that he spelled his name out in guns. He's one of yours.

 

Don't remotely need an amendment, or modify the 2nd amendment....

Didja ever ask yourself why you cannot legally own a recently-made fully automatic weapon in America in 2019??

SNIP
Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”
ENDSNIP

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

 

If you have the NFA what more do you need? That's a completely arbitrary date, I went back and looked all new models of guns released in 1985-86 and there was nothing that would warrant such an infringement on our rights. Clearly that bill should be challenged.

 

No way , they are democrats . They do nothing wrong . Whatever happens in this whole entire world is trumps fault. I got a flat tire last week , i sent the bill to Trump, he is a racist you know , my tire was black , someone deflared it had to be a trump supporter .

 

Didn't miss it. I dismissed it as being ridiculous. It does not matter if one guy killed because of hate and another guy killed because he was mentally unbalanced. There are still dead bodies. Your reference to "military style weapons" is nothing more than ignorance. The weapons used in these two shootings are not even close to being military style weapons.

A mass majority of gun owners go their whole lives without killing anybody. Taking the rights away from law abiding people because of the actions of a very very few number of people in order so that you can have a false sense of security is nothing more than authoritarian. Some would even say it is fascist.

 

He was a Democrat.

 

Stop spreading lies to paint your narrative, you are actually harming it.

Did This Photograph Appear on the El Paso Mall Shooter's Twitter ...

https://www.snopes.com › Fact Check › Politics
Aug 3, 2019 - A Twitter account said to belong to the El Paso shooting suspect liked a tweet ... Early news reports indicated that a 21-year-old man named Patrick Crusius ... The image was not actuallycreated by the perpetrator of that shooting just ... a profile picture and not an image of firearmsarranged to spell “Trump”:.

 

Obviously, an expanded NFA... to include all semi-automatic weapons this time..

Regarding a challenge, I believe this is one

SNIP
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
ENDSNIP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The phrase in bold you need to remember going forward, as the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear NO particular instrument...

 

Oh, just expand it to semi-auto? Are you insane? Such a thing is not going to happen, nor would it ever pass Constitutional muster.

If you want to play around with the militia you better get to thinking about what that means. The militia were expected to provide their own weapons. Are you saying they would only have access to single fire weapons? Of course, not, instead they need access to fully automatic weapons, as well as tanks, artillery, jets, nukes, and everything else.

 

You are repeating the cherry pickings of the leftist media. His manifesto is 2400 words. Here's a tidbit: "Achieving ambitious social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed," he wrote. https://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm This is a link to the entire manifesto.

 

Why? What makes banning fully automatic constitutional and semi-automatic UNconstitutional??

Silly... The Constitution ain't that specific....

And let me know when you get a hold of a Nuke ... also illegal... along with much of your list...

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/legal-right-to-own-nukes