Sign in to follow this  
Hypercapnic Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

Nowhere in the existing literature of the Oathkeepers do they discuss such concern for minorities, or their rights.

This was concocted in the past week.

They are using this bit as PR, after adverse reaction to their heavily armed curfew caper.

Some fingers were on triggers, the police noted.

This AW behavior is bizarre, and will prove counter-productive, IMO.

 

 

 

The Badgeless Wonder Posted Today, 05:05 AM

Yes, we really mean even the black people.

Are you with the Oathkeepers now, Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen? Should he get a permit or should a law enforcement officer still be able to deny it with no reason given and no accountability possible?

 

 

I'm going to avoid your world of myopia and absolutes, Tom, and discuss Permits to Carry intelligently.

This is why LE wants to be involved:

Permit-to-purchase systems are backed by strong data.

Is congressional legislation that would take the idea national the proposal more people should be debating?

 

A team led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., at the Harvard School of Public Health recently conducted a survey of Massachusetts police chiefs in order to understand their reasons for rejecting permit applications under the state’s discretionary system. “Local police chiefs typically know more about the people in their community than does a national computer,” Hemenway wrote. The police chiefs interviewed in the study were particularly cautious when a permit-seeker had a history of assault, domestic abuse, mental illness, or substance abuse. Under the existing federal background check system, persons with a pattern of drug or alcohol addiction or a record of violent misdemeanors are typically cleared for gun purchases, despite those risk factors. A discretionary PTP system allows local law enforcement to consider such warning signs and withhold permits when justified.

 

One police chief interviewed for the study explained his justification for denying a permit to someone who would have otherwise passed a federal background check, describing the individual as someone with “no convictions, but was arrested numerous times for offenses including trafficking in cocaine, assault and battery, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, and destruction of property.” Another police chief used his discretion to forbid an applicant who had “made [a] statement that he was going to take his guns and go to one officer’s home and shoot him in the head.”

 

It was due to similar concerns that a law enforcement group in North Carolina came out against a measure that would have done away with the handgun-permit system in place there. Writing in opposition to the change, which ultimately was blocked, the North Carolina Sheriffs Association argued that, “[t]he sheriff has access to significantly more information about the applicant’s criminal record, pending criminal charges, mental health record, and other relevant data than is contained in the federal NICS system. To protect the citizens of North Carolina, all of the information required by federal law that is available to the sheriff should be considered when a decision is made about whether or not it is appropriate for a person to be authorized to purchase a handgun.”

 

Discretion, when applied to gun permits, generates positive effects on crime...not racism as such:

Unsurprisingly, private sales account for a massive number of the firearms used in crime — a survey of prison inmates on this question found that prohibited individuals purchased their firearm from a federally licensed retailer only 3.9 percent of the time. A PTP requirement would close this “private sales loophole” by requiring both licensed dealers and unlicensed vendors to sell firearms only to someone with a valid permit.

 

One study found that states with PTP laws allowing police discretion tallied a 76 percent reduction in the likelihood of guns winding up in criminals’ hands relative to comparable states without such laws. Even without a discretionary policy, the best available research shows that PTP requirements in general are associated with lower rates of firearm-related mortality and reduced suicide rates (...) The first study found that, after the repeal of a 2007 Missouri permit-to-purchase law, statewide murder rates spiked 14 percent ...The study also found that the repeal of Missouri’s law significantly increased the diversion of crime guns that were purchased in Missouri and later recovered by police in neighboring states, suggesting that Missouri’s PTP system had been making surrounding states safer as well.

 

http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-simple-solution-to-gun-violence-permits/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen? Should he get a permit or should a law enforcement officer still be able to deny it with no reason given and no accountability possible?

 

 

I'm going to avoid your world of myopia and absolutes, Tom, and discuss Permits to Carry intelligently.

This is why LE wants to be involved:

Permit-to-purchase systems are backed by strong data.

Is congressional legislation that would take the idea national the proposal more people should be debating?

 

A team led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., at the Harvard School of Public Health recently conducted a survey of Massachusetts police chiefs in order to understand their reasons for rejecting permit applications under the state’s discretionary system. “Local police chiefs typically know more about the people in their community than does a national computer,” Hemenway wrote. The police chiefs interviewed in the study were particularly cautious when a permit-seeker had a history of assault, domestic abuse, mental illness, or substance abuse. Under the existing federal background check system, persons with a pattern of drug or alcohol addiction or a record of violent misdemeanors are typically cleared for gun purchases, despite those risk factors. A discretionary PTP system allows local law enforcement to consider such warning signs and withhold permits when justified.

 

One police chief interviewed for the study explained his justification for denying a permit to someone who would have otherwise passed a federal background check, describing the individual as someone with “no convictions, but was arrested numerous times for offenses including trafficking in cocaine, assault and battery, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, and destruction of property.” Another police chief used his discretion to forbid an applicant who had “made [a] statement that he was going to take his guns and go to one officer’s home and shoot him in the head.”

 

It was due to similar concerns that a law enforcement group in North Carolina came out against a measure that would have done away with the handgun-permit system in place there. Writing in opposition to the change, which ultimately was blocked, the North Carolina Sheriffs Association argued that, “[t]he sheriff has access to significantly more information about the applicant’s criminal record, pending criminal charges, mental health record, and other relevant data than is contained in the federal NICS system. To protect the citizens of North Carolina, all of the information required by federal law that is available to the sheriff should be considered when a decision is made about whether or not it is appropriate for a person to be authorized to purchase a handgun.”

 

Discretion, when applied to gun permits, generates positive effects on crime...not racism as such:

Unsurprisingly, private sales account for a massive number of the firearms used in crime — a survey of prison inmates on this question found that prohibited individuals purchased their firearm from a federally licensed retailer only 3.9 percent of the time. A PTP requirement would close this “private sales loophole” by requiring both licensed dealers and unlicensed vendors to sell firearms only to someone with a valid permit.

 

One study found that states with PTP laws allowing police discretion tallied a 76 percent reduction in the likelihood of guns winding up in criminals’ hands relative to comparable states without such laws. Even without a discretionary policy, the best available research shows that PTP requirements in general are associated with lower rates of firearm-related mortality and reduced suicide rates (...) The first study found that, after the repeal of a 2007 Missouri permit-to-purchase law, statewide murder rates spiked 14 percent ...The study also found that the repeal of Missouri’s law significantly increased the diversion of crime guns that were purchased in Missouri and later recovered by police in neighboring states, suggesting that Missouri’s PTP system had been making surrounding states safer as well.

 

http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-simple-solution-to-gun-violence-permits/>

 

 

OK, a good start would be to post articles that are about permits to carry, not permits to purchase.

 

Either way, it seems that you don't want to answer the questions:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen? Should he get a permit or should a law enforcement officer still be able to deny it with no reason given and no accountability possible?

 

Discretion to deny our rights without giving a reason means no accountability and effectively limitless government power over our rights.

 

Is it so much to ask that police give a reason when a permit is denied? That's the only way they can be held accountable. Why do you resist the idea of giving a reason for denial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the existing literature of the Oathkeepers do they discuss such concern for minorities, or their rights.

This was concocted in the past week.

They are using this bit as PR, after adverse reaction to their heavily armed curfew caper.

Some fingers were on triggers, the police noted.

This AW behavior is bizarre, and will prove counter-productive, IMO.

 

 

 

 

Yes, Chief Belmar, people can openly and notoriously exercise their rights in MO. Yes, we really mean even the black people.

 

Black rights matter.

 

 

Are you with the Oathkeepers now, Tom?

 

No, I'm not an Oathkeeper, just a supporter of our rights. And by "our" I mean all of us. Even the volatile ones. I know that must be disturbing to you since you seem to share the same attitudes about black people that gun controllers have historically had in America throughout our history. Specifically:

 

 

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

 

I don't have to call you names or snip part of that sentence. Anyone can see it for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could be having an intelligent conversation, Tom. Instead, you present dimestore innuendo.

And more race-baiting, eh?

 

The red words are a pretty candid assessment of the problem, made by someone who has unshakably warm feelings towards the black community.

It is not unlike the two different stats I posted: each was solid and unequivocal, but quite unflattering to gun behavior among certain blacks.

You re-posted each stat multiple times, while drooling, and while claiming the figures disproved the danger of the high rates of white gun ownership.

You feel some need to smear me with racial poo slinging.

It won't work, bro. I risked my life following the non-violence of my mentor, MLK, into problem areas. The experience was definitive.

I saw what I saw...and Tom Ray, you lack enough understanding to discuss it with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you suppose MLK owned guns and applied for a concealed weapons permit?

 

Do you think his immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower was amplified, and more volatile, than that of whites?

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.

Then stop being a hypocrite and get rid of your gun or quit preaching about them.

 

I fully understand the cost involved with having a criminal element within society. They will always be present. We know who most of the people are who usebgun for crime. Put the effort into making sure they don't commit crimes ???? and leave law abiding folk alone.

Rockdog wants to skate blissfully, friction free, while avoiding the basics.

 

Certain individuals (or even the majority) among your "law abiding folk" must lead the way. That isn't happening.

Instead, these "law abiders" are letting extremists manage the guns for them (ahem, in the name of the constitution, patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels). The "law abiders" are fully responsible for generating the carnage.

 

 

 

I find it amusing that you insist I give up my gun. Knowing your values, I suppose you gunslingers would respect me less, alpha-male-wise, for giving it up. But I have a right and a duty to speak up as a gunowner, IMO.

You have every right to be a hypocrite. I have every right to view you as a liar for being one. I don't respect liars.

 

I know a lot of people who don't own a gun. I don't respect them for not owning one. I respect them for not spending their money on something they don't have interest in.

 

And you continue to be afraid of criminals and redirect your thoughts to inanimate objects to cope. It's too obvious with you to be anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to define "liar" contrary to the dictionary, go for it.

 

If I am "afraid of criminals," why did I confront them on their own turf, at night, unarmed, for years?

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.

Mostly, drinking and anger are leading regular "law-abiders" into rash acts with nearby guns, which then become shooting statistics.

 

 

 

The experts feel that depression, panic, and confusion (which are human behaviors, but not criminal behaviors), when combined with the lethality of nearby guns, are driving the gun suicides.

 

Suicide%20cheerleading%20with%20Tom%20Ra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to define "liar" contrary to the dictionary, go for it.

 

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.

Mostly, drinking and anger are leading regular "law-abiders" into rash acts with nearby guns, which then become shooting statistics.

 

 

 

Jocal, the only liar here is you. We've been through this before, You are wrong. As evadent:

 

 

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make you right. If you don't like my stats - take it up with the DOJ.

And your weasel use of the word "gun mishap" doesn't get you out of this BS. Suicides and accidents are not intentional gun violence and do not belong in the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey now Jeff, he protected the niggas from offing themselves and each other back in the 80's for a year----by jumping on parked cars and shit. This fuker KNOWS the Darkies and their neighborhood(s) and their culture like no one else on the planet....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey now Jeff, he protected the niggas from offing themselves and each other back in the 80's for a year----by jumping on parked cars and shit. This fuker KNOWS the Darkies and their neighborhood(s) and their culture like no one else on the planet.... :lol:

 

A few corrections, Rick. Do you have reading comprehension thingee?

It was the seventies.

The period lasted seven or eight years.

I jumped over the cars. Some had astonished drivers sitting in them. They were blocking sidewalks.

I only know enough to try to discuss the race relations matter.

My thoughts are also based on two decades of constant contact with the local R&B cadre

and 33 years in Hendrix's racially mixed community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want to define "liar" contrary to the dictionary, go for it.

 

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.

Mostly, drinking and anger are leading regular "law-abiders" into rash acts with nearby guns, which then become shooting statistics.

 

 

 

Jocal, the only liar here is you. We've been through this before, You are wrong. As evadent:

 

 

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make you right. If you don't like my stats - take it up with the DOJ.

And your weasel use of the word "gun mishap" doesn't get you out of this BS. Suicides and accidents are not intentional gun violence and do not belong in the conversation.

 

 

We fought for months over this quote. You began with liar liar pants on fire. You offered no other source to back your source up, and it is poorly written. It mentions neither the total homicide figure, nor the total number of stranger killers.

 

See Post 616 of this thread, FFS. Boothy made the same claim, without figures.

 

I could support my position with multiple sources, and did.

Let me see, I think I filed all that under "Stranger Danger"...

 

Nine sources, Stranger Danger

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.data36...h_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/c.../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/i...detail&iid=4557>

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

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).
  1. Murders were the least frequent violent victimization of all categories -- about 5 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 2009.
  2. 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.skyvalley...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.co...d-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/c...df/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.sciencedi...047235288900335>

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry4980201>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you want to define "liar" contrary to the dictionary, go for it.

 

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.

Mostly, drinking and anger are leading regular "law-abiders" into rash acts with nearby guns, which then become shooting statistics.

 

 

 

Jocal, the only liar here is you. We've been through this before, You are wrong. As evadent:

 

 

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make you right. If you don't like my stats - take it up with the DOJ.

And your weasel use of the word "gun mishap" doesn't get you out of this BS. Suicides and accidents are not intentional gun violence and do not belong in the conversation.

 

 

We fought for months over this quote. You began with liar liar pants on fire. You offered no other source to back your source up, and it is poorly written. It mentions neither the total homicide figure, nor the total number of stranger killers.

 

 

 

 

I will take the DOJ and the FBIs data and conclusions over your agenda driven drivel. Again, if you don't like the data, take it up with the US gov't - its their data, not mine.

 

joke-off loses again.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.(...)

 

 

Jocal, the only liar here is you. We've been through this before, You are wrong. As evadent:

 

Jeff, your quote was debunked, for months. And more than once already.

Liar liar pants of fire was May 2014.

You made the same claim, July 2014 in a "Dear John" post, LOL.

