|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 31 2018 04:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:55 Plansix wrote:
Note the style of argument here. The demand for a shared understanding of facts and a refusal to answer basic questions are both tactics. It puts all the power of the discussion into the hands of one party attempting to maintain the status quote. While also forcing labor onto the opposing parties, requiring them to put forth facts to be approved of or denied, with zero assurances that all the facts will be agreed up ever. You see this in other debates about intractable topics like immigration. No immigration reform until the vague goal of “securing the boarder” is obtained. It is an effort to appear reasonable and open to discussion, while preserving the right to walk away claiming the other party has not fulfilled it’s half of the agreement(which they never agreed to). Folks might need to consider if this argument is in good faith, or if they are just being forced to put in a lot of effort with little to gain. This seems very accurate, I'm not trying to play 4 d chess, I'm trying to understand the other side(s). I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the 0 guns, I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the various levels of gun reforms and bans. I have no understand of the don't change anything side. I mean Arms alone have changed a crazy amount.
if the goal is understanding; one shouldn't focus on the logic of the position, especially for the more extreme segments.
I wish I had some good suggestions; I know for some other topics there's good reads which help you understand where their viewpoint comes from/what they're thinking (like that book hillbilly elegy), but I don't know of one on the gun topic.
|
On August 31 2018 04:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:39 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:35 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 02:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:49 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
My preference simply isn’t on that list. I could live with certain exchanges for something in the realm of constitutional amendment of “shall issue” carry permits. I won’t stomach a single ban listed except for bump stocks on its own.
I disagree that the two sides argue like E and F. Gun control advocates pretend the history isn’t unilaterally in increased regulation regardless of efficacy and impact. Gun rights/civil rights proponents know the ignorance and emotion on the issue cloud any progress for the time being. The E & F argument is a gross oversimplification for how contentious the fight is.
So please, do away with “people think” unless you’re bringing up polls of the non push-poll variety. All of the options were a gross simplification, that was kind of the point to not get into the weeds of detail. I find it frustrating that every time I ask a simple question you give a very complicated sort of answer. It is also strange for people in the world outside of the states that people talk about gun rights/and civil rights as the same or even related. That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity. I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West. Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed. The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved. You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework. And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem. perhaps it seems that way because it is that way? at what point does one reach the conclusion that that is actually the case? About now for me, it is sad that we have such few representatives from the side that wants to keep all guns, because I would love to understand the logic of that position, not just get anger based responses or some odd argument fueling dance. Plansix was talking about how this made him feel, so I suppose I’ll weigh in. It feels like you’re wanting the issue solved before bedtime or the other side is too interested in arguing or doesn’t have solutions or is angry. I find this to be more a symptom of the false desire to understand the opposing position, or personal issues interjecting themselves between your current ideas and a deeper understanding of what the other side believes and why. I would love the issues to be solved before bed times. But what I'm after is an understanding of the underlying logic behind your position. I find it confusing how people can be so ridged in their world view that as new information appears they do not adjust. I have very different views on many major issues then I did 15 years ago, that does not make me a hypocrite it means I have taken in new information and learned from it. I'm attempting to take in new information from you so I can decide what I think about it. I'm not getting any.
My position? That a simplistic view on gun control vs gun rights isn’t a good start to framework? We could barely get to defining what we mean before you started trite accusations of anger and lack of solutions. I’m wondering why you said I was upset about something to do with changing amendments, but refused to say what you meant after two times asking.
I’m pretty hardened in political pessimism, but I still get astounded when people can’t hold three back and forth posts about positions and then blame something like rigidity out of the blue. If you don’t want to argue anything but the characterization of the problem, say so. If you don’t want to argue anything but possible solutions for a stated problem, state it and say so. But please, don’t defend your simplistic views as providing some sort of useful “framework” and then tangent to another topic while writing asides about anger and the like. I’m perfectly able to follow that topic as long as you want, provided you refrain from abrupt switches to the real thing you want to discuss.
|
|
|
On August 31 2018 04:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 04:46 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:39 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:35 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity.
I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West. Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed. The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved. You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework. And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem. perhaps it seems that way because it is that way? at what point does one reach the conclusion that that is actually the case? About now for me, it is sad that we have such few representatives from the side that wants to keep all guns, because I would love to understand the logic of that position, not just get anger based responses or some odd argument fueling dance. Plansix was talking about how this made him feel, so I suppose I’ll weigh in. It feels like you’re wanting the issue solved before bedtime or the other side is too interested in arguing or doesn’t have solutions or is angry. I find this to be more a symptom of the false desire to understand the opposing position, or personal issues interjecting themselves between your current ideas and a deeper understanding of what the other side believes and why. I would love the issues to be solved before bed times. But what I'm after is an understanding of the underlying logic behind your position. I find it confusing how people can be so ridged in their world view that as new information appears they do not adjust. I have very different views on many major issues then I did 15 years ago, that does not make me a hypocrite it means I have taken in new information and learned from it. I'm attempting to take in new information from you so I can decide what I think about it. I'm not getting any. My position? That a simplistic view on gun control vs gun rights isn’t a good start to framework? We could barely get to defining what we mean before you started trite accusations of anger and lack of solutions. I’m wondering why you said I was upset about something to do with changing amendments, but refused to say what you meant after two times asking. I’m pretty hardened in political pessimism, but I still get astounded when people can’t hold three back and forth posts about positions and then blame something like rigidity out of the blue. If you don’t want to argue anything but the characterization of the problem, say so. If you don’t want to argue anything but possible solutions for a stated problem, state it and say so. But please, don’t defend your simplistic views as providing some sort of useful “framework” and then tangent to another topic while writing asides about anger and the like. I’m perfectly able to follow that topic as long as you want, provided you refrain from abrupt switches to the real thing you want to discuss. I wished I hadn't said it because I didn't want to proceed yet another rabbit hole when we are already so far from my original question. Lets just say, I agree with you on the first 10, I just want some rules around number 2. And I think many of the future amendments were great and improved things (prohibition sticks out as one that did not off the top of my head). I think but I do not want to presume that you would agree that the term "arms" is very broad and it meant something very different then than it does now. The anger comment was indicated at Gotnunks! not you, I don't understand your point but until the last few posts I never took you as angry. I'm honestly not looking to argue with you on the merits of gun control, mainly because I don't understand your logic. I feel like you are trying to win a debate by some measure not make your point understood. Perhaps PTSD from a million past discussion I was not a part of traps being laid, I have no clue. But this is what I gather so far, and you can correct me but please do so as simplistically as you can so I may understand. You believe Arms to include guns of all types, but not bombs, artillery, rocket launchers and so on. You are not for removing any type of gun, because you think it will lead to the removal of all guns from "gun grabbers". You could get behind a ban on bump stocks.
I guess that’s fine if you can’t understand the logic behind my side. I used to think the position of holding the line on gun regs was a bad one, and was argued into that position by people on the gun rights side. It was further confirmed by looking at past legislation like the poorly titled and written Assault Weapons Ban, and proposals in the last two decades. It was one of those issues where I tried hard to justify my original position in the face of the logical argument against, and failed and eventually surrendered. But that’s all part of intellectual development, and I came out of it with a greater understanding.
Keep and bear arms is a little tough to get simple because of the terms and legislation, but I’ll try. It includes semi auto rifles and pistols and shotguns useful for home and personal defense. It doesn’t apply to full-auto and select fire rifles as used for war, nor for tanks, rocket launchers, and hand grenades. The interpretation and long form argument from Scalia in Heller is absolutely required reading if there’s any further questions on the why and how, because I don’t think “arms” is as overbroad as you presume I must think, and it isn’t an argument conducive to short sum-ups. It’s under an hour of reading and I have hopes that you would find it helpful.
Im here basically to help understand why the other side sounds so shrill. How the extreme left parts really want the NRA to be the devil, and aligned politicians doing the devils bidding. I also enjoy seeing the more moderate lefties react or not react to people like Shambalawar and Broetchenholer and Excludos when they riff off handing out semi autos at the door to LANs and rant on political obstacles. It’s informative. Micronesia’s take has been very informative. I’m cautiously optimistic for a 2020 change in the winds of political rhetoric and that decade seeing some rapprochement between the twoish sides with generational turnover.
|
On August 31 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 04:57 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 04:46 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:39 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:35 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed.
The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved. You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework. And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem. perhaps it seems that way because it is that way? at what point does one reach the conclusion that that is actually the case? About now for me, it is sad that we have such few representatives from the side that wants to keep all guns, because I would love to understand the logic of that position, not just get anger based responses or some odd argument fueling dance. Plansix was talking about how this made him feel, so I suppose I’ll weigh in. It feels like you’re wanting the issue solved before bedtime or the other side is too interested in arguing or doesn’t have solutions or is angry. I find this to be more a symptom of the false desire to understand the opposing position, or personal issues interjecting themselves between your current ideas and a deeper understanding of what the other side believes and why. I would love the issues to be solved before bed times. But what I'm after is an understanding of the underlying logic behind your position. I find it confusing how people can be so ridged in their world view that as new information appears they do not adjust. I have very different views on many major issues then I did 15 years ago, that does not make me a hypocrite it means I have taken in new information and learned from it. I'm attempting to take in new information from you so I can decide what I think about it. I'm not getting any. My position? That a simplistic view on gun control vs gun rights isn’t a good start to framework? We could barely get to defining what we mean before you started trite accusations of anger and lack of solutions. I’m wondering why you said I was upset about something to do with changing amendments, but refused to say what you meant after two times asking. I’m pretty hardened in political pessimism, but I still get astounded when people can’t hold three back and forth posts about positions and then blame something like rigidity out of the blue. If you don’t want to argue anything but the characterization of the problem, say so. If you don’t want to argue anything but possible solutions for a stated problem, state it and say so. But please, don’t defend your simplistic views as providing some sort of useful “framework” and then tangent to another topic while writing asides about anger and the like. I’m perfectly able to follow that topic as long as you want, provided you refrain from abrupt switches to the real thing you want to discuss. I wished I hadn't said it because I didn't want to proceed yet another rabbit hole when we are already so far from my original question. Lets just say, I agree with you on the first 10, I just want some rules around number 2. And I think many of the future amendments were great and improved things (prohibition sticks out as one that did not off the top of my head). I think but I do not want to presume that you would agree that the term "arms" is very broad and it meant something very different then than it does now. The anger comment was indicated at Gotnunks! not you, I don't understand your point but until the last few posts I never took you as angry. I'm honestly not looking to argue with you on the merits of gun control, mainly because I don't understand your logic. I feel like you are trying to win a debate by some measure not make your point understood. Perhaps PTSD from a million past discussion I was not a part of traps being laid, I have no clue. But this is what I gather so far, and you can correct me but please do so as simplistically as you can so I may understand. You believe Arms to include guns of all types, but not bombs, artillery, rocket launchers and so on. You are not for removing any type of gun, because you think it will lead to the removal of all guns from "gun grabbers". You could get behind a ban on bump stocks. I guess that’s fine if you can’t understand the logic behind my side. I used to think the position of holding the line on gun regs was a bad one, and was argued into that position by people on the gun rights side. It was further confirmed by looking at past legislation like the poorly titled and written Assault Weapons Ban, and proposals in the last two decades. It was one of those issues where I tried hard to justify my original position in the face of the logical argument against, and failed and eventually surrendered. But that’s all part of intellectual development, and I came out of it with a greater understanding. Im here basically to help understand why the other side sounds so shrill. How the extreme left parts really want the NRA to be the devil, and aligned politicians doing the devils bidding. I also enjoy seeing the more moderate lefties react or not react to people like Shambalawar and Broetchenholer and Excludos when they riff off handing out semi autos at the door to LANs and rant on political obstacles. It’s informative. Micronesia’s take has been very informative. I’m cautiously optimistic for a 2020 change in the winds of political rhetoric and that decade seeing some rapprochement between the twoish sides with generational turnover.
A. The NRA really are the devil. You can tell by their actions and words..
B: This might come as a shock to you, but I am actually pro guns.. I own one after all, why wouldn't I be? That doesn't mean I want everyone and their mom to have one. I want them to be properly regulated. So when you say "more moderate lefties" than "people like" me, then you have completely misunderstood everything I have stated up until now. (That doesn't mean I won't make fun of some of the rather ridiculous statements made by conservatives with no basis on evidence or reality. Like the age old "more people with guns" or Fox earlier today wanting to ban videogames because of the Madden shooting..)
|
|
|
It's easy to see how the NRA can hold conflicting views like that if you consider them as a propaganda organisation funded in large part by gun manufacturers, and not as a civil rights group. Which I don't think is an entirely crazy idea.
|
I'm still trying to get over them received 30 million from a Russian gun enthusiast who just happens to be closely connected to Putin's goverment. Its not the International Rifle Association.
|
On August 31 2018 06:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 04:57 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 04:46 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:39 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:35 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework.
And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem. perhaps it seems that way because it is that way? at what point does one reach the conclusion that that is actually the case? About now for me, it is sad that we have such few representatives from the side that wants to keep all guns, because I would love to understand the logic of that position, not just get anger based responses or some odd argument fueling dance. Plansix was talking about how this made him feel, so I suppose I’ll weigh in. It feels like you’re wanting the issue solved before bedtime or the other side is too interested in arguing or doesn’t have solutions or is angry. I find this to be more a symptom of the false desire to understand the opposing position, or personal issues interjecting themselves between your current ideas and a deeper understanding of what the other side believes and why. I would love the issues to be solved before bed times. But what I'm after is an understanding of the underlying logic behind your position. I find it confusing how people can be so ridged in their world view that as new information appears they do not adjust. I have very different views on many major issues then I did 15 years ago, that does not make me a hypocrite it means I have taken in new information and learned from it. I'm attempting to take in new information from you so I can decide what I think about it. I'm not getting any. My position? That a simplistic view on gun control vs gun rights isn’t a good start to framework? We could barely get to defining what we mean before you started trite accusations of anger and lack of solutions. I’m wondering why you said I was upset about something to do with changing amendments, but refused to say what you meant after two times asking. I’m pretty hardened in political pessimism, but I still get astounded when people can’t hold three back and forth posts about positions and then blame something like rigidity out of the blue. If you don’t want to argue anything but the characterization of the problem, say so. If you don’t want to argue anything but possible solutions for a stated problem, state it and say so. But please, don’t defend your simplistic views as providing some sort of useful “framework” and then tangent to another topic while writing asides about anger and the like. I’m perfectly able to follow that topic as long as you want, provided you refrain from abrupt switches to the real thing you want to discuss. I wished I hadn't said it because I didn't want to proceed yet another rabbit hole when we are already so far from my original question. Lets just say, I agree with you on the first 10, I just want some rules around number 2. And I think many of the future amendments were great and improved things (prohibition sticks out as one that did not off the top of my head). I think but I do not want to presume that you would agree that the term "arms" is very broad and it meant something very different then than it does now. The anger comment was indicated at Gotnunks! not you, I don't understand your point but until the last few posts I never took you as angry. I'm honestly not looking to argue with you on the merits of gun control, mainly because I don't understand your logic. I feel like you are trying to win a debate by some measure not make your point understood. Perhaps PTSD from a million past discussion I was not a part of traps being laid, I have no clue. But this is what I gather so far, and you can correct me but please do so as simplistically as you can so I may understand. You believe Arms to include guns of all types, but not bombs, artillery, rocket launchers and so on. You are not for removing any type of gun, because you think it will lead to the removal of all guns from "gun grabbers". You could get behind a ban on bump stocks. I guess that’s fine if you can’t understand the logic behind my side. I used to think the position of holding the line on gun regs was a bad one, and was argued into that position by people on the gun rights side. It was further confirmed by looking at past legislation like the poorly titled and written Assault Weapons Ban, and proposals in the last two decades. It was one of those issues where I tried hard to justify my original position in the face of the logical argument against, and failed and eventually surrendered. But that’s all part of intellectual development, and I came out of it with a greater understanding. Keep and bear arms is a little tough to get simple because of the terms and legislation, but I’ll try. It includes semi auto rifles and pistols and shotguns useful for home and personal defense. It doesn’t apply to full-auto and select fire rifles as used for war, nor for tanks, rocket launchers, and hand grenades. The interpretation and long form argument from Scalia in Heller is absolutely required reading if there’s any further questions on the why and how, because I don’t think “arms” is as overbroad as you presume I must think, and it isn’t an argument conducive to short sum-ups. It’s under an hour of reading and I have hopes that you would find it helpful. Im here basically to help understand why the other side sounds so shrill. How the extreme left parts really want the NRA to be the devil, and aligned politicians doing the devils bidding. I also enjoy seeing the more moderate lefties react or not react to people like Shambalawar and Broetchenholer and Excludos when they riff off handing out semi autos at the door to LANs and rant on political obstacles. It’s informative. Micronesia’s take has been very informative. I’m cautiously optimistic for a 2020 change in the winds of political rhetoric and that decade seeing some rapprochement between the twoish sides with generational turnover. I'm really not interested in the difficulties of drafting legislation, that is not gun specific. If we are going to state that it too hard because XYZ, why do anything? I think it needs to be done because it is hard. I will read that, I'm sure it is easy to find with our friend google. I find the NRA to be a tough organization. Since they seem to be against plastic 3d printed guns because they are undetectable and therefore happy to regulate them, but are against regulating other guns because criminals don't follow laws anyways. It makes it pretty tough for me as an outside with no "horse in the race" to not see them as a lobbyists for gun manufacturers rather than a civil liberties group. If you simply want everyone to have the right to bare arms letting them print themselves makes a lot of sense to me.
You are 100 percent right. Almost nothing in modern day business isn't profit driven, the NRA is no exception, they are simply a lobbying agency for the firearms industry.
The reason the firearms industry doesn't want 3D printed guns to be a reality is because why would you buy a gun that you could print instead? Any gun store could then invest 30k in good equipment and make 100% of the profit without having to buy from a manufacture company like ruger, etc...
Please don't think that the NRA has any considerations for the damage something like an undetectable guns would cause, if there weren't already laws against untraceable guns they would support the companies they take money from to sell untraceable guns.
The NRA isn't for the regulation of other guns, because they are in the business of lobbying for the companies that make all other guns. The sale of 3D printed gun sales goes up = regular gun sales doing down.
|
Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself.
![[image loading]](https://c-7npsfqifvt34x24tx2eieovyx2edpn.g00.chron.com/g00/3_c-7x78x78x78.dispo.dpn_/c-7NPSFQIFVT34x24iuuqtx3ax2fx2ft.ieovy.dpnx2fqipuptx2f86x2f44x2f68x2f27215400x2f8x2f031y031.kqhx3fj21d.nbslx3djnbhf_$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$) The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.”
www.chron.com
Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this.
|
On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. Show nested quote +The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” www.chron.comWon't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this.
I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life.
I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me.
|
On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me.
It wasn't when the black panthers did it. And it won't be if this spreads nationwide. The fragility of white exceptionalism is exposed when people of color attempt to exercise the same rights and challenge that status quo.
|
On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me.
That is until there is a dispute about who felt their life was in danger and why and a handful of corpses possibly some of them police. When the fear of that sets in, more specifically when they start showing up at capital buildings, political rallies and other locations that make affluent/powerful people uncomfortable is when I expect attitudes to change. Probably doesn't apply as much to the Republican islands in California where this isn't an issue.
In fairness, liberals will be as much a part of using those laws to imprison and disarm Black gun owners as Republicans. As they were last time. They'll call it civility though.
|
|
|
On September 03 2018 08:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. It wasn't when the black panthers did it. And it won't be if this spreads nationwide. The fragility of white exceptionalism is exposed when people of color attempt to exercise the same rights and challenge that status quo.
I'll hold you to that. I really think the fragility is entirely on the side of race-obsessed bigots that assume wider-spread gun ownership will cause violent backlash from whites. They can't tolerate anybody having guns, but they pretend that whites don't like it when people of color have guns.
On September 03 2018 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. That is until there is a dispute about who felt their life was in danger and why and a handful of corpses possibly some of them police. When the fear of that sets in, more specifically when they start showing up at capital buildings, political rallies and other locations that make affluent/powerful people uncomfortable is when I expect attitudes to change. Probably doesn't apply as much to the Republican islands in California where this isn't an issue. In fairness, liberals will be as much a part of using those laws to imprison and disarm Black gun owners as Republicans. As they were last time. They'll call it civility though.
We definitely have opposite expectations. The second amendment rights debate is a hard and fast rule without racial or ideological exceptions. A very small minority of people would freak out. That's if our usual cohort of intolerant liberals don't get some supreme court or legislative victory banning guns before that happens.
|
On September 03 2018 08:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 08:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. It wasn't when the black panthers did it. And it won't be if this spreads nationwide. The fragility of white exceptionalism is exposed when people of color attempt to exercise the same rights and challenge that status quo. I'll hold you to that. I really think the fragility is entirely on the side of race-obsessed bigots that assume wider-spread gun ownership will cause violent backlash from whites. They can't tolerate anybody having guns, but they pretend that whites don't like it when people of color have guns. Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. That is until there is a dispute about who felt their life was in danger and why and a handful of corpses possibly some of them police. When the fear of that sets in, more specifically when they start showing up at capital buildings, political rallies and other locations that make affluent/powerful people uncomfortable is when I expect attitudes to change. Probably doesn't apply as much to the Republican islands in California where this isn't an issue. In fairness, liberals will be as much a part of using those laws to imprison and disarm Black gun owners as Republicans. As they were last time. They'll call it civility though. We definitely have opposite expectations. The second amendment rights debate is a hard and fast rule without racial or ideological exceptions. A very small minority of people would freak out. That's if our usual cohort of intolerant liberals don't get some supreme court or legislative victory banning guns before that happens.
I sincerely doubt that would be the case, especially if it was a contingent of armed Muslims standing outside, but we'll probably get to see one way or the other over the next couple years.
|
5930 Posts
On September 03 2018 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 08:53 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 08:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. It wasn't when the black panthers did it. And it won't be if this spreads nationwide. The fragility of white exceptionalism is exposed when people of color attempt to exercise the same rights and challenge that status quo. I'll hold you to that. I really think the fragility is entirely on the side of race-obsessed bigots that assume wider-spread gun ownership will cause violent backlash from whites. They can't tolerate anybody having guns, but they pretend that whites don't like it when people of color have guns. On September 03 2018 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. That is until there is a dispute about who felt their life was in danger and why and a handful of corpses possibly some of them police. When the fear of that sets in, more specifically when they start showing up at capital buildings, political rallies and other locations that make affluent/powerful people uncomfortable is when I expect attitudes to change. Probably doesn't apply as much to the Republican islands in California where this isn't an issue. In fairness, liberals will be as much a part of using those laws to imprison and disarm Black gun owners as Republicans. As they were last time. They'll call it civility though. We definitely have opposite expectations. The second amendment rights debate is a hard and fast rule without racial or ideological exceptions. A very small minority of people would freak out. That's if our usual cohort of intolerant liberals don't get some supreme court or legislative victory banning guns before that happens. I sincerely doubt that would be the case, especially if it was a contingent of armed Muslims standing outside, but we'll probably get to see one way or the other over the next couple years.
Pretty much. Its been some 60 years but nothing about this political climate tells me that politicians wouldn't try to enact the Mulford Act the minute a group like BLM marched around neighborhoods with open carry weapons. Heck, the NRA who is meant to defend the rights of people to bare arms even supported the bill at the time.
Granted, both Democrats and Republicans in California supported stricter gun laws ("no reason why someone should be carrying loaded weapons" in the words of Ronald Reagan) but this sort of situation isn't a mere hypothetical. It actually happened. I think its silly to completely feign ignorance and believe that we as a people are over this sort of heavy handed response to minorities, whether it be race, gender, religion or nationality, attempting overt expressions of self-determination.
|
On September 03 2018 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 08:53 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 08:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. It wasn't when the black panthers did it. And it won't be if this spreads nationwide. The fragility of white exceptionalism is exposed when people of color attempt to exercise the same rights and challenge that status quo. I'll hold you to that. I really think the fragility is entirely on the side of race-obsessed bigots that assume wider-spread gun ownership will cause violent backlash from whites. They can't tolerate anybody having guns, but they pretend that whites don't like it when people of color have guns. On September 03 2018 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. That is until there is a dispute about who felt their life was in danger and why and a handful of corpses possibly some of them police. When the fear of that sets in, more specifically when they start showing up at capital buildings, political rallies and other locations that make affluent/powerful people uncomfortable is when I expect attitudes to change. Probably doesn't apply as much to the Republican islands in California where this isn't an issue. In fairness, liberals will be as much a part of using those laws to imprison and disarm Black gun owners as Republicans. As they were last time. They'll call it civility though. We definitely have opposite expectations. The second amendment rights debate is a hard and fast rule without racial or ideological exceptions. A very small minority of people would freak out. That's if our usual cohort of intolerant liberals don't get some supreme court or legislative victory banning guns before that happens. I sincerely doubt that would be the case, especially if it was a contingent of armed Muslims standing outside, but we'll probably get to see one way or the other over the next couple years.
I'm very much in favor of rooting out anyone who supports gun rights for only a certain segment of American citizens. And if you're some Muslim fearful of backlash on a march or safety and deterrence society or whatever and wants to arm yourself, by all means go and do it. No problems here and I'll be first to defend your rights to own and carry against left and right.
|
On September 03 2018 10:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2018 08:53 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 08:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. It wasn't when the black panthers did it. And it won't be if this spreads nationwide. The fragility of white exceptionalism is exposed when people of color attempt to exercise the same rights and challenge that status quo. I'll hold you to that. I really think the fragility is entirely on the side of race-obsessed bigots that assume wider-spread gun ownership will cause violent backlash from whites. They can't tolerate anybody having guns, but they pretend that whites don't like it when people of color have guns. On September 03 2018 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2018 07:58 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, it seems the pattern that led to the last significant gun legislation is repeating itself. The convention, which runs through Monday, will draw thousands of Muslims to downtown for talks, prayers, workshops, arts, entertainment and festivities. Doc Greene, a local radio talk-show personality, helped organize the protest that drew roughly two dozen members from the Texas Patriot Network and white supremacist groups. “We’re clearly outnumbered,” he said. “But we’re never outpowered.” Across the police barriers, a group of roughly 80 counterprotesters held signs and chanted phrases, including “Nazis, go home.” Counterprotesters included members of the Houston Socialist Movement, International Socialist Organization, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Refuse Fascism, Socialist Alternative, Young Communist League, Huey P. Newton Gun Club and New Black Panther Party. “We wanted to let them know that Houston is a majority black and brown city and they are not welcome here. They are not wanted here. We will be here as long as they are here,” said Brother Maitreya, chairman of the Houston chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. “We are going to be here until we run them out of our city.” Krystal Mohammad, member of the New Black Panther Party, criticized Greene and his group. “They were ridiculous. They looked weak,” Mohammad said. “They are anti-American. They are going against the First Amendment that guarantees people freedom of religion. They are going against basic human rights and are trying to deny someone’s religion, and that’s why we were here.” Javier Olguin said he attended the counterprotest to speak out against the anti-Islamic sentiments. “If you read the history books, you see the Jim Crow era, you see Japanese detainment camps, you see all these atrocities that happen,” he said. “A lot of people say to themselves, ‘If I were there, I would have done the right thing.’ It’s happening right now, and that’s why everybody is out here. We’re seeing the oppression of a lot of people. When people are not doing anything and they stay silent, they are complicit in that.” Won't take a whole lot of situations like this for 2A people to start reconsidering how they feel about open carry and access to guns. At least it didn't last time the US went through this. I don't care if you have horrid ideology or are a minority or whatever. You have the right to obtain a gun for yourself, and (should) have the right to obtain a permit to carry it about your person in most of your daily life. I mean cmon ... a protest with guns and they aren't unlawfully shooting lawful protesters? Looks fine to me. That is until there is a dispute about who felt their life was in danger and why and a handful of corpses possibly some of them police. When the fear of that sets in, more specifically when they start showing up at capital buildings, political rallies and other locations that make affluent/powerful people uncomfortable is when I expect attitudes to change. Probably doesn't apply as much to the Republican islands in California where this isn't an issue. In fairness, liberals will be as much a part of using those laws to imprison and disarm Black gun owners as Republicans. As they were last time. They'll call it civility though. We definitely have opposite expectations. The second amendment rights debate is a hard and fast rule without racial or ideological exceptions. A very small minority of people would freak out. That's if our usual cohort of intolerant liberals don't get some supreme court or legislative victory banning guns before that happens. I sincerely doubt that would be the case, especially if it was a contingent of armed Muslims standing outside, but we'll probably get to see one way or the other over the next couple years. I'm very much in favor of rooting out anyone who supports gun rights for only a certain segment of American citizens. And if you're some Muslim fearful of backlash on a march or safety and deterrence society or whatever and wants to arm yourself, by all means go and do it. No problems here and I'll be first to defend your rights to own and carry against left and right.
I think you're in the minority, particularly when you compare the reaction on the right side of 2nd Amendment supporters/NRA between cases like Zimmerman as opposed to Castile.
There's also the factor of regardless of your personal feelings the realities faced by POC/Muslims carrying weapons in public is treated indisputably different than a white man with a gun in public.
|
In my personal experience, I've never met an American who supported keeping guns away from certain people based on any personal characteristic, besides mental illness and felony convictions.
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
