Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, bpm57 said:

So, Joe, what is it about skin tone that causes problems with guns? Are you even going to explain your statement?

Post 956 speaks for me mate. Let's see if you have the skills to be a race-baiter. You boys have been lured into an extended discussion of my buddy, MLK.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 2:40 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah but according to you,

I'm quoting the numbers. You don;t need to be a cheapshot guy, after all, you are JBSF.

Quote

blacks are much more volatile and dangerous with gunz.  Let me count the ways...these numbers are tragic

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?  

Anger is an agent. They can see right thru shallow understandings (no offense, but such as yours).They kinda expected a level playing field, not an uphill grind against pinheads.

Share this post


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

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?  

Anger is an agent. They can see right thru shallow understandings (no offense, but such as yours).They kinda expected a level playing field, not an uphill grind against pinheads.

So you're saying that blacks are murdering other blacks in epidemic numbers because they are mad at whites?????  

Share this post


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

Post 956 speaks for me mate. Let's see if you have the skills to be a race-baiter. You boys have been lured into an extended discussion of my buddy, MLK.

Oh, thats right, you don't have any "opinions" unless you can claim you are on the correct side - because Dr. Publishordontgettenure said so, and he is always right.

Otherwise, why not state your motive for posting endless amounts of gun crime stats by blacks?

You claim that it isn't because of any desire to take guns away from blacks, yet your own past words make it the only obvious conclusion. Why _wouldn't_ you want to clear up the obvious confusion?

Share this post


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

You claim that it isn't because of any desire to take guns away from blacks, yet your own past words make it the only obvious conclusion. Why _wouldn't_ you want to clear up the obvious confusion?

In your mind, I am the grabber of the guns of the blacks. Based on the first amendment, you get to say that all day long, but  my mind and my hopes don't run like that. You are projecting your fears onto me. DeadEye Dick is imagining now, kinda like this guy:

Two redacted witnesses in Las Vegas are relating conversations with the shooter. The bumstocka rockstar railed against gun control, and felt that the FEMA camps after Katrina were bunker practice for gun confiscation. He did'n't care for the closed registry on machine guns, with only 115,000 machine guns in NV. According to the witness, the shooter had responded to him as an internet vendor, and  had tried to pay him $500 a pop for fully automatic gun conversions. 

Quote

 

Hmmm,  the Bunpstocka guy thinks Katrina was gun confiscation practice, by FEMA. And DeadEye Dick is convinced Joe wants to take the guns from blacks. I can't alter such fanciful beliefs. So carry on.

 

Share this post


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

So you're saying that blacks are murdering other blacks in epidemic numbers because they are mad at whites?????  

Have you ever pondered upon Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? 

Share this post


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

Have you ever pondered upon Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? 

Occasionally.  What are yours?

 

Share this post


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

Occasionally.  What are yours?

The conversation, with Jeff, is about a succession of needs. With the same humans, the more desperate the needs are, the more desperate the behavior will be. Behavior can run from brutal to altruistic, just depending.

Share this post


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

In your mind, I am the grabber of the guns of the blacks. Based on the first amendment, you get to say that all day long, but  my mind and my hopes don't run like that. You are projecting your fears onto me. DeadEye Dick is imagining now, kinda like this guy:

And yet you still refuse to explain any of your past racial statements about firearms. Didn't you recently claim to "play it straight"?

Share this post


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

Have you ever pondered upon Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? 

Have you ever pondered actually answering a question directly? It would be such a change of pace for you.

Share this post


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

Have you ever pondered upon Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? 

No but I know I need a new sailboat before my next Corvette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 6:25 AM, jocal505 said:
On 5/16/2018 at 4:22 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

My decision to own a battlefield .22 is no one's business but my own.

Would you say your .22 is a weapon "most useful in military service"?

Fish. Barrel. Bang.

6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
10 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Are you ever going to tell me whether your assault weapon was something "most useful in military service" or not?

I would need a more worthy conversation than that.


Why did you ask me such an unworthy question?

Share this post


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

Fish. Barrel. Bang.


Why did you ask me such an unworthy question?

You're right, Tom. No more of this lurking at the trailer park level, Let's drill down on a worthy subject. Let's discuss how Lois Schowerer pulled down Joyce Malcolm's panties, way back in 1983. Somebody should have told Scalia. Instead, Scalia was played like a fool by Robert Levy, the CATO director with the authoritative voice...

