Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

There's only two types of countries on this planet;

 

1). Those that use the metric system.

 

2). And those that have gone to the Moon.

 

Wow, was that a good move? Seems to be a few citizens getting a bit hungry.

 

(CNSNews.com) - The number of beneficiaries on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—AKA food stamps--has topped 46,000,000 for 38th straight months, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).Jan 13, 2015

 

BTW. Americans don't have a problem using the metric system where it really matters ... money. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is not a complete list, by any means. But these significant developments in the gun culture show that Tom's history is lies.

This "message" is shameless bullshit.

 

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

...

 

 

I suppose I should have provided a citation. American Bar Association

 

...Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.

 

“They recognized this was a good case and D.C. was the perfect place,” says plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute. “That’s what concerned them.”

 

Levy, who is bankrolling and pushing Heller to the Supreme Court out of his own pocket and on his own time, says the NRA first sent two lawyers to try to dissuade him from filing the case. After that failed, Levy says the NRA tried to hijack the case by filing a competing case, then trying to consolidate the two.

 

To boot, Levy says, the NRA supports congressional legislation to repeal the gun ban, which could render Heller moot. He also wonders why the NRA waited more than 25 years to challenge the 1976 D.C. ordinance.

...

How in the heck did Justice Taney get this idea years before there was an evil, racist NRA to spread it?

 

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.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1965 The official position of the DOJ on the Second Amendment:

2001

(Note: Ashcroft became Bush's AG in Jan. 2001. The Emerson Decision had been appealed by the DOJ as he took sworn office to uphold existing laws.)

Text of Ashcroft letter to Jon Baker, May 17,2001

(...) "While some have argued the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise.

(…)Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view comports with all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. (Fed. 46 and 29) Note: neither touches on individual gun rights, as claimed

 

First of all jo-fuck-all, the "offical position of the DOJ doesn't count for diddly squat.

 

Secondly you are lying again. Federalist 46 and 29 specifically state it is an individual rights. Do you not even know how to fucking read? have you actually read either of those papers or just what some Liberal wrote about them in some anti-gun talking point???

 

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

 

 

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Chapter Third: Marchamont Nedham, Errors of Government and Rules of Policy, 1787; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) 10 volumes, Volume 6

 

 

Jocal. You are no gentleman. That you continue to lie, either by omission or commission - says all I need to know about your character.

 

 

Note: you are pretty big on using the "liar" word.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164031&p=4874708

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=156707&p=4563058

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164031&p=4876329

 

Come on. Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

 

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Note: Madison's descriptions in the previous paragraph speak of state militias, following state-appointed officers. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46>

 

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

 

...Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.

 

“They recognized this was a good case and D.C. was the perfect place,” says plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute. “That’s what concerned them.”

 

Levy, who is bankrolling and pushing Heller to the Supreme Court out of his own pocket and on his own time, says the NRA first sent two lawyers to try to dissuade him from filing the case. After that failed, Levy says the NRA tried to hijack the case by filing a competing case, then trying to consolidate the two.

 

To boot, Levy says, the NRA supports congressional legislation to repeal the gun ban, which could render Heller moot. He also wonders why the NRA waited more than 25 years to challenge the 1976 D.C. ordinance.

...

 

In this post, Tom is confirming the CATO institute's financing of Heller.

Levy was way ahead of the NRA. They bickered for a while.

 

Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller

In 2002, Levy began recruiting plaintiffs for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit against the District of Columbia. Although Levy has never owned a gun himself, he was interested in the issue as a constitutional scholar and believer in individual rights. He teamed up with Clark M. Neily III of the Institute for Justice and began finding and vetting District residents who had a legitimate and appealing reason for wanting a gun for self defense at home. They eventually settled on six residents: Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. They tried to select a diverse group, and ended with men and women, black and white, and a variety of income levels. Levy only knew Palmer, a colleague at Cato, and none of the six knew each other before the case.

 

I can source the rift between Levy and Gura better than Tom can.

One faction of the NRA was opposed to Levy's timing...but not his bottom line on distorting the Second Amendment.

 

Whatever. Look at the legislative body of work the NRA was simultaneously employing.

It relied on constitutional basis. That basis was found by hi-jacking the Second Amendment.

They got the DOJ on their side (via Ashcroft), and then Heller was the result...six years later.

Levy used those six years to manufacture non-peer reviewed constitutional scholarship.

The constitutional cites quoted by Ashcroft (and organized by David Hardy for FOPA) are shoddy.Levy's work isn't much better.

 

But the NRA trumpeted Second Amendment claims, and paid money to twist its history, through the seventies, eighties, and nineties.

Long before Heller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

 

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

 

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

 

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

 

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

 

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

 

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

 

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

 

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful? Straw man alert.

 

 

YOUR POSITION IS A SHAM.

 

Tom, these much-quoted Federalist papers forced you to expose that neither Madison nor Hamilton had spoken up for individual rights, as such. And Madison's view suggested private guns were inadequate: he openly doubted that privately owned guns were enough, but combined with state authority, both could challenge a standing army.

 

I am not a scholar of the Federalist papers by any means---but I can read. Look at both. Those pieces are not about any thrust for individual gun rights. On the contrary. One (Federalist 46) stresses state authority over militia, the other (Federalist 29) begs for national authority. It questions the motives of the Tom Rays of his day, too.

 

To ask which weapon (of two) would be "more useful" in a militia fracas is to visualize an inspection, by state authority, of your armed (tee hee) POSSE COMITATUS. In making such an argument, you just flip-flopped on individual gun rights, as such.

 

But to answer your strawman question, your preferred militia weapon would be something powerful, like an RPG, or a tank with a trained crew. Jeffie could show up in a joint strike fighter. See where this is going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

 

You mean Democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

 

You mean Democrats?

 

 

Cmon now - don't be like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

 

1.Please don't mis-state my focus, since you are a cut above many on this board.

2.The SA Gun Club is perpetuating gun violence.

 

First off, I don't find you guys responsible, whatsoever. "Responsible" is when you follow through on your own (meaning AGIC's) adamant insistence on efficacious action.

You want evidence-based, proven policy, you claim, but have not ante'd up to make it possible.

You're not strong enough, or bold enough (or responsible enough), to support public gun research on these boards.

Under the circumstances, to let Tom Ray's lies (repeated claims about "no research blockage") persist is damning.

It's just not responsible, considering.

 

Same for the entire SA Gun Club, and Gun Club Choir. Meanwhile, catastrophic gun carnage, a global aberration among developed countries, continues.

You can't be "responsible" and let gun extremists steer this boat onto the reefs, too.

 

I am a once-proud gunowner. My focus has been to point out to irresponsible gun owners that they are feeding, and supporting, a deadly gun problem. For guns.

 

Tomadvocacyandabignose_zps1252a248.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm moving my guess on when JokeAwf self-murderates himself. I doubt he's gonna make it to Thanksgiving....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - with this reply, you have proven once and for all that you are simply beyond reason. You rant/rave about "the culture of the gun", and support looking for a solution everywhere EXCEPT at the source of the problem. Your perspective is that of an insular, myopic, willfully obtuse individual, and I'm simply finished trying to afford you the modicum of respect that intelligent, differing opinions deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - with this reply, you have proven once and for all that you are simply beyond reason. You rant/rave about "the culture of the gun", and support looking for a solution everywhere EXCEPT at the source of the problem. Your perspective is that of an insular, myopic, willfully obtuse individual, and I'm simply finished trying to afford you the modicum of respect that intelligent, differing opinions deserve.

 

The "source of the gun violence problem":

15% is criminal activity. 85% is made up of everyday homeowners who turn to a nearby gun during a conflict.

 

Guy, step it up. You are dodging like TR.

For about the tenth time in our exchanges, you have avoided the crux of the matter: is it not irresponsible to block open, scientific solution?

 

The real issue, IMO, will be any changes in the gun culture after public acceptance of the data. We aren't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pulled those numbers out of your fuking ass, didn't you? Or do have a legit cite for your 15/85 ratio of shooters that we can see?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly the response I knew you had----nothing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pulled those numbers out of your fuking ass, didn't you? Or do have a legit cite for your 15/85 ratio of shooters that we can see?...

 

You are a tedious sort. Like a little yapper dog, barking away, with no reading skills.

I had an epic go-round with Jeffie about this. He fell kinda silent.

The sources were re-developed, and posted a few more times, too.

 

 

The figures in any variety of sources will range, but all will show that stranger danger is a minority of the problem.

Read the material, Senor Mariachi. I am getting tired of posting this.

Source 1.

You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time.

(see large graph in pic file under "murder by stranger".

Pasted from <http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=1177>

Source 2.

Supplementary Homicide Reports

Based on data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), among homicides in which the victim-offender relationship could be determined, strangers committed between 21 percent and 27 percent of homicides from 1993 to 2008, compared to between 73 percent and 79 percent of homicides committed by offenders known to the victims.

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vvcs9310pr.cfm>

Source 3. Violent Victimization Committed By Strangers, 1993-2010

Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

December 11, 2012 NCJ 239424

Presents findings on the rates and levels of violent victimization committed by offenders who were strangers to the victims, including homicide, rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The report presents annual trends and compares changes across three 6-year periods in the incidence and type of violence committed by strangers from 1993 through 2010. It describes the characteristics of victims and circumstances of the violent crime. The nonfatal violent victimization estimates were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The homicide data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1993 through 2008.

Highlights:

  • In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
  • In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
  • From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.

About the Source Data

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4557>

Source 4. The Top 5 Murders by Relationship to the Victim in the United States

Note: strangers and criminals fail to make the FBI's top five:

Relationship (victim)/Number of Murders(2011)/Percentage of Total Murders:

1 Acquaintence

2,700

21.3%

2 Wife

552

4.3%

3 Girlfriend

474

3.7%

4 Friend

377

2.97%

5 Other family

279

2.2%

Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2011.

List Notes: Data is relationship of victim to offender (according to the data killers kill acquaintances far more than they kill fellow co-workers for example). Data is latest available data for the year 2012. Figures are based on 12,664 murders in the United States in 2011 for whom supplemental homicide data was received. Murder as defined here includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The relationship categories of husband and wife include both common-law and ex-spouses.

i

  1. Out of 13,636 murders studied in the United States, 30.2% of the victims were murdered by persons known to them (4,119 victims), 13.6% were murdered by family members (1,855 victims), 12.3% were murdered by strangers (1,676 victims) and 43.9% of the relationships were unknown (investigators were not able to establish any relationship).
  2. Murders were the least frequent violent victimization of all categories -- about 5 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 2009.
  3. The number of homicides where the victim/offender relationship was undetermined has been increasing since 1999 but has not reached the levels experienced in the early 1990s. Between the years 1976 and 2005 the following facts were found: about one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant, 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers, and spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.

Source 5. WHEN MURDERS ARE NOT COMMITTED BY STRANGERS

Which is most of the time March 27, 2011

(NATIONAL) -- It might surprise many of us to know that only 15% of all murders are committed at random by a stranger; someone who does not know the victim.

And even then, the two people usually have mutual friends and acquaintances, which explains why the killer and the victim are in the same place at the same time.

Yet many assume that most murders are committed by strangers and view the discovery that a murder is not random as news.

And why would that be?

Well, it turns out, writes Christopher Beam in a new piece on Slate about the recent killing of Jayna Murray at the Lululemon Athletica store in Bethesda, Md., the FBI is partly to blame. In the early 1990s, the bureau released a report claiming that half of all homicides were committed by strangers.

But unfortunately that report was flawed.

The media is partly to blame as well. Murders don't typically make big news unless there's something unusual about them. And by covering random crime, in an often sensational way, news outfits help to create the impression that most crime is random.

Beam’s piece can be read HERE

Pasted from <http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/WHEN-MURDERS-ARE-NOT-COMMITTED-BY-STRANGERS-br-Which-is-most-of-the-time-625525>

Source 6. The FBI Uniform Crime Report will give you an answer of a sort, but only two out of three homicides are ‘solved by arrest.’

If you click on the link immediately above you will find there were 12,996 murder victims but the relationship between the murderer and victim were “unknown” in 4,656 of those. That does not mean that the victim was killed by a stranger, only that the killer is “unknown to the police.” So there is really not enough data to provide a defensible answer to the question.

That said, statistical analysis pegs the most likely number between 1800 (14%) to 2200 (17%) a year.

Stranger

Pasted from <http://extranosalley.com/?p=25008>

Source 7. Percentage of murders are convicted by a stranger?

In probably upwards of 80 or 90-percent of homicides, there is some sort of relationship.

Pasted from <http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-murders-are-convicted-by-a-stranger>

Source 8. appendix Table 16

Percents for victim/offender relationship in homicides,

1993–2008

Total Offenders

known /Unknown relationships /Strangers

1993 100% 45.8% 39.7% 14.5%

1994 100% 46.3 40.1 13.6

1995 100% 44.4 40.0 15.7

1996 100% 47.2 38.1 14.7

1997 100% 45.9 40.3 13.8

1998 100% 47.5 38.7 13.8

1999 100% 46.7 40.9 12.4

2000 100% 43.2 43.0 13.8

2001 100% 40.8 45.5 13.7

2002 100% 41.6 43.8 14.6

2003 100% 41.5 45.6 13.0

2004 100% 41.3 45.2 13.5

2005 100% 39.2 46.3 14.5

2006 100% 40.8 46.0 13.2

2007 100% 39.3 47.2 13.5

2008 100% 41.7 45.4 12.8

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicides Reports,

Uniform Crime Reports, 1993–2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

Source 9: Wolfgang Abstract, shootings by familiar people

In 1958, Wolfgang published his seminal work examining criminal homicide cases that occured in Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952. This work was the beginning of an extensive body of literature focusing on the victim-offender relationship in homicides. Wolfgang and subsequent researchers consistently found that homicides tended to be intra-racial, intra-gender, and occurring overwhelmingly between relatives and friends.

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047235288900335>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

 

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

 

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

 

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

 

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful? Straw man alert.

 

 

YOUR POSITION IS A SHAM.

 

Tom, these much-quoted Federalist papers forced you to expose that neither Madison nor Hamilton had spoken up for individual rights, as such. And Madison's view suggested private guns were inadequate: he openly doubted that privately owned guns were enough, but combined with state authority, both could challenge a standing army.

 

I am not a scholar of the Federalist papers by any means---but I can read. Look at both. Those pieces are not about any thrust for individual gun rights. On the contrary. One (Federalist 46) stresses state authority over militia, the other (Federalist 29) begs for national authority. It questions the motives of the Tom Rays of his day, too.

 

To ask which weapon (of two) would be "more useful" in a militia fracas is to visualize an inspection, by state authority, of your armed (tee hee) POSSE COMITATUS. In making such an argument, you just flip-flopped on individual gun rights, as such.

 

But to answer your strawman question, your preferred militia weapon would be something powerful, like an RPG, or a tank with a trained crew. Jeffie could show up in a joint strike fighter. See where this is going?

 

 

 

Its like jocal is having a conversation with himself. You point out something so obviously like the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" and he will turn around and argue that those same people who wrote that didn't want people to own their own guns. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, etc. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And its more than a little

 

CREE

 

PEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

 

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

 

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

 

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

 

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful? Straw man alert.

 

 

YOUR POSITION IS A SHAM.

 

Tom, these much-quoted Federalist papers forced you to expose that neither Madison nor Hamilton had spoken up for individual rights, as such. And Madison's view suggested private guns were inadequate: he openly doubted that privately owned guns were enough, but combined with state authority, both could challenge a standing army.

 

I am not a scholar of the Federalist papers by any means---but I can read. Look at both. Those pieces are not about any thrust for individual gun rights. On the contrary. One (Federalist 46) stresses state authority over militia, the other (Federalist 29) begs for national authority. It questions the motives of the Tom Rays of his day, too.

 

To ask which weapon (of two) would be "more useful" in a militia fracas is to visualize an inspection, by state authority, of your armed (tee hee) POSSE COMITATUS. In making such an argument, you just flip-flopped on individual gun rights, as such.

 

But to answer your strawman question, your preferred militia weapon would be something powerful, like an RPG, or a tank with a trained crew. Jeffie could show up in a joint strike fighter. See where this is going?

 

 

 

Its like jocal is having a conversation with himself. You point out something so obviously like the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" and he will turn around and argue that those same people who wrote that didn't want people to own their own guns. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, etc. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And its more than a little

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

 

KREEEEEEE---------PEEEEEEE..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these gun threads that JokeAwf joins in on eventually just turn into really bad psychotic versions of Alice In Wonderland.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its like jocal is having a conversation with himself. You point out something so obviously like the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" and he will turn around and argue that those same people who wrote that didn't want people to own their own guns. I hold no such view. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, etc. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And its more than a little

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

Q. In objective context, is this phrase the thrust of either Federalist 46 or Federalist 29?

 

 

the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves"

 

A. No, the source of the arms is not the thrust of either. The two essays, Federalists 46 and 29, laid out (and justified) state and federal authority over militia resources.

 

You are merely cherry picking a phrase.

I repeat: neither piece forms an individual rights interpretation of the second amendment.

Far from it. You and Tom and Ashcroft are bulshitters.

 

You once broadly tossed out the authority of "the Federalist Papers". But so far you can't quote individual self defense rights within them. Or the independent confrontation of tyrants, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federalist 29:

 

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

 

Boiled down:

 

The militia, meaning the "great body of yeomanry and other classes of citizens" will not be well-regulated, but we should at least make sure that they possess appropriate weapons.

 

Which is more appropriate, Jocal, an AR-15 or a 9 round .22 revolver?

 

My favorite type of question: one you won't answer and one to which the answer is obvious to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just a roving band of thugs.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is more appropriate, Jocal, an AR-15 or a 9 round .22 revolver?

My favorite type of question: one you won't answer and one to which the answer is obvious to all.

 

Have you stopped beating your wife lately?

Tom, grow up. The Badgeless Pedant is droning a trick, either/or question, framed by a fallacy within its own format.

Either answer, I suppose (in your unfair parameter of either/or), could be taken on one of your off-road excursions.

 

Please remember that gun violence is a complex problem, and will require complex approaches and solutions.

And please consider that your enemy prefers weapons escalation, too.

 

Lastly, I answered your unimpressive third grader question.

--My superior form of patriotism cannot be contained by just huffing the swamp gas, or by your either/or weapon choices.

--Besides, why the whoosh to militia focus? What happened to your phony, post-fabricated "core purpose" and self defense and individual rights, blah blah ALEC blah?

--The self-puffery in your imaginary militia is quite repulsive to me, but aye, the most powerful weapon would be the best choice.

--ANNOUNCEMENT: I have decided to ride with Jeffie, in a Modern Sporting Joint Strike Fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just. F'ng. Wow....

 

I know.

 

CREE PEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually read Jocals last post and yet again it says nothing. It is literally ramblings.

 

Jocal have you stopped taking you thorazine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow. Just. F'ng. Wow....

 

I know.

 

CREE PEE

 

 

 

There's some serious fuking unhingement going on there, a la DT. Only worsier.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually read Jocals last post and yet again it says nothing. It is literally ramblings.

 

Jocal have you stopped taking you thorazine?

Yeah, I think that's the absolute worst part about jocal, other than he's batshit crazy, is that he types a lot and actually says very little. Snaglish is easier to read and comprehend. Jocal just rambles. He rarely has a point and he talks past you rather than talking to you. Its more of a sermon than it is a discussion. A painful disjointed sermon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Though authorities did not release the names of the victims, the church’s pastor, Clementa Pinckney, who is also a South Carolina state senator, was missing after the shooting, and some members of the congregation feared the worst. Indeed, House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford said Pinckney was among the dead, and friends started posting “RIP” condolences on social media.

 

Motives matter, bgytr. A state Senator was killed, which could be a political assassination. He was also a pastor, which could be a religious assassination. Or it could be something else. I hope they catch him.

 

Tom, the shooter would have enjoyed your thread, This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed.

Yes, this problem is often a question of degree.

 

Tom, what was up with your fascination with Rev. Mosteller, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?

My sixth inquiry.

 

 

 

If you have questions about my posts in this thread, find the posts, hit the "reply" button, and ask them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Though authorities did not release the names of the victims, the church’s pastor, Clementa Pinckney, who is also a South Carolina state senator, was missing after the shooting, and some members of the congregation feared the worst. Indeed, House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford said Pinckney was among the dead, and friends started posting “RIP” condolences on social media.

 

Motives matter, bgytr. A state Senator was killed, which could be a political assassination. He was also a pastor, which could be a religious assassination. Or it could be something else. I hope they catch him.

 

Tom, the shooter would have enjoyed your thread, This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed.

Yes, this problem is often a question of degree.

 

Tom, what was up with your fascination with Rev. Mosteller, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?

My sixth inquiry.

 

 

If you have questions about my posts in this thread, find the posts, hit the "reply" button, and ask them here.

 

 

You sound upset. Are you feeling a need to segregate your dumbassery thread-by-thread this week?

 

I did ask the "Why Rev. Mosteller?" question here. See post 198.

 

Rev. Mosteller of the S.C.L.C. got fed up enough to mention his right to a weapon. Why bring that up? What does that indicate to you?

You failed to answer the question here, or anywhere.

 

Rev. Mosteller is pertinent to the church shooting of a peaceful black minister (and eight others) in Charleston, SC.

You want to devalue him, and marginalize the values of his Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

But your elk seem to have burned him out, mate.

 

Tom Ray, your snarky racial misunderstandings, and the mocking of Rev. Mosteller here, and here, were working better last week than this week.

 

Do carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Holy shit, that's the most relevant and thoughtful thing you've EVER posted here, jocal. Wonders never cease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Rev. Mosteller of the S.C.L.C. got fed up enough to mention his right to a weapon. Why bring that up? What does that indicate to you?

You failed to answer the question here, or anywhere.

 

Rev. Mosteller is pertinent to the church shooting of a peaceful black minister (and eight others) in Charleston, SC.

You want to devalue him, and marginalize the values of his Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

But your elk seem to have burned him out, mate.

 

Tom Ray, your snarky racial misunderstandings, and the mocking of Rev. Mosteller here, and here, were working better last week than this week.

 

Do carry on.

 

 

You already have your own answer, so why ask when you're happy with the motivation you invented for me?

 

Of course you don't quote my actual post, which seems to me directed much more toward devaluing Bloomberg and his idea that blacks need to be thrown up against a wall and frisked.

 

Maybe the meaning will be more clear with use of the sarcasm font.

 

 

 

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.

 

 

These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like a discussion with a child.

You have dodged to armed Black Panthers, to thread purity, and to Michael Bloomberg.

You have pulled out the narcissism font, too.

But you still haven't answered the question...on the thread where you requested it.

 

Why did you introduce us to Rev. Mosteller?

What insights can you share with us now, after the Charleston church shootings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he was right and Bloomberg is wrong.

 

I'd say trying to shoot Rev. Mosteller seems like a pretty dangerous proposition compared to trying to shoot someone who is known to oppose carrying weapons.

 

About as dangerous as trying to shoot MLK even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. Tom, what did you just learn in Charleston SC, with the massacre of nine fine citizens?

 

A. Your answer is so cryptic as to be unclear.

 

"Because he was right..." Please explain, since Rev. Mosteller showed two frames of mind. Which one was "right?"

He was recalled for stooping to the level of the second amendment. When last seen, he was in a photo-op with his NAACP boss, sheepishly accepting a sabbatical.

 

It's a sad story, for which I wish I had more details. What was Mosteller reacting to? What was grinding on him? There is so much to be learned here...especially following a gun attack on a peaceful Minister and his key group.

Giving Mosteller and a gun is not the take-home, Tom.

 

"Bloomberg was wrong..." Please explain. Bloomberg cannot be defined by stop-and-search...except in a pea-brain.

Bloomberg was sent ricin on behalf of the 2nd A, and has received death threats.

His gracious reply? Something like "There are MANY belief systems in play in the USA."

 

 

 

These men are trying hard to be bigger than gun violence (which comes cheaply). My hat is off to them..may they never grow weary.

Their lives and beliefs show us a viable, compassionate approach to equality in the future.

 

The core of black folk may the spiritual core of our fine nation, IMHO.

Many of their tempered, peaceful souls got beyond oppression long ago.

Gospel music flat-out displays this in our culture.

 

You want to strap a gun on Revs. Mosteller and Pinkney? That would Tomfoolery.

To suggest guns for their elk shows some serious disconnect in play. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Bloomberg was wrong..." Please explain.

 

OK. When he said that the way to control the yoots was to throw them up against the wall and frisk them, he was wrong. He was wrong because that's dehumanizing, though it's dehumanizing in favor of gun control so Mark K won't notice. He was wrong because that's unconstitutional, though unconstitutional in favor of gun control so you won't say shit.

 

Someone has to say he's wrong and what he's advocating is racist.

 

And it looks like that someone has to be me since you aren't going to speak out against such language and tactics by your allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More proliferation

"Currently, 54 percent of blacks say gun ownership does more to protect people than endanger personal safety, nearly double the percentage saying this in December 2012 (29 percent)," said the Pew analysis. "By contrast, whites' views have shown less change: 62 percent now view guns as doing more to protect people, up from 54 percent in December."

Mr. Blanchard, a licensed firearms instructor and former NRA lobbyist, said he sees evidence of that shift in his work as a gun rights advocate.

"In 2015, I've seen a growth and resurgence of firearms ownership with people of color that I haven't seen in 25 years of being a firearms instructor, a grassroots activist and a speaker," Mr. Blanchard said. "It's never happened before. And folks don't know what to do with that."

He said the traditional aversion to firearms in the black community evolved from its unique history, from the civil rights movement's emphasis on nonviolent protest to centuries of laws that denied blacks the right to own guns.

"It stems from our history with just guns in general. From the beginning, from the 1630s, the very first gun control law was created so that slaves and the Chinese and Native Americans couldn't have firearms," Mr. Blanchard said. "In the 1700s, there was a law against any person of color owning a firearm. If you have been systematically told that it's bad to have a gun, it kind of gets into your tradition."

During the 1960s civil rights era, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized nonviolence, "and we associate violence with guns," Mr. Blanchard said.
...

 

The Pope was just emphasizing nonviolence and demonizing weapons manufacturers. But as JBSF pointed out, we haven't heard of him firing those Swiss guards or at least taking away their guns.

 

I think the reasons we haven't heard of that are many of the same reasons MLK owned guns while emphasizing nonviolence. The two are not mutually exclusive. Nonaggression is a much better term though. That's what they're really emphasizing, or they would unilaterally disarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom Ray, can you see how this bit feeds the Dylann Roofs who are out there?

Did you learn anything from the recent events in Charleston, SC?

 

 

Yes, armed black people have always been alarming to racists and fear of those people by racists has been at the root of many of our gun control laws.

 

That doesn't mean I think the racists are right to fear allowing black people to exercise their second amendment rights, nor does it mean that I think historic racist gun control laws were right.

 

Did you learn anything from any history class, ever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tom Ray, can you see how this bit feeds the Dylann Roofs who are out there?

Did you learn anything from the recent events in Charleston, SC?

 

 

Yes, armed black people have always been alarming to racists and fear of those people by racists has been at the root of many of our gun control laws.

STRAW MAN ALERT. Tom, a good person, such as a harmless mother, might also fear "armed black people."

Cuntfinder the Great fears armed black people, but I want to believe that he's no racist.

 

That doesn't mean I think the racists are right to fear allowing black people to exercise their second amendment rights, nor does it mean that I think historic racist gun control laws were right. Such laws need improvement, yes.To abandon the intended purpose of those laws for the actions of racist individuals is a non-sequitur.

It is a very childish talking point, especially if repeated endlessly.

 

Your meme is lame. "See, I am not a racist because I support SHALL ISSUE."

 

Did you learn anything from any history class, ever? Yes, but here the lesson you are coaching is jaded, and selective, and distorted.

 

 

Tom, I study history a lot, including wild westish stuff, and the armed conflicts of the fur traders.

Once upon a time, the writings of TE Lawrence and Gandhi each grabbed me.

The History Channel, in it's better days, was my entertainment of choice.

I watched the civil rights history in real-time when I was a teen, and I was crushed by the cheap gun which took out MLK.

 

 

Let me ask you a question, to make sure I understand your post.

Do you consider me, jocal 505, to be one of the persons who is motivated by racism, in my objection to armin' up the brothers?

 

Because I fear arming good black people, and I fear arming destructive black people.

I have concerns about arming decent white people, and evil white people.

Racism does not enter into this guns thing for me, until armed conflict within or between races is reached (we are already there).

 

To be clear, my desired social engineering is for everybody to take a big step away from 1.violent value systems, and 2. fantasies of justice by personal gunfire, whether black or white, FFS.

 

The most at-risk gun behavior on the planet is exhibited in the USA, with gusto, by both races.

My gut is telling me that improved understanding in the USA, not more guns, will send this in a positive direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Bloomberg was wrong..." Please explain.

 

OK. When he said that the way to control the yoots was to throw them up against the wall and frisk them, he was wrong. He was wrong because that's dehumanizing, though it's dehumanizing in favor of gun control so Mark K won't notice. He was wrong because that's unconstitutional, though unconstitutional in favor of gun control so you won't say shit.

 

Someone has to say he's wrong and what he's advocating is racist.

 

And it looks like that someone has to be me since you aren't going to speak out against such language and tactics by your allies.

 

 

Consider the whole man. Only a pea-brain would get stuck on the one quotation.

 

that someone has to be me since you aren't going to speak out against such language and tactics by your allies.

 

I really wish you could be more true-blue with me, Tom. I weighed in against Bloomberg on this point, and you have quoted my words when it suited you. Remember this?

 

I don't know much about Bloomberg, but if he was for "stop and frisk," I can't support him on that…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I study history a lot, including wild westish stuff, and the armed conflicts of the fur traders.

Once upon a time, the writings of TE Lawrence and Gandhi each grabbed me.

The History Channel, in it's better days, was my entertainment of choice.

I watched the civil rights history in real-time when I was a teen, and I was crushed by the cheap gun which took out MLK.

 

 

Let me ask you a question, to make sure I understand your post.

Do you consider me, jocal 505, to be one of the persons who is motivated by racism, in my objection to armin' up the brothers?

...

 

I don't believe I have the window into your soul that you seem to think you have into mine, so I can't say for sure, but my impression is that you're not a racist. That's why I remain hopeful that you will denounce Bloomberg and his racist idea that blacks need to be thrown up against a wall and frisked. I hope you'll see it for what it is: a continuation of a long history of racist gun control, including the denial of MLK's carry permit.

 

I'm optimistic that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember this?

 

I don't know much about Bloomberg, but if he was for "stop and frisk," I can't support him on that

 

 

Yes, it surprised me that you did not know your man is so strongly identified with a policy you claim to oppose.

 

You also seem to think he has mended his ways, but the "throw them against the wall" comment was far more recent than your post and drew no response from you at all.

 

He has not changed and is unlikely to listen to opponents like me. He might listen to supporters like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom, I study history a lot, including wild westish stuff, and the armed conflicts of the fur traders.

Once upon a time, the writings of TE Lawrence and Gandhi each grabbed me.

The History Channel, in it's better days, was my entertainment of choice.

I watched the civil rights history in real-time when I was a teen, and I was crushed by the cheap gun which took out MLK.

 

 

 

Not to discount the national crushed soul of MLK's murder, you may have misremembered. Maybe it was the surplus Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald used to assassinate JFK that you recall. Quite understandable after all these years.

 

The Remington Gamemaster 760 James Earl Ray allegedly used to murder was not a cheap rifle. The FBI used the 760 in that time period.

 

I only say allegedly because

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/12/us/tests-of-gun-in-king-killing-are-inconclusive.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, I study history a lot, including wild westish stuff, and the armed conflicts of the fur traders.

Once upon a time, the writings of TE Lawrence and Gandhi each grabbed me.

The History Channel, in it's better days, was my entertainment of choice.

I watched the civil rights history in real-time when I was a teen, and I was crushed by the cheap gun which took out MLK.

 

 

 

Not to discount the national crushed soul of MLK's murder, you may have misremembered. Maybe it was the surplus Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald used to assassinate JFK that you recall. Quite understandable after all these years.

 

The Remington Gamemaster 760 James Earl Ray allegedly used to murder was not a cheap rifle. The FBI used the 760 in that time period.

 

I only say allegedly because

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/12/us/tests-of-gun-in-king-killing-are-inconclusive.html

 

 

Thanks. I had once heard that. I may have been thinking of the cheap guy behind the trigger.

Input welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember this?

 

I don't know much about Bloomberg, but if he was for "stop and frisk," I can't support him on that

 

 

Yes, it surprised me that you did not know your man is so strongly identified with a policy you claim to oppose.

 

You also seem to think he has mended his ways, but the "throw them against the wall" comment was far more recent than your post and drew no response from you at all.

 

He has not changed and is unlikely to listen to opponents like me. He might listen to supporters like you.

 

 

The only person I know who is "strongly identifying" Bloomberg with stop and frisk, or with racism for that matter, is yourself.

Over and over. (You seem to think it clever.)

Tom, I am worried about you. You are becoming a boor, across many threads.

You need to move on to other material.

 

 

Or better yet, go read MLK, and return to this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Remember this?

 

I don't know much about Bloomberg, but if he was for "stop and frisk," I can't support him on that

 

 

Yes, it surprised me that you did not know your man is so strongly identified with a policy you claim to oppose.

 

You also seem to think he has mended his ways, but the "throw them against the wall" comment was far more recent than your post and drew no response from you at all.

 

He has not changed and is unlikely to listen to opponents like me. He might listen to supporters like you.

 

 

The only person I know who is "strongly identifying" Bloomberg with stop and frisk, or with racism for that matter, is yourself.

...

 

 

Oh. I figured after I informed you that he was involved in that subject, you might have done some research.

 

No time like the present to start. Here, let me help.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/bloomberg-era-defined-stop-and-frisk

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/mayor-bloomberg-stop-and-frisk/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/stop-and-frisk-michael-bloomberg

 

That should start you on your way to realize why the association among those of us who know stuff about the man is strong.

 

Not that it really matters. A guy who wants to throw blacks against the wall and frisk the is associated with that policy, whether strongly or weakly. Either way it's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick.....

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by jocal505. View it anyway?

 

 

Ricko, keep me appraised of the day jocal finally implodes, I would hate to miss that. In the meantime, I've been much happier around here without that constant mosquito buzz of his in my ear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's the herpes of the innernet.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I warned Jeff that I'd out-learn him.

I warned him I would "mug him with the facts" too.

He wanted "direct engagement," and then he didn't.

alongfortheride2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, I study history a lot, including wild westish stuff, and the armed conflicts of the fur traders.

Once upon a time, the writings of TE Lawrence and Gandhi each grabbed me.

The History Channel, in it's better days, was my entertainment of choice.

I watched the civil rights history in real-time when I was a teen, and I was crushed by the cheap gun which took out MLK.

 

 

Let me ask you a question, to make sure I understand your post.

Do you consider me, jocal 505, to be one of the persons who is motivated by racism, in my objection to armin' up the brothers?

...

 

I don't believe I have the window into your soul that you seem to think you have into mine, so I can't say for sure, but my impression is that you're not a racist. That's why I remain hopeful that you will denounce Bloomberg and his racist idea that blacks need to be thrown up against a wall and frisked. I hope you'll see it for what it is: a continuation of a long history of racist gun control, including the denial of MLK's carry permit.

 

I'm optimistic that way.

 

 

Let me be very clear. I am not here for you to put words into my mouth.

You are compulsive about doing it to others.

Both Occam's Razor, Sol, and I have complained about it recently.

Speak your own mind Tom. Stop arguing with what we have not said.

 

Tom Ray Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:56 PM

Admit that you would not mind if Mason was raped, as long as she did not defend herself with an evil gun. That is your position, right? Say it loud and proud!

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4364712

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember this?

 

I don't know much about Bloomberg, but if he was for "stop and frisk," I can't support him on that.

 

Yes

 

If you remembered the quote, and have even quoted the quote, then why did say this yesterday?

Tom Ray Posted Yesterday 10:58AM

That's why I remain hopeful that you will denounce Bloomberg and his racist idea that blacks need to be thrown up against a wall and frisked.

 

 

Again, I am not here to speak XYZ on command of Tom Ray, or else be abused.

Shall the Badgeless One ever let go of his fixation with Mr. Bloomberg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, I study history a lot, including wild westish stuff, and the armed conflicts of the fur traders.

Once upon a time, the writings of TE Lawrence and Gandhi each grabbed me.

The History Channel, in it's better days, was my entertainment of choice.

I watched the civil rights history in real-time when I was a teen, and I was crushed by the cheap gun which took out MLK.

 

 

Let me ask you a question, to make sure I understand your post.

Do you consider me, jocal 505, to be one of the persons who is motivated by racism, in my objection to armin' up the brothers?

...

 

I don't believe I have the window into your soul that you seem to think you have into mine, so I can't say for sure, but my impression is that you're not a racist. That's why I remain hopeful that you will denounce Bloomberg and his racist idea that blacks need to be thrown up against a wall and frisked. I hope you'll see it for what it is: a continuation of a long history of racist gun control, including the denial of MLK's carry permit.

 

I'm optimistic that way.

 

 

Let me be very clear. I am not here for you to put words into my mouth.

 

 

Let me be very clear. I am here for you to deride as "pro-mayhem" again because that's so helpful and amusing.

 

Let me be even more clear. If you don't want my opinion, don't ask for it.

 

And even more clear. It's not the case that Bloomberg "was" for stop and frisk as you said. He IS for stop and frisk.

 

Not wanting to put words in your mouth... what's your opinion on his recent statement about throwing people against the wall and frisking them as an effective and sensible gun control policy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999. That could be why that year was chosen, I don't know.

 

 

Bullshit. I posted this image when you first posted that cherry-picking article. 1971 is earlier than 1999.

 

 

 

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

(snipped: a chart which has been used much too much, due to lack of intelligent material)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Googled the FDLE, just keying off the graph. It gave me FDLE info only to 2000...which reflected 1999.

Sorry, I can't answer for the original study, but that researcher may have used that FDLE source. Whatever.

 

But you are evading the point. Because of loose gun laws, Florida gun crimes shot up TWICE in one decade. One you rationalize away, saying the starting point is poorly chosen, and other, the SYG surge, you have not commented on.

 

You are ignoring it, and have not stopped crying like a tittybaby, either.

You are a lightweight "expert" on gun rights (but the best the SA Gun Club can offer :lol: ).

 

 

Did you really want to link to and revive this discussion, jocal?

 

In which you said that FDLE stats go back to 1999?

 

Learned nothing, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

????? Geez. What a boor.

 

This was a non-starter in 2012. (You shot that horse dead, then you kicked on it for three years.)

You are, for some reason, still hung up on it.

 

I thought I put it to rest long ago.

 

Jocal 505 Posted 09 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

Tom, I think you need to take it easy on the myopia over any single bunk stat. Because you will discourage posters from contributing valid stats which may be helpful; I mean all stats are imperfect and any may have anomalies.

But, sorry. For my own part, there was zero intention to deceive posting that info.

We can move on, to what the better data says.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3855852

 

 

A few years have passed, it's time to move on with your life, mate.

 

TOM RAY, PROPAGANDA BUSTER

Tom Ray Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:33 PM

Calling out bullshit propaganda is kind of a hobby of mine and you presented an irresistible target.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3851815

'Tom Ray', on 26 Jul 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

What's that thing called where you make up a really outrageous position and ascribe it to your opponent in an argument? I think it has a name…

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3852152

Tom Ray Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:25 AM

My offer to teach you how to actually quote posts instead of making shit up still stands. Tom Ray

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=385c2152

Tom Ray Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:02 PM

BTW, ever notice how, when I characterize a post of yours, I also either link to it or quote it? I'd appreciate the same consideration, if you're able to rise to my level.

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=156707>

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=166644&p=4996381

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

 

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject (i.e. race relations), except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

Short of that, the Dylann Roofs will relish, and thrive on, the present-tenseTom Ray approach:

 

Tom Ray, on 25 Mar 2015 - 2:44 PM, said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

(…)

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

In Post 378 Tom quotes Jocal from Post 127, with NIJ stats showing horrifying, disproportionate gun violence among blacks.

Post 385 May 4 Tom quotes Joe (red ink), from some other thread

Tom Ray Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:05 PM

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

How does that black gun violence amplifier work, anyway?

2.Post 390 May 5

Tom Ray, on 02 Apr 2015 - 1:26 PM, said:

Quote:

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

A twit like me can't see how the amplified and volatile desire for gunpower is working to create the problems you noted.

3.Post 400 May 7

Tom Ray Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:27 AM

My guess: it has something to do with the hope that ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower penispower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=4#entry4938209>

4.Post 415, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 01:38 AM

I'm here to learn. Specifically, I'm eager to learn how the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns? Was it wise to deny MLK his permit because his melanin-rich skin made him more volatile than white people? You seem determined to preserve the ability to cops to engage in that kind of discrmination, so I want to learn why blacks are so darn dangerous in your view.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944332

5. Post 417, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 02:10 AM

(To anarchist random) I'm just trying to learn more about black people from local expert Jocal. Obviously, there's nothing racist about this statement he made: the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

So I'm asking about it. Why is that bad? And by the way, what actions have you taken so far to eliminate Aussie Apartheid? Or are you all complaints about other countries, no action in your own?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944344

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

 

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject, except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

 

So you think MLK would "set me right" and explain to me that racists denying his concealed weapons permit because he was black was actually a good thing, huh?

 

Can you give me the cliff notes on that? I always thought he was opposed to racial discrimination by government officials. Now you're saying he'd set me right and get me to support it?

 

I doubt it, but am willing to hear you out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

 

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject, except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

 

So you think MLK would "set me right" and explain to me that racists denying his concealed weapons permit because he was black was actually a good thing, huh?

 

Can you give me the cliff notes on that? I always thought he was opposed to racial discrimination by government officials. Now you're saying he'd set me right and get me to support it?

 

I doubt it, but am willing to hear you out.

 

 

 

Your thought process shows an immature, narrow racial groove.

MLK could expand it. I'll let him speak for himself, as you study this very special human.

I'm not going to be rolled around in your racial misunderstandings, Tom.

Best wishes in your quest for armed racial parity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actions speak louder than words. MLK owned guns and applied for a concealed weapons permit. Losers like me think that the racists who denied it because of his skin color were wrong.

 

Why do winners think that kind of racial discrimination is OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child: "Can we get a dog?"


Parent: "No."


Child: "It would protect us."


Parent: "Still, no."


Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"



"straw man argument": <"MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.


Joe:" Still, no."


Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use quotation marks on shit you make up about me, Joe Calhoun.

 

I call the POLICY racist but nowhere said that about you. The fact that you support a racist policy is for you to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. The deconstruction of joke-al is a slow moving but glorious thing to behold....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject (i.e. race relations), except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

Short of that, the Dylann Roofs will relish, and thrive on, the present-tenseTom Ray approach:

 

Tom Ray, on 25 Mar 2015 - 2:44 PM, said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

()

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

In Post 378 Tom quotes Jocal from Post 127, with NIJ stats showing horrifying, disproportionate gun violence among blacks.

Post 385 May 4 Tom quotes Joe (red ink), from some other thread

Tom Ray Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:05 PM

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

How does that black gun violence amplifier work, anyway?

2.Post 390 May 5

Tom Ray, on 02 Apr 2015 - 1:26 PM, said:

Quote:

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

A twit like me can't see how the amplified and volatile desire for gunpower is working to create the problems you noted.

3.Post 400 May 7

Tom Ray Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:27 AM

My guess: it has something to do with the hope that ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower penispower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=4#entry4938209>

4.Post 415, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 01:38 AM

I'm here to learn. Specifically, I'm eager to learn how the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns? Was it wise to deny MLK his permit because his melanin-rich skin made him more volatile than white people? You seem determined to preserve the ability to cops to engage in that kind of discrmination, so I want to learn why blacks are so darn dangerous in your view.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944332

5. Post 417, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 02:10 AM

(To anarchist random) I'm just trying to learn more about black people from local expert Jocal. Obviously, there's nothing racist about this statement he made: the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

So I'm asking about it. Why is that bad? And by the way, what actions have you taken so far to eliminate Aussie Apartheid? Or are you all complaints about other countries, no action in your own?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944344

Are you saying that some one in government responsible for deciding who would or wouldn't be granted a permit would not use race as a deciding factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:" Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Parents = government.

 

Jokal sees us as his children. Jokal is a gun owner. Do as I say , not as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use quotation marks on shit you make up about me, Joe Calhoun.

 

I call the POLICY racist and the supporters of Bloomberg racist, ad nauseam but nowhere said that about you. The fact that you support a racist policy is for you to explain. Which is dimestore innuendo, to insinuate racism. Yawn...

 

You need to explain your edgy racial position. What is it?

You've brought race into a LOT of discussions, including apartheid barbs at random.

Bloomberg has been used as a poster boy to support accusations of racism, which were extended to Bloomberg supporters, REPEATEDLY.

Rev. Mosteller and MLK's church, the Southern Christian Leadership conference, were brought in, by yourself.

(You can't explain why, though.)

 

You point a lot of fingers using alleged issues of race.

Such behavior is less than sophisticated: it's loser talk, even in Florida.

You need to explain this entire thread for us, and the tired race-baiting it has shamelessly employed.

 

Issues of skin color aside, you also drag peace-loving people into your raggedy-assed, ignorant, pro-gun philosophy. You violate the core principles of peaceful souls, for lowbrow entertainment.

 

Tom Ray, I think less and less of you as the days of 2015 go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You need to explain your edgy racial position. What is it?

 

 

OK, it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

But I said that before, so I guess it wasn't sufficiently explained.

 

Allowing government officials to discriminate based on race is wrong because humans have rights regardless of melanin content in skin.

 

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. What's confusing about my position and how did you fail to notice my repeatedly mentioning it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see now. Your pages of racebaiting are based on righteousness. You are fighting
the racist policies of "the government." The New Zealand racial zingers must your international outreach to fight racism. Got it.

Where do your Black Panther posts fit in to this altruism?

Rev. Mosteller was opposed by his church's non-violent principles. Why mention him a few times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see now. Your pages of racebaiting are based on righteousness. You are fighting

the racist policies of "the government." The New Zealand racial zingers must your international outreach to fight racism. Got it.

Where do your Black Panther posts fit in to this altruism?

Rev. Mosteller was opposed by his church's non-violent principles. Why mention him a few times?

 

 

I don't see how opposing racist policies by the government is racebaiting, but yes, I do see opposing racist government policies as righteous.

 

The people I mentioned came to the same conclusion that MLK did: they could and should arm themselves for self-defense. If a church doesn't understand the difference between non-aggression and non-violence, that's not my concern. If a government wants to prevent them from exercising second amendment rights because of their skin color, that does concern me.

 

Why is it so important to you to preserve the ability to deny permits on any basis whatsoever, including race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you saying that some one in government responsible for deciding who would or wouldn't be granted a permit would not use race as a deciding factor?

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern IRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

 

 

Since Jocal didn't answer your question, I will. I think we still have some racist police officers in America who might just discriminate based on race if given a chance. I think they are probably a small minority, but still believe they should not be allowed the discretion to discriminate based on race.

 

Now I'll wait for Jocal to not answer my question about why preserving the discretion to discriminate on any basis whatsoever, including race, is so important.

 

 

 

ps: tools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:" Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Parents = government.

 

Jokal sees us as his children. Jokal is a gun owner. Do as I say , not as I do.

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern NRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites