General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn Ferguson - Guess Who Gets Arrested?
Guess which one Ferguson police arrest:
1) Unarmed black girl.
2) Right-wing #OATHKEEPERS packing assault rifles.
https://twitter.com/David_EHG/status/631151867863662592/photo/1
British reporter in Ferguson finds whites openly carrying rifles and peaceful blacks being arrested
.........................
Morris noted that black protesters faced pepper spray, arrests and other actions by riot police.
The Oath Keepers, however, “openly carry sidearms and semi-automatic weapons as is their right,” she said.
“You and people who look like you, white males, have the sovereignty to walk around with assault rifles,” one black protesters told a white Oath Keeper, “But we [black protesters] can’t even like stand out here and assemble peacefully and exercise our constitutional right to do so without being gassed, maced and arrested.”
“I don’t have a perspective,” the Oath Keeper replied flatly.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/watch-british-reporter-in-ferguson-finds-whites-openly-carrying-rifles-and-peaceful-blacks-being-arrested/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stone space
(6,498 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...the community freely.
Your Rights Trump Black Lives.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=126744
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That would be the same police YOU want to enforce gun control. The same police who employed the gun control policy of Stop & Frisk to disarm and incarcerate blacks.
That's not even coherent. The RKBA is a universal right.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Stop demanding racist gun control laws applied with racist bias enforced by racists.
stone space
(6,498 posts)This is what the RKBAers and the NRA want for America.
Actually posted to DU:
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Stop supporting the racist police state.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Paladin
(28,279 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It doesn't matter how many bleat this incoherent line it's still incoherent and you're still just bleating. My RKBA isn't what killed Michael Brown or Eric Garner but the RKBA is what allowed people like Dr. Perry to resist corrupt civil authorities bent on racist murder.
Meanwhile, gun control has brought us policies such as Stop & Frisk. Guess who that disproportionately hurts?
Paladin
(28,279 posts)That's right, the original sentiment was "bleated" by a pro-gun militant in a speech he made a couple of years ago. That speech, and that statement in particular, were hugely popular among gun activists; right here in DU, a Gun Control/RKBA participant gushed that it was the best 2nd Amendment speech ever delivered. So spare me the "bleat" insults, OK? Your side fucking owns that ugly quote, it's an accurate description of your beliefs, and you deserve to have it used against you and the out-of-control movement you represent.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Do you own the bleats from your side about breaking arms and acting against gun owners with extreme prejudice or that allowing yourself to be raped is better than resisting? Do you own the racist application of Stop & Frisk?
And not that Controllers have ever entered into a debate without grossly misrepresenting the facts before them but please explain to me which rights are abrogated if and when a crime occurs? Does the pursuit of a rape suspect abrogate your 4A and 5A rights? I mean, you care about rape victims and justice, right? And if you're not guilty then surely you have no problem with warrantless searches, surrendering DNA or questioning without representative counsel, right? You care about rape, don't you?
Paladin
(28,279 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)otherwise it would be a right in the entire universe. It is only a right of privileged white Americans, or those people of color who kowtow to the establishment.
Go to any country in Europe, go to Mexico, go to Canada with your damn assault rifle over your shoulder and see how fast you end up in jail!
Freakin' ammosexuals gotta go!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Just because someone else refuses to acknowledge a right does not abrogate that right.
To be accomplished without guns, right? Because MOAR GUNZ is never the answer -- or so I'm told.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)abrogate the "right," perhaps it is not a right at all. Look at the countries around the world, and it appears that the US is the one who is abrogating the restrictions on guns!
As far as your other comment, YES! More guns is NEVER the answer! Violence only creates more violence. The only effective way to combat violence is with non-violence, and understanding.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So remind me again how gun control works.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)to an ammosexual, as they always believes that more guns are better.
Well, if the 2nd Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms, where is my shoulder mounted, laser guided nuclear missile? That is a form of "arms," isn't it?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm waiting for the bleating to die down and explain --
1) How does a private citizen carrying a rifle contribute to oppression of other citizens?
2) How would disarming one citizen end the oppression suffered by another?
3) Why are the oppressors suddenly being relied upon to do the disarming?
4) When did argumentum ad populum ever serve as a basis in logic?
If you think you can afford, maintain and effectively use one, go for it.
Empty bottles, gasoline and rags are all legal and make a far larger impact than any ol' piece of metal a mere twenty-two hundredths of an inch in diameter yet we don't see people employing those for home defense. Any guess as to why that might be the case?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)There is no sense trying to convey logic to an ammosexual. I am done here.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Do you have any idea just how disgusting your question is in today's context?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Shouldn't they be arrested and have their guns confiscated?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Who? The police? Absolutely. And from what I can see it's the police who have the proven track record of being a threat to the public.
As for the guy in the picture, it doesn't appear that any of the protesters in the picture are upset by his presence. Perhaps you should go yell at the protesters for awhile.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's amazing how many are making this absolutely ridiculous argument.
"One group was made slaves -- so our job isn't to strive for abolition but to admit now everybody can be denied their universal right of self-determination!"
That is some weapons-grade DERP! right there.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The fact that the 2nd is applied selectively is simply an observation. I made no argument that extended from it. You simply leaped to a conclusion.
I happen the think the 2nd is absolutely obsolete, but that has little to do with the selectivity of it's application and everything to do with recognizing the inherent destructive impact it has on society. (This is not the 1700s anymore, the weapons we are talking about are not muskets, and the people carrying them are not members under discipline in organized government regulated militias... etc... none of which would be fixed if the 2nd actually started getting applied equally to everyone...)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Those who exercise it would disagree.
And? The 1A doesn't only apply to moveable type press.
USC Title 10, Section 311
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Presenting an argument backing their disagreement would be a nice touch though.
"And? The 1A doesn't only apply to moveable type press. "
The difference between moveable type press and words printed in other manners isn;t measured in lethality and hazard to the general public.
USC Title 10, Section 311
I'm familiar. Perhaps you missed the "under discipline" and "regulated" parts of my statement. The "unorganized militia" is neither. Hence the "unorganized" part of their title.
That was NOT what was envisioned when the 2nd was crafted.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You're arguing that people have no right to self-defense. It's incumbent upon you to show they do not.
Those who think Wikileaks, Snowden, Manning and Greenwald abused information technology would disagree.
Perhaps the argument could be presented to the USSC that Congress has no right to define the meaning of "under discipline" and "regulated" while also disputing "the right of the people shall not be infringed."
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You're arguing that people have no right to self-defense. It's incumbent upon you to show they do not.
Bull shit I am, unless you can present an argument that self defense is only possible using a gun? Good luck with that onsidering the many real world examples of the right to self defense in nations where guns are strictly regulated.
Those who think Wikileaks, Snowden, Manning and Greenwald abused information technology would disagree.
I'm one of those people, regarding Snowden at the very least. And no I would not disagree. So no, sorry.
If they had leaked damaging material to a traditional newspaper instead of a website the end result would have been similar.
Perhaps the argument could be presented to the USSC that Congress has no right to define the meaning of "under discipline" and "regulated" while also disputing "the right of the people shall not be infringed."
Or perhaps it could simply be explained to you what the difference is between saying something is obsolete and saying it is illegal or outside the rights of Congress?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Well, there's Hoyt's infamous can of beans but like knives, pepper spray and tasers these other methods are not effective.
Many others nations are stupid and repressive.
Even disagreeing with Snowden does not abrogate others' 1A rights. Abuse does not abolish the use.
You don't know what obsolete is. It's more likely you call it obsolete not out of any fealty to practical matters as much as you just don't want people to have access to guns even if they are good and decent people.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Well, there's Hoyt's infamous can of beans but like knives, pepper spray and tasers these other methods are not effective.
So you're saying that guns are more effective at killing, injuring, intimidating and disabling people than other instruments? Because I could swear that the line I hear non stop from the NRA types is that if people really wanted to kill people they could do it with anything. A bottle. A bat. a knife. Guns don't kill people, people kill people!!!
Are you saying that's, just maybe, complete horseshit?
Gosh, then maybe guns are the kind of thing we want to put controls on? Maybe it's a good idea to take steps to prevent every thug and lowlife and idiot and mentally unstable jackass or just anyone with impulse or temper control issues having a bad day from having absurdly easy access to them???
You know, like most other developed nations. Where people are every bit as or more secure in their personal safety without packing guns all over because the rest of the damn country isn't saturated in the fucking things either. So self defense isn't predicated on having a firearm?
Many others nations are stupid and repressive.
Yes... they're stupidly and repressively achieving significantly lower rates of homicide and such. Idiots. Don't they know that they should be following the example of the developed nation with one of the highest rates of homicide.... because self defense? Silly stupid other countries....
Even disagreeing with Snowden does not abrogate others' 1A rights. Abuse does not abolish the use.
You seem to be confused. Or did you simply forget we're already gone over this part so you need me to repeat that what has made one amendment *obsolete* does not apply to the other?
You don't know what obsolete is.
Says the person whose argument against obsolescence was an appeal to the rights of Congress to change laws? Might want to take a look in a mirror there bud.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Yes, that's why women, the infirm and elderly rely on them -- as well as anyone not wanting to rely on beig inside melee range or constrained to one-time use weapons or wind direction.
If you're looking for a "Gotcha!" keep in mind that more than 90% of rapists do not use a weapon and less than 5% use a gun. That means a woman who elects to exercise her 2A rights has a 5% chance of of being on equal on equal terms, in every other instance she will possess the advantage.
I see reason to deprive her of either equality or advantage.
If only that were how the Controllers conducted themselves but they don't. Right now there is a bill being proposed to shore-up the NICS system including a provision for reporting those adjudicated guilty of DV and violent mental illness. Yet Controller support is, at best, lacking.
Yet, nations with comparable gun ownership rates, such as Switzerland, have lower gun homicide rates while Japan, Jamaica and Mexico with virtually no gun ownership rights have substantially higher suicide and violent crime rates.
No, I did not make an appeal for Congress to change laws. I suggested you inform the USSC to tell Congress that they had no authority to define the terms you lifted from the 2A without context.
I suggested it because you would be laughed at if you actually tried it because -- just like your misuse of "obsolete" -- you are not the arbiter of definitions.
bud
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That means a woman who elects to exercise her 2A rights has a 5% chance of of being on equal on equal terms,
...or, and we're going to go play in reality land now... being shot with their own gun. Often by someone they know who is aware there is a gun in the home and goes and gets it forst before she even knows an attack is coming. Which happens A LOT.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
And then there's this...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
"RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."
See, there's your mythological fantasy land where guns make you safer and more able to defend yourself like you're a character in an action movie or something, then there's real life where convincing that woman or elderly person to keep a weapon increases the odds they're going to be killed. Not to mention what the ready access to firearms for practically anyone and everyone does to everyone's safety in general whether they carry a weapon or not.
Yet, nations with comparable gun ownership rates, such as Switzerland, have lower gun homicide rates[/quote]
Oh, you mean Switzerland where those high gun ownership rates are due to the conscription of the majority of the male population into mandatory periods of service UNDER DISCIPLINE IN THE MILITARY and those weapons you're talking about are their issued firearms that they're required to keep at home?
It's hilarious that you used that as an example considering it makes my point for me. There is a vast difference between that and the totally unregulated and unorganized rabble that you we are talking about with the "unorganized militia" in the modern US.
And Japan having higher rates of violent crime! HAH! Suicide, yes, that's a cultural thing... but higher rates of violent crime? On what parallel universe did you pull that hilarious little claim from? Japan has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet.
And in case you missed it, Mexico has a long standing drug war raging. But by all means, use Mexico as the bar you want the US to be able to clear, don't strive to do as well as any developed nations that don't have drug wars going on, because that would clearly be asking too much of the United States. Set your expectations nice and basement low.No, I did not make an appeal for Congress to change laws. I suggested you inform the USSC to tell Congress that they had no authority to define the terms you lifted from the 2A without context.
That's what I said captain perceptive. Read. I said an appeal to THE RIGHT of Congress to change the law.
And you still appear to not comprehend that that response has NOTHING TO DO with the obsolescence of the 2A. But I bet you still think I'm the one who doesn't know what obsolete means. amazing.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How many times did the gun owner use their gun without discharging it, i.e. warning they we armed and prepared or brandishing without firing? Too bad the liars can't trouble themselves to report that.
However, what Controllers are advocating -- even if we take their lies of omission as truth -- is that those who did lawfully used their weapons in defense are somehow obligated to be raped, robbed, assaulted and murdered.
There is no moral case for surrendering either equality or advantage against a violent attacker.
The guns are still there. According to Controller mythology the mere presence of guns induces a Svengali trance of murder.
I noticed Controllers like to go off half-cocked. I didn't say Japan had a higher violent crime rate. I listed 3 nations and 2 phenomenon. The other 2 nations have equal or comparable suicide rates but that does not invalidate my noting the fact they have higher crime rates.
And, yes, it is a cultural thing, which means prohibitions on things is pointless. Issues such as crime and suicide need something more than feel-good do-nothing policies that do not affect the suicidally or criminally minded.
Impossible.
Drugs are illegal. There is an absolute prohibition on the production, refinement, transportation, sale, possession and use of drugs. There are entire government agencies dedicated exclusively to the eradication of drugs at the local, state and federal levels. The effort even entails the employment of military assets and cooperation with foreign governments. Even the UN plays a role. The mere act of moving money from drug sales will bring the wrath of the government. Drones, satellite, troops, prisons, etc. etc. etc.
Surely with such a domineering drug control regime in place it is impossible for there to be such things as "drugs." You believe control laws work, don't you? I think you're just making that up.
So you keep saying and yet Controllers despise the idea of an armed citizenry.
Here's a fun fact: Connecticut -- if memory serves -- passed a law requiring all owners of "assault rifles" to register their weapons with the state. By many estimates the rate or compliance is less than 5%. New York is experiencing a similar phenomenon in the wake of the passage of the SAFE-Act and in Colorado local sheriffs have nullified the magazine capacity restrictions though non-enforcement.
Do you know what the states are doing about that?
nothing
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)How many times did the gun owner use their gun without discharging it, i.e. warning they we armed and prepared or brandishing without firing?
Yeah... they also don't report how many times they did so *unnecessarily*, terrorizing innocent people in the neighborhood.
Know why? Because it's kind of hard to get accurate assessments of that.
However, what Controllers are advocating -- even if we take their lies of omission as truth -- is that those who did lawfully used their weapons in defense are somehow obligated to be raped, robbed, assaulted and murdered.
Good grief you're dense. You have already been hit over the head with this concept once, had no response to it, and now you're back at it again. GUNS ARE NOT THE ONLY MEANS OF DEFENSE. Particularly when you create a society in which they are not readily available to those intending to do harm.
Are you just unaware that there is a world outside the United states where this is all put into practice every day and works just fine? Or are you under the impression that once you cross the US border into the scary outside place everyone is being raped and murdered helplessly left and right?
(And as for your idiotic drugs comment, if you think you should only pass laws when they can be enforced with 100% efficacy you don't think laws should exist. So, pure anarchy? That's your utopia is it?)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's called brandishing a weapon which is illegal unless done in self-defense. You could try the FBI's UCR for answers.
But they are the most effective, which is why cops carry them. Your phobia of guns imparts no legal or moral obligation upon others to disarm and employ self-defense methods that are determined by physical ability and/or wind direction.
It's not a matter of my being dense it's a matter of my refusing to disarm to satisfy your subjective emotional needs. In other words I do not care what you think is adequate for my self-defense. You are not the arbiter or guarantor of my safety. No one has the authority to order me -- or anyone else -- to be defenseless in the face of those who would do me harm.
This is novel. Do tell.
Controllers gotta control -- and it doesn't matter if what they do works or actually creates more problems. What percent of efficacy is the prohibition on drugs providing? Because apart from the fact it is far from 100% it has spawned more crime of worse caliber than the original problem. Not only do we have rampant drug use but I would hazard a guess if the VPC filtered out gun violence based on gangs engaging in the drug industry US crime stats would crater.
The mania for control creates the very problems it claims it wants to control.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It's called brandishing a weapon which is illegal unless done in self-defense. You could try the FBI's UCR for answers.
No, really couldn't. Because just try actually proving that whoever they brandished that weapon at was coming to knock on their door instead of climb in their window as whoever brandished the weapon would obviously claim they were going to do. Good luck with that. And absent being able to do that it's not going to show up as an illegal brandishing of the weapon in the UCR, even though that's exactly what it was.
There will for the same reason be a large number of claimed uses of weapons to "scare off scary people" that were in reality nothing of the kind. But mr. gun owner will be invincibly convinced he just protected himself/his property/his family anyway because that's the fantasy world he lives in.
Controllers gotta control -- and it doesn't matter if what they do works or actually creates more problems.
I refer you, once again, to the REST OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD
It does NOT create more problems on this topic. That is extremely solidly established by real world data. Decades and continents worth of it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Which shows absolutely nothing because -- as already demonstrated -- some nations have more violence with tighter restrictions while some have laws as liberal as the US with less violence and suicide. You just choose the data that suits your agenda (which isn't personal safety).
Gun control is political toxin, it's an election loser. The only laws being passed, such as the NY SAFE Act, are passed in the dead of night and without debate because the Controllers are too scared of public scrutiny. Even when their laws are passed they are ignored by the public and law enforcement.
That is established real world data.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I assumed nothing of the kind. I simply pointed out that distinguishing good from bad after the fact in the circumstances I listed was often not feasible.
Which shows absolutely nothing because -- as already demonstrated -- some nations have more violence with tighter restrictions while some have laws as liberal as the US with less violence and suicide.
Actually you neglected to demonstrate a damn thing that remotely resembles that. Your Switzerland claim was dealt with, your Mexico claim was dealt with, and I'm still giggling at your insane "Violent crime is higher in Japan" claim.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Now that you're repeating this same line you apparently feel the need to resort to blatant dishonesty. This is why no one believes Controllers -- they have no regard for truth or integrity.
And you explained away nothing about Mexico. You noted Mexico was in the grip of a drug war. I noted that not only was the drug war evidence of the failure of prohibition laws but they are actually contributing to the very gun violence you're crying about.
I have my rights. You cannot hand-wave them away with undefined terms like "obsolete" and the more the Controllers rant at the public the more elections they lose and the more guns end up in circulation.
And yet you seem to think if you keep doing the same things over and over again, only more vigorously, things will somehow be different.
Why don't you try supporting something useful for a chance? How about shoring-up NICS, including provisions for those adjudicated as DV offenders or violently mentally ill and opening the DB to private sales? We can also work towards better mental health care and intervention programs that keep kids out of the gangs that fuel the majority of gun crimes.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Missed the clarification on your Japan claim, sorry. So all you really did was make an irrelevant claim that a society in which suicide is historically entrenched in their culture has high suicide rates and dishonestly tried to imply that had any bearing whatsoever on a discussion of gun laws. Noted.
As far as this goes however:
And you explained away nothing about Mexico. You noted Mexico was in the grip of a drug war. I noted that not only was the drug war evidence of the failure of prohibition laws but they are actually contributing to the very gun violence you're crying about.
It driving the gun violence IS THE EXPLAINING IT AWAY PART you genius. Now you just explained it away too. Congratulations.
(BTW, know where they get an awful lot of those guns? The US)
I have my rights.
Nobody said you didn't. Just argued that for this one particular right you *shouldn't*. An argument you have yet to make an effective rebuttal to.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Then you're arguing people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves by the means they judge to be best. You claim there are other means of self-defense but you have yet to make that argument despite being (somewhat) invited to do so.
YEven then, you aren't qualified to judge on the behalf of others and appealing to argumentum ad populum on an international level is still argumentum ad populum; expanding the scale does nothing to relieve the fact you are making a logical fallacy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You can't think of exhortations to kill, or even war, issued by leaders or even individuals of any sort via new communications technology? Even books? Mein Kampf probably got some people killed.
The protocols of the elders of Zion, too, has gotten people killed. Whole pogroms were enflamed by that material, printed on modern type press.
I don't think you understand civil rights.
Says you. There was no organized militia at that time. By default it was ALL unorganized. The militia was formed of the people, and required they have/be familiar with arms.
Larger crew served weapons like cannon were not held by individuals, rather belonging to the armories of towns/larger entities. That is in keeping with the classification of certain weapons of an indiscriminate nature, like grenades, as ordnance, rather than 'arms' protected under the 2nd.
The supreme court has already been all over this.
Edit: Excuse me, grenades and the like are ordnance, but the operative classification is Destructive Device, rather than 'arms'.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"You can't think of exhortations to kill, or even war, issued by leaders or even individuals of any sort via new communications technology? "
I can think of plenty.
I can't think of a one that is more deadly published on a website than in print though. Case in point:
Mein Kampf probably got some people killed.
Yeah... printed... on paper...
I don't think you understand civil rights.
Since that remark had zero connection to anything that preceded it, I'm questioning your understanding of basic logic.
Says you.
No, says the people who wrote the Militia Acts in the early days of the nation, who happened to be many of the same people who wrote the freaking Constitution. They knew exactly what they meant by well regulated militia and they spelled it right the hell out.
And it sure as hell wasn't "unorganized".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1780 and 1930. It's significant in volume and speed. Corresponding roughly to powder-fired firearms.
You realize there was a 20 shot semi-auto rifle in 1780, right? Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition. It was compressed air propelled, and very fragile, but it could kill a man just fine, 20 shots between reloads. (economically infeasible for mass production for the technology of the time.)
Your ignorance of the technological improvements in scope, scale, cost, etc for the printing press between the framing, and WWII doesn't break the connection between civil rights and the mass distribution of even distasteful or potentially inciting words.
(Arms are restricted quite heavily in the US, just not as heavily as the rest of the world, and so too is speech via hate speech/incitement laws.)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And I repeat, I have yet to encounter a single sentiment, idea, or argument that is rendered more deadly by the medium in which the words expressing it are printed. You keep ranting on about irrelevancies. Like the extremely rare existence of one kinda more deadly firearm when the 2nd was written. As if that is in any way omparable to the widespread ready availability of far MORE deadly weaponry today.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They have incrementally improved over time in accuracy, and cyclic rate. It's actually a rather nice parallel to the incitement to murder/hate via gradually improving reach and frequency with improvements to the printing press.
The comment about the Girandoni Repeating Rifle was to illustrate that the framers actually did know about what would become highly advanced high cyclic rate firearm technology.
If I might suggest a course of action, since it's not that modern firearms 'are more deadly' per se, but rather capacity and cyclic rate has semi-auto weapons challenging fully-automatic weapons in utility, repeal the Hughes Amendment. Reopen the NFA registry. Extend the registry down to include all semi-auto firearms. You get:
1. Full background checks, including fingerprints at state and federal databases.
2. Registration. (NFA weapons are registered, everything else isn't.)
3. Registration going forward for private sales. You cannot privately transfer a NFA weapon.
4. A 200$ tax stamp for each weapon, which can fund tracking, registering, checking, etc.
5. The right to inspect the owner's gun at any time to ensure they still have it. BATFE can 'check up' on NFA collections.
Gun owners get: new fully automatic weapons if they want.
Give-take. I'd register mine.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)They have incrementally improved over time in accuracy, and cyclic rate.
Let me translate that:
"They have progressively improved over the course of over 200 years in measure of lethality #1 and measure of lethality #2"
But they're not really more deadly, they're just way more developed in the characteristics of deadliness! That's an extraordinarily convincing argument you have there.
And while you can draw parallels in the sense that both have improved you are still just glossing over the bit where you draw a link between improved publication methods and LETHALITY OF THE MESSAGE>
Show me any correlation in number of lives lost from the transmission of a message vs publication capabilities of that message.
Hey, you can use the Bible as your first data point! They hand copied that thing for centuries. Practically nobody got killed as a result of those messages back in the old days right?
And since the problem is widespread absurdly easy availability of these weapons due to the saturation of the population with them, your suggested course of action which allows even greater access to more weapons would make matters worse. Yeah, at the very beginning they start out in the hands of legal gun owners... then some of them get resold, probably not all legally. some get stolen. More and more and more they filter into the criminal market because they're freaking EVERYWHERE and it can't be helped...
And then of course the inevitable reaction. OMG! Criminals have lots more guns! We need... we need... MORE GUNS! That'll fix it!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You keep saying 'more deadly' and 'lethality' as if that has anything to do with range/cyclic rate. When you say 'lethality', that corresponds to the energy delivered. Firearms capable of delivering enough energy to disrupt and kill a mammal many times larger than a human have existed for 200+ years. Please be specific in your use of terminology.
An elephant gun that can accurately reach 100 yards further than an older design isn't 'more lethal' than its predecessor. They both deliver lethal energy within supported ranges. One can simply reach a bit further. A dove load isn't 'more lethal' than regular bird shot, in fact, it can be less lethal, but it will fly farther and flatter than your standard bird load. An AR-15 is LESS lethal than its predecessor, the .30 caliber battle rifle. But it shoots faster, flatter, and further more accurately. But it delivers less energy, and is less likely to kill.
Trust me, if you have the option to choose between being shot with 7.62x51mm, and 5.56x45mm, go with the AR. It is not more lethal, even though it is more likely to hit you at 600 yards. If you have the option to choose between an adversary with a single standard mag equipped FAL, and a AR-15 with a single Beta-C mag, maybe go with the FAL and hope he runs out of ammo before he hits you, because the guy with the AR can shoot further/more accurately, and gets ~80 more shots at you before he runs dry.
Anyway, this is mostly nomenclature/semantics. You don't apparently know much about how firearms actually work. Please don't use weird terms in bad ways and pretend amusement when I try to point out problems with what you claimed. Stop mixing terms and pretending you know what you're talking about.
NFA weapons are not 'widespread absurdly easy availability'. They weren't even in 1986 when the registry was closed and new ones were made unavailable to civilians/non LEO. Adding semi-auto to NFA will choke unlawful transfers, because all levels of law enforcement will have immediate access to the last lawful owner of the weapon. A shithead straw purchaser might get away with ONE 'oh it was stolen' traceback, but that excuse wears thin quick. NOW, without NFA law enforcement has to work forward from the date of manufacture, find the point of sale's copy of the 4473, find the owner, find out how/when it was then transferred beyond his or her hands. That could be private, that could be paperwork, but it's legwork and it sucks, and at any time that person could say 'lost/stolen/sold it to some guy' and that's the end of the trail and nothing can be done. Straw purchasers move HUNDREDS of guns before they are caught even when they actually are caught at all, even after they attract attention/surveillance of the BATFE.
Under my suggestion, Unreported lost/stolen? Crime. Private transfer to 'some guy'? Crime.
Extending NFA to all semi-auto weapons solves all these problems you just complained about, except the NUMBER of weapons in circulation. Since there's enough for one for every man woman and child in the nation, it hardly matters on that score, right?
Making semi-autos NFA is a HUGE win for law enforcement. The President has already attempted to propose changes to NFA around Trusts, and received extreme outrage from the NRA/friends, so you can bet this is a course of action that will actually help.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You keep saying 'more deadly' and 'lethality' as if that has anything to do with range/cyclic rate. When you say 'lethality', that corresponds to the energy delivered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethality
"Lethality (also called deadliness or perniciousness) is how capable something is of causing death."
Energy delivered is only one parameter in that calculation.
NFA weapons are not 'widespread absurdly easy availability'.
I was referring to firearms in general (which, yes, they are) and to your proposal to increase the availability of additional types.
Under my suggestion, Unreported lost/stolen? Crime. Private transfer to 'some guy'? Crime.
Yes, and the weapons will still be out there anyway. Because first you let them get distributed all over the general population and their further dissemination in both controlled and uncontrolled manners is the inevitable consequence of doing that.
See: The entire history of the United States as compared to other developed nations.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)NFA registration MASSIVELY decreases the availability. MASSIVELY so.
1. Cost controls; increases the cost of each weapon by $200.
2. Lautenberg amendment compliance. NICS can bypass the LA because domestic violence charges can be local and misdemeanor, and don't get reported to NICS in a timely manner. If a NICS check isn't completed in a timely manner, the sale goes through. NFA background checks require you have your fingerprints collected by local LEO, it is checked against state AND federal databases, and even a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence will torpedo the sale.
3. MORE Lautenberg amendment compliance; with registration via NFA, the police know who to go collect firearms from, and have a list of firearms to collect. Impossible via NICS/currently legal registration entities that pass constitutional muster.
4. Time. NFA checks are background checks, and take time, effectively re-instating waiting periods.
5. The big kahuna; no exceptions. ALL semi-autos must be registered within a legal window, just as the original full-auto weapons had to be registered within the compliance window, or simple possession became a federal felony. That passed constitutional muster. You will take guns out of circulation via that mechanism. People who are ineligible possessors would have to surrender guns, or risk federal prison for simple possession.
It's a huge win, if it can be implemented. Let's look at it another way. Which would upset the NRA more. NFA registration of semi-autos, or say, another 10 round magazine cap. I'll be generous, let's say the mag cap was possession of 10+1, rather than manufacture, as the last ban was manufacture only. Which do you think would cause the NRA to lose it's shit more? Pick one or the other, one WILL be implemented but the NRA gets to choose. I guarantee they pick the mag cap. GUARANTEE. With bells on. If you told Wayne LaPierre you were going to restrict possession of mags to 10 rounds, he'd shit his pants with glee. If you told him you'd extend NFA to all semi-autos, he'd shit out his internal organs. It would MASSIVELY shrink the pool of gun owners and guns in the US. It would shrink the number in circulation, because lots of people would simply do buy-backs, and be done with it and to hell with granpa's gun. Mag cap ban? Hahahah we did that already. Granted it was manufacture only not possession, but all it ended up being was a money recruiting scheme for the NRA. It didn't do shit to crime.
Registration would directly impact crime, and the NFA is a way to do it.
And that's one area you don't know what you're talking about. This proposal would apply to existing guns, and would closely model control schemes in European nations that have moderate to high gun ownership, and teeny tiny amounts of firearm related crime. Like, single-digit murders per year. Yet they have rifles and silencers and all that jazz.
Anyway, back to deadliness, the previous gen of firearms before the AR's used in mass slaughters of note, were far more deadly. None of our mass killings have been at 500+ yards, save bolt-action stuff like the clocktower shooting, and that was not anything like the mayhem you are rightly concerned about today.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The supreme court has already been all over this.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)There are literally hundreds of other sovereign nations representing literally billions of humans (past and present) that find this idea to be complete hogwash.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)No it's not.
Can I walk down the street carrying my sword and axe?
No.
And these oath keeper assholes are terrifying. They are creating even more fear in an area that is a warzone if you are an African American.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What a wretched society that would be.
Really? I don't know the OKs in the picture (but neither does anyone else here) but it seems to me they aren't the ones zip-tying children. It's the heavily armed police -- you know, the ones all the gun control advocates go running to -- who are terrorizing people.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Protecting the cops? African Americans? What?
The community there obviously didn't invite them.
This is so obviously a double standard.
Rights don't go "poof." But they can and are regulated. Thus my comment about a sword and ax.
The RKBA is unequally applied both for minorities and non-firearms.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I think you mean gun control. Stop & Frisk is yet another brain child of the Controllers that disproportionately harms blacks.
Abrogating the rights of whites will not suddenly find blacks discovering newly affirmed rights. It will allow the racists to solidify their monopoly on deadly force.
The community there obviously didn't invite them.
This is so obviously a double standard.
Your personal phobias are immaterial to others exercising their rights. If anyone does something illegal then, fine, the law has reason to act but until then you're speaking from a subjective dislike rather than any matter of law. And the last I looked the protests were about blacks being killed, not over matters of law, but subjective reactions made without regard to the law.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)You have answered none of my questions. Instead babble about white 'rights.'
What about the community's rights to be free from being terrorized by white vigilanties?
What about the community's rights to be free from being terrorized by white cops?
And what 'personal phobias' are you talking about? You are making assumptions far beyond my commentary.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Which, in matters of law, accounts for approximately this much.
(I'm pinching my fingers together.)
Unless and until someone actually breaks the law you cannot have people arrested.
Would that be the same cops who would be enforcing gun control? I find it hard to take seriously a mindset that claims the disease is the cure.
BrainDrain
(244 posts)anyone who is white and has a gun (of any kind) is:
1. a Racist
2. a maniacal killer (or would-be killer) of black people
3. a right-wing screaming anti-govmint nut case
4. shouldn't have the thing in the first place
5. should have their heads examined for having the thing in the first place
I have to agree with Nuke, "Unless and until someone actually breaks the law you cannot have people arrested."
It is NOT a crime to own a gun. It is only a crime in the minds of some.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)"I find it hard to take seriously a mindset that claims the disease is the cure."
"...the disease is the cure" - the controllers may not think that this is what they are advocating, but THIS IS what they are advocating - THAT THE POLICE DISARM THE INNOCENT.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... walking through Highland Texas being left alone
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... I don't accept that your equivocation here.
Or...
Do you think openly racist blacks walking through predom white neighborhoods armed is the norm?!
tia
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)...predom white neighborhood armed and you brought up up the hpgnc
do you have a response to the question I asked ?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)African Americans exercising their 2A rights will be suppressed by the police? It's a ridiculous premise. Either the cops will suppress their rights or not, regardless of underlying opinion. Since the cops did not suppress the HPNGC perhaps it demonstrates the observation that force only respects force so we should not rush to give away our rights.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)That in and of itself should get the Oath Keepers kicked out of the area quickly.
It's not a ridiculous premise to KNOW that the 2a FOR THE MOST PART is a whites only law and blacks can NOT .. NOT openly do on a REGULAR basis (not some march in a place were a bunch of blacks already live) do the same things as whites do with firearms right now....
Including pointing them at federal agents with scopes on them... and have no negative repercussions..
That notion that there's even the semblance of equality in the what is allowed under the 2a between whites and blacks in America is laughable.... isn't reality
Ferguson is a case in point
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You seem confused about the definitions of "premise" and "to know." Your usage is comparable to those who say, "That's so funny I'm literally dying."
The 2A is not racist but gun control is; see, Dred Scott. But the 2A has been used by African Americans to defend their families from the predations of racist monsters.
So, rather than re-affirming and re-asserting the rights of African Americans to defend themselves from a racist police state the proposed solution is always to further solidify the monopoly on power for the racist police state.
That's just silly.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... blacks can't point firearms with scopes at federal agents without very negative recourse.
So, rather than re-affirming and re-asserting the rights of African Americans to defend themselves from a racist police state the proposed solution is always to further solidify the monopoly on power for the racist police state.
That's just silly.
No, not at all... just have someone in the WH that will be able to recognize that the 2A isn't implemented even handed in the US and give everyone the right to do what mostly whites are doing now (SLPC designated extremist groups carrying guns into black neighborhood protest)... which aint going to happen
Or, enforce some levels of civility when it comes to guns... right now... America HAS NO CIVILITY when it comes to guns
Also, I'm not for arming up the neighborhoods like McKinney Tx et al to protect from the few stupid cops... just vote for someone who'll do better hiring...
Have something that will shoot someone doesn't seem like the MOST progressive answer to these quandaries
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)crosses into 2A territory as well.
That should be directed to the Controllers. Never mind the refusal to engage in any substantive debate or support for GC laws that could carry consensus there's always the equating RKBA advocates to child killers and terrorists, the demands gun owners be eliminated with extreme prejudice, being told being raped is better than shooting a rapist, the incessant vile sexual insults.
The Controllers should do a lot of soul searching.
We should always give peace a chance -- but there's no reason to not have Plan B.
Although it is hard to give peace a chance if you're demanding people be forced to leave based on nothing more than the opinion of a private activist organization.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... they plug someone in Ferguson then it'll be the police, who know or should have known they were extremist, who'll be blamed
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... The people who they're supporting are assholes
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/04/23/oath-keepers-descend-upon-oregon-dreams-armed-confrontation-over-mining-dispute
Bundy... now this!?!?!
The OK at the least sound like a bunch of shit starters
BrainDrain
(244 posts)Huey P. Newton and The Black Panthers of the turbulent 60's then you know that Newton, Seale and others who wrote the Panthers manifesto openly called for for the use of violence as a tool for social change. SO when you see a bunch of folks from the HPNGC walking around with guns, then a certain amount of intimidation IS going on...so while plenty of people get accused of either passive, closet or racism through intimidation if they are white, why can't the same accusations be made against other folks, even if they happen to be black?
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... in the HPNGC not the ones in the 60s who were never openly racist either.
All ask again, would an openly hostile to white people group of armed blacks or Hispanics be able to patrol a predominantly white neighborhood with guns shown today?
No... not at all...
They'd all be killed or at the least escorted out of the area quickly
BrainDrain
(244 posts)And there are yours..which are considerably weaker.
I assume that you can read the minds of every HPNGC or OK and just KNOW that they are either a racist or not.
Nice superpower you have there.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)And you continue to make shit up as you go along.
This is classic passive/aggressive communication on your part.
A) having a bunch of heavily armed white people show up in your neighborhood in addition to a bunch of killer cops would be terrifying to any sane person. Why are these assholes even there? They can patrol their own fucking neighborhoods and strut around with their guns. But they won't, because people where they live will think that they are crazy.
B) I called for no one's arrest. I said that these guys are terrorist assholes and that they should go the fuck home. They are attempting to scare people, which is wrong. Again, they should go the fuck home.
C) what about gun control? why the problem with sensible gun control? Why not background checks? My statements about cops and gun nuts are not mutually exclusive. Both are a problem in this case.
I think your OTT RKBA rhetoric has overcome your common sense.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I mean, they're all ex-police and military and came away with a serious distrust of government power. I don't know any OKs but I know when the subject involves guns a lot of people descend into near hysterics so I'm reluctant to accept the popular narrative.
B) You call people terrorists but don't want them arrested.
And from what I can see the protesters don't seem upset or interrupted.
C) Who complained about BGCs? I have posts throughout DU speaking about shoring up and expanding NICS.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I'm done. You have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)In the last 30 years, how many African-Americans have been gunned down by white vigilantes? How many have been gunned down by police (both black and white)? How many have been gunned down by fellow blacks in their own community?
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... and brown young men are 21 times more likely to be killed by cop than whit young men (propublica)
stone space
(6,498 posts)It's supposed to sound like "homophobia".
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Etymology
Firearms authority and writer Jeff Cooper said that he coined the word in 1962 to denigrate and anger proponents of gun control by claiming that their thoughts were "aberrant" and unreasoning:
"I coined the term "hoplophobia" in 1962 in response to a perceived need for a word to describe a mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons. The most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user. This is not a reasoned position, but when you point this out to a hoplophobe he is not impressed because his is an unreasonable position. To convince a man that he is not making sense is not to change his viewpoint but rather to make an enemy. Thus hoplophobia is a useful word, but as with all words, it should be used correctly."[1]
The term was constructed from the Greek ὅπλον - hoplon, meaning, amongst other things, "arms," and φόβος - phobos, meaning "fear."[7] Cooper employed the term as just another alternative to other slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not [explain this behavior]." Cooper attributed this behavior to an irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry, with no evidence for this attribution. Cooper's conjecture was that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."[1] Writing in an opinion piece, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros said that the term was intended by Cooper as tongue-in-cheek to mock those who think guns have free will.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
It derives from the same Greek root as Hoplites, the name of the heavily armed Greek soldiers.
Claiming it is meant to sound like a slur against homosexuals is both linguistically absurd and breathtakingly hypocritical considering the delight Controllers take in using the term "ammosexual."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"personal phobias"?
WTF???
Please hide this offensive personal nonsense.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 12, 2015, 10:09 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please stop this kind of alert. It's not a personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A discussion this intricate is supposed to be closed over two words (that are civil, btw)?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope, no hide from me. Clearly both of these folks are passionate about the subject, and nothing here is a personal attack or a violation of the TOS.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)
dgibby
(9,474 posts)I'm a white gun owner, and groups like Oath Keepers scare the hell out of me.
Having said that, wonder what these assholes would do if the Black Panthers showed up carrying. Something tells me that would not end well.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)dgibby
(9,474 posts)I don't have the right to determine who or what is terrorizing the citizens there, and neither does anyone else.
pnwmom
(109,015 posts)Intimidation is their only purpose.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)holding a respectable distance but I'm not entirely prepared to call that a problem.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)They successfully asserted their rights without incident.
But, for the fifth time, even if the authorities trampled the RKBA of people of color (and in some instances, they do, i.e. Stop & Frisk) that does not abrogate the rights of others. Instead, that obligates those who affirm rights to come to the defense of those being deprived of their rights -- not expand the deprivation and certainly not by employing those who are doing the violating.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in Ferguson. If the same rights are NOT afforded to Blacks, then what do you suggest be done about it?
Do you think our Government is going to do anything about it? They've had decades, of both parties and it has only gotten worse.
Neither party has protected either the rights or the lives of AAs.
Lots of rhetoric is heard during campaigns, then nothing, until it can again be used as a political football in the next campaign.
Rights and lives ARE being taken from AAs in this society. This is a matter of urgency for our Government, THEY have the power to step in and do something, such as when the local authorities fail to deliver justice, the DOJ can step in, as they did in the Rodney King case.
Why haven't they done so? Hundreds of American citizeins, mostly AAs have been mowed down by our Civilian Police since JANUARY of THIS YEAR alone.
We are all over the world CLAIMING to be protecting American lives for a group that has not taken a single American life so far.
Yet, right under the noses of the same government making that claim American lives are being taken almost on a weekly basis and they ignore it.
The problem with saying we should give the same rights to AAs and not remove them from others is that it hasn't happened.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No one is going to save the black community except the black community and decent people who cherish rights for all. The System will not save us; The System will only save The System. The one place the system will show absolutely racial impartiality is in crushing anyone who challenges it.
People are being gunned down, sold out and pushed along with impunity by a government that, like all governments, was instituted to defend rights but has become the greatest threat to those rights. The black community is the canary in the coal mine.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)defending AAs? If protecting rights is what they base their claims on, whose rights are they talking about?
And these 'promise keepers' seems to me they are on the side of those who are taking away rights THEY claim to be protecting?? Cops seem very cozy with them too.
So is the NRA aligned with the Government to protect only the rights of Certain People?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Otis McDonald from the eponymous Chicago v McDonald that affirmed the individual RKBA, is African American -- although it was not the NRA that represented him.
Are we certain 2A advocates do not include African Americans or is this merely a supposition based on preconceptions?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to defend themselves, other groups saying the same thing, especially against the government if it is taking away those rights.
Right now there is no question, unless someone is willfully blind that there is an EMERGENCY situation regarding the Goverment's agents taking away the ULTIMATE rights of US citizens, mostly those of AAs.
You said that the people will have to resolve these issues. That is true, but the oppressed group has never been able to do that alone, they need support.
And that support should come from all those who make the claim that their very existence is to protect the rights of Americans.
I have never the NRA or any other pro-gun group come to an AA protest of police crimes against them.
IF that were to happen, then possibly there would be a chance for the people to stop the carnage being perpetrated on AAs.
I see the opposite happening if anything.
And whenever AAs HAVE chosen to arm themselves and become as militant about their rights as the NRA they don't last long.
I would think that anyone who is sincerely arguing FOR rights should be out there defending those whose rights are being taken away.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm not sure what that means for confronting the police state or environmental awareness. I'm not a member of the NRA; I can decry the police state and affirm the universal RKBA. Again, I'm not aware of the NRA not advocating on behalf of African Americans when the issue does involve gun rights but then, again, I'm not a member of the NRA.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)dgibby
(9,474 posts)Interesting, isn't it?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)and fight, tooth and nail, against even the smallest amount of reform. Fuck the gun humpers.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)different than the cops. The cops know they can get away with killing African Americans, the Oathkeeper's just wish they could.
cali
(114,904 posts)And next to the photo of the oath keeper fucks, it makes my head explode.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)...her ID says she's 18.
Doesn't change the fucked up racist police state that is Ferguson, Missouri. Just the racial disparity in treatment of the 'Oathkeepers' vs the peaceful protesters, makes my head explode. 
TYY
elias49
(4,259 posts)Then he should go home and hang up his guns, IMO.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Even if he is so cowardly that it takes a gun to make him feel tough, parading around like this is just obviously counter-productive.
demwing
(16,916 posts)should be followed up by: "that wouldn't make me look alike a hypocrite and a bigot."
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
onecaliberal
(32,934 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I watched a bit of the protests, and saw lots of people arrested for blocking traffic, which I'm ok with.
There certainly are some unlawful arrest, but I don't have any details to know if this was unlawful or not.
Also, the girl in the photo is 18. The arrest may be unlawful, it may not be. I don't know.
stone space
(6,498 posts)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)That there's no way the protesters could arm themselves to the teeth and remain unmolested, like those unwanted jerks. The law is not applied equally.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Power only respects power.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
That's a black panther protest at the California state capitol. Nobody was shot. Nobody died.
But, the gun controllers did come out in full force with their racist laws. Ronnie Raygun himself, governor at the time, worked to pass a law banning open carry in California, because the moment black people realize they have rights and can exercise them, the racists shit themselves at warp speed trying to curtail it.
Think about that. Some black people exercised their right to bear arms, no one was hurt, and Ronald Reagan himself, patriarchal Abrahamic-like god-father of the modern republican party pressed FOR gun control because the black people scared him.
I don't know if the Ferguson protestors should arm themselves or not. I tend to think they should, BUT, this is their struggle, and I am only one opinion, many miles removed from the situation.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)being "molested," in the long run.
jalan48
(13,902 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts).......not to take away the legal rights of those already exercising them.
Always interesting to see what these gun humpers do when the shoe is on the other foot.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Backed up by a whiter than white-privileged media and keeping the fear alive by insisting everyone be armed...fear of police and fear by police is so much easier with 320 million guns floating around.
If I may introduce a somewhat related topic, this purposeful media cone of silence over a massive toxic chemical river spill affecting mainly Native Americans is yet another example of how white privilege plays no favourites.
Put that spill in white suburbia and the screaming would be loud indeed.
jalan48
(13,902 posts)However, with climate change I think we will find it's really a "money" privilege over time.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)As to the gun tooters they were there for one reason and one reason only. They were a visible threat to the black community. Ferguson MO police could not use their military toys anymore because they are counterproductive but this group could come armed to the teeth to show that the white community still has the military power to end black lives.
It is totally disgusting. Cowards.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)about the spill even as I type this. Both CNN and MSNBC have been covering this almost hourly for the last 2 days. Of course, it's not getting nearly as much coverage as that loud mouth ego maniacal narcissist billionaire Repuke running for POTUS, but they are covering it. Unfortunately, they have not, afaik, interviewed any spokesmen from the First Nations, and they are the ones who will suffer the most from this disaster.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)forced to do so without offending any corporation.
I would love nothing better than to be proven wrong and massive coverage and righteous outrage to happen led by the mass media.....but I doubt it.
Not a single First Nation representative interviewed? Must be tough to find one, I guess.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)Not saying they haven't, just that I'm not aware of it.
EPA says it's their fault and that they're taking full responsibility for cleanup, etc. Time will tell, I suppose, but in the meantime, animals, crops, and people are going to suffer. What a horror show.
JEB
(4,748 posts)but to arm themselves.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Bullshit
muntrv
(14,505 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)America that they are armed and dangerous to justify the killings. The media will do that for the police. By saying this I am not saying that the killings ARE justified only that scared people will side with the police.
Stop the traffic, shut down the trains, have die-ins at capital buildings, call for a national strike. Anything but taking up arms. Live to fight another day.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Hell, you should encourage it. History suggests it opens the door for more gun control, because suddenly the racists have a vested interest in disarming someone.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Us and Them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You should consider the dame when pushing for various types of gun control when the number of legal DGU's per year (according to the USDoJ) can exceed 10x the number of firearm related homicides.
stone space
(6,498 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
malaise
(269,225 posts)Damn this planet is fucked up!!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
csziggy
(34,139 posts)And the cops are treating the Oathkeepers are their own while the black protestors are "other" and must be treated as the enemy no matter what they are doing.
Too bad the police don't realize that the sovereign Oathkeepers are a bigger danger to this country than the protestors that just want the equal rights they are granted by the Constitution.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)RW lunatics more like.
The double standard on display here is sickening.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)are pissed as shit they are there. Can't do anything about them but they pull one wrong move viola ...
So yes arresting a little girl is stupid but the cops don't want these idiots there as it makes them look bad. Which could be a good thing but like Anarchists that show up at peaceful protests. most protesters hope the anarchists don't show up.. (far far far right wing) had a discussion with one in the libertarian facebook page I eventually stopped following it because of it. he make no fucking sense. like tea party on drugs..
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)A person guilty of this offense
(1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon
(2) for the purpose of terrifying others and
(3) goes about on public highways
(4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.
NC has been an open carry state for 50+ years with no problems, in part because this law lets the police deal with troublemakers while the farmer who keeps a pistol on for snakes and wild dogs doesn't have a problem when he goes to get breakfast of a tank of gas wearing his pistol.
That's a law those in Missiouri should push to add to the books to end this kind of stuff.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because the way it is written it is tailored for just something like a Klan rally.
NC's law against wearing a mask on public roads or public property is also a direct result of the KKK.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Not all of them stuck because you have to prove every element and proving that they had the intent to cause terror in others can be iffy in front of a jury sometimes- so the DA's almost always would plead them out or drop them and hold on other charges.
pnwmom
(109,015 posts)And now the prosecutor will be prosecuting them -- WA Post and Huff Post reporters simply doing their jobs.
Why can't the police find a reason to arrest the "oath keeper" thugs?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Initech
(100,108 posts)Fuck Alex Jones and his wannabe Rambo douchebag listeners.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
And yes, fuck Alex Jones and his wannabe Rambo douchebag listeners.
Initech
(100,108 posts)Take Kansas, move everyone out, you compensate them a couple hundred dollars for their trouble. Then you put up a giant three story high electric fence around the border, and Kansas becomes a permanent prison farm for violent criminals. And you give them all the lethal weapons and live ammunition they can have, so they can communicate in a meaningful way. Then you broadcast the whole thing on cable TV. The violence network. VNN.
Paladin
(28,279 posts)Those heavily-armed, totally white Oath Keepers in Ferguson are engaged in blatant racial intimidation. If you're siding with them, you're giving aid and comfort to racists. It really is that simple. Why not admit the plain fact that Open Carry is a public relations nightmare for the one political cause you seem to care about? There's a growing number of pro-gunners admitting as much; give it a try and see how it feels.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
Moostache
(9,897 posts)Those armed morons are in Ferguson simply to be intimidating and to stir up shit. PERIOD. Their ring leader schmuck Alex Jones should be committed already. He is a menace to himself and others and he is ALWAYS wrong...Jade Helm should have made that abundantly clear.
There is no earthly reason that ANY citizen of this country needs to stroll down a public street with a loaded AR-15 assault rifle.
What is the message there?
If you believe that crime is so rampant an law enforcement so feeble that you may actually need to fight your way out of a store and back to your car....STAY THE FUCK HOME!
If you believe that roaming gangs of thieves and marauders are out to get you and a semi-auto rifle is the only answer, I offer an alternative - STAY THE FUCK HOME!
If the big bad scary world is so out of control and intimidating in your mind that the only answer is a locked and loaded, shoulder slung assault rifle, STAY THE FUCK HOME!
These asshats that get their jollies from walking around and living some kind of mercenary fantasy should be rounded up and sent to the real combat zones of the world...after all, they love guns and want to be able to carry them around, I think Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, and most of central Africa would be good places to send them. Go get a glimpse of REAL threats and REAL dangers. Then get back to me about your needs to be assholes here at home.
gordianot
(15,248 posts)After this stupid arrogant old white man stunt I would not be surprised if a chapter is formed or exists in Ferguson. This show of force will not last too long without being answered.
Not a good development but it keeps your head from being bashed in.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Learn the law.
Learn to walk right up to the edge while clearly not crossing it.
Have your group surrounding you disciplined enough to do the same.
I don't like one single thing about these guys- but they are good at what they are doing and people should learn from that. They have researched and know the laws, and are making a scene and getting loads of publicity while not actually risking arrest.
It's effective. Everybody is talking about it.
They have achieved arguably more publicity and impact than the protestors who blocked the interstate, without risking arrests or giving police a legal reason to act against them.
Hate them- but learn from the methods they use.
kpete
(72,028 posts)I just can't wrap my head around what WOULD have, COULD have happened.......
we may disagree, but
peace to you Lee-Lee
kp
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I'm saying that when you go to protest know the law, know it well (not just think what someone told you is right) and push right up against that line while not crossing it.
I don't know what she did or didn't do or why they arrested her.
But I know lots of the protesters are doing things that open the door to getting arrested. Many see that as an effective means of protest- but these morons are getting more publicity without being arrested. Because they learned the law and how to push without breaking it.
The saddest thing is that so many of these young black men and women are protesting and getting arrested and that record will hold them back in life from now on. It's not a price worth paying when you can make your point without the arrest and subsequent baggage it brings.
Rex
(65,616 posts)IF only LEO cared enough to police their own or even ask simple questions. What if she did nothing wrong and they arrested her just to harrass her? Are you okay with that? The other day you said these folks could be busted for a law they are breaking about not being real security guards...now you say they are untouchable, which one is it then?
Cops never ask questions, just drone on with what the other cops are doing. That is sad and dangerous imo.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)All I know is what you do from seeing the same picture.
Who knows what led up to it. I don't. You don't. Maybe nothing, maybe she did break the law. If it was nothing actionable than the cops need to be removed from the force and possibly charged. Given everything that is going on there I don't think they are sitting around with nothing to do saying "let's go find someone to pick on" even if they were the small percentage of officers who would even be inclined to behave like that.
Yes, they can be charged under law the for security guards but that isn't something that the average street cop can charge or enforce, it will have to come from the police commission that regulates security guards- and I hope it does. It will only apply to the ones who have openly claimed to be providing security to people or business owners, but it's hopefully a start.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I've seen cops harrass people for no good reason, I guess you never ever came accross a bad cop or would understand what one is if you did.
I am glad you are not a cop anymore, every post by you always plays CYA for cops no matter what the situation is. In some ways, your attitude is the reason cops are not trusted at all in America. Thanks for serving and thanks for quiting, we need less cops like you and more that actually will pay attention and step up to stop corrupt cops from making the others look like shit. Ones that will actually say 'bad things' about cops that deserve it.
Magic cop hotline, yet you will insist the cop is right every time. Again, thanks for quiting I hope there are no more like you joining the force.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I've seen minorities beaten for not coming anywhere near the line, much less walk right up to it. If they'd been carrying a gun while they did it, it'd would've ended even worse.
I'm white myself, but I grew up in an area that was majority Mexican immigrant, with a police force that was completely white. Every time I was out with friends, the unspoken understanding that I was the person who would speak to the police, should they take an interest in our doings. I once saw a friend slammed onto the hood of a police car and roughed up for very literally doing exactly what I'd done myself in an exchange with the police (and no, I didn't step over any line-- just asserted my rights).
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)Y'all just march right on up to that edge. Get just as close as you can. Don't worry! As long as you don't step over the line, the police will totally respect your rights.
That is monumentally laughable, but it sure isn't funny.
TeamPooka
(24,265 posts)sarisataka
(18,835 posts)Which we can support:
A- demand the police respect the rights of the protesters to peacefully assemble and allow all rights to be exercised equally according to current laws
B- have the police arrest the Oathkeepers and trample on rights equally- thus giving the "human filth", "racist police state" greater power
C- demand the police respect one right while denying another as permitted under current law - see hypocrisy
For any one who wishes to check, I am previously on record as being generally opposed to open carry, specifically opposed to open carry in protest activities but allow that it is not illegal in many places.
gordianot
(15,248 posts)...than those without firearms. Open carry and concealed carry at protests, political events is a recipe for disaster that has been proven again and again. This sad episode has made a statement and will be copied. The day is coming opposing armed civilian faction will show up in the protest. Unbelievable and the politicians made it possible. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and worse income mal-distribution. Ticking time bomb for a civil war.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)onecaliberal
(32,934 posts)Where the hell is Dept of Justice? The governor? These ppl clearly are NOT citizens of this city.
Paladin
(28,279 posts)Worth pulling up, just to see the pointed and hilarious comments from pro-gun groups (Bearing Arms, Gun Free Zone) demanding that the Oath Keepers put the AR's back in their trucks, shuck off all of that camo, and leave the residents of Ferguson alone.