2000, TO HOLD AND BEAR ARMS, Lois Schwoerer    NOTE: Articke VII was quoted as central by Malcolm. Yet it was not altered in the Declaration of Rights in 1689: further gun rights were voted down. Atricle VII was a gun control measure, LMFAO.

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3287&context=cklawreview

Share this post


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

You're right, Tom. No more of this lurking at the trailer park level, Let's drill down on a worthy subject. Let's discuss how Lois Schowerer pulled down Joyce Malcolm's panties, way back in 1983. Somebody should have told Scalia. Instead, Scalia was played like a fool by Robert Levy, the CATO director with the authoritative voice...

2000, TO HOLD AND BEAR ARMS, Lois Schwoerer    NOTE: Articke VII was not altered in the Declaration of Rights in 1689, further gun rights were voted down

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3287&context=cklawreview

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

She said this:
 

Quote

 

Insisting that he was not excusing James II, Finch declared (in Debates) that he looked with horror on the "invasion of our Religion and Properties," and insisted (according to the anonymous compiler) that he "own[ed] that [King James's] violations were very great and that the taking up arms [against him] was necessary."

The compiler's account makes clear that the words "defensive arms" in Somers' notes referred to the recent engagements against the army of James II. Finch did not mention, much less press for, an individual right to bear arms.

 

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

She said this:
 

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

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

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

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

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

And allow me to add some context. Yes, James II was the new King, and he arrived a Catholic from Scotland, and he had seen Scotland disarmed. He began appointing Catholic militia officers, which disarmed several Protestant figures. The Protestants applied to Parliament, which had considered this very possibility seven years earlier.

Without firing a shot, they handled the matter subtly, and legislatively. Using obscure language, they appointed themselves in charge of militia appointments. Next, they ruled that militia officers would swear allegiance to Parliament. Armed conflict was avoided in The Glorious Revolution.

But they had a huge problem: in order to get James II's father to take the throne, they had suspended their natural right to fight their monarch. They had laid this out in writing, and had given Charles I the control of the militia. So in this situation, they needed to spell out to James II that they were re-assuming the power to confront any tyrannical monarch. 

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

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

It was an orderly affair. Our Declaration of Independence was an expression of Blackstone's Fourth Auxiliary Right. Blackstone's Fifth was the basis and model for Hamilton's clarion call in the Federalist 29. 

Quote

 William Blackstone Said What?—Misconceptions of the “Fifth Auxiliary Right” Continue 

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012 see p 1822

 

Share this post


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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

She said this:
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

Ummm... which arms?

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

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

Quote

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

 

Share this post


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

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

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

 

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

Quote

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

With whose arms? Where were they to get them?

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

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

Share this post


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

BA

ZING

A

!

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

 

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

 

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

 

Share this post


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

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

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

End of story.

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

Joyce in her prime.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Share this post


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

It's an amendment, amend it. 

It is not.

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

Share this post


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

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

End of story.

It's an amendment, amend it. 

 

4 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

It is not.

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

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

Amend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Enjoy your freedom.

 

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

6 hours ago, Happy said:

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

The USA is not this.

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

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

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

dred-scott.jpg

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

(SIX WEEKS BEFORE DYLANN) 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  @chinabald Dude. A few inches below this post, you will find my red words. This post explains them, if the BJS stats don't. I'd like to hear back from you in the form of something intelligent.

@.22 Tom  too, <_<

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

your sustained race-baiting is trollish behavior.

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

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

 

Share this post


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

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

The SA Gun Club, it hate me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 1:03 PM, bpm57 said:

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

OH YEAH. If that is your take on MLK, as a group, you are vulnerable to further conversation.

Wake up. Judge Taney is not an acceptable baseline for understanding, outside of trailer parks.

Share this post


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

If that is your take on MLK, as a group, you are vulnerable to further conversation.

The only "take" that is necessary, Joe, is for you to admit that the permit was denied because of the color of his skin.

We _could_ talk about other court cases, but you seem to have a hard time keeping the participants straight already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

  @chinabald Dude. A few inches below this post, you will find my red words. This post explains them, if the BJS stats don't. I'd like to hear back from you in the form of something intelligent

 

Your reply to me was this bullshit

Quote

How I Was Violently Attacked In My Own Driveway

 One problem: I didn’t have a gun.

