Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

On 5/2/2018 at 6:21 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


Not to me. To me, it was and remains an illustration of how allowing government officials the discretion to deny such a permit for racist reasons is a bad idea.

A better idea would be a list of objective criteria to issue or deny such a permit. But that would tie the hands of racist gungrabberz so it's bad.

Thus, you lay out a myopic and cherry-picked angle of a key American individual, an icon of non-violence. Your little lesson is valid enough, but is mis-placed if repeated, due to its limited understanding AND lack of context.

The big pic has been presented around here, from @Mark Kvia  @frenchieTA-NEHISI COATES

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

 

Your trashing and belittling of MLK is the same mistake you make with Judge Taney, Tom. You are parading an incomplete racial understanding, in a discussion with broad overtones, which you miss.

The pope makes a poor poster child for condoms. Why is MLK being hijacked to peddle shall issue, which is a legal mechanisms for violence? At a glance, this is quite a cheap trick, and it gets used a lot.

 

I saw your elk from the ghettos Tom. IMO, your perspective was destructive there not because it's wrong (you can, in fact, talk down to Judge Taney), but because (like @Shootist Jeff) the outlook incomplete, and self-limiting. The focus is all wrong, it lacks the advancement warranted by the stature of what MLK did without guns.

You are using the cachet of a non-violent icon, MLK,  to peddle values contrary to himself. It's bullshit, especially if repeated.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You are using the cachet of a non-violent icon, MLK,  to peddle values contrary to himself.

Are you claiming that he didn't apply for a permit, Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Are you claiming that he didn't apply for a permit, Joe?

The bigger question for JoCal would be why would someone who professed a non-violent approach decide that they needed to carry a pistol to protect themselves? 
According to JoCal - everyone who has a CCW permit is a wannabe vigilante, or is looking for violent confrontation. 

Share this post


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

Your trashing and belittling of MLK

I have trashed and belittled the racists who denied his permit and those, like yourself, who are OK with that kind of discretion in law enforcement, but never MLK.

Share this post


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

Thus, you lay out a myopic and cherry-picked angle of a key American individual, an icon of non-violence. Your little lesson is valid enough, but is mis-placed if repeated, due to its limited understanding AND lack of context.

The big pic has been presented around here, from @Mark Kvia  @frenchieTA-NEHISI COATES

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

 

Your trashing and belittling of MLK is the same mistake you make with Judge Taney, Tom. You are parading an incomplete racial understanding, in a discussion with broad overtones, which you miss.

The pope makes a poor poster child for condoms. Why is MLK being hijacked to peddle shall issue, which is a legal mechanisms for violence? At a glance, this is quite a cheap trick, and it gets used a lot.

 

I saw your elk from the ghettos Tom. IMO, your perspective was destructive there not because it's wrong (you can, in fact, talk down to Judge Taney), but because (like @Shootist Jeff) the outlook incomplete, and self-limiting. The focus is all wrong, it lacks the advancement warranted by the stature of what MLK did without guns.

You are using the cachet of a non-violent icon, MLK,  to peddle values contrary to himself. It's bullshit, especially if repeated.

If I'm not mistaken, Tom is not trashing or belittling MLK.  Quite the opposite.  He is trashing and belittling the racist policies of MAY issue and the racists who denied MLK a CCW permit because he was melanin enhanced and therefore not of the "right kind".  Like it or not, MLK felt like he needed a gun for protection.  Given the climate, who can blame him?  Racist LEOs denied him the permit because they didn't want uppity niggers being armed and able to fight back.  Same exact thing happened in CA after the Black Panther Party armed up and exercised their 2A rights and actually implemented 2A solutions.  The result was that CA did everything in their power to take those 2A rights away from those uppity niggers.  And those racist policies persist in CA and elsewhere to this day.  In those "May Issue" state$, you need to be of the correct per$ua$ion and/or the correct $kin color unless you have other rea$on$ you can demon$trate why you need gun$.  

No, It is YOU who are belittling MLK because you mock his desire for self-protection.  I suspect its because you simply cannot wrap your small brain around the notion that a man can be non-violent and advocate for non-violence, yet still understand the need for violence if and when its necessary as a last resort.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
14 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The bigger question for JoCal would be why would someone who professed a non-violent approach decide that they needed to carry a pistol to protect themselves? 
According to JoCal - everyone who has a CCW permit is a wannabe vigilante, or is looking for violent confrontation. 

Excellent point, Ches!  I wonder how jocal would reconcile it if MLK was granted a permit but continued to advocate for non-violence???  I suspect his head would explode in short order given that he thinks all people who carry are looking for armed confrontation and vigilante situations.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

According to JoCal - everyone who has a CCW permit is a wannabe vigilante, or is looking for violent confrontation. 

I object, Mr. guy. I see the picture you need to paint about me, but now you have typed something that is wild, and dishonest. Please cite such statements as well as you can. If you can't grasp my position, don't bother trying to discuss some made-up convenience to yourself. 

Vigilantism is the application of law enforcement outside of the legal umbrella, training, and supervision of law enforcement. Heroic vigilante behavior can be imposed upon a bystander, by circumstances. And armed vigilantism can be lawful: stand your ground is that aberration. So vigilantism can be planned, or unplanned, armed or unarmed, intentional or imposed. 

From the words in your mouths, you are good guys who pack heat (just in case) to fight bad guys, and to protect your loved ones, even as a duty etc. Despite the facts that other layers of self-protection are readily available, you choose lethal weapons and the cult beliefs attached to them. Many or most of these beliefs are based entirely on vigilante values: ancient precepts of retribution.

 

One night I was studying founding father scholarship. I found a You Tube video of Joyce Lee Malcolm debating a very relaxed Saul Cornell. She looked uncomfortable, or shifty. And soon she blathered something very non-historical, that it just made sense to her that people should be able to arm themselves against criminals in everyday life. 

Again, the basis of that is a vigilante mindset. Now Jeff is a choirboy (who wouldn't mind a one-sided shootout by the debris box), but no doubt he's okay. Same for Chesapeke, and Greever of course. LenP and his hollow points can be grandfathered in...

But by the time you have a national sub-culture using a legislative juggernaut to extend gunplay outdoors (beyond the Heller guidelines), you have a galloping, viable, national consciousness in favor of a vigilante mindset.

In the logic of a non-vigilante woman with a PTC, she will shoot fourteen acquaintances before she hits her first stranger. She's not a self-admitted vigilante, but is socially imbalanced, mis-informed, and the gun is mis-placed.

40 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

...all people who carry are looking for armed confrontation and vigilante situations.  

Some are looking for it, and Boothy was one of them. Some look for trouble by the dumpster, while armed.

Others find the confrontation they were prepared for (but weren't looking for). I think the guns, and the vigilante overtones, seem to attract trouble. So I'm glad that Heller has fallen back, wisely, on castle doctrine.

Quote

GVA totals 2017, compared over four years.

  • Road Rage Up 250% in three years
  • Number of Injuries Up 29% over four years
  • Total gun incidents Up 18% over four years
  • Gun deaths (excluding 22,000 suicides/yr average) Up 23% in four years
  • Defensive Gun Uses Up 27% in four years
  • Officer involved, Suspect/shooter killed up 17% over four years
  • Accidental Shootings  Up 25% over four years
  • Number of Home Invasions Down 5% over four years
  • Number of Children (age 0-11) Injured  Up 19% over four years
  • Teens killed or injured (ages 12-17, not incl suicides) Up 38% over four years
  • Mass Shootings Up 26% over four years

 

Share this post


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

No, It is YOU who are belittling MLK because you mock his desire for self-protection.

Have a cite or two?

 

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

He is trashing and belittling the racist policies of MAY issue and the racists who denied MLK a CCW permit because he was melanin enhanced and therefore not of the "right kind".

Good for Tom. I support this idea.

Has Tom represented the big picture of MLK's values, or accomplishments, anywhere, ever? No. He is just hiding behind a better man here,  one who could manipulate non-violence. Tom is coasting on the the need to protect oneself from rednecks, and their self-limited understandings.

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And those racist policies persist in CA and elsewhere to this day. 

They sure do.

  • Did you read Mark's author? That article/book will change you. 

    The Case for Reparations Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

  • When are you going to retract your four statements blaming blacks for the vast majority of gun crime? Why did that mistake occur? Why cant you deal with it already, it now five years you chucklehead. 
  • You seem to be pre-occupied with gangstas with guns.
  • A JeffieSearch shows four pages of Jeffie snippets with shallow and malicious references to Chicago. If you employ sufficient racial understanding, apply it to Chicago for us.
  • A further search for "shitcago" will make you look even worse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 4:09 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 5/3/2018 at 12:22 PM, jocal505 said:

Your trashing and belittling of MLK

I have trashed and belittled the racists who denied his permit and those, like yourself, who are OK with that kind of discretion in law enforcement, but never MLK.

And I can prove it by waiting for the crickets...

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Please cite such statements as well as you can.

You can ask but can't deliver. Prove me wrong. Quote my posts in which I trash MLK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And I can prove it by waiting for the crickets...

You can ask but can't deliver. Prove me wrong. Quote my posts in which I trash MLK.

It's up to you to do the man credit, to see what's there. You haven't done that. Incredibly, you haven't risen above your many gun thoughts in referring to him. You have nothing to offer him, but his world has not opened up to you.

You are Tom Ray, a cheap little guy, so you trash MLK's church, too, with snarky bits about Rev. Mosteller. 

Share this post


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

And I can prove it by waiting for the crickets...

You can ask but can't deliver. Prove me wrong. Quote my posts in which I trash MLK.

It's up to you to do the man credit, to see what's there. You haven't done that. Incredibly, you haven't risen above your many gun thoughts in referring to him. You have nothing to offer him, but his world has not opened up to you.

You are Tom Ray, a cheap little guy, so you trash MLK's church, too, with snarky bits about Rev. Mosteller. 

OK, so you can't quote a post trashing MLK but have a fresh, baseless accusation instead.

Quote my post in which I "trash" his church, if you can.

Or just think up a new messenger attack when you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, so you can't quote a post trashing MLK but have a fresh, baseless accusation instead.

Quote my post in which I "trash" his church, if you can.

Or just think up a new messenger attack when you can't.

You give Judge Taney pretty good coverage, with 27 posts.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=taney&page=2&author=Uncooperative Tom

 Dred Scott, too, with seventeen references. You think that's good enough. (In your house, it probably is.)

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=taney&page=2&author=Uncooperative Tom

Tom, nobody can force you to be a gentleman, or to give up chronic racebaiting at this point.  Others will not make you whole, or employ the definition of redneck into your mind.

This is all about what you haven't said (or realized) about MLK. It now falls upon you to find out what MLK was all about. It had nothing to do with shall issue.

 IMO MLK is a man, and TR is a boy. Live with it, buddy.

Share this post


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

I object, Mr. guy. I see the picture you need to paint about me, but now you have typed something that is wild, and dishonest. Please cite such statements as well as you can. If you can't grasp my position, don't bother trying to discuss some made-up convenience to yourself. 

Vigilantism is the application of law enforcement outside of the legal umbrella, training, and supervision of law enforcement. Heroic vigilante behavior can be imposed upon a bystander, by circumstances. And armed vigilantism can be lawful: stand your ground is that aberration. So vigilantism can be planned, or unplanned, armed or unarmed, intentional or imposed. 

From the words in your mouths, you are good guys who pack heat (just in case) to fight bad guys, and to protect your loved ones, even as a duty etc. Despite the facts that other layers of self-protection are readily available, you choose lethal weapons and the cult beliefs attached to them. Many or most of these beliefs are based entirely on vigilante values: ancient precepts of retribution.

 

One night I was studying founding father scholarship. I found a You Tube video of Joyce Lee Malcolm debating a very relaxed Saul Cornell. She looked uncomfortable, or shifty. And soon she blathered something very non-historical, that it just made sense to her that people should be able to arm themselves against criminals in everyday life. 

Again, the basis of that is a vigilante mindset. Now Jeff is a choirboy (who wouldn't mind a one-sided shootout by the debris box), but no doubt he's okay. Same for Chesapeke, and Greever of course. LenP and his hollow points can be grandfathered in...

But by the time you have a national sub-culture using a legislative juggernaut to extend gunplay outdoors (beyond the Heller guidelines), you have a galloping, viable, national consciousness in favor of a vigilante mindset.

In the logic of a non-vigilante woman with a PTC, she will shoot fourteen acquaintances before she hits her first stranger. She's not a self-admitted vigilante, but is socially imbalanced, mis-informed, and the gun is mis-placed.

Some are looking for it, and Boothy was one of them. Some look for trouble by the dumpster, while armed.

Others find the confrontation they were prepared for (but weren't looking for). I think the guns, and the vigilante overtones, seem to attract trouble. So I'm glad that Heller has fallen back, wisely, on castle doctrine.

 

I was going to provide some cites of joe's vigilante-accusations.  But he's done an excellent job of doing it for me in the post above.  Joe continually makes the argument that you can defend yourself and that's fine.  But if you do it with gunz, that's not fine and therefore you are a vigilante by default merely for having a gun.

Here are a couple of others:

On 8/8/2017 at 6:38 PM, jocal505 said:

You can't comprehend a community where an enrolled militia member can pack his gun in the line of duty legally, but a vigilante-brained individual cannot. In this community, a hunter could use his gun outdoors, but a crime victim would need to explain any armed mayhem. Self defense okay, weapons mayhem not so much.

On 8/4/2017 at 5:04 PM, jocal505 said:

For another, your outdoor gun party, including your shoddy, lethal, vigilante-based self-defense rights

On 7/14/2017 at 1:56 AM, jocal505 said:

Show me the history of the acceptance of vigilante activy (or self-defense as you call i)t, per individual rights, before or after the revolutionary war.

On 2/13/2017 at 6:35 PM, jocal505 said:
On 2/13/2017 at 12:17 AM, JBSF said:

Good samaritan or vigilante? The suspect was armed only with fists, it appears. Should the gunowner have just taken his beating and let the woman be also beaten? Or did he do the right thing and shoot the suspect.

Good samaritan or vigilante? Both, Simple Jeff. In this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

And for the coup de grace - here is the one of jocal saying a woman should lie back and take her raping or else she is a vigilante for defending herself.

On 12/24/2016 at 10:19 AM, jocal505 said:

Either we rely on personal vigilante armament or Mrs. Mason lays back and dreams of England.

YCMTSU!

Share this post


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

And for the coup de grace - here is the one of jocal saying a woman should lie back and take her raping or else she is a vigilante for defending herself.

YCMTSU!

You are quite upset about being in the vigilante category.

Share this post


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

You are quite upset about being in the vigilante category.

Not in the slightest.  Are you upset that you said a woman should lay back and allow herself to be raped rather than defend herself with a gun???

Share this post


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

Not in the slightest.  Are you upset that you said a woman should lay back and allow herself to be raped rather than defend herself with a gun???

You mention vigilantism frequently. And rape, too. They seem to be Jeffie preoccupations. You have four pages of references to rape, in more than 75 posts. What's up with that? 

Share this post


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

You mention vigilantism frequently. And rape, too. They seem to be Jeffie preoccupations. You have four pages of references to rape, in more than 75 posts. What's up with that? 

I would not say I'm "preoccupied" at all with either.  I'm currently "occupied" with vigilantism because you have repeatedly equated it with armed self-defense and then denied you did so.  I'm also "occupied" with people like you and someone else we shall not name who argues that its OK for women to be raped as long as they don't don't hurt their attacker with a gun.  Its that mentality that the attacker's life is more sacred than a woman's right to not be violated is what sickens me about you. 

The reason I continually use rape as an example is because the current growth in gun sales in the US is being primarily being driven by women who want to be able to defend themselves against attack which most often involves attempted rape.  So its the perfect example to use.  You and HWSNBN, equivocate that its OK for a woman to defend herself from a rape attack as long as its not lethal to the attacker.  But the reality is that a 110lb woman would have to be a Ninja Kung-Fu blackbelt x20 dojo master to be able to fend off a 200+ lb determined male attacker.  And unless there has been a recent breakthrough in portable baseball bat concealed carry technology, a handgun is pretty much the perfect weapon for that soccer mom to carry around in her purse for this task.  

Sorry, I simply do not believe in the notion that ALL life is sacred and killing should be avoided at all costs.  Sometimes, bad people just need killin'.  That you instead think a woman should "lie back and think of England" and accept her raping just tells me you are the sick, demented fucktard we've always thought you to be.  

Share this post


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

Sometimes, bad people just need killin'. 

The tire-chucker out by the dumpster. How bad was he?

Share this post


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

The tire-chucker out by the dumpster. How bad was he?

Dunno.  I wasn't there.

Share this post


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

Dunno.  I wasn't there.

You would have plugged the tirechucker, eh? 

Share this post


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

Dunno.  I wasn't there.

You would have plugged the tirechucker, eh? 

Depends on what the tire chucker was doing to deserve a "plugging".  Tell me what the tire chucker is doing specifically and I will tell you whether he gets shot or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

JoCal - GFY  with your lies and obfuscation - you have indeed suggested on numerous occasions, for a # of years, exactly what I attributed to you. 

This is douche-like. We need to examine your claim.

 

On 5/4/2018 at 6:14 AM, jocal505 said:
  On 5/3/2018 at 3:05 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

According to JoCal - everyone who has a CCW permit is a wannabe vigilante, or is looking for violent confrontation. 

When you say bullshit, @A guy in the Chesapeakeyou need to back it up. What I think is that in many SAF types, their sub-conscious has been set up for armed trouble, while their conscious mind relates to being a choirboy. But the mindset of vigilantism, conscious or unconscious, is quite clear, and indefensible. You need to go to made-up extremes with my position, rather than address the violent, rehearsed nuances working within yourself.

Hell, shooting at human-shaped targets, and basic NRA SDU training, is violence-conditioning for an irreversible act.  A shooting often bypasses due process, and stretches civilized norms. You are practicing LETHAL VIGILANTISM down at the gun range, in other words, but you have a culture where you stroke each other and claim *magic* no vigilantism.

We have a topic to discuss. But your claim, and Jeff's similarly wild claims, aren't close enough to be workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Depends on what the tire chucker was doing to deserve a "plugging".  Tell me what the tire chucker is doing specifically and I will tell you whether he gets shot or not.

If he's got no gun, and no shirt, and is just a garbage-tosser, I suggest you let him go. If you have antagonized this loser with your gun and he comes after you with fists, I suggest you split, without firing, like @d'ranger did. I suggest you take the gun home, too, and put it away,  like d'ranger did.

Are you with me so far?

Share this post


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

If he's got no gun, and no shirt, and is just a garbage-tosser, I suggest you let him go. If you have antagonized this loser with your gun and he comes after you with fists, I suggest you split, without firing, like @d'ranger did. I suggest you take the gun home, too, and put it away,  like d'ranger did.

Are you with me so far?

blah, blah, blah, "nuanced"

And proving once again that he has not a clue about CCW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 12:22 PM, jocal505 said:

Your trashing and belittling of MLK

You will be posting your evidence of Tom doing this when, Joe? Put your creepy DB to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

You will be posting your evidence of Tom doing this when, Joe? Put your creepy DB to work.

 

Mosteller.jpg

Share this post


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

You give Judge Taney pretty good coverage, with 27 posts.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=taney&page=2&author=Uncooperative Tom

 Dred Scott, too, with seventeen references. You think that's good enough. (In your house, it probably is.)

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=taney&page=2&author=Uncooperative Tom

Tom, nobody can force you to be a gentleman, or to give up chronic racebaiting at this point.  Others will not make you whole, or employ the definition of redneck into your mind.

