Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

Sol's Charleston Race thread resurrection

Recommended Posts

No clue why Sol's Charleston thread got zapped, but I think there was a decent discussion going on about race and 1st Am rights. It would be nice to continue that since a discussion about race and race relations is always a healthy thing. Although woofers doesn't think race exists anymore, but I digress.....

 

I heard something really interesting on PBS this morning driving to work. There was a Podcast with POTUS discussing race relations the other day and Obama said the word "Nigger" on air. Aside from the fact that he didn't actually use the term "the N word", which I applaud - I thought much of what he said about race relations was pretty good.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4d6qND3bcQ

 

Discuss....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that thread was about speech. And since I showed up, I figured it might be about anonymous $peech.

 

Sincerely,

 

Publius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speech, race.... whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black. Young Mr. Roof certainly has some interesting ideas, and chose to express them in a peculiar fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hyperbole can get you in trouble with the Feds these days, Sol. Be careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clue why Sol's Charleston thread got zapped, but I think there was a decent discussion going on about race and 1st Am rights. It would be nice to continue that since a discussion about race and race relations is always a healthy thing. Although woofers doesn't think race exists anymore, but I digress.....

 

I heard something really interesting on PBS this morning driving to work. There was a Podcast with POTUS discussing race relations the other day and Obama said the word "Nigger" on air. Aside from the fact that he didn't actually use the term "the N word", which I applaud - I thought much of what he said about race relations was pretty good.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4d6qND3bcQ

 

Discuss....

 

I question the quality of any racial discussion if the discussion includes crap like this (from yesterday):

JBSF, on 24 Jun 2015 - 5:45 PM, said:

You are a racist for suggesting that poor black people have to pay for their own mental health screenings. Its just another ploy by the man to keep guns out of the negro's hands lest they rise up against whitey.

Come to think of it..... that pretty much makes specious ed and jocal rabid racists as well.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=166577&page=2#entry4992387>

 

Or this other crap, also posted by JBSF:50cent_zpsins8pj6q.jpg

 

Be careful of any Jeffie mathematics presented:

 

Jeffie's Gangbanger Research, LLC. (chronological)

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number One:

How would you folks remodel the NRA?....

Posted by JBSF on 03 May 2013 - 10:49 PM in Political Anarchy

But you continually rail on about the supposed "gun culture" as if people like me, and CF, and AGITC, and LenP and Sarosa and Tom Ray, etc have ANYTHING in common with the urban thugs in Chicago and similar who are committing the vast majority of the "gun crime".

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number two:

who commits more gun crime, liberals or conservatives?

Posted by JBSF on 18 September 2013 - 01:14 AM in Political Anarchy

Well, given that the majority of the murders in the US (VAST MAJORITY) are commited in the inner city urban areas - I think they are likely firmly blue voters.

Thanks Obama!

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number three:

#4384391The real roadblock to stopping gun violence? The NRA or Jocal?

Posted by JBSF on 13 November 2013 - 03:02 AM in Political Anarchy

The VAST majority of the gun murders out there are committed by run of the mill criminals and gangbangers, most likely as a directly result of the drug trade. If we ended the "war on drugs" - I'm betting the violent crime rate would plummet overnight.

From JBSF, spring 2014: The real situation in the USA:

Armed home defense and home invasion thread

JBSF, on 25 Mar 2014 - 21:08, said:

The vast majority of murders are committed by completely sane individuals

who are murdering for other reasons like drugs, domestic violence, robbery, etc.

By March 2014 Jeff had assimilated the facts (acquaintence offings account for about 80%of the numbers)

possibly because I quoted them here as Boothy scoffed at them. Hmmm, yet Jeff continued to blame blacks.

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number four; (three months after stating the truthful situation)

Posted by JBSF on 11 June 2014 - 09:27 PM in Political Anarchy

Furthermore, the 12x rate is not all because of mentally disturbed kids. The vast majority of our homicide rate is inner city drug related crime and gang activity. [...]

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163760#entry4847529>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11391423_997743723579073_854447365039708

 

Someone taught young Mr. Roof to hate. He took it from there, and expressed himself in a most unhealthy and inconvenient way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

Why are they inconvenient to you?

Now this is the essence of Fakebertarianism.

Bravo for distilling it down to its meconium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

FTFY

 

I kinda like the way I said it better, because it acknowledges the history that we have down in these parts. This is not the first black church that has been attacked. Unless we acknowledge that history and deal with it, we will never get past it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supremes were operating on all cylinders today. In addition to the ACA ruling, they noticed that Racism still exists, and that the Fair Housing Act still was useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supremes were operating on all cylinders today. In addition to the ACA ruling, they noticed that Racism still exists, and that the Fair Housing Act still was useful.

 

images_zpsu5qsbkeg.jpg

 

Jeffie pic or it didn't happen (#2 of 7)

from Baltimore - let's burn this bitch down!

 

2Pac-thuglife_zpsendmgafg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supremes were operating on all cylinders today. In addition to the ACA ruling, they noticed that Racism still exists, and that the Fair Housing Act still was useful.

 

But if race is dependent upon self-identity, how can racism exist? I mean, wouldn't someone who's being discriminated against for their race just self-identify as a different race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Supremes were operating on all cylinders today. In addition to the ACA ruling, they noticed that Racism still exists, and that the Fair Housing Act still was useful.

 

But if race is dependent upon self-identity, how can racism exist? I mean, wouldn't someone who's being discriminated against for their race just self-identify as a different race?

 

Unfortunately, it's not the identity of the person being discriminated against. It's the perception of identity in the mind of the racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Supremes were operating on all cylinders today. In addition to the ACA ruling, they noticed that Racism still exists, and that the Fair Housing Act still was useful.

 

But if race is dependent upon self-identity, how can racism exist? I mean, wouldn't someone who's being discriminated against for their race just self-identify as a different race?

 

Unfortunately, it's not the identity of the person being discriminated against. It's the perception of identity in the mind of the racist.

 

Dylann Roof's self identity had something to do with what he did. He saw himself as a protector of white people who had to do it, even after spending time with his victims and finding them so nice that he almost didn't go through with what he thought he had to do, because the fact that they were black trumped the fact that they were nice. The victims' self identity had nothing to do with Mr. Roof's decision to start speaking in lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

 

Unless you're one of those people that believes black people should not enjoy the same rights as white people, they're not inconvenient for you. You're just imagining how others feel.

 

I'll join in. Bloomberg $peak$ about the need to throw black people up against the wall and frisk them, so I imagine the dead are inconvenient to him. While I'm at it, I'll imagine he hasn't noticed them yet.

 

I think they don't need to be thrown up against the wall and hope that we rid ourselves of the last racist gun control laws soon. The murderer and the dead have not made that inconvenient at all, offering another opportunity to draw comparisons between current and historic racist gun control laws.

 

Of course, there have been a few classy people who have had to drag self-murders into the subject, as if they have anything to do with violence. But there are going to be some stinky malarkey bombs thrown anywhere, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

 

Unless you're one of those people that believes black people should not enjoy the same rights as white people, they're not inconvenient for you. You're just imagining how others feel.

 

I'll join in. Bloomberg $peak$ about the need to throw black people up against the wall and frisk them, so I imagine the dead are inconvenient to him. While I'm at it, I'll imagine he hasn't noticed them yet.

 

I think they don't need to be thrown up against the wall and hope that we rid ourselves of the last racist gun control laws soon. The murderer and the dead have not made that inconvenient at all, offering another opportunity to draw comparisons between current and historic racist gun control laws.

 

Of course, there have been a few classy people who have had to drag self-murders into the subject, as if they have anything to do with violence. But there are going to be some stinky malarkey bombs thrown anywhere, you know?

 

I'm not sure why you quoted my post there. Nothing in it responds to anything I posted. You are getting confused again. That seems to happen to you whenever there is a mass shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

 

Unless you're one of those people that believes black people should not enjoy the same rights as white people, they're not inconvenient for you. You're just imagining how others feel.

 

I'll join in. Bloomberg $peak$ about the need to throw black people up against the wall and frisk them, so I imagine the dead are inconvenient to him. While I'm at it, I'll imagine he hasn't noticed them yet.

 

I think they don't need to be thrown up against the wall and hope that we rid ourselves of the last racist gun control laws soon. The murderer and the dead have not made that inconvenient at all, offering another opportunity to draw comparisons between current and historic racist gun control laws.

 

Of course, there have been a few classy people who have had to drag self-murders into the subject, as if they have anything to do with violence. But there are going to be some stinky malarkey bombs thrown anywhere, you know?

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

 

Maybe, Tom, because you try hard to ignore beaucoup (19,000/yr) cgun suicides:

Of course, there have been a few classy people who have had to drag self-murders into the subject, as if they have anything to do with violence.

 

Maybe because you say we only have a "handful" of gun accidents (when the number is around 700/yr.).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

FTFY

 

I kinda like the way I said it better, because it acknowledges the history that we have down in these parts. This is not the first black church that has been attacked. Unless we acknowledge that history and deal with it, we will never get past it.

 

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

FTFY

 

I kinda like the way I said it better, because it acknowledges the history that we have down in these parts. This is not the first black church that has been attacked. Unless we acknowledge that history and deal with it, we will never get past it.

 

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

 

I don't think any scales need to be tipped. I think we need to acknowledge that racism is alive and well, and not pretend that it isn't. We need to stop playing the Limbaugh game, where recognizing racism is racism, entertaining though it may be. We need to find out where kids are being taught such hatred that led Dylann Roof to s-h-o-o-t nine people despite thinking they were nice, because he thought he had to, because they were black, and he was inspired by the Trayvon Martin killing. The flag is a symbol; it's removal from government buildings is purely symbolic. We need to address disparate treatment in the justice system, and by police. There are a host of issues to confront, all of them difficult. The flag issue, while purely symbolic, was once thought too tough to handle, and look how fast we are moving forward on that. It can be done. Our leaders will work on this stuff if we are willing to drag them, kicking and screaming, to do it. It shouldn't have to take mass murder to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

<SNIP>

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

FTFY

 

I kinda like the way I said it better, because it acknowledges the history that we have down in these parts. This is not the first black church that has been attacked. Unless we acknowledge that history and deal with it, we will never get past it.

 

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

 

 

I'd humbly suggest that race & gender no longer be used to determine how the scales should be tipped. The idea of affirmative action, that is to lift up capable individuals who's life circumstances have prevented them from achieving alone what others normally do, is good. I think that the criterion applied to determine who should be the benefactors of affirmative action ought to be based upon one's condition/circumstances, not ethnicity/gender.

 

Income, personal achievement, exposure to "risk factors", etc... People who have a tough start have a tough start whether they're black/white/asian/mexican male/female/confused. Poverty income, single/no parents, exposure to violence/crime, THOSE are the things that hamper one's development, and IMHO are the type of things that should be considered in determining who the benefactors of affirmative action like polices and practices should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... We need to address disparate treatment in the justice system, and by police. ...

 

I agree with Sol on this. Stop and frisk is one of many policies that exacerbate race relations while accomplishing little to nothing good. It's mostly a gun control policy and part of an ugly legacy of racist gun control laws.

 

The drug war is worse than gun control for race relations.

 

The drug war has the "crack vs powder" sentencing bias, but it doesn't end there. Black people are arrested and locked up more often, but there's no evidence that many more of them use drugs. They just don't get away with it.

 

I have posted elsewhere about my "brother" Ernie, currently a guest for life of the FL prison system. I just got the form to ask permission to go visit him. The crime that got him locked up for life was armed robbery, but under a "three strikes" provision. Previous drug crimes.

 

I'm not a huge fan of armed robbery and think he deserved to get locked up for that one. Life? That happened in part because he got caught messing with drugs, something made more likely by his black skin.

 

Places in "high crime" neighborhoods are more likely to be subject to no-knock raids. Those value evidence over lives and are another drug war burden disproportionately borne by blacks. We all know what "high crime" means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them.

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

...

 

I'm not sure why you quoted my post there. Nothing in it responds to anything I posted. You are getting confused again. That seems to happen to you whenever there is a mass shooting.

 

 

Oh, right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11017832_10153405108518497_1294954044621

 

One good preference to get rid of is choosing people to s-h-o-o-t because they are black. That would be a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

 

 

I don't think any scales need to be tipped. I think we need to acknowledge that racism is alive and well, and not pretend that it isn't. We need to stop playing the Limbaugh game, where recognizing racism is racism, entertaining though it may be. We need to find out where kids are being taught such hatred that led Dylann Roof to s-h-o-o-t nine people despite thinking they were nice, because he thought he had to, because they were black, and he was inspired by the Trayvon Martin killing. The flag is a symbol; it's removal from government buildings is purely symbolic. We need to address disparate treatment in the justice system, and by police. There are a host of issues to confront, all of them difficult. The flag issue, while purely symbolic, was once thought too tough to handle, and look how fast we are moving forward on that. It can be done. Our leaders will work on this stuff if we are willing to drag them, kicking and screaming, to do it. It shouldn't have to take mass murder to make it happen.

 

 

Sol, other than rush, who here is saying racism doesn't exist??? Who here is no acknowledging it? I fully acknowledge that racism exists in people's hearts. It exits fairly equally in both black and white hearts.

 

I'm fine with removing the Confederate battle flag from state capitals IF that is what the state chooses. I'm slightly less convinced that the justice system itself is racist. I don't see it as racist, I see it being disproportionately weighted towards minorities because of poverty, which in turn drives crime. If the majority of the criminals are black, then the majority of the justice system will be dealing with those offenders.

 

So aside from the flag and the justice system, Sol, what over "issues" should be be dealing with???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

 

 

 

I'd humbly suggest that race & gender no longer be used to determine how the scales should be tipped. The idea of affirmative action, that is to lift up capable individuals who's life circumstances have prevented them from achieving alone what others normally do, is good. I think that the criterion applied to determine who should be the benefactors of affirmative action ought to be based upon one's condition/circumstances, not ethnicity/gender.

 

Income, personal achievement, exposure to "risk factors", etc... People who have a tough start have a tough start whether they're black/white/asian/mexican male/female/confused. Poverty income, single/no parents, exposure to violence/crime, THOSE are the things that hamper one's development, and IMHO are the type of things that should be considered in determining who the benefactors of affirmative action like polices and practices should be.

 

 

+1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd humbly suggest that race & gender no longer be used to determine how the scales should be tipped. The idea of affirmative action, that is to lift up capable individuals who's life circumstances have prevented them from achieving alone what others normally do, is good. I think that the criterion applied to determine who should be the benefactors of affirmative action ought to be based upon one's condition/circumstances, not ethnicity/gender.

 

Income, personal achievement, exposure to "risk factors", etc... People who have a tough start have a tough start whether they're black/white/asian/mexican male/female/confused. Poverty income, single/no parents, exposure to violence/crime, THOSE are the things that hamper one's development, and IMHO are the type of things that should be considered in determining who the benefactors of affirmative action like polices and practices should be.

 

Welcome to civilization, I mean, California. We passed Prop 209 way back in 1996.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

 

 

I don't think any scales need to be tipped. I think we need to acknowledge that racism is alive and well, and not pretend that it isn't. We need to stop playing the Limbaugh game, where recognizing racism is racism, entertaining though it may be. We need to find out where kids are being taught such hatred that led Dylann Roof to s-h-o-o-t nine people despite thinking they were nice, because he thought he had to, because they were black, and he was inspired by the Trayvon Martin killing. The flag is a symbol; it's removal from government buildings is purely symbolic. We need to address disparate treatment in the justice system, and by police. There are a host of issues to confront, all of them difficult. The flag issue, while purely symbolic, was once thought too tough to handle, and look how fast we are moving forward on that. It can be done. Our leaders will work on this stuff if we are willing to drag them, kicking and screaming, to do it. It shouldn't have to take mass murder to make it happen.

 

 

Sol, other than rush, who here is saying racism doesn't exist??? Who here is no acknowledging it? I fully acknowledge that racism exists in people's hearts. It exits fairly equally in both black and white hearts.

 

I'm fine with removing the Confederate battle flag from state capitals IF that is what the state chooses. I'm slightly less convinced that the justice system itself is racist. I don't see it as racist, I see it being disproportionately weighted towards minorities because of poverty, which in turn drives crime. If the majority of the criminals are black, then the majority of the justice system will be dealing with those offenders.

 

So aside from the flag and the justice system, Sol, what over "issues" should be be dealing with???

 

Dog's been working that angle for a long time, aside from the recognizing racism is racism gag. That's kinda been the party position, hasn't it, to attack things like the voting rights act? If The Party takes a position, you won't find Dog far from that yard....

 

What else should we do? Make sure the next generation is not being taught to hate people enough to kill them even though they find them to be nice individuals.

 

11223551_10153410906173497_1991363032076

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure why you quoted my post there. Nothing in it responds to anything I posted. You are getting confused again. That seems to happen to you whenever there is a mass shooting.

 

 

Tom is confused in between mass killings, too.

He has been muttering "Stop and frisk...mumble mumble... against the wall...mumble...Bloomberg" for quite a while now.

I think it's sad. He's brighter than that, but defending guns behavior is wearing him out.

 

I like Jeff's post. But I suspect that his mouth may be "getting it," but not his inner man.

To illustrate the point, how about a few more Jeffie Gangsta Pics.

 

(#4 of 7)Charleston%20Thug%20Life%20illustrations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No clue why Sol's Charleston thread got zapped,....

You're not really wondering why, are you?

 

 

I am wondering. What was all that about? Seems to me pretty much anything goes around here. Why delete Sol's whole thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what other screen names were used by White Cracker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a banned member already was a big part of it. They checked his file because he ventured outside pa and accused clean of writing things he apparently didn't write.

 

Behaving like normal for himself then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not sure why you quoted my post there. Nothing in it responds to anything I posted. You are getting confused again. That seems to happen to you whenever there is a mass shooting.

 

 

Tom is confused in between mass killings, too.

He has been muttering "Stop and frisk...mumble mumble... against the wall...mumble...Bloomberg" for quite a while now.

I think it's sad. He's brighter than that, but defending guns behavior is wearing him out.

 

When did I ever defend a gun's behavior?

 

I noted that mine usually start frothing at the barrel before they murder people but I hoped everyone knew I was kidding.

 

Has anyone else ever managed to get jocal, Sol and Happy Jack to agree on something? I'm pretty proud of myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No clue why Sol's Charleston thread got zapped,....

You're not really wondering why, are you?

I am wondering. What was all that about? Seems to me pretty much anything goes around here. Why delete Sol's whole thread?

http://www.charlestonraceweek.com/

 

I see Charleston in a very good light over this. A racist from out of town came to Charleston because of the town's race relations, and tried to disrupt them by entering a historic black church and s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g nine people he found to be nice in person, but still had to s-h-o-o-t, because they were black. He sought to sow discord, but what he accomplished instead was letting the world see the town and state coming together not in battle, but in accord, and working to remove elements of a troubled past from the state house, where that flag does not belong. I am pretty damned impressed by Charleston's response to this.

 

If the kid wanted riots, he should have done it in NYC.

 

2.jpg?cb=1435254982

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

No clue why Sol's Charleston thread got zapped,....

You're not really wondering why, are you?

I am wondering. What was all that about? Seems to me pretty much anything goes around here. Why delete Sol's whole thread?

http://www.charlestonraceweek.com/

 

I see Charleston in a very good light over this. A racist from out of town came to Charleston because of the town's race relations, and tried to disrupt them by entering a historic black church and s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g nine people he found to be nice in person, but still had to s-h-o-o-t, because they were black. He sought to sow discord, but what he accomplished instead was letting the world see the town and state coming together not in battle, but in accord, and working to remove elements of a troubled past from the state house, where that flag does not belong. I am pretty damned impressed by Charleston's response to this.

 

If the kid wanted riots, he should have done it in NYC.

 

2.jpg?cb=1435254982

 

 

Sounds like a nice guy. Too bad the thug got him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

You're not really wondering why, are you?

I am wondering. What was all that about? Seems to me pretty much anything goes around here. Why delete Sol's whole thread?

http://www.charlestonraceweek.com/

 

I see Charleston in a very good light over this. A racist from out of town came to Charleston because of the town's race relations, and tried to disrupt them by entering a historic black church and s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g nine people he found to be nice in person, but still had to s-h-o-o-t, because they were black. He sought to sow discord, but what he accomplished instead was letting the world see the town and state coming together not in battle, but in accord, and working to remove elements of a troubled past from the state house, where that flag does not belong. I am pretty damned impressed by Charleston's response to this.

 

If the kid wanted riots, he should have done it in NYC.

 

2.jpg?cb=1435254982

 

 

Sounds like a nice guy. Too bad the thug got him.

 

The thug thought that they were all very nice indeed, but that he had to s-h-o-o-t them because they were black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you quoted my post there. Nothing in it responds to anything I posted. You are getting confused again. That seems to happen to you whenever there is a mass shooting.

 

 

Tom is confused in between mass killings, too.

He has been muttering "Stop and frisk...mumble mumble... against the wall...mumble...Bloomberg" for quite a while now.

I think it's sad. He's brighter than that, but defending gun behavior is wearing him out.

 

When did I ever defend a gun's behavior?

 

I noted that mine usually start frothing at the barrel before they murder people but I hoped everyone knew I was kidding.

 

Has anyone else ever managed to get jocal, Sol and Happy Jack to agree on something? I'm pretty proud of myself.

 

 

You can't count the dead people, and you think you're cute proud of yourself all day long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you quoted my post there. Nothing in it responds to anything I posted. You are getting confused again. That seems to happen to you whenever there is a mass shooting.

 

 

Tom is confused in between mass killings, too.

He has been muttering "Stop and frisk...mumble mumble... against the wall...mumble...Bloomberg" for quite a while now.

I think it's sad. He's brighter than that, but defending gun behavior is wearing him out.

 

When did I ever defend a gun's behavior?

 

I noted that mine usually start frothing at the barrel before they murder people but I hoped everyone knew I was kidding.

 

Has anyone else ever managed to get jocal, Sol and Happy Jack to agree on something? I'm pretty proud of myself.

 

 

You can't count the dead people, and you think you're cute proud of yourself all day long.

 

Tom likes to imagine that he gets people to do things, by altering what they said and arguing the straw man. If only Tom could imagine a different message than the one Dylann Roof delivered, and have it be the truth, instead of what young Mr. Roof actually said. Tom doesn't deal in truth, he deals in imagination and propaganda. Imagine if Dylann Roof hadn't felt as if he had to s-h-o-t this person he found nice.

 

4.jpg?cb=1435254982

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the worst possible messenger.

 

Heck, I see suicide statistics being used to promote gun control in this link and I think that's BS.

 

I note that Obama had the class to use actual violent deaths associated with guns in his eulogy. If only everyone else were so classy.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you quoted my post there. Nothing in it responds to anything I posted. You are getting confused again. That seems to happen to you whenever there is a mass shooting.

 

 

Tom is confused in between mass killings, too.

He has been muttering "Stop and frisk...mumble mumble... against the wall...mumble...Bloomberg" for quite a while now.

I think it's sad. He's brighter than that, but defending gun behavior is wearing him out.

 

When did I ever defend a gun's behavior?

 

I noted that mine usually start frothing at the barrel before they murder people but I hoped everyone knew I was kidding.

 

Has anyone else ever managed to get jocal, Sol and Happy Jack to agree on something? I'm pretty proud of myself.

 

 

You can't count the dead people, and you think you're cute proud of yourself all day long.

 

Tom likes to imagine that he gets people to do things, by altering what they said and arguing the straw man. If only Tom could imagine a different message than the one Dylann Roof delivered, and have it be the truth, instead of what young Mr. Roof actually said. Tom doesn't deal in truth, he deals in imagination and propaganda. Imagine if Dylann Roof hadn't felt as if he had to s-h-o-t this person he found nice.

 

4.jpg?cb=1435254982

 

 

You do realize you are buying into the "reality" of a crazy person. It would have made no difference to the dead had the Roof manifesto concerned space aliens or his attack been in his mind on the Mother Ship. His stated motivation is only important to those who would exploit it as is Jocal's intent re. gun control, and yours vis a vis "America's racism". Guns are evil and America is a racist country at heart, both augmented by global warming and nice Muslims who only do "workplace violence"; throw in the evils of capitalism and we have a delightful stew brewing of statist insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol, I'm sure you think you're being cute - but you can you explain why you have to spell out s-h-o-o-t?? Just wondering.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can't count the dead people, and you think you're cute proud of yourself all day long.

 

 

Tom likes to imagine that he gets people to do things, by altering what they said and arguing the straw man. If only Tom could imagine a different message than the one Dylann Roof delivered, and have it be the truth, instead of what young Mr. Roof actually said. Tom doesn't deal in truth, he deals in imagination and propaganda. Imagine if Dylann Roof hadn't felt as if he had to s-h-o-t this person he found nice.

 

You do realize you are buying into the "reality" of a crazy person. It would have made no difference to the dead had the Roof manifesto concerned space aliens or his attack been in his mind on the Mother Ship. His stated motivation is only important to those who would exploit it as is Jocal's intent re. gun control, and yours vis a vis "America's racism". Guns are evil and America is a racist country at heart, both augmented by global warming and nice Muslims who only do "workplace violence"; throw in the evils of capitalism and we have a delightful stew brewing of statist insanity.

 

 

I have been too numb to know what to say about the gun supply aspect of this (except to lament arming church ministers).

But a waiting period might have helped his drug felony to surface.

 

NGS, FFS, you need the false equivalency of space aliens?

 

I have noticed on some apparent racial undercurrents of our forums.

Before the church shooting, I was asking Tom why he slipped in Rev. Mosteller a time or two.

He is just full of information on the subject: Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

Of course in the format of these racial discussions, we could use a stream of informative gansta pics, from Jeffie.

 

(#5 of 7)baltimore-riot_zpsuheay3pc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom likes to imagine that he gets people to do things, by altering what they said and arguing the straw man. If only Tom could imagine a different message than the one Dylann Roof delivered, and have it be the truth, instead of what young Mr. Roof actually said. Tom doesn't deal in truth, he deals in imagination and propaganda. Imagine if Dylann Roof hadn't felt as if he had to s-h-o-t this person he found nice.

 

 

Three of us have mentioned this to Tom, in about a week. He is barely worth conversing with.

 

I began a collection of Tom's words, which were beliefs I do not hold.

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

 

 

Tom Ray, on 25 Jan 2015 - 17:47, said:

By "curtailed" you mean, of course, confiscated.

 

Tom Ray, on 01 Mar 2015 - 02:08 AM, said:

...I have trouble laying aside your fantasy of confiscating all the unacceptable semi-auto weapons in America. ..

 

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

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=27#entry4837443>

 

I can find no examples of colonial era Americans banning and confiscating guns so find no support for your idea that "well regulated" in the context of a militia means disarmed by the government.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163762>

 

I'm glad you no longer think our complaints about it "tiresome, weak, and vaporous."

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=161382&page=3#entry4903831>

 

 

. It would mean, to name one absurd example, that prisoners have a right to have guns in prison. I don't believe that and am pretty astonished that you think I would.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&page=2#entry4841398

 

Jocal, before I listen to lectures about "skewed facts" let me ask you a question: do you still believe that a concealed weapons permit can act as any type of shield against gun confiscation in any state? Because if the answer is yes, you have such a fundamental fact screwed up that I'm not going to try to fix it.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=156707#entry4616092>

 

...and I will quit complaining about your advocacy of racist policies.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=160457&p=4680878>

Glad you've come around since the days when you thought the gun lobby somehow snuck that word (i.e.transfer) into the bill. ?

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=161382&page=3#entry4903831>

 

(Tom Ray) If you're going to try to get me to defend the "more guns less crime" thing I'm going to again ask you where I said that. Again, you'll have to admit that I did not.

(Joe) Whew! I have to admit something I didn't say.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol, I'm sure you think you're being cute - but you can you explain why you have to spell out s-h-o-o-t?? Just wondering.....

Just being careful not to actually say the word, as I would avoid saying "treat" around the dog, to keep him from getting excited, or "car" around the dog, to keep him from hiding. As we've seen around here, actually saying something has no bearing on whether something gets ascribed to you, so I am being extra careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look........it is a disturbed individual who focused on racism as an outlet for his overriding illness. Lets acknowledge it for what it is. I don't know what proportion of which disturbed set of thoughts took him there, but as always "normal" people rarely do these things. Its so much more complex than just racism.

 

"But talk to his friends and family, and a portrait emerges of a troubled and confused 21-year-old, often drunk and occasionally threatening violence as he alternated between partying with black friends and spouting white power slogans to white friends. Court documents and nearly two dozen interviews show Roof's early childhood was troubled and confused as well, as he grew up in an unstable, broken home amid allegations of marital abuse and infidelity."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/charleston-suspects-life-troubled-road-radicalization-153608402.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Governor Jeb Bush:

 

 

"We as a society better figure out how we identify these folks long before they feel compelled to take up a gun and kill innocent people," the former Florida governor said at a town hall meeting.

 

Yep. What a maroon...he isn't even considering the cost!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Governor Jeb Bush:

 

 

"We as a society better figure out how we identify these folks long before they feel compelled to take up a gun and kill innocent people," the former Florida governor said at a town hall meeting.

 

Yep. What a maroon...he isn't even considering the cost!

I love those platitudes.............so okay Jeb...........what would that be? Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. You've been in public service your adult life, governor of a big complex state and you offer me........."we better figure out".

 

Next................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Former Governor Jeb Bush:

 

 

"We as a society better figure out how we identify these folks long before they feel compelled to take up a gun and kill innocent people," the former Florida governor said at a town hall meeting.

 

Yep. What a maroon...he isn't even considering the cost!

I love those platitudes.............so okay Jeb...........what would that be? Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. You've been in public service your adult life, governor of a big complex state and you offer me........."we better figure out".

 

Next................

 

Even what he said was going out on a limb. Way out. Anything beyond the standard "victims and families are in my prayers" is political suicide (with the statistics not counting in gun violence stats!)

 

I don't think his position is all that unreasonable. It mirrors mine. But if 20 dead tots in CT were not going to provide the impetus for trying to make it harder for people who think that mass murder is acceptable behavior to acquire the tools with which to accomplish their task, this sure as hell isn't going to do it. There's too much money at stake.

 

What'll it cost, man, what'll it cost?

 

Just a few of these.... 263a.jpg

 

On the bright side, this incident would seem to be having the opposite effect than the race war that young Mr. Roof was seeking. I think that is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case someone wants to read direct and intelligent comments on the feasibility of Sol's idea...

 

 

 

 

There is a very real cost to it, no doubt about it, one that goes well beyond the cost of no longer being able to look to the statehouse for a glimpse of the beloved stars and bars, but now that the race war has been (openly) declared, since we're talking about this in the wake of the inconvenient Charleston s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g. The good people of South Carolina get to pay for Mr. Roof's mental screening, now. If he had to pay for it before he chose to kill nine people in their church, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

 

Should people who would not be able to pass a mental health screening, i.e. crazy people, more specifically, people who think that killing groups of other people is acceptable behavior, be allowed to have guns or other weapons that could accomplish that?

 

Who bears the costs of the funerals for the nine people in Charleston?

 

To answer the first question, I'd want to ask someone like soak-ed whether those in his business can really "screen" for crazy. If they can, I'd say such people shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns. We don't want psychopaths choosing our leaders, do we?

 

There's a whole thread devoted to answering your second question about the costs of gun violence. In typically classy fashion, they call suicides "gun violence" to inflate the numbers. I think that's a buncha malarkey.

 

Yes you can but there are a lot of factors involved. "Fucking nuts" is easy. If people are hearing voices, talking to aliens and getting answers, have grandiose, totally unrealistic plans and things like that, it isn't hard to figure out something is wrong. For more quiet crazy people the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) is the gold standard. It is quite long, more than 500 questions and requires a trained person to administer it and a trained psychologist to interpret the results but it can fairly accurately reveal a lot of psycho-pathologies that aren't always obvious. But nobody is going to use that to screen large numbers of people. The other problem is, insane is usually easy to identify but personality disorders are not. People who are insane by definition are not in contact with reality full time and cannot tell right from wrong. People with personality disorders can be quite rational but quite disturbed. Your classic antisocial (in the extreme-psychopaths) types like Ted Bundy are usually quite charming, great liars and don't have an ounce of concern or compassion for other people. Many serial killers have this type of psycho-pathology. Often you don't know how bad they are until they are caught because they are so charming. Other types of personality disorders are sometimes equally hard to detect. It is difficult to lock people up involuntarily for evaluation, they have to be clearly a danger to themselves or others. Often this is only apparent after they have done something. Somebody mentioned privacy issues, that is a major concern too. So the answer is mental health screening sounds nice but is almost impossible to do effectively and cheaply.

 

My guess is the Charleston shooter is a bit delusional, somewhat antisocial, has strong feelings of inadequacy and probably a loner. What made him that way, who knows. I think he definitely is not insane.

 

 

So we can screen for crazy, but the murderer was not crazy, just a hateful racist.

 

Can we figure out which of those will become murderous? I don't know. If Jeb says it's possible and some anonymous guy on the net agrees, I suppose there's a chance. Maybe I'll PM soak-ed again. Hate to bug the guy but it's the only way I've found to get a straight comment on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I love those platitudes.............so okay Jeb...........what would that be? Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. You've been in public service your adult life, governor of a big complex state and you offer me........."we better figure out".

 

Next................

 

Even what he said was going out on a limb. Way out. Anything beyond the standard "victims and families are in my prayers" is political suicide (with the statistics not counting in gun violence stats!)

 

I don't think his position is all that unreasonable. It mirrors mine. But if 20 dead tots in CT were not going to provide the impetus for trying to make it harder for people who think that mass murder is acceptable behavior to acquire the tools with which to accomplish their task, this sure as hell isn't going to do it. There's too much money at stake.

 

What'll it cost, man, what'll it cost?

 

...

 

On the bright side, this incident would seem to be having the opposite effect than the race war that young Mr. Roof was seeking. I think that is a good thing.

 

 

In addition to the unanswered questions of what the cost will be and who should pay, there is the biggest unanswered question of all: can we figure out who thinks mass murder is acceptable in advance of their crime?

 

If so, I'd say making it impossible for them to acquire guns is a better answer than just making it harder. If not, we're talking about making it harder for everyone to acquire guns in the hope that it will affect these people.

 

This incident more than "seems" to be having unintended consequences. He delivered a crushing blow to his beloved symbol.

 

 

 

Rejected by eBay, Amazon, MegaLoMart, Etsy, and a herd of politicians. It's well and truly over for that flag as a symbol.

 

The picture of it flying high while others were lowered caused that. And young Dylan caused that picture. With lots of help from his fellow racists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Impossible' is a pretty daunting kpi.

Enforcing that is pretty likely to mean the rest of the population is INFRINGED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the dream of a race war is not dead

 

Louis Farrakhan addressed hundreds Wednesday at the Metropolitan AME Church in D.C. Religious leaders from various background joined Farrakhan to talk about the Millions for Justice Mobilization taking place in D.C. in October.

 

His speech took an angry turn when he said white people don’t care about the people who died in the South Carolina church shootings.

 

“White folks march with you because they don’t want you upsetting the city,” he said in reference to protesting against the South Carolina shootings.

 

His comments were met by cheers and applause.

 

 

He also seems to think display of the American flag is even worse than the Confederate battle flag.

 

I guess that makes sense, that being the flag of racist white people who don't care about the dead in SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

Why are they inconvenient to you?

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

I've never shot anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Impossible' is a pretty daunting kpi.

Enforcing that is pretty likely to mean the rest of the population is INFRINGED.

 

That subject and the cost are best left unmentioned. Mentioning them might lead to thought about them. Maybe even questions. Can't have that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

FTFY

I kinda like the way I said it better, because it acknowledges the history that we have down in these parts. This is not the first black church that has been attacked. Unless we acknowledge that history and deal with it, we will never get past it.

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

I don't think any scales need to be tipped. I think we need to acknowledge that racism is alive and well, and not pretend that it isn't. We need to stop playing the Limbaugh game, where recognizing racism is racism, entertaining though it may be. We need to find out where kids are being taught such hatred that led Dylann Roof to s-h-o-o-t nine people despite thinking they were nice, because he thought he had to, because they were black, and he was inspired by the Trayvon Martin killing. The flag is a symbol; it's removal from government buildings is purely symbolic. We need to address disparate treatment in the justice system, and by police. There are a host of issues to confront, all of them difficult. The flag issue, while purely symbolic, was once thought too tough to handle, and look how fast we are moving forward on that. It can be done. Our leaders will work on this stuff if we are willing to drag them, kicking and screaming, to do it. It shouldn't have to take mass murder to make it happen.

 

So you want to erase history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

FTFY

I kinda like the way I said it better, because it acknowledges the history that we have down in these parts. This is not the first black church that has been attacked. Unless we acknowledge that history and deal with it, we will never get past it.

How do you suggest we deal with it? Honestly, I thought we had made remarkable progress since Birmingham. What exactly must be done? I live in a county that is 49.5 - 49.5 White, Black and 1% other. Half of my students are Black. My best student in ten years is Black. Black graduates are guaranteed a job if it comes down to two candidates where one is Black and the other is White. How far must the scales be tipped?

I don't think any scales need to be tipped. I think we need to acknowledge that racism is alive and well, and not pretend that it isn't. We need to stop playing the Limbaugh game, where recognizing racism is racism, entertaining though it may be. We need to find out where kids are being taught such hatred that led Dylann Roof to s-h-o-o-t nine people despite thinking they were nice, because he thought he had to, because they were black, and he was inspired by the Trayvon Martin killing. The flag is a symbol; it's removal from government buildings is purely symbolic. We need to address disparate treatment in the justice system, and by police. There are a host of issues to confront, all of them difficult. The flag issue, while purely symbolic, was once thought too tough to handle, and look how fast we are moving forward on that. It can be done. Our leaders will work on this stuff if we are willing to drag them, kicking and screaming, to do it. It shouldn't have to take mass murder to make it happen.

 

So you want to erase history?

If you are talking about the flag, the symbol of an armed insurrection against the United States should not fly on a government building or the grounds surrounding it. Anyone who wishes to pay homage to those who fought against the United States in an armed insurrection are perfectly free to do so. If you are not talking about the flag, what precise part of my quote are you responding to that makes you think I want to erase anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Impossible' is a pretty daunting kpi.

Enforcing that is pretty likely to mean the rest of the population is INFRINGED.

 

Ya think? Yet fuckwits like jock-off are more than perfectly happy to INFRINGE on the rest of the population based an an even more unobtainable KPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Impossible' is a pretty daunting kpi.

Enforcing that is pretty likely to mean the rest of the population is INFRINGED.

 

Yes, there's evidence every day that gun control doesn't work.

 

All we can really do is make it impossible for those people to acquire a gun legally.

 

If we can identify who "those people" are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

'Impossible' is a pretty daunting kpi.

Enforcing that is pretty likely to mean the rest of the population is INFRINGED.

Yes, there's evidence every day that gun control doesn't work.

 

All we can really do is make it impossible for those people to acquire a gun legally.

 

If we can identify who "those people" are.

 

Well, impossible to do it _legally_ is a very very different kettle of fish from just impossible.

If so, I'd say making it impossible for them to acquire guns is a better answer than just making it harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, there's evidence every day that gun control doesn't work.

 

 

 

Then present such evidence. Let's compare it to other evidence.

Because after a lot of reading, I think your claim is bogus, that it lacks any evidence-based foundation.

Source 1.

Here's a recent peer-reviewed 2015 study which relates that background checks were working in Missouri before the gun lobby repealed them in 2007.

right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime.

(The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.)

Source 4.

M Rosengart, et al in 2005, found “that when a ‘shall issue’ law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present.

The study concluded that implementing a shall-issue law with few restrictions on obtaining or carrying a concealed weapon may be linked to increased firearm homicide rates.

The Impact of Right to Carry Laws

Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge… using three different specifications is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. …There is always evidence within the four estimates for each of the seven crime categories that RTC laws are associated with higher rates of crime. In six of the seven crime categories, the finding that RTC laws increase crime is statistically significant at the .05 level, and for robbery, it is statistically significant at the .10 level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis.

The comparison between good gun control and weak state laws is dramatic, based on TEN indexes of violence. These four sources help to demonstrate that:
Source 6. Rate Of Gun Ownership "Significantly Positively" Correlated With Incidence Of Homicide.

Source 9. SIEGAL 2013: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership

and Firearm Homicide Rates

in the United States, 1981–2010.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates…

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really quite unfair. The north likes to believe all the racists were in the south, but....

 

Ota Benga was a zoo exhibit in the Bronx at the beginning of the 20th century.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

 

Ota Benga (circa 1883[1] – March 20, 1916) was a Congolese man, an Mbuti pygmy known for being featured in an anthropology exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri in 1904, and in a controversial human zooexhibit in 1906 at the Bronx Zoo. Benga had been purchased from African slave traders by the explorer Samuel Phillips Verner, a businessman hunting Africans for the Exposition.[2] He traveled with Verner to the United States. At the Bronx Zoo, Benga had free run of the grounds before and after he was "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House. Except for a brief visit with Verner to Africa after the close of the St. Louis Fair, Benga lived in the United States, mostly in Virginia, for the rest of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of other active gun threads. How about we keep this to the topic at hand, S'kay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of other active gun threads. How about we keep this to the topic at hand, S'kay?

That's no fun. How else can we deflect the topic away from... lets see... Why did Reverend Coleman-Singleton have to die? Was it because she was one of those assholes who always gets away? No, the racist who shot her said that the people in the church were nice. Hmmm. What could it be?

 

9.jpg?cb=1435254984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are plenty of other active gun threads. How about we keep this to the topic at hand, S'kay?

That's no fun. How else can we deflect the topic away from... lets see... Why did Reverend Coleman-Singleton have to die? Was it because she was one of those assholes who always gets away? No, the racist who shot her said that the people in the church were nice. Hmmm. What could it be?

 

9.jpg?cb=1435254984

 

 

Another nice lady killed by a thug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thugs have no problem getting guns in our country. Getting guns is socially acceptable for thugs and saints in the USA.

Let's make it a breeze for thugs to get guns in the secondary market.

What could go wrong with arming the thugs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are millions of guns and millions of confederate battle flags in the US.

 

In this case, one guy with one gun committed a terrible crime in violation of any number of laws and rules.

 

Where is the single point of failure? Where is the LRU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AH, MEMORY LANE ON THE GUN FORUMS

Post #211 , from Heller vs. D.C. Being Heard Today thread

It was a day for Tom to celebrate, and a day when Shirley I felt stunned and devastated.

A single backlog fill-in judge named Scullin had ruled that outdoor guns were immediately allowed in Washington D.C.

 

 

The NRA won a big one Friday when District Court Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr., issued a long-awaited decision in Palmer, et. al., vs. District of Columbia, a case that was initially brought in 2005 against DC's total ban on carrying concealed guns outside the home. The judge not only ordered the District to stop enforcing its concealed-carry ban, but also ordered the District to stop enforcing the same ban against non-residents who want to travel through DC while carrying a gun.

This was quite significant. Even today, it is the only jurisdiction in the USA where out of state citizens can drive around with loaded guns in vehicles. Other courts, and the SC, will agree or disagree with Scullin at some point in the future.

 

It wasn't any time like this, just after nine faithful churchgoers met Mr. Roof and Mr. Glock.

It was a giddy time for those who revere the second amendment. It was truly a cause for celebration for the SA Gun Club.

 

 

Boothy's Bloodlust does D.C.

R BoozePosted 27 July 2014 - 02:24 PM

This is a most fuktabulous ruling----one which will immediately begin to save lives rather than ending the lives too soon of law abiding citizens. I hope to fuk that DC's criminal element takes note and changes their current game plan on preying on the innocent.

(snipped: a few inches of blank screen)

(Ah hell, who am I kidding. Would love to see about three dozen pussified, chicken shit gang members meet an early demise)......

 

 

 

This post needs a Jeffie gansta pic.

(#6 of 7)kill-your-brothers-because-it-is-cool_zp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom likes to imagine that he gets people to do things, by altering what they said and arguing the straw man. If only Tom could imagine a different message than the one Dylann Roof delivered, and have it be the truth, instead of what young Mr. Roof actually said. Tom doesn't deal in truth, he deals in imagination and propaganda. Imagine if Dylann Roof hadn't felt as if he had to s-h-o-t this person he found nice.

 

 

 

Sol, I have good news. You were entirely mistaken about Tom Ray. He is firmly against propaganda, and opposed to twisting other viewpoints.

 

I read all about it on SAILING ANARCHY. Can cite:

TOM RAY, PROPAGANDA BUSTER

Tom Ray Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:33 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Ray Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:25 AM

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

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

Tom Ray Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:02 PM

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom likes to imagine that he gets people to do things, by altering what they said and arguing the straw man. If only Tom could imagine a different message than the one Dylann Roof delivered, and have it be the truth, instead of what young Mr. Roof actually said. Tom doesn't deal in truth, he deals in imagination and propaganda. Imagine if Dylann Roof hadn't felt as if he had to s-h-o-t this person he found nice.

 

 

 

Sol, I have good news. You were entirely mistaken about Tom Ray. He is firmly against propaganda, and opposed to twisting other viewpoints.

 

I read all about it on SAILING ANARCHY. Can cite:

TOM RAY, PROPAGANDA BUSTER

Tom Ray Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:33 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Ray Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:25 AM

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

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

Tom Ray Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:02 PM

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

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

 

Good god that sounds like Flailing Malarkey used to sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites