3
3
0
Background on this: Was debating on weapons controls in America with a Marine buddy and he told me that the whole point behind gun control in the fist place was to keep Blacks without a weapon. Struck me as odd, but we kept on going and he said "you never hear of someone going into Beverly Hills and taking weapons do you? Do you see them in Annapolis taking weapons, and it's not like they have less or more crime, but where you WILL find weapons are in the inner cities and normally held by Blacks. So I'm asking you RP is there a double standard in regards to owning a weapon legally in a great neighborhood or having one is a less desirable one? If 2A states that we ALL should be able to get one or fifteen, go for it. I'm posting a weapon situation where you see two definite ways of handling the same issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 In the Dred Scott case, the SCOTUS said that the black man wasn't equal to white men. It was a bad decision but we move on. Who is allowed to carry, when are they allowed to carry, and does color and location matter? I'm not making this a race bait post. I want honest dialogue and for you to state your case without attacking anyone else. I might not agree with your stance, but I might learn something from it, and that's more important. In Fergerson the cops came in deep and did their buisnes. Next the oath keepers came, but with a vague message of protecting someone(s), but never mentioned who. If you look at what they're wearing then compare it to the locals there is no contest and the oath keepers. So if this can happen to minorities, what the hell is stopping other races from being the next group singled out to have theirs taken?
Gun Control
Equality
Law Enforcement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
12
12
0
Honestly, I don't buy this argument, that gun control is principally about disarming blacks. I can see where this might be reasonable. The Democratic Party has a long, long tradition of using government controls to subjugate black-Americans. Marriage Licenses were introduced by the Democrats to prevent black/white marriages. Poll taxes and literacy tests were designed by Democrats to keep blacks from voting. The list goes on. However, I am not black and don't automatically perceive all threats in that light. I see an overarching need to tyrannize all Americans. The first step in establishing a tyranny is to disarm the citizens. Now, I know someone is smirking and thinking, "There he goes again. Paranoia is rearing Jack's ugly head." That may be, but think about this: The progressive agenda established in the time of Woodrow Wilson's Administration and gathering steam ever since is founded on the principle that some people (the intellectuals) are better able to rule than those less well endowed with "smarts". Sure, they have the best intentions. They actually believe they are better "deciders" and that the rest of us rubes (especially those in fly-over country) simply can't be trusted to rule ourselves. In simple terms, these smarty-pants want to be tyrants (for our own good, of course).
(12)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
CPT Jack Durish - let em. There are two sides to everything depending on what side of the coin you're on. Me? I don't have enough weapons. Not because I want to harm anyone, but I like ranges more now that I'm out of service. I also like pushing the envelope with shooting. How far can you go? So I have my bucket list of weapons to own before I croak, and I'm doing pretty good so far. This video would've been priceless had they allowed Liam Neilson or Piers Morgan narrate it. Liam who "detests" weapons, but most of his biggest hit movies are him using a weapon. So you hate the "American fascination with guns", but love the American money that comes to you as a result of them going to see your movies that involve guns. I'm still trying to figure out Piers Morgan. The Brits don't like him, most of America doesn't like him, why hasn't he moved to Canada?
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSG Warren Swan - I loved shooting long before I entered the Army. I fired thousands of rounds of small bore and shotgun (skeet and trap). Bow and arrow too. Always took great pride in it. Infantry school was akin to heaven for me. We fired everything in that year. Someone once said that each infantry officer canddiate fired several thousand dollars worth before graduation. I wish I could still shoot regularly but the budget just doesn't allow it. At least I have my memories. I don't suppose any anti-gun nutter understands it any more than I would understand their passions. But that's the thing about freedom, isn't it. Different strokes for different folks. Too bad they simply can't accept ours.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
wilcox it is a flat out lie that johnson and the democrats "spearheaded" the CRA. Johnson was opposed and was basically forced by a R majority congress to pass that bill, look up the votes on the passage of that bill, if not for R's it wouldn't have passed. i don't know who taught you our history but they really did you a disservice.
Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
While you are at it, why don't you look up who filibustered Eisenhower's proposed Civil Rights bill. I'll guarantee your history/civics teachers were democrats.
Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
While you are at it, why don't you look up who filibustered Eisenhower's proposed Civil Rights bill. I'll guarantee your history/civics teachers were democrats.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SGT Edward Wilcox Johnson signed those out of political expediency. He knew they would pass either in his term or the next, so he may as well get credit for it and buy a large voting block in the process. Remember what he said about having certain people vote Democrat for 200 years?
LBJ was a rampant racist who signed legislation he opposed because it was politically expedient to do so.
LBJ was a rampant racist who signed legislation he opposed because it was politically expedient to do so.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
SSG Warren Swan Interesting points. However, I am inclined to think not valid.
I have stated often that I believe there are two in our racial strife. 1. People who believe that one race is somehow inferior and 2. People who look at any action as being done because of race.
So my question is are guns in the inner cities a problem or is how guns are used in the inner city the problem? Is extra concentration because of race or because or criminal activity?
I have stated often that I believe there are two in our racial strife. 1. People who believe that one race is somehow inferior and 2. People who look at any action as being done because of race.
So my question is are guns in the inner cities a problem or is how guns are used in the inner city the problem? Is extra concentration because of race or because or criminal activity?
(3)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Thanks for the response. Weapons in the inner cities are always a problem. I'm not going to sit here and lie to you and say it's not. BUT I'm going to use DC as an example, the ban is so tight in the city known as "Chocolate City", that you have to ask "why". The argument could be made that fools will be fools and we want to keep the violence down when it comes to these fools. Now with the gentrification of DC, folks who aren't from the area are moving in, jobs are up, and in areas where just five years ago you wouldn't dare see someone non black in, they are now, and they're fighting a battle to own a weapon and winning in certain parts of the argument. I don't like the idea of making it a racial thing, when stats can and do show who is responsible for what, it makes on wonder are you continuing this ban to force more out into the surrounding areas, and allowing new residents who are more affluent, young, "hip" to come in and get a basic right that others weren't allowed to have?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I have no clue what this whole thing was about. Very confusing. Can't black people buy guns now? Are there not armed good guys from every race? They take one statement from a guy whos comments were pretty racist (that just so happened to identify with the GOP) and base an entire video on that? Now what that video was saying I am not sure.
The NRA is not the gun manufactures patsies. Members of the board are voted in by members, not gun companies. They lobby based on the Second Amendment, it just happens that if the 2nd Amendment fails gun companies will be out of a job. Sounds like a win win. Much like Gun control lobbies. If they get rid of guns they will be out of a job.
The NRA is not the gun manufactures patsies. Members of the board are voted in by members, not gun companies. They lobby based on the Second Amendment, it just happens that if the 2nd Amendment fails gun companies will be out of a job. Sounds like a win win. Much like Gun control lobbies. If they get rid of guns they will be out of a job.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google