Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

 

 

If you really want an open and honest debate, take a shot at my question from above about your proposal:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

 

Tom, what you're missing in this discussion is that joke-al simply cannot get past the word 'Shall". He sees shall and imagines all kinds of crazy stuff like the sheriff "shall" issue handguns to felons when they walk out of prison, that shall means the NRA and Alan Gottlieb himself are passing out AR-15s at mental institutions - all funded with taxpayer $$. This is what "Shall" means to idiot boy. What he doesn't understand is that "SHALL" is still conditional. LEO's shall issue CCW permits once certain objective and pre-defined criteria are met - like passing a thorough background check, like getting fingerprinted, like passing a training course, etc etc. Jo-fuck's logic is binary - its either on/off, yes/no, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the guy who shoots at targets shaped like humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the guy who shoots at targets shaped like humans.

 

What's wrong with shooting at targets shaped like humans? I take it you have an issue with this woman too?

 

target-shooter-6.jpg

 

Train like you fight, fight like you train?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some wonder why so many humans are shot and killed in the US. They practice to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some wonder why so many humans are shot and killed in the US. They practice to do it.

 

Of course we do. That's called being a responsible gun-owner? If, god forbid, I ever have to pull a trigger on a real human to defend my life or those around me - I want to make sure I can actually hit what I'm aiming at and effectively stop the threat. For the exact same reason cops practice shooting at human targets. And for the exact same reason Marines practice shooting at human targets.

 

Interestingly, I doubt that many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers spend much time at the practice range. Yet they shoot humans too. Unfortunately, not very effectively - because too often they spray bullets and hit innocent bystanders.

 

What shape target should I shoot at so as not to offend your pussified sensitivity? Is this one better?

 

8eed31db555d946f5264d3754ca3bcea.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you really want an open and honest debate, take a shot at my question from above about your proposal:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

 

Tom, what you're missing in this discussion is that joke-al simply cannot get past the word 'Shall". He sees shall and imagines all kinds of crazy stuff like the sheriff "shall" issue handguns to felons when they walk out of prison, that shall means the NRA and Alan Gottlieb himself are passing out AR-15s at mental institutions - all funded with taxpayer $$. This is what "Shall" means to idiot boy. What he doesn't understand is that "SHALL" is still conditional. LEO's shall issue CCW permits once certain objective and pre-defined criteria are met - like passing a thorough background check, like getting fingerprinted, like passing a training course, etc etc. Jo-fuck's logic is binary - its either on/off, yes/no, etc.

 

 

The PTC atmosphere is a mess...and you want some pie-in-the-sky commitment to certain standards from me.

If the standards for "shall issue" were sound, they would easier to support.

But at present, the standards, and the information available to apply those standards, are a joke.

They have been buggered by the gun lobby, eh?

So I don't trust such a process, and I won't trust it until I see reasonable standards applied, based on easily available info.

The dangerous atmosphere defining who packs lethal firepower is the doin' of the gun lobby. I don't trust it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And some wonder why so many humans are shot and killed in the US. They practice to do it.

 

Of course we do. That's called being a responsible gun-owner? If, god forbid, I ever have to pull a trigger on a real human to defend my life or those around me - I want to make sure I can actually hit what I'm aiming at and effectively stop the threat. For the exact same reason cops practice shooting at human targets. And for the exact same reason Marines practice shooting at human targets.

 

Interestingly, I doubt that many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers spend much time at the practice range. Yet they shoot humans too. Unfortunately, not very effectively - because too often they spray bullets and hit innocent bystanders.

 

What shape target should I shoot at so as not to offend your pussified sensitivity?

 

Pre-visualizing the shooting of other humans is "being a responsible gun-owner."

When packing, Jeff is the equivalent of a law enforcement officer, equivalent to a soldier bearing arms.

Jeff is superior to "many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers" because of his humanitarian time at the range.

But no vigilante mentality is in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And some wonder why so many humans are shot and killed in the US. They practice to do it.

 

Of course we do. That's called being a responsible gun-owner? If, god forbid, I ever have to pull a trigger on a real human to defend my life or those around me - I want to make sure I can actually hit what I'm aiming at and effectively stop the threat. For the exact same reason cops practice shooting at human targets. And for the exact same reason Marines practice shooting at human targets.

 

Interestingly, I doubt that many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers spend much time at the practice range. Yet they shoot humans too. Unfortunately, not very effectively - because too often they spray bullets and hit innocent bystanders.

 

What shape target should I shoot at so as not to offend your pussified sensitivity? Is this one better?

 

8eed31db555d946f5264d3754ca3bcea.jpg

 

 

That's fucked up. Head shots are the less cruel target. You guys must be shit hunters.

headshot.jpg

Note: A shot to the side of the head is preferred as it is a larger target area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Tom is part of the new breed using a modern media approach where if you say something enough times it must be true.

 

Western civilisation has been based on a process where discussion and debate eventually leads to a just and agreed conclusion. That has broken down, it is the past. Now we have the message of preference to sell more stuff (guns e.g.), repeated constantly until the dumb believe it and the intelligent become numb and frustrated. That's how Fox works and the media in general.

 

What the 'spin-doctors' do not realise is that the stupid are not worth convincing and the silenced intelligentsia is more of a foe, hardened by argument.

 

Your post gets it pretty close. You just presented a forest, while I am quite mesmerized by Tom, one very likable tree in that forest.

I suppose most of our community will aggree that in Tom we have a special person...but that's why this is really bugging me.

Even a fine zealot has to look in the mirror.

 

Let's take Tom's repeated denial of the gun violence research ban. With each denial, a cycle of disinformation begins.

Phase 1.Tom lays down the plank of research ban denial as one part of his dishonest propaganda.

Phase 2.When confronted with evidence, Tom puts the research ban delial fib on a shelf, to be repeated later, when under less scrutiny.

Phase 3. To address the resulting repeated loss of credibility, Tom deflects that he is a mere "bad messenger" for a worthy message.

Phase 4. Tom gravitates to other dishonest propaganda, using a narrow bandwidth of his own choosing.

 

But where is the daily point whereTom's own dishonesty is accepted by Tom?

When did that become okay for him (or for Fox News)?

 

Given the pattern of deceit...

1.This degree of dishonesty must be driven by the sub-conscious, and may be masked by well-meaning rationalizations.

2. But to some degree the dishonesty must be admitted by the conscious mind. I often wonder what percent of Tom's conscious mind grasps the deceit.

3. There must be a compensating rationale in play. Could it be about "the end justifies the means"?

4. Please note that Tom's pattern of wide-open dishonesty matches John R. Lott, the SAF, and NRA/ILA.

 

 

--The first casualty of this behavior is the responsibility for the present gun reality. The denied funding for this vital gun violence study contributes to the gun carnage, and masks the causes and consequences of gun violence.

--Secondly, knowledge has just become a casualty of ignorance.

--But third, another casualty is that a fine man feels okay about lying in public, repeatedly...and it is an accepted on a straight-shooting forum.

 

This is routine now, a dishonest new normal. For guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If you really want an open and honest debate, take a shot at my question from above about your proposal:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

 

Tom, what you're missing in this discussion is that joke-al simply cannot get past the word 'Shall". He sees shall and imagines all kinds of crazy stuff like the sheriff "shall" issue handguns to felons when they walk out of prison, that shall means the NRA and Alan Gottlieb himself are passing out AR-15s at mental institutions - all funded with taxpayer $$. This is what "Shall" means to idiot boy. What he doesn't understand is that "SHALL" is still conditional. LEO's shall issue CCW permits once certain objective and pre-defined criteria are met - like passing a thorough background check, like getting fingerprinted, like passing a training course, etc etc. Jo-fuck's logic is binary - its either on/off, yes/no, etc.