Yikes, you had to uncle it Sept. 2014. (See below)

 

Gun Control Advocates, Restraining Order thread

Sept 22. From Jocal: You need to shed more light on your tired, single source for your 65% to 70% figures--

Note: The same single, ambiguously-worded source used by Jeff today

I am challenging the awkward wording of your single cite, the percentage of what they are referring to is unclear. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx#note5.

The link on that page goes to a single page which does not mention gangs.

Here are the best gang stats and info I can find to support you. One says a 50% homicide ratio, but in two city areas only, with this statement:

In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2011 to 2012.

<http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems>

You may be dead wrong that gang homicides are generally connected to simultaneous crimes.

(see below). Their study uses NVDRS figures, and shows at most a 25% ratio of drug trade activity and any gang homicide--and that within a notoriously gang-infested city. Your 92%-gun use in gang homicides figure may be highlighted in red, below.

For example, one of your own sources, the CDC (supposedly claiming high gang homicide ratios during other criminal activity), is clearly being misquoted.

JBSF, on 22 Jul 2014 - 13:09, said:

The CDC and the DOJ categorically stated that something like 75%+ of gang related murders happen as part of the commission of a crime.

(From Jocal again) Here is the actual CDC finding, from a few years ago. (If you have more current info, or that DOJ info, I'm sure you'll share it.)

Quote

Study: Gang Homicides — Five U.S. Cities, 2003–2008

January 27, 2012 /

"The finding that gang homicides commonly were not precipitated by drug trade/use or other crimes in progress also is similar to previous research; however, this finding challenges public perceptions on gang homicides (5). The public often has viewed gangs, drug trade/use, crime, and homicides as interconnected factors; however, studies have shown little connection between gang homicides and drug trade/use and crime (5). Gangs and gang members are involved in a variety of high-risk behaviors that sometimes include drug and crime involvement, but gang-related homicides usually are attributed to other circumstances (6). Newark was an exception…[…]

"The study, which appears in the January 27, 2012 online edition of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), found more than 90 percent of gang homicide victims were male, victims were more likely to be young, and 92-96 percent of gang homicides involved firearms. Findings also show gang homicides usually did not result from other crimes in progress or bystander deaths; instead, they involved youth responding to gang-related conflict."

http://www.cdc.gov/v...prevention.html>

Quote

Gang homicides account for a substantial proportion of homicides among youths in some U.S. cities; however, few surveillance systems collect data with the level of detail necessary to gang homicide prevention strategies. To compare characteristics of gang homicides with nongang homicides, CDC analyzed 2003–2008 data from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) for five cities with high levels of gang homicide. This report describes the results of that analysis, which indicated that, consistent with similar previous research, a higher proportion of gang homicides than other homicides involved young adults and adolescents, racial and ethnic minorities, and males. Additionally, the proportion of gang homicides resulting from drug trade/use or with other crimes in progress was consistently low in the five cities, ranging from zero to 25%. Furthermore, this report found that gang homicides were more likely to occur with firearms and in public places, which suggests that gang homicides are quick, retaliatory reactions to ongoing gang-related conflict.

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm6103a2.htm>

(Post #283 , Most Violent, England vs USA thread:)

JBSF Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:51 PM

uncle

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&page=3#entry4680823>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying the DOJ is wrong? Again they are not MY stats. They are govt stats. Take it up with them.

 

Joke-awf loses again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But hey now Jeff, he protected the niggas from offing themselves and each other back in the 80's for a year----by jumping on parked cars and shit. This fuker KNOWS the Darkies and their neighborhood(s) and their culture like no one else on the planet.... :lol:

A few corrections, Rick. Do you have reading comprehension thingee?

It was the seventies.

The period lasted seven or eight years.

I jumped over the cars. Some had astonished drivers sitting in them. They were blocking sidewalks.

I only know enough to try to discuss the race relations matter.

My thoughts are also based on two decades of constant contact with the local R&B cadre

and 33 years in Hendrix's racially mixed community.

So basically you did nothing. Jumping over cars blocking sidewalks does not give you 'street cred'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And which Hendrix community are you referring to?

 

The Central District of Seattle, where Jimi went to school.

The brothers call it The Hood. A few of them were his classmates.

I lived there for 33 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And which Hendrix community are you referring to?

The Central District of Seattle, where Jimi went to school.

The brothers call it The Hood. A few of them were his classmates.

I lived there for 33 years.

What years did you live in Seattle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let this happen but don't affect MY freedom.

 

 

Toddlers Killed More Americans Than Terrorists Did This Year

 

674828.0.guns.jpg

 

11 Deaths in Five Months Where Shooter Was 3 to 6 Years Old

Listed below are the 11 gun fatalities I found where a preschooler pulled the trigger (from Jan. 1 to June 9, 2013). Starting with a list of five toddler shooting deaths The Jewish Daily Forward published in early May, I unearthed six additional cases. This tragic, unthinkable event has happened every month, like clock-work.

  • Jan. 10: 6-year-old playmate shoots and kills 4-year-old Trinity Ross, Kansas City, Kan.
  • Feb. 11: 4-year-old Joshua Johnson shoots and kills himself, Memphis, Tenn.
  • Feb. 24: 4-year-old Jaiden Pratt dies after shooting himself in the stomach while his father sleeps, Houston.
  • March 30: 4-year-old Rahquel Carr shot and killed either by 6-year-old brother or another young playmate, Miami.
  • April 6: Josephine Fanning, 48, shot and killed by 4-year-old boy at a barbecue, Wilson County, Tenn.
  • April 8: 4-year-old shoots and kills 6-year-old friend Brandon Holt, Toms River, N.J.
  • April 9: 3-year-old is killed after he finds a pink gun that he thinks is a toy, Greenville, S.C.
  • April 30: 2-year-old Caroline Sparks killed by her 5-year-old brother with his Cricket My First Rifle marketed to kids, Cumberland County, Ky.
  • May 1: 3-year-old Darrien Nez shoots himself in the face and dies after finding his grandmothers gun, Yuma, Ariz.
  • May 7: 3-year-old Jadarrius Speights fatally shoots himself with his uncles gun, Tampa, Fla.
  • June 7: 4-year-old fatally shoots his father, Green Beret Justin Thomas, Prescott Valley, Ariz.
At least 10 more toddlers have shot but not killed themselves or someone else this year (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). In the first three cases, the shooter was only 2 years old.

Hopefully there's at least one adult prosecuted for each of those instances. They are the ones whose freedom should be affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is April Howard Part Of The People?

 

Black people are disproportionately victimized by gun violence, and prominent African-American leaders are among those calling for tighter gun control. Yet as Karen Grigsby Bates of NPR's Code Switch team found out, many other African-Americans believe that owning guns is crucial to protecting themselves and their rights.

 

KAREN GRIGSBY BATES, BYLINE: Know how some people can't do without something? April Howard has three possessions that are non-negotiable.

 

APRIL HOWARD: I have a .22, a .38 and a rifle.

 

BATES: And she's keeping them all. Howard's had guns for several years now, the result of a close call at her D.C. metro area home that still makes her shudder.

 

A. HOWARD: Someone was breaking into my home while I was home alone at 7 a.m. in the morning. That prompted me to immediately get some form of protection for me and my home.

 

BATES: That doesn't make Howard unusual, says Charles Cobb. Cobb's book, "This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made The Civil Rights Movement," looks at black Americans' historic relationship to guns.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns for the sake of guns, Tom? Public safety is not generated by guns.

Where the gun problem is worst, why would you encourage more guns?

 

In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

Source: DOJ Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008

Annual Rates for 2009 and 2010

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And which Hendrix community are you referring to?

The Central District of Seattle, where Jimi went to school.

The brothers call it The Hood. A few of them were his classmates.

I lived there for 33 years.

What years did you live in Seattle?

 

 

1978 to 2013. Bought a house in Madrona in '80.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns for the sake of guns, Tom? Public safety is not generated by guns.

Where the gun problem is worst, why would you encourage more guns?

 

In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

Source: DOJ Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008

Annual Rates for 2009 and 2010

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

 

Do you find my question about whether April Howard is a person, every bit as much a part of "the people" referenced in our Bill of Rights as you and me, offensive or something?

 

So is she part of "the people" or not in your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And which Hendrix community are you referring to?

The Central District of Seattle, where Jimi went to school.

The brothers call it The Hood. A few of them were his classmates.

I lived there for 33 years.

What years did you live in Seattle?

 

 

1978 to 2013. Bought a house in Madrona in '80.

 

 

So, Seattle is improving!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you find my question about whether April Howard is a person, every bit as much a part of "the people" referenced in our Bill of Rights as you and me, offensive or something?

 

So is she part of "the people" or not in your view?

 

 

I'm not predisposed to follow your tangents. -

--You have no evidence base to support your philosophy;

--Your credibility can be challenged easily

--since you choose to deny the blockage of public gun research, a known condition.

--You are an extremist, and a 2nd A absolutist:

--You want sawed-off shotguns and machine guns made available.

--The depth of your racial wisdom and insight is that you are against racist activities in the government.

--You call your self Publius, to self-flatter yourself, but Publius wrote about a militia was very much under state authority and state supervision.

--In your gay ignorance, you even use MLK for purposes contrary to that man's very essence.

--You have no studies to support your ideas.

 

On the up side, you get the details of your ideology correct, consistently.

 

I'm convinced you and Levy and Pratt are selling a lie, that you are peddling a distortion of the second amendment.

Your case law is full of southern court decisions.

 

Yo instead of April Howard, let's you and I discuss why the core of your platform can be (and has been) challenged, but like a total poser, you have failed to source key fundamental beliefs.

 

I dare you to back this bullshit up:

 

(Tom Ray :)Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates...

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163765>

(Tom Ray:) Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

http://forums.sailin...31105&p=3856473

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

I do have sourses. New studies are providing evidence saying your shall issue gun laws are increasing crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo, whether or not April Howard is a person should not be such a hard question, nor should it require such deflection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the readers note that Tom Ray can't back up his statements.

Let us note how Tom has hijacked the name Publius, but has distorted the militia structure of the real Publius.

The readers may need to review Federalist 26.

 

Federalist No. 29 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on January 9, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. It is titled "Concerning the Militia." Unlike the rest of the Federalist Papers, which were published more or less in order, No. 29 did not appear until after Federalist No. 36.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29>

What else has Tom distorted?

 

April Howard is no different than any other American citizen.

She can choose to have a good life.
Sitting around in fear with a gun is not a very good life.

Walking around in fear, with a gun, is pathetic. It is sick, IMO.

CCP is also dangerous, based on the evidence. How you do carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CCP is also dangerous, based on the evidence. How you do carry on.

 

CC is really only dangerous to the criminals who try to attack an armed person according to the stats. Obama's directed and gov't funded gun study by the CDC clearly and unambiguously stated that those victims who are armed with guns are far MORE likely to have better outcomes if attacked than those who don't.

 

Of course the corollary is that the outcome is far worse for the attacker than it would be otherwise. And THAT, dear readers, is what has jokleberry fuck so flaming furious. He cannot stand that some meth head rapist might be laying in a pool of blood with an empowered woman standing over his body unhurt holding the gun that just saved her life and her dignity.

 

And I don't say this as a jab against jocal, but I'm beginning to see the pathology of his hatred for guns and his even greater hatred of those of us who choose to arm and protect ourselves. But I believe to my core that the reason he finds armed protect so "pathetic" is that had his wife been armed and able to fight back and protect herself - she never would have been raped. Therefore he wants to disarm all of us, so that he can be on a level playing field and not fell like such a failure as a man and as a husband for not being able to protect his wife from harm. He carries that guilt with him and lashes out at us for having the temerity to take responsibility for our own self-defense. He and his wife relied on the police and it obviously failed. By keeping us all at the same point, he can make himself feel better when other people are raped and murdered by bad guys because he can then point to it and tell himself "see, that's just the way it is. Nothing I could have done here to protect her". You're a sad man jocal. Its too late for you and your wife and I feel for you. But people taking responsibility for their own protecting is not "pathetic". YOU are the pathetic one for wanting to bring all of us down to your level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the readers note that Tom Ray can't back up his statements.

Let us note how Tom has hijacked the name Publius, but has distorted the militia structure of the real Publius.

The readers may need to review Federalist 26.

 

Federalist No. 29 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on January 9, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. It is titled "Concerning the Militia." Unlike the rest of the Federalist Papers, which were published more or less in order, No. 29 did not appear until after Federalist No. 36.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29>

What else has Tom distorted?

 

April Howard is no different than any other American citizen.

She can choose to have a good life.

Sitting around in fear with a gun is not a very good life.

Walking around in fear, with a gun, is pathetic. It is sick, IMO.

CCP is also dangerous, based on the evidence. How you do carry on.

 

How many times to I have to tell you it's 29, not 26? You even posted a link and still didn't get it right.

 

Here's an excerpt:

 

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;

 

Is April Howard part of "the people at large" or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CCP is also dangerous, based on the evidence. How you do carry on.

 

CC is really only dangerous to the criminals who try to attack an armed person according to the stats. Obama's directed and gov't funded gun study by the CDC clearly and unambiguously stated that those victims who are armed with guns are far MORE likely to have better outcomes if attacked than those who don't.

 

Of course the corollary is that the outcome is far worse for the attacker than it would be otherwise. And THAT, dear readers, is what has jokleberry fuck so flaming furious. He cannot stand that some meth head rapist might be laying in a pool of blood with an empowered woman standing over his body unhurt holding the gun that just saved her life and her dignity.

