Patterico's Pontifications


AP Reporters Discover the Real Motive Behind the North Carolina Killing of Muslim Students

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:44 am

[guest post by JVW]

When Craig Hicks killed three young Muslim students at his condo complex last week, right away everyone sought a motive. Hicks’s Facebook posts showed him to be an outspoken atheist and also indicated his politics seemed to run pretty strongly towards the left side of the spectrum, both of which seemed to be disappointing news to self-styled progressives who had wanted to pin the crime on a Muslim-hating yahoo who listened to Rush Limbaugh, watched Fox News, and posted on Patterico’s Pontifications. The usual progressive media gaggle seemed to be genuinely baffled at how someone who shared so many of their beliefs could undertake such a heinous act.

And then they hit upon the real culprit.

Associated Press reporters Allen Breed and Michelle Blessecker published a piece which ran in many of today’s newspapers pointing to Hicks’s strong support of the Second Amendment and gun owners’ rights. They were clever enough to only refer to their argument in the story’s lede, explaining that Hicks’s Facebook page “seems to support an individual’s right to his own beliefs.” It’s in the seventh paragraph of the 41-paragraph article where the authors uncork their thesis:

But [Hicks] was just as passionate about personal freedom and liberty – championing an individual’s right to worship or not worship, legal abortion and gay marriage and, perhaps most fervently, the right to own and bear arms. If he has a creed, it’s the Second Amendment.

[emphasis added]

And there you have it: Hicks’s raison d’être [apologies for the Monday morning French] is firearms. He’s a gun nut. A Second Amendment absolutist. A loose cannon. A wannabe militia member. A survivalist whacko. It goes unspoken, but clearly to the AP writers all smart and decent people would agree that our nation’s obsession with gun ownership is what drove Craig Hicks to murder his three neighbors, certainly not militant atheism or left-wing self-righteousness. I would assume that had Hicks been a member of the National Rifle Association we would have heard about it by now, so he probably was not a part of that organization (perhaps they donated to too many Republicans for his tastes?). Maybe Michael Bloomberg can use his billions to somehow purchase Hicks a retroactive lifetime NRA membership.


40 Responses to “AP Reporters Discover the Real Motive Behind the North Carolina Killing of Muslim Students”

  1. Happy President’s Day (and that includes John Tyler)!

    Ever notice how these mass shooters always turn out not to be NRA members?

    JVW (854318)

  2. Too bad we’ll never know Nidal Malik Hassan’s real motive for killing all those soldiers at Fort Hood while shouting Allahu Akbar. It’s a complete mystery. Perhaps if the “Soldier of Allah” has a creed it’s the Second Amendment. The AP should look into it.

    By the way, what’s the status of his application for citizenship in the Islamic State?

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  3. associated press propaganda sluts, they gotta do what they’re told or they get fired

    happyfeet (831175)

  4. I rank AP one notch above al Jazeera which uses old fake photos from another incident to smear Egypt for attacking ISIS in Libya after they killed all those Christians. The White House, by the way, has made no comment.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  5. Of course not, Mike. Why should Obama make a comment? Those Crusades were pretty nasty. And those Copts probably slandered the prophet. And the future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Allah.

    He’s just waiting to denounce the Islamophobic backlash.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  6. Our bad, Mike. The WH did make a statement.

    You know, about the randomly selected Egyptian citizens murdered by non-denominational killers with no discernible motivating ideology.

    Now, back to our topic of the right wing gun nut whose motivational creed is the Second Amendment.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  7. He wasn’t a gun nut, he was just a nut as Steve57 pointed out recently. Mental illness is almost always the driving force behind all these shootings. But can we section 8 anyone anymore? Nooooooo…

    Gazzer (c2a866)

  8. Did the AP search through FEC records for political donations by Hicks?
    I can only imagine that they did, and do not report the results because his money went to the usual left wing causes, organizations politically opposed to the NRA and the 2nd-A.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  9. And, of course, everyone knows 2A supporters are dangerous zealots when it comes to their parking spaces.

    “You can have my parking spot when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!”

    rinardman (767c1a)

  10. My M1a requires very little “parking space”.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  11. Gazzer, I didn’t call this guy a nut. I called him an @$$hole. And I said @$$holes don’t need a “good” reason to kill people.

    Actually, when this guy popped up in the news I was reminded of this guy.

    …Feldman, from Richardson, was riding his motorcycle the night of Aug. 24, 1998, and said Everett, driving an 18-wheeler, cut him off on a Dallas County freeway so he took out his 9 mm pistol, pulled up alongside the truck cab and shot him. Feldman testified at his capital murder trial that he was still angry about 45 minutes later when he spotted Valesquez, a gasoline tanker driver filling a Dallas service station, and shot him….

    Feldman was twisted, yes. But mentally ill? No.

    Feldman killed people who pissed him off, as did Hicks.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  12. I think it makes sense that Hicks was a leftist that shot three people over a parking spot. He felt entitled to that parking spot and it was the worst thing in the world for him to lose it. He probably called them Nazis for infringing on his Constitutional right to park.

    Unfortunately…he gave new meaning to the term “trigger warning”.

    DejectedHead (75dfa4)

  13. so he fits the M.O of Stack, Bedell, the Washington Square shooter, Amy Bishop and Dorner

    narciso (ee1f88)

  14. As is said repeatedly:

    Leftism is a Mental Disorder!

    askeptic (efcf22)

  15. NOPE. NO Bias. READ MY LIPS: . . …no… …bias

    I think it’s becoming self-evidently clear that we DO need to modify the second amendment:

    Practically speaking, ALL the people who go nuts with guns are liberals. Clearly, if you’re a liberal, you should not be allowed to own guns.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  16. P.S., in case it wasn’t really obvious from previous comments by me, that last part is a joke.

    A sad, sad commentary on the state of liberalism, yes, but still…. not a serious suggestion.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  17. 1. Are you a felon?
    2. Are you here illegally?
    3. Do you want to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns?

    If the truthful answer to any of the above is ‘yes’ then you should not be allowed to own a gun, nor should you be allowed to be within 500 yards of anyone in possession of a gun.

    John Hitchcock (625f5d)

  18. disgusting

    seeRpea (181740)

  19. I have long thought that the average liberal feels sure that people can’t be trusted with guns because he intuitively understands that _he_ shouldn’t be trusted with a gun (hence his aversion to them), and, bad thinker that he is (else, he wouldn’t be a liberal), he ascribes his own motives to the actions of others who evidently don’t think as he does.

    Phil Nelson (672ffd)

  20. Projection is a companion disorder with Leftism.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  21. R.I.P. Lesley Gore, singer of “It’s My Party”

    Icy (b003af)

  22. Having followed Patterico for several years, I’m beginning to discern a pattern. I believe it even has some discriminatory power for many of our right thinking people. I would be interested to know whether a particular opinion was that of someone who had experienced the “GI” reality (XGI), or whether they were just sympathetic to GI’s (SGI), or, if we are treated to the views of Perry-types, whether they despise anyone who served (DGI). And then there is a final category, those who fled to Canada or pulled a Clinton (CGI), which is to say, those who pulled political strings to avoid their duty (and John Kerry falls into this category since his Vietnam exit strategy was 3 purple hearts, which, as CO of a Swift Boat, he arranged rather easily.)

    My hypothesis is that the XGI types will tend to support what might be called “muscular” policies since they have a first hand knowledge of what can be accomplished, given you are willing to shoot people who fail to achieve their mission (this is implied in temporary duty orders.) The SGIs will tend to think that we should do something, but it is a kind of tradeoff … The DGIs will espouse the glories of submission. And the CGIs will view this a struggle for the hearts and minds of those who claim to be “independents”, and they will follow the gradient of public opinion to whatever swamp lies at the bottom of that creek.

    BobAtHome (XGI) [Who stood in the Treasury Department parking lot in D. C. in the summer of 1969 with a lot of other people at CG Headquarters (before we moved to the Transportation Department building) looking at the moon following the first landing, even though we had nothing to do with it other than our commitment to service.]

    bobathome (f208b6)

  23. There’s nobody more discriminated against that the white male. The butt of every joke. The entity written out of every remake.

    I wouldn’t rule out that this trio went the extra distance to provoke Hicks, taking their cues from popular culture.

    The same as I wouldn’t rule out that Hicks, given his political leanings, in another era, would have been your standard sheet wearing Democrat.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  24. Hicks sounds like no-account mouth breathing redneck trash. What Robert Byrd called a “white n****r”. We’ve all run into them, one time or another. These poor kids were especially unlucky.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Look at the POS’s face. That’s inbreeding with a capital “incest”.

    nk (dbc370)

  26. What do you want to go and indict his family for? They’re probably good people, for all we know.

    What are you, Klingon?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  27. His family? I’m accusing his whole Deliverance tribe.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. He does have a sort of Paul Giamatti, Simon Helberg crossbreed look to him from that angle.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  29. Yeah, I got no comeback for that, which apparently she’ll pull a gun on me for.

    Good catch constable.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  30. Are atheists less likely, more likely, or equally likely as theists to believe it’s immoral to hurt others?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  31. I figure it’s whatever you can get away with for atheists. If nobody’s looking.

    It’s the Bart Simpson of creeds.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  32. Are atheists less likely, more likely, or equally likely as theists to believe it’s immoral to hurt others?

    Similarly, are people who lean left less likely, more likely, or equally as likely as people who lean right to kill or maim others?

    Dropping any snark or “gotcha!,” the percentage of notorious killers over the past several years who apparently sympathize with liberal beliefs has been higher than those who are ideologically neutral or rightwing.

    This particular phenomenon is in sync with surveys that indicate those with leftist sentiments, ironically and interestingly enough, are more likely to be just the opposite of what they fancy about themselves (ie, more compassionate, generous and tolerant than the average person) and, in turn, to actually have more of the traits they attribute to their political opposites.

    The best illustration or hint of that is black America, which is easily the most monolitically liberal demographic in America, bar none—ie, where over 90-plus percent favor, in general, liberal politicians and liberal policies. That populace certainly does not manifest greater compassion, generosity, kindness and tolerance than any other group. If anything, meanness and murder are more in evidence among a higher percentage of the black community than that which is true of demographics that lean mainly right.

    Mark (c160ec)

  33. I think the question is noncupatory because few people live perfect lives in accordance with their religious tenets; socialization which may or may not include deep religious belief is the strongest force in shaping a person’s morality; and some religions (I think we can all name one) are considered immoral by other religions.

    Personally, I strongly doubt that there are any genuine atheists. Just false gods whether their worshipers name them or not. Cf. The First Commandment.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. A man who won’t believe in God will believe in anything.
    – Chesterton

    askeptic (efcf22)

  35. 32. Are atheists less likely, more likely, or equally likely as theists to believe it’s immoral to hurt others?

    DRJ (e80d46) — 2/16/2015 @ 7:53 pm

    It would depend upon what deity the theist worshipped. If it demanded blood then they could do equally well when it comes to killing as the atheists who gave as Nazism (no, Hitler was not a Christian, but for political reasons he opportunistically hid his contempt for the Christianity he believed made Germans weak) and the communists of the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the NORKs, and other godless hellholes.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  36. Polytheism is way to *bleeping* complicated and confusing. gods with 8 arms and no eating the roaming beef. no shooting the crazed monkeys either. too busy figuring out which god does what to whom to hurt anyone. unless of course they are pakistani.

    there is absolutely no reason for atheists to be moral. Strict atheists should believe that biologically they are gene replicating organisms and everything they do should be fueled by evolutionary biology. When they are not sharing genes they share traits and one of those supporting roles organisms take is considered to be altruism… meaning a human would take on a role similar to a drone bee and work for the benefit of the hive rather than strictly for ones self. But i think an atheist that is confronted by a sexual rival should probably always have “kill, main, subvert” in their toolkit, otherwise they are giving a bow to the religious construct others have in the hive. Murder in pursuit of a mate would not be a crime, but simply the natural state of affairs… young males should shoot rivals until everyone is whittled down to the last strong. Then repeat.

    Another way to think of altruism within the atheist construct would be to see the human race more like a virus, maybe Ebola. A virus that burns fast and hot and one that needs to be kept in check by the “altruistic”. These would be the elitists whose altruism is not drone like, it is very much in their benefit to manage the growth, speed and violence of the human virus. So they would not be moral in the theist sense but have morals as standards of behavior that keeps the virus burning along, not too hot, not too cold. The atheist elite could borrow standards from the theists because the standards make sense and work. Then simply remove god from the commandment and then turn it into a law that again dampens the heat of the virus

    steveg (794291)

  37. Goes to show the gun-grabbers are right — can’t trust a left wing loon to own a gun. Those on the right on the other hand, never seem to be involved in these shootings.

    Stosh (e7552e)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4600 secs.