First Step To Recovery Is Admitting That You Have A Problem

A Journey Of A Thousand Miles Begins With One Step – Gun Ownership

and this enters in, but I dont get why. If your friend were green or white we would be talking in a circle.

Quote

(chinabald) But please go right ahead and discount my African American friend’s experience.

 

@chinabald, you were called here because you said you wanted an explanation for my red words, which have been heavily spammed for some reaspn. I hope you weren't race-baiting two different times, asking me for details. And I hope you aren't a dunderhead, too. Here goes.

  • Post 378 of this thread contains tough facts about gun violence in a cool BJS report, formatted by myself, found in post 127 of this thread.
  • Post 379 is Joe,  making nice, and suggesting that Tom read some MLK for his own benefit.  (in this thread, Tom simply uses the stats in 127 to claim white gun ownership problems don't exist, 20X)
  • Post 381 contains my red words. Tom likes to annoy, and I was frustrated.

There you have the context of my allegedly racist words. You could have connected these dots by reading any of my general posts, you can pick from 6000 of them since 2015.

If you want me to say I AM NOT A RACIST, we can't go there.

Share this post


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

 

 

Your reply to me was this bullshit

and this enters in, but I dont get why. If your friend were green or white we would be talking in a circle.

 

@chinabald, you were called here because you said you wanted an explanation for my red words, which have been heavily spammed for some reaspn. I hope you weren't race-baiting two different times, asking me for details. And I hope you aren't a dunderhead, too. Here goes.

  • Post 378 of this thread contains tough facts about gun violence in a cool BJS report, formatted by myself, found in post 127 of this thread.
  • Post 379 is Joe,  making nice, and suggesting that Tom read some MLK for his own benefit.  (in this thread, Tom simply uses the stats in 127 to claim white gun ownership problems don't exist, 20X)
  • Post 381 contains my red words. Tom likes to annoy, and I was frustrated.

There you have the context of my allegedly racist words. You could have connected these dots by reading any of my general posts, you can pick from 6000 of them since 2015.

If you want me to say I AM NOT A RACIST, we can't go there.

I read through the post in question. From your protests I assumed you were saying that your words were twisted or somehow sound different in light of the question or conversation that spawned them. I looked to see if there was a retraction or explanation, I ensured that the quote in question wasn’t a citation you used of someone else’s words... I found it was flat out Commentary from you in response to other’s statement(s).

It’s a bare ass racist comment Joe and then you doubled down with a “the brothers” later. Your being frustrated doesn’t change the facts. In fact people tend to revert to their true personality while under stress or frustration.

You may hide your racism, you may even abhor that part of you. But good intentions don’t change what you said and what those words mean. Accept your words for what they are, apologize and retract them. It will go a lot better then then your standard comment of “race baiting”. Which BTW to quote Inigo Montoya “you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” 

 

Share this post


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

I read through the post in question. From your protests I assumed you were saying that your words were twisted or somehow sound different in light of the question or conversation that spawned them. I looked to see if there was a retraction or explanation, I ensured that the quote in question wasn’t a citation you used of someone else’s words... I found it was flat out Commentary from you in response to other’s statement(s).

It’s a bare ass racist comment Joe and then you doubled down with a “the brothers” later. Your being frustrated doesn’t change the facts. In fact people tend to revert to their true personality while under stress or frustration.

You may hide your racism, you may even abhor that part of you. But good intentions don’t change what you said and what those words mean. Accept your words for what they are, apologize and retract them. It will go a lot better then then your standard comment of “race baiting”. Which BTW to quote Inigo Montoya “you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” 

 

You need to support the idea that I am a racist better than that. But thanks for trying to make this about my racism, an X factor indeed. 

With all respect chinabald, I think I'll go with haters are gonna hate, on this date.

And now I get to quote Wofsey again. We each have a personal garden, and racism is the invasive weeds. If we tend the invasive, natural weeds, the garden will thrive and will be attractive. If we pretend we have no weeds, everyone will know. I'll be around, mate.  Detroit was good to me, and I was on foot.

 

 

Share this post


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

We are wide open for a good definition of, or a good discussion of, racebaiting. But speaking for myself,  I would include this very bit. It was so offensive I wouldnt touch Tom;s race-baiter thread; in died over the winter of 2014-2015. It was about this gag

 

On 6/8/2014 at 5:47 AM, dogballs Tom said:

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

 

 

 

Did you give the obvious answer, Joe? I can't recall.

The answer, by the way: racist grabbers. But that's my answer. What's yours?

Share this post


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

Some redneck took advantage of the situation. Rednecks suck, do you agree, "VOA"?


It's not just redneck ones. Racist grabbers took advantage of the discretion law enforcement has that says they "may issue" a permit or they "may not." It happens regularly in places where only the $pecial people get permits.

They decided that they "may not" because he was black.

To prevent this kind of racist application of laws by racist grabbers, whether redneck or not, a better plan would be to make a denial contingent on an objective reason that is stated at the time of denial.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Did you give the obvious answer, Joe? I can't recall.

The answer, by the way: racist grabbers. But that's my answer. What's yours?

Go to the thread which you transferred this from.  

Sincerely, I want to wish you a fine holiday. Tom, you are one lofty guy. So let's not race-bait further on Christmas Eve, eh? Same for 2019, on all our threads, seriously.

Thanks, and Happy New Year too.

Share this post


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

Go to the thread which you transferred this from.  

The one where you put my words from this thread into an image without any link back for context?

No.

When I quote someone, I'll provide context. When you fail to provide context, I'll put it back in context. Again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The one where you put my words from this thread into an image without any link back for context?

No.

When I quote someone, I'll provide context. When you fail to provide context, I'll put it back in context. Again.

In the context of the red words, you race-baited random the day before, and you tripled down on race-baiting the very day you were called out. Such dedication to racebaiting we find.

Dylann Roof happened a few months later but you did not STFU.

But we have a better 2019 before us, and progress may develop, depending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The one where you put my words from this thread into an image without any link back for context?

No.

When I quote someone, I'll provide context. When you fail to provide context, I'll put it back in context. Again.

Total bullshit. Trust me, I can cite whatever is important. 
The true point here is that your (very sustained) red ink bit falls outside of the context of my life. 

And you can't change that. Merry Christmas to your special people, including Ernie and Noel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Black Gun Owner Next Door

Quote

 

...I am anti-gun and support strict gun control laws. But sipping tea with the homeowners, walking the floors where the Haydens and their compatriots had plotted what turned out to be the roots of a political revolution to overturn slavery, pried ajar a little door in my mind.

Hayden was indeed a man who believed in firepower. He was legendary for threatening slave catchers who showed up at his doorstep in pursuit of fugitives. His home was “converted into a veritable fortress, with doors and windows double locked and barred,” write the historians James Oliver Horton and Lois Horton in “Black Bostonians.” The Hortons describe William and Ellen Craft’s visit in 1848, after the pair fled Georgia in a brilliant escape from slavery. William posed as the property of his wife, a woman light enough to pass for white. Ellen dressed like a man to perfect the ruse. Their destination was the Hayden home where, as the story goes, “Hayden’s son and a number of armed men” secured the premises. “Two kegs of gunpowder had been placed on the front porch, and while the slave catchers watched in disbelief, Hayden lit a torch threatening to blow up his house, himself, and anyone attempting to enter.”

While the historian Stephen Kantrowitz cautions in his book “More Than Freedom” that Hayden’s actions were embellished over time, he traces the claim that “Hayden had readied kegs of gunpowder in the basement, in case slave hunters forced their way inside,” to a statement by William Craft himself. Drawings of the interior of Hayden’s home from an 1889 edition of The Boston Evening Transcript show rifles leaning against the back parlor wall above the caption: “The Guns Were Always Ready for Use in an Emergency.”

...

At last, I was left having to examine myself. “You’re not anti-gun,” Mr. Toure told me. “Ask yourself this. It’s a zombie apocalypse. Tomorrow, you wake up, and you can’t find your children. You go out to search for them. Do you want a gun now?” His analogy was not outlandish. This was, of course, the constant threat enslaved people endured. Had I been fooling myself about my anti-gun stance? I don’t think so, but I did come to realize through a series of unexpected exchanges that the issue was more complicated than I had allowed and that my views of just coexistence and human flourishing might not require the absolute prohibition of arms.

I concede that Lewis Hayden could be viewed as a champion of the right to bear arms in defense of freedom. But more than that, he dedicated himself to community building, forging a complex, self-funded, interracial network of people joined in common cause. Guns were there to defend those things. The home he made with Harriet was a gathering place for the Boston Vigilance Committee, for progressive white Bostonians and for members of the enslaved and free black population.

...

After sipping tea at the Hayden House, I am still suspicious of the N.R.A., and I would not abide having a gun inside my dwelling or my children’s schools. But where would I want to be if civil society topples and 2020 feels like 1820? In a home like the Haydens’, in a neighborhood like the North Slope of 19th-century Beacon Hill, in a community fortified by love in action and maybe a powder keg beneath the floorboards.

 

I guess a powder keg under the floor can sometimes be tolerated. But only after the society that maintains the gun stores isn't there any more.

Share this post


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

Why was MLK's stupid fucking gun permit denied?


I thought Mark K's answer was accurate.

On 3/27/2015 at 1:57 AM, Mark K said:

Probably because he was black.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:


I thought Mark K's answer was accurate.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

I think that if Mark K wants to interact with you, ever, we will know.

I watched you race-bait for three years before I stepped in. You want some of me? Really?

The Trail Cam thread was amazing, then was soiled, by your behavior.  

 

 

You want some fairness, after calling me a racist in public, from March of 2015 to the present. YCMTSU.

Love ya, man.  Gain a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, jocal505 said:

think that if Mark K wants to interact with you, ever, we will know.

I watched you race-bait for three years before I stepped in. You want some of me? Really?

I didn't ask Mark. I asked you.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Yes, I want an answer. From you.

On 7/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, jocal505 said:

The Trail Cam thread was amazing, then was soiled, by your behavior.  

OK, quote the offending post.

We all know there wasn't one, but you're in a TeamD gungrabby safe space and won't be called out for trolling in General Anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

didn't ask Mark. I asked you.

Mark K can speak for himself, at will...yet he and others avoid contact with you. Mark K is no tool.  His comment was that your goal is to label any discussion of race as racist, to prevent discussion.

 

The racist application of gun laws applies across the board. These laws are now agents of fratricide, in general. The NRA's narrative has a terrible racial outcome, and Jeffie is the poster boy for it, with his forty gansta pics, and his choirboy profile.

48 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

OK, quote the offending post.

We are burdened with hundreds of race-baiter posts, from multiple angles. The search function documents 30 references to Judge Taney, and another fifteen to Dred  Scott. WTF?

After I called you out for race-baiting (under your MLK flag) on March 25, 2013,  you carpet bombed PA with accusations that I am a racist, and this behavior intensified in 2018. The numbers doubled in 2019. This gives you racebaiter joy...and slowly,  the karma oozed like puss,  all the way to GA.

I warned you all through December. I wanted you to clean it up after your behavior spiked in 2018. To be continued, you dummy.

Share this post


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

The racist application of gun laws applies across the board.

That's not an answer. Let's try again.

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Start with a yes or no.

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

the karma oozed like puss,  all the way to GA

So quote the offending post.

Share this post


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

The search function documents 30 references to Judge Taney, and another fifteen to Dred  Scott. WTF?

I haven't changed my opinion on that case.

Treating those you consider "immature" and "volatile" because of their skin color

Quote

... would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

I don't see the problem with extending those rights to black people, but then, I don't consider them immature and volatile because of their skin color either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not withstanding Jocelyn latent racism, this is an extremely stupid thread mostly populated by our two most tedious posters (Tom and Jocelyn)  that should have been aborted in 2014.

Share this post


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

So quote the offending post.

Does anyone know why MLK's permit was denied? I know the answer, but will entertain guesses. I am the dogballs, the voice of racial outcome on PA.

4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I think racist application of laws is bad. How about you?

Start with a yes or no.

  • Give me a yes or no on Joyce Malcolm.
  • Give me a yes or no on John Lott.
  • You gave us a no on SYG and guess what, it has a terribly racist outcome. Good dogballs.

All the yapping you are doing about unjust laws was demonstrated recently, by the Miami Sentinel, wrt  stand your ground. SYG is "racist", you would say. It showed in the numbers.

 

So this is an emphatic YES, a roger for ya. Gotcha.

The gun laws and research blockage are set up in a way that blacks are getting the wrong end of all the gun violence. The outcome of your entire gun movement, and the PLCAA, and FOPA, and the Tiahrt nonsense, is racist enough to be fratricidal. Gain a clue soon, mate.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:
On 7/13/2019 at 5:12 AM, jocal505 said:

the karma oozed like puss,  all the way to GA

So quote the offending post.

Thank you so much for asking. The answer would be like a smorgasbord. 

You dropped this thread over the winter of 2014-15. I was pissed when your dumb ass dragged it up again. From the thread we are on...

 

 

KELO TOM GOES MIA:

Quote

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4932234

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, jocal505 said:

The Trail Cam thread was amazing, then was soiled, by your behavior.  

By something I said years before in another forum?

What made it amazing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jocal505 said:
  • Give me a yes or no on Joyce Malcolm.
  • Give me a yes or no on John Lott.

Yes, racist application of laws to either of them would be as wrong as it was with MLK or Dred Scott.

Share this post


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

Well, OK, let's quote SCOTUS Justices.

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? If your answer is "the gun lobby" you might want to check the date of the case.

Brilliant.

Tom Ray and Judge Taney walk into a bar.  Tom holds and folds Taney's coat. Toms finds a leather chair for the Justice.

Tom buys the drinks. Tom knods knowingly during the conversation. Tom buys a round for the house, and toasts the Justice.

Taney gives Tom the nod. 


Well, no, I don't agree with your idea that black people are immature and volatile and would likely tell the judge what my elk have said in this thread:

On 10/27/2014 at 6:13 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

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.”

If you're too lazy to look it up, execrable basically means shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:


Well, no, I don't agree with your idea that black people are immature and volatile and would likely tell the judge what my elk have said in this thread:

If you're too lazy to look it up, execrable basically means shitty.

You've spammed it twenty times, without personal growth as long as I've know you. What do I need to look up?

Share this post


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

You weaponized more proliferation, using MLK, and even his church, as your toolz. 


I'm not responsible for the racist application of gun control in his case. I just pointed it out with disapproval.

It's sad that you can't voice disapproval of racist application of gun control, but I know that anything about "application of gun control" will meet with your approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:


I'm not responsible for the racist application of gun control in his case.

Nobody claimed that. Defensive much?

Quote

I just pointed it out with disapproval. 

From 2012 to 2015, you did exactly that, and only that, fifty times.

I contained myself. I remained mum until you coyly resurrected this thread.  I called you out on March 25, 2015. It was in April of that year you went ape shit with the race-baiter poo.

You asked about your worst offense in  this smoprgasboard of redneck jism. More proliferation contained four different racial slurs.

Here it is you fool, check the date. You are getting played by me and by Pavlovian behavior.

dred, Tom's  racebaiter grand slam.JPG

Quote

It's sad that you can't voice disapproval of racist application of gun control, but I know that anything about "application of gun control" will meet with your approval.

Yo, lay in the restrictions. Make them thick and thorough. Go after the industry immunity, begin with eighysixing the PLCA and the Dickey Amend,ment FFS. Then use RICO against the NRA. 

Expose CATO. Their elk are shitting guns into our homes, at their best, and a diarrhea of violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Q & A with the author of a new book about Clarence Thomas

Quote

 

...

Question: The epigraph to your book is taken from Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” (1952), a novel that explored the social and intellectual issues facing African Americans in the early 20th century: “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me … When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination – indeed, everything and anything except me.” How does this quote set the stage for what unfolds in your book?

Robin: While I was writing this book, I constantly had people, the most well meaning, liberal-minded people, tell me who Thomas is and what he thinks. It didn’t matter that their perceptions seldom matched reality. It didn’t matter that I was the one who was writing the book. They knew what they knew. They refused to listen, to look; they refused to hear or see. Their reactions reached beyond politics; it was almost as is if they had no curiosity about this man, had no need to know anything about him, even though he is longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court, and increasingly one of the more powerful members of that court.

The great bulk of the evidence I rely upon in my book is not hard to find or hidden away. It’s right there in Thomas’ opinions, which anyone can read on the web. Yet very few people read those opinions or even know that they exist, and when they do read them, whether as admirers or critics of Thomas, they don’t see what’s in them. They don’t hear the voice that’s speaking, they don’t see the man who’s speaking.

So here you have a man with the most distinctive voice of any justice on the court yet who remains completely unheard and completely unseen. As outrageous and tendentious as this may sound — and believe me, I came to this position quite slowly, and still say it with a certain amount of trepidation — it’s hard not to conclude that Clarence Thomas is the “Invisible Man” of the Supreme Court....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across an 1880 Supreme Court case in which they decided unanimously that "may issue" business licenses were a problem.

Yick Wo v Hopkins

There's a decent summary at this link: https://conlaw.us/case/yick-wo-v-hopkins-1886/

Quote

 

In 1880, San Francisco required business owners who operated laundries in wooden buildings to obtain a permit. At the time, about 95 percent of the city’s 320 laundries were located in wooden buildings. And approximately two-thirds of those laundries were owned by people of Chinese descent. Yick Wo (whose real name was Lee Yick) had operated a laundry business in a wooden building for more than two decades. In 1884, after an inspection, he received a license. The City determined that his “appliances for heating” were “not dangerous to the surrounding property from fire.” Yick sought to renew his license a year later, but the government denied his application.

Why was Yick not allowed to renew his license? The San Francisco ordinance allowed the government to deny the license for any reason, or no reason at all.

The modern term for that last sentence is that it was a "may issue" license. As in, may or may not, for any reason or no reason at all.

Of course, it's never really "no reason." The Supreme Court managed to figure out the reason in Yick Wo v Hopkins.

Quote

 

The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. And while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them and from two hundred others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, eighty others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which, in the eye of the law, is not justified. The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end,

The judgment of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Yick Wo, and that of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California in the case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 6:26 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm shocked!  Shocked I tells ya, that someone would use a permitting process in a discriminatory way.  

However, I would think @jocal505 would be onboard with denying gun licenses and permits to those who he thinks are more immature and more predisposed to violence than others based on genetic differences.  

I think he's more on board with doing the discrimination than with admitting to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2015 at 2:22 AM, jocal505 said:

place smarmy, coy, and smug phlegm here; add FL swamp gas...

Tom, you brought us back to your racebaiter thread. Good times. 

 

25 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I think he's more on board with doing the discrimination than with admitting to it.

Talk about good times, the core of my life passed in Jimi's neighborhood. I had a PA system and a van, didn't I, so Jimi's peer group would practice at my place, and I would drive them to their gigs.

Thirty years passed, I built treehouses for the neighbor kids. Taught them to balance on bikes, by clasping their coats. We laughed together, where no dogballs racebaiting was to be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Anyways, did you have a cozy MLK Day? Did you get the warm fuzzies?

How many of your redneck friends made it up to Richmond? 

I had a fine day. No one who agrees with you about the immaturity and volatility of black people disturbed my peace at all.

And yes, I still think the racist denial of his concealed weapons permit was wrong.

Share this post


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

And yes, I still think the racist denial of his concealed weapons permit was wrong.

Who doesn't? The problem is that your solution (that is, dictating "must issue")  is a non-sequitur. But even moreso, the running problem is that you present only a gun permit denial as the whole of your grasp of MLK. You just never manage to get the gold out of the bank, sport.

The whole of your grasp and presentation of Taney is a carbon copy of this. In an uncanny way, I might add, this is quite similar to the racially-based court briefs of the ex-armed freedom fighter Don Kates, the Libertarian writer: just a long,shallow puddle, without depth.

 

Anyway, I think Dogballs, he love the smell of MLK in the morning, when he isn't dropping turds on MLK's church. and when he isn't racebaiting away, with a giddy (but superior) Libertarian tone.

I figure he racebaiter thread could use a cut and paste.

Quote

O LET US RACE-BAIT, for the clicks and the dumbasses

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, and the NAACP; 
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakain, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8.  Judge Taney, thirty times, Dred Scott fifteen times, and the NAACP
  9. Cooing Chicago/claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems
  10. Did I mention the NAACP for +125 mentions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do ya think gunz could ever become an obsession? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2015 at 6:12 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I think Darren X makes more sense.

 

On 3/25/2015 at 2:44 PM, Tom Ray said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation
 

 
  Quote

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....


It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

 

This is Tom's brain, eleven days before Dylann Roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2015 at 1:06 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
  On 6/5/2015 at 1