This is all about what you haven't said (or realized) about MLK. It now falls upon you to find out what MLK was all about. It had nothing to do with shall issue.

 IMO MLK is a man, and TR is a boy. Live with it, buddy.

blah, blah, blah.

Since talking about the Dred Scott decision isn't "trashing MLK" - how about some proof of your claims?

Of course, your dismissal of what Taney said about firearms in that decision was (paraphrased) "a FF didn't say that"

Well - if it is all about what a FF said, then doesn't that mean everything since ~1836 should be ignored? A founding father couldn't say anything after ~1836 they were all dead by that point.

Share this post


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

 

Mosteller.jpg

Come on Joe, you claimed Tom "trashed MLK". How about the same evidence you endlessly require from some others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

Mosteller.jpg

Come on Joe, you claimed Tom "trashed MLK". How about the same evidence you endlessly require from some others?

Who left the screen door open and let all the crickets in???

Share this post


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

Who left the screen door open and let all the crickets in???

DID TOM RAY DROP ONE OR TWO TURDS ON MLK?

REDNECK TURD NUMBER TWO: Did Rev. Mosteller, a pastor in MLK's church, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, employ the Second Amendment in Georgia?  On Political Anarchy, Tom Ray claimed that he did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Who left the screen door open and let all the crickets in???

DID TOM RAY DROP TWO TURDS ON MLK?

Did Rev. Mosteller, a pastor in MLK's church, the Southern Christian Leadership COnferenceemploy the Second Amendment in Georgia?  On Political Anarchy, Tom Ray claimed that he did. 

I was not aware that Rev Mosteller and MLK were in fact the same person.  We are still awaiting your evidence of these two or other turds dropped on MLK.  As BPM said, start getting your stalker DB fired up.  It will come in handy here fo sho.

Share this post


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

Well - if it is all about what a FF said, then doesn't that mean everything since ~1836 should be ignored? A founding father couldn't say anything after ~1836 they were all dead by that point.

Hi Bpm. The legality of armed violence has progressed since Colonial times. Let's be careful about putting Larry Pratt's words in the mouths of the founding fathers.

Let's be careful not to impose antebellum Southern Court values (such as the Beard case) onto the framers of the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I was not aware that Rev Mosteller and MLK were in fact the same person.  We are still awaiting your evidence of these two or other turds dropped on MLK.  As BPM said, start getting your stalker DB fired up.  It will come in handy here fo sho.

Jeffie, are you familiar with the principles taught by MLK? They are stable, and basic. His basic teachings are carried on by his church. Guns are not a wedge issue in this fine crowd.

Pooplius didn't crap on the Quakers. So why crap on MLK and his church?

Share this post


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

Depends on what the tire chucker was doing to deserve a "plugging".  Tell me what the tire chucker is doing specifically and I will tell you whether he gets shot or not.

Well, in your advancing maturity, in the year 2018, what is your decision? Would you still shoot the tire-chucker, the one with the clenched fists,  out by the dumpster?

Share this post


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

Pooplius didn't crap on the Quakers. So why crap on MLK and his church?

I'd be happy to crap on the Quakers.

Show me a Quaker who was denied a concealed weapons permit because of his religion and I'll say that the asshole who did it was an asshole and should not have that discretion. Which would, of course, be "crapping on the Quakers."

Share this post


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

Since talking about the Dred Scott decision isn't "trashing MLK"

We don't get to hide behind the Dred Scott decision, bpm. We get to advance far beyond it. The victory lap doesn't occur after Taney is exposed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean exposed for thinking Dred Scott should not be treated as one of "the people" because then he could "keep and carry arms wherever he went" right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You mean exposed for thinking Dred Scott should not be treated as one of "the people" because then he could "keep and carry arms wherever he went" right?

Dred Scott blocks for you now, you have a comfort zone going. As long as you are one click better than Judge Taney, you have arrived. You get to mention Judge Taney, free of aftertaste, in scores of posts; you are high-tone and upper class, at least in the swamplands of FL.

Soon, MLK IS ALL ABOUT A DENIED GUN PERMIT. In scores of other posts, MLK becomes the champion of shall issue, without nausea. Welcome to Tom Ray's reality.

 

 

trailer-trash.jpg

Share this post


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

trailer-trash.jpg

That's awesome - a redneck "Habitat".

image.png.f2b470a4934589c1209e77f5b8b175eb.png

Share this post


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

Well, in your advancing maturity, in the year 2018, what is your decision? Would you still shoot the tire-chucker, the one with the clenched fists,  out by the dumpster?

If he's just clenching his fists, very unlikely.  If he's on top of me and pounding my head into the asphalt with his clenched fists, then absolutely.  Which IIRC, was the same answer I gave you all those years ago.  

Share this post


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

Dred Scott blocks for you now, you have a comfort zone going. As long as you are one click better than Judge Taney, you have arrived. You get to mention Judge Taney, free of aftertaste, in scores of posts; you are high-tone and upper class, at least in the swamplands of FL.

Soon, MLK IS ALL ABOUT A DENIED GUN PERMIT. In scores of other posts, MLK becomes the champion of shall issue, without nausea. Welcome to Tom Ray's reality.

 

 

trailer-trash.jpg

The cee-ment pond is the saving grace to the design, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, jocal505 said:

I object, Mr. guy. I see the picture you need to paint about me, but now you have typed something that is wild, and dishonest. Please cite such statements as well as you can. If you can't grasp my position, don't bother trying to discuss some made-up convenience to yourself. 

Vigilantism is the application of law enforcement outside of the legal umbrella, training, and supervision of law enforcement. Heroic vigilante behavior can be imposed upon a bystander, by circumstances. And armed vigilantism can be lawful: stand your ground is that aberration. So vigilantism can be planned, or unplanned, armed or unarmed, intentional or imposed. 

From the words in your mouths, you are good guys who pack heat (just in case) to fight bad guys, and to protect your loved ones, even as a duty etc. Despite the facts that other layers of self-protection are readily available, you choose lethal weapons and the cult beliefs attached to them. Many or most of these beliefs are based entirely on vigilante values: ancient precepts of retribution.

 

One night I was studying founding father scholarship. I found a You Tube video of Joyce Lee Malcolm debating a very relaxed Saul Cornell. She looked uncomfortable, or shifty. And soon she blathered something very non-historical, that it just made sense to her that people should be able to arm themselves against criminals in everyday life. 

Again, the basis of that is a vigilante mindset. Now Jeff is a choirboy (who wouldn't mind a one-sided shootout by the debris box), but no doubt he's okay. Same for Chesapeke, and Greever of course. LenP and his hollow points can be grandfathered in...

