Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
complete nonsense. your numbers game is based on false premises that good people having lots of guns is a problem. and your calls for gun control are based on your dislike of the politics of the people you perceive to be gun owners. and when we ask you what would be "effective gun control" you don't answer with solutions to criminals or nutcases getting guns but you want stuff that harasses law abiding gun owners-which of course is the goal of those who push gun control for political paybacks
your comments about the NRA is the standard nonsense from ban guns inc-trying to pretend the NRA is a spokesman for the gun industry--this is both false and the standard talking point of the brady bunch etc
And there's the problem - what liberals (and the governments and populations of every other first-world democracy on the planet) see as common sense - required registration, required safety training, restriction of firearms and magazines that have no purpose in the civilian community - YOU see as "harassment"...
...never mind that in EVERY first-world democracy around the world today, where that "harassment" is found, the society is MUCH less violent...and far fewer innocent people are murdered. Pick a first-world democracy - ANY first-world democracy - other than America, and what do you find? That it's a heck of a lot SAFER to walk down the streets at night than it is in America...
...and this holds true even in nations with significantly larger Muslim populations than our own (for those Islamophobes out there).
But I forget - going through even a little bureaucratic hassle to legally own guns is TYRANNYYYYYYY!!!!! But if thousands more innocent men, women, and children die because we've got more guns than people in America, well, THAT's quite acceptable, 'cause freedom, y'know!
'I forgive you, my family forgives you,' Anthony Thompson, a relative of Myra Thompson, told him. 'But... take this opportunity to repent. Repent. Confess. Give your life to the one that matters the most - Christ - so that he can change you and change your ways no matter what happened to you, and you'll be OK. Do that and you'll be better off than you are right now.'
What's coming out is that he is a white supremist with an addiction to opiates. He was on a drug meant to wean him off the opiates....however one of the side effects of the drug is violent behavior,
More bigoted nonsense. You're right, I did say there's no connection to political ideology - there isn't, at this point in time - to suggest there is, is simply your attempt to make it political so that, as usual, the left can hammer away at conservatives as ideologically racist. People on the right, such as myself, simply dismiss you as a bigot when we see and hear such statements as yours. You talk about modern conservatism and then talk about the 1950s and 60s - geeze.
If and when it becomes clear that this 21yr old was somehow steeped in conservative politics and had some grand master plan to rid the world of liberals, then I'll admit to it. Until then, I'm not playing your game. What we know is that this young man was/is a racist and this young man had issues with black men having relationships with white women. Some have speculated that he experienced a black man taking away a white girl he liked - I don't know - but clearly from what we've seen he had a great deal of unnatural animus towards black people.
The family got to have their words heard by the killer at the bail meeting.
This is one snippet of a family member:
These people are heads and shoulders above me. I could never be this civilized. But I am trying.
Charleston shooting victim
Nixon was for gun control
Bush 1 was for gun control
Reagan was for gun control
All major GOP heroes.
In point of fact, if it weren't for the Emancipation Proclamation (which was deeply unpopular in the North anyway), the Union wouldn't have much of any "moral high ground" with regards to race over the Confederacy at all.
You haven't proposed any solutions.
What are you saying the problem is?
For the record, if you keep replying and not saying anything we aren't going to get anywhere. You are making claims, but you are refusing to actually discuss it. Explain what you are saying and why you think it will work.
Just when I thought the far Left couldnt get any dumber :doh
This may be true for some of the people but more importantly,(and maybe you could lend your expertise here), how do you think this will be received by the Equus africanus asinus population?You're neglecting the fact that SC and the rest of the Deep South are still vehemently racist. The guy didn't start a race war; a race war already exists in that part of the country.
Despite the image SC officials are trying to portray to the rest of the country, the perp who shot up the church will be hailed as a hero by most of the Whites living in SC.
Just when I thought the far Left couldnt get any dumber :doh
The language of the Second Amendment is quite clear. I don't think it applies in other countries.
Do I need to type slower?
You can't propose solutions if you can't recognize the problem.
salon and mother jones and DU exist to make radical lefties look reasonable compared to these kook sites
actually everyone knows what the problems are. liberals who want to punish gun owners with gun bans or other stupid restrictions pretend that guns are the problem but never have any rational solutions. the reason why is that solving or preventing crime is only a pre textual motivation. the real motivation is to punish people for their politics.
Yes, the SA is quite clear indeed...and the obvious context of the first clause - the preparatory clause which sets the context of the entirety of the Amendment, particularly in view of the political issues and debates of the time over whether we should have an army at all or instead simply rely upon militias - is flatly ignored by the modern gun-rights lobby.
I really don't want to debate it - not because I can't prove my point to my satisfaction, but because every such debate I've seen devolves into what I can only liken to a religious debate over Biblical texts wherein with rhetorical tap-dancing, one side will obfuscate or flatly ignore the obvious text and the context thereof. Why? Because that side absolutely must at all costs protect its beliefs, its dogma.
And so it is with the SA - to modern gun-rights enthusiasts, the obvious context of the preparatory clause and the politics of the time in which it was written must be ignored, or at a minimum, twisted in order to protect their beliefs, their dogma. It's a religious debate in form, if not in function.
And that's why I really do try to stay out of SA debates - they're a waste of time and effort.
Gosh. It must be so hard to always be a victim.
Okay, thanks for clarifyingLOL, you didn't read the article before you posted that, did you?
That's what it is about- that the right seeks to blame Muslims or blacks in general when individual Muslims or blacks do something horrible, but the right doesn't apply the same approach to whites. The headline, and the subtitle, are mocking right wing headlines about black and Muslim acts. For example "where are the white fathers" is one of the subtitles, which is a play on a Fox editorial "where are the black fathers" and so on
For all of you that are a little slow on the uptake... he intended to start a race war by shooting blacks, which would never work, but, ironically, Obama condemns his actions, yet has done more than this guy could ever dream to increase racial tensions and make things tougher for the black community.
I wonder if Obama allowed himself a little... nah.
I am well armed, I take measures against being a victim. what exactly does that comment have to do with this thread? Have you come up with any suggested changes in the law that would have prevented this massacre?
I am well armed, I take measures against being a victim. what exactly does that comment have to do with this thread? Have you come up with any suggested changes in the law that would have prevented this massacre?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?