Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I see. So it was necessary to take up arms against the King. No Tom, don't lie about it. No shots were fired. The front end never fell off The Glorious Revolution

YOU DON'T SEE. You see what you want to see. Your cherry-picked quote was one guy's opinion, and wise members of Parliament were way ahead of that guy. Armed violence did not rule in England, from where we inherited our rights.

Share this post


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

I thought it a worthy and relevant question when I asked it and when you did, but if you want to distract, I'll play along.

She said this:
 

I see. So it was necessary to take up arms against the King.

Umm... which arms? RABBIT HOLE ALERT Were individuals to go to the King's armory and say, "Let me have some weapons with which to fight the King"?

That seems to be Mitch's brilliant idea. The kind of brilliance you only get by refusing to consider any other points of view.

I think such requests might not go so well. So the answer to "which arms" would be "their arms." Same as the answer in the Miller case, by the way.

Provide a page number, mate, for some intelligent orientation and context.

No. I read ALL of the pages of such things. You provided the source. I suspect you're up to your usual trick of talking about something you haven't read.

If you want to know where in your source I got that language, you'll have to break with tradition and actually read it yourself instead of asking me to spoon feed you again.

Share this post


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

No. I read ALL of the pages of such things. You provided the source. I suspect you're up to your usual trick of talking about something you haven't read.

If you want to know where in your source I got that language, you'll have to break with tradition and actually read it yourself instead of asking me to spoon feed you again.

There is more stuff out there that we haven't read, than we have. Why are you nagging about my reading habits? Do they not work out for you? Too bad.

Have you read Priorities for Research? Have you read the two Dohahue studies, the follow-ups to the 2004 excoriation of John R. Lott? They find significant violent crime increases in eight new RTC states.

 

Have you read Koper, about the double digit figures of AW crime? Have you heard about Chicago having lower murder rates in the problem areas? Have you heard about DiFi's new kitty?

Have you read "Historiographical Crisis" By Patrick Charles? He has a road map to respect Heller and Macdonald as written, with adjustments for comprehensive history. 

Share this post


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

YOU DON'T SEE. You see what you want to see. Your cherry-picked quote was one guy's opinion, and wise members of Parliament were way ahead of that guy. Armed violence did not rule in England, from where we inherited our rights.

I'm sure those who were killed in the anti-catholic rioting that occurred during the protestant takeover were killed using a very peaceful method, Joe.

What kind of "history" textbook do you have that it would suggest an open revolt against the King caused zero deaths?

Share this post


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

Above and beyond what they considered to be their natural rights to fight tyranny, they laid out their legal right. Beyond their natural right, Blackstone summarized their five other, auxiliary rights:

  1. The right of fairness from the monarch. If this failed...
  2. The right of fairness of the Parliament. . If this failed...
  3. The right of redress through resolutions before the courts. If this failed...
  4. The right to enumerate resulting grievances. If this failed...
  5. The right to muster a militia and confront the unjust ruler with arms.

Ummm... which arms?

Did they have the right, after all those first four failed, to go to the obviously-tyrannical government and ask for guns from the armory with which to fight the government?

Or where were they supposed to get them? Maybe a US court case has the answer?

Quote

ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Ummm... which arms? RABBIT HOLE ALERT; the strawman fell into it

Fighting tyrants was an orderly process for the British. It was rather civilized. Wherever they were stored, those guns were the last resort, and they were not protected by the British laws of that day.

 

About Joe 's Reading Habits: We Find Historical Discrepancies Within "The Standard Model"

  1. Scalia can't quote Blackstone as support for sweeping gun confrontations in the streets, which is what Scalia did, using Joyce Malcolm.
  2. Scalia can't quote Lois Schwoerer at all, but he did. Schwoerer rejects the Standard Model outright, like MADD rejecting @Shootist Jeff.
  3. Malcolm describes the very reversal of the provisions of the Statute of Northampton (no riding armed into the markets), circa 1710. This policy swing and change in behavior would have left discussions, controversy, and legal conclusions galore. Where are they?
  4. Malcolm's Article VII of the Declaration of Rights was a gun control provision, as pertained to law. It appointed a subset of the population (ahem, landed male protestants), as justices of the peace. It allowed armed legal entourages for the wealthy few. It did not grant individual gun rights.
  5. Malcolm has never answered her critics, since 1983. A powerful body of well-sourced scholars has formally opposed "The Standard Model," and they weighed in formally, as an unambiguous group, within MacDonald, with no proper response. This makes Malcolm an outlier within her profession.
  6. Malcolm simply declared consensus, based on poorly corroborated assumptions. Her work is considered embarassing within her own profession.
  7.  If they were legal offenses, the repeated powder confiscations of Gage, Dartmouth, and Dunmore,  would have become grievances within the Declaration of Independence.
  8. If individual rights existed, editors and pamphleteers would have quoted the laws, chapter and verse, after 1774. If individual rights to arms and gunpowder existed, these governors would have faced legal difficulties. Each of these cases would have found its way into the courts.
  9. The Federalist 29 applies poorly to lone wolves and/or insurrection theory: Hamilton's bluster about armed confrontation was Blackstone's Fifth Auxiliary Right. Four peaceful efforts at resolution were to preceed parliamentary approval of armed militia action. Within the belief system of the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence was #4,  grievances.
  10. In Heller, Malcolm mangled the 1660's militia acts, and their context. She desperately presents gun rights in a skewed way, and out of context.
  11. DUTY TO RETREAT The standard for armed confrontation has been traditionally limited to the home. The Larry Pratt/SAF effort to promote lethal self defense use, for "confrontation," is a massive cultural degradation, and a cultural challenge of the established morality of "thou shalt not kill." 
  12. Reading is fun, and debunking is fun too. Pooplius needs to STFU about what I read.

Share this post


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

Fighting tyrants was an orderly process for the British. It was rather civilized. Wherever they were stored, those guns were the last resort, and they were not protected by the British laws of that day.

Keeping all guns only in the hands of the wealthy and powerful is a civilized approach. So is keeping all votes there. But we rejected it.

Quote

The right to muster a militia and confront the unjust ruler with arms.

With whose arms? Where were they to get them?

A right to confront a ruler with arms kinda means the people will need to get to those arms. "Some arms, wherever" isn't an answer and never was.

If you ever read Miller, you might learn the real answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 12:51 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 5/21/2018 at 4:09 PM, jocal505 said:

bove and beyond what they considered to be their natural rights to fight tyranny, they laid out their legal right. Beyond their natural right, Blackstone summarized their five other, auxiliary rights:

  1. The right of fairness from the monarch. If this failed...
  2. The right of fairness of the Parliament. . If this failed...
  3. The right of redress through resolutions before the courts. If this failed...
  4. The right to enumerate resulting grievances. If this failed...
  5. The right to muster a militia and confront the unjust ruler with arms.

Ummm... which arms?

Did they have the right, after all those first four failed, to go to the obviously-tyrannical government and ask for guns from the armory with which to fight the government?

Or where were they supposed to get them? Maybe a US court case has the answer?

Quote

ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

BA

ZING

A

!

Share this post


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

BA

ZING

A

!

This ^^^ is the response of an intellectual powerhouse, certainly one of the finest minds on Political Anarchy. The straw man got a Bazinga, from Simple Jeff. The word was easy to type.

 

You are a farmer in Colonial, Virginia, and you favor the tumultuous views of the Adams brothers. The governor sends men who smash up your gun and ask where your friends store their powder. When they leave, do you take the jerks to court?

 

The underlying discussion here is this question: were personal arms and powder protected by law during Colonial times?

The answer is evidently not, since no court case bothered to implement any such law to protect colonial powder, or to discipline forces which would smack the gun locks on battlefield weapons, our personal .22's. The answer is evidently not, since no grievance in the Declaration mentions illegal powder confiscation or smashing the moving parts of firearms.

Share this post


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

The underlying discussion here is this question: were personal arms and powder protected by law during Colonial times?

The underlying answer is:  Who fucking cares what was or was not protected during colonial times?  The fact is the FF's wanted arms protected, hence they fucking wrote and enacted the 2A.  

End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2018 at 5:56 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

No. I read ALL of the pages of such things.  i.e.TO HOLD AND BEAR ARMS, by Lois Schwoerer, 35 pgs.

Hmmm, you have read this 35 pages of Schwoerer,  you say.  Well, I'm honest: I haven't read the whole thing. I know of it by reputation, by what others have summarized from it.

I think I'll read it, and we can toss it around.:ph34r:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

The underlying discussion here is this question: were personal arms and powder protected by law during Colonial times?

The underlying answer is:  Who fucking cares what was or was not protected during colonial times? ANTONIN SCALIA  The fact is the FF's wanted arms protected, hence they fucking wrote and enacted the 2A.  

End of story.

Gotcha. The basis of Heller was supposed to be that we were copying English gun laws. It was hogwash.

Joyce in her prime.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The underlying answer is:  Who fucking cares what was or was not protected during colonial times?  The fact is the FF's wanted arms protected, hence they fucking wrote and enacted the 2A.  

End of story.

It's an amendment, amend it. 

Getting a bit potty-mouth there Jeffy.  Never see me doing that shit stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2015 at 9:39 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Any idea why MLK's application for a CWP was denied?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 3/27/2015 at 8:39 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Any idea why MLK's application for a CWP was denied?

 

Well at least joe finally answers a direct question ^^  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having a lot in the way of edumacation,  US Reichistas often think that all leftists are pacifists . . 

As in their "punch a pacifist in the nose" fantasy . . thinking that they can strike a leftist with no consequences. 

As the posts above show, it is a serious mistake to make such a conflation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 5:11 AM, random said:

It's an amendment, amend it. 

It is not.

It is part of the Bill of Rights,  which were incorporated as integral before ratification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 10:11 PM, random said:
On 5/23/2018 at 10:53 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

The underlying answer is:  Who fucking cares what was or was not protected during colonial times?  The fact is the FF's wanted arms protected, hence they fucking wrote and enacted the 2A.  

End of story.

It's an amendment, amend it. 

 

4 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

It is not.

It is part of the Bill of Rights,  which were incorporated as integral before ratification.

Nice try Mike, but you get a fail.  The post referred to 2A.

Amend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any librarians in the house who could explain " part of the Bill of Rights"  ?

 

 , after that, look under "western idioms" for  ",,, and the hoss ya rode in on, too."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

As in their "punch a pacifist in the nose" fantasy . . thinking that they can strike a leftist with no consequences. 

"Their" implies there are at least two people with the view you put in quotes.

I've never heard of anyone with that fantasy. Who are these people? Do you have a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. the 2nd Amendment: The British are not about to come sailing over the horizon to take America back. No need for a farmer's militia supplying their own weapons.

That issue became irrelevant about the same time people stopped burning witches.

Share this post


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

Re. the 2nd Amendment: The British are not about to come sailing over the horizon to take America back. No need for a farmer's militia supplying their own weapons.

That issue became irrelevant about the same time people stopped burning witches.

That's nice. The second amendment repeal thread is over here. Maybe you can talk badlat into letting you in on the secret of how you could join him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogballs me old mate, I don't care a fuck about your gun laws. I don't live there, so it's none of my business.

Just stating a fact: the original premise for the 2A was the clear and present danger of the Brits trying to reclaim their colony, and the inability of the new nation to equip and train a large enough standing army.

Attempting to disarm the citizens of the USA now is fantasy. You're stuck with a gun-loving culture and the resulting near-weekly random massacres, and the daily toll of individual shootings.

Enjoy your freedom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

"Their" implies there are at least two people with the view you put in quotes.

I've never heard of anyone with that fantasy. Who are these people? Do you have a source?

Question about evil-assed Reichistas who fantasize about assaulting pacifists. . . easily answered

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/how-to-educate-a-pacifist/80566782/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Happy said:

Just stating a fact: the original premise for the 2A was the clear and present danger of the Brits trying to reclaim their colony, and the inability of the new nation to equip and train a large enough standing army.

Yes, but there had been unresolved internal strife, as well, with an extended rebellion. You are correct, and Jefferson saw the inadequacy of the militia.

The miitia did not work for Jefferson. The militia didn't work from the get-go, so it is plaintive and empty to try to hide behind the militia today.

The 1792 NATIONAL MILITIA ACT, the Second Amendment, and Individual Militia Rights:

A Legal and Historical Perspective 70pgs https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705564

 

6 hours ago, Happy said:

Attempting to disarm the citizens of the USA now is fantasy. You're stuck with a gun-loving culture and the resulting near-weekly random massacres, and the daily toll of individual shootings.

If you were correct here, Tommie Dogballs would remain silent day and night. 

A slow awakening is happening. Moderate voices are now active of PA, as one example. The brosad support in the courts for gun restrictions is a second. The awakening of the American public, with school shootings and high school activism as unlikely players, is a third. The front pages are laying it out plainly, and: rampage shootings will never be accepted.

Where is the bloolbath, as predicted? Five cities are now having similar problems with guns.

Quote

Six people were fatally shot in a 24-hour span in St. Louis. The violent stretch began just after dawn on Sunday, when a 33-year-old woman was found shot to death in a car in the Missouri city, which has the country’s highest homicide rate.

The USA is not this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:
On 9/26/2018 at 4:22 AM, dogballs Tom said:

"Their" implies there are at least two people with the view you put in quotes.

I've never heard of anyone with that fantasy. Who are these people? Do you have a source?

Question about evil-assed Reichistas who fantasize about assaulting pacifists. . . easily answered

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/how-to-educate-a-pacifist/80566782/

Umm... one guy is not plural. That would be two or more.

And the one guy labeled that post a joke, so you're really down to about half a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2014 at 2:47 AM, dogballs Tom said:

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.

This was the OP, four years ago. How are we doing on this? ;)

This thread needs art from Tom, from yesterday. Tom has an active, ongoing conversation going on within this community. I am checking on the progress, if any.

dred-scott.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 8:26 AM, jocal505 said:

This was the OP, four years ago. How are we doing on this?

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

When the topic is _your_ racist statements, you tend to ignore them - or you use the "I can't be racist, I've got friends who are black" defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2015 at 10:53 AM, jocal505 said:

(SIX WEEKS BEFORE DYLANN) 

Tom, thanks for showing us how the U.S. gun problem is convoluting among blacks. The gun bloodbath you are denying is showing among parts of the socially frustrated black community. It speaks to the danger of the acceptance of guns.

 

The brothers' dynamic (social and economic frustration) is barely comparable to white gun mentality (which is composed of right-wing and insurrectionist-type belief systems). Both are misguided, IMO.

 

One can always find an exception or anomaly to a study conclusion (and you make a cottage industry of it). But to find such an exception does not disprove the overall evidence-based conclusion.

 

Tom Ray, your sustained race-baiting is trollish behavior. It adds nothing to the conversation. It displays a petty mind, one lost in blaming and misunderstanding.

 

Do us a favor. You are MLK curious. Go read a good book about that amazing man.

  @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.

@.22 Tom  too, <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

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

Why? Do we not we want a black man’s experience to cloud up the conversation a bunch of white guys are having about blacks and guns? 

The advert part was a small paragraph at the end of that essay. Which by the way also shows how much it takes to buy a gun in Detroit. It’s not as easy as the left will make it out to be. 

But please go right ahead and discount my African American friend’s experience. I’m sure Joe will be around in a minute and tell us how he should think. 

Share this post


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

your sustained race-baiting is trollish behavior.

It was nice to read that you have a long, proud history of crying "race-baiting" every time someone asks a question of you.

Well, maybe you shouldn't be _that_ proud of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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