But by the time you have a national sub-culture using a legislative juggernaut to extend gunplay outdoors (beyond the Heller guidelines), you have a galloping, viable, national consciousness in favor of a vigilante mindset.

In the logic of a non-vigilante woman with a PTC, she will shoot fourteen acquaintances before she hits her first stranger. She's not a self-admitted vigilante, but is socially imbalanced, mis-informed, and the gun is mis-placed.

Some are looking for it, and Boothy was one of them. Some look for trouble by the dumpster, while armed.

Others find the confrontation they were prepared for (but weren't looking for). I think the guns, and the vigilante overtones, seem to attract trouble. So I'm glad that Heller has fallen back, wisely, on castle doctrine.

 

Joe, I haven't carried a firearm since I moved to Michigan, from Phoenix AZ.

But I WILL be getting my concealed carry permit soon, and yet I consider myself to be a peaceful person, not a vigilante.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, jocal505 said:

I object, Mr. guy. I see the picture you need to paint about me, but now you have typed something that is wild, and dishonest. Please cite such statements as well as you can. If you can't grasp my position, don't bother trying to discuss some made-up convenience to yourself. 

Vigilantism is the application of law enforcement outside of the legal umbrella, training, and supervision of law enforcement. Heroic vigilante behavior can be imposed upon a bystander, by circumstances. And armed vigilantism can be lawful: stand your ground is that aberration. So vigilantism can be planned, or unplanned, armed or unarmed, intentional or imposed. 

From the words in your mouths, you are good guys who pack heat (just in case) to fight bad guys, and to protect your loved ones, even as a duty etc. Despite the facts that other layers of self-protection are readily available, you choose lethal weapons and the cult beliefs attached to them. Many or most of these beliefs are based entirely on vigilante values: ancient precepts of retribution.

 

One night I was studying founding father scholarship. I found a You Tube video of Joyce Lee Malcolm debating a very relaxed Saul Cornell. She looked uncomfortable, or shifty. And soon she blathered something very non-historical, that it just made sense to her that people should be able to arm themselves against criminals in everyday life. 

Again, the basis of that is a vigilante mindset. Now Jeff is a choirboy (who wouldn't mind a one-sided shootout by the debris box), but no doubt he's okay. Same for Chesapeke, and Greever of course. LenP and his hollow points can be grandfathered in...

But by the time you have a national sub-culture using a legislative juggernaut to extend gunplay outdoors (beyond the Heller guidelines), you have a galloping, viable, national consciousness in favor of a vigilante mindset.

In the logic of a non-vigilante woman with a PTC, she will shoot fourteen acquaintances before she hits her first stranger. She's not a self-admitted vigilante, but is socially imbalanced, mis-informed, and the gun is mis-placed.

Some are looking for it, and Boothy was one of them. Some look for trouble by the dumpster, while armed.

Others find the confrontation they were prepared for (but weren't looking for). I think the guns, and the vigilante overtones, seem to attract trouble. So I'm glad that Heller has fallen back, wisely, on castle doctrine.

 

Joe, I haven't carried a firearm since I moved to Michigan, from Phoenix AZ.

But I WILL be getting my concealed carry permit soon, and yet I consider myself to be a peaceful person, not a vigilante.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, jocal505 said:

I object, Mr. guy. I see the picture you need to paint about me, but now you have typed something that is wild, and dishonest. Please cite such statements as well as you can. If you can't grasp my position, don't bother trying to discuss some made-up convenience to yourself. 

Vigilantism is the application of law enforcement outside of the legal umbrella, training, and supervision of law enforcement. Heroic vigilante behavior can be imposed upon a bystander, by circumstances. And armed vigilantism can be lawful: stand your ground is that aberration. So vigilantism can be planned, or unplanned, armed or unarmed, intentional or imposed. 

From the words in your mouths, you are good guys who pack heat (just in case) to fight bad guys, and to protect your loved ones, even as a duty etc. Despite the facts that other layers of self-protection are readily available, you choose lethal weapons and the cult beliefs attached to them. Many or most of these beliefs are based entirely on vigilante values: ancient precepts of retribution.

 

One night I was studying founding father scholarship. I found a You Tube video of Joyce Lee Malcolm debating a very relaxed Saul Cornell. She looked uncomfortable, or shifty. And soon she blathered something very non-historical, that it just made sense to her that people should be able to arm themselves against criminals in everyday life. 

Again, the basis of that is a vigilante mindset. Now Jeff is a choirboy (who wouldn't mind a one-sided shootout by the debris box), but no doubt he's okay. Same for Chesapeke, and Greever of course. LenP and his hollow points can be grandfathered in...

But by the time you have a national sub-culture using a legislative juggernaut to extend gunplay outdoors (beyond the Heller guidelines), you have a galloping, viable, national consciousness in favor of a vigilante mindset.

In the logic of a non-vigilante woman with a PTC, she will shoot fourteen acquaintances before she hits her first stranger. She's not a self-admitted vigilante, but is socially imbalanced, mis-informed, and the gun is mis-placed.

Some are looking for it, and Boothy was one of them. Some look for trouble by the dumpster, while armed.

Others find the confrontation they were prepared for (but weren't looking for). I think the guns, and the vigilante overtones, seem to attract trouble. So I'm glad that Heller has fallen back, wisely, on castle doctrine.

 

Joe, I haven't carried a firearm since I moved to Michigan, from Phoenix AZ.

But I WILL be getting my concealed carry permit soon, and yet I consider myself to be a peaceful person, not a vigilante.......

Share this post


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

The legality of armed violence has progressed since Colonial times. Let's be careful about putting Larry Pratt's words in the mouths of the founding fathers.

I would of never expected Taney to be influenced by Larry Pratt, Joe. I guess time travel does exist.

Speaking of time travel..

14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Let's be careful not to impose antebellum Southern Court values (such as the Beard case) onto the framers of the Bill of Rights.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antebellum

existing before a war; especially : existing before the American Civil War

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/550/case.html

Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895)

If you missed it, Joe, the US Civil War started in 1861.

How is your creepy DB search going?

Share this post


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

Soon, MLK IS ALL ABOUT A DENIED GUN PERMIT. In scores of other posts, MLK becomes the champion of shall issue, without nausea. Welcome to Tom Ray's reality.

Only in your little world, Joe. Anyway, it is nice to see that you now admit that it happened. Maybe you can next move on to the concept that it was _wrong_ for him to be denied.

Well, maybe that is a bridge to far. We all know how you feel about black people with guns.

 

Share this post


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

Dred Scott blocks for you now, you have a comfort zone going. As long as you are one click better than Judge Taney, you have arrived. You get to mention Judge Taney, free of aftertaste, in scores of posts; you are high-tone and upper class, at least in the swamplands of FL.

Soon, MLK IS ALL ABOUT A DENIED GUN PERMIT. In scores of other posts, MLK becomes the champion of shall issue, without nausea. Welcome to Tom Ray's reality.

 

 

trailer-trash.jpg

The cee-ment pond is the saving grace to the design, IMO. 

Is there some political point to this picture in your mind? Something related to the thread topic perhaps?

 

18 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

That's awesome - a redneck "Habitat".

image.png.f2b470a4934589c1209e77f5b8b175eb.png

Or is there a political point to this one?

I know there will be no answer, so I'll answer:

Elitists think poor people shouldn't have gun rights, which is why they want to make it expensive and difficult to get a gun and want to repeat memes deriding poor people as too stupid to understand the wisdom of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common people want guns to be a non-issue. IMO, they just don't want to have to deal with guns. Yet they confront guns, and their aftermath, too much in everyday life.

If gun extremists, or anyone else, could control the gun outcomes, there would be no issue. Not out of sight = not out of mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2014 at 6:13 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

 

 

Quote

 

Until around 1970, the aims of America’s firearms restrictionists and the aims of America’s racists were practically inextricable. In both the colonial and immediate post-Revolutionary periods, the first laws regulating gun ownership were aimed squarely at blacks and Native Americans. In both the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, it was illegal for the colonists to sell guns to natives, while Virginia and Tennessee banned gun ownership by free blacks.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

White Southerners would eventually be forced to accept blacks as their fellow citizens. But old habits died hard. After the Civil War, many Southern states enacted Black Codes to prohibit ownership of guns by blacks. The measures served their purpose. In her remarkable 1892 disquisition on the evils of lynching, the writer Ida B. Wells noted that “the only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.” Wells offered some blunt advice: “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

 

 

At the height of the civil rights movement, black freedom fighters took Wells’s counsel seriously. Although he was denied a concealed-carry permit, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had what his adviser Glenn E. Smiley described as a veritable “arsenal” at home.

 

Far from being a digression from the principle of nonviolence, this willingness to defend oneself was heir to a long, proud tradition. Considering in 1850 what he believed to be the best response to the Fugitive Slave Act, Frederick Douglass proposed: “a good revolver.”

 

Former Chief Justice Taney sure had an interesting view of gun rights.

 

At least he had the good sense to realize that you can't just let black people keep and bear arms wherever they go as if they were white or something.

 

.

6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Maybe you could work it around a bit for a year or so, so that Judge Taney has a .22, but ex-slaves don't get them.


That was his idea, one shared by modern grabberz. As stated, my elk find his idea execrable, but the point you avoid remains:

He knew that the second amendment applies to the people way back in the 19th century. And that's one reason he would not consider Dred Scott a person.

Naturally, no one ever mentioned whether Dred Scott belonged to any militia because that was and remains irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

That was his (meaning Judge Taney, the legal genius) idea, one shared by modern grabberz. As stated, my elk find his idea execrable, but the point you avoid remains:

He knew that the second amendment applies to the people way back in the 19th century. And that's one reason he would not consider Dred Scott a person.

Naturally, no one ever mentioned whether Dred Scott belonged to any militia because that was and remains irrelevant.

I pushed your Judge Taney button pretty hard...and find little there. Taney was an idiot within an antebellum culture, long after the FF authority you need to stand on.

I just think you personally, as a race-baiter, have no moral authority to stand on to discuss the "needs" of blacks.

 

Going beyond the banter, to explain this, let me take this outside our own relationship, please. I was studying gun scholarship, and came across a writing from Steven Halbrook, from 1981, the seminal days of the Standard Model. I was excited, since at  this date Halbrook's thoughts would compete with Malcolm's, and they didn't know one another at that time.

Quote

1981, Stephen P. Halbrook, Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, 55pgs

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/jurisprudence_of_the_second_amendment.pdf

It turned out to be a shallow racial plea, written just four years after Reagan disarmed the Panthers in CA. The same content, the same outline, more or less, was used by Halbrook as a Peruta Brief in 2017: it's another shallow, flat, and incomplete racial presentation. 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2015/05/05/10-56971 4-30 Amicus Congress.pdf

It gets better, Don Kates was befriended by Halbrook in 1977. Kates says he was an armed freedom fighter for MLK's cause in NC in the sixties... but wrote articles on the race subject for the next thirty years without developing or even discussing the subject beyond the gun issue! Both these men write for CATO.

WTF? What is with the shallow Libertarian meme on blacks and guns? The issue is not about guns, and equality will not be settled with guns.

Anyway, Tom Ray is definitely a chip off this block.

Share this post


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

I pushed your Judge Taney button pretty hard...and find little there. Taney was an idiot within an antebellum culture, long after the FF authority you need to stand on.

I just think you personally, as a race-baiter, have no moral authority to stand on to discuss the "needs" of blacks.

 

Going beyond the banter, to explain this, let me take this outside our own relationship, please. I was studying gun scholarship, and came across a writing from Steven Halbrook, from 1981, the seminal days of the Standard Model. I was excited, since at  this date Halbrook's thoughts would compete with Malcolm's, and they didn't know one another at that time.

It turned out to be a shallow racial plea, written just our years after Reagan disarmed the Panthers in CA. The same content, the same outline, more or less, was used by Halbrook as a Peruta Brief in 2017: it's another shallow, flat, and incomplete racial presentation. 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2015/05/05/10-56971 4-30 Amicus Congress.pdf

It gets better, Don Kates was befriended by Halbrook in 1977. Kates says he was an armed freedom fighter for MLK's cause in NC, but wrote articles on the race subject for the next thirty years without developing or even discussing the subject beyond the gun issue! Both these men write for CATO.

WTF? What is with the shallow Libertarian meme on blacks and guns? The issue is not about guns, and equality will not be settled with guns.

Anyway, Tom Ray is definitely a chip off this block.

Hah! I'm being called a racist by this guy:

On 2/8/2018 at 6:53 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Your response was a classic:

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

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


So what is it about melanin in the skin that makes people less mature and more volatile?


And like LB15, Fuck, I love this place!

Are you ever going to answer my question about melanin, Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Hah! I'm being called a racist by this guy:


And like LB15, Fuck, I love this place!

Are you ever going to answer my question about melanin, Joe?

I must have been hurtfull, unintentionally. I'm not being mean for sport, my friend. I'm hoping that your understanding goes beyond Judge Taney's contributions. Let us know.

Did you look at the Halbrook? Read it, perhaps? Do you not find the lack of understanding, the incomplete look at the overall problem, appalling? The dude learned nothing about race, outside his own spin about guns, between 1981 and 2017?

You would STFU after reading Mark K's little bit. You would probably give up race-baiting for life.

 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Hah! I'm being called a racist by this guy:

WRONG WRONG WRONG. I have never said that. (It's against my standards.) I have only pointed out that you race-bait a lot, and that Judge Taney has taught you all you know.

Edit. I repeat: your racial understanding is apparently un-developed, yet loud...and your posts are racially edgy, IMO. Take it easy, Tom.

Share this post


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

WRONG WRONG WRONG. I have never said that.

Clearly it was all fabricated by the russians.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 4/2/2018 at 10:30 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Because whites were/are protected by the second amendment. And Taney thought that people so protected could "keep and carry arms wherever they went." That was one of his reasons that extending that protection to black people was unimaginable to him.

"Keep and carry arms wherever they went" were his words. What do you think he meant by them? Where did they come from? Did they just drop into his opinion randomly or something in your view?

 

THE JUDGE TANEY TAKEAWAY by Tom Ray

Judge Taney is Tom's flag-bearer. Tom doesn't mind Judge Taney setting the pace for him, in 2018.

FFS, Tom, is this the extent of your understanding of Judge Taney? 


No, as I mentioned above:

On 5/7/2018 at 6:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

As stated, my elk find his idea execrable, but the point you avoid remains:

He knew that the second amendment applies to the people way back in the 19th century. And that's one reason he would not consider Dred Scott a person.

Naturally, no one ever mentioned whether Dred Scott belonged to any militia because that was and remains irrelevant.

FFS, Joe, are you ever going to tell us why Judge Taney thought the people could keep and bear arms wherever they went? I think we all understand his execrable idea that blacks are not people. Some of us disagree with it in theory and in practice. Then there are the "may issue" folks like yourself, who disagree with racism in theory but want to make sure it can still be practiced.

Share this post


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

FFS, Joe, are you ever going to tell us why Judge Taney thought the people could keep and bear arms wherever they went?

But he did - he made up a theory about "well the founding fathers didn't say it", so of course it doesn't matter what the CJ of the supreme court thinks.

The FF couldn't have had anything to say about the 13th+ amendments either, does that mean Joe considers them invalid?

Share this post


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


No, as I mentioned above:

FFS, Joe, are you ever going to tell us why Judge Taney thought the people could keep and bear arms wherever they went? I think we all understand his execrable idea that blacks are not people. Some of us disagree with it in theory and in practice. Then there are the "may issue" folks like yourself, who disagree with racism in theory but want to make sure it can still be practiced.

This morning, search shows 29 Judge Taney references by Uncooperative Tom.

Judge Taney thought that blacks were not people, you say. And that is what we have to learn from Judge Taney. So you mentioned him 29 times.

Tell us all about Dred Scott now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

But he did - he made up a theory about "well the founding fathers didn't say it", so of course it doesn't matter what the CJ of the supreme court thinks.

The FF couldn't have had anything to say about the 13th+ amendments either, does that mean Joe considers them invalid?

The Heller claim was based on founding father history, it said. Then Joyce Malcolm made up shit about the founding fathers, for CATO, up use before Scalia. Scalia ate it up, but it seemms to be lousy history. What can I say?

Your claims are weak, if you say the FF used armed vigilante justice in the streets, like Larry Pratt. When Tom quotes the Beard case as an argument, the thoughts of that period, 1895, do not support Heller.

Share this post


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

Ah, I am now accused of "race-based gun control".


When you support it, yes.

And you do.

Answer this question:

Should the Sheriff have had the discretion to deny MLK's carry permit based on his race, as we all believe he did?

Share this post


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


When you support it, yes.

And you do.

Answer this question:

Should the Sheriff have had the discretion to deny MLK's carry permit based on his race, as we all believe he did?

Your question is loaded, using a straw man as a confusion.

The discretion of may issue is needed to screen out the wife beaters and the Ian Dumbfuckies, and perhaps the Boothys, from gunz.  Any time we find the needed discretion being used in racial bias, that is a separate matter which must be dealt with without demonizing proper discretion.

If a dog license, or electrician's license, is refused as a matter of racial discrimination, we can't just cancel all dog licenses and electrican credentials.

Share this post


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

The discretion of may issue is needed to screen out the wife beaters and the Ian Dumbfuckies, and perhaps the Boothys, from gunz.  Any time we find the needed discretion being used in racial bias, that is a separate matter which must be dealt with without demonizing proper discretion.

But it can't be dealt with at all under "may issue."

Because the Sheriff can just say, "I decided I may not issue him a permit" and that's the final answer. We all might know that his motivation is racist, as in the MLK case, but we can't do anything about it because the same discretion you want can be abused.

The way to stop such abuse would be to make him provide a reason for the denial. But that would interfere with the discretion you cherish and we'd call it "shall issue."

Share this post


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

The Heller claim was based on founding father history, it said. Then Joyce Malcolm made up shit about the founding fathers, for CATO, up use before Scalia. Scalia ate it up, but it seemms to be lousy history. What can I say?

Your claims are weak, if you say the FF used armed vigilante justice in the streets, like Larry Pratt. When Tom quotes the Beard case as an argument, the thoughts of that period, 1895, do not support Heller.

We are not talking about Heller Joe, try to stay on topic.

We are are also not talking about CCW, or, as you deny you put it "armed vigilante justice" We are also not talking about castle doctrine.

Try to stay on topic for at least 1 reply.

Share this post


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

Your question is loaded, using a straw man as a confusion.

To which you will add strawmen... But your complete inability to say that racism is bad if a firearm is involved is noted.

44 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The discretion of may issue is needed to screen out the wife beaters and the Ian Dumbfuckies

Oh look, more strawmen.

Complain to your DA if you feel they are not doing enough along those lines.

49 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

If a dog license, or electrician's license, is refused as a matter of racial discrimination

I can't find either of those mentioned in the founding documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

To which you will add strawmen... But your complete inability to say that racism is bad if a firearm is involved is noted.

The racial issue and the gun issue probably need to be handled separately.

4 minutes ago, bpm57 said:
  waaah, I'm an airhead but my internet service is paid up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

We are not talking about Heller Joe, try to stay on topic.

Hold on, partner. You wanted to know why I want FF-era evidence that Blackstone's review of English jurisprudence was considered wrong at that time. If the SAF is going to make noise based on the Second Amendment then you need documentation from that era.

Bpm, the Heller history fucking flunked peer review, resoundingly, and you haven't been able to debate the specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

55 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

The discretion of may issue is needed to screen out the wife beaters and the Ian Dumbfuckies, and perhaps the Boothys, from gunz.  Any time we find the needed discretion being used in racial bias, that is a separate matter which must be dealt with without demonizing proper discretion.

But it can't be dealt with at all under "may issue."

Why there? Why are you trying to deal with racial bias under the banner or color of "may issue"? Deal with it in the appropriate format. You are a genius on Kelo, and a whiz-bang on Raich, so I know you can get this.

Share this post


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

The racial issue and the gun issue probably need to be handled separately.

Your denial that many gun control examples are based on race is noted. But we know how you feel about blacks with guns, you said it yourself years ago.

And it is good to see that you are not even pretending to follow your "I play it straight... and don't go into the 3rd grade gutter" claims. But we are all used to your lying by now.

BTW, I'm still awaiting your claimed "DA vacated a judges ruling" citation. Its been a few days now, I'd of thought you would of posted it by now. You were so sure of yourself in those 2 or 3 messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

But we know how you feel about blacks with guns, you said it yourself years ago.

Hi Bpm. You better quote it, before I do. I don't think much of whites with guns, either: 

Two DIFFERENT gun screw-ups. So sad. We need MLK.

Quote

FRATRICIDE in the USA

  Source One

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Race

Posted on Sunday, January 1st, 2012

Firearm homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans ages 1-44.1

African Americans make up nearly 13% of the U.S. population, but in 2009 suffered almost 24% of all firearm deaths – and over 54% of all firearm homicides.2

  1. Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention & Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Leading Causes of Death Reports, 1999-2009, for National, Regional, and States (RESTRICTED), at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_lcd.html (last visited Mar. 8, 2012) (hereinafter WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports, 1999-2009; Note: Users must agree to data use restrictions on the CDC site prior to accessing data). []
  2. Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention & Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2009, for National, Regional, and States (Sept. 2011), http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html (hereinafter WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2009. Note: Users must agree to data use restrictions on the CDC site prior to accessing data). [] 
  3.  http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

  Source Two

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/c...df/htus8008.pdf

 Source Three

Race, available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The off ending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

  Source Four

Black Americans Are Four Times More Likely to Be Victims of Homicide

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/black-americans-are-four_b_6563984.html

 Source Five.

Black Americans Are Killed At 12 Times The Rate Of People In Other Developed Countries

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/black-americans-are-killed-at-12-times-the-rate-of-people-in-other-developed-countries/

 

 

Share this post


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

You better quote it, before I do. I don't think much of whites with guns, either:

You forgot to quote it, Joe. But feel free to, the word choice speaks for itself.

And how is that research into the "DA vacated" Palmer decision going? I'd really like to read it.

Share this post


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

The way to stop such abuse would be to make him provide a reason for the denial. But that would interfere with the discretion you cherish and we'd call it "shall issue."

No, giving a reason would not interfere with discretion.

But in one case in New England which I posted on, three gun orgs sued an authority figure because they wanted a reason, and a reason was given, but they didn't like the reason...which could be expected.  The reason given, basically was that general fear, meaning unresigned fear, not fear of a specific, temporary or jobsite situation, was not enough reason to pack a weapon.

The case was tossed by the judge without comment.

 

Share this post


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

Race, available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The off ending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).


And yet,

On 5/4/2015 at 5:48 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

As you showed in this thread, whites own guns at twice the rate of black people. If the guns cause the "mentality" you don't like, why are they causing it so much more among blacks?

Wanna take another shot at that one, or are you standing by this response?

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

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

 

Share this post


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

The way to stop such abuse would be to make him provide a reason for the denial. But that would interfere with the discretion you cherish and we'd call it "shall issue."

No, giving a reason would not interfere with discretion.

But in one case in New England which I posted on, three gun orgs sued an authority figure because they wanted a reason, and a reason was given, but they didn't like the reason...which could be expected.  The reason given, basically was that general fear, meaning unresigned fear, not fear of a specific, temporary or jobsite situation, was not enough reason to pack a weapon.

The case was tossed by the judge without comment.

If no reason is required, none is offered at all. Full discretion! It's a nice word that means "let racists be racist" in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
17 hours ago, jocal505 said:
17 hours ago, bpm57 said:

But we know how you feel about blacks with guns, you said it yourself years ago.

Hi Bpm. You better quote it, before I do. I don't think much of whites with guns, either: 

Yeah but according to you, blacks are much more volatile and dangerous with gunz. 

BTW - I know you won't answer..... but I have always been genuinely curious why you thought that blacks were more dangerous and volatile.  Do you think its nature or nurture?  

Share this post


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

If no reason is required, none is offered at all. Full discretion! It's a nice word that means "let racists be racist" in practice.

A beauty parlor license could be granted, or withheld. based on race. May issue and shall issue are gun permit issues. They are not racial issues, as such.

Share this post


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

Yeah but according to you, blacks are much more volatile and dangerous with gunz. 

BTW - I know you won't answer..... but I have always been genuinely curious why you thought that blacks were more dangerous and volatile.  Do you think its nature or nurture?  

Post 956. What do you make of it? What is your position on fratricide?

Share this post


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

I like to hide behind the black citizens, after they have been shot up by my loose gun policies.

I've pointed out the serious outcomes of black gun violence, hoping for intelligent discussion. More race-baiting of a buddy is your response, I find. IMO, you should be searching your soul for what Judge Taney would do.

Share this post


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

Post 956. What do you make of it? What is your position on fratricide?

I'm against it.

Share this post


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

The reason given, basically was that general fear, meaning unresigned fear, not fear of a specific, temporary or jobsite situation, was not enough reason to pack a weapon.

You really ought to escape your icky shall issue state and come to NJ, Joe. The only way to get one in NJ is to be.. shall we say.. "friends" with your chief of police and superior court judge.

I'm not kidding about these examples - 1) mistaken identity, man kidnapped by biker gang, managed to escape, could not get CCW because the threat of the gang finding him again wasn't a good enough reason.

2) rent collector in Newark (carries large amounts of cash at night, etc). Was told to either hire an off duty cop for protection or find a new job.

Due to examples like that, I'm sure you would be happy here - none of the "normal" people are allowed to carry.

Share this post


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

I've pointed out the serious outcomes of black gun violence

Is that what you are doing? Because it looks like you are explaining what is best for black people - ie - they shouldn't be allowed guns.

It does explain alot about why you will not admit that denying a CCW permit due to race is wrong - you happen to agree with it.

Anyway, you were threatening to post your "how I feel about blacks vs. whites having firearms"

There is also the ruling vacated by a DA in Palmer - I'd really like to read it Joe, and I can't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a brother so.......

Share this post


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