14 Year Old Facing Murder Charges after Confessing to Killing 5 Relatives

[poweRob]

This fact can't be overstated. As Orwell once wrote "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
Here's another fitting statement by Orwell from his "Notes on Nationalism" for these days :" Pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious."
Notice the word "Nationalism" isn't a "Racist" word, until the left made it seem that way.

Actually, nationalists are the ones who made nationalism a "Racist" word. Personal responsibility.

 

[mrdeltoid]

I'd be a lot happier if there were more "Patriots" (read as "I love my country even though it is not perfect and will do everything that I can to make my country over into one that is more like the one that we teach young children my country is AND will do everything in my power to prevent my country from becoming LESS like the one that we teach young children it is." and fewer "Nationalists" (read as "I simply don't care whether my country is anything like the one that we teach young children is, because whatever my country is perfect, whatever my country does is absolutely the best thing that could possibly be done, anything that any other country does is terrible, and my country has the absolute right to destroy anyone who says that it isn't perfect and/or anyone who says that anything that my country does isn't what it should be doing.").

How about you?

PS - Please note, the words "race" and "racism" do NOT appear in the above.

I don't disagree. My view of patriotism was formed as a young marine, many years ago. I carry those beliefs where ever I go. The way I look at it, I have my brother's back. What ever he does in public, I back up. My MC, which has quite a few veterans lives by the same principle. In public, in a dispute, my brother is right. Even if he's wrong, he's right, PUBLICLY. When we hash it out behind closed doors, it may be much different. I f he is wrong, you better believe, he will be "aggressively educated". But in public, a united front. To me, that is by definition "nationalism". A nationalist believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet. We have done great things, we have done disgusting things. But the #1 job of the government is to keep our country secure as possible. We live in dangerous times, where millions of religious zealots are dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. We must always, when using diplomacy, be coming from a position of power. And in the US, the word "nationalist", to the democrat party, is synonymous with "racist". I disagree.

 

[Lursa]

So I take it then that you are advocating that instruments designed specifically to cause death and destruction don't need to be stored at least as safely as household toxic cleaning agents and chemicals in order to prevent the accidental deaths or injuries of minors and other innocents may happen upon them?

Of course, as each family deems safe and appropriate to need.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't disagree. My view of patriotism was formed as a young marine, many years ago. I carry those beliefs where ever I go. The way I look at it, I have my brother's back. What ever he does in public, I back up. My MC, which has quite a few veterans lives by the same principle. In public, in a dispute, my brother is right. Even if he's wrong, he's right, PUBLICLY. When we hash it out behind closed doors, it may be much different. I f he is wrong, you better believe, he will be "aggressively educated". But in public, a united front. To me, that is by definition "nationalism". A nationalist believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet. We have done great things, we have done disgusting things. But the #1 job of the government is to keep our country secure as possible. We live in dangerous times, where millions of religious zealots are dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. We must always, when using diplomacy, be coming from a position of power. And in the US, the word "nationalist", to the democrat party, is synonymous with "racist". I disagree.

If you simplify your thinking so that "Patriots" (read as "I love my country even though it is not perfect and will do everything that I can to make my country over into one that is more like the one that we teach young children my country is AND will do everything in my power to prevent my country from becoming LESS like the one that we teach young children it is." and "Nationalists" (read as "I simply don't care whether my country is anything like the one that we teach young children is, because whatever my country is perfect, whatever my country does is absolutely the best thing that could possibly be done, anything that any other country does is terrible, and my country has the absolute right to destroy anyone who says that it isn't perfect and/or anyone who says that anything that my country does isn't what it should be doing.") are both called by the same term you can get some rather "interesting" results.

I mean if you did that then you could be a "Patriot" if a single member of the US government decided to wipe out the entire population of Argentina, ordered the US military to do just that (using weapons of mass destruction to do so, the US military complied, and you "stood in solidarity" with that action when it happened - couldn't you?

And if the US government decided that it needed Canada in order to have free access to its raw materials and invaded Canada whilst conducting a mass extermination campaign of the Canadian population, and you "stood in solidarity" with that action when it happened, wouldn't that make you a "Patriot"?

"Ultra-nationalism" is equivalent to bigotry and to "stand in solidarity" with bigotry makes you a bigot - it does NOT make you a "Patriot".

PS - Part of the problem here is the fact that some people use "racist" and "bigoted" to mean EXACTLY the same thing - they don't even though their meanings do overlap.

• People who "hate" the "Democrats" (whatever that means) simply because those people are "Democrats" (whatever that means) are "bigots" and are not (necessarily) "racists".
• People who "hate" the "Republicans" (whatever that means) simply because those people are "Republicans" (whatever that means) are "bigots" and are not (necessarily) "racists".

but what those people get called is "racist".

There is an old adage to the effect that you cannot discuss things that you don't have words for. If you take a look at Orwell's "1984" you will see that one of the prime methods of thought control was the introduction and compulsory use of "NewSpeak" which eliminated nuances of language and replaced words with other words that didn't actually describe the same thing. The bastardization of the English language over the past 50 years is achieving the same thing - although I don't think that there is, or has been, any concrete plan to do that (just people taking advantage of it happening [which has tended to accelerate its happening]).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course, as each family deems safe and appropriate to need.

Taking that to extremes, that would mean that it would be just peachy-keen to allow anyone to set up as a brain surgeon (even though their highest academic/occupational qualification was the fact that they had flunked out of McDonald University because they couldn't tell the difference between a Coke[sup]®[/sup] and a side of fries) and to allow people to have their kids brains operated on by that person.

Now obviously, no sane person would draw the line THAT far "on the side of personal liberty", so where would you draw it?

Would you draw it at the point where a family (where the adults both had IQs of less than 75, had less than Grade 9 educations, were fervent believers in the superiority of the __[fill in the blank]__ race, and subscribed to the belief that the world was going to end next Wednesday) allowed their children (none of whom were as smart as either of their parents and none of whom were over the age of 10) free access to firearms and ammunition and encouraged their kids to "practice repelling the coming Zombie attacks" using real guns that were actually loaded?

 

[SLC]

You think the first time a family member killed another one was a couple of thousand years ago? Never before that???

Cain wasn't alive a couple thousand years ago.

 

[SLC]

The 14 year old had reportedly just found that his mother was not his birth mother and that he was adopted. So apparently he didn't have any mental issues before until he did. It's just another example of the false narrative of blaming mental illness for these kind of shootings.

Or more likely he was a mentally ill kid and this news triggered him.

 

[TheParser]

execute him.

The Supreme Court has ruled that "children" cannot be executed.

It has also ruled, I believe, that "children" cannot be held in prison for life.

So I am not surprised by the violent crime committed by "children." They know that they can literally get away with their violent crimes.

 

[SLC]

IMO that's more like a 'pork-pie' hat.

Charming pic!

Correct! That isn't a fedora, Tom Landry wore a fedora and he wouldn't ever have worn the hat in the pic.

 

[Fishking]

Anyone who leaves firearms and ammo where children can access them is an absolute moron and should be held accountable in some legal way for any consequences that come from that colossally imbecilic decision. And bragging about it? Good God.

I grew up with an open gun cabinet in the house and no one got murdered. We knew how to use the guns safely and weren't psychopaths. It was great.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Or more likely he was a mentally ill kid and this news triggered him.

It's much more likely that he "had issues" arising from the fact that he had learned that the people who had raised and loved him weren't his birth parents (who hadn't bothered to raise and love him) and so he "made a statement" about his "issues" by blowing away a bunch of people he simply no longer cared about because they weren't his birth parents. Of course he had to kill the three other kids as well because, out of his deeply sense of compassion, he didn't want them to become orphans and end up being adopted by a family that would raise and love them.

If you want to bet on what was running through the mind of this arrogant, stupid, pathetic, loser when killing the five innocents, put your next couple of months' rent on "I'll SHOW you!".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I grew up with an open gun cabinet in the house and no one got murdered. We knew how to use the guns safely and weren't psychopaths. It was great.

Yeah, and I'll bet that you were brainwashed into saying "Please.", "Thank you.", "You're welcome" as well as being conditioned into giving up your seat on the bus to the elderly, infirm, or burdened.

 

[Fishking]

Yeah, and I'll bet that you were brainwashed into saying "Please.", "Thank you.", "You're welcome" as well as being conditioned into giving up your seat on the bus to the elderly, infirm, or burdened.

The horror of it all still gives me nightmares.

 

[noonereal]

14-year-old facing five murder charges after confessing to killing his family in their Alabama home, police say - CNN



With some folks on the internet bragging about leaving guns and ammo laying around their house, you'd think responsible gun owners would step up and try to increase gun safety drives.One would hope they'd get united as a community and criticize those who proudly tell strangers about dangerous equipment they have laying around the house within the reach of kids. Instead anyone who even suggests restricting access to guns to minors faces an uphill battle as rights organizations hold manufacturer funded events to promote the purchase of guns instead of respect for them.

In recent days I've come to agree that the main threat to America is not guns. It isn't minorities. It isn't white supremacy. The main threat to Americans will not be fixed with projects taking place thousands of miles away. The main threat is the centuries long refusal to stop spending money on fights around the world, and enriching the pockets of war profiteers waiting to stock our troops with the best equipment. It is ignoring possibility that spending 30-40% of our yearly income on weapons and all related asterisks (wars, bases around the world, r&d, etc) is probably not something our wives and/or husband's would agree with at home, so why continue to do it as a country.

Time to spend a bit more on people. You know, just have a few months where we shut down a few wars, spend the money on sending kids and adults to psychologists. You know, reviewing the prescriptions of people. Doing family home check ups. Spending more on schools to have support counselors. Maybe getting folks some dental care. Seeing if anyone is interested in eye exams. You know, some of the humane things we do for other countries.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Gee, when I read the headline I thought sure the kid used a car not a gun to kill his family.

Go figure.

 

[noonereal]

I grew up with an open gun cabinet in the house and no one got murdered. We knew how to use the guns safely and weren't psychopaths. It was great.

OMFG!

absolutely unbelievable

Just, wow

da' ****

wow

 

[Fishking]

OMFG!

absolutely unbelievable

Just, wow

da' ****

wow

Is that English?

 

[noonereal]

Is that English?

It is SHOCK that someone who was brought up like that still thinks it was fine.

 

[Fishking]

It is SHOCK that someone who was brought up like that still thinks it was fine.

Why? It was great. We were all educated on the use of a weapon and it wasn't a big deal. Sounds like you're more traumatized it than anything that you imagine happened to me.

 

[noonereal]

Why? It was great. We were all educated on the use of a weapon and it wasn't a big deal. Sounds like you're more traumatized it than anything that you imagine happened to me.

Mind blowing ignorance is what this statement represents.

 

[Fishking]

Mind blowing ignorance is what this statement represents.

The irony of your post is awesome.

 

[noonereal]

The irony of your post is awesome.

The dark days of Trump are upon us.

 

[Fishking]

The dark days of Trump are upon us.

It was a dark and stormy night...

Btw...this was loooong before Trump was Pres.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is that English?

4 alot of 72.4 miln ppl it is.

 

[mrdeltoid]

If you simplify your thinking so that "Patriots" (read as "I love my country even though it is not perfect and will do everything that I can to make my country over into one that is more like the one that we teach young children my country is AND will do everything in my power to prevent my country from becoming LESS like the one that we teach young children it is." and "Nationalists" (read as "I simply don't care whether my country is anything like the one that we teach young children is, because whatever my country is perfect, whatever my country does is absolutely the best thing that could possibly be done, anything that any other country does is terrible, and my country has the absolute right to destroy anyone who says that it isn't perfect and/or anyone who says that anything that my country does isn't what it should be doing.") are both called by the same term you can get some rather "interesting" results.

I mean if you did that then you could be a "Patriot" if a single member of the US government decided to wipe out the entire population of Argentina, ordered the US military to do just that (using weapons of mass destruction to do so, the US military complied, and you "stood in solidarity" with that action when it happened - couldn't you?

And if the US government decided that it needed Canada in order to have free access to its raw materials and invaded Canada whilst conducting a mass extermination campaign of the Canadian population, and you "stood in solidarity" with that action when it happened, wouldn't that make you a "Patriot"?

"Ultra-nationalism" is equivalent to bigotry and to "stand in solidarity" with bigotry makes you a bigot - it does NOT make you a "Patriot".

PS - Part of the problem here is the fact that some people use "racist" and "bigoted" to mean EXACTLY the same thing - they don't even though their meanings do overlap.

• People who "hate" the "Democrats" (whatever that means) simply because those people are "Democrats" (whatever that means) are "bigots" and are not (necessarily) "racists".
• People who "hate" the "Republicans" (whatever that means) simply because those people are "Republicans" (whatever that means) are "bigots" and are not (necessarily) "racists".

but what those people get called is "racist".

There is an old adage to the effect that you cannot discuss things that you don't have words for. If you take a look at Orwell's "1984" you will see that one of the prime methods of thought control was the introduction and compulsory use of "NewSpeak" which eliminated nuances of language and replaced words with other words that didn't actually describe the same thing. The bastardization of the English language over the past 50 years is achieving the same thing - although I don't think that there is, or has been, any concrete plan to do that (just people taking advantage of it happening [which has tended to accelerate its happening]).

I would probably associate myself with the term "patriot", secondary to "marine", by websters definition efinition of patriot
: one who loves and supports his or her country
… praised him as a … motivated patriot who was fearless in the quest to preserve American security.
Of course, when we were a nation that allowed slavery, being a patriot would also be racist. But then, during the civil war, The union troops that considered themselves to be "nationalist", committed to the union army's cause, of defeating slavery, thus freeing the slaves, to the detriment of all slave states, would be a positive thing. However, during WW2, Nazi patriots would be a negative thing. And what of the US marines fighting in Viet Nam? Would you consider them patriots?
All that aside, if you really want to see the butchering of the kings English? Go to a liberal US college(I know, redundant) ask how many pronouns there are for male and female.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I would probably associate myself with the term "patriot", secondary to "marine", by websters definition efinition of patriot
: one who loves and supports his or her country
… praised him as a … motivated patriot who was fearless in the quest to preserve American security.
Of course, when we were a nation that allowed slavery, being a patriot would also be racist. But then, during the civil war, The union troops that considered themselves to be "nationalist", committed to the union army's cause, of defeating slavery, thus freeing the slaves, to the detriment of all slave states, would be a positive thing. However, during WW2, Nazi patriots would be a negative thing. And what of the US marines fighting in Viet Nam? Would you consider them patriots?

To over simplify somewhat, I draw the line between "Patriot" and "Nationalist" at whether the person is supporting the government of their own country when that government is doing something that is contrary to what the children of civilized countries are taught their country stands for. A "Nationalist" will support their country no matter how repugnant to those ideals the actions of their country are while a "Patriot" will oppose their country's actions.

As far as the Marines fighting in Vietnam are concerned, the demographics of the US (ground) forces in Vietnam were almost identical to the demographics of the NVA/VC. There were many "Patriots" on both sides. There were many who were "Patriots" on both sides because they simply had bought into the PR campaigns that justified the war and didn't know what the war was actually all about - unfortunately the percentage of those who were on the US side was much higher than it was on the NVA/VC side. (The motivations of "Draftees" really wasn't a factor in Vietnam any more than it was in the American Civil War where around 13% of the northern forces were either draftees or substitutes and around 21% of the southern forces were either draftees or substitutes. I think that you'd find "Conscription") and "Inside the VC and the NVA: The Real Story of North Vietnam's Armed Forces" - Texas A&M University Press; 1st Texas A&M University Press Ed edition (July 23, 2008) [ISBN-10: 1603440593 / ISBN-13: 978-1603440592] interesting.

All that aside, if you really want to see the butchering of the kings English? Go to a liberal US college(I know, redundant) ask how many pronouns there are for male and female.

What happens in those colleges is the final cutting up into retail sizes of a corpse that has been well and truly slaughtered previously.

"Up To 60 Percent Of College Students Need Remedial Classes."​

If you want to see high school graduation rates plummet, make passing Grade 12 English mandatory and base the tests on McGuffey's Sixth Eclectic Reader (published in the 1840s).

PS - The difference between the motivations of the NVA/VC and the ARVN forces in Vietnam can be traced to the fact that the northern Vietnamese forces were fighting for what they viewed as "Vietnamese freedom from foreign rule" (something that they had been doing for generations [and had succeeded in achieving when they defeated their French colonial rulers {until the US government stepped in to assist the formerly French backed puppet government <in payment for French backing in NATO> and, in effect, establishing American colonial rule}] ) while the southern Vietnamese forces weren't so clearly motivated to support a venal and corrupt government that was backed by foreigners.

PPS - As far as "defeating slavery" as being a motivator for the northern American forces is concerned, please allow me to be rather skeptical that that was anything more than the "public PR face" of the war (mostly sold after the war at that) due to the fact that the Union government DID NOT manumit the tens of thousands of slaves in Union territory - not even those who had escaped from Confederate territory. Admittedly the Union government did, eventually, allow SOME of those slaves to BUY their freedom (and the freedom of their immediate [i.e. "wives and children only"] families by serving in the military forces of the Union, but those who were unable to BUY their freedom enjoyed the legal status of "slave" until the ratification of the 13[sup]th[/sup] amendment to the US constitution.