 

And I don't say this as a jab against jocal, but I'm beginning to see the pathology of his hatred for guns and his even greater hatred of those of us who choose to arm and protect ourselves. But I believe to my core that the reason he finds armed protect so "pathetic" is that had his wife been armed and able to fight back and protect herself - she never would have been raped. Therefore he wants to disarm all of us, so that he can be on a level playing field and not fell like such a failure as a man and as a husband for not being able to protect his wife from harm. He carries that guilt with him and lashes out at us for having the temerity to take responsibility for our own self-defense. He and his wife relied on the police and it obviously failed. By keeping us all at the same point, he can make himself feel better when other people are raped and murdered by bad guys because he can then point to it and tell himself "see, that's just the way it is. Nothing I could have done here to protect her". You're a sad man jocal. Its too late for you and your wife and I feel for you. But people taking responsibility for their own protecting is not "pathetic". YOU are the pathetic one for wanting to bring all of us down to your level.

 

 

Bump. Joe, I think I have your fucking number.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Welcome back douchebag. Its been nice without you. Now kindly fuck back off to where you were hiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

CCP is also dangerous, based on the evidence. How you do carry on.

 

CC is really only dangerous to the criminals who try to attack an armed person according to the stats. Obama's directed and gov't funded gun study by the CDC clearly and unambiguously stated that those victims who are armed with guns are far MORE likely to have better outcomes if attacked than those who don't.

 

Of course the corollary is that the outcome is far worse for the attacker than it would be otherwise. And THAT, dear readers, is what has jokleberry fuck so flaming furious. He cannot stand that some meth head rapist might be laying in a pool of blood with an empowered woman standing over his body unhurt holding the gun that just saved her life and her dignity.

 

And I don't say this as a jab against jocal, but I'm beginning to see the pathology of his hatred for guns and his even greater hatred of those of us who choose to arm and protect ourselves. But I believe to my core that the reason he finds armed protect so "pathetic" is that had his wife been armed and able to fight back and protect herself - she never would have been raped. Therefore he wants to disarm all of us, so that he can be on a level playing field and not fell like such a failure as a man and as a husband for not being able to protect his wife from harm. He carries that guilt with him and lashes out at us for having the temerity to take responsibility for our own self-defense. He and his wife relied on the police and it obviously failed. By keeping us all at the same point, he can make himself feel better when other people are raped and murdered by bad guys because he can then point to it and tell himself "see, that's just the way it is. Nothing I could have done here to protect her". You're a sad man jocal. Its too late for you and your wife and I feel for you. But people taking responsibility for their own protecting is not "pathetic". YOU are the pathetic one for wanting to bring all of us down to your level.

 

 

Bump. Joe, I think I have your fucking number.......

 

 

Actually, my reaction to the modern gun culture is about the dishonesty and generation of fear they employ, to an extreme degree.

Guys like you buy it, you push gun rights too far, just don't know when to quit.

If you are moderate or solution-oriented, all your guns will be taken away. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell her that we're sorry that her current pussified psychotic husband would do nothing more for her the next time this happens than to jump over some nigga's car.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let the readers note that Tom Ray can't back up his statements.

Let us note how Tom has hijacked the name Publius, but has distorted the militia structure of the real Publius.

The readers may need to review Federalist 26. Correction, 46

 

What else has Tom distorted?

 

 

 

April Howard is no different than any other American citizen.

She can choose to have a good life.

Sitting around in fear with a gun is not a very good life.

Walking around in fear, with a gun, is pathetic. It is sick, IMO.

CCP is also dangerous, based on the evidence. How you do carry on.

 

How many times to I have to tell you it's 29, not 26? You even posted a link and still didn't get it right.

 

Here's an excerpt:

 

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;

 

Is April Howard part of "the people at large" or not?

 

 

Tom, why are you asking me about April Howard, or your latest flyer?

We could be discussing the basics--whether gun control laws work, or not.

 

 

 

April Howard told me she thinks you are a cherry picker. Your quote included nothing about the authority structure of the real Publius.

 

April Howard once read Federalist 46, and concluded you are deluding yourself about being in the militia. Not unless you are enlisted, somewhat formally reporting to an elected captain, who needs appointment by your Governor. This is what April learned about authority structure of the real Publius's militia, from Publius.

 

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.

Signed, Publius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said I was a member of any militia group. I'm part of the people. I might join one and the government can't disarm me to prevent the group from being effective.

 

Publius thought I might neglect my duty to remain armed and supplied and figured we should all have to check in once or twice a year to ensure it.

 

If we had listened to him, those idiots in the bird sanctuary might not have had to send out notes asking for snacks. But we didn't. No one checks to see whether I have a militarily useful weapon, so I have indeed neglected my duty to supply myself with a scary rifle.

 

Maybe I should rectify that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said I was a member of any militia group. I'm part of the people. I might join one and the government can't disarm me to prevent the group from being effective.

 

You think guns are "effective" in political situations?

 

 

 

 

Publius thought I might neglect my duty to remain armed and supplied and figured we should all have to check in once or twice a year to ensure it.

 

Check in with whom? Are you unregulated, or not?

 

If we had listened to him, those idiots in the bird sanctuary might not have had to send out notes asking for snacks. But we didn't. No one checks to see whether I have a militarily useful weapon, so I have indeed neglected my duty to supply myself with a scary rifle.

 

Maybe I should rectify that situation..

 

How did the guns work out down at Malheur?

Why type of element did the gun bravado attract?

Dumbasses, with guns.

See where this "patriotism" is going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never said I was a member of any militia group. I'm part of the people. I might join one and the government can't disarm me to prevent the group from being effective.

 

You think guns are "effective" in political situations?

 

 

Guns are amazingly effective in political situations. Just ask the Taliban. A relative handful of committed "militia fighters" with not much more than basic assault rifles have basically bled the most powerful military on the planet for over a decade. Guns are a very effective political tool.

 

War is the continuation of politics by other means. -- Carl von Clausewitz

 

 

In fact, the more I think about it, a case can be made that having a gun is as much of a First Am right as it is a 2A right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

CCP is also dangerous, based on the evidence. How you do carry on.

CC is really only dangerous to the criminals who try to attack an armed person according to the stats. Obama's directed and gov't funded gun study by the CDC clearly and unambiguously stated that those victims who are armed with guns are far MORE likely to have better outcomes if attacked than those who don't.

 

Of course the corollary is that the outcome is far worse for the attacker than it would be otherwise. And THAT, dear readers, is what has jokleberry fuck so flaming furious. He cannot stand that some meth head rapist might be laying in a pool of blood with an empowered woman standing over his body unhurt holding the gun that just saved her life and her dignity.

 

And I don't say this as a jab against jocal, but I'm beginning to see the pathology of his hatred for guns and his even greater hatred of those of us who choose to arm and protect ourselves. But I believe to my core that the reason he finds armed protect so "pathetic" is that had his wife been armed and able to fight back and protect herself - she never would have been raped. Therefore he wants to disarm all of us, so that he can be on a level playing field and not fell like such a failure as a man and as a husband for not being able to protect his wife from harm. He carries that guilt with him and lashes out at us for having the temerity to take responsibility for our own self-defense. He and his wife relied on the police and it obviously failed. By keeping us all at the same point, he can make himself feel better when other people are raped and murdered by bad guys because he can then point to it and tell himself "see, that's just the way it is. Nothing I could have done here to protect her". You're a sad man jocal. Its too late for you and your wife and I feel for you. But people taking responsibility for their own protecting is not "pathetic". YOU are the pathetic one for wanting to bring all of us down to your level.

Bump. Joe, I think I have your fucking number.......

Actually, my reaction to the modern gun culture is about the dishonesty and generation of fear they employ, to an extreme degree.

Guys like you buy it, you push gun rights too far, just don't know when to quit.

If you are moderate or solution-oriented, all your guns will be taken away. Got it.

You should lead by example JokeOff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Gee, Tom, thanks for the long argument containing nothing, about nothing.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. But chaos is the result of guns in the black community.

The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.

 

Sorry for incorrectly saying you see racial discrimination in permitting as no big deal, jocal.

 

You very clearly state that it is a big deal to you and nothing about that post would lead a person to believe you were being sarcastic.

 

 

Look, you offered a racist straw man, with my name on it, twisted with dishonesty.

Tom Ray, above: No, I don't think it's right for government to discriminate based on race. Unlike jocal, I do think it's a big deal.

 

King was not devastated, Tom. The gun permit denial got barely a footnote or comment in MLK's writings.

Dr. King being denied a gun permit was barely the tip of the iceberg. In the course of his life, I doubt it meant much to him.

But it sure means a lot to Tom Ray...for the wrong reasons, too.

What was on MLK's mind, copying Gandhi, was not guns, but teaching civic leaders how to train firm, non-violent, self-discipline into masses of people.

 

You have been making the case, for three years, that what happened to MLK is proof positive that shall issue is okay or needed, I take it.

I disagree. I recognize that it happened, and that it was racist. I acknowledge that he needed a gun, but plead that it was because of hard-headed people who foster misunderstandings, such as your own. I see no viable link between MLK and shall issue... except for Tom Ray's off-key magnetism to the non-connection.

 

Why the heck do you feel a need to touch on race? Do you have something worth offering on the subject?

Why the repeated race-baiting?

 

Tom Ray Posted 27 July 2014 - 02:07 PM

Denying rights because of race is good, and MLK was glad to had his permit application denied for that reason. Got it.

Why is it important for you to paint me as a racist?

Why the need to make Bloomberg out a racist (or to myopically define him strictly in terms of stop and frisk)?

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 sound like a nut job when you go on, when you contort grains of truth into your pet theories (which promote many undesirable cultural outcomes).

 

 

I think you are a weak man, that you are programmed like a cheap toy to cry "closed registry" etc., and that you demonstrate an uneasy, confused racial understanding.

 

MLK would abhor your position, how you ignore his values; IMO he wouldn't care for his name being associated with your anti-American bile, either.

Tom, since you don't know or respect him, just leave him alone,eh?

 

But you can't let it go, something is bothering you...

 

 

Bump.

You are an intelligent man, Tom. You can be articulate, sometimes.

How is your understanding of U.S. race relations proceeding?

Has it developed beyond the understanding of the real Publius, circa 1780?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump.

You are an intelligent man, Tom. You can be articulate, sometimes.

How is your understanding of U.S. race relations proceeding?

Has it developed beyond the understanding of the real Publius, circa 1780?

 

 

I think the US race relations could be better, except that we have folks like you who think that blacks can't be trusted with guns and that they need special regulations tailored to them to prevent their violent nature from coming out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bump.

You are an intelligent man, Tom. You can be articulate, sometimes.

How is your understanding of U.S. race relations proceeding?

Has it developed beyond the understanding of the real Publius, circa 1780?

 

 

I think the US race relations could be better, except that we have folks like you who think that blacks can't be trusted with guns and that they need special regulations tailored to them to prevent their violent nature from coming out.

 

 

Listen, my friend. From the tone of your content, I think I know your direction here.

You wanted a discussion, then things degenerated perty fast, eh?

I think I'm not gonna roll about in whatever this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've shown everyone here that you're a fuking Class A racist.....but now you're trying to back track like the spineless piece of shit you've proven yourself to be. Fuking cunt, why don't step away from the keyboard for a while and go play some Russian roulette solitaire.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY provides another example of what happens when police have discretion over who should or should not have permission to keep and bear arms. It turns out that thousands of dollars can sway their opinion on the matter.

 

Lunch Money for Gun Permits

 

NYPD cops pocketed cash bribes to “expedite” pistol permits for members of the Orthodox Jewish community — and a Boro Park Shomrim patrol leader offered another officer a near $1 million payday to keep the scheme going, the feds charged Monday.

 

A cop in the NYPD’s License Division​ allegedly confessed to the FBI that he and a supervisor accepted payments he called “lunch money” from Alex “Shaya” Lichtenstein, who was hauled into court Monday on bribery and conspiracy charges

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No no no! The term "black guns" is so un-PC. The correct term is:

 

"Weapons of color"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing these volatile black people had access to tools...

"I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms." So declared John R. Salter Jr., the civil rights leader who helped organize the legendary non-violent sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, in the 1960s. As Salter recalled it, he always "traveled armed" while doing civil rights work in the Jim Crow South. "Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine," Salter wrote. "The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay."

 

Salter was not unique among civil rights activists in this regard. Anti-slavery leader Frederick Douglass called a "good revolver" the "true remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill." Civil rights icon Fannie Lou Hamer said, "I keep a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom." Rosa Parks once described her dinner table "covered with guns" while civil rights activists met for a strategy session in her home. Martin Luther King Jr. carried guns for self-protection, applied for a conceal-carry permit (denied by racist white authorities), and once declared, "the principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to bear arms has mostly been for white people

 

...The civil rights movement was primarily about access to schools and jobs, but it also came to encompass guns and the Second Amendment. Despite King’s rejection of violence and its symbols, others saw guns as potent signifiers of empowerment and equal citizenship. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers took up arms and articulated a novel view of the Second Amendment: Not only did it guarantee the right to have a gun at home, it also protected the right to have a gun in public, where the threats (at least to blacks from police) were usually found. These activists also interpreted the Second Amendment as providing a right to take up arms against a tyrannical government — which, in their case, meant racist police officers. In standing up against police violence, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were ancestors of Black Lives Matter. Lawmakers in states such as California responded by passing new gun regulations intended to disarm black radicals.

 

Armed civil rights activists were also early forerunners of the modern gun rights movement. The Panthers’ view of the Second Amendment eventually caught on among white activists, too. In the 1980s, the NRA began to argue that the amendment protected a right to carry guns in public — and launched a remarkably successful 30-year campaign to overturn the very concealed-carry laws the group had endorsed years earlier.

 

Today, gun rights activists unwittingly echo Malcolm X when they say the Second Amendment entitles people to own weapons in case they need to revolt against a tyrannical government. And when open-carry advocates go to a protest with rifles slung across their backs, they are mimicking the Panthers, who in 1967 showed up at the California statehouse to protest gun-control proposals with long guns in their hands. Oh, the irony: The modern gun rights movement — mostly white, rural conservatives — grew out of ideas first promoted by black, urban, left-leaning radicals.

 

Gun politics remain highly racialized. Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control and whites the biggest opponents. In recognition of the nation’s changing demographics, the NRA is making a major push to diversify: Its new spokesman, Colion Noir, is an engaging African American millennial. Yet the NRA’s annual convention remains largely a sea of white folks. And as the NRA’s reluctance to make a statement in support of Philando Castile suggests — many believe the group would have immediately backed a white concealed-carrier in such circumstances — there is still a long way to go.

 

All Americans can claim to be part of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Yet because of the interaction of guns and race, that right has not been equally enjoyed by racial minorities. As long as the unfortunate strands of our racist past continue to shape our attitudes — and those of police officers like the one who shot Castile — racial minorities will continue to be the Second Amendment’s second-class citizens.

 

 

Pretty good summary but completely ignores Otis McDonald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to bear arms has mostly been for white people

 

...The civil rights movement was primarily about access to schools and jobs, but it also came to encompass guns and the Second Amendment. Despite King’s rejection of violence and its symbols, others saw guns as potent signifiers of empowerment and equal citizenship. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers took up arms and articulated a novel view of the Second Amendment: Not only did it guarantee the right to have a gun at home, it also protected the right to have a gun in public, where the threats (at least to blacks from police) were usually found. These activists also interpreted the Second Amendment as providing a right to take up arms against a tyrannical government — which, in their case, meant racist police officers. In standing up against police violence, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were ancestors of Black Lives Matter. Lawmakers in states such as California responded by passing new gun regulations intended to disarm black radicals.

 

Armed civil rights activists were also early forerunners of the modern gun rights movement. The Panthers’ view of the Second Amendment eventually caught on among white activists, too. In the 1980s, the NRA began to argue that the amendment protected a right to carry guns in public — and launched a remarkably successful 30-year campaign to overturn the very concealed-carry laws the group had endorsed years earlier.

 

Today, gun rights activists unwittingly echo Malcolm X when they say the Second Amendment entitles people to own weapons in case they need to revolt against a tyrannical government. And when open-carry advocates go to a protest with rifles slung across their backs, they are mimicking the Panthers, who in 1967 showed up at the California statehouse to protest gun-control proposals with long guns in their hands. Oh, the irony: The modern gun rights movement — mostly white, rural conservatives — grew out of ideas first promoted by black, urban, left-leaning radicals.

 

Gun politics remain highly racialized. Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control and whites the biggest opponents. In recognition of the nation’s changing demographics, the NRA is making a major push to diversify: Its new spokesman, Colion Noir, is an engaging African American millennial. Yet the NRA’s annual convention remains largely a sea of white folks. And as the NRA’s reluctance to make a statement in support of Philando Castile suggests — many believe the group would have immediately backed a white concealed-carrier in such circumstances — there is still a long way to go.

 

All Americans can claim to be part of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Yet because of the interaction of guns and race, that right has not been equally enjoyed by racial minorities. As long as the unfortunate strands of our racist past continue to shape our attitudes — and those of police officers like the one who shot Castile — racial minorities will continue to be the Second Amendment’s second-class citizens.

 

 

Pretty good summary Adam Winkler is solid as a rock, Tom but completely ignores Otis McDonald.

 

You understand Otis in this contest. Plug him in for us. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, OK.

 

The short version is that when Gura started (correctly in my view) arguing the privileges and immunities angle in Otis' case against the Chicago gun ban, Scalia told him to STFU and go the well-established due process route, something Gura was unprepared to do.

 

The guy from the NRA did it brilliantly and won the case.

 

Almost made me forget how the NRA tried to scuttle the Parker (later Heller) case. Almost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winkler's quote, the context, was about race and guns. Is there a racial angle to the Macdonald case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck would I know? Unlike you, I don't read my own links. That's why you're able to dispense wisdom like this:

 

 

Otis McDonald lived a checkered life.
His case was handled with the assumption he would never be seen in court again.
Which was correct.
His crimes were common knowledge to newspapers and prosecutors alike.
The man who defended his personal sawed off shotgun, which was discovered investigating a bNk robbery. The defense was based on military use sawed-off shotguns. Otis died of a bullet injury.
I read this stuff following Tom's links , he doesn't read them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Badgeless Dodger needs to dodge.

Tom's source, Adam Winkler, wrote a thoughtful piece reflecting racially influenced gun outcomes.

(Note: these outcomes seem to work out poorly for the brothers, no matter what.)

Tom interjected that the piece needs Otis Macdonald content.

Jocal asks what is the racial connection in Macdonald ?

Tom fails to answer. He brings up a mix-up of plaintiff identities. (jocal's My Bad III Zzzzz)

 

Hmmm, Tom can't discuss the ins and outs of our evolving racial understanding, or lack of it.

And he can't stop himself from racially based content on Political Anarchy.

It would help if Tom had a contribution to make on the subject of the evolution race relations.

This is Tom's brain on race: (...blank spot, bang bang...) Mr. Ray can't separate the race issue from guns, for one observation. The two issues are barely connected IMO.

To be continued, intelligently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be continued, intelligently...

 

 

From you??? HAHAHAHAHA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winkler said the NRA's reluctance to make a statement about Castile showed something.

 

So did their willingness to win Otis McDonald's case show something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winkler said the NRA's reluctance to make a statement about Castile showed something.

 

So did their willingness to win Otis McDonald's case show something else?

 

You reply with a question, Tom?

 

I was asking about any significant racial angle in MacDonald. More than once.

You said Macdonald needed to be plugged into Winkler's article, which covered blacks and guns.

But you can't say why. Spit it out mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Winkler said the NRA's reluctance to make a statement about Castile showed something.

 

So did their willingness to win Otis McDonald's case show something else?

 

You reply with a question, Tom?

 

I was asking about any significant racial angle in MacDonald. More than once.

You said Macdonald needed to be plugged into Winkler's article, which covered blacks and guns.

But you can't say why. Spit it out mate.

 

 

Because, like Castile, he was a black man. Who was NOT named Jack Miller.

 

The reason for including Castile was his race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cite?

Was the race of the plaintiff mentioned, was it pertinent?

Or is any racial angle in Macdonald your own brilliant insight?

Is it part of your sophisticated (but secretive) racial understanding?

 

Macdonald was filed the day of the Heller decision. Heller covered individual rights inside D.C.--which is not a state.

Macdonald was all about confirming (or expanding, if you will) individual gun rights to the states.

Winkler didn't mention Macdonald because race had no material effect on the argument in play.

 

You are a wanker trying to present the NRA's POV as racially acceptable.

We weren't born yesterday.You have a long way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they "immediately backed" McDonald. What does that suggest?

 

Gun politics remain highly racialized. Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control and whites the biggest opponents. In recognition of the nation’s changing demographics, the NRA is making a major push to diversify: Its new spokesman, Colion Noir, is an engaging African American millennial. Yet the NRA’s annual convention remains largely a sea of white folks. And as the NRA’s reluctance to make a statement in support of Philando Castile suggests — many believe the group would have immediately backed a white concealed-carrier in such circumstances — there is still a long way to go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So they "immediately backed" McDonald. What does that suggest?

 

Gun politics remain highly racialized. Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control and whites the biggest opponents. In recognition of the nation’s changing demographics, the NRA is making a major push to diversify: Its new spokesman, Colion Noir, is an engaging African American millennial. Yet the NRA’s annual convention remains largely a sea of white folks. And as the NRA’s reluctance to make a statement in support of Philando Castile suggests — many believe the group would have immediately backed a white concealed-carrier in such circumstances — there is still a long way to go.

 

 

 

This cite ^^^ does not back up your statement.

This cite doesn't cover any racial angle in Macdonald.

 

 

 

 

From Tom Ray's non-corroborating quote: Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control

 

Thanks for the smoke and mirrors. Cite this crap, too. ^^^

Which "racial minorities" favor guns? Where is the link for your source?

Generally, both Hispanics and blacks will vote against absolutist gun policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So they "immediately backed" McDonald. What does that suggest?

 

Gun politics remain highly racialized. Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control and whites the biggest opponents. In recognition of the nation’s changing demographics, the NRA is making a major push to diversify: Its new spokesman, Colion Noir, is an engaging African American millennial. Yet the NRA’s annual convention remains largely a sea of white folks. And as the NRA’s reluctance to make a statement in support of Philando Castile suggests — many believe the group would have immediately backed a white concealed-carrier in such circumstances — there is still a long way to go.

 

 

 

This cite ^^^ does not back up your statement.

This cite doesn't cover any racial angle in Macdonald.

 

 

 

 

From Tom Ray's non-corroborating quote: Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control

 

Thanks for the smoke and mirrors. Cite this crap, too. ^^^

Which "racial minorities" favor guns? Where is the link for your source?

Generally, both Hispanics and blacks will vote against absolutist gun policies.

 

 

That "crap" is from Adam "Solid As A Rock" Winkler. The link is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So they "immediately backed" McDonald. What does that suggest?

 

Gun politics remain highly racialized. Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control and whites the biggest opponents. In recognition of the nation’s changing demographics, the NRA is making a major push to diversify: Its new spokesman, Colion Noir, is an engaging African American millennial. Yet the NRA’s annual convention remains largely a sea of white folks. And as the NRA’s reluctance to make a statement in support of Philando Castile suggests — many believe the group would have immediately backed a white concealed-carrier in such circumstances — there is still a long way to go.

 

 

 

This cite ^^^ does not back up your statement.

This cite doesn't cover any racial angle in Macdonald.

 

 

 

 

From Tom Ray's non-corroborating quote: Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control

 

Thanks for the smoke and mirrors. Cite this crap, too. ^^^

Which "racial minorities" favor guns? Where is the link for your source?

Generally, both Hispanics and blacks will vote against absolutist gun policies.

 

 

That "crap" is from Adam "Solid As A Rock" Winkler. The link is here.

 

 

The "link is here," but I bet such a quote isn't Winkler.

You have met your match, my name is Joe you loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow this link:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/15/the-right-to-bear-arms-has-mostly-been-reserved-for-whites/?tid=paid_outbrain&utm_term=.2f75966adca8

 

And you'll find this sentence by Winkler:

 

Racial minorities are currently among the biggest supporters of gun control and whites the biggest opponents.

 

 

And see that jocal is lying again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2015 at 7:25 AM, jocal505 said:

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?

Our Mosteller discussion is still open Tom. (A member of MLK's Church who had mentioned gun logic from his pulpit was sacked. You announced a new gun  policy for the SCLC. ) 

Your idea was to support gun supply and gun violence logic in the black communities, an idea that you've tossed in a few times.

Hi there Tom, on the second anniversary of the church shooting in Charleston. Any cheeky comments or actual insights to add?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure. I still think that denying a gun permit based on race is bad.

I still don't agree with Justice Taney and won't denounce black people just because they want to own guns. I'm willing to listen to ones like Mosteller, who actually think he should be able to do things a white guy can do. I introduced you to him because I think you should listen respectfully to what he has to say. I know, I know, it's a cheeky idea to say that a white man should listen to a black or that whites don't know what's best for blacks.

Maybe Cheeky Tom will be my next name.

Quote

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
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yeah, sure. I still think that denying a gun permit based on race is bad.

I still don't agree with Justice Taney and won't denounce black people just because they want to own guns. I'm willing to listen to ones like Mosteller, who actually think he should be able to do things a white guy can do. I introduced you to him because I think you should listen respectfully to what he has to say. I know, I know, it's a cheeky idea to say that a white man should listen to a black or that whites don't know what's best for blacks.

Maybe Cheeky Tom will be my next name.

 

Welcome back to your racebaiter thread, Tom. 

I think I see TR's Greatest Hits of Racebaiting all lined up in a row in your post. My thoughts are deeper, non-petty reflections at the moment. Thanks but no thanks Tom. Yer an idiot to challenge any ghetto street worker with trailer park spew etc.. But I digress.

THE RACE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT GUNS. REPEAT NOT.  Your Bannonspin  move on MLK's church is not about guns, either. What was all that about? Why would you presume to impose your views on MLK's church? Are you religious or spiritual yourself? Are you not peddling gun values and gun behavior here, actual activity... not "rights".?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you degenerate decent conversation to such silly matters. Seriously Tom, you have very nuanced, articulate understandings in other areas. What's up with this trailer park intellectual slop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the denial of MLK's permit absolutely was about race and guns, whether you will admit it or not. It was a gun permit denied because of his race (and probably his politics too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did our fine, post-Charleston awareness get dragged to the gun subject? And why?

The question was MOSTELLER: why did you drag  MLK's peaceful church through Larry Pratt's violent mud?

Share this post


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

How did our fine, post-Charleston awareness get dragged to the gun subject? And why? The question was MOSTELLER: why did you drag  MLK's peaceful church through Larry Pratt's violent mud?

When I caused Mr. Mosteller to say the things he did, I was just in a bad mood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were peddling gun mayhem, as usual. And throwing racial innuendo all about, as usual. Using MLK as a stage prop, mate.

Did you read your link, maybe see the damn photo? How did you come to announce the entire church was trending to LaPierre, when Mostelleer attended his own publicized sacking?

 

Are you a FL redneck? Were you huffing the swamp gas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still asking. Hmmm, I asked the Mosteller question to Tom on the deleted Charleston thread. 

1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yeah, sure. I still think that denying a gun permit based on race is bad.

I still don't agree with Justice Taney and won't denounce black people just because they want to own guns. I'm willing to listen to ones like Mosteller, who actually think he should be able to do things a white guy can do. I introduced you to him because I think you should listen respectfully to what he has to say. I know, I know, it's a cheeky idea to say that a white man should listen to a black or that whites don't know what's best for blacks.

Maybe Cheeky Tom will be my next name.

 

Pooplius, why didn't you post such racebaiter content  ^^^ the day after Charleston? Why did you take a break for eleven days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites