This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

[Rockdog]

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

Unlike mobile phones ...

4 million assault weapons in America: That should be enough

They shoot at targets for the fuck of it. Also competitions...also for the fuck of it. That's the best reason of all.

 

[GRUMPY]

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

Unlike mobile phones ...

4 million assault weapons in America: That should be enough

They shoot at targets for the fuck of it. Also competitions...also for the fuck of it. That's the best reason of all.

I thought assault weapons were full auto? Semi auto isn't an assault weapon is it?

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

First of all, I don't use an assault weapon.I use a full caliber Main Battle Rifle

I use it to assault forest creatures.

I had never seriously considered murdering one particular Disney creature before,

, but this year, the full moon is calling for his blood on my weapons.

So, it seems, I must prepare to commit premeditated murder on poor Boo Boo

? that answer your question, random ?

, and yes, Grumps an assault weapon is full auto capable.

 

[GRUMPY]

Full autos have been banned on mainland Aussie since the 30's knucklehead.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Weapons Questionnaire: "Who are you going to assault and or shoot?"

...

Whoever needs shooting, should the need arise. That's the job of the "great body of the yeomanry" here and one reason we can't be disarmed by our government.

So if citizens want to participate in preserving or restoring order, would "assault" weapons or the kinds of guns Aussies are allowed to have be more appropriate to the task?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...

I think we still have law enforcement officials who might be inclined to discriminate based on race. Maybe even in North Carolina.

The linked article is about a bill on the NC permit to purchase a pistol, not to carry one in public.

As the law states right now, before you can get a gun, you have to apply for a permit at your local sheriff's office, and wait for a background check. Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page says it's a lengthy, but worthy process.

"I look for felony convictions, I look for domestic violence convictions, I look for mental health adjudications," said Page. "I also look for what's called moral character."

The proposed bill would eliminate the sheriff's role altogether.

Instead, potential buyers would be evaluated through the National Instant Criminal Background Check.

I think we have a right to own a handgun, which includes a right to buy one. I don't think we have a right to buy one that is dependent on whether the local sheriff approves of our moral character. I think we might just have a couple of sheriffs around who can not see good moral character when it's covered by black skin. I'd like to see that discretion taken away from sheriffs.

Also, that bill is odd in prohibiting the carriage of guns on state fair rides. Presumably, this means you can carry your gun at the fair, but you have to stash it someplace before getting on a ride. Ummm.... where?

So how did North Carolina get such a law?

The Usual Way

The end of the Great War in 1918 saw the return of many African-American veterans who had served in segregated military units. They had served their country both home and abroad and were now coming home expecting some recognition of their rights. W.E.B. DuBois had encouraged black veterans to not just return home but to return home fighting against Southern racism.


At an Emancipation Day ceremony in Raleigh in January 1919, a crowd of 3,000 passed resolutions condemning lynching and attacking segregation. Through the 1920s, the annual commemorations of emancipation as well as the Armistice ending World War I remained occasions for rallies. Editorials in the black press in Durham and Raleigh frequently called for improvements in, if not an end to, the Jim Crow system.
White North Carolinians listened with concern to the outbursts of black protests after the War, but they managed to preserve both white supremacy and the myth that black North Carolinians were contented with legal segregation and Jim Crow. North Carolina's postwar reconsideration of racial relations and racial policy took place in the context of the nationwide "Red Scare" between 1918 and 1921, touched off by fears of communist and foreign subversion.

Adding to this general fear was Winston-Salem's November 17, 1918 riot over the attempted lynching of a black man who had been erroneously accused of raping a white woman. Most of the rioting was done by whites but it was the black community which had the tanks sitting in their streets.
The General Assembly passed "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina" on March 10, 1919. It required a permit to purchase "any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks." The "so-called pump-gun" is, as best as I can determine, what we would now call a pump shotgun. Section 3 of Chapter 197 reads:

That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms. The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license or permit a fee of fifty cents.The Clerk and the firearms dealer were both required to keep records of the permittees/purchasers including name, age, residence, former residence, "etc." The owner of the firearm was also required to list it as personal property with the local tax authorities.
Let's think about this a bit. Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer.

 

[RedTuna]

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

 

[jocal505]

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

Hi, RT. You are very wrong...unless that person's motives and rationale are "deeply rooted" on racism.

A negative racial outcome may be a side-effect of other factors in an otherwise sensible law. Sort that shit.

Tom's race-baiting tactics, laid out across this thread, are cheap. His hollow logic (that if one doesn't support "shall issue", that one is a racist, or that Bloomberg supporters are racists for his employment of "stop and frisk") is sick, immature, scary, and dangerous IMO.

It's so stupid it never should have been repeated. So hey, don't repeat it. To be continued, I guess.

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied? I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Yeah, yeah, denying a government permit because of race is no big deal. We know.

Sickening.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

Hi, RT. You are very wrong...unless that person's motives and rationale are "deeply rooted" on racism.

A negative racial outcome may be a side-effect of other factors in an otherwise sensible law. Sort that shit.

Tom's race-baiting tactics, laid out across this thread, are cheap. His hollow logic (that if one doesn't support "shall issue", that one is a racist, or that Bloomberg supporters are racists for his employment of "stop and frisk") is sick, immature, scary, and dangerous IMO.

It's so stupid it never should have been repeated. So hey, don't repeat it. To be continued, I guess.

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied? I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

If you want a new question, the one in the article I just posted is also pretty good:

"Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK?"

I'll answer before attempting to drag an answer out of the grabbers: a white person would have been considered a person of "good moral character" back then. This might seem sensible to some. After all, ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. So a negative racial outcome is actually socially beneficial.

Ugh. I feel dirty after sorting Jocal's racist shit.

 

[slatfatf]

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

First of all, I don't use an assault weapon.I use a full caliber Main Battle Rifle

I use it to assault forest creatures.

I had never seriously considered murdering one particular Disney creature before,

, but this year, the full moon is calling for his blood on my weapons.

So, it seems, I must prepare to commit premeditated murder on poor Boo Boo

? that answer your question, random ?

, and yes, Grumps an assault weapon is full auto capable.

I am itching to get a bear this year. We are almost out of bear meat, and it makes the best sausage and chili

 

[tuk tuk Joe]

But doesn't it taste kinda touristy?....

Good point Booze...

But doesn't it taste kinda touristy?....

Good point Boozer...

 

[jocal505]

Yeah, yeah, denying a government permit because of race is no big deal. We know.

Sickening.

Yeah, but he did dance with a black chick the other night.....

More than one. But one in particular could dance.

It's kind of the Baptist crowd from Jimi Hendrix' neighborhood.

A friend of mine produces music showcases for them. He took over from "Blackie Joe", she is DTS a decade now.

He has cracked Pioneer Square (which excluded us in the early nineties).

It's sort of like the "midnight ramble" which Levon Helm mentioned in The Last Waltz.

You need to see a few line dances with 300lb gals gliding all over, Boothy.

It's a different culture, each person seems to hold a certain dignity.

I gotta say I am honored to be there, just to be a fly on the wall.

To maybe get beyond what Tom Ray is struggling with.

Did you see the Friends of the NRA pics? He can EMF after his double-down in Post 467.

Which brings us to Tom's umteenth offensive, race-baiting post, in the quote.

I repeat: IMO MLK's gun permit would have been inconsequential...yep, whether granted or not.

Let's see if this works:

Tom, from one gentleman to another, I would like to ask you to stop race-baiting me. And others.

 

[jocal505]

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

Hi, RT. You are very wrong...unless that person's motives and rationale are "deeply rooted" on racism.

A negative racial outcome may be a side-effect of other factors in an otherwise sensible law. Sort that shit.

Tom's race-baiting tactics, laid out across this thread, are cheap. His hollow logic (that if one doesn't support "shall issue", that one is a racist, or that Bloomberg supporters are racists for his employment of "stop and frisk") is sick, immature, scary, and dangerous IMO.

It's so stupid it never should have been repeated. So hey, don't repeat it. To be continued, I guess.

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied? I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

If you want a new question, the one in the article I just posted is also pretty good:

"Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK?"

I'll answer before attempting to drag an answer out of the grabbers: a white person would have been considered a person of "good moral character" back then. This might seem sensible to some. After all, ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. So a negative racial outcome is actually socially beneficial.

Ugh. I feel dirty after sorting Jocal's racist shit.

I just found this. I feel dirtier for your post, too. I'm going to take a shower.

You have no shame, sir.

You posted the blacks' awful nbic numbers four times. You posted one other ugly stat, proudly calling me the source to Random, twice. The red bolded words, posted about six times, are just my candid summary of ugly, but real, figures. But you broadcast all these words, repeatedly to draw all the wrong conclusions.

I don't know the chemistry in play, but I can see the direction NOT to go for the brothers. The very one you are proposing: more guns for blacks (and whites).

The gross supply of guns is convoluting a sensitive situation. Your bit is an enthusiastic part of the gun and race problems. It seems slimy to me, thus the shower.

 

[jocal505]

The gross supply of guns is convoluting a sensitive situation.

Why is it that while the "gross supply of guns" has gone waaay up in recent years, the actual violence rate has gone waaay down? Take your time on answering this question. I know its a tough one to get right.

Gun injuries are up, not down. Gun homicides spiked, and levelled there (at 11,500/yr)

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

I answered you specifically about "guns up, violence down" twice in the past 60 days, quoting sociologists. They attribute the drop in crime to a combination of about seven factors, but gun mentality isn't one of them.

The open supply of guns on the private market is the pipeline to criminals. The lack of background checks there is the culprit.

But violence going down defeats your own point. With less crime around, fewer guns are "needed".

 

[jocal505]

Which brings us to Tom's umteenth offensive, race-baiting post, in the quote.

I repeat: IMO MLK's gun permit would have been inconsequential...yep, whether granted or not.

Why? Lay out a concise, in your own words, explanation for why it is ok to arbitrarily deny a permit to certain folks and not others? No cunt-n-pastes allowed. Betcha can't do it.....

Asked and answered, several times.

I would lay it out along the lines of the Israeli psychological testing for gun ownership, with an appeals process.

The standards could be higher for the more exotic weapons.

Using evidence-based info defining high-risk behavior (such as that blocked by the gun lobby), and using testing on individuals, I would screen marginal types out, or train them up to standards, until the cultural results were acceptable.

Peer pressure within the sport to explore non-violent resources, to be level-headed, and to be somewhat socially positive would be key: the screeners should be gun guys. They should be leaders in getting this to work.

Respect for law is what makes civilized culture tick. We don't need to erode that, just for guns.

My fear (after three years studying the SA un Club Belief System: this gun culture upgrade will become a non-starter because of the HUGE insurrectionist undercurrent in the gun culture, which I find both sur-real and counter-productive. The attitude doesn't pass the smell test of country-building/love of country, IMO.

The tyranny mumbo-jumbo is what will torpedo the middle ground, IMO. The dealbreaker. With all the dumbass repetition of, and denial of, the research basics I've presented here, I join Tom Diaz is feeling that no "third rail" middle ground will ever prevail. A generation will die off, and so will support for the runaway gun industry. I suppose that after three or four more decades of gun carnage, the second will be re-addressed.

Gone to climb Tiger Mt, Jeff.

 

[Rockdog]

Some people just need yo fill a void.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

At other times the weaponry was 'specialised' and not available to the citizens, like now. Heavy weapons, fast jets, cluster bombs, glding GPS using artilary rounds, armed drones. During these periods the governments were in control and the citizens had no choice but to do what they are told.

That's how we are now. The absolutely dated concept that the citizenry was able to defend themselves against the government, is laughable to say the least, even with assault weapons.

Yep, with those weapons, we are able to impose our will on any nation and no groups of men with rifles or improvised explosives can cause us any trouble whatsoever. They might as well have squirt guns!

 

[Rockdog]

Gun behind every blade of grass.

 

[jocal505]

We've already fuking gone thru this-----4000 of those 11,500 'homicides' are legit self defense shootings and another 4000 are by law enforcement. That leaves less than 4000 'real homicides' a year. Which is like fuking nothing, considering how many guns and how many people in America own them....like millions upon millions.

Do the math....

Nope. You used grandiose, sweeping, non-categorized, vague figures. Without documentation.

Which does not meet the standards of Political Anarchy, or the big boy code of these forums.

Even for lowbrows, that's poor entertainment.

I challenge YOU to do the math, and to present it here.