The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
Didn't see to many white rioters at the L.A. riots when I worked them. Just an observation.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I don't usually use it but this is a classic strawman and you know it.
2A is a check on the power of the government and military. It's a deterrent against the government's use of force not a means to overthrow a regime forcibly. You know this but you can't help yourself from attempting to hide your argument since it's a bit much to come out and say, "I want the state to have an unchecked monopoly on the use of force."
The state does have an unchecked monopoly on the big stuff. I don't want to ban all guns. I've said that before.
And so? No one is arguing for 2A to apply to nuclear weapons so what's your point? They have big stuff so an armed populace isn't a deterrent? Sure.gif
Yes, we've established you only want the "right people" to have guns. Like loyal party members in the colectivos.
I thought for a minute you wanted a reasoned conversation. Carry on!
I don't really believe you ever are attempting a conversation in good faith. That's kind of the point I've been making even if it sailed over your head.
If you are actually curious and actually want to know why this is a complex and not a black and white issue I refer you to Swaye's poast and expertise on guns.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
No, you made a claim that poor whites are more dangerous than poor blacks. You've provided nothing in support of that crap. Do you agree that there are more poor whites than poor blacks? Yes or no.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
No, you made a claim that poor whites are more dangerous than poor blacks. You've provided nothing in support of that crap. Do you agree that there are more poor whites than poor blacks? Yes or no.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
How pussy of me to have answered a question about "do you feel safer in white neighborhoods or black neighborhoods" with a statement about where I feel safer.
I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what you were reading.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
Ak-47s are fully automatic. The relatively small number that exist legally in the country are heavily regulated.
Last I heard, the shooter got his legally. What did he have to go through to get it?
Who had an AK-47?
What kind of gun did the El Paso shooter have?
Digging through several ambiguous articles, it appears he had a semi-auto AK variant made in Romania. Most reporters have very little knowledge of firearms or firearms law. You'll probably take that as a political statement, but it's not.
And I don't know shit about guns, which is why I would want to talk to people who do.
That's good. The distinction above may seem trivial to you, but at the intersection of technical and legal, it's very important. Fully automatic weapons were first regulated in 1934, and then again in 1968 and 1986. There's a lot of them legally owned in the country but they are frightfully expensive, and even paperwork oversights can result in serious legal trouble. If you see a story cite use of a AK-47, AK-74, a M-16 or a M-4 in shooting, it is almost certainly wrong as those are regulated machine guns. Legally owned machine guns are almost never used in a crime, and even illegal or illegally modified machine guns. Only one I can think of off hand is the Hollywood bank robbery in the 90s, and even then I think they illegally modified semis to full auto.
Broadly speaking, typical reporters at outlets that get any kind of coverage have very little understanding of firearms. The next most misunderstood topics would probably be mainstream Christianity and finance. For whatever reason, it's self selecting with among those that go into journalism. I know that group, and actually specifically in a couple cases.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
No, you made a claim that poor whites are more dangerous than poor blacks. You've provided nothing in support of that crap. Do you agree that there are more poor whites than poor blacks? Yes or no.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what you were reading.
I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a 13 year old girl who believes her feelings trump the facts. And of course you still dodge the questions I put to you.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
Ak-47s are fully automatic. The relatively small number that exist legally in the country are heavily regulated.
Last I heard, the shooter got his legally. What did he have to go through to get it?
Who had an AK-47?
What kind of gun did the El Paso shooter have?
Digging through several ambiguous articles, it appears he had a semi-auto AK variant made in Romania. Most reporters have very little knowledge of firearms or firearms law. You'll probably take that as a political statement, but it's not.
And I don't know shit about guns, which is why I would want to talk to people who do.
That's good. The distinction above may seem trivial to you, but at the intersection of technical and legal, it's very important. Fully automatic weapons were first regulated in 1934, and then again in 1968 and 1986. There's a lot of them legally owned in the country but they are frightfully expensive, and even paperwork oversights can result in serious legal trouble. If you see a story cite use of a AK-47, AK-74, a M-16 or a M-4 in shooting, it is almost certainly wrong as those are regulated machine guns. Legally owned machine guns are almost never used in a crime, and even illegal or illegally modified machine guns. Only one I can think of off hand is the Hollywood bank robbery in the 90s, and even then I think they illegally modified semis to full auto.
Broadly speaking, typical reporters at outlets that get any kind of coverage have very little understanding of firearms. The next most misunderstood topics would probably be mainstream Christianity and finance. For whatever reason, it's self selecting with among those that go into journalism. I know that group, and actually specifically in a couple cases.
All true. Nothing is misrepresented as badly in this country as guns and statistics about guns. Shameful really.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
No, you made a claim that poor whites are more dangerous than poor blacks. You've provided nothing in support of that crap. Do you agree that there are more poor whites than poor blacks? Yes or no.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what you were reading.
I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a 13 year old girl who believes her feelings trump the facts. And of course you still dodge the questions I put to you.
It was literally a question about one's feelings.
Just take responsibility for not being able to follow a thread.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
I blathered a length about this in some other shitty thread. An armed citizenry dramatically raises the cost of tyrannical action.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
I blathered a length about this in some other shitty thread. An armed citizenry dramatically raises the cost of tyrannical action.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
Varies by state and locality. Damned near impossible in a few, walk up to the counter in other places. I've never found good numbers for how many ARs are out there, but I think it's safe to say several million.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
No, you made a claim that poor whites are more dangerous than poor blacks. You've provided nothing in support of that crap. Do you agree that there are more poor whites than poor blacks? Yes or no.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what you were reading.
I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a 13 year old girl who believes her feelings trump the facts. And of course you still dodge the questions I put to you.
It was literally a question about one's feelings.
Just take responsibility for not being able to follow a thread.
Then why even ask about crime rate statistics? You weren't making an argument based upon facts you were emoting and stating your feelings.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
Varies by state and locality. Damned near impossible in a few, walk up to the counter in other places. I've never found good numbers for how many ARs are out there, but I think it's safe to say several million.
And that's what I'm reading too. That it could be a very easy, same day process, depending on where you are. That seems nuts to me.
Comments
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
If you are actually curious and actually want to know why this is a complex and not a black and white issue I refer you to Swaye's poast and expertise on guns.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what you were reading.
Maybe next time.
Broadly speaking, typical reporters at outlets that get any kind of coverage have very little understanding of firearms. The next most misunderstood topics would probably be mainstream Christianity and finance. For whatever reason, it's self selecting with among those that go into journalism. I know that group, and actually specifically in a couple cases.
Just take responsibility for not being able to follow a thread.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.