Jump to content

Black Man Vs. White Man Carrying AR-15 Legally


Jim M

Recommended Posts

All good mike, my point was that it appears to be not going so well. Sentimentality and principles aside, it is very clear that it is not working that way and it is very unlikely to change towards your Nirvana. Consecutive administrations have invested in propagating fear, keeps you lot under control.

 

So I do not disagree with anything you said, but that is not how it works now. I need no other examples than those already posted here.

 

Edit: So although many here do not like what happened in AUS, at least there is no hypocrisy on the street. No difference between the law and practice when it comes to guns.

 

I think it's going well here, there has been a lot of barriers lately to overcome. Just within the last few years we've seen real street-level threats to the kind of totalitarianism-in-a-box that brought us the attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco and then The Patriot Act, domestic spying, Gitmo and of course a whole bunch police shootings, some of which may or may not have been justified.

 

Australia is not America, that's a good thing. What works here may not necessarily work there, our cultures give the illusion of similarity because we've been raised on roughly the same media. But in many ways, we're as far apart as the 10,000 miles between us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

After seeing a few examples of what happens when someone carries and assault weapon down the street, this open carry stuff is clearly not workable. It is a dated concept.

 

Any person or office holder who sees someone walking down the street with a loaded long rifle of any type, has to be concerned. If a police officer did not do everything in their power to get them off the street, they would not be doing their job. The travesty appears to be that the law is some cases is not on their side, in theory.

 

Forget all your self righteous bullshit. With all the murders and mass murders that happen in the USA, a visible AR is an unacceptable threat to the ordinary citizen. End of story. The very term 'open carry' is mental masturbation.

 

The law needs to be changed.

I can understand that it must seem strange to you, but this is how I grew up here. When I was in high school, kids could bring their rifle to school for use in the JROTC gun range in the basement.

 

Yes, we have way too many psychopath murderers here, even one is too many. That guy who killed those school children changed our country forever. These psychopaths, like that one, the movie theater shooter, the murderer in Florida who killed someone for wearing a hoodie, the other murderer who killed someone for playing loud hip-hop music, the sniper in the bell tower and most, if not all of the rest, did NOT carry their weapons openly like the people in these videos.

 

In fact, the only group here that seems to kill people with their open carry weapons here are the cops. And we have a country that unfortunately isn't patrolled only by intelligent, considerate guys like Vernon, but also by racist jack-booted thugs right out of Orwell's 1984, who as shown in some of these videos have little problem with taking away rights of law-abiding citizens at the muzzle of a gun. And worse, as seen after the Boston bombing and even in this thread, we are populated by people who often seem to happy to give up their rights in exchange for some vague emotions of compliance and solidarity.

 

The Constitution doesn't need to be changed, instead it's the opposite, we need to get used to seeing law-abiding citizens carry weapons if they choose. If anything needs to go away, I vote for concealed carry to go away ... a right practiced in secret doesn't resemble a right to me, it resembles permission. If someone doesn't feel comfortable carrying a weapon openly in a certain place then they shouldn't go there or they shouldn't carry concealed there ... just my opinion.

 

These Open Carry gun tests and immigration checkpoint tests that we're seeing on YouTube now have done more to reinforce the reach and integrity of our Constitution than anything in my lifetime. You may see failure in those videos, I see our animated contest of freedom, and it makes me proud.

 

It's not about the guns, it's about individuals standing up to illusions of overwhelming force and saying "My Constitution protects me from people who think their authority overrules my rights as a person." History keeps showing us that freedom is a fragile, fleeting thing, it isn't protected from authoritarianism by people who are content to always choose the good of society over the rights of an individual. Instead, we need balance, sometimes the individual wins, sometimes the group. In the case of Open Carry, if the police do it, then their fellow citizens need to do it. We need to always prevent our police, our judges,our politicians, our warriors and our clergy from attaining a position above any normal, average American Shmoe.

 

Because by the letter of our Constitution, the only person above that average American Shmoe is the Creator himself. And The Creator endowed Shmoe with rights above law, above government and even above Constitution.

 

 

This is a rarefied and beautiful philosophy. This is my 2012 takeaway from Jeffie, too.

I'm not up with Wofsey (or with the SF Fed. Appeals Court which sorted locked guns this week, keying off the first amendment for three pages) but I grasp many of the benefits and risks and balances in play.

 

But I'm with random that it will never wash.

 

A mother wants to put zero energy into training a boy or girl to accept or reject gunplay, because of the sentiment and, well, karma of gunplay. After all, gunplay is un-necessary in 99.9% situations in the first place.

 

Guns rattle the instincts of the public. They always will: they are usually the un-necessary presence of lethality.

Anti's plan to use telephones to communicate their distress of visible firearms to the police. They have every right to do so: guns are disturbing the fricking peace.

 

 

 

On the one hand, guns on the streets are a sign of a failed society, not just the proof of someone emulating James Madison himself.

Balanced against this, on the other hand, is the deal that some societies are demonstrating the healthiness of not having guns around.

Important: EACH development is driven by the dynamic that violence begets violence.

A coin is in the air right now, and the future of guns in the USA is being called.

I don't see any wise gun management (which the second amendment will need) coming.

Instead, I see a conflict between civilization and ancient concepts of personal retribution.

 

The popularity and controversy of the AW is a dynamic symbol of this polarization.

I LOVE the result every time one hits the streets.

In January, they were tossed from our Olympia state capital forever

for showing up once..Olympia%20gun%20nuts%20post%20I-594_zpsq

 

The jury is out. But no jury will like such guns, or their insurrection-type crap, on the streets, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... If anything needs to go away, I vote for concealed carry to go away ... a right practiced in secret doesn't resemble a right to me, it resembles permission.

 

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

I know, I know, only handguns and you don't recognize the constitutional protection that exists for those because you don't like them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

 

 

There is a very, very practical complication with that. It is in-discrete.

 

We now know that RTC increases crime...as shown in numerous, recent, quality, studies I can quote.

Without trampling on rights, the public health needs protection.

I am evidence-based in needing to insist:

 

Source 1. Aneja/Donohue, 2012 The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the 2004 NRC Report:

While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view (2004) about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models and re-affirm its finding that the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support.

... 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.

<http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294>

New Stanford research confirms that right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime.

Now, Donohue and his colleagues have shown that extending the data yet another decade (1999-2010) provides the most convincing evidence to date that right-to-carry laws are associated with an increase in violent crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

"Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults," they wrote.

The evidence is less strong on rape and robbery, Donohue noted. The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

The murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for. The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.

http://news.stanford...s-study-111414.

Source 2. Fleegler 2013 Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault Publication Date: November 2009

Fleegler and researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

In conclusion, we found an association between the legislative strength of a state's firearm laws—as measured by a higher number of laws—and a lower rate of firearm fatalities. The association was significant for firearm fatalities overall and for firearm suicide and firearm homicide deaths, individually. As our study could not determine a cause-and-effect relationship, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/>

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390>

Source 3. (Rosengart, 2005)

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.

However, no law was connected to a statistically significant decrease in firearm homicide or suicide rates .

http://people.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

There is a very, very practical complication with that. It is in-discrete.

 

We now know that RTC increases crime...

 

Did you actually follow that link?

 

The rule in question is about permission to BUY a gun.

 

We need one of your endless cutnpastes about gun ownership, not RTC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

There is a very, very practical complication with that. It is in-discrete.

 

We now know that RTC increases crime...

 

Did you actually follow that link?

 

The rule in question is about permission to BUY a gun.

 

We need one of your endless cutnpastes about gun ownership, not RTC.

 

 

This is a dodge. A weak one.

Unrestricted right-to-carry applies, big-time. (But yes, so do background checks before buying a gun.)

 

Tom, your cliche statement, "gun proliferation neither increases nor decreases crime", was supported by the NRC in 2004, but it has evidence-based problems now. This deserves a genuine discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fortunately you don't have anything to say about it. I wonder what makes you so interested. I could give a shit about Aus gun laws......

And that says a lot about Americans. Pretty predicable and normal of you though. Well documented. Some other countries have broadly educated citizens.

 

See The American Public's Indifference To Foreign Affairs

 

The American governments focus on the Boogy Man has affected Australia greatly.

We aren't afraid of guns. That why other countries - like australia- have the us protect them. Like the Clint Eastwood said in magnum force - " a mans got to know his limitations".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

"Boogy man"? Oh yes, we have millions of them, be glad to send them to you, one way ticket, of course.

Post # 138 may be of some interest to you?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis for this thread is that Black with guns are treated differently that whites with guns.

 

I blew the lie out of the water. Police get just as fidgety when White 2nd Amendment Protesters do their thing.

 

Some cops use moderation and other go ape shit. The color of the protester does not seem to be the turning point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

There is a very, very practical complication with that. It is in-discrete.

 

We now know that RTC increases crime...

 

Did you actually follow that link?

 

The rule in question is about permission to BUY a gun.

 

We need one of your endless cutnpastes about gun ownership, not RTC.

 

 

This is a dodge. A weak one.

Unrestricted right-to-carry applies, big-time. (But yes, so do background checks before buying a gun.)

 

Tom, your cliche statement, "gun proliferation neither increases nor decreases crime", was supported by the NRC in 2004, but it has evidence-based problems now. This deserves a genuine discussion.

 

 

Unrestricted RTC only applies to a few states and North Carolina is not one of them. As for carry of any kind, it only applies to people with a gun to carry, so the question of ownership presented by the NC law comes first. No point answering whether a person without a gun can carry it.

 

Background checks are another distraction having nothing to do with the unlimited discretion given to North Carolina LEO's over who can or can't buy a gun. We don't have that unlimited discretion here in Florida, but we have background checks.

 

You can't quote the statement you falsely attributed to me with a link to where I said it because I never did. A genuine discussion would begin with my actual position, preferably with a cite, but if you manage to get my position right I will discuss it without a cite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unrestricted RTC only applies to a few states and North Carolina is not one of them. As for carry of any kind, it only applies to people with a gun to carry, so the question of ownership presented by the NC law comes first. No point answering whether a person without a gun can carry it.

 

Background checks are another distraction having nothing to do with the unlimited discretion given to North Carolina LEO's over who can or can't buy a gun. We don't have that unlimited discretion here in Florida, but we have background checks. No, you don't. Private sales to restricted types are legal in FL.

 

You can't quote the statement you falsely attributed to me with a link to where I said it because I never did. See below. A genuine discussion would begin with my actual position, preferably with a cite, but if you manage to get my position right I will discuss it without a cite.

 

 

Why the guessing game about your position? If I have misunderstood, spit it out, mate.

 

But be consistent. You got quite upset about this before, and I sorted it by PM. Has your position changed?

 

NGS, on 23 Aug 2014 - 07:14, said:

There is an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime, particularly the violent type. There are lots of data on this. More guns less crime.

jocal505, on 23 Aug 2014 - 09:15, said:

Wrong wrong wrong!

Gotcha! You are the victim of gun lobby urban myth, false propaganda spread locally by Badgeless Tom Ray.

Tom Ray, on 24 Aug 2014 - 02:14, said:

If that were true, you would be able to post at least one example of my making that claim.

But it's just another lie, so you can't and won't.

At this point, I went to PM, and you told me your position. I remember it clearly. Some days had passed...

Tom Ray, on 01 Sept 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

Jocal, Clarke is not from Arizona, you still can't back up what you said about me, and you're still just a liar.

jocal505 Posted 03 September 2014 - 06:02 AM

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&page=2>

Still just a liar? I hope not. So allow me to correct another detail which I stated incorrectly.

Evidently Tom has never made statements along the lines of "More guns produce less crime". His position is that lots of guns neither increase, nor decrease crime.

I got this detail wrong: sorry for the mistake, Mr. Ray.

If I have misquoted anyone else, feel free to point it out. But please, folks (with or without any distracting name-calling), simply state your actual position to help me keep it straight.

It was unintentional. Again, sorry, Tom.

Tom Ray Posted 03 September 2014 - 07:16 AM

Thanks for the retraction. Let's talk about Maryland and Idaho next.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&p=4660732

 

No games, please. State your position for us.

Do you feel guns increase crime, decrease crime, or (as you believed 8 months ago) neither?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... If anything needs to go away, I vote for concealed carry to go away ... a right practiced in secret doesn't resemble a right to me, it resembles permission.

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

I know, I know, only handguns and you don't recognize the constitutional protection that exists for those because you don't like them.

I'm pretty clear on the protection of openly carried handguns, even though I don't like them. Concealed handguns as Constitutionally protected though? Yeah, I get that lots of folks like them, but if they were to be illegalized (never happen while IC is around) I wouldn't cry a Constitutional tear.

 

I think the point of Open Carry is that too many gun guys seem to view it as the sacrificial anode of gun rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis for this thread is that Black with guns are treated differently that whites with guns.

 

I blew the lie out of the water. Police get just as fidgety when White 2nd Amendment Protesters do their thing.

 

Some cops use moderation and other go ape shit. The color of the protester does not seem to be the turning point.

 

You didn't. You posted a video (out of at least the fifty-some that I've seen) where a Caucasian is released by cops and then apparently gets arrested. Versus the one video of a Black guy getting put the ground at gunpoint out of ONE open carry gun test conducted by a Black man that I've ever seen on YouTube.

 

So no, it still stands, just out of sheer proportionality, that there is an apparent difference in the response based on the color of skin. Admittedly, it's a small sample, but the effect in that sample in undeniable, he was an inch away from being killed by that deputy. When he got on the ground and his rifle moved to his side, I was worried he was going to get shot then just because his gun momentarily left his back.

 

Jack, seriously, you're grasping at straws if you can even vaguely suggest that what we saw in that video isn't indicative of a massively broken interaction of race and law enforcement. The guy you used in the example was treated with some level of respect by those cops, the Black guy was nearly killed.

 

Yeesh, Jack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The basis for this thread is that Black with guns are treated differently that whites with guns.

 

I blew the lie out of the water. Police get just as fidgety when White 2nd Amendment Protesters do their thing.

 

Some cops use moderation and other go ape shit. The color of the protester does not seem to be the turning point.

 

You didn't. You posted a video (out of at least the fifty-some that I've seen) where a Caucasian is released by cops and then apparently gets arrested. Versus the one video of a Black guy getting put the ground at gunpoint out of ONE open carry gun test conducted by a Black man that I've ever seen on YouTube.

 

So no, it still stands, just out of sheer proportionality, that there is an apparent difference in the response based on the color of skin. Admittedly, it's a small sample, but the effect in that sample in undeniable, he was an inch away from being killed by that deputy. When he got on the ground and his rifle moved to his side, I was worried he was going to get shot then just because his gun momentarily left his back.

 

Jack, seriously, you're grasping at straws if you can even vaguely suggest that what we saw in that video isn't indicative of a massively broken interaction of race and law enforcement. The guy you used in the example was treated with some level of respect by those cops, the Black guy was nearly killed.

 

Yeesh, Jack.

 

 

 

You didn't look very hard silly boy

 

 

Outcome

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Unrestricted RTC only applies to a few states and North Carolina is not one of them. As for carry of any kind, it only applies to people with a gun to carry, so the question of ownership presented by the NC law comes first. No point answering whether a person without a gun can carry it.

 

Background checks are another distraction having nothing to do with the unlimited discretion given to North Carolina LEO's over who can or can't buy a gun. We don't have that unlimited discretion here in Florida, but we have background checks. No, you don't. Private sales to restricted types are legal in FL.

 

 

 

 

 

Another bald-faced lie. Private sales to individuals who are not allowed to own guns (felons, etc) is absolutely illegal. The issue is how do you know or verify it w/o a BGC. But if you knowingly sell a gun to a felon or other prohibited person - you are in big shit as well.

 

Why do you continue to lie, jocal?

 

 

My version is both honest, and more honest than yours, Jeff. You claimed our whole country "has background checks" a few days ago. That's cheeky stuff, mate. Tom pulled the same stunt here wrt FL. Let's do a truthfulness check.

 

The seller is not bound to verify restricted types in FL. The seller has no duty to identify a restricted buyer. He faces no legal ramifications for selling to a checkered individual.

 

Let's take a FL criminal. Guns are available to him on the internet, or at a gun show, or from a straw buyer, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, because all private sales are unmonitored in Florida. The arrangement is a gift for criminals, and the guns flow into other states at measurably increased rates.

.

.

The experts in the USA say we have a straw buyer problem in private sales, more than a black market problem. (The Oregon gun whiners, in fact, are complaining that their new BC law will create a black market, LOL.)

 

Private gun sales are a key problem in the USA. And it's a key problem in Florida.

 

• One study found that 68.8 percent of prison inmates who used guns in crimes obtained their guns through transactions that did not require a background check.

• Many of these private sales occur at gun shows or online:

– A 2013 Mayors Against Illegal Guns investigation of individuals seeking to buy guns on the website Armlist.com found that 1 in 30 prospective buyers on the site were legally prohibited from buying or possessing guns.9

– A 2009 investigation of gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee found that 63 percent of private sellers were willing to sell guns to someone who indicated that they would be unlikely to pass a background check.10

Centers for American Progress

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... If anything needs to go away, I vote for concealed carry to go away ... a right practiced in secret doesn't resemble a right to me, it resembles permission.

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

I know, I know, only handguns and you don't recognize the constitutional protection that exists for those because you don't like them.

I'm pretty clear on the protection of openly carried handguns, even though I don't like them. Concealed handguns as Constitutionally protected though? Yeah, I get that lots of folks like them, but if they were to be illegalized (never happen while IC is around) I wouldn't cry a Constitutional tear.

 

I think the point of Open Carry is that too many gun guys seem to view it as the sacrificial anode of gun rights.

 

 

Yeah, it's all a slow-motion social sacrament, like a national ritual.

But if one wants to enshrine a holy grail, it would be nice to pick a holy object in the first place.

Guns can have some bad mojo; they can make some bad karma.

MLK, not so much.

Guns, when combined with pernicious mutual racism...then it goes all evil on us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... If anything needs to go away, I vote for concealed carry to go away ... a right practiced in secret doesn't resemble a right to me, it resembles permission.

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

I know, I know, only handguns and you don't recognize the constitutional protection that exists for those because you don't like them.

I'm pretty clear on the protection of openly carried handguns, even though I don't like them. Concealed handguns as Constitutionally protected though? Yeah, I get that lots of folks like them, but if they were to be illegalized (never happen while IC is around) I wouldn't cry a Constitutional tear.

 

I think the point of Open Carry is that too many gun guys seem to view it as the sacrificial anode of gun rights.

I was pretty anal regarding the magnesium anodes on my aluminum roamer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unrestricted RTC only applies to a few states and North Carolina is not one of them. As for carry of any kind, it only applies to people with a gun to carry, so the question of ownership presented by the NC law comes first. No point answering whether a person without a gun can carry it.

 

Background checks are another distraction having nothing to do with the unlimited discretion given to North Carolina LEO's over who can or can't buy a gun. We don't have that unlimited discretion here in Florida, but we have background checks. No, you don't. Private sales to restricted types are legal in FL.

 

You can't quote the statement you falsely attributed to me with a link to where I said it because I never did. See below. A genuine discussion would begin with my actual position, preferably with a cite, but if you manage to get my position right I will discuss it without a cite.

 

 

Why the guessing game about your position? If I have misunderstood, spit it out, mate.

No games, please. State your position for us.

Do you feel guns increase crime, decrease crime, or (as you believed 8 months ago) neither?

 

 

Much better to ask me than to just make up a position for me. I'm happy to answer.

 

First, the existence of exemptions to our background checks does not mean they don't exist. It means they have exemptions. You know, like 594 does out in Washington, except without the nonsense where you are allowed to loan a gun to a nephew but not give one to an adult son.

 

My position on gun control is that it does not affect crime one way or the other.

 

As for gun ownership, it does not seem to me to cause crime. As your stats showed elsewhere, black Americans commit violent crimes with guns at around twice the rate of whites, but their gun ownership rate is about half that of white Americans. The vast majority of gun owners commit no violent crimes. If guns are causing crimes, they're doing a really bad job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... If anything needs to go away, I vote for concealed carry to go away ... a right practiced in secret doesn't resemble a right to me, it resembles permission.

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

I know, I know, only handguns and you don't recognize the constitutional protection that exists for those because you don't like them.

I'm pretty clear on the protection of openly carried handguns, even though I don't like them. ...

 

Yes, but my post is about whether or not people may own a gun without asking permission from a LEO who can refuse for any reason, or for no reason at all. Whether you can own a gun at all is a more fundamental, and more important, question than where/how carrying is legal.

 

I know you always want to deflect back to "permission to carry" but we have a right to own handguns and having to ask permission to exercise that right is worse than any restrictions on carrying guns in public.

 

Now reply with a comment about carrying and completely ignore the ownership issue. Again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom is against many things, but has no position on most of them.

 

I'm against people like you, Mitch, who make up a position and assign it to me rather than taking the time to read my position and quoting it or just asking me. You just did it the other day, I called you out, and you have not produced a quote saying anything like what you claimed I said.

 

I'm against anonymous cowards who lie about me. You're in that group today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philly cops lost a civil rights lawsuit for threatening and falsely arresting a guy for legally open carrying a handgun in a holster. Who knows what they would have done if he was carrying an AR15. The guy was white. These types of things happen regardless of color, trying to use two instances of different reactions to prove a racial bias is silly. To know for certain whether there is different treatment, you would need to do a much more extensive study where you have people of different races in the same neighborhoods doing the same thing over a long enough time to make sure that all races have met with a representative cross section of the PD in that neighborhood. I know Philly will harass anyone regardless of color. I am sure there are some neighborhoods where being black will get you more attention, and there are likely at least some neighborhoods where being white will get you more attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Unrestricted RTC only applies to a few states and North Carolina is not one of them. As for carry of any kind, it only applies to people with a gun to carry, so the question of ownership presented by the NC law comes first. No point answering whether a person without a gun can carry it.

 

Background checks are another distraction having nothing to do with the unlimited discretion given to North Carolina LEO's over who can or can't buy a gun. We don't have that unlimited discretion here in Florida, but we have background checks. No, you don't. Private sales to restricted types are legal in FL.

 

You can't quote the statement you falsely attributed to me with a link to where I said it because I never did. See below. A genuine discussion would begin with my actual position, preferably with a cite, but if you manage to get my position right I will discuss it without a cite.

 

 

Why the guessing game about your position? If I have misunderstood, spit it out, mate.

No games, please. State your position for us.

Do you feel guns increase crime, decrease crime, or (as you believed 8 months ago) neither?

 

 

Much better to ask me than to just make up a position for me. I'm happy to answer.

 

First, the existence of exemptions to our background checks does not mean they don't exist. It means they have exemptions. You know, like 594 does out in Washington, except without the nonsense where you are allowed to loan a gun to a nephew but not give one to an adult son.

 

My position on gun control is that it does not affect crime one way or the other.

 

As for gun ownership, it does not seem to me to cause crime. As your stats showed elsewhere, black Americans commit violent crimes with guns at around twice the rate of whites, but their gun ownership rate is about half that of white Americans. The vast majority of gun owners commit no violent crimes. If guns are causing crimes, they're doing a really bad job.

 

 

Background checks exist, but have "exemptions"? That's bullshit. Background checks are a "distraction"?

I repeat: there are no background checks on private sales in FL, or, effectively, in the country.

The secondary gun market in the USA is entirely unregulated, except for 8 to 18 states with "expanded" background checks.

 

Effectively, our nation lacks background checks. Thanks for making it very easy for criminals to get guns without consequences.

 

 

 

Tom Ray: My position on gun control is that it does not affect crime one way or the other.

 

Thanks. Your position keys off the 2004 NRC summary of Lott's poor work. That conclusion is now contradicted by more recent studies.

 

Have it your way. Let's look ONLY at the strength of gun control laws, and any outcomes.

 

We have two extremes. "Gun control," your term, means effective gun laws; RTC and "shall issue" reflect weak gun laws.

Across ten broad measurements of gun violence, let's compare the effect, if any, of strong gun control laws on crime.

 

Our topic: STRONG VS. WEAK GUN LAWS. Can a difference be seen in local crime rates?

 

 

weaklawsbadoutcomes_zps2e45ca2a.png

 

 

Source 1. The study which did the graph, above: A 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Laws, (from the Center for American Progress).

Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun

laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104

percent higher—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

2.Fleegler 2013/Boston Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

3.Aneja, Donohue 2012, The Impact of Right to Carry Laws

Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and county... 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...

4. Law Center to Prevent Violence .

For example, the average crime gun export rate of states that do not require the reporting of lost or stolen firearms is three times the average rate of states that do require reporting.

In addition to these studies, our ranking reveals that many of the states with the strongest gun laws also have the lowest gun death rates. Conversely, many states with the weakest gun laws have the highest gun death rates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom is against many things, but has no position on most of them.

 

I'm against people like you, Mitch, who make up a position and assign it to me rather than taking the time to read my position and quoting it or just asking me. You just did it the other day, I called you out, and you have not produced a quote saying anything like what you claimed I said.

 

I'm against anonymous cowards who lie about me. You're in that group today.

 

My humblest apologies oh great pedantic one.

 

In reading your ramblings I had assumed you had the position that rights are rights, and do not need a purpose. I was incorrect in my reading of your tea leaves. I think. I may be mistaken.

 

I will deign to ignore the gun threads henceforth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom is against many things, but has no position on most of them.

 

I'm against people like you, Mitch, who make up a position and assign it to me rather than taking the time to read my position and quoting it or just asking me. You just did it the other day, I called you out, and you have not produced a quote saying anything like what you claimed I said.

 

I'm against anonymous cowards who lie about me. You're in that group today.

 

My humblest apologies oh great pedantic one.

 

In reading your ramblings I had assumed you had the position that rights are rights, and do not need a purpose. I was incorrect in my reading of your tea leaves. I think. I may be mistaken.

 

I will deign to ignore the gun threads henceforth.

 

 

You were right the first time. Stick around.

Wasn't this a tiff about whether Tom felt the second amendment needed a "purpose"? From this thread:

 

 

Tom Ray posted 19 May 2015 - 02:42 AM

Self-defense is the core lawful purpose of the amendment you're trying to protect.

It seems odd that you don't like "carrying for protection" when protection is exactly the purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... If anything needs to go away, I vote for concealed carry to go away ... a right practiced in secret doesn't resemble a right to me, it resembles permission.

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

I know, I know, only handguns and you don't recognize the constitutional protection that exists for those because you don't like them.

I'm pretty clear on the protection of openly carried handguns, even though I don't like them. ...

 

Yes, but my post is about whether or not people may own a gun without asking permission from a LEO who can refuse for any reason, or for no reason at all. Whether you can own a gun at all is a more fundamental, and more important, question than where/how carrying is legal.

 

I know you always want to deflect back to "permission to carry" but we have a right to own handguns and having to ask permission to exercise that right is worse than any restrictions on carrying guns in public.

 

Now reply with a comment about carrying and completely ignore the ownership issue. Again.

 

 

I think that the 2nd protects people's rights to own guns without asking permission from an LEO. That would be little different from the Chechnyan cartoonist I used to know (back in the old days) who could publish only after he cleared his comics with the Soviet censor. A "right" for which you have to ask permission is no kind of right.

 

You're preaching to the choir about not having to ask permission for a right, I agree now and have agreed. However I don't agree with you that carrying that gun, concealed in public is necessarily as protected as owning one. On the hip? Sure! Under the jacket? Not in my opinion. You and I have already gone back and forth on this, I don't want to debate it right now.

 

And I haven't ignored the ownership issue, I'm not sure where you came up with that. Have you confused me with someone else. If I haven't shouted my support for that it's because owning a gun at home is so obviously protected in my opinion that I don't need to jump on your bandwagon and start beeping the horn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The basis for this thread is that Black with guns are treated differently that whites with guns.

 

I blew the lie out of the water. Police get just as fidgety when White 2nd Amendment Protesters do their thing.

 

Some cops use moderation and other go ape shit. The color of the protester does not seem to be the turning point.

 

You didn't. You posted a video (out of at least the fifty-some that I've seen) where a Caucasian is released by cops and then apparently gets arrested. Versus the one video of a Black guy getting put the ground at gunpoint out of ONE open carry gun test conducted by a Black man that I've ever seen on YouTube.

 

So no, it still stands, just out of sheer proportionality, that there is an apparent difference in the response based on the color of skin. Admittedly, it's a small sample, but the effect in that sample in undeniable, he was an inch away from being killed by that deputy. When he got on the ground and his rifle moved to his side, I was worried he was going to get shot then just because his gun momentarily left his back.

 

Jack, seriously, you're grasping at straws if you can even vaguely suggest that what we saw in that video isn't indicative of a massively broken interaction of race and law enforcement. The guy you used in the example was treated with some level of respect by those cops, the Black guy was nearly killed.

 

Yeesh, Jack.

 

 

 

You didn't look very hard silly boy

 

 

Outcome

 

 

 

 

Jack, you're still wrong. Read what you wrote, I'll quote you: "The basis for this thread is that Black with guns are treated differently that whites with guns. I blew the lie out of the water. Police get just as fidgety when White 2nd Amendment Protesters do their thing."

 

Those two guys in those videos, both were spoken to by the officers, there was clearly a little power struggle going down, but it wasn't anything remotely resembling actual violence. That cop who drew on that Black guy, THAT was "fidgety." A bunch of cops standing around talking to some guy is anti-fidgety, they're trying to get him to make a mistake, if anything.

 

That Black man in the OP, he was walking down the had a gun drawn on him, to lay down and by the tension in the situation, he was lucky to not been shot. That you can actually compare what happened to that Black man, to the guys in those videos above, suggest that you are somewhat disconnected from the reality outside of your life. Clearly, based on the video evidence in this thread, Blacks with guns are treated differently than Caucasians with guns. It was shown in the original video, it's further shown in yours.

 

You didn't "blow the lie out the water," you in fact reinforced it, unwittingly.

 

 

Here's what you need to do now ... you need to take a few hours off from work, get some snacks and some Mountain Dew and spend six or so hours in front of YouTube, looking desperately for that video image of the Caucasian people who were responded in a similar way as that Black fellow, at gunpoint and on the verge of being executed on the sidewalk. And be sure to find more than one if possible, since there are so many "Caucasian Guy OP test videos."

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is audio from the guy who won the lawsuit against Philly.

 

 

Note that he is quite white and had his handgun holstered. The cops had their guns pointed at him and threatened they were going to shoot him. As I said, it happens to folks of all colors who choose to open carry in unfriendly locales. I can not imagine this happening to me up here as there are plenty of people who open carry. In fact, I have never had anyone comment when I have open carried, I don't think 99% of the people even notice. I have seen black folks open carrying up here, and nobody hassled them either.

 

There may indeed be different treatment on average, or in certain locations, but to take the video in the OP as evidence of that is silly. Different cops have different reactions, different PDs have different policies and training, the content of the call (if any) can have a big impact on how the cops react.

 

Seriously, if you want to make a point, be able to make it before you start talking, otherwise you start to look like the boy who cried wolf. Once you lose credibility, it is awfully difficult to get it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The basis for this thread is that Black with guns are treated differently that whites with guns.

 

I blew the lie out of the water. Police get just as fidgety when White 2nd Amendment Protesters do their thing.

 

Some cops use moderation and other go ape shit. The color of the protester does not seem to be the turning point.

 

You didn't. You posted a video (out of at least the fifty-some that I've seen) where a Caucasian is released by cops and then apparently gets arrested. Versus the one video of a Black guy getting put the ground at gunpoint out of ONE open carry gun test conducted by a Black man that I've ever seen on YouTube.

 

So no, it still stands, just out of sheer proportionality, that there is an apparent difference in the response based on the color of skin. Admittedly, it's a small sample, but the effect in that sample in undeniable, he was an inch away from being killed by that deputy. When he got on the ground and his rifle moved to his side, I was worried he was going to get shot then just because his gun momentarily left his back.

 

Jack, seriously, you're grasping at straws if you can even vaguely suggest that what we saw in that video isn't indicative of a massively broken interaction of race and law enforcement. The guy you used in the example was treated with some level of respect by those cops, the Black guy was nearly killed.

 

Yeesh, Jack.

 

 

 

You didn't look very hard silly boy

 

 

Outcome

 

 

 

 

Jack, you're still wrong. Read what you wrote, I'll quote you: "The basis for this thread is that Black with guns are treated differently that whites with guns. I blew the lie out of the water. Police get just as fidgety when White 2nd Amendment Protesters do their thing."

 

Those two guys in those videos, both were spoken to by the officers, there was clearly a little power struggle going down, but it wasn't anything remotely resembling actual violence. That cop who drew on that Black guy, THAT was "fidgety." A bunch of cops standing around talking to some guy is anti-fidgety, they're trying to get him to make a mistake, if anything.

 

That Black man in the OP, he was walking down the had a gun drawn on him, to lay down and by the tension in the situation, he was lucky to not been shot. That you can actually compare what happened to that Black man, to the guys in those videos above, suggest that you are somewhat disconnected from the reality outside of your life. Clearly, based on the video evidence in this thread, Blacks with guns are treated differently than Caucasians with guns. It was shown in the original video, it's further shown in yours.

 

You didn't "blow the lie out the water," you in fact reinforced it, unwittingly.

 

 

Here's what you need to do now ... you need to take a few hours off from work, get some snacks and some Mountain Dew and spend six or so hours in front of YouTube, looking desperately for that video image of the Caucasian people who were responded in a similar way as that Black fellow, at gunpoint and on the verge of being executed on the sidewalk. And be sure to find more than one if possible, since there are so many "Caucasian Guy OP test videos."

 

 

There were many more than I posted mike. You said you found none. You also dance and whistle past the fact that the Black guy went on his merry way while the whities were arrested. In the first video I posted you said the officers treated him with respect. Really? the woman with the shotgun pointed at him needed correction for her attitude and it shows in the video that the officers trumped up a bogus trespassing charge after they told him he could leave. Not a great sign of respect there buddy.

 

Is there a difference how blacks and whites are treated? Maybe in some parts of the country. But the anecdotal evidence post in the OP is a crock and you know it. Two cherry picked examples are hardly evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack and Len, I'm happy to look at the videos were you show something similiar, Until then, it's still pretty obvious to me. It's not obvious to you because you have apparently made up your mind.

 

Those guys in the videos you post goad the officers somewhat, which is okay of course, they probably should do that, the Black fellow barely got to exchange a single word. Len's experience with Black folks carrying in his area, yeah, no argument, so what? It's apparently rural, and OC isn't usually a big deal in many rural areas regardless the skin color. I didn't claim that everyone experiences racism, I claimed that the guy in that video was noticeably treated in a violently different way than the rest. So Jack says "wait, that one lady police officer, she was very rude to him!" Yeah, okay, she said "it's good you can read" or something like that.

 

That you can compare that to jumping out of the car and pointing a gun at someone, forcing him to lay on the street while he is covered waiting for several more deputies in support, that's just beyond me. Again, you're living in a parallel universe if you think there is any comparison. One guy came a twitch away from being killed with ZERO interaction with the deputy pulling the gun, the others pushed the point of their Constitutional rights (again, which they should do) by continuing to needle with questions.

 

It just amuses me time after time to hear old white guys living in the burbs trying to support their piecemeal assertions that racism is no more than an imaginary artifact from a lost time. Every single one of the videos (and Len's audio) show a relatively peace exchange of words, some snarky attitudes, and peaceful arrests. What was shown in the OP video was anything but, that was a violent showdown, and thankfully the Black guy knew better than to anything other than just get on the ground as fast as gravity could pull him down there, or it might have come out differently. The camera holders in the videos you post are treated like citizens "please sir, get behind that line." The camera holder in the OP is told to lie down on her pregnant belly and is then instructed to sit on the curb, thankfully continuing to film or the whole exchange might have come out differently. But again with you two, your parallel universes are calling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The audio I posted was a very similar incident, there was just no video to accompany it. I am not sure what you think he possibly did to goad the cops who were already pointing a gun at him when the audio started. Of course it is possible that we are in parallel universes, with the one I reside in being reality, and the one you live in being your imagination. That would explain a lot.

 

FWIW, I don't live in a rural area, it is not quite a resort area and not quite a suburban area, but definitely not a rural area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The audio I posted was a very similar incident, there was just no video to accompany it. I am not sure what you think he possibly did to goad the cops who were already pointing a gun at him when the audio started. Of course it is possible that we are in parallel universes, with the one I reside in being reality, and the one you live in being your imagination. That would explain a lot.

 

FWIW, I don't live in a rural area, it is not quite a resort area and not quite a suburban area, but definitely not a rural area.

 

The audio I heard sounded like a reasonable exchange. I would not like to be in his place with guns pointed at me, but with discourse with the officers that he had, the audio wasn't nearly as chilling to me as the sight of that guy in the OP a whisker from death.

 

That deputy in the OP was in my opinion right on the edge of using that weapon had the Black fellow been any less obedient in having his rights forcibly removed like that, not just in pointing it at the guy, but in his reactions and response. The audio of the one you posted the officers seemed fairly calm. Your attempt to rationalize what was in the OP as being not so different from that little audio link you posted above, is of course, adorable. It takes some real ability to lie to oneself and actually believe it, to do that as you have done.

 

But I can't pick nits like this anymore. If either you or Jack has a few videos that show a similar reaction, I would like to see them. As it stands, I've seen all of one video of a Black man in an OP Test, and that one video has the guy hovering one muscle twitch from death. Deny that all you like, have fun with it in fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think that the 2nd protects people's rights to own guns without asking permission from an LEO. That would be little different from the Chechnyan cartoonist I used to know (back in the old days) who could publish only after he cleared his comics with the Soviet censor. A "right" for which you have to ask permission is no kind of right.

 

You're preaching to the choir about not having to ask permission for a right, I agree now and have agreed. However I don't agree with you that carrying that gun, concealed in public is necessarily as protected as owning one. On the hip? Sure! Under the jacket? Not in my opinion. You and I have already gone back and forth on this, I don't want to debate it right now.

 

And I haven't ignored the ownership issue, I'm not sure where you came up with that. Have you confused me with someone else. If I haven't shouted my support for that it's because owning a gun at home is so obviously protected in my opinion that I don't need to jump on your bandwagon and start beeping the horn.

 

 

It seems Kansas found the right balance...

 

 

Okay, they're a pretty permissive State. I'm sure you like the areas that aren't restrictive (as I do, aside from the permissive CC laws there) but given your comment of "right balance" which of their restrictions do you support?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'd say the actual requirement to ask permission to exercise the right to keep arms should go away long before the permits that "resemble" permission.

 

I know, I know, only handguns and you don't recognize the constitutional protection that exists for those because you don't like them.

I'm pretty clear on the protection of openly carried handguns, even though I don't like them. ...

 

Yes, but my post is about whether or not people may own a gun without asking permission from a LEO who can refuse for any reason, or for no reason at all. Whether you can own a gun at all is a more fundamental, and more important, question than where/how carrying is legal.

 

I know you always want to deflect back to "permission to carry" but we have a right to own handguns and having to ask permission to exercise that right is worse than any restrictions on carrying guns in public.

 

Now reply with a comment about carrying and completely ignore the ownership issue. Again.

 

 

I think that the 2nd protects people's rights to own guns without asking permission from an LEO. That would be little different from the Chechnyan cartoonist I used to know (back in the old days) who could publish only after he cleared his comics with the Soviet censor. A "right" for which you have to ask permission is no kind of right.

 

You're preaching to the choir about not having to ask permission for a right, I agree now and have agreed. However I don't agree with you that carrying that gun, concealed in public is necessarily as protected as owning one. On the hip? Sure! Under the jacket? Not in my opinion. You and I have already gone back and forth on this, I don't want to debate it right now.

 

And I haven't ignored the ownership issue, I'm not sure where you came up with that. Have you confused me with someone else. If I haven't shouted my support for that it's because owning a gun at home is so obviously protected in my opinion that I don't need to jump on your bandwagon and start beeping the horn.

 

 

I posted about ownership, you responded about carrying. It's a pattern I've seen before. Glad to see you broke it with the latest post.

 

Reread the parts in red. If you still think you disagree with me about whether ownership is more important than carry rules, keep reading them over and over again until you understand.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm against people like you, Mitch, who make up a position and assign it to me rather than taking the time to read my position and quoting it or just asking me. You just did it the other day, I called you out, and you have not produced a quote saying anything like what you claimed I said.

 

I'm against anonymous cowards who lie about me. You're in that group today.

 

My humblest apologies oh great pedantic one.

 

In reading your ramblings I had assumed you had the position that rights are rights, and do not need a purpose. I was incorrect in my reading of your tea leaves. I think. I may be mistaken.

 

I will deign to ignore the gun threads henceforth.

 

 

You were right the first time. Stick around.

Wasn't this a tiff about whether Tom felt the second amendment needed a "purpose"? From this thread:

 

 

Tom Ray posted 19 May 2015 - 02:42 AM

Self-defense is the core lawful purpose of the amendment you're trying to protect.

It seems odd that you don't like "carrying for protection" when protection is exactly the purpose.

 

 

If both of you guys can't figure out that what I said on May 19th is the opposite of what you think I said, I'm not sure how to help.

 

"Protection is the purpose" doesn't seem to me like a denial of a purpose. Seems the opposite to me. What is it about "Protection is the purpose" that makes you think I believe rights don't/shouldn't have a purpose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I'm against people like you, Mitch, who make up a position and assign it to me rather than taking the time to read my position and quoting it or just asking me. You just did it the other day, I called you out, and you have not produced a quote saying anything like what you claimed I said.

 

I'm against anonymous cowards who lie about me. You're in that group today.

 

My humblest apologies oh great pedantic one.

 

In reading your ramblings I had assumed you had the position that rights are rights, and do not need a purpose. I was incorrect in my reading of your tea leaves. I think. I may be mistaken.

 

I will deign to ignore the gun threads henceforth.

 

 

You were right the first time. Stick around.

Wasn't this a tiff about whether Tom felt the second amendment needed a "purpose"? From this thread:

 

 

Tom Ray posted 19 May 2015 - 02:42 AM

Self-defense is the core lawful purpose of the amendment you're trying to protect.

It seems odd that you don't like "carrying for protection" when protection is exactly the purpose.

 

 

If both of you guys can't figure out that what I said on May 19th is the opposite of what you think I said, I'm not sure how to help.

 

"Protection is the purpose" doesn't seem to me like a denial of a purpose. Seems the opposite to me. What is it about "Protection is the purpose" that makes you think I believe rights don't/shouldn't have a purpose?

 

 

I lost track of the positions on this vaporous non-issue. I just heard Tom droning that lethal "rights" did or didn't need a purpose. Yawn.

Then he was badgering on someone, again, and trying to force his opinions out of the other guy's mouth, again. Yawn.

I might have dozed off...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack and Len, I'm happy to look at the videos were you show something similiar, Until then, it's still pretty obvious to me. It's not obvious to you because you have apparently made up your mind.

 

Those guys in the videos you post goad the officers somewhat, which is okay of course, they probably should do that, the Black fellow barely got to exchange a single word. Len's experience with Black folks carrying in his area, yeah, no argument, so what? It's apparently rural, and OC isn't usually a big deal in many rural areas regardless the skin color. I didn't claim that everyone experiences racism, I claimed that the guy in that video was noticeably treated in a violently different way than the rest. So Jack says "wait, that one lady police officer, she was very rude to him!" Yeah, okay, she said "it's good you can read" or something like that.

 

That you can compare that to jumping out of the car and pointing a gun at someone, forcing him to lay on the street while he is covered waiting for several more deputies in support, that's just beyond me. Again, you're living in a parallel universe if you think there is any comparison. One guy came a twitch away from being killed with ZERO interaction with the deputy pulling the gun, the others pushed the point of their Constitutional rights (again, which they should do) by continuing to needle with questions.

 

It just amuses me time after time to hear old white guys living in the burbs trying to support their piecemeal assertions that racism is no more than an imaginary artifact from a lost time. Every single one of the videos (and Len's audio) show a relatively peace exchange of words, some snarky attitudes, and peaceful arrests. What was shown in the OP video was anything but, that was a violent showdown, and thankfully the Black guy knew better than to anything other than just get on the ground as fast as gravity could pull him down there, or it might have come out differently. The camera holders in the videos you post are treated like citizens "please sir, get behind that line." The camera holder in the OP is told to lie down on her pregnant belly and is then instructed to sit on the curb, thankfully continuing to film or the whole exchange might have come out differently. But again with you two, your parallel universes are calling.

 

Time out big guy. Who said racism does not exist. I never said that. The OP purports to prove a hypothesis that white police react to blacks and guns differently than whites and gun routinely. You claim you scoured the net and found no examples of whites having guns pointed at them etc.. I merely pointed out that you are sorely mistaken and there are many examples of white males with guns exercising the 2nd rights that are not only harassed but arrested and prosecuted.

 

My claim is that each cop reacts differently in different cases and that this is not a black and white issue. One video of a black told to get on the ground and you all run around with your heads lopped off gurgling Cops are Racist. Some are and always will be. They need to be addressed when and where they show up. But the wholesale condemnation of police and a near race war in 2015 in America is pure hogwash incited by scumbags like Sharpton that feed off hate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard Tom and decided anything he said must be both boring and wrong without putting any further thought into it.

 

Fixed. Why bother butting in if you're not interested? I said this to Cliff:

 

 

Self-defense is the core lawful purpose of the amendment you're trying to protect.

 

It seems odd that you don't like "carrying for protection" when protection is exactly the purpose.

 

 

Mitch apparently couldn't/didn't read it and ascribed the opposite position to me. You just saw my name and mindlessly piled on with the usual messenger attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just heard Tom and decided anything he said must be both boring and wrong without putting any further thought into it.

 

Fixed. Why bother butting in if you're not interested? I said this to Cliff:

 

 

Self-defense is the core lawful purpose of the amendment you're trying to protect.

 

It seems odd that you don't like "carrying for protection" when protection is exactly the purpose.

 

 

Mitch apparently couldn't/didn't read it and ascribed the opposite position to me. You just saw my name and mindlessly piled on with the usual messenger attack.

 

 

In your second line, above, you are pressing your dogmatic beliefs on another. It gets old. (Offensive, too.)

Often you twist another's beliefs into something he doesn't believe. (See below)

Some of your stuff is dishonest; some is stat-twisting; some recent content was flat-out Race-Baiting 101.

Your links are often cutesy Rick-Rolls, or lead to dishonest Jefferson quotes and MOLON LABE.

Your philosophy is dark, dangerous, and forms poor nation-building skills.

Your accounts of current events (such as Waco and Fast and Furious) are half-baked, at best.

And you have no shame, Tom.

I would like to go sailing with you and your mother.

 

Tom Ray Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:56 PM

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And 2/3 of crimes committed using guns are by repeat offending criminals. So eliminate 2/3 of crime involving guns.

Easy, repeat offenders don't count. Ok. But ... ah ... does that even makes sense?

No. Keep em locked up where they belong. Guns arent going away here. Accept that then attack the REAL problem. You'd cut down on crimes involving guns in a huge way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In your second line, above, you are pressing your dogmatic beliefs on another. It gets old. (Offensive, too.)

 

 

HO-LEE-SCHIDT! I need to preserve this one for posterity.

 

You are the fucking KING of pressing your dogmatic beliefs on others. And yes it gets really old. And offensive too.

 

Pot..... table for two. Last call.

 

 

The line about my poor nation-building ability made my day. :lol:

 

Didn't think I'd ever get a compliment from Jocal. I doubt he realizes I take it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In your second line, above, you are pressing your dogmatic beliefs on another. It gets old. (Offensive, too.)

 

 

HO-LEE-SCHIDT! I need to preserve this one for posterity.

 

You are the fucking KING of pressing your dogmatic beliefs on others. And yes it gets really old. And offensive too.

 

Pot..... table for two. Last call.

 

 

The line about my poor nation-building ability made my day. :lol:

 

Didn't think I'd ever get a compliment from Jocal. I doubt he realizes I take it that way.

 

 

When do we go sailing with your mother?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In your second line, above, you are pressing your dogmatic beliefs on another. It gets old. (Offensive, too.)

 

HO-LEE-SCHIDT! I need to preserve this one for posterity.

 

You are the fucking KING of pressing your dogmatic beliefs on others. And yes it gets really old. And offensive too.

 

Pot..... table for two. Last call.

I skip all his posts anymore as they are just rants and I'd have missed that absolute classic if not for your snip and quote. Priceless!!

 

I guess one man's dogma is another man's truth. Humans are funny critters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time out big guy. Who said racism does not exist. I never said that. The OP purports to prove a hypothesis that white police react to blacks and guns differently than whites and gun routinely. You claim you scoured the net and found no examples of whites having guns pointed at them etc.. I merely pointed out that you are sorely mistaken and there are many examples of white males with guns exercising the 2nd rights that are not only harassed but arrested and prosecuted.

 

My claim is that each cop reacts differently in different cases and that this is not a black and white issue. One video of a black told to get on the ground and you all run around with your heads lopped off gurgling Cops are Racist. Some are and always will be. They need to be addressed when and where they show up. But the wholesale condemnation of police and a near race war in 2015 in America is pure hogwash incited by scumbags like Sharpton that feed off hate.

 

 

It was your idea that you somehow demolished the OP's premise, you didn't do that. The OP video showed something untouched in the videos that you and Len posted.

 

Can a law-abiding Black person wander around a suburb with open carry guns and find that nobody bothers him? Sure. That's a good thing. Are law-abiding Caucasians arrested for OC? Sure. That's a bad thing.

 

I think it was just your bravado at supposedly demolishing the original premise that bugged me so much, because you didn't do that.

 

But I bet there is something we both agree, that these people who are willing to risk their lives and property to defend The Constitution by openly exercising their rights, those people are gold. And that includes gun rights activists in Iowa and civil rights protestors in Missouri. It includes someone getting forced down to the street for having an AK on their back and someone getting cuffed and arrested for handing out leaflets against police violence. It also includes the Sheriff's deputy who talks with OC activists and lets them know that he supports them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Time out big guy. Who said racism does not exist. I never said that. The OP purports to prove a hypothesis that white police react to blacks and guns differently than whites and gun routinely. You claim you scoured the net and found no examples of whites having guns pointed at them etc.. I merely pointed out that you are sorely mistaken and there are many examples of white males with guns exercising the 2nd rights that are not only harassed but arrested and prosecuted.

 

My claim is that each cop reacts differently in different cases and that this is not a black and white issue. One video of a black told to get on the ground and you all run around with your heads lopped off gurgling Cops are Racist. Some are and always will be. They need to be addressed when and where they show up. But the wholesale condemnation of police and a near race war in 2015 in America is pure hogwash incited by scumbags like Sharpton that feed off hate.

 

 

It was your idea that you somehow demolished the OP's premise, you didn't do that. The OP video showed something untouched in the videos that you and Len posted.

 

Can a law-abiding Black person wander around a suburb with open carry guns and find that nobody bothers him? Sure. That's a good thing. Are law-abiding Caucasians arrested for OC? Sure. That's a bad thing.

 

I think it was just your bravado at supposedly demolishing the original premise that bugged me so much, because you didn't do that.

 

 

The OP contrasted two Cherry picked examples and promoted them as absolute proof of a fact. You made the false claim that you observed 50 videos and could not find an example where a white person was treated that way. Several videos were posted that proved you and the OP were wrong. The video I posted showed a white male in Oregon disarmed at gunpoint including a smart mouthed female cop who held a 12 gauge on him. The male did exactly what he was told to do and they ultimately ordered him on the ground at gunpoint and arrested him. Unlike the case of the Black male who was allowed to continue on his merry way.

 

Yes my friend I demolished the OP's vainglorious allegation of dubious veracity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your second line, above, you are pressing your dogmatic beliefs on another. It gets old. (Offensive, too.)

 

HO-LEE-SCHIDT! I need to preserve this one for posterity.

 

You are the fucking KING of pressing your dogmatic beliefs on others. And yes it gets really old. And offensive too.

 

Pot..... table for two. Last call.

The line about my poor nation-building ability made my day. :lol:

 

Didn't think I'd ever get a compliment from Jocal. I doubt he realizes I take it that way.

Tom,

 

It is my understanding (from living in Michigan and Illinois) that if one is to transport guns in a car they are supposed to out of the passenger compartment if you don't possess a ccw permit. Can you explain what one is to do if you don't own a car or use mass transit etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Time out big guy. Who said racism does not exist. I never said that. The OP purports to prove a hypothesis that white police react to blacks and guns differently than whites and gun routinely. You claim you scoured the net and found no examples of whites having guns pointed at them etc.. I merely pointed out that you are sorely mistaken and there are many examples of white males with guns exercising the 2nd rights that are not only harassed but arrested and prosecuted.

 

My claim is that each cop reacts differently in different cases and that this is not a black and white issue. One video of a black told to get on the ground and you all run around with your heads lopped off gurgling Cops are Racist. Some are and always will be. They need to be addressed when and where they show up. But the wholesale condemnation of police and a near race war in 2015 in America is pure hogwash incited by scumbags like Sharpton that feed off hate.

 

It was your idea that you somehow demolished the OP's premise, you didn't do that. The OP video showed something untouched in the videos that you and Len posted.

 

Can a law-abiding Black person wander around a suburb with open carry guns and find that nobody bothers him? Sure. That's a good thing. Are law-abiding Caucasians arrested for OC? Sure. That's a bad thing.

 

I think it was just your bravado at supposedly demolishing the original premise that bugged me so much, because you didn't do that.

The OP contrasted two Cherry picked examples and promoted them as absolute proof of a fact. You made the false claim that you observed 50 videos and could not find an example where a white person was treated that way. Several videos were posted that proved you and the OP were wrong. The video I posted showed a white male in Oregon disarmed at gunpoint including a smart mouthed female cop who held a 12 gauge on him. The male did exactly what he was told to do and they ultimately ordered him on the ground at gunpoint and arrested him. Unlike the case of the Black male who was allowed to continue on his merry way.

 

Yes my friend I demolished the OP's vainglorious allegation of dubious veracity.

The videos you provided weren't even in the neighborhood of the original post. There is an enormous difference between one guy having a conversation with cops and then eventually pushing his rights so far that he ends up being arrested because they thought they found a trespassing loophole, and another guy who is drawn at gunpoint with barely a word spoken and then held at gunpoint, face down on the pavement while being disarmed and then cuffed and taken away.

 

Either you do see the difference and you're just trying to win a shitfight or you genuinely don't see the difference. If it's the former, I'm out, you can have your shitfight. If it's the latter, then you might have noticed that the guy in the video you posted had some input into the situation, he still had some level of control, he was pushing it because he was exerting his rights. The guy in the OP could only get on the ground, and he had close to zero input on the violence he received. I think most people who would watch your video would say that he was pushing his luck as the video progressed, and that the Black fellow was pushing his luck by just open carrying, period.

 

I know that some Black guys can openly carry with no bother at all, no argument. But again, they videos you provided didn't come close to matching the violence in the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The line about my poor nation-building ability made my day. :lol:

 

Didn't think I'd ever get a compliment from Jocal. I doubt he realizes I take it that way.

Tom,

 

It is my understanding (from living in Michigan and Illinois) that if one is to transport guns in a car they are supposed to out of the passenger compartment if you don't possess a ccw permit. Can you explain what one is to do if you don't own a car or use mass transit etc?

 

 

Rules about how they are to be carried in cars vary from state to state. Vermont doesn't require nor do they issue cwp's. So if a Vermont citizen comes to visit Florida, no carrying concealed. Tennessee does issue permits and FL and TN have reciprocity agreements, so a TN visitor wtih a permit could carry concealed here.

 

If you don't own a car or you use mass transit, you should fuck off because you are probably poor and guns are for rich people who can afford to comply with burdensome rules. For more on this and related subjects, search the forum for Favre. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Violence in the op?

A law-abiding citizen forced to the ground at gunpoint with barely a word exchanged as to purpose and reason, his property confiscated, cuffed and arrested.

 

Is it just me, it is that exchange more than a little violent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The line about my poor nation-building ability made my day. :lol:

 

Didn't think I'd ever get a compliment from Jocal. I doubt he realizes I take it that way.

Tom,

 

It is my understanding (from living in Michigan and Illinois) that if one is to transport guns in a car they are supposed to out of the passenger compartment if you don't possess a ccw permit. Can you explain what one is to do if you don't own a car or use mass transit etc?

 

 

Rules about how they are to be carried in cars vary from state to state. Vermont doesn't require nor do they issue cwp's. So if a Vermont citizen comes to visit Florida, no carrying concealed. Tennessee does issue permits and FL and TN have reciprocity agreements, so a TN visitor wtih a permit could carry concealed here.

 

If you don't own a car or you use mass transit, you should fuck off because you are probably poor and guns are for rich people who can afford to comply with burdensome rules. For more on this and related subjects, search the forum for Favre. ;)

 

 

Want something that works great in all fifty states, by car or transit, whether wealthy or poor?

Simply leave the guns home. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The line about my poor nation-building ability made my day. :lol:

 

Didn't think I'd ever get a compliment from Jocal. I doubt he realizes I take it that way.

Tom,

 

It is my understanding (from living in Michigan and Illinois) that if one is to transport guns in a car they are supposed to out of the passenger compartment if you don't possess a ccw permit. Can you explain what one is to do if you don't own a car or use mass transit etc?

 

 

Rules about how they are to be carried in cars vary from state to state. Vermont doesn't require nor do they issue cwp's. So if a Vermont citizen comes to visit Florida, no carrying concealed. Tennessee does issue permits and FL and TN have reciprocity agreements, so a TN visitor wtih a permit could carry concealed here.

 

If you don't own a car or you use mass transit, you should fuck off because you are probably poor and guns are for rich people who can afford to comply with burdensome rules. For more on this and related subjects, search the forum for Favre. ;)

 

 

Want something that works great in all fifty states, by car or transit, whether wealthy or poor?

Simply leave the guns home. :huh:

 

 

I'd rather just continue to be a wealthy yachtsman and travel with guns.

 

As for the poor people, it's regrettable that you have that "let them eat cake" attitude, but it does track pretty well with my characterization above. They should fuck off and do something other than exercise their rights if they can't afford them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The line about my poor nation-building ability made my day. :lol:

 

Didn't think I'd ever get a compliment from Jocal. I doubt he realizes I take it that way.

Tom,

It is my understanding (from living in Michigan and Illinois) that if one is to transport guns in a car they are supposed to out of the passenger compartment if you don't possess a ccw permit. Can you explain what one is to do if you don't own a car or use mass transit etc?

Rules about how they are to be carried in cars vary from state to state. Vermont doesn't require nor do they issue cwp's. So if a Vermont citizen comes to visit Florida, no carrying concealed. Tennessee does issue permits and FL and TN have reciprocity agreements, so a TN visitor wtih a permit could carry concealed here.

 

If you don't own a car or you use mass transit, you should fuck off because you are probably poor and guns are for rich people who can afford to comply with burdensome rules. For more on this and related subjects, search the forum for Favre. ;)

Want something that works great in all fifty states, by car or transit, whether wealthy or poor?

Simply leave the guns home. :huh:

Don't take your guns to town son

Leave your guns at home Bill

Don't take your guns to town

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather just continue to be a wealthy yachtsman and travel with guns.

 

As for the poor people, it's regrettable that you have that "let them eat cake" attitude, but it does track pretty well with my characterization above. They should fuck off and do something other than exercise their rights if they can't afford them.

 

 

This is gun whining. You are gun crazy about placing guns everywhere. And travelling with them, too.

You mix your crocodile tears with tortured, high-tone-sounding bill of rights logic, a lot.

Then you sneak in some hyperbole, like Gottlieb.

 

FACT CHECKING TOM RAY: Right now "exercise their rights" applies only while driving around inside of Washington D.C. And that's only because of Scullin's Heller II bomb.

 

 

There are now five federal circuit courts that have ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment protects concealed-carry outside the home. Right now the score is 3-2 in favor of the more limited view of the 2nd Amendment that defines the "right to bear arms" as allowing people to keep a gun for self-defense inside their homes.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Go ahead and replace my dogmatic beliefs with anything that benefits society.

I would be most pleased.

But all you have is gun mentality and second amendment hooey, leading to some seditious behavior.

 

 

 

The "indoor militia thing" is pretty funny, Jeff. It's a wanker special, an extra-infantile bit in a sea of childish logic.

Guns don't kill people...Good guy with a gun...Only criminals will will have guns...Tyrants fear our guns...AW's don't exist, or are "cosmetics"...The gunshow loophole is a myth...All gun research is political propaganda...

 

I'd like to see this indoor militia poofer crap presented before high courts.

It's similar to the legal argument that tucking one's shirt in (thus exposing a gun on one's belt), should not be illegal, therefore open carry should be approved. (That was presented before congress.)

And the argument that since criminals won't follow a certain law, the law shouldn't be passed. (That was rejected in the NY SAFE act.)

 

Seriously. I want to see a brief for the indoor militia argument.

 

Wankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal what benefits society is an attitude of mutual respect, an attitude of being accountable for one's actions. When a segment of society has become so disenfranchised that they no longer feel obligated to demonstrate that modicum of respect and accountability - it's my humble opinion that that attitude is responsible for the majority of the problems we encounter. I'll stipulate that adding firearms to that combination can exacerbate the effects of those attitudes, but, the presence of firearms isn't the main causal factor.

 

I'll leave for another day why I think that such attitudes have become so much more prevalent - but, changing those attitudes is where you need to focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal what benefits society is an attitude of mutual respect, an attitude of being accountable for one's actions. When a segment of society has become so disenfranchised that they no longer feel obligated to demonstrate that modicum of respect and accountability - it's my humble opinion that that attitude is responsible for the majority of the problems we encounter. I'll stipulate that adding firearms to that combination can exacerbate the effects of those attitudes, but, the presence of firearms isn't the main causal factor.

 

I'll leave for another day why I think that such attitudes have become so much more prevalent - but, changing those attitudes is where you need to focus.

 

Very, very cool post. Thank you.

I think I can get behind every damn word of it. Read it 3X.

 

But look, the dunderhead level on the streets was just incredible. (10x worse than Jeffie, heh heh.)

I found that you could tell how red-handed a guy was by the thickness of his spew.

Guy, I have a zillion ugly tales to tell, these I don't get to share because of knee-jerk race-baiting on the forums.

But what you are hinting at, my eyeballs have seen enough of.

It burned me out...and lit me up, too.

My hope rests on other areas of society, Guy.

 

 

Correct me at any point here, AGIC>

You are into grooming behavior, and into improving the very causes of violence.

You are into instilling and training a natural non-violence.

You are encouraging the development of non-violent choices and responses.

Okay, but the modern gun mentality ain't that.

 

If you want to separate the root causes of violence from gun behavior, well, don't combine them.

Jurisprudence and social fairness enforce "mutual respect", using evidence and reason.

Violence does not increase mutual respect. It often cycles into trauma and/or other violence.

 

According to social science, violence is understood to be contageous (can source).

Something needs to break the chain of violence. Guess who that means--those with their shit together, like sailors.

The disenfranchised are not going to lead the way on this.

 

By all means, continue with your well-presented analysis.

We may find that the highest common denominator on this touchy subject is Mr. LenP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "indoor militia thing" is pretty funny, Jeff. It's a wanker special, an extra-infantile bit in a sea of childish logic.

Guns don't kill people...Good guy with a gun...Only criminals will will have guns...Tyrants fear our guns...AW's don't exist, or are "cosmetics"...The gunshow loophole is a myth...All gun research is political propaganda...

 

I'd like to see this indoor militia poofer crap presented before high courts. Uuuh, you're about 3 year too late. Already done.

It's similar to the legal argument that tucking one's shirt in (thus exposing a gun on one's belt), should not be illegal, therefore open carry should be approved. (That was presented before congress.)

 

Seriously. I want to see a brief for the indoor militia argument.

 

 

 

Ok, you asked for it: Indoor militia argument

 

And since I know you won't bother to read the link, here are the relevant points:

 

In a 2-1 decision (Williams dissenting), the Court reversed both District Courts' decisions and orders. Judge Posner, writing for the majority, notes that while the Heller and McDonald decisions did say that the need for self-defense is most acute inside the home, that doesn't mean it is not also acute outside the home. "Confrontations are not limited to the home".[4] The distinct use of the words "keep" and "bear" in the text of the Second Amendment, the Court reasoned, implied the right to carry outside one's home, as in historical context, the meaning of the word did not limit it to the home and it would be awkward to attempt to assign that connotation to documents of the time period. The Court also reasoned that this limitation would not have been rational as of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, because in what was then the Wild West - including the Ohio River Valley - settlers would have had to contend with native Indians, and such confrontations would be more likely, and more dangerous to an unarmed settler, outside the home rather than in. This negated the Defendants/Appellees' claim that the Blackstone writings and other documents of English origin pointed to a more castle doctrine-based interpretation of the Second Amendment as it would have been understood by the American colonists. While twenty-first century Illinois has no marauding Indian tribes, the threat, from gangs and street thugs, continues, and, says the decision, "a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower."

 

 

 

Thank you. Great info.

 

Interesting. The majority author, Judge Posner, had written a scathing look at Scalia's Heller reasoning.

The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia.

 

But I gotta ask.

--Once Heller ignored or minimized the militia clause of the second amendment,

--then dragged "hearth and home" into the second amendment (which it does not mention),

--further, once Heller defined the second's ahem "core purpose" as being personal self-defense...

how does a militia application suddenly justify guns outside of homes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not as simple as the image you present. In many ways.

 

Lead Poisoning in Kids Linked to Shooting Ranges

http://www.centralillinoisproud.com/kidsdr-fulltext/d/story/lead-poisoning-in-kids-linked-to-shooting-ranges/58461/xNAAWdhwOEWcegt8-4dS7g>

In 2010, 20 children and teens at a Vancouver, Washington, indoor shooting club tested positive for lead poisoning, according to a recent year-long investigation by The Seattle Times,. A study in Alaska revealed that the single largest source of lead exposure in children aged 6 to 17 was firing ranges.

(…) Children are the most vulnerable to the effects of lead because their brains are still developing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Many shooting ranges offer birthday and party events and kids can ingest lead after touching contaminated surfaces.

 

(…) According to the CDC, thousands of Americans are exposed to lead at the nation’s 16,000 to 18,000 indoor firing ranges, despite health outreach efforts.

A recent CDC report found that between 2002 and 2012, a total of 2,056 Americans in “police protection” and 2,673 likely involved in “target shooting” had elevated blood lead levels.

 

(…) No levels of lead are safe for children, according to the CDC. In adults, 10 micrograms per deciliter of lead in the blood is considered elevated and potentially harmful. At 25 micrograms, serious health problems can occur; at 100, there can be severe brain and kidney damage.

Pregnant women should be especially careful at shooting ranges. In fact some OB/GYNs say that mothers-to-be should avoid ranges completely.

 

Even if handling ammo and breathing gaseous lead discharge was healthy for kids, guns extend many ripples through society.

 

And they have been extended FAR beyond wholesome kids harmlessly shooting guns.

One recent example is the 2015 goal to get guns on college campuses. (All 15 listed by a recent WaPo article failed, though. Even Florida).

.

A further example of gun lobby influence is the resistance to background checks. This bit is supplying criminals through legal channels, without oversight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Jeff, do you think this is about gangsta image vs. girl scout-with-a-gun comparisons?

IMO, it's about the tenacious extension of gun rights in society.

I have a different image to present you.

 

For some history of this major cultural conflict: let's just review NRA felony "restitution" mandates.

"Law abiders" may be a dishonest term to be using, considering this:

 

http://guncontrolnowusa.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/nras-guns-for-felons-program-how-the-nra-works-to-rearm-criminals/>

 

Creation of the “Relief” Program

Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for “relief” from the “disability” of not being able to buy and possess guns.

 

“Relief” Program Becomes Felons’ Second-Chance Club

Although created to benefit one corporation, the program quickly became a mechanism by which thousands of individuals with felony convictions had their gun privileges restored. In the 10-year period from1982 until 1992, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms processed more than 22,000 applications.

--Between 1985 and 1990 ATF granted “relief” in approximately one third of those cases.

--ATF estimated that approximately one third of those not granted “relief” chose to drop out of the process, while

--the remaining one third were denied “relief.”)

NRA Expands the Program to Include Gun Criminals

For 20 years, however, felons convicted of crimes “involving the use of a firearm or other weapon” or of violations of federal firearm laws were ineligible to apply for “relief.” This changed in 1986, when a law backed by the National Rifle Association took effect. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (also known as FOPA or McClure/Volkmer for the bills’ Senate and House sponsors) expanded the program to allow felons convicted of gun crimes to obtain “relief.3 And gun criminals certainly took advantage of the program. Of the 100 sample cases obtained by the Violence Policy Center, eight were for firearm violations, including two convictions for illegal sales of machine guns.

 

Felons Granted “Relief” Commit New Crimes

The VPC found that of those granted “relief” from 1985 to 1992, 69 were subsequently re-arrested for crimes that included: attempted murder; first degree sexual assault; abduction/kidnapping; child molestation; illegal possession of a machine gun; trafficking in cocaine, LSD, and PCP; and, illegal firearms possession or carrying.

 

“Relief” Program De-Funded

In 1992, after the Violence Policy Center publicized the details of the program, Congress added language to ATF’s annual appropriations bill prohibiting the agency from using federal funds to review “relief” applications from felons ... The NRA opposed efforts to close down the program, testifying before Congress in support of it

 

1995 Republicans and NRA Try to Revive “Relief” Program

The funding ban was renewed each year until 1995 when Republicans on the subcommittee overseeing ATF’s budget voted to lift the spending ban. The Republicans put forward a plan that would have charged applicants a fee—with the National Rifle Association championing Republican efforts.

 

The NRA’s usual tough-on-crime rhetoric softened substantially when talking about felons eligible to apply to the “relief” program. “We’re talking about individuals who may have run afoul of federal law but paid their debt to society,” the NRA’s spokesman stated to the Washington Post in 1995. The Republicans backed down when the proposal was heavily criticized by law enforcement organizations, gun control advocates, and congressional Democrats.

 

1996 NRA Launches Second Attempt to Resuscitate “Relief” Program

In 1996, there was yet another attempt by the NRA to revive the “relief” program, this time for “non-violent” felons. This effort was undertaken despite plentiful examples of felons who had been granted “relief” for non-violent felonies who then went on to be re-arrested and convicted of violent crimes.

 

NRA, A LIE FOR FELONS

An NRA alert to members of Congress stated falsely that Representative Durbin’s amendment would remove restrictions on violent felons and drug traffickers and “put the public at the mercy of the unfettered discretion of liberal judges.” The Durbin amendment was defeated because of the NRA’s tactics. Then-Senator Paul Simon (D-IL)—the Senate sponsor of Durbin’s amendment—issued a scathing press release in which Simon stated, “The NRA lied—and that’s the only word for it—to score this temporary victory for these felons.” Rep. Durbin was quoted in the same press release stating, “The NRA has stooped to a new low in its effort to help make sure convicted felons can purchase firearms.”

 

NRA Forces Courts to Run “Relief” Program

Representative Durbin and Senator Simon were unsuccessful in adding language to the funding prohibition to prevent felons from resorting to the courts for “relief.” Moreover, the NRA-backed FOPA had added an amendment to federal law in 1986 that further expanded the rights of convicted felons. That provision explicitly provided for judicial review in cases in which ATF denied a felon “relief.” Therefore, the federal courts have been forced to grapple with applications for “relief” from individual felons.

 

Conclusion

The current status of the “relief from disability” program is already resulting in the expenditure of significant judicial resources to make determinations as to whether individual felons are entitled to restoration of firearms privileges—resources that might better be spent hearing gun prosecution cases.

 

This result was clearly not the intent of Congress when it zero-funded the “relief” program

 

The history of the guns-for-felons program proves the blatant hypocrisy of the National Rifle Association. The NRA calls for tougher enforcement of gun laws and swift, sure, and final punishment for criminals. But the NRA has worked harder to re-arm convicted felons than it ever has to keep guns out of criminals’ hands.

 

Congress should eliminate the “relief from disability” program once and for all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Time out big guy. Who said racism does not exist. I never said that. The OP purports to prove a hypothesis that white police react to blacks and guns differently than whites and gun routinely. You claim you scoured the net and found no examples of whites having guns pointed at them etc.. I merely pointed out that you are sorely mistaken and there are many examples of white males with guns exercising the 2nd rights that are not only harassed but arrested and prosecuted.

 

My claim is that each cop reacts differently in different cases and that this is not a black and white issue. One video of a black told to get on the ground and you all run around with your heads lopped off gurgling Cops are Racist. Some are and always will be. They need to be addressed when and where they show up. But the wholesale condemnation of police and a near race war in 2015 in America is pure hogwash incited by scumbags like Sharpton that feed off hate.

 

It was your idea that you somehow demolished the OP's premise, you didn't do that. The OP video showed something untouched in the videos that you and Len posted.

 

Can a law-abiding Black person wander around a suburb with open carry guns and find that nobody bothers him? Sure. That's a good thing. Are law-abiding Caucasians arrested for OC? Sure. That's a bad thing.

 

I think it was just your bravado at supposedly demolishing the original premise that bugged me so much, because you didn't do that.

The OP contrasted two Cherry picked examples and promoted them as absolute proof of a fact. You made the false claim that you observed 50 videos and could not find an example where a white person was treated that way. Several videos were posted that proved you and the OP were wrong. The video I posted showed a white male in Oregon disarmed at gunpoint including a smart mouthed female cop who held a 12 gauge on him. The male did exactly what he was told to do and they ultimately ordered him on the ground at gunpoint and arrested him. Unlike the case of the Black male who was allowed to continue on his merry way.

 

Yes my friend I demolished the OP's vainglorious allegation of dubious veracity.

The videos you provided weren't even in the neighborhood of the original post. There is an enormous difference between one guy having a conversation with cops and then eventually pushing his rights so far that he ends up being arrested because they thought they found a trespassing loophole, and another guy who is drawn at gunpoint with barely a word spoken and then held at gunpoint, face down on the pavement while being disarmed and then cuffed and taken away.

 

Either you do see the difference and you're just trying to win a shitfight or you genuinely don't see the difference. If it's the former, I'm out, you can have your shitfight. If it's the latter, then you might have noticed that the guy in the video you posted had some input into the situation, he still had some level of control, he was pushing it because he was exerting his rights. The guy in the OP could only get on the ground, and he had close to zero input on the violence he received. I think most people who would watch your video would say that he was pushing his luck as the video progressed, and that the Black fellow was pushing his luck by just open carrying, period.

 

I know that some Black guys can openly carry with no bother at all, no argument. But again, they videos you provided didn't come close to matching the violence in the OP.

 

 

 

Mike I tried to post these a couple days ago but the forum software was screwed up. Your notion that you found no cases where whites were treated as the black in the OP call into question your internet search skills.

 

The first one below is identical to the OP moreover there are many similar videos.

 

 

What if the Opening post had used the one above and contrasted it with this one below.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEkyB67DUnE

 

 

 

Another example of a gun being pointed

 

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

 

 

And finally a Bi Racial harassment

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intense - yes. Violent - no.

 

Come on mike...

Staring down the barrel of a weapon ready to fire, is a quintessential moment of violence. If you only grade it as intense, it's probably because you weren't in that sight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike I tried to post these a couple days ago but the forum software was screwed up. Your notion that you found no cases where whites were treated as the black in the OP call into question your internet search skills.

 

The first one below is identical to the OP moreover there are many similar videos.

 

Those are all interesting videos, I watched them all, saw a couple of them some time back. They are not like the OP, regardless your attempt to frame them that way. The guy in the park wasn't grounded, he was disarmed, no arrest, guns returned, spoken to calmly even after he got angry. The first ones were put to the ground for a moment, politely, then allowed to return to their OC action, no arrest. The rest of them are all interesting, not much to do with the OP though.

 

Out of all these Caucasians doing OC actions on YouTube, can't you find at least ten or twenty (a decent proportionality) where they are drawn and grounded at first sight, disarmed and arrested? Your videos that you hold as proof are all excellent, but they are all relatively tame compared to the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I have said this before, but what police officer would let someone carrying an AR down the street ... would just drive by and wave?

 

Arrest the trouble-makers, then change the law to suit the 21st scary century.

 

It happens here, police seeing OC people carrying ARs down the sidewalk, and just driving on by. They're getting used to the OC movement, which is the whole point.

 

People who walk down the street with their guns in full view aren't looking for trouble, at least in a statistical sense. So why worry about the "21st Century" when the real danger is from the people who secretly carry guns, rather than openly? If you want to make a dent statistically, since Constitutionality isn't a concern in this scenario, why not equip all the police cruiser with millimeter wave optics and then detain anyone who isn't carrying their weapon openly, then decide the threat level?

 

The technology is there, the statistics are there, but we have the Fourth Amendment that doesn't allow that, for better or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mike I tried to post these a couple days ago but the forum software was screwed up. Your notion that you found no cases where whites were treated as the black in the OP call into question your internet search skills.

 

The first one below is identical to the OP moreover there are many similar videos.

 

Those are all interesting videos, I watched them all, saw a couple of them some time back. They are not like the OP, regardless your attempt to frame them that way. The guy in the park wasn't grounded, he was disarmed, no arrest, guns returned, spoken to calmly even after he got angry. The first ones were put to the ground for a moment, politely, then allowed to return to their OC action, no arrest. The rest of them are all interesting, not much to do with the OP though.

 

Out of all these Caucasians doing OC actions on YouTube, can't you find at least ten or twenty (a decent proportionality) where they are drawn and grounded at first sight, disarmed and arrested? Your videos that you hold as proof are all excellent, but they are all relatively tame compared to the OP.

 

 

Next time you have a gun pointed at you let me know how tame it was. As I said these are just a few. In addition to watching each video I tracked down what the end outcome was and read the relevant laws were.

 

Open carry in most jurisdictions means "not at the ready or in a threatening manner" the word brandishing is often mentioned. The courts have interpreted this generally to mean, holstered and secured is ok. Slung on a shoulder is ok. Gun in hand or hands not ok. Gun pointed and someone regardless of how it is carried not ok.

 

You may have noted the Huey P Newton gun club was marching with their guns in their hands at the ready. A violation in most states.

 

Some states also consider side carry under the shoulder of a long gun where the trigger is essentially at hand height or carried across the chest to be brandishing.

 

While I sympathize with the protesters and their cause I think they get their info from anecdotal sources and often have the laws wrong.

 

For instance the SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable suspicion is sufficient to do a tarry stop where the officer is entitled to detain while he investigates that suspicion. This is a lower threshold than probable cause. It is interesting that the courts specifically stated that they realize innocent people will get stopped from time to time and the the officer can make the stop and after an appropriate investigation must release the person if the investigation does not produce probable cause.

 

Also in states like florida the officer can ask you for your name and ID and you must produce it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's hilarious. How fucked up is that place. If someone walking down the street with an assault rifle is not reason for suspicion, then what the fuck are they carrying an assault rifle for?! To look bad? Impress the hood?

 

Seems to me that anyone carry an AR down the street without a good reason should be apprehended as a fuckwit. Too stupid to be trusted with such a weapon.

 

If they have good reason then they should be apprehended before they carry out the assault.

 

How about if Cliff carries his gun parts around, but has no ammo?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant say i agree with that. I do agree that there is no reason to carry a rifle around in a city but it is a right the constitution guarantees to all americans. So it should not on its own be suspicion of a crime. Now a persons actions while carrying that rifle could be.

 

Rifles are in most circumstances an offensive weapon, while on duty if i have my rifle out i am looking for someone that i believe intends to do me harm. Pistols on the other hand are commonly defensive weapons or weapons of last resort. It would seem that in a civilized society a defensive weapon makes more sense for daily carry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's hilarious. How fucked up is that place. If someone walking down the street with an assault rifle is not reason for suspicion, then what the fuck are they carrying an assault rifle for?! To look bad? Impress the hood?

 

Seems to me that anyone carry an AR down the street without a good reason should be apprehended as a fuckwit. Too stupid to be trusted with such a weapon.

 

If they have good reason then they should be apprehended before they carry out the assault.

 

So - if I'm out hunting, and I come down off the mountain and decide it's easier to walk a couple miles around the base instead of climbing back up and over to get to my truck, I should be apprehended as a fuckwit? Every time you post, you reduce your credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant say i agree with that. I do agree that there is no reason to carry a rifle around in a city but it is a right the constitution guarantees to all americans. So it should not on its own be suspicion of a crime. Now a persons actions while carrying that rifle could be.

 

Rifles are in most circumstances an offensive weapon, while on duty if i have my rifle out i am looking for someone that i believe intends to do me harm. Pistols on the other hand are commonly defensive weapons or weapons of last resort. It would seem that in a civilized society a defensive weapon makes more sense for daily carry.

 

While the 2nd protesters are often misguided and poorly informed I agree with the idea that the problem is educating the public and police.

 

I was at a meet the police event hosted for our community a couple years ago and a mother asked if she could report a neighbor who walked around his rural property with a sidearm. The officers said no that was his right and asked her if it was the sight of the gun that concerned her. He went on to count the people in the room and told her that based in the state average there were probably 8 people in the room carrying a legal concealed handgun.

 

There was an audible gasp from the room.

 

Guns are common but people don't realize this so maybe open carry is more honest and would help normalize the guns that are already there.

 

One reason long guns are more common in these 2nd protests is that they are often the only legal gun you can carry openly. They also have a more dramatic visual impact.

 

One thing I know is that if Blacks had never pressed their rights even in the face of violent pushback they might still be in the back of the bus.

 

Any right that a citizen is afraid to exercise is not really a right.

 

 

Interesting anecdote. Concealed carry is permitted in Florida but open carry of any firearm is not. But there is a Mac Truck wide loophole in the law.

 

You are exempt from the requirement to have a concealed carry permit (sec 790.06) and the prohibition on open carry (sec 790.053) if you are a ...

 

(g) ... regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for target, skeet, or trap shooting, while at or going to or from shooting practice; or regularly

 

(h) ... person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;

 

Just make sure you have you fishing license and a rod and tackle box in your possession (car)

 

 

 

Some other aspects of the florida law (many of the protesters refuse to show ID which at least in florida is against the law.)

 

The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's hilarious. How fucked up is that place. If someone walking down the street with an assault rifle is not reason for suspicion, then what the fuck are they carrying an assault rifle for?! To look bad? Impress the hood?

 

Seems to me that anyone carry an AR down the street without a good reason should be apprehended as a fuckwit. Too stupid to be trusted with such a weapon.

 

If they have good reason then they should be apprehended before they carry out the assault.

 

So - if I'm out hunting, and I come down off the mountain and decide it's easier to walk a couple miles around the base instead of climbing back up and over to get to my truck, I should be apprehended as a fuckwit? Every time you post, you reduce your credibility.

 

 

Do you hunt with an Assault Rifle? You should at least be stopped as asked what your intentions are. Are you going to shoot the ex? Are you going to teach your old school a lesson? I'd say you would be safe enough as long as you weren't black an were very careful not to make a back-fire noise.

 

Imagine the situation where a couple of cops drove past a guy with an AR, only to find a few minutes later that he shot up the mall killing many. Do you think some may be outraged that he was allowed to walk on? Claim that the cops did do their job?

 

 

Imagine the situation where a couple of cops drove past a guy with an AR, leaving the bar, only to find a few minutes later that he shot up drove into the mall killing many. Do you think some may be outraged that he was allowed to walk on? Claim that the cops did do their job?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacks that marched and sat in the front to assert their rights were just a bunch of uppity negroes that upset the white folk and made them nervous. How dare they exercise their rights. They should be intelligent enough to know better.

 

Political correctness is a bully that wants to intimidate you into abandoning your rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Randumb is a fucking idiot that wants to be controlled by the nanny state. Common sense is a thing of the past for him & his ilk

Link to post
Share on other sites

False equivalency. That's a lame response.

 

There is no valid reason why a person needs to carry an assault weapon in public.

Sure there is. You even gave an example. Do you think those women would be better off with a .22 revolver like Dick Heller's or a mean-looking rifle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

False equivalency. That's a lame response.

 

There is no valid reason why a person needs to carry an assault weapon in public. Anyone with a valid reason to transport one should be intelligent enough to keep it out of sight. That means that anyone open carrying and assault weapon is either a shit stirrer or a potential mass murderer.

 

Your previous example of a hunter taking a shortcut back to the car-park? He should expect to have to explain his actions to a few cautious cops.

 

Your premise ignores the fact that the open carry shit stirrers are trying to illustrate: You don't need to justify your exercise of a right.

 

I actually agree with you that people doing this are shit stirrers, but, I understand and agree with WHY most are doing it.

 

That said - if a cop stops and asks you what you're doing, I would expect to answer the question respectfully, and to not be detained for simply carrying a weapon. It's a sign of the times, but, when I was a kid in the 70s/early 80s, people kept their shotguns in the back window of the truck. I carried mine to school in the trunk of my car (didn't have a truck) so I could go squirrel hunting on the way home from school.

 

Nobody thought twice about it. There were no sinister intentions then, and I'd suggest that generally speaking, there generally aren't sinister intentions now. What's changed to make that same behavior criminally suspect now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

False equivalency. That's a lame response.

 

There is no valid reason why a person needs to carry an assault weapon in public. Anyone with a valid reason to transport one should be intelligent enough to keep it out of sight. That means that anyone open carrying and assault weapon is either a shit stirrer or a potential mass murderer.

 

Your previous example of a hunter taking a shortcut back to the car-park? He should expect to have to explain his actions to a few cautious cops.

 

Your premise ignores the fact that the open carry shit stirrers are trying to illustrate: You don't need to justify your exercise of a right.

 

I actually agree with you that people doing this are shit stirrers, but, I understand and agree with WHY most are doing it.

 

 

That said - if a cop stops and asks you what you're doing, I would expect to answer the question respectfully, and to not be detained for simply carrying a weapon. It's a sign of the times, but, when I was a kid in the 70s/early 80s, people kept their shotguns in the back window of the truck. I carried mine to school in the trunk of my car (didn't have a truck) so I could go squirrel hunting on the way home from school.

 

Nobody thought twice about it. There were no sinister intentions then, and I'd suggest that generally speaking, there generally aren't sinister intentions now. What's changed to make that same behavior criminally suspect now?

 

 

What changed? Quite a few things.

The post-1977 NRA's new philosophy.

The reaction to Ruby Ridge.

The reaction to Waco, which was a perverted situation on several social levels.

McVeigh's enactment of gun show militia mentality.

The lessons unlearned after OK City by the gun community.

Popular justifications of tyrant-fighting fantasies, leading to an erosion of respect for our system.

John Ashcroft happened. Deconstructing John Ashcroft's Second Amendment

Scalia, Robert Levy, and Heller.

The infestation of Congress by gun lobbyists.

The infestations of state courts by ALEC.

A string of right-wing legal interpretations, and their implementations.

The popularity and acceptance of AW's; their unwholesome appearance and functions.

Quite a few mass killings, and the grind of the annual casualty toll (110,000/yr).

 

Aside from criminally suspect individuals carrying guns, there is a general reaction to gunheads.

A public mistrust has developed for the direction and force of pro-gun legislation.

The quasi-constitutional philosophy nonsense borders on sedition.

A need in our culture developed, IMO, to just discourage gun uses.

 

Guy, by the time we see kook on the street with a gun, yeah, we want to tee off on him.

But the stupidity of the pro-gun behavior is driving it, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone here understand a thing joke-al said above???

 

Yeah, I get the picture.

 

I'm supposed to use "unwholesome-appearing" weapons instead of "mean-looking" weapons when discussing ordinary semi-automatic rifles. I guess that's the kind of thing you learn in Bloomberg's journalism school.

Link to post
Share on other sites