Why would he pass the law to ban the thing that doesn’t exist?

Purity test worked so well last election?

Contact me when someone uses a truck to mow down a crowd in the name of Jesus.

Yes. The US victimizes the same people who kill thousands of their citizens with planes. Begone troll. 

Mowing down innocents is apparently socially acceptable in the name of Allah. So there is that.

Well, he attributed it to ISIS in his own note. I’m sure there will be plenty of analysis but, as a far as I can tell, monotheists of any stripe can fall prey to extremism if they’re taken out of their comfort zone or encounter significant cultural or social challenges.

Yeah that’s what I was thinking. Although obviously whoever started the conversation about the ban was probably a Republican trying to make a Democrat terrify the voters into thinking there would be sanctuary cities full of ILLEGAWLZZZ raping and pillaging and whatever else ILLEGALLLLZLZZLZ do.

Yeah please don’t haha. I know how much everyone hates to hear this but sometimes you really must vote for the lesser of two evils just so there’s...less evil.

Counterpoint: it’s an empty political statement because Virginia has no “sanctuary cities”?

Democrats continue to just. . . ugh. But what am I gonna do, vote for Gillespie? Fuck that guy.

Can someone help me out, I don’t understand how these two charts can sit side by side? They sit next to each other in the link but seem to contradict each other?

The horror of having to pretend that religion has nothing to do with it and instead telling your fellow American people they are racist for asking why the fuck is your religion so retrograde. Seems like a burden.

Extra weird, because we’ve never victimized Uzbeks. People demonize the religion because there is no rational geopolitical reason for an Uzbek national to hate the US.

Oh no no no. He’s so deep in the closet he’s having lunch with Aslan right now.

Isn’t one of the main pillars of the argument against gun control that the “bad guys” can get them anyway and it just makes it harder for the “good guys” to fight back? And yet here is someone clearly and loudly announcing their intent to do harm and the best he can manage is some airsoft. The weapon of the high…

The comment you’re responding to lays out a fairly clear cut standard that both sides employ: it is ok to politicize an incident so long as the politicizing agrees with my side.

Having said that, I wish domestic gun violence was subject to 1/10th of the reactionary measures we hastily throw at foreign born threats.

Tragedies are human, and thus they are inherently political. “To politicize or not” is simply a bogus distinction drawn by pearl-clutchers who don’t want the effort and fuss of actually thinking about what any given tragedy may mean.

Yeah the no standard is why it is an issue.

So is it good to politicize tragedies or not? Everyone makes the above point but no one has a firm standard.

Maybe they should work harder.