What Idiot Brings a Gun To a Wedding?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2AGUY SAID:

“In all the history classes I have had...”

You clearly paid zero attention in any of them.

 

[Asclepias]

This bears repeating.

"A few jewels to my son...Knowledge is wealth.
First law of survival...preserve yourself.
Remember courage dont come from the gun
its what you made of
A coward is too scared to face what he afraid of."
-Young Noble

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....the guys with the night sticks, the german shephards, the lynchings, the bombs, jim crow, the kkk, they weren't democrats? Right....? bill clinton, the serial sexual predator...his political mentor and good friend...j william fulbright wasn't a segregationsist.....right?

Setting the Record Straight on Jim Crow National Review Online

TheTruthAboutJimCrow.org, it sets the record straight on a hidden racial past that many Democrats would rather see swept under the carpet. While Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” is constantly referenced in the media as a tool to attract white voters, less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson’s segregation of the entire federal civil service; FDR’s appointment of a member of the KKK to the Supreme Court;

John F. Kennedy’s apathy toward civil-rights legislation; and the rise of Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK, to the post of Democratic leader in the Senate in the 1980s.

Is it fair to remind people of the awful historical antecedents that can lurk within a political party? The study quotes author Bruce Bartlett as asking, “If the Republican party is to bear responsibility for Joe McCarthy through all time, why doesn’t the Democratic party have to bear responsibility for a century of racist leaders?” The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s.

But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War.

Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

 

[ninja007]

Are people really this frightened? You dont need to carry a gun unless you are a cop or have some duty that requires you to carry a gun. Leave your guns at home.

Waldorf Astoria Gun fires accidentally during wedding - CNN.com

"Guests were taking pictures at a lobby when the gun went off Saturday night, CNN affiliate WABC reported.

It was in the pocket of a 42-year-old guest when it went off, grazing a woman in the head when the bullet ricocheted. She was not seriously injured, the affiliate reported.

Four others were injured when they were hit by shattered glass or debris, and treated at local hospitals, according to the affiliate."

yes, because criminals, carjackers, rapists, thieves and murderers wait until you get home to rob you.

 

[ninja007]

guy made a mistake , had an accident or whatever you want to call it , negligent discharge , no one dead , no big deal in my opinion Gents . Lets see if there are charges brought against him .

I'm assuming you carry without a reason like being a cop. Can you explain the mindset? You wake up in the morning, get ready, eat breafast, and then you think about the possibility of being robbed or killed and grab your gun before you leave?

I already told you if you read the thread Ace , people that carry carry so that they are Prepared , Same reason that people save cash , have extra food in the house , carry pocket knives , have Zippos , a spare set of eye glasses , extra medication , fire extinguishers , spare tires , smoke alarms and the list goes on depending on what a person thinks is important . He11 , why do people have house insurance , beg for 'obamacare' , carry 'obamaphones' and why does government have pamphlets on disaster PREPAREDNESS ?? Many smart people just want to be PREPARED Ace !!

You keep saying "prepared". I prepare myself for things that are likely to happen. I save money for the likelihood that an emergency will happen. I understand being prepared. My question is why do you carry a gun? Do you live in a crime ridden area or something?

are you this stupid? People from everywhere carry guns legally btw to save lives and protect themselves.

 

[Anathema]

Sounds more like karma to me. You attract what you think about the most. I dont worry about someone robbing or killing me and guess what?...never had an incident.

No. It comes from living in a filth coated society. Since you've chosen to support and condone the filth it generally leaves you alone.

 

[ninja007]

guns carried by legal gunowners SAVE lives, period. Its not your business if someone carrys a gun on their person. Its their body.

 

[ninja007]

liberalism is truly truly a mental disorder. ABORTION=good. Protecting yourself = bad.

 

[Brain357]

you don't know what

why not this guy

Because he's clearly stupid.
For a gun to go off in your pocket, the safety must be off and the hammer back.
That's a state only an idiot would leave a gun in.

-------------- you don't know what you are talking about IFred , lots of guns have neither a safety or a visible hammer . Just being polite and informative , do some reading and check out some gun catalogues and look at the guns , read the descriptions .

Excellent - please pop in a link to a mass produced legal weapon that has no safety. As for the hammer, it hardly matters if it's visible or not, it has to be cocked to fire.
I await your link.

Edit - I forgot about double action revolvers. Of course, the hammer still needs to be back for an accidental discharge, but he could have been holding it with his dick.

Sadly there are many. Every revolver and most concealed carry semi autos.

 

[Brain357]

these guys are crazy '2aguy' just crazy and they carry their silly arguments to absurdity , see Aces thinking about FEAR when he has been to a dozen times that its about being Prepared !!

You can tell me its preparation all day long. I can accept that. My point is that its preparation because you are afraid.

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home...do you where a seat belt...do you look both ways before your mommy walks you across the street? It is not fear, it is an understanding of how the world works.....it is being prepared for things that might happen......

Like the home invasion in Joe Biden's neighborhood.....

Seat belts don't accidently kill people.

 

[Brain357]

its preparedness because gun carriers have common sense and they have the RIGHT to carry Ace .

You keep doing the sheep thing and saying you have a right which I have no argument with. Its not common sense to have a gun with you outside your home unless you live in a state of perpetual fear or you are hunting or you are a cop that cant back down once off the clock..

Are you really this stupid......there is an understanding...there are bad people in the world, and they rob, rape, and murder other human beings...every day, all around the world, even here in the United States...in President obama's neighborhood where he has his fake residency, and in Joe biden's neighborhood......every day....

And ask the victims of any of these violent criminal attacks..."Did you know that morning that a violent criminal was going to attack you later in the day, or that night?" And guess what guys.........they are going to say they had no idea.....and I bet almost all of them would tell you, " I have never been a victim of crime before and no one in my family has either."

and yet you fools think that carrying a gun the way you carry a cell phone, look both ways crossing the street, or buckling your seat belt is paranoid and stupid......

Ask the survivors of rape, beatings, stabbings, robberies....or attempted murder (since the victims drowned in their own cars after having been raped by two teenagers usually can't be reached for comment)........and see if they would like to have had a gun just before the attack.....

you guys are fucking clueless....

And most those victims are involved in criminal activity. Most of us will never need a gun for defense. I haven't and you haven't needed one.

 

[pismoe]

so , SO don't carry one Brian !!

 

[Brain357]

guns carried by legal gunowners SAVE lives, period. Its not your business if someone carrys a gun on their person. Its their body.

They accidently take a lot of lives when carried by a moron.

 

[Auld Phart]

guns carried by legal gunowners SAVE lives, period. Its not your business if someone carrys a gun on their person. Its their body.

They accidently take a lot of lives when carried by a moron.

An excellent reason for you not to carry.

 

[Pogo]

Yes.....the guys with the night sticks, the german shephards, the lynchings, the bombs, jim crow, the kkk, they weren't democrats? Right....? bill clinton, the serial sexual predator...his political mentor and good friend...j william fulbright wasn't a segregationsist.....right?

Setting the Record Straight on Jim Crow National Review Online

TheTruthAboutJimCrow.org, it sets the record straight on a hidden racial past that many Democrats would rather see swept under the carpet. While Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” is constantly referenced in the media as a tool to attract white voters, less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson’s segregation of the entire federal civil service; FDR’s appointment of a member of the KKK to the Supreme Court;

John F. Kennedy’s apathy toward civil-rights legislation; and the rise of