"Gun Appreciation Day" Didn't Work Out So Well,..

[OODA_Loop]

Why don't you try discussing the subject for a change or stay off the thread? !

Somebody castigating the KKK while at the same time using the word n1gger in hateful terms is topical.

And comical.

 

[Dragonlady]

Everyone with even the most basic knowledge of history also knows about "the southern strategy" and how the parties essentially flipped positions. Only a complete idiot would think the KKK has anything to do with today's democrats.

Or that any of this has any bearing whatsoever with gun control in the 21st Century.

Saying that lynchings will happen if American lose the right to own guns is beyond ridiculous. Because it wasn't the government who was lynching the blacks in the 1800, it's was criminals the government refused to prosecute. Hardly the same thing.

I guess big reb is scared the blacks will put on hoods and try to lynch him if he loses his gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Everyone with even the most basic knowledge of history also knows about "the southern strategy" and how the parties essentially flipped positions. Only a complete idiot would think the KKK has anything to do with today's democrats.

Or that any of this has any bearing whatsoever with gun control in the 21st Century.

Saying that lynchings will happen if American lose the right to own guns is beyond ridiculous. Because it wasn't the government who was lynching the blacks in the 1800, it's was criminals the government refused to prosecute. Hardly the same thing.

I guess big reb is scared the blacks will put on hoods and try to lynch him if he loses his gun.

We were discussing a claim that you made, that unrestricted gun ownership is not in public interest.

To support your claim, please provide:
- An accurate number of times per year that guns are used in self defense.
- An accurate and relevant standard against which this number can be used to judge the benefits/detriments of exercising the right to gun ownership.
Then:
- Explain how this comparison shows your claim to be sound.

If you cannot do these things, the only honest course of action is to admit that you cannot support the claim that you made.

Are you going ot he honest, or not?

 

[Dubya]

Why don't you try discussing the subject for a change or stay off the thread? !

Somebody castigating the KKK while at the same time using the word n1gger in hateful terms is topical.

And comical.

I didn't criticize the KKK and you are just making that up. You seem to have reality problems of believing your own lies. That happens to people who lie too much.

 

[Dragonlady]

Are you going ot he honest, or not?

I've been honest throughout. And I now accept that you have no response to all of the studies that say that handguns have made the United States the most dangerous first world country in the World.

You obviously accept the studies I've posted as fact, since you've made attempt to refute any of the findings. Conversely, you've proven you are incapable of forming discussing any of this without first consulting your NRA talking points.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you going ot he honest, or not?

I've been honest throughout.

Except where it counts:

We were discussing your claim that unrestricted gun ownership is not in public interest.

To support your claim, please provide:
- An accurate number of times per year that guns are used in self defense.
- An accurate and relevant standard against which this number can be used to judge the benefits/detriments of exercising the right to gun ownership.
Then:
- Explain how this comparison shows your claim to be sound.

I accept your refusal to provide this information, after repeated requests, as an admission that you cannot do so, and therefore cannot show your posiiton - that unrestricted gun ownership is not in public interest - to be sound.
Thank you for your concession of the point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

White people in the Jim Crow South wanted all kinds of bullshit and had it for awhile. We are talking about laws in states and the federal government that apply to everyone equally and those are two entirely different subjects. Canes and walking sticks were a fashion of the early days and manufacturers would put swords in them. There were attempts to ban such items when robbers started using them.

I'm sure you idiots didn't think up that nonsense about Blacks being the cause of gun control and your right-wing think tanks started that bullshit. You're just too stupid to know how they play you, like the fool you are.

You are one pathetic piece of shit.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to “facially neutral” business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia’s official university law review called for a “prohibitive tax … on the privilege” of selling handguns as a way of disarming “the son of Ham”, whose “cowardly practice of ‘toting’ guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime … .Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.” [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, “Gun Control and Racism,” Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans


1875 United States High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had been charged with violating the rights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U. S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court held that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and … With the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)

What part of gun control laws preceding that time is too hard to understand? Since prior gun control laws exist and they didn't involve Blacks, then the statement that gun control originated to control Blacks is false. You gun nuts are just making a red herring argument. All those gun control laws involved protecting one group from another group. You want to play guilt by association because some racists in the South used them much later than gun control laws were initially made. Our modern gun control laws involve gangster activity in the Great Depression, but the first laws involved robbers. Laws were also made against the arms of swords hidden in canes and walking sticks and again it was because robbers were using those concealed weapons to rob people.

God damn you are a fucking stupid son of a bitch.
If blacks are not allowed firearms what in the hell would that be?

One example of early forms of gun control

Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. [12] The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:

That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor. [13]
Elijah Newsom, "a free person of color," was indicted in Cumberland County in June of 1843 for carrying a shotgun without a license -- at the very time the North Carolina Supreme Court was deciding Huntly. Newsom was convicted by a jury; but the trial judge directed a not guilty verdict, and the state appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Newsom's attorney argued that the statute requiring free blacks to obtain a license to "keep and bear arms" was in violation of both the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and the North Carolina Constitution's similar guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. [14] The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to accept that the Second Amendment was a limitation on state laws, but had to deal with the problem of the state constitutional guarantees, which had been used in the Huntly decision, the year before.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Another example of gun control

After the Civil War, the defeated Southern states aimed to preserve slavery in fact if not in law. The states enacted Black Codes which barred the black freedmen from exercising basic civil rights, including the right to bear arms. Mississippi's provision was typical: No freedman "shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition."

Under the Mississippi law, a person informing the government about illegal arms possession by a freedman was entitled to receive the forfeited firearm. Whites were forbidden to give or lend freedman firearms or knives.

The Klan's Favorite Law - Reason.com

 

[Saigon]

We were discussing a claim that you made, that unrestricted gun ownership is not in public interest.

To support your claim, please provide:

Do you really think this is your best argument?

It's been proven on this thread and others a dozen times over and by a half dozen different posters.

Compare the homicide rates of the US with that of ANY other developed country and you have your answer.

The thing that amazes me about these comments is that you must know this as well as everyone else does, but continue to pretend that you don't. What do you gain by pretending you haven't seen the proof?

Anything Dragonlady posts here you will dismiss out of hand - why not admit that and stop wasting time?

 

[zeke]

To a gun nutter, 30,000+ gun deaths each and every year, is simply a cost of doing gun business in America.

Ain't gonna change. Well, that's not really true. Change is happening as we speak. More and more guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them will pretty much assure us that gun dealths and injuries will continue to increase.

Does anyone know how many billions of dollares we spend on saving the lifes of gun shot victums?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A you tube friend of mine.

[ame=http://youtu.be/Egl8l03qfN0]Why are so called BLACK Leaders Anti-GUN? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[M14 Shooter]

To a gun nutter, 30,000+ gun deaths each and every year, is simply a cost of doing gun business in America.

Ain't gonna change. Well, that's not really true. Change is happening as we speak. More and more guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them will pretty much assure us that gun dealths and injuries will continue to increase.

Except that it hasn't increased -- in fact, as the number of guns in the country goes up by millions each year, the number of deaths involving guns remains steady.

So.... You're either ignorant of the truth, or you're lying.