Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

something intelligent is an advertorial from a  guy who's business is firearm training? Seriously?

The SA Gun Club, it hate me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 1:03 PM, bpm57 said:

Well, normally what happens when the subject of MLK's non-CCW permit comes up.. is that you cry about "race baiting"

OH YEAH. If that is your take on MLK, as a group, you are vulnerable to further conversation.

Wake up. Judge Taney is not an acceptable baseline for understanding, outside of trailer parks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

If that is your take on MLK, as a group, you are vulnerable to further conversation.

The only "take" that is necessary, Joe, is for you to admit that the permit was denied because of the color of his skin.

We _could_ talk about other court cases, but you seem to have a hard time keeping the participants straight already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

  @chinabald Dude. A few inches below this post, you will find my red words. This post explains them, if the BJS stats don't. I'd like to hear back from you in the form of something intelligent

 

Your reply to me was this bullshit

Quote

How I Was Violently Attacked In My Own Driveway

 One problem: I didn’t have a gun.

First Step To Recovery Is Admitting That You Have A Problem

A Journey Of A Thousand Miles Begins With One Step – Gun Ownership

and this enters in, but I dont get why. If your friend were green or white we would be talking in a circle.

Quote

(chinabald) But please go right ahead and discount my African American friend’s experience.

 

@chinabald, you were called here because you said you wanted an explanation for my red words, which have been heavily spammed for some reaspn. I hope you weren't race-baiting two different times, asking me for details. And I hope you aren't a dunderhead, too. Here goes.

  • Post 378 of this thread contains tough facts about gun violence in a cool BJS report, formatted by myself, found in post 127 of this thread.
  • Post 379 is Joe,  making nice, and suggesting that Tom read some MLK for his own benefit.  (in this thread, Tom simply uses the stats in 127 to claim white gun ownership problems don't exist, 20X)
  • Post 381 contains my red words. Tom likes to annoy, and I was frustrated.

There you have the context of my allegedly racist words. You could have connected these dots by reading any of my general posts, you can pick from 6000 of them since 2015.

If you want me to say I AM NOT A RACIST, we can't go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

 

Your reply to me was this bullshit

and this enters in, but I dont get why. If your friend were green or white we would be talking in a circle.

 

@chinabald, you were called here because you said you wanted an explanation for my red words, which have been heavily spammed for some reaspn. I hope you weren't race-baiting two different times, asking me for details. And I hope you aren't a dunderhead, too. Here goes.

  • Post 378 of this thread contains tough facts about gun violence in a cool BJS report, formatted by myself, found in post 127 of this thread.
  • Post 379 is Joe,  making nice, and suggesting that Tom read some MLK for his own benefit.  (in this thread, Tom simply uses the stats in 127 to claim white gun ownership problems don't exist, 20X)
  • Post 381 contains my red words. Tom likes to annoy, and I was frustrated.

There you have the context of my allegedly racist words. You could have connected these dots by reading any of my general posts, you can pick from 6000 of them since 2015.

If you want me to say I AM NOT A RACIST, we can't go there.

I read through the post in question. From your protests I assumed you were saying that your words were twisted or somehow sound different in light of the question or conversation that spawned them. I looked to see if there was a retraction or explanation, I ensured that the quote in question wasn’t a citation you used of someone else’s words... I found it was flat out Commentary from you in response to other’s statement(s).

It’s a bare ass racist comment Joe and then you doubled down with a “the brothers” later. Your being frustrated doesn’t change the facts. In fact people tend to revert to their true personality while under stress or frustration.

You may hide your racism, you may even abhor that part of you. But good intentions don’t change what you said and what those words mean. Accept your words for what they are, apologize and retract them. It will go a lot better then then your standard comment of “race baiting”. Which BTW to quote Inigo Montoya “you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I read through the post in question. From your protests I assumed you were saying that your words were twisted or somehow sound different in light of the question or conversation that spawned them. I looked to see if there was a retraction or explanation, I ensured that the quote in question wasn’t a citation you used of someone else’s words... I found it was flat out Commentary from you in response to other’s statement(s).

It’s a bare ass racist comment Joe and then you doubled down with a “the brothers” later. Your being frustrated doesn’t change the facts. In fact people tend to revert to their true personality while under stress or frustration.

You may hide your racism, you may even abhor that part of you. But good intentions don’t change what you said and what those words mean. Accept your words for what they are, apologize and retract them. It will go a lot better then then your standard comment of “race baiting”. Which BTW to quote Inigo Montoya “you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” 

 

You need to support the idea that I am a racist better than that. But thanks for trying to make this about my racism, an X factor indeed. 

With all respect chinabald, I think I'll go with haters are gonna hate, on this date.

And now I get to quote Wofsey again. We each have a personal garden, and racism is the invasive weeds. If we tend the invasive, natural weeds, the garden will thrive and will be attractive. If we pretend we have no weeds, everyone will know. I'll be around, mate.  Detroit was good to me, and I was on foot.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

We are wide open for a good definition of, or a good discussion of, racebaiting. But speaking for myself,  I would include this very bit. It was so offensive I wouldnt touch Tom;s race-baiter thread; in died over the winter of 2014-2015. It was about this gag

 

On 6/8/2014 at 5:47 AM, dogballs Tom said:

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Did you give the obvious answer, Joe? I can't recall.

The answer, by the way: racist grabbers. But that's my answer. What's yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Some redneck took advantage of the situation. Rednecks suck, do you agree, "VOA"?


It's not just redneck ones. Racist grabbers took advantage of the discretion law enforcement has that says they "may issue" a permit or they "may not." It happens regularly in places where only the $pecial people get permits.

They decided that they "may not" because he was black.

To prevent this kind of racist application of laws by racist grabbers, whether redneck or not, a better plan would be to make a denial contingent on an objective reason that is stated at the time of denial.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

 

Did you give the obvious answer, Joe? I can't recall.

The answer, by the way: racist grabbers. But that's my answer. What's yours?

Go to the thread which you transferred this from.  

Sincerely, I want to wish you a fine holiday. Tom, you are one lofty guy. So let's not race-bait further on Christmas Eve, eh? Same for 2019, on all our threads, seriously.

Thanks, and Happy New Year too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Go to the thread which you transferred this from.  

The one where you put my words from this thread into an image without any link back for context?

No.

When I quote someone, I'll provide context. When you fail to provide context, I'll put it back in context. Again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The one where you put my words from this thread into an image without any link back for context?

No.

When I quote someone, I'll provide context. When you fail to provide context, I'll put it back in context. Again.

In the context of the red words, you race-baited random the day before, and you tripled down on race-baiting the very day you were called out. Such dedication to racebaiting we find.

Dylann Roof happened a few months later but you did not STFU.

But we have a better 2019 before us, and progress may develop, depending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The one where you put my words from this thread into an image without any link back for context?

No.

When I quote someone, I'll provide context. When you fail to provide context, I'll put it back in context. Again.

Total bullshit. Trust me, I can cite whatever is important. 
The true point here is that your (very sustained) red ink bit falls outside of the context of my life. 

And you can't change that. Merry Christmas to your special people, including Ernie and Noel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Black Gun Owner Next Door

Quote

 

...I am anti-gun and support strict gun control laws. But sipping tea with the homeowners, walking the floors where the Haydens and their compatriots had plotted what turned out to be the roots of a political revolution to overturn slavery, pried ajar a little door in my mind.

Hayden was indeed a man who believed in firepower. He was legendary for threatening slave catchers who showed up at his doorstep in pursuit of fugitives. His home was “converted into a veritable fortress, with doors and windows double locked and barred,” write the historians James Oliver Horton and Lois Horton in “Black Bostonians.” The Hortons describe William and Ellen Craft’s visit in 1848, after the pair fled Georgia in a brilliant escape from slavery. William posed as the property of his wife, a woman light enough to pass for white. Ellen dressed like a man to perfect the ruse. Their destination was the Hayden home where, as the story goes, “Hayden’s son and a number of armed men” secured the premises. “Two kegs of gunpowder had been placed on the front porch, and while the slave catchers watched in disbelief, Hayden lit a torch threatening to blow up his house, himself, and anyone attempting to enter.”

While the historian Stephen Kantrowitz cautions in his book “More Than Freedom” that Hayden’s actions were embellished over time, he traces the claim that “Hayden had readied kegs of gunpowder in the basement, in case slave hunters forced their way inside,” to a statement by William Craft himself. Drawings of the interior of Hayden’s home from an 1889 edition of The Boston Evening Transcript show rifles leaning against the back parlor wall above the caption: “The Guns Were Always Ready for Use in an Emergency.”

...

At last, I was left having to examine myself. “You’re not anti-gun,” Mr. Toure told me. “Ask yourself this. It’s a zombie apocalypse. Tomorrow, you wake up, and you can’t find your children. You go out to search for them. Do you want a gun now?” His analogy was not outlandish. This was, of course, the constant threat enslaved people endured. Had I been fooling myself about my anti-gun stance? I don’t think so, but I did come to realize through a series of unexpected exchanges that the issue was more complicated than I had allowed and that my views of just coexistence and human flourishing might not require the absolute prohibition of arms.

I concede that Lewis Hayden could be viewed as a champion of the right to bear arms in defense of freedom. But more than that, he dedicated himself to community building, forging a complex, self-funded, interracial network of people joined in common cause. Guns were there to defend those things. The home he made with Harriet was a gathering place for the Boston Vigilance Committee, for progressive white Bostonians and for members of the enslaved and free black population.

...

After sipping tea at the Hayden House, I am still suspicious of the N.R.A., and I would not abide having a gun inside my dwelling or my children’s schools. But where would I want to be if civil society topples and 2020 feels like 1820? In a home like the Haydens’, in a neighborhood like the North Slope of 19th-century Beacon Hill, in a community fortified by love in action and maybe a powder keg beneath the floorboards.

 

I guess a powder keg under the floor can sometimes be tolerated. But only after the society that maintains the gun stores isn't there any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Why was MLK's stupid fucking gun permit denied?


I thought Mark K's answer was accurate.

On 3/27/2015 at 1:57 AM, Mark K said:

Probably because he was black.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:


I thought Mark K's answer was accurate.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

I think that if Mark K wants to interact with you, ever, we will know.

I watched you race-bait for three years before I stepped in. You want some of me? Really?

The Trail Cam thread was amazing, then was soiled, by your behavior.  

 

 

You want some fairness, after calling me a racist in public, from March of 2015 to the present. YCMTSU.

Love ya, man.  Gain a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, jocal505 said:

think that if Mark K wants to interact with you, ever, we will know.

I watched you race-bait for three years before I stepped in. You want some of me? Really?

I didn't ask Mark. I asked you.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Yes, I want an answer. From you.

On 7/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, jocal505 said:

The Trail Cam thread was amazing, then was soiled, by your behavior.  

OK, quote the offending post.

We all know there wasn't one, but you're in a TeamD gungrabby safe space and won't be called out for trolling in General Anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

didn't ask Mark. I asked you.

Mark K can speak for himself, at will...yet he and others avoid contact with you. Mark K is no tool.  His comment was that your goal is to label any discussion of race as racist, to prevent discussion.

 

The racist application of gun laws applies across the board. These laws are now agents of fratricide, in general. The NRA's narrative has a terrible racial outcome, and Jeffie is the poster boy for it, with his forty gansta pics, and his choirboy profile.

48 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

OK, quote the offending post.

We are burdened with hundreds of race-baiter posts, from multiple angles. The search function documents 30 references to Judge Taney, and another fifteen to Dred  Scott. WTF?

After I called you out for race-baiting (under your MLK flag) on March 25, 2013,  you carpet bombed PA with accusations that I am a racist, and this behavior intensified in 2018. The numbers doubled in 2019. This gives you racebaiter joy...and slowly,  the karma oozed like puss,  all the way to GA.

I warned you all through December. I wanted you to clean it up after your behavior spiked in 2018. To be continued, you dummy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The racist application of gun laws applies across the board.

That's not an answer. Let's try again.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Start with a yes or no.

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

the karma oozed like puss,  all the way to GA

So quote the offending post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The search function documents 30 references to Judge Taney, and another fifteen to Dred  Scott. WTF?

I haven't changed my opinion on that case.

Treating those you consider "immature" and "volatile" because of their skin color

Quote

... would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them 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.

I don't see the problem with extending those rights to black people, but then, I don't consider them immature and volatile because of their skin color either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not withstanding Jocelyn latent racism, this is an extremely stupid thread mostly populated by our two most tedious posters (Tom and Jocelyn)  that should have been aborted in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

So quote the offending post.

Does anyone know why MLK's permit was denied? I know the answer, but will entertain guesses. I am the dogballs, the voice of racial outcome on PA.

4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Start with a yes or no.

  • Give me a yes or no on Joyce Malcolm.
  • Give me a yes or no on John Lott.
  • You gave us a no on SYG and guess what, it has a terribly racist outcome. Good dogballs.

All the yapping you are doing about unjust laws was demonstrated recently, by the Miami Sentinel, wrt  stand your ground. SYG is "racist", you would say. It showed in the numbers.

 

So this is an emphatic YES, a roger for ya. Gotcha.

The gun laws and research blockage are set up in a way that blacks are getting the wrong end of all the gun violence. The outcome of your entire gun movement, and the PLCAA, and FOPA, and the Tiahrt nonsense, is racist enough to be fratricidal. Gain a clue soon, mate.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:
On 7/13/2019 at 5:12 AM, jocal505 said:

the karma oozed like puss,  all the way to GA

So quote the offending post.

Thank you so much for asking. The answer would be like a smorgasbord. 

You dropped this thread over the winter of 2014-15. I was pissed when your dumb ass dragged it up again. From the thread we are on...

 

 

KELO TOM GOES MIA:

Quote

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4932234

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, jocal505 said:

The Trail Cam thread was amazing, then was soiled, by your behavior.  

By something I said years before in another forum?

What made it amazing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jocal505 said:
  • Give me a yes or no on Joyce Malcolm.
  • Give me a yes or no on John Lott.

Yes, racist application of laws to either of them would be as wrong as it was with MLK or Dred Scott.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
1 hour ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Well, OK, let's quote SCOTUS Justices.

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? If your answer is "the gun lobby" you might want to check the date of the case.

Brilliant.

Tom Ray and Judge Taney walk into a bar.  Tom holds and folds Taney's coat. Toms finds a leather chair for the Justice.

Tom buys the drinks. Tom knods knowingly during the conversation. Tom buys a round for the house, and toasts the Justice.

Taney gives Tom the nod. 


Well, no, I don't agree with your idea that black people are immature and volatile and would likely tell the judge what my elk have said in this thread:

On 10/27/2014 at 6:13 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

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.”

If you're too lazy to look it up, execrable basically means shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:


Well, no, I don't agree with your idea that black people are immature and volatile and would likely tell the judge what my elk have said in this thread:

If you're too lazy to look it up, execrable basically means shitty.

You've spammed it twenty times, without personal growth as long as I've know you. What do I need to look up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

You weaponized more proliferation, using MLK, and even his church, as your toolz. 


I'm not responsible for the racist application of gun control in his case. I just pointed it out with disapproval.

It's sad that you can't voice disapproval of racist application of gun control, but I know that anything about "application of gun control" will meet with your approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:


I'm not responsible for the racist application of gun control in his case.

Nobody claimed that. Defensive much?

Quote

I just pointed it out with disapproval. 

From 2012 to 2015, you did exactly that, and only that, fifty times.

I contained myself. I remained mum until you coyly resurrected this thread.  I called you out on March 25, 2015. It was in April of that year you went ape shit with the race-baiter poo.

You asked about your worst offense in  this smoprgasboard of redneck jism. More proliferation contained four different racial slurs.

Here it is you fool, check the date. You are getting played by me and by Pavlovian behavior.

dred, Tom's  racebaiter grand slam.JPG

Quote

It's sad that you can't voice disapproval of racist application of gun control, but I know that anything about "application of gun control" will meet with your approval.

Yo, lay in the restrictions. Make them thick and thorough. Go after the industry immunity, begin with eighysixing the PLCA and the Dickey Amend,ment FFS. Then use RICO against the NRA. 

Expose CATO. Their elk are shitting guns into our homes, at their best, and a diarrhea of violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Q & A with the author of a new book about Clarence Thomas

Quote

 

...

Question: The epigraph to your book is taken from Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” (1952), a novel that explored the social and intellectual issues facing African Americans in the early 20th century: “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me … When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination – indeed, everything and anything except me.” How does this quote set the stage for what unfolds in your book?

