Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed


...A noted journalist and professor at Brown University, Cobb recently published, “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed,” a look at firearms inside the Civil Rights movement, which includes a firsthand account of his experiences.

 

Cobb maintained in a recent interview with NPR that he witnessed the untold story of guns inside the civil rights movement. He gained that experience as a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967.

The SNCC was one of the most important organizations of the American Civil Rights Movement.

 

“I worked in the South. I lived with families in the South,” explained Cobb to NPR. “There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe. And all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings, and they’re going to respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.”

 

Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

 

King later applied for a concealed carry permit to the local sheriff and was denied, but, according to Cobb, “Martin King always acknowledged, if you read his writings, the right to self-defense – armed self-defense.”...

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

Was it too difficult for him to get a photo ID, being black and all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is not even that complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priors.

 

No. He was eligible for a permit, but it was denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not even a good guess. Try harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine it was because of the words "May issue", and that someone determined he was "unsuitable".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine it was because of the words "May issue", and that someone determined he was "unsuitable".

 

Bingo.

 

It boils down to: the sheriff rejected him because he felt like it. No other reason is needed in a "may issue" jurisdiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine it was because of the words "May issue", and that someone determined he was "unsuitable".

 

You ruined all the fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading "Gun Fight" Tom? Good book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading "Gun Fight" Tom? Good book.

 

No, my reading list is more occupied with fun stuff than educational.

 

But the NPR interview transcript accompanying the topic article is interesting.

 

The "non-violence" movement was not exactly filled with conscientious objectors...

 

...Hartman Turnbow, a legendary figure in Mississippi's movement - when he drove the - he drove the night riders away one night with his rifle, and if the rumor is true, he even killed one of them. So when we showed up the next morning, Mr. Turnbow, who was a farmer, said - and this an exact quote. I wasn't being non-nonviolent. I was just protecting my family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May issue, shall issue...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. ..

 

Yes, may issue and shall issue are the only choices.

 

Does your objection to concealed carry apply to gun registries and firearms owner's ID cards? The issue of asking permission to exercise a right seems the same to me, but I've never noticed you objecting to gun registration nor ID cards. Do you believe the issues are the same?

 

I can't feel comfortable with my firearm openly displayed because I don't always want to pretend that I'm hunting or fishing and anti-gunners have outlawed open carry in any other circumstance. I'm uncomfortable breaking the law, stupid though I think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I re-read it and I didn't see anything at all in the Connie about CC or OC. Personally, the RKBA means I should be able to carry my arms slung over my shoulder or tucked into a holster under my jacket out of sight. I see no distinction.

 

cloofey, your issue with CCW is misplaced. We all agree that there are certain sensible limits on all of our rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't defame or libel someone in the press and you must pass a background check to gain your 2A rights. I don't particularly like the licensing requirements for CCW - but I can see the value in it. I don't want some untrained schumk carrying a weapon in public who does't know the ROE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

 

 

...A noted journalist and professor at Brown University, Cobb recently published, “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed,” a look at firearms inside the Civil Rights movement, which includes a firsthand account of his experiences.

 

Cobb maintained in a recent interview with NPR that he witnessed the untold story of guns inside the civil rights movement. He gained that experience as a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967.

The SNCC was one of the most important organizations of the American Civil Rights Movement.

 

“I worked in the South. I lived with families in the South,” explained Cobb to NPR. “There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe. And all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings, and they’re going to respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.”

 

Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

 

King later applied for a concealed carry permit to the local sheriff and was denied, but, according to Cobb, “Martin King always acknowledged, if you read his writings, the right to self-defense – armed self-defense.”...

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

The violent stuff can get you killed too. Google Black Panthers and assassination sometime.

 

How would a CW have saved King from a sniper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

 

...A noted journalist and professor at Brown University, Cobb recently published, “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed,” a look at firearms inside the Civil Rights movement, which includes a firsthand account of his experiences.

 

Cobb maintained in a recent interview with NPR that he witnessed the untold story of guns inside the civil rights movement. He gained that experience as a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967.

The SNCC was one of the most important organizations of the American Civil Rights Movement.

 

“I worked in the South. I lived with families in the South,” explained Cobb to NPR. “There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe. And all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings, and they’re going to respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.”

 

Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

 

King later applied for a concealed carry permit to the local sheriff and was denied, but, according to Cobb, “Martin King always acknowledged, if you read his writings, the right to self-defense – armed self-defense.”...

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

The violent stuff can get you killed too. Google Black Panthers and assassination sometime.

 

How would a CW have saved King from a sniper?

 

Ask someone who claimed that a CW would have saved King.

 

I claim that "because I felt like it" was not a valid reason for the sheriff to deny King his permit. Do you agree or disagree? Or want to argue about something I never said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

 

 

...A noted journalist and professor at Brown University, Cobb recently published, “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed,” a look at firearms inside the Civil Rights movement, which includes a firsthand account of his experiences.

 

Cobb maintained in a recent interview with NPR that he witnessed the untold story of guns inside the civil rights movement. He gained that experience as a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967.

The SNCC was one of the most important organizations of the American Civil Rights Movement.

 

“I worked in the South. I lived with families in the South,” explained Cobb to NPR. “There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe. And all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings, and they’re going to respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.”

 

Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

 

King later applied for a concealed carry permit to the local sheriff and was denied, but, according to Cobb, “Martin King always acknowledged, if you read his writings, the right to self-defense – armed self-defense.”...

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

The violent stuff can get you killed too. Google Black Panthers and assassination sometime.

 

How would a CW have saved King from a sniper?

 

 

Ask someone who claimed that a CW would have saved King.

 

I claim that "because I felt like it" was not a valid reason for the sheriff to deny King his permit. Do you agree or disagree? Or want to argue about something I never said?

 

 

That "get ya killed" stuff misled me into thinking you were referring to something that would have made a difference for King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Try reading the topic post, including links, and you won't be as confused. Perhaps Cobb chose that title with more in mind than King's assassination.

 

I do note that you are not interested in answering my question or addressing my point about carry laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Try reading the topic post, including links, and you won't be as confused. Perhaps Cobb chose that title with more in mind than King's assassination.

 

I do note that you are not interested in answering my question or addressing my point about carry laws.

That point conflates shall-issue CCW opponents with all gun owners and pacifists, even racists. Since I am certain that is pile of malarkey, I have no interest in debating it.

 

The only thing that interested me was what this had to do with the King assassination. It's now clear that was simply some indulging in a little constitutional throat-clearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh. Try reading the topic post, including links, and you won't be as confused. Perhaps Cobb chose that title with more in mind than King's assassination.

 

I do note that you are not interested in answering my question or addressing my point about carry laws.

That point conflates shall-issue CCW opponents with all gun owners and pacifists, even racists. Since I am certain that is pile of malarkey, I have no interest in debating it.

 

The only thing that interested me was what this had to do with the King assassination. It's now clear that was simply some indulging in a little constitutional throat-clearing.

 

This post is confusing and makes me suspect you don't know the definition of "conflate." I asked a simple question about whether "because I felt like it" was a valid reason to deny a permit. Do you believe it was?

 

I was wondering why you were first to bring up the King assassination. You were indulging in constitutional throat clearing? I don't know what that means. Care to explain further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Oh. Try reading the topic post, including links, and you won't be as confused. Perhaps Cobb chose that title with more in mind than King's assassination.

 

I do note that you are not interested in answering my question or addressing my point about carry laws.

That point conflates shall-issue CCW opponents with all gun owners and pacifists, even racists. Since I am certain that is pile of malarkey, I have no interest in debating it.

 

The only thing that interested me was what this had to do with the King assassination. It's now clear that was simply some indulging in a little constitutional throat-clearing.

 

 

This post is confusing and makes me suspect you don't know the definition of "conflate." I asked a simple question about whether "because I felt like it" was a valid reason to deny a permit. Do you believe it was?

 

I was wondering why you were first to bring up the King assassination. You were indulging in constitutional throat clearing? I don't know what that means. Care to explain further?

 

 

It means "meaningless, irrelevant babble".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Oh. Try reading the topic post, including links, and you won't be as confused. Perhaps Cobb chose that title with more in mind than King's assassination.

 

I do note that you are not interested in answering my question or addressing my point about carry laws.

That point conflates shall-issue CCW opponents with all gun owners and pacifists, even racists. Since I am certain that is pile of malarkey, I have no interest in debating it.

 

The only thing that interested me was what this had to do with the King assassination. It's now clear that was simply some indulging in a little constitutional throat-clearing.

 

This post is confusing and makes me suspect you don't know the definition of "conflate." I asked a simple question about whether "because I felt like it" was a valid reason to deny a permit. Do you believe it was?

 

I was wondering why you were first to bring up the King assassination. You were indulging in constitutional throat clearing? I don't know what that means. Care to explain further?

 

It means "meaningless, irrelevant babble".

 

Well, that does explain your questioning a claim that no one was making about a subject no one was discussing. I figured it was just an irrelevant distraction, but I still fail to understand how you were being "constitutional" when you did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh. Try reading the topic post, including links, and you won't be as confused. Perhaps Cobb chose that title with more in mind than King's assassination.

 

I do note that you are not interested in answering my question or addressing my point about carry laws.

That point conflates shall-issue CCW opponents with all gun owners and pacifists, even racists. Since I am certain that is pile of malarkey, I have no interest in debating it.

 

The only thing that interested me was what this had to do with the King assassination. It's now clear that was simply some indulging in a little constitutional throat-clearing.

 

 

This post is confusing and makes me suspect you don't know the definition of "conflate." I asked a simple question about whether "because I felt like it" was a valid reason to deny a permit. Do you believe it was?

 

I was wondering why you were first to bring up the King assassination. You were indulging in constitutional throat clearing? I don't know what that means. Care to explain further?

 

 

It means "meaningless, irrelevant babble".

 

 

Well, that does explain your questioning a claim that no one was making about a subject no one was discussing. I figured it was just an irrelevant distraction, but I still fail to understand how you were being "constitutional" when you did it.

 

 

The article discussed King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

Was it too difficult for him to get a photo ID, being black and all?

Photography was black and white then, to hard to get a positive ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Have you seen the open carry advocates? I'm sorry, but that is some scary shit. I like guns, and support the 2nd amendment. but when a group of scruffily dressed guys men come wondering into the mall - from different entrances and at the same time - packing assault rifles, I'm shouting "Gun!" and calling the cops - unless I decide to take advantage of my concealed carried 2nd amendment rights. ALA Sarah P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Have you seen the open carry advocates? I'm sorry, but that is some scary shit. I like guns, and support the 2nd amendment. but when a group of scruffily dressed guys men come wondering into the mall - from different entrances and at the same time - packing assault rifles, I'm shouting "Gun!" and calling the cops - unless I decide to take advantage of my concealed carried 2nd amendment rights. ALA Sarah P.

 

I agree with that as well. There is a time and place for OC. Walking around the mall with a rifle slung over your shoulder ain't it. Makes the natives restless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Have you seen the open carry advocates? I'm sorry, but that is some scary shit. I like guns, and support the 2nd amendment. but when a group of scruffily dressed guys men come wondering into the mall - from different entrances and at the same time - packing assault rifles, I'm shouting "Gun!" and calling the cops - unless I decide to take advantage of my concealed carried 2nd amendment rights. ALA Sarah P.

 

They're less scary if they carry fishing rods.

 

armedfishers.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Have you seen the open carry advocates? I'm sorry, but that is some scary shit. I like guns, and support the 2nd amendment. but when a group of scruffily dressed guys men come wondering into the mall - from different entrances and at the same time - packing assault rifles, I'm shouting "Gun!" and calling the cops - unless I decide to take advantage of my concealed carried 2nd amendment rights. ALA Sarah P.

 

Mike is addicted to telling other people they are wrong. Whatever position allows him to tell the most people, the most often, they are wrong is the one he is going to take. That is why he says things like we should only allow OC, or that the police are violating the BoR by checking houses in Boston when the bombers were on the loose, or that we are all violating federal law by not posting with our full names, etc. etc. etc. Arguing with him just gives him more opportunities for a fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting review of Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms

 

Frederick Douglass counseled, “A good revolver, a steady hand and a determination to shoot,” as a way for former slaves to counter the man-hunters who attempted to seize blacks who had escaped to the North. Free state blacks often resisted and repelled incursions of slavers who came to reclaim what was then legally viewed as lost property. Armed groups of black men assembled at times to interdict slavers. Harriet Tubman of Underground Railroad fame was well known for carrying firearms and is often depicted rifle in hand. Many white southerners could not abide the idea of armed, independent black voters. This too much resembled true citizenship.

...

The storied NAACP enters the picture as a major player in legal cases involving armed self-defense by blacks, defending (unsuccessfully) WWI veteran Sgt. Edgar Caldwell for using his service revolver to kill a train conductor and wound a motorman who had been trying to stomp him to death after he resisted being thrown out of the white passenger section. Johnson presents more cases than can be recounted here, some virtually municipal in scale. In Elaine, Arkansas a white deputy was shot dead after he fired into a group of Negro farmers, veterans, who had formed a farmers union. In the ensuing violence, the governor mobilized troops, deputies roamed the countryside, resulting in 5 white and 25 black casualties. Murder indictments in the “scores” for the blacks were followed by kangaroo trials, some only an hour long. Eventually, with NAACP help, at the SCOTUS level of appeal the convictions were reversed. Justice Holmes justified the reversal on the grounds that the trials were merely an extension of mob violence. In Detroit, NAACP brought famous litigator Clarence Darrow into the Ossian Sweet case. Sweet, a dentist, along with friends and relatives, had been indicted for murder after a white mob attacked the house that he had purchased in an all white neighborhood on Detroit’s east side. Threats had been made and Sweet and friends armed themselves. Shots were fired and afterward a white man lay dead. The prosecutor’s office tried to present the case as incidence of armed Negroes firing on a peaceful community. In court, Darrow pointed out that prosecutors had called up a mob of eyewitnesses to testify there was no mob outside the house. After an initial mistrial Sweet was eventually acquitted.

...

Of course the big problem to NAACP and black community leaders was balancing a non-violent political movement with the needs of personal home and self-defense. Non-violence wasn’t an effective political tactic for the dead. But neither was retaliatory violence good for the movement. The notion of armed aggressive black freedom fighters was more than enough to incite an unwinnable race war, and at the least could reverse progress and good will hard earned over the years. Hence the public commitment of Civil Rights Movement leadership to non-violence while privately their homes and sometimes their persons bristled with guns. It was a balancing act between political symbolism and survival.

...

Back in the 19th Century, journalist/social commentator and provocative black essayist Ida B. Wells wrote: “The Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he is insulted, outraged and lynched.”

Unlike most professors Johnson knows whereof he writes when it comes to firearms. In an apt analogy he shows that the Winchester repeating level action rifle was the “assault weapon” of its time, being capable of a high rate of fire and easily reloadable. I know from personal conversations with Professor Johnson in the context of academic conferences (e.g., last year’s Second Amendment Symposium at Fordham Law School on that island of antigun sentiment known as Manhattan) that he owns and delights in an old Winchester .351 caliber rifle from 1907 or so. He enjoys showing antigun academic acquaintances that the idea of a semiautomatic so-called assault rifle has been around for a long time, and is not some new satanic invention causing havoc on society, but has long been part of the healthy social order. In the same way the Winchester rifle became a useful, freedom-preserving part of the emergent social order of the South, the Black tradition of arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

 

I understand your point, but, the very real fact is that the mere presence of a weapon greatly upsets some folks. Consideration and prudence would suggest that taking a small action to avoid this unintentional upset is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Have you seen the open carry advocates? I'm sorry, but that is some scary shit. I like guns, and support the 2nd amendment. but when a group of scruffily dressed guys men come wondering into the mall - from different entrances and at the same time - packing assault rifles, I'm shouting "Gun!" and calling the cops - unless I decide to take advantage of my concealed carried 2nd amendment rights. ALA Sarah P.

I agree with that as well. There is a time and place for OC. Walking around the mall with a rifle slung over your shoulder ain't it. Makes the natives restless.

If you live where concealed carry is widespread, wouldn't you expect everyone to have a gun? I don't see why open carry would make the natives more restless than concealed carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in a CC environment, everyone SHOULD have a gun. Life is scary out there. Ebola!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Have you seen the open carry advocates? I'm sorry, but that is some scary shit. I like guns, and support the 2nd amendment. but when a group of scruffily dressed guys men come wondering into the mall - from different entrances and at the same time - packing assault rifles, I'm shouting "Gun!" and calling the cops - unless I decide to take advantage of my concealed carried 2nd amendment rights. ALA Sarah P.

I agree with that as well. There is a time and place for OC. Walking around the mall with a rifle slung over your shoulder ain't it. Makes the natives restless.

If you live where concealed carry is widespread, wouldn't you expect everyone to have a gun? I don't see why open carry would make the natives more restless than concealed carry.

 

It's simple, actually: There are large numbers of our population who have been conditioned to think that the presence of a firearm is indicative of sinister intent. These folks have been taught to fear firearms, and those who have them. Thus, the sight of a gun carried in the open is in and of itself enough to upset people who have been taught to think this way.

 

I like to conduct myself in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary upset to anyone. Most courteous folks do the same. My $.02 - your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't the "media's" fault for reporting the news. Watch any local news channel. Somewhere in the first couple of minutes will be a story of someone being shot. A local story. It happens so often it's not national news unless it's 5 or more being killed at once, or someone famous.

 

It happens so often its barely news. Like car crashes, or heart attacks.

 

In Israel open carry is common, and it's not intimidating because it's so common. It would be best to have all the CC folks OC. take away the fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't the "media's" fault for reporting the news. Watch any local news channel. Somewhere in the first couple of minutes will be a story of someone being shot. A local story. It happens so often it's not national news unless it's 5 or more being killed at once, or someone famous.

 

It happens so often its barely news. Like car crashes, or heart attacks.

 

In Israel open carry is common, and it's not intimidating because it's so common. It would be best to have all the CC folks OC. take away the fear.

 

I used to take a .22 rifle to school (late 70s) for Rod&Gun club activities. It was common for high-schoolers to have a shotgun in the car/truck to go squirrel hunting after school. Many folks stored their rifles in racks in the back window of their pickup truck. Nobody thought a thing about it. If we could get back to the point that people didn't have reason to fear the crazies, I'd be tickled.

 

We can probably agree that we won't get there again anytime soon, while discussing why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the same. Was very common in the fall to get off the bus, grab a shotgun and walk the back 10 acres. Pheasant and duck.

 

When I hit 16 the shotgun was in the trunk.

 

I believe we've confused sub-urban with rural gun use/myths. What's common and matter of fact in a rural locale, is pretty f-in scary in a sub-urban locale. Face it, Mr Smith doesn't need a shotgun to walk the back 2000 sq ft. A gun is a one-trick pony in a sub-urban locale, useful for killing people (whether in aggression or self-defense) whereas in a rural locale it's just another tool in the toolbox.

 

sub-urban is both the urban and the suburbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If discrimination is allowed, discrimination will take place. Also, not necessarily in the manor intended. That has been the crux of the gun laws from day one. The prime example is the term assault rifle. That is a name that really describes form and not function. Yet I could make a solid argument that a Thompson Contender chambered in .416 Rigby is a much more dangerous weapon than a Ruger 10/22. As noted several times in these threads, a 10/22 meets the requirements of the term assault rifle. The Thompson Center would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the same. Was very common in the fall to get off the bus, grab a shotgun and walk the back 10 acres. Pheasant and duck.

 

When I hit 16 the shotgun was in the trunk.

 

I believe we've confused sub-urban with rural gun use/myths. What's common and matter of fact in a rural locale, is pretty f-in scary in a sub-urban locale. Face it, Mr Smith doesn't need a shotgun to walk the back 2000 sq ft. A gun is a one-trick pony in a sub-urban locale, useful for killing people (whether in aggression or self-defense) whereas in a rural locale it's just another tool in the toolbox.

 

sub-urban is both the urban and the suburbs.

I've seen several snakes in my yard this year. I don't generally kill every snake I see, but I certainly would not want a rattlesnake in my yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

 

 

Until around 1970, the aims of America’s firearms restrictionists and the aims of America’s racists were practically inextricable. In both the colonial and immediate post-Revolutionary periods, the first laws regulating gun ownership were aimed squarely at blacks and Native Americans. In both the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, it was illegal for the colonists to sell guns to natives, while Virginia and Tennessee banned gun ownership by free blacks.

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

White Southerners would eventually be forced to accept blacks as their fellow citizens. But old habits died hard. After the Civil War, many Southern states enacted Black Codes to prohibit ownership of guns by blacks. The measures served their purpose. In her remarkable 1892 disquisition on the evils of lynching, the writer Ida B. Wells noted that “the only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.” Wells offered some blunt advice: “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

At the height of the civil rights movement, black freedom fighters took Wells’s counsel seriously. Although he was denied a concealed-carry permit, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had what his adviser Glenn E. Smiley described as a veritable “arsenal” at home.

Far from being a digression from the principle of nonviolence, this willingness to defend oneself was heir to a long, proud tradition. Considering in 1850 what he believed to be the best response to the Fugitive Slave Act, Frederick Douglass proposed: “a good revolver.”

Former Chief Justice Taney sure had an interesting view of gun rights.

At least he had the good sense to realize that you can't just let black people keep and bear arms wherever they go as if they were white or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

 

Yeah. And guns kill people, right?

 

Concealed carry isn't going to erode any amendments. Stupid People are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to light the cliffsignal, Grrr.

 

Let me help.

 

cliffsignal.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

 

 

 

Until around 1970, the aims of America’s firearms restrictionists and the aims of America’s racists were practically inextricable. In both the colonial and immediate post-Revolutionary periods, the first laws regulating gun ownership were aimed squarely at blacks and Native Americans. In both the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, it was illegal for the colonists to sell guns to natives, while Virginia and Tennessee banned gun ownership by free blacks.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

White Southerners would eventually be forced to accept blacks as their fellow citizens. But old habits died hard. After the Civil War, many Southern states enacted Black Codes to prohibit ownership of guns by blacks. The measures served their purpose. In her remarkable 1892 disquisition on the evils of lynching, the writer Ida B. Wells noted that “the only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.” Wells offered some blunt advice: “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

 

At the height of the civil rights movement, black freedom fighters took Wells’s counsel seriously. Although he was denied a concealed-carry permit, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had what his adviser Glenn E. Smiley described as a veritable “arsenal” at home.

 

Far from being a digression from the principle of nonviolence, this willingness to defend oneself was heir to a long, proud tradition. Considering in 1850 what he believed to be the best response to the Fugitive Slave Act, Frederick Douglass proposed: “a good revolver.”

 

Former Chief Justice Taney sure had an interesting view of gun rights.

 

At least he had the good sense to realize that you can't just let black people keep and bear arms wherever they go as if they were white or something.

 

Gungrabbers are as racist as ever, but now irrationally fear whites instead of blacks.

 

“Suggestion: we don’t have to vaporize all the guns. Let’s just vaporize white men’s guns,” Grimes tweeted, linking to an article about Arizona shooter Ryan Giroux.

 

“White guys cannot be trusted to use guns responsibly. It is time to stop giving guns to white guys,” Grimes added. ”I mean, it’s time to stop giving guns to everybody, but we can start with the white guys.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

...A noted journalist and professor at Brown University, Cobb recently published, “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed,” a look at firearms inside the Civil Rights movement, which includes a firsthand account of his experiences.

 

Cobb maintained in a recent interview with NPR that he witnessed the untold story of guns inside the civil rights movement. He gained that experience as a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967.

The SNCC was one of the most important organizations of the American Civil Rights Movement.

 

“I worked in the South. I lived with families in the South,” explained Cobb to NPR. “There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe. And all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings, and they’re going to respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.”

 

Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

 

King later applied for a concealed carry permit to the local sheriff and was denied, but, according to Cobb, “Martin King always acknowledged, if you read his writings, the right to self-defense – armed self-defense.”...

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

 

That didn't get him killed. Being armed is no defense against a concealed sniper who waits for you to walk out of a motel room and gets a head shot in before you have any way to know he is even there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

...A noted journalist and professor at Brown University, Cobb recently published, “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed,” a look at firearms inside the Civil Rights movement, which includes a firsthand account of his experiences.

 

Cobb maintained in a recent interview with NPR that he witnessed the untold story of guns inside the civil rights movement. He gained that experience as a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967.

The SNCC was one of the most important organizations of the American Civil Rights Movement.

 

“I worked in the South. I lived with families in the South,” explained Cobb to NPR. “There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe. And all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings, and they’re going to respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.”

 

Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

 

King later applied for a concealed carry permit to the local sheriff and was denied, but, according to Cobb, “Martin King always acknowledged, if you read his writings, the right to self-defense – armed self-defense.”...

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

 

That didn't get him killed. Being armed is no defense against a concealed sniper who waits for you to walk out of a motel room and gets a head shot in before you have any way to know he is even there.

 

 

True, but doesn't address the question. Any idea why his application for a CWP was denied? Even a wildass guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White Americans are still shit scared that the slaves will revolt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White Americans are still shit scared that the slaves will revolt.

 

Before you solve our problems, are you ever going to answer my question about Aussie Apartheid?

 

 

 

And about when the weather gets in the way ... not sure that you have noticed but over here we have our fair share of natural disasters. Floods, fires, cyclones, had one recently. Had 500mm rain fall here in a two days, road out cut. I have spent a lot of time in cyclone prone areas and no one, no one keeps guns to ward off the scary natives.

 

Your spin is about selling fear and fucking weapons. BUT Now I'm so fuckin scared! I might get a gun so I can sleep.

 

Ever had one that wiped out your electrical grid? Those can happen, you know.

 

Has your government ever fallen? That happens to all of them too, eventually. Not spin, just history.

 

Speaking of natives, I know you're justifiably concerned about the Apartheid practices of our FBI. Have you looked into solving Aussie Apartheid yet? Looks to me like your government is doing the same thing you denounce in ours.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the question ... exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked into solving Aussie Apartheid yet? Looks to me like your government is doing the same thing you denounce in ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what has that got to do with my claim that white Americans are scared of a slave revolt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what has that got to do with my claim that white Americans are scared of a slave revolt?

 

I just thought that your concern for racism here should be matched by my concern for racism there.

 

But you're right, gun control was racist as the quote above from Justice Taney clearly indicated. Mark K probably won't answer my question, but I will: it continued to be racist when MLK was denied his concealed weapons permit. And it continues to be racist in policies like stop and frisk, to name one example.

 

More broadly, all prohibitions are about the same thing: us vs them. Gun control is no exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

 

I understand your point, but, the very real fact is that the mere presence of a weapon greatly upsets some folks. Consideration and prudence would suggest that taking a small action to avoid this unintentional upset is a good thing.

 

 

We agree, Guy. Guns are dangerous: a reaction is entirely normal. To carry openly is to be inflammatory, and offensive; each OC is the worst gun PR imaginable, IMO.

 

We've had OC in WA forever, and I've never seen an OC carrier, not even in the boonies. I attribute that to good taste/sensibility, and to, well, mature peer pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

place smarmy, coy, and smug phlegm here; add FL swamp gas...

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

Tom this (see quote) is your favorite game. In fact, this is your only game.

 

You should reach out to know this real man. (You are MLK-curious.)

You use him as a foil, a lot, but you have not discovered his...core purpose.

You are a jerk: MLK's non-violent stuff actually prevented countless killings.

This man blessed America, intentionally, and pointedly, without guns.

You defile his memory. You are not worthy to mention him Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

 

I understand your point, but, the very real fact is that the mere presence of a weapon greatly upsets some folks. Consideration and prudence would suggest that taking a small action to avoid this unintentional upset is a good thing.

 

 

We agree, Guy. Guns are dangerous: a reaction is entirely normal. To carry openly is to be inflammatory, and offensive; each OC is the worst gun PR imaginable, IMO.

 

We've had OC in WA forever, and I've never seen an OC carrier, not even in the boonies. I attribute that to good taste/sensibility, and to, well, mature peer pressure.

 

 

Oh dear. The only responsibly way to carry is openly and notoriously. I don't have time to explain it to you this morning, but maybe someone will come along who can elaborate at great length for you. I'll light the cliffsignal.

 

cliffsignal.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

...Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

 

King later applied for a concealed carry permit to the local sheriff and was denied, but, according to Cobb, “Martin King always acknowledged, if you read his writings, the right to self-defense – armed self-defense.”

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

Tom this (see quote) is your favorite game. In fact, this is your only game.

 

You should reach out to know this real man. (You are MLK-curious.)

You use him as a foil, a lot, but you have not discovered his...core purpose.

You are a jerk: MLK's non-violent stuff actually prevented countless killings.

This man blessed America, intentionally, and pointedly, without guns.

You defile his memory. You are not worthy to mention him Tom.

 

 

So he was denied his permit because I'm a jerk?

 

How could that be? I wasn't even around at the time.

 

I think my explanation is more plausible: racist gun controllers wouldn't let a black man get a permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

place total vacuum here

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

Tom this (see quote) is your favorite game. In fact, this is your only game.

 

You should reach out to know this real man. (You are MLK-curious.)

You use him as a foil, a lot, but you have not discovered his...core purpose.

You are a jerk: MLK's non-violent stuff actually prevented countless killings.

This man blessed America, intentionally, and pointedly, without guns.

You defile his memory. You are not worthy to mention him Tom.

 

 

So he was denied his permit because I'm a jerk?

 

How could that be? I wasn't even around at the time.

 

I think my explanation is more plausible: racist gun controllers wouldn't let a black man get a permit.

 

 

Vacuous acuity. I see. How many dozen times do you feel you need to make that point?

Can't you get beyond it? Your trite detail is lost in a broader social landscape.

You defile MLK , sir, by making him your "shall issue" poster boy.

Bless your clueless heart, he was all about the opposite of armed self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, educate me. What was his core purpose in acquiring guns and applying for a concealed weapons permit? Those seem like the kinds of things an evil person who believes in self defense would do. Why would MLK do them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, educate me. What was his core purpose in acquiring guns and applying for a concealed weapons permit? Those seem like the kinds of things an evil person who believes in self defense would do. Why would MLK do them?

Dumbass stuff, Mr. Ray.

Sorry, you are not worth this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, educate me. What was his core purpose in acquiring guns and applying for a concealed weapons permit? Those seem like the kinds of things an evil person who believes in self defense would do. Why would MLK do them?

Dumbass stuff, Mr. Ray.

Sorry, you are not worth this discussion.

 

 

 

So you're basically saying a black man should be denied a CC permit because he's.....black?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a person could carry a gun for their own protection and still be non-violent. It's not as if MKL was roaming around looking for gunfights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a person could carry a gun for their own protection and still be non-violent. It's not as if MKL was roaming around looking for gunfights.

 

 

Tell that to our resident gun-owning/gun-hating psychotic psycho in the PNW.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't the "media's" fault for reporting the news. Watch any local news channel. Somewhere in the first couple of minutes will be a story of someone being shot. A local story. It happens so often it's not national news unless it's 5 or more being killed at once, or someone famous.

 

It happens so often its barely news. Like car crashes, or heart attacks.

 

In Israel open carry is common, and it's not intimidating because it's so common. It would be best to have all the CC folks OC. take away the fear.

 

No, but it is the media's fault for characterizing something as so common that I should be afraid to stick my head out the front door for fear I'll be shot and killed.

Do shootings happen? Of course they do. Is gun related violence a problem that should be addressed? Sure it is. Are Shootings "common"? I don't even know what you mean by that word. But I know I provide field service for dialysis centers and home patients in the greater Seattle area, including the worst places the area has to offer, and have for the past 22 years. Guess how many times I've been shot and killed? I realize Seattle is a pretty rural Podunk place, but you'd think by now I'd have been killed at least half a dozen times already, what with how common it is...

 

The proliferation of firearms in this country is, in my opinion, a problem, especially as it facilitates access of same to non- law-abiding citizens. But the hand-wringing fear mongering is counterproductive and wrong headed besides. Cars kill more people a year than guns, shouldn't everyone be afraid of cars too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation


...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....


It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black citizens exercising their rights? Dred-ful.

 

 

Wonder how JokeAwf is gonna react to that? Knowing full well that the hugely disappropriate number of black men killed in America are killed by other black men.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Black citizens exercising their rights? Dred-ful.

 

 

Wonder how JokeAwf is gonna react to that? Knowing full well that the hugely disappropriate number of black men killed in America are killed by other black men.....

 

 

I suspect we'll learn whether I'm worthy to discuss them.

 

Perhaps my elk should have to show a good and substantial reason before certain exercises of first amendment rights. Or maybe there might just be a problem with that view of protected rights. I dunno. There doesn't seem to be much problem with it when it comes to at least one protected right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should just combine the two amendments. As in 'We have the write to bear arms'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polish up your barrel Booze, the salves are about to revolt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pref

 

Polish up your barrel Booze, the salves are about to revolt.

 

 

Sorry, but I've moved on from salves to lotions. However thanks for your concern.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Black citizens exercising their rights? Dred-ful.

 

 

Wonder how JokeAwf is gonna react to that? Knowing full well that the hugely disappropriate number of black men killed in America are killed by other black men.....

 

 

 

I'm thinking maybe you missed the Taney - Dred Scott reference in Tom's post. My apologies if not.

 

“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit, makes more cents now R/T. Gracias....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real mystery there is how the NRA managed to go back in time and infect the mind of a Supreme Court Chief Justice with 1970's vintage propaganda about the second amendment.

 

If my opponents demonstrated that kind of supernatural ability, I'd give up. But jocal is tough! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing JokeAwf sails drives a DeLorean.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pref

 

Polish up your barrel Booze, the salves are about to revolt.

 

 

Sorry, but I've moved on from salves to lotions. However thanks for your concern.....

 

Who knew that the Black Codes were written to address dry, flaky skin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal story:

 

Dred Scott's grave is just down the road from Ferguson, MO. I "made" my parents take me there when I was about 10 to see his and General Wm. T. Sherman's graves as we were passing through on vacation. I was a history and civil war buff and wanted to be able to tell my history teacher uncle in Indiana all about it. After doing so, he took me to his man cave. It was an old store front he'd turned into a personal civil war era museum. I was blown away by it. Muskets, swords, cannon balls, uniforms, pictures... Seeing the gravestone rubbings of so many of my ancestors that died in the war fighting the Democrats was sobering.

 

Anyway, I hadn't really thought about it in decades until I noticed some of the Ferguson rioting was taking place on Florrisant Avenue. As we were on our way to the motel from the cemetery, we got behind a Florissant garbage truck with the motto, "Satisfaction guaranteed or double your garbage back." I thought it was the funniest thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

 

 

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

 

And that's why Ron Reagan gave CA such nasty gun laws. They showed up at a session of state government in Sacramento to watch proceedings from the upper rail of the capital building with rifles, needless to say they didn't get quite that far. When it was discovered there was no law against that people recoiled in horror. Bobby later regretted what violent militarism did to the BP but never lost the opinion that they really had no choice at the outset. They needed their own police force because the Oakland PD flat didn't give a fuck about the people of Oakland.

 

There are many dangers in losing prospective (aka: "a grip") when it comes to waving guns around, including the danger of getting stiff laws against doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

 

 

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

 

And that's why Ron Reagan gave CA such nasty gun laws. They showed up at a session of state government in Sacramento to watch proceedings from the upper rail of the capital building with rifles, needless to say they didn't get quite that far. When it was discovered there was no law against that people recoiled in horror. Bobby later regretted what violent militarism did to the BP but never lost the opinion that they really had no choice at the outset. They needed their own police force because the Oakland PD flat didn't give a fuck about the people of Oakland.

 

There are many dangers in losing prospective (aka: "a grip") when it comes to waving guns around, including the danger of getting stiff laws against doing that.

 

 

Thanks for your perspective. Or prospective. Whatever. I knew you wouldn't answer the question about MLK. Doesn't matter, the answer is obvious to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

 

 

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

 

And that's why Ron Reagan gave CA such nasty gun laws. They showed up at a session of state government in Sacramento to watch proceedings from the upper rail of the capital building with rifles, needless to say they didn't get quite that far. When it was discovered there was no law against that people recoiled in horror. Bobby later regretted what violent militarism did to the BP but never lost the opinion that they really had no choice at the outset. They needed their own police force because the Oakland PD flat didn't give a fuck about the people of Oakland.

 

There are many dangers in losing prospective (aka: "a grip") when it comes to waving guns around, including the danger of getting stiff laws against doing that.

 

 

Thanks for your perspective. Or prospective. Whatever. I knew you wouldn't answer the question about MLK. Doesn't matter, the answer is obvious to all.

 

 

What question is that? I recall your title of this thread as being thoroughly debunked. A gun would not have saved him. Death is a common fate for all peace-makers, Gandhi, Rabin, Sadat, Lincoln, King, Malcolm X. Against a dedicated assasin a personal firearm is almost useless. Bodyguards might help, but in the end it was pure luck that saved Reagan. Think of it Tom, surrounded by at least a half dozen heavily armed and trained men and still he got a shot into him. So you think if Reagan had had hand gun it would have saved him or something?

 

Please get a fucking grip on this gun shit. The lot of ya. Stupid people running around talking like you, acting as if any specious, if not outright ridiculous argument you can imagine is pure brilliance is frightening. Get some spokesmen that aren't open racists and get rid of the ones that are. Your idea of countering that by suggesting only racists are against guns in the light of the current reality of the gun rights movement is fucking silly and you know it. Nutcases are a risk to the the right for sane people to have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks for your perspective. Or prospective. Whatever. I knew you wouldn't answer the question about MLK. Doesn't matter, the answer is obvious to all.

 

 

What question is that?...

 

The one I asked twice. I'll bold and highlight in red this time.

 

 

 

 

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

 

That didn't get him killed. Being armed is no defense against a concealed sniper who waits for you to walk out of a motel room and gets a head shot in before you have any way to know he is even there.

 

 

True, but doesn't address the question. Any idea why his application for a CWP was denied? Even a wildass guess?

 

 

Your inability to admit that the Black Codes were racist, that denying King's permit was racist, and that stop and frisk is racist is one of the more amusing aspects of your NRA Derangement Syndrome. So keep avoiding and I'll keep asking and thanks for the free entertainment!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is all that shit about? Your assertions of my inability to admit those things are based on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

That didn't get him killed. Being armed is no defense against a concealed sniper who waits for you to walk out of a motel room and gets a head shot in before you have any way to know he is even there.

 

True, but doesn't address the question. Any idea why his application for a CWP was denied? Even a wildass guess?

 

Your inability to admit that the Black Codes were racist, that denying King's permit was racist, and that stop and frisk is racist is one of the more amusing aspects of your NRA Derangement Syndrome. So keep avoiding and I'll keep asking and thanks for the free entertainment!

 

 

 

Tom, your racism-needs-guns monologue was already boring, over-worked, tasteless, and dangerous.

You are having another dialogue with yourself, while trying to manhandle a finer mind into your discussion (where you will not heed his insight).

You already know the answer, you say. Be content with that.

Let it rest. And please come back when you have Mr. King placed in historical (and spiritual) perspective.

You are just not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites