Gun Control

[BigBallinStalin]

Which is why lying and/or discreet communication can be acceptable.

[Woodruff]

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/eagle-scout-facing-expulsion-over-gun-charge.html

This is exactly the sort of thing that Juan and I are talking about in the thread about felonies. This belongs there more than here. This isn't a gun-control issue in any way, in my opinion. Not in the least. He clearly broke the law.

While it very much IS A SERIOUS THING that he left his gun in his truck while at school, and there absolutely needs to be some punishment for it, it should not be a felony, and IF the young man has not had any other serious problems at the school behavior-wise, this should be nothing more than a good healthy suspension. I hate zero-tolerance rules.

[Phatscotty]

Chicago's gun control is a reactionary movement to it's high crime rate, which is a result of....

....which is a result of Progressive policies...

[Phatscotty]

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/eagle-scout-facing-expulsion-over-gun-charge.html

we know what you're up to Woodruff

[Woodruff]

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/eagle-scout-facing-expulsion-over-gun-charge.html

we know what you're up to Woodruff

Honestly, I don't think you have the first understanding of my view of almost anything we've ever discussed. No, that's not right, actually...I think you DO understand it fairly well, but you want to mischaracterize my positions because you recognize you have nothing else going for you. Otherwise, you'd actually try to support your points in a real way and respond to the conversations meaningfully.

Aren't you the one that seems to whine so much that I only post about you and never about the issues? I think the problem isn't me, Phatscotty...try to be honest with yourself for a change.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is exactly the sort of thing that Juan and I are talking about in the thread about felonies. This belongs there more than here. This isn't a gun-control issue in any way, in my opinion. Not in the least. He clearly broke the law.

While it very much IS A SERIOUS THING that he left his gun in his truck while at school, and there absolutely needs to be some punishment for it, it should not be a felony, and IF the young man has not had any other serious problems at the school behavior-wise, this should be nothing more than a good healthy suspension. I hate zero-tolerance rules.

Seconded.
I can understand wanting to get the police involved, but I can't see a reason to. Someone in the office was eavesdropping, or he wasn't being too discreet because he didn't know what a big deal it was. Either way, dangerous thugs do not call their moms to come and remove a gun from their truck.

Chicago's gun control is a reactionary movement to it's high crime rate, which is a result of....

....which is a result of Progressive policies...

That's a pretty poor choice for a jpeg for you to post phatscotty, considering that GOP-leaning states are the poorest and worst educated. But I've got a few jpegs that are on-topic.

Report: States with weaker gun laws have more gun violence.





There seems to be a correlation between the states that vote Republican, are the most rabid about 'gun rights,' and the states where people shoot each other the most. The correlation being that they're largely the same.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's what they said when they offered a treaty to my ancestors.

You would think that a person who is aware of what happened to the Native Americans wouldn't be so quick to disarm today's population.

Violence-fueled treason almost always results in a Dictatorship, or military junta, whereas peaceful revolutions typically result in a Democratic form of government. Look it up.

Also, Native Americans, like my Grandmother's Chippewa Peoples, were a militarily defeated people. More guns wouldn't have saved them, because they were defeated by superior numbers and technology. That's probably a good lesson for you to think about when you're talking about how you need a pistol to attack Obama. The Native Americans started out armed, and they were still massacred in the federal government's ongoing program to exterminate them. Like them, you're going to start out armed as well, but unlike them, you're no warrior with training. If you attacked Washington you'd be cut to pieces faster than they ever were. But your state militia with rights to own whatever weapons they like, would probably hold it's own, like it did in the Civil War.
Some tribes, like my grandmother's, were taken to Washington DC or to military forts to show them the futility of fighting back. My grandmother's tribe saw the wisdom in this, and it saved them from annihilation. When the Wisconsin State Militia from Dodgeville or wherever else pointed their cannons at the Chippewa, they gave up without a fight. So the "2nd Amendment Rights!" Constitutional side of this war is the one that murdered the Natives off and took everything that they had. More guns would not have helped them at all. Under your precious 2nd Amendment, the Militias that you know nothing about were armed by the state and hunted the Indians down. I know this isn't flowing well, but goddamn that. You're so unaware of anything but your own hubris. Your side killed all the Indians and stole their lands, now you're using their image as propaganda to protect your "rights" that under the Constitution you denied them in the first place. You ignorant bastards.
That said, the founding fathers also disarmed and enslaved African Americans for decades as well! They could not be a part of a Militia until the Civil War broke out, and so they couldn't carry a gun until the Civil War. They couldn't be a part of the State Militia because the State Militia's were in charge of hunting them as well.

So to recap -

- The Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution to protect Native Americans
- The Founding Fathers did not intend for the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution to apply to African Americans
- The Founding Father's intended for the Constitution to suppress Natives and Africans.

-To be fair Washington and Adam's at least wanted some form of congress with the Native Tribes living in the territory of the United States. So that was good.


You're so ignorant of your own history that it's making me angry. Don't wave that stupid redneck-ignoramus billboard crap in front of the grandson of a real American. You don't know anything about what your guns have done. All you know is you love guns.

[Phatscotty]

Juan, that's not correct. Your personal feelings of racial hatred (as with so many other Progressives) do not dictate history. We also know what taking away guns from people has done.

In the late 1700's, the population of free (gun owning) African Americans in Boston and New York was 15%. And you should also know that many Native Americans joined forces with both the Americans and the English, for different reasons. Do you think the guns they used fell out of the air as a personal gift from an invisible Sky Daddy?

Our founding fathers stood side by side in arms with African Americans and Native Americans, and they fought together and gave their lives for each other in the universal struggle for Freedom and Liberty.

Look to and strive for love and unity, not racial division and hatred.

[AndyDufresne]

Our founding fathers stood side by side in arms with African Americans and Native Americans, and they fought together and gave their lives for each other in the universal struggle for Freedom and Liberty.

The history is magical place. It is what you want it to be!


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Our founding fathers stood side by side in arms with African Americans and Native Americans, and they fought together and gave their lives for each other in the universal struggle for Freedom and Liberty.

The history is magical place. It is what you want it to be!


--Andy

Would you say there were no African Americans or Native Americans who served in the US militias, the Continental Army?

Do you think Crispus Attucks just happened to be an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time at the Boston Massacre?

Do you doubt that in our Declaration of Independence "ALL men are created equal" struck a cord with ALL men?

[Symmetry]

Do you doubt that in our Declaration of Independence "ALL men are created equal" struck a cord with ALL men?

Didn't seem to stick if it did strike one.

[Phatscotty]

Do you doubt that in our Declaration of Independence "ALL men are created equal" struck a cord with ALL men?

Didn't seem to stick if it did strike one.

It's not a machine with an on off switch Symm.

....but yeah you are right. Nothing has stuck in over 200 years. Nothing at all. Everything is exactly the same.

[Woodruff]

Report: States with weaker gun laws have more gun violence.





There seems to be a correlation between the states that vote Republican, are the most rabid about 'gun rights,' and the states where people shoot each other the most. The correlation being that they're largely the same.

Nebraska's pretty Republican-natured, very conservative and pretty rabid about "gun rights", yet they seem to not have a whole lot of the gun violence you're referencing.

[Woodruff]

Do you doubt that in our Declaration of Independence "ALL men are created equal" struck a cord with ALL men?

Since you mention it, I sincerely doubt that you want it to apply to everyone.

[Woodruff]

Do you doubt that in our Declaration of Independence "ALL men are created equal" struck a cord with ALL men?

Didn't seem to stick if it did strike one.

It's not a machine with an on off switch Symm.

....but yeah you are right. Nothing has stuck in over 200 years. Nothing at all. Everything is exactly the same.

You can thank progressives for many of the good outcomes. Probably not all of them, but conservatives tend to, by nature, not be ones to push for a lot of change.

[Phatscotty]

There seems to be a correlation between the states that vote Republican, are the most rabid about 'gun rights,' and the states where people shoot each other the most. The correlation being that they're largely the same.

While the evidence clearly confirms the red states have very deep blue cities, which is where all the gun violence comes from in those red states. But I'll guess you'll keep seeing what you want to see.

[Woodruff]

There seems to be a correlation between the states that vote Republican, are the most rabid about 'gun rights,' and the states where people shoot each other the most. The correlation being that they're largely the same.

While the evidence clearly confirms the red states have very deep blue cities, which is where all the gun violence comes from in those red states. But I'll guess you'll keep seeing what you want to see.

You're the one "seeing what you want to see". It's not in any way surprising that there would be more gun violence in a city than in the country. It's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of people. But don't let that stop you from creating the boogey-man you think will help you rail against the devil Democrats which you helped to put into the office of the Presidency.

[Phatscotty]

There seems to be a correlation between the states that vote Republican, are the most rabid about 'gun rights,' and the states where people shoot each other the most. The correlation being that they're largely the same.

While the evidence clearly confirms the red states have very deep blue cities, which is where all the gun violence comes from in those red states. But I'll guess you'll keep seeing what you want to see.

You're the one "seeing what you want to see". It's not in any way surprising that there would be more gun violence in a city than in the country. It's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of people. But don't let that stop you from creating the boogey-man you think will help you rail against the devil Democrats which you helped to put into the office of the Presidency.

It's nothing about what I want anything. The point here is something Juan Bottom said. Try to pay attention

He is saying the gun deaths happen in red states. I showed him how while yes they are in red states, they are in the blue cities. So to the only relevant and non drivelling part of your post, of course there are more shootings in the city than in the country (brilliant contribution there!). That doesn't have anything to do with Juan's assertion that red areas have more gun violence, and everything to do with stating the fact that even in the red states, where there are by far the most shootings, it's solid blue.

[Juan_Bottom]

Nobody else wants to jump in here?

Alright.

In the late 1700's, the population of free (gun owning) African Americans in Boston and New York was 15%.

-Massachusetts was the first slave holding colony. It's Body of Liberties specifically legalized the ownership of Whites, Indians, and Blacks.
-In the 1650s Massachusetts specifically forbid Indians and Blacks from owning guns or training with the military.
-in the 1700s it was among the first states to ban slavery.
-Blacks were not allowed by Congress to be part of any state Militia until 1862, but with half the pay of whites. There may be one or two who snuck under the radar, I don't know. The Militia Act of 1792 had forcibly conscripted soldiers for state militias, but confided the conscription to whites only.

-I find that 15% number to be pretty irrelevant, given that it's from 1 city and 1 state, both with very large populations. I can't find it anywhere. What was the population of free gun-owning blacks in the whole country? Certainly Jim Crow in the South Denied blacks the right to own a gun.

And you should also know that many Native Americans joined forces with both the Americans and the English, for different reasons. Do you think the guns they used fell out of the air as a personal gift from an invisible Sky Daddy?

As I twice said, Native Americans already had guns. They were a militarily defeated people.
As civilization spread west, so did disarming laws. But like the Emancipation, those laws did nothing unless the people were already beaten by the Army/Militia. So by that point, their need for defense guns was practically obsolete.

Our founding fathers stood side by side in arms with African Americans and Native Americans, and they fought together and gave their lives for each other in the universal struggle for Freedom and Liberty.

450,000 Africans were enslaved (20% of the population of the nation) when the war broke out. Of those, 100,000, at least, fled to the English during the Revolutionary War. Of those who stayed, 5,000 served in varying capacities with the Colonists (American had a population of 2.4 million). Some of them weren't even from America. So what is that, like 3% of all Blacks already here fought for America? Many of whom were following the promise of freedom for service. That sounds less like Blacks were fighting for ideals, and more like they were fighting for their own freedom.
But anyway, they did not come serve equally in the different colonies, as they were treated differently in each of the colonies. In fact, it was only after continuous defeats that George Washington allowed Negroes to serve in his army, because he was running out of men to command. Many of those who served were slaves, and they were promised freedom. After the war was over, many of them were sent back into slavery, and President Washington received letters from those re-enslaved until he died, asking him to intervene. That SOB ignored them all.
Universal struggle for freedom and liberty my ass.

The deal here, is that America wasn't yet a nation with a long history of actions, and it was crying some high principles, at least in the North. Some blacks took Northerners at their word, and believed in that freedom and equality... they wanted to believe in it. Having seen American hospitality, many more chose to believe in the freedom the British were promising. But! after the war ended, those who stayed here didn't get their just dessert. A similar thing happened to the Californians before the Mexican-American War. The land-owning Californians considered separating from Mexico and becoming citizens of the United States, then the Americans told them that Mexican-Americans would have no Constitutional Rights. Then we took the land for themselves by force.

Do you think Crispus Attucks just happened to be an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time at the Boston Massacre?

No, he was a historical fluke. That's why we remember him. Kinda like all those African-Americans who served in the Confederate Army. Or John Brown. Or Roger Williams.

Do you doubt that in our Declaration of Independence "ALL men are created equal" struck a cord with ALL men?

It did. But it was not honored to all men. Or to women.

Would you say there were no African Americans or Native Americans who served in the US militias, the Continental Army?

Until the Civil War, I'd say it was a negligible amount when compared to the number who didn't serve.

Look to and strive for love and unity, not racial division and hatred.

No. Accept your history for what it is.
Then, try to keep the promises of compassion and equality that our grandfathers wouldn't.

[Phatscotty]

Tell me, what are the circumstances of that person hanging there that you are now exploiting? Is it really just "Muricah"? end of discussion?

How is it that you get "no man will ever be killed again" as some kind of argument against "all men are created equal"?

[Symmetry]

Nobody else wants to jump in here?

Alright.

In the late 1700's, the population of free (gun owning) African Americans in Boston and New York was 15%.

-Massachusetts was the first slave holding colony. It's Body of Liberties specifically legalized the ownership of Whites, Indians, and Blacks.
-In the 1650s Massachusetts specifically forbid Indians and Blacks from owning guns or training with the military.
-in the 1700s it was among the first states to ban slavery.
-Blacks were not allowed by Congress to be part of any state Militia until 1862, but with half the pay of whites. There may be one or two who snuck under the radar, I don't know. The Militia Act of 1792 had forcibly conscripted soldiers for state militias, but confided the conscription to whites only.

-I find that 15% number to be pretty irrelevant, given that it's from 1 city and 1 state, both with very large populations. I can't find it anywhere. What was the population of free gun-owning blacks in the whole country? Certainly Jim Crow in the South Denied blacks the right to own a gun.

And you should also know that many Native Americans joined forces with both the Americans and the English, for different reasons. Do you think the guns they used fell out of the air as a personal gift from an invisible Sky Daddy?

As I twice said, Native Americans already had guns. They were a militarily defeated people.
As civilization spread west, so did disarming laws. But like the Emancipation, those laws did nothing unless the people were already beaten by the Army/Militia. So by that point, their need for defense guns was practically obsolete.

Our founding fathers stood side by side in arms with African Americans and Native Americans, and they fought together and gave their lives for each other in the universal struggle for Freedom and Liberty.

450,000 Africans were enslaved (20% of the population of the nation) when the war broke out. Of those, 100,000, at least, fled to the English during the Revolutionary War. Of those who stayed, 5,000 served in varying capacities with the Colonists (American had a population of 2.4 million). Some of them weren't even from America. So what is that, like 3% of all Blacks already here fought for America? Many of whom were following the promise of freedom for service. That sounds less like Blacks were fighting for ideals, and more like they were fighting for their own freedom.
But anyway, they did not come serve equally in the different colonies, as they were treated differently in each of the colonies. In fact, it was only after continuous defeats that George Washington allowed Negroes to serve in his army, because he was running out of men to command. Many of those who served were slaves, and they were promised freedom. After the war was over, many of them were sent back into slavery, and President Washington received letters from those re-enslaved until he died, asking him to intervene. That SOB ignored them all.
Universal struggle for freedom and liberty my ass.

The deal here, is that America wasn't yet a nation with a long history of actions, and it was crying some high principles, at least in the North. Some blacks took Northerners at their word, and believed in that freedom and equality... they wanted to believe in it. Having seen American hospitality, many more chose to believe in the freedom the British were promising. But! after the war ended, those who stayed here didn't get their just dessert. A similar thing happened to the Californians before the Mexican-American War. The land-owning Californians considered separating from Mexico and becoming citizens of the United States, then the Americans told them that Mexican-Americans would have no Constitutional Rights. Then we took the land for themselves by force.

Do you think Crispus Attucks just happened to be an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time at the Boston Massacre?

No, he was a historical fluke. That's why we remember him. Kinda like all those African-Americans who served in the Confederate Army. Or John Brown. Or Roger Williams.

Do you doubt that in our Declaration of Independence "ALL men are created equal" struck a cord with ALL men?

It did. But it was not honored to all men. Or to women.

Would you say there were no African Americans or Native Americans who served in the US militias, the Continental Army?

Until the Civil War, I'd say it was a negligible amount when compared to the number who didn't serve.

Look to and strive for love and unity, not racial division and hatred.

No. Accept your history for what it is.
Then, try to keep the promises of compassion and equality that our grandfathers wouldn't.

He'll just ignore the post.

[Phatscotty]

Let me try to think like you do.

"OH YEAH? Well here is a white person being hung. Your argument has been debunked!"

[Woodruff]

There seems to be a correlation between the states that vote Republican, are the most rabid about 'gun rights,' and the states where people shoot each other the most. The correlation being that they're largely the same.

While the evidence clearly confirms the red states have very deep blue cities, which is where all the gun violence comes from in those red states. But I'll guess you'll keep seeing what you want to see.

You're the one "seeing what you want to see". It's not in any way surprising that there would be more gun violence in a city than in the country. It's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of people. But don't let that stop you from creating the boogey-man you think will help you rail against the devil Democrats which you helped to put into the office of the Presidency.

It's nothing about what I want anything. The point here is something Juan Bottom said. Try to pay attention.

I am paying attention. Thus the point I made regarding you seeing what you want to see. You see, just because you don't like a point I make doesn't mean you get to just ignore it or pretend it doesn't matter or act like it's not there.

He is saying the gun deaths happen in red states. I showed him how while yes they are in red states, they are in the blue cities. So to the only relevant and non drivelling part of your post, of course there are more shootings in the city than in the country (brilliant contribution there!). That doesn't have anything to do with Juan's assertion that red areas have more gun violence, and everything to do with stating the fact that even in the red states, where there are by far the most shootings, it's solid blue.

It counters your point that the reason more shootings happen is because they're "blue". Try to ignore politics for a moment and pretend you're able to think for yourself.

[Phatscotty]

To the rest of the people following along, as relevant to this thread and the topic of gun control, there is one thing all people hanging at the end of a rope have in common.

They were not able to protect themselves from a mob,regardless of their race

[Juan_Bottom]

It's nothing about what I want anything. The point here is something Juan Bottom said. Try to pay attention

He is saying the gun deaths happen in red states. I showed him how while yes they are in red states, they are in the blue cities. So to the only relevant and non drivelling part of your post, of course there are more shootings in the city than in the country (brilliant contribution there!). That doesn't have anything to do with Juan's assertion that red areas have more gun violence, and everything to do with stating the fact that even in the red states, where there are by far the most shootings, it's solid blue.

No he's right.
The Republicans at the state level set the laws for gun control.
The Democrats in the city have to live with those laws, or lack of laws.

Therefore, gun violence falls on the state Republican government.

This could also be seen as people reacting to the lack of empathy by the state legislatures and supporting Democrats in the hope that they will be able to pass stable gun laws. I don't know. But I do know that the state government overrides the city government, except in corrupt states.

Let me try to think like you do.

"Here is a white person being hung. Your argument has been debunked"

Those are two blacks being lynched by whites. Again this shows how Black Americans had no Constitutional Rights, even after Emancipation.
Seriously, if you can find a picture of a black mob lynching a white person you will win 100 Internets.

Blacks weren't extended the right to defend themselves until after the 1960s. Black gun ownership is a new thing in American history. Just accept the truth.