 |
| Nathan DeSai |
The lawyer who carried out Monday morning's shooting that wounded nine people was wearing what appeared to be Nazi paraphernalia, two law enforcement sources told Channel 2 Investigates' Robert Arnold.
Interim Houston police Chief Martha Montalvo said officers who went to the scene were able to quickly locate the gunman in the 4400 block of Law Street. She said the shooter immediately began firing at the officers and they returned fire.
The gunman was found dead shortly after, she said.
"It’s my understanding that he was neutralized by police," Montalvo said.
Law enforcement sources said the shooter was wearing what appeared to be an antique German uniform with swastikas on it.
Now from a follow up report by this same news outlet we do know a little more.
For one this Mr. DeSai was formerly a successful lawyer who started his own practice and had trouble keeping it afloat.
He owned several guns and according to his father they were purchased to protect him from his own clients.
And of course the easiest one to predict, is that he was a nice guy and nobody had any idea he was capable of anything like this.
Now as you know I am a liberal blogger and this story is like a gift to me.
While the Republicans, including Sarah Palin, are attempting to blame all terrorism on Muslims, and Donald Trump is drawing the alt Right, white supremacists, and Nazis out of the woodwork like the Pied Piper, here we have a non-Muslim guy randomly shooting people while dressed as a Nazi.
However I am not going to use this to make a political point, or rub it in the face of those like Sarah Palin who think that all terrorists must be Muslims.
No, I am simply going to point out that it does not really matter what this man's reasons were for doing this terrible thing, which fortunately did not cost anybody their life.
This time.
Whether he was mentally ill, religiously motivated, emotionally distraught, or high on drugs, it just does not matter.
What matters is that we live in a country where the instruments to carry out these attacks are almost as commonplace as a cell phone, or a microwave oven, or television set.
We think of guns as just another tool.
But they are not.
They are instruments of death. And that is their sole purpose.
And no I would not suggest that we take everybody's guns away.
But I would suggest that to own one a citizen of this country must pass a comprehensive background check, take several hours of instruction, and register the weapon with the FBI.
I would also like to see all future guns manufactured with fingerprint activated safety mechanisms, or some other safety device, installed so that only the owner can fire the weapon.
I do not care what the 2nd Amendment says, owning a gun is not a right it is a responsibility, and it needs to be recognized as such.
In reporting this, once again the media got it wrong - why? It's appalling they made sure to announce the murderer was Nazi. Ironically, my Nazi family friend and I watched the unfolding coverage that night and both commented that media was terrible in making that pronouncement. It was glaringly obvious they could NOT know this otherwise unidentified caucasoid skinned male was Nazi - in fact he didn't look "exclusively" Nazi to many of us - so why did media lie?
ReplyDelete-Lou Sarah
So Lou Sarah, is your Nazi family friend by any chance named Duh Meyer? That really is a Nazi-sounding name, in my unlettered, toothless opinion. He even looks like a Nazi, although a slightly retarded one too, also in my UTO. But hey, what do I know...
DeleteAnd might I add, require a gun owner to purchase insurance, just like we drivers do.
ReplyDeleteI passed a comprehensive background check, took instruction even though i was taught firearm use AND safety from a very young age, and even more training during my 22 years in the military. Both of my guns are registered with the local Sheriff and nationally. I heartily agree with doing this, and the proposals President Clinton has. (YES, I WENT THERE). I do not have a problem with this.
ReplyDeleteCome on now, he looks kind of Muslim.
ReplyDeleteBetter get your eyes checked before you drive or operate any heavy equipment, I wouldn't want to see to hurt or hurt someone else.
DeleteI don't think his ancestors matter here. His place of birth and raising may. He may have a brain tumor.
DeleteDeal with the problem and these people addicted to having their arsenals and large hoards of killing machines. You never know who is driving around with part of their war weapons ready for road rage or whatever is their deal of the day.
OMG!
http://www.joemygod.com/2016/07/14/alaska-track-palin-remanded/
Require a permit to own and wear/use NAZI paraphernalia? That way only real 'murricans can do it?
ReplyDelete"I do not care what the 2nd Amendment says"
ReplyDeleteAnd there you have it. Grypg dinally says something honest.
Maybe we should pick and choose which Amendments to still honor? I mean what the hell right?
Slow down when you type or sober up, you are making a huge amount of basic spelling errors.
DeleteAs for the 2nd amendment it says nothing about personal gun ownership.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
DeleteThat is individuals, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such.
Amendments? Amend.
DeleteGun humpers never quote the entire 2nd amendment.
DeleteNo problem quoting the whole Amendment Nefer. But the important part is "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
DeleteSo suck it. This isn't just about gun rights. It is about rights in general. You don't get to pick and choose.
I prefer Ammens, but that's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors, rite Grypg ?
DeleteGryphon says, "I do not care what the 2nd Amendment says..."
ReplyDeleteWell, Gryph, I DO care what the 2nd Amendment says. It says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A "well-regulated militia" - you know, like the National Guard. That's actually kind of the definition of "national guard".
So... if you want to own a military-grade weapon, join the Guard - like the Constitution says. After all, it's the law of the land.
Nice try but no cigar.
DeleteThe bottom line is, a well regulated militia, is not the US military, and to insure that a militia can be formed....
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
So you lose.
Any other Amendments that guarantee certain rights you want to just not follow?
A "well-regulated militia" - you know, like the National Guard. That's actually kind of the definition of "national guard".
DeleteCheck out the Ak National Guard.
Check out their Commanders-in-Chief.
Supreme court has ruled and agreed that the right of people to keep and bear arms applies to individuals. You simply can't win your argument 8:34.
Delete9:02 AM
DeleteIt is not an argument. There are corrupt "national guard" and "individual".
The 2nd Amendment is a right. And with any right comes responsibility. I have to register my car every year. I have to carry insurance. Some jobs require yearly training. Why is it to much to ask a gun owner to take required safety and training courses on a yearly basis?
DeleteOn a personal note, I drive down this street every morning and just missed the shooting by 13 minutes. I'm glad I wasn't running late yesterday.
Shari, you don't seem to understand the difference between rights guaranteed by Constitutional Amendment.... and the privilege of driving a car for which laws are written and you abide by to drive a vehicle.
DeleteGet back to me when you find automobile driving in the Constitution or the Amendments lol.
The ignorant masses like you worry me for this country.
Anon at 3:08 pm. There is also a guaranteed right to free expression and I would feel extremely intimidated if I attended a school board meeting or any other public gathering with people carrying guns, openly or concealed. Frankly I think my right, and everyone's right to express their beliefs or opinions freely, is more important that a mistaken interpretation of the Second Amendment the subject of which was maintaining militias in the states.
DeleteBeagle mom
That is your personal problem beaglemom. If nobody has threatened you, you have no complaint, and nobody has violated your rights. You are truly ridiculous with your suppositions. I might be wrong, but I doubt there are many people showing up to school board meetings carrying a firearm.
DeleteMistaken interpretation of the Second Amendment Beagle mom? Larf!
DeleteSo you are saying the Supreme Court is wrong in their interpretation, and only little old you... knows the correct interpretation lol?
Just out of curiosity, are there any blacks or Hispanics who wear the neo-Nazi uniform, or is that group strictly white?
ReplyDeleteThe guy thought he was Prince Harry.
DeleteTheir are self loathing misguided Jewish people that wear the Nazi uniform. Anyone can have mental issues and be a hater and wear it.
OT?"When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.
ReplyDeleteWhen Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue."
"They regard her with an unprecedented degree of suspicion. Above all, they really, really want to see her punished."
"Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that SHE was a thinking human FEmale really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing."<THAT,THAT,THAT, FUCK!
"Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html?
ADD THIS:
Deletehttp://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/donald-trump-is-every-womans-nightmare-debate-with-hillary-clinton-was-a-crash-course-in-everyday-sexism/
Self-hating Indian. "DeSai" should be spelled "Desai". He's like hatemonger Mark "LeVin".
ReplyDeleteA white guy from Tulsa Oklahoma that was wearing a Nazi uniform during the shooting. I certainly hope the FBI and Homeland Security Are investigating his life. They need to check where he has flown to in the last 20 yrs, who his friend's are, who he has called and find out when he because radicalized.
ReplyDeleteWhite guy?
DeleteInteresting:" Trump’s speeches aren’t meant to be read. Their seeming incoherence stems from the big difference between written and spoken language. Trump’s style of speaking has its roots in oral culture."
ReplyDeleteNew Yorker it is polite if you finish their sentences for them. It’s a natural part of conversation."
This may be why Trump’s sentences often seem, in transcript form, to trail off with no ending. "He knows his audience can finish his sentences for him," Lakoff says.""Trump’s frequent use of "Many people are saying..." or "Believe me" — often right after saying something that is baseless or untrue. This tends to sound more trustworthy to listeners than just outright stating the baseless claim, since Trump implies that he has direct experience with what he’s talking about. At a base level, Lakoff argues, people are more inclined to believe something that seems to have been shared."
"anger gives the illusion of empowerment."
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12423688/donald-trump-speech-style-explained-by-linguists
I would suggest to own a gun you need a license on par with a driving license. You need to take X hours of instruction and pass a written and performance test to prove you understand how to correctly and safely operate your weapon, store it safely and properly, understand all of the laws for said weapon, etc. And you must have a special rider on your insurance to cover any damages or deaths that are a result of you using your weapon for any purpose. If we can regulate owning and driving a car then we can certainly do the same for guns. It would certainly shut up the gun defenders who are always comparing gun deaths to automobile accidents and how many deaths are caused by cars.
ReplyDeleteI would add something further. If you get a second category of gun, you have to go through the whole thing again for the new weapon. Just like you need a motorcycle license and a separate one for multiple axels, you also need a separate gun license for shotgun, handgun, and anything approaching a military style weapon.
There will be FEES involved. Many fees. Substantial fees. So you'll really have to want that gun and you better be really careful with it because there will also be penalties if you allow that weapon to be stolen from you.
Feel free to add your own transfer of ownership red tape on top.
That is all a fun thought, but the 2nd Amendment guarantees against such infringements from the gun grabbers like yourself.
DeleteNow, now, Gryphen, I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment, but, like Scalia, I'm an originalist. So, the 2nd amendment was clearly referencing the type of arms available at the time - everyone can own single shot muzzle loaders. By the time it takes to load one of those puppies - assuming you can find all the parphenalia it takes to lad one, you've likely forgotten what you wanted to kill in the first place.
ReplyDelete