 

 

The PTC atmosphere is a mess...and you want some pie-in-the-sky commitment to certain standards from me.

If the standards for "shall issue" were sound, they would easier to support.

But at present, the standards, and the information available to apply those standards, are a joke.

They have been buggered by the gun lobby, eh?

So I don't trust such a process, and I won't trust it until I see reasonable standards applied, based on easily available info.

The dangerous atmosphere defining who packs lethal firepower is the doin' of the gun lobby. I don't trust it.

 

 

Why do you keep talking about reasonable standards?

 

You're a may issue guy. The only reasonable standard for you is: does a cop think it's OK? He may, he may not. Either way, his decision needs no justification and is generally final.

 

If that's what you consider reasonable, can you describe one that gives the cop too much power and too little oversight? Because I don't see how you could go any further in the "all power, no oversight" direction, but you do amaze me sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Violent, Vigilante Mentality Will Get You Killed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4bYXK7je8

 

Published on Aug 3, 2015

Retaliation! If the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we MUST rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

 

 

The video is promoting justiceorelse.com, a site about the 20th anniversary celebration for the Million Man March.

 

Unjust Killings

From the slaughter of Native Americans to the unjustified lynchings of Blacks, the only thing “new” are the methods and uniforms of the perpetrators. The results are yet the same. Let’s speak for the Mike Browns, Trayvon Martins, Oscar Grants, Tamir Rice and thousands of others whose name go unknown and stop this madness.

 

 

 

So I guess the plan would be to stalk and kill this guy to solve racism in America. Because black people murdering Darren Wilson would be so helpful to racial relations in America. Farrakan is a dangerous buffoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And some wonder why so many humans are shot and killed in the US. They practice to do it.

 

Of course we do. That's called being a responsible gun-owner? If, god forbid, I ever have to pull a trigger on a real human to defend my life or those around me - I want to make sure I can actually hit what I'm aiming at and effectively stop the threat. For the exact same reason cops practice shooting at human targets. And for the exact same reason Marines practice shooting at human targets.

 

Interestingly, I doubt that many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers spend much time at the practice range. Yet they shoot humans too. Unfortunately, not very effectively - because too often they spray bullets and hit innocent bystanders.

 

What shape target should I shoot at so as not to offend your pussified sensitivity?

 

Pre-visualizing the shooting of other humans is "being a responsible gun-owner."

When packing, Jeff is the equivalent of a law enforcement officer, equivalent to a soldier bearing arms.

Jeff is superior to "many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers" because of his humanitarian time at the range.

But no vigilante mentality is in play.

 

 

Yep. You are correct on all counts. That was one of your more reasonable and actually coherent posts. Thank you for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Violent, Vigilante Mentality Will Get You Killed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4bYXK7je8

 

Published on Aug 3, 2015

Retaliation! If the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we MUST rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

 

 

The video is promoting justiceorelse.com, a site about the 20th anniversary celebration for the Million Man March.

 

Unjust Killings

From the slaughter of Native Americans to the unjustified lynchings of Blacks, the only thing “new” are the methods and uniforms of the perpetrators. The results are yet the same. Let’s speak for the Mike Browns, Trayvon Martins, Oscar Grants, Tamir Rice and thousands of others whose name go unknown and stop this madness.

 

 

 

So I guess the plan would be to stalk and kill this guy to solve racism in America. Because black people murdering Darren Wilson would be so helpful to racial relations in America. Farrakan is a dangerous buffoon.

 

Do blacks get a pass on hate speech? That seems like a pretty direct incitement to violence and action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he should be 'droned'

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Violent, Vigilante Mentality Will Get You Killed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4bYXK7je8

 

Published on Aug 3, 2015

Retaliation! If the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we MUST rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

 

 

The video is promoting justiceorelse.com, a site about the 20th anniversary celebration for the Million Man March.

 

Unjust Killings

From the slaughter of Native Americans to the unjustified lynchings of Blacks, the only thing “new” are the methods and uniforms of the perpetrators. The results are yet the same. Let’s speak for the Mike Browns, Trayvon Martins, Oscar Grants, Tamir Rice and thousands of others whose name go unknown and stop this madness.

 

 

 

So I guess the plan would be to stalk and kill this guy to solve racism in America. Because black people murdering Darren Wilson would be so helpful to racial relations in America. Farrakan is a dangerous buffoon.

 

Do blacks get a pass on hate speech? That seems like a pretty direct incitement to violence and action.

 

 

Nah, "stalk them and kill them" is just rhetorical flourish and subject to many interpretations.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A Violent, Vigilante Mentality Will Get You Killed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4bYXK7je8

 

Published on Aug 3, 2015

Retaliation! If the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we MUST rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

 

 

The video is promoting justiceorelse.com, a site about the 20th anniversary celebration for the Million Man March.

 

Unjust Killings

From the slaughter of Native Americans to the unjustified lynchings of Blacks, the only thing “new” are the methods and uniforms of the perpetrators. The results are yet the same. Let’s speak for the Mike Browns, Trayvon Martins, Oscar Grants, Tamir Rice and thousands of others whose name go unknown and stop this madness.

 

 

 

So I guess the plan would be to stalk and kill this guy to solve racism in America. Because black people murdering Darren Wilson would be so helpful to racial relations in America. Farrakan is a dangerous buffoon.

 

Do blacks get a pass on hate speech? That seems like a pretty direct incitement to violence and action.

 

 

Nah, "stalk them and kill them" is just rhetorical flourish and subject to many interpretations.

 

 

Tom, you are back to slinging racial poo. Ah, back to stoking the Dylann Roofs of the world.

Your racial overview is all about shall issue, according to you.

So...since you have little or nothing to add to the subject of race relations, you should let it rest.

 

But you can't. You are drawn to the subject for some reason...but sadly, you seem to dog paddle about in a cesspool of carpetbagger ignorance.

My good man, if your soul wanted racial satisfaction (as opposed to cheeky bigotry), you would have read MLK by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

This is my opinion, your psychology evaluation is a distraction.

 

Open Carry doesn't bother me now, it didn't bother me from as early as I can remember and I suspect it won't ever bother me. It's not about the gun in plain sight, it's about people openly asserting their Constitutional rights.

 

Concealed carry is unnerving to me, I don't support it, and I would have no problem seeing it outlawed, even though I know that's not going to happen because so many people like doing it.

 

Your physiological diagnosis of my opinion just suggests to me that a rational debate on the topic itself isn't something you feel you can do, so you fallback to attacking the messenger rather than the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... 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.

 

 

How much carnage have you caused and why do you love carnage so much as to keep a gun when you KNOW it's causing carnage?

 

Farrakan proposes stalking and killing people because of their race, I point it out, and I'm the problem?

 

So if I did not point it out there would be no problem with his call for murders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Tom, one instance is not notable. A persistent pattern, is.

 

You are clearly an intelligent person so I have to assume you are just trolling ... again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farrakan proposes stalking and killing people because of their race, I point it out, and I'm the problem?

 

Tom, I asked you to explain your edgy racial position. Your answer was childish.

(To paraphrase: "I thought you knew I oppose racist government policy...")

Here's a review of some of your post content, from this thread, started by yourself:

--The Black Panthers are coming with guns,

--Louis Farrakin is coming with guns,

--MLK's SCLC is going to guns, lead by Rev. Mosteller,

--the core purpose of Bloomberg and "may issue", and those who support either, is racism.

You're a bright guy, but it seems you are uneasy about race...and have nothing of substance to contribute to the subject of race relations.

Well, why can't you give it a rest, while informing yourself?

Do some (non-right-wing) reading on the subject, dude.

Give Ernie something he can work with.

McCarthy%20racial%20policy_zpsbbysycfr.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are drawn to the subject for some reason...but sadly, you seem to dog paddle about in a cesspool of carpetbagger ignorance.

 

 

 

Does anyone else get the impression that joke-al is using a random rant generator for some of his stuff???  Who actually writes "dog paddle about in a cesspool of carpetbagger ignorance."????

 

Here are some other likely jocal rants:
 
 

 

Let's talk about Gun carnage's perorations. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Gun carnage's particularly vilipensive form of mammonism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of coldhearted politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Gun carnage's secret passion is to dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. For shame!

 

In effect, Gun carnage's statements such as “Big emotions come from big words” indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Gun carnage and antinomianism are like white on rice. And that's why I'm writing this letter. This is my manifesto, if you will, on how to expose some of its more dubious financial dealings. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that it's time for it to face the music. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, I recently overheard a couple of froward, tasteless flimflammers say that matters of racial justice should enter a period of “benign neglect”. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Gun carnage-induced era of slogans and propaganda. Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Gun carnage indeed needs to come to terms with its anti-democratic past, and 2) society should recognize that words cannot convey the hurt and despair that I and so many others feel for those who were personally attacked by Gun carnage.

 

 

 

 

And his ire directed at Tom - a likely jocal quote:
 

 

Although I would very much like to uplift individuals and communities on a global scale to deal with Tom appropriately, there are several obstacles that make it difficult to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Tom. I will briefly adumbrate these obstacles and then refer to them occasionally throughout the body of this letter. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: Tom can get away with lies (e.g., that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Tom is lying.

 

Tom's secret passion is to encourage a deadly acceptance of intolerance. For shame! It may be coincidence that Tom's commentaries shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. It may be coincidence that they fracture family unity. And it may be coincidence that they feed us a fanciful load of horse manure as unassailable truth. But that's a lot of coincidence!

 

Tom's ideas leave me with several unanswered questions: Why does he insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which he himself is also a passenger? And is there anything that he can't make his protégés believe? These are difficult questions to answer because pointing out that he wants to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them is like pointing out that garbage attracts flies. But that's not all: The time has arrived to make a choice between freedom and slavery, revolt and submission, liberty and subservience. We must choose wisely, knowing that if we transcend traditional thinking, we can live as truly free and empowered human beings. If, however, we let Tom effectuate the downfall of all that is decent and civilized, we become little more than fearful, broken dogs condemned to exist in a world of spineless insurrectionism. His behavior might be different if he were told that he rejects the idea of objective standards. Of course, as far as Tom is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, “My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts.” That's why I'm telling you that he claims to be fighting for equality. What Tom is really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Tom claims that the betterment of society depends upon his promoting, fostering, and instituting alcoholism. I have my told-you-so's primed and ready to go as soon as people start noticing that by letting Tom do something as hypersensitive as that, we are forgetting that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to step back and consider the problem of his grievances in the larger picture of popular culture imagery? Everything I've written in this letter amounts to this: Tom's whole approach is volage-brained.

 

McCarthy%20racial%20policy_zpsbbysycfr.j

 

 

CREE PEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, the Siri of Political Anarchy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Farrakan proposes stalking and killing people because of their race, I point it out, and I'm the problem?

 

Tom, I asked you to explain your edgy racial position. Your answer was childish.

(To paraphrase: "I thought you knew I oppose racist government policy...")

Here's a review of some of your post content, from this thread, started by yourself:

--The Black Panthers are coming with guns,

--Louis Farrakin is coming with guns,

--MLK's SCLC is going to guns, lead by Rev. Mosteller,

--the core purpose of Bloomberg and "may issue", and those who support either, is racism.

...

 

 

I see a huge difference between a couple of the other people I have brought up in this thread and Farrakan. The others advocated acquiring guns for self-defense, including possibly against agents of government. Farrakan is advocating stalking and killing for retaliation. I favor the former, condemn the latter.

 

I'm not sure about the core purpose of "may issue" but would learn more if only you would answer my question on it. You seem to have in mind standards for carry permits.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-al doesn't like answering straightforward questions like that, Tom. Don't hold your breath too long.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oath Keepers to join black protesters in Ferguson open carry advocacy march

 

...While in Ferguson, however, Oath Keepers were confronted by St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar who clashed briefly with the group over the state’s open carry law. The conversation was videotaped and placed on YouTube.

 

“My only problem is with the long guns and inciting these guys out here,” Belmar said, referring to the Ferguson protesters.

 

When asked specifically about the state’s open carry law, the chief said, “I have attorneys. I didn’t go to law school. I get what you guys stand for and probably agree with most of it. All I’m trying to do is manage this thing.”

 

At one point in the video, Andrews told Belmar, “We would like for you to respect the state law.”

 

...

 

Andrews claimed he and the other Oath Keepers spent an entire night talking to African-American protestors about the situation in Ferguson and their Second Amendment right to bear arms. He said Oath Keepers never encountered any violence or profane language during their stay in Ferguson.

 

“Every person we talked to said if they carried they’d be shot by police. That’s the reason we’re going to hold this event and it will be a legal demonstration,” he said....

 

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

 

Black rights matter.

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.

 

 

 

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

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 grandmother’s gun, Yuma, Ariz.
  • May 7: 3-year-old Jadarrius Speights fatally shoots himself with his uncle’s 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.

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

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

So far this year. Anyone here not advocating a change in legislation shares blame in these deaths.

 

Children Killed/Injured in 2016

January 14, 2016 Ohio Dayton 4700 block of Queens Avenue 1 2

January 12, 2016 Georgia Atlanta 1504 Bouldercrest Road 0 1

January 11, 2016 Illinois Alton 3116 Acorn Street 1 0

January 10, 2016 New York Orchard Park Sandpiper Court 0 1

January 10, 2016 North Carolina Lumberton 2200 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive 1 0

January 9, 2016 Kentucky Louisville 400 block of N. 34th Street 1 0

January 8, 2016 Tennessee Kingsport 2005 Michelham Drive 0 1

January 8, 2016 Texas Carlsbad 11000 block of Midland 0 1

January 6, 2016 Georgia Buford 1800 block of Beyers Landing Drive 2 0

January 5, 2016 Texas Houston N/A 0 1

January 4, 2016 Tennessee Memphis 1400 block of Briercrest Lane 2 1

January 4, 2016 Georgia Lagrange 64 North Cary Street 0 1

January 4, 2016 Mississippi Jackson Keele Street 0 2

January 4, 2016 Colorado Trinidad 806 E. Goddard Avenue 1 0

January 4, 2016 Florida Saint Cloud 2900 Block of Michigan Avenue 0 1

January 3, 2016 Illinois Granite City 4700 block of Warnock Avenue 0 1

January 3, 2016 Alabama Talladega West Street 0 1

January 3, 2016 Iowa Dubuque 942 Main Street 0 1

January 3, 2016 Texas Spring 30700 block of Eastridge Drive 0 1

January 1, 2016 Wisconsin Cudahy 3700 block of E. Whittaker Ave 2 0

January 1, 2016 Florida Orlando 800 block of South Kirkman Road 0 1

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

Must be why I do not have a gun collection ...

 

A Short History of Guns and Sexual Inadequacy

"Everyone knows that white males own guns to compensate for a lack of manhood.

 

Some intrepid writers are finally getting to the bottom of the gun-violence problem: white males! For instance, Charlotte and Harriet Childress recently wrote a column in the Washington Post calling on white males to stop mass-shooting everyone. Now, it was easy to dismiss that column because, you know, it was written by women, but then Mark Karlin of BuzzFlash wrote an article that got down to the true reason guns are popular: white males' sexual insecurity. Quote the progressive sage: “You can feel at least temporarily reassured when a long-barreled assault weapon compensates for just another average manhood; it’s an irresistable[sic] testosterone high to the beleaguered white male.”

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

Nice to know you missed me sweety. I thought the link was apt for someone who bragged about both his guns AND how much pussy he got. Spot on I suspect.

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