Robin: While I was writing this book, I constantly had people, the most well meaning, liberal-minded people, tell me who Thomas is and what he thinks. It didn’t matter that their perceptions seldom matched reality. It didn’t matter that I was the one who was writing the book. They knew what they knew. They refused to listen, to look; they refused to hear or see. Their reactions reached beyond politics; it was almost as is if they had no curiosity about this man, had no need to know anything about him, even though he is longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court, and increasingly one of the more powerful members of that court.

The great bulk of the evidence I rely upon in my book is not hard to find or hidden away. It’s right there in Thomas’ opinions, which anyone can read on the web. Yet very few people read those opinions or even know that they exist, and when they do read them, whether as admirers or critics of Thomas, they don’t see what’s in them. They don’t hear the voice that’s speaking, they don’t see the man who’s speaking.

So here you have a man with the most distinctive voice of any justice on the court yet who remains completely unheard and completely unseen. As outrageous and tendentious as this may sound — and believe me, I came to this position quite slowly, and still say it with a certain amount of trepidation — it’s hard not to conclude that Clarence Thomas is the “Invisible Man” of the Supreme Court....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across an 1880 Supreme Court case in which they decided unanimously that "may issue" business licenses were a problem.

Yick Wo v Hopkins

There's a decent summary at this link: https://conlaw.us/case/yick-wo-v-hopkins-1886/

Quote

 

In 1880, San Francisco required business owners who operated laundries in wooden buildings to obtain a permit. At the time, about 95 percent of the city’s 320 laundries were located in wooden buildings. And approximately two-thirds of those laundries were owned by people of Chinese descent. Yick Wo (whose real name was Lee Yick) had operated a laundry business in a wooden building for more than two decades. In 1884, after an inspection, he received a license. The City determined that his “appliances for heating” were “not dangerous to the surrounding property from fire.” Yick sought to renew his license a year later, but the government denied his application.

Why was Yick not allowed to renew his license? The San Francisco ordinance allowed the government to deny the license for any reason, or no reason at all.

The modern term for that last sentence is that it was a "may issue" license. As in, may or may not, for any reason or no reason at all.

Of course, it's never really "no reason." The Supreme Court managed to figure out the reason in Yick Wo v Hopkins.

Quote

 

The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. And while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them and from two hundred others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, eighty others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which, in the eye of the law, is not justified. The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end,

The judgment of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Yick Wo, and that of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California in the case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Came across an 1880 Supreme Court case in which they decided unanimously that "may issue" business licenses were a problem.

Yick Wo v Hopkins

There's a decent summary at this link: https://conlaw.us/case/yick-wo-v-hopkins-1886/

Quote

 

In 1880, San Francisco required business owners who operated laundries in wooden buildings to obtain a permit. At the time, about 95 percent of the city’s 320 laundries were located in wooden buildings. And approximately two-thirds of those laundries were owned by people of Chinese descent. Yick Wo (whose real name was Lee Yick) had operated a laundry business in a wooden building for more than two decades. In 1884, after an inspection, he received a license. The City determined that his “appliances for heating” were “not dangerous to the surrounding property from fire.” Yick sought to renew his license a year later, but the government denied his application.

Why was Yick not allowed to renew his license? The San Francisco ordinance allowed the government to deny the license for any reason, or no reason at all.

The modern term for that last sentence is that it was a "may issue" license. As in, may or may not, for any reason or no reason at all.

Of course, it's never really "no reason." The Supreme Court managed to figure out the reason in Yick Wo v Hopkins.

Quote

 

The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. And while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them and from two hundred others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, eighty others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which, in the eye of the law, is not justified. The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end,

The judgment of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Yick Wo, and that of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California in the case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment.

 

I'm shocked!  Shocked I tells ya, that someone would use a permitting process in a discriminatory way.  

However, I would think @jocal505 would be onboard with denying gun licenses and permits to those who he thinks are more immature and more predisposed to violence than others based on genetic differences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 6:26 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm shocked!  Shocked I tells ya, that someone would use a permitting process in a discriminatory way.  

However, I would think @jocal505 would be onboard with denying gun licenses and permits to those who he thinks are more immature and more predisposed to violence than others based on genetic differences.  

I think he's more on board with doing the discrimination than with admitting to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2015 at 2:22 AM, jocal505 said:

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

Tom, you brought us back to your racebaiter thread. Good times. 

 

25 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I think he's more on board with doing the discrimination than with admitting to it.

Talk about good times, the core of my life passed in Jimi's neighborhood. I had a PA system and a van, didn't I, so Jimi's peer group would practice at my place, and I would drive them to their gigs.

Thirty years passed, I built treehouses for the neighbor kids. Taught them to balance on bikes, by clasping their coats. We laughed together, where no dogballs racebaiting was to be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2015 at 2:35 PM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites. 

 

4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Anyways, did you have a cozy MLK Day? Did you get the warm fuzzies?

How many of your redneck friends made it up to Richmond? 

I had a fine day. No one who agrees with you about the immaturity and volatility of black people disturbed my peace at all.

And yes, I still think the racist denial of his concealed weapons permit was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

And yes, I still think the racist denial of his concealed weapons permit was wrong.

Who doesn't? The problem is that your solution (that is, dictating "must issue")  is a non-sequitur. But even moreso, the running problem is that you present only a gun permit denial as the whole of your grasp of MLK. You just never manage to get the gold out of the bank, sport.

The whole of your grasp and presentation of Taney is a carbon copy of this. In an uncanny way, I might add, this is quite similar to the racially-based court briefs of the ex-armed freedom fighter Don Kates, the Libertarian writer: just a long,shallow puddle, without depth.

 

Anyway, I think Dogballs, he love the smell of MLK in the morning, when he isn't dropping turds on MLK's church. and when he isn't racebaiting away, with a giddy (but superior) Libertarian tone.

I figure he racebaiter thread could use a cut and paste.

Quote

O LET US RACE-BAIT, for the clicks and the dumbasses

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, and the NAACP; 
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakain, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8.  Judge Taney, thirty times, Dred Scott fifteen times, and the NAACP
  9. Cooing Chicago/claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems
  10. Did I mention the NAACP for +125 mentions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do ya think gunz could ever become an obsession? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2015 at 6:12 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I think Darren X makes more sense.

 

On 3/25/2015 at 2:44 PM, Tom Ray said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation
 

 
  Quote

...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.

 

This is Tom's brain, eleven days before Dylann Roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2015 at 1:06 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
  On 6/5/2015 at 12:41 PM, jocal505 said:

 

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

This exchange, twelve days before Dylann, happened during a flurry of forty days and nights of race-baiting, which led to 4.5 years of race-baiting.

At first, it wasn't fun. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 8:13 AM, jocal505 said:
On 1/22/2020 at 6:54 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

And yes, I still think the racist denial of his concealed weapons permit was wrong.

Who doesn't?

Anyone who wants to preserve the authority of sheriffs to discriminate for any reason at all.

You, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Anyone who wants to preserve the authority of sheriffs to discriminate for any reason at all.

You, for example.

The local authorities tend to know the actors, and they have access to local incident reports. And so naturally, LE wants a say in gun permits. It's their job to protect the public, and it's a no-brainer to apply selective discretion to gun permits in the public spaces.

PAGING HUMAN RESOURCES

Ah yes, gun rights on the street depend on the person issuing the permits. For example, these gun permit authorities should not be hiring race-baiter types as decision makers, IMO. Race-baiter types show signs of having incomplete racial understanding, they are tossing out warning signs, in spite of themselves.

Dogballs. Do we agree on this, so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2015 at 7:13 AM, jocal505 said:
On 5/2/2015 at 3:48 AM, Tom Ray said:
  On 4/2/2015 at 1:34 AM, Tom Ray said:
 

 

VIle. Absolutely disgusting. You have been promoting racial misunderstanding for thirty days.

Tom, we need to talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:
12 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

So yeah, there are bad cops in the world who can and do perpetrate some injustices. That's a problem with the cop, not the law, and the judge did what judges should do in such cases.

  

  

So profound. Now all you have to do is apply this to MLK’s gun permit denial.


You've lost me there. I was talking about a cop who broke the rules.

The sheriff who denied MLK's permit was acting within the law. And acting racist, IMO.

I continue to oppose giving cops the discretion to deny a permit because they don't like the race of the applicant. They should have to name a valid reason for a denial or issue the permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

You've lost me there. I was talking about a cop who broke the rules.

Yes. Just like the cops who assessed MLK’s permit application.

Your MLK permit denial tank is on empty, and you have stated why.

(Tom) That's a problem with the cop, not the law, and the judge did what judges should do in such cases.

May issue and hair braider hoops are not inherently racist. The granting or denial of a dog license isn’t either, but a cheeky racist official could use these valid, necessary processes for his own bias. 
If we deal with the immaturity of the rednecks, we hit the nail on the head. You are unfit for such positions cuz you ooze race-baiting twelve ways, in public.

 

********

Dog balls, how the heck is “Ernie”? Let’s play Wheel of Race-baiting with him for a few years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   On 3/25/2015 at 2:44 PM, Tom Ray said: 

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

 

 

  Quote 

...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.

 

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:
12 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

You've lost me there. I was talking about a cop who broke the rules.

The sheriff who denied MLK's permit was acting within the law. And acting racist, IMO.

Yes. Just like the cops who assessed MLK’s permit application.

No. Your ignorance of the problem with that kind of discretion doesn't make it go away.

He broke no rule because the rule was he "may or may not" issue a permit. He decided to go with "may not" which was completely legal and within his discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

If we deal with the immaturity of the rednecks, we hit the nail on the head. You are unfit for such positions cuz you ooze race-baiting twelve ways, in public.

he yank the dogballs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

(Tom) he (the official who probably denied MLK’s gun permit based on racial bias) broke no rule...

That is a lie, an intentional deception. It’s against the law, under color of authority, to employ personal bias in official duties. And seriously, back off, because someone needs to screen for the Boothies, and yo, they leave a trail on the net.

THEY FIRE THE DOGBALLS  Today, that MLK official’s web activity would be monitored by supervisors and journalists: any five days of fancy race-bating would sent him down the road.
 

MLK and Winkler and Dred and I are coup material; we are ust road kill for you. I look forward to year number six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

It’s against the law, under color of authority, to employ personal bias in official duties.

No, personal bias (though grabbers usually call it "discretion") is exactly what a "may issue" permit system is designed to allow.

Far from against the law, it is the law. That's what's wrong with the law, where such schemes exist. It was wrong then and it's wrong now, but completely legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

That is a lie, an intentional deception. It’s against the law, under color of authority, to employ personal bias in official duties.

If only you hadn't gone on, at length, telling us that it is acceptable for the police to reject a permit when they "feel" that the applicant shouldn't have one..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

No, personal bias (though grabbers usually call it "discretion") is exactly what a "may issue" permit system is designed to allow.

Far from against the law, it is the law. That's what's wrong with the law, where such schemes exist. It was wrong then and it's wrong now, but completely legal.

Extra flakey today.

I hope that Human Resources at the County Sheriff’s squad identifies and dismisses any race baiters before they do damage. Do you race-bait on Facebook?

Cite your wild smear, that personal bias is in the design of may issue, cuz Ian Stawicki. That nut job needed some scrutiny before acquiring all six of his large handgguns. He shot a kid I know, DTS. Flakes and Boothies can face PTP, all the best to them.

The discretion of local cops is what is behind may issue. The National computers are not set up to spot local troublemakers and all the un-checked DV miscreants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

If only you hadn't gone on, at length, telling us that it is acceptable for the police to reject a permit when they "feel" that the applicant shouldn't have one..

Have a cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Have a cite?

Are you denying that you have gone on at length about how awful shall issue is, and may issue is better?

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Cite your wild smear, that personal bias is in the design of may issue, cuz Ian Stawicki.

Oh, wait, you do seem to recall your position on the topic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Cite your wild smear, that personal bias is in the design of may issue,

OK.

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The discretion of local cops is what is behind may issue.

There you go. Thanks for making that so easy and being my source on this one.

You see, a sheriff may not have any objective or politically acceptable reason to deny an applicant but he may just think that

On 5/4/2015 at 2:35 PM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites. 


and want to deny someone who has the wrong skin color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

OK.

There you go. Thanks for making that so easy and being my source on this one.

You see, a sheriff may not have any objective or politically acceptable reason to deny an applicant but he may just think that


and want to deny someone who has the wrong skin color.

We had a discussion going, about MLK, which soon became personal race-baiting. Poor tools again. 

We find another Libertarian gaming the blacks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

You see, a sheriff may not have any objective or politically acceptable reason to deny an applicant but he may just think that

On 5/4/2015 at 11:35 AM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites. 

he summon the dogballs then he get the spew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this