Question of the Day: What if the Roanoke Killer Had Been A Straight, White, Republican?

As we reported last night, the usual suspects made the usual pronouncements about gun control in the wake of the horrific live TV shooting in Roanoke. This despite the fact that the killer bought his murder weapon legally, passing a background check. Anti-gunners also used the attack to assert that armed self-defense wouldn’t have saved his victims. This despite the fact that their murderer, known to his victims and known to have anger issues and a grudge against their mutual employer, approached them slowly, in a space without other people, and lingered dangerously close for a good five seconds before opening fire. Once again, it’s all about the gun. But what if . . .

Vester Flanagan hadn’t been a gay, black, Obama supporter? Switch it around. What if a straight white Trump supporter had murdered two gay black Obama-supporting journalists? What would the media narrative have been then? Sure, anti-gun politicians and their media enablers would have focused on the gun, but you can bet your bottom dollar they’d be talking about racism, homophobia and the Donald’s role in stoking the flames of homicidal fury, both specifically and generally.

Hey, what if that white murderer had been an NRA member? It will happen someday, you know . . .

comments

  1. avatar Gman says:

    And how does this relate to The Truth about Guns?

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      He’s pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-gunners.

    2. avatar Texheim says:

      The lefts on going assault on our 2nd A rights and their politicization of tragedies, that’s how.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      Guns ain’t the only problem we have with the left. Gun-grabbing ain’t the only way they’re broken and bent.

      If you live in a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, or a rino the problem is part-of-you.

      Killer wanted a “race war” like the Church killer, but this one’s ‘acceptable’.

    4. avatar Gman says:

      I don’t concur. The hypocrisy is not of the anti-gunners about guns it’s of the political bantering about race. All the usual players stepped up to the anti-gun plate and swung away with fervor before any of the facts were out. Nothing new. The only difference I see in flipping the coin on color is the lack of white hatred we see when the victims are black and the shooter is white. Now, I will agree, that if the shooter is some fat, old, redneck, bible thumping, gun toting, lifetime member of the NRA, that the entire anti-gun machine would be burning fuel like a SR-71 at Mach 4.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        I agree Gman ,
        I believe we get off target when we bring up race and sexual preferences in this instance , I think those are issues that the media and progressive left always throw in and to our ( constitutionalist ) disadvantage because a lot of young people and black and Latino Americans have been conditioned to believe that ‘we’ are racist bigots , clinging to our guns and religion etc.
        This may actually have been about race and bigotry but we need to flip it and make it about self defense . Those people should have been armed or had someone there to watch their backs . They are targets for whack jobs and easy prey .

    5. avatar Gman says:

      Please pass the fire extinguisher…

    6. avatar Chadwick P. says:

      If you don’t know then you are part of the problem…

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Worse.

        If you don’t know, the problem may be part-of-you.

    7. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Exposing a few of the lies about guns.

  2. avatar Joe R. says:

    He would have had white privilege so he would have grown up not needing to beg someone else to make him equal (he just would have been imbued with the idea that he was equal to himself and that would have been enough). He would have kept his job, as there would have been less to rally against. He might have dated/married the news anchor, instead of playing MFK roulette with her. He still would have had a gun, he just might have savored it a little more and enjoyed it a little better, and clearly in a different way.

    BUT HE STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN A HUGE F-ING DI<k AND A FLAMING A-HOLE EVIL LIBERAL BLUE HOUS OF (D) HEAD SH_TBAG. SO HE WOULD HAVE STILL NEEDED TO OFF-HIMSELF AT SOME POINT.

  3. avatar Ralph says:

    If Flanagan had been a straight, white Republican, he wouldn’t have shot anybody.

    1. avatar dj trip says:

      Exactly right. It wouldn’t have happened.

      Why isn’t anyone talking about the racial aspects of this. This was clearly a hate crime (given the lefty’s definition of that foul term), and it was racially motivated.

      How come no one, not a one, has mentioned that this was this guy’s attempt to fight a race war? Obama and his minions have done everything possible to inflame racial tensions. Obama has these people’s blood on his hands. The left may want to blame the gun, I blame the left.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        When a white guy with a racial grudge kills black people in a church, it’s a hate crime. When a black guy with a racial grudge kills white people on a pier, it’s just another day.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          When a black guy with a racial grudge kills white people on a pier, it’s just another day. That sounds like you post on Storm Front, although I agree with you completely. Blacks committing crimes against whites is just so groovy.

      2. avatar HotandEmpty says:

        @dj
        “This was clearly a hate crime (given the lefty’s definition of that foul term), and it was racially motivated.”

        That is the exact reason why there is growing white fatigue with some black people, and all white guilters.

        There was an article on CBS this morning where the NYPD profiler said this evil vermin was a “Injustice Collector”, which must be the politically correct way to describe a Black, Gay, racist killer. Blacks and gays not being tolerant of others views is such a surprise.

        Where is the fury over the LGBT flag that motivated this killer.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          It was clearly a hate crime because all other crimes are predicated on (at the very least) Strong Like.

    2. avatar Stratajema says:

      >>If Flanagan had been a straight, white Republican, he wouldn’t have shot anybody.<<

      You are very correct. So the Democrats have pooled their money to buy you a door prize… A slightly used Remington 700-series rifle with a defective trigger! Congratulations.

  4. avatar Mark N. says:

    Doesn’t this describe the shooting in Charleston? (Except for the NRA part.)

    1. avatar dj trip says:

      Was the charleston shooter an actual republican? Or was he just some racist loon?

      Don’t forget, all of these racial attacks are happening within the context of Obama’s push to make everything racist, and political. Who egged on the riots in Furgeson, Baltimore et al?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        All I got about Charleston was the guy’s a redneck. Unfortunately, we’ll be hearing a lot more.

    2. avatar foodog says:

      John HInderaker at Powerline makes same point:
      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/dylann-roof-and-vester-flanagan-compare-and-contrast.php

      RF you left out the part of the thought experiment that ends with “and called for a race war”.

      No wonder the StateRunMedia have closed ranks so quickly around the “gun control” meme.
      Vesters story explodes the Narrative, that they are completely complicit in- race-baiting, violence stimulating, Left-wing control of the Little People, by the Elite Who Know Whats Best for The Rest of US.

      These instances of special snowflake progtards snapping in psychotic excess of cognitive dissonance when reality doesnt match what they have been promised they are entitled to by right, will only continue…
      and the StateRunMedia will take every chance to Blood Dance, to let no crisis go to waste.

  5. avatar Sammy^ says:

    The NWO crowd has done an excellent job of turning us on each other.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yes… Because the alleged enemy behind the curtain is far more important than the enemy in front of you. Wake up, if we don’t deal with the Demokkkrats expeditiously and decisively the NWO crowd will be irrelevant as we will still lose.

    2. avatar HotandEmpty says:

      “The NWO crowd has done an excellent job of turning us on each other”

      I would beg to differ, because all that is happening is people are becoming united against common enemies, who showed their hatred of American Ideals, too soon.

      1. avatar dj trip says:

        Hope you’re right but after two elections of the marxist usurper, this remains to be seen and in my opinion is in much doubt. Too many people busy checking their status on facebook to notice the threat.

  6. avatar Bob says:

    Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, Weird Al Sharpton and Rachael Maddow would have had an easy time filling their shows this week had the suspect been a straight, white male.

  7. avatar Roy says:

    What we do know, and even admitted in the 2013 gun violence report Obama ordered from the CDC is that a victim armed with a gun is more likely to survive an attack and with less injury than an unarmed victim or somebody armed with a weapon other than a firearm.

    Attackers do have the upper hand because they get to choose the time and place, and you’re not going to win every gun fight. But for the times that you can win the gun fight, even if it’s not every time, I’d say it’s worth having a gun. And it’s for those times that it’s unconscionable that the government would try to take away your right at the chance to protect your own life.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1

  8. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “This despite the fact that their murderer, known to his victims and known to have anger issues and a grudge against their mutual employer, approached them slowly, in a space without other people, and lingered dangerously close for a good five seconds before opening fire.”

    Please, can we stop with the “a gun could have saved them” what-ifs? In this case, they were screwed no matter what. Even if both had been carrying openly, the end result would almost certainly have been the same. All three victims were necessarily concentrating on the task at hand, and tuning out outside distractions. That’s part of the job. A TV news reporter or cameraman who gets distracted by every idiot that walks up to them when they’re filming is going to be out of work very quickly. Those poor people got ambushed by a homicidal shitbag with a grudge, who had planned this for some time. Sometimes horrible shit happens, and there’s nothing you can do about it. It even happens to armed people sometimes.

    Once in a while, the “it should have been a DGU” meme is an appropriate thought experiment, but in this case, you’re well into “the gun is a magic talisman that wards off evil” territory.

    1. avatar dj trip says:

      I disagree, still could have been a defensive gun use. Nothing stopping the employer from hiring protection for their staff while they were busy working. I agree, the victims would have had little opportunity to defend themselves, even if they were OC’ing. But I’m pretty sure for example that Fox sent a protective detail when Leland Vittert was in Baltimore during the riots.

      Perhaps, given the new age of craziness and the fact that crazy likes attention, all news orgs should hire someone to protect the staff when doing these reports on the street. While this was racially motivated and personal, you can be sure other loons will repeat given the attention it’s getting to do something like this live on tv. What better way to protect these people then with an armed good guy?

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        I’m pretty sure the local news in a market like Roanoke, VA, isn’t ever going to have the budget for armed escorts every time they send a reporter out to the local corn maze or chili cook-off. That’s just not going to happen. You might as well hypothesize that they should be sealed inside bulletproof chambers while out doing their reporting, or that all remote reports be done by indestructible human-like androids.

        Life is risky.

        1. avatar dj trip says:

          Really not that expensive, and not equivalent to wrapping them in bubble wrap.

          I agree that it’s not feasible to expect a reporter and camera man to have good situational awareness when out in public. So the solution is to have someone else ready with that awareness.

        2. avatar HotandEmpty says:

          The reporter and the cameraman were busy, but the lady being interviewed just watched the evil bastard approach, which is enough time to draw leather and empty your chamber into the guy. Racial profiling would have helped but most revert to white guilt political correctness, over empirical statistic evidence of who America’s violent criminals are.

        3. avatar TT says:

          Hotandempty, it’s murder if you shoot and kill someone unless they pose an imminent threat to your life. It’s assault to point guns at people unless they’re threatening you. No one had any reason to draw a gun on this guy until after he drew his or otherwise threatened these folks. As others have pointed out, that was quite probably too late. Guns aren’t magical talismans. Watching someone approach and linger is not a reason to draw a gun, even if you know the guy is a bitter weirdo.

          For what it’s worth, I think coulda, woulda, shoulda analysis is stupid. Saying after the fact that a gun would have prevented an attack is just as silly as saying different gun laws would have prevented it.

  9. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    You answered your own question… Yeah, the Media (who is obviously very liberal), would have had a field day on equating Whites to Racism to Republicans to Trump. They’d be swimming in joy right about now doing so as well.

    As long as we’re asking ‘What if’s’ — What if he used a knife and not a gun? He would have very easily been able to use a knife to the same effect.

    Would the Anti crowd have had anything to say? Stronger knife laws perhaps?

    1. avatar BPCoop19 says:

      “As long as we’re asking ‘What if’s’ — What if he used a knife and not a gun? He would have very easily been able to use a knife to the same effect.”

      They would have used the “Thank God he didn’t have a gun because he would have killed potentially dozens more people!” line and still used the incident as a basis for more gun control. If I remember correctly, TTAG posted an article not long after the Charleston shooting where someone advocated for the banning of “assault weapons,” even though the shooter didn’t use one during the shooting. These people are addicted to shoehorning their agenda into every crevice they can.

  10. avatar Silver says:

    Is this a rhetorical question? We all know what would happen. It’s very obvious that we’re rapidly becoming second class citizens literally as well as figuratively.

    Funny enough, this is the absolute clearest incident in the past couple decades in which a political figure and political ideology drove someone to violent, hateful murder. This guy was a clear Obama supporter, clearly indoctrinated with race baiting, hateful propaganda, and the poster child of leftist victim mentality. This guy is a SJW hero and the endgame creation of progressive ideology.

    But you’ll never hear any of that discussed openly.

  11. avatar Danny says:

    The question in this headline is as pointless as a cue ball.
    The fact of this person’s racial grievances and his angry and pathological behavior have been widely covered by the news media.
    His crime does not discredit current efforts for racial and social justice, anymore than McVeigh’s crime discredits the criticism of the government’s response in the Waco incident.
    There is no partisan ax-grinding here, unless we choose to make it so.

    1. avatar dj trip says:

      Danny, you’re right that his crime doesn’t discredit the efforts for racial and social justice. Those efforts have discredited themselves long ago, especially when they embraced criminal thugs such as Michael Brown and Freddie Grey or when they claimed racism on behalf of minority police officers (Baltimore).

      Sadly no one told the left.

      1. avatar Danny says:

        You are painting with a very broad brush. That is not a game we can win, not while George Zimmerman is painting confederate flags for a gun shop that tries to discriminate against Muslims. Do not invite your opponent to dispense with relevant distinctions.

    2. avatar Silver says:

      There is no “we” when it comes to this. All we want is to be left alone, but the left makes everything a racial, social, or gun issue. They declared war. They attacked. Talk to them if you want it to stop.

      1. avatar HotandEmpty says:

        Well said

        The statist don’t understand that American’s will turn their guns on the statist, before turning them in. The statist think the Second Amendment is only for defense of tyranny already being established, and not the offensive use to stop the tyranny in its infancy, before the statist train rides and showers ever begin.

      2. avatar Danny says:

        Gun ownership is not an activity that is devoid of externalities. It isn’t like masturbation or drinking raw milk. A lost, stolen, or illegally transferred gun is likely to harm an innocent third party. So the “leave us alone” rhetoric doesn’t cut it. There is a legitimate political debate to be had about proper mandatory safety precautions.

        Lots of crooks are getting ahold of guns, and they aren’t making them on their own lathes and drill presses. People within the legal channels of commerce are being careless or breaking the rules.

        1. avatar Dustin says:

          “A lost, stolen, or illegally transferred gun is likely to harm an innocent third party.”

          You do realize that you said this ridiculous crap out loud, right?

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      No, the efforts for “racial and social justice” discredit themselves. It is nothing more than racist marxism light.

      1. avatar Danny says:

        The problem with the pro-gun movement is that it’s always been better at making enemies than making friends.
        Conservatives have a Tourrette’s Syndrome problem with the word “Marxist,” and seeing the contagion spread into the realm of Second Amendment advocacy does not leave me feeling good about our future prospects.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          I use the term Bolshevik myself. I like Scientific Soviet Socialist Statist as well.

  12. avatar Another Robert says:

    My guess is that if he had been straight, white, R, we would have heard from the faux Moms by now–and VPC, and CSGV, and all the other usual suspects in the kingdom of progressive gun-grabbers. The shooter’s lefty-victim class bonafides have thrown a wrench into their narrative right from the start–unlike, say, the Zimmerman case, where first reports indicated that the Germanic-surnamed shooter was a white guy, or Jared Loughner, where first reports indicated that he was responding to the “toxic political atmosphere” created by [of course] those mean-spirited, uncivil conservatives. This time, the guy’s true ID came out of the bag right at the start, and the leftie gun grabbers are a bit bumfuzzled, IMO. We’ll see.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Their new narrative is: “the gun made him do it.”

  13. avatar General Zod says:

    Considering that’s the assumption that’s made every time a shooting makes the headlines, we really don’t have to theorize, do we? Just watch the early coverage and the comments it garners from the left.

  14. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Uh nothing could make this worse-dad railing against the NRA. Like we all want lunatics to have guns. Sorry pops you lost any sympathy from ME with your first rant. THIS dead azzwhole is anathema to me and most NRA members-white,black or brown. Happy or straight. Rich or poor…and who proved lunatic storm was a repub?

  15. avatar Biff Baxter says:

    I’ll take a stab at this – They’d be building internment camps for white gun-owners.

    Just a guess, of course…..

  16. avatar Aaron says:

    There were statistics showing that blacks are OVER-REPRESENTED as serial killers and mass killers, but the bigotry of the left is to stereotype these as white guys, usually OFWGs.

    Can’t remember where I read it (maybe “color of crime”), but it destroys a certain stereotype. Even recently we’ve had multiple mass shootings by non-white and/or non-Republican perps. Navy Yard shooter, Ft Hood shooter spring immediately to mind.

    But somehow the lefties always default to blaming “conservatives” and “white privilege”. Apparently one ofnthe “black lives matter” shrills even tweeted such stuff before he realized the shooter was black.

    1. avatar HotandEmpty says:

      I bring that up as often as possible because the honest truth is the overwhelming majority mass shooters are black and latino. Most mass shooting happen in ghettos, when the weather is warm, and not in air conditioned gunfree zones. The ghetto shootings that happen everyday are not useful for the statist propaganda ministry’s mission to come after American gun owners.

  17. avatar Rokurota says:

    I knew this question was coming. A is A, and this killer is not a white NRA Republican. Why are we crying to each other about media hypocrisy? Suck it up, people, there’s nothing to do or be done. We don’t know what the MSM would have said and if we put words into their mouths, we’re viewed as crybabies with a persecution complex.

    If anything, the coverage of this story makes me understand #blacklivesmatter even more. A young white professional murder victim merits an extra and memorials. A young black murder victim merits a line of type in the police blotter.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Apples and oranges, much? A young black *professional* rates the same as a young white professional. A young doper criminal punk, of whatever race, not so much.

      1. avatar Rokurota says:

        I knew someone would assume I was mourning gangbangers. I am comparing the coverage these victims received to the coverage of innocent non-criminal victims of color and low means. I am not diminishing the untimely deaths of Parker and Ward — only saying, yes, all lives matter.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “All lives matter” is a kind thing to say, but sadly it’s not true. The life of some violent gangbanging punk, rapist or murderer means nothing to me, and the sooner he’s bumped off by his enemies with different colored bandannas or executed for his crimes, the better.

          The excess media coverage of this crime relates to the fact the two victims were media, and the media loves to lavish affection on their own. It also happened on live TV, so there’s plenty of footage. The death of an inner city child who is killed by a stray round gets plenty of attention, but there’s no “film at eleven.”

          Trayvon Martin was a worthless punk, yet the attention lavished on him was nothing like we have seen since the Kennedy assassination. Because #blacklivesmatter? No, It was because #thenarrativematters. It’s that simple.

        2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          the fact the two victims were liberal media whores, and the liberal media whores loves to lavish affection on their own. Look at her Daddy for inspiration.

        3. avatar Rokurota says:

          Gotta diverge from your sentiment, Ralph. The life of a gangbanger does matter to me, even if I would shoot him to defend myself or others. But I do agree with “the narrative matters.” Flanagan doesn’t serve the narrative as well as a paranoid militia member, even though workplace violence is much more real and frequent.

  18. avatar Tom says:

    I keep looking for coverage of all of the DGU’s that happen everyday.
    What channel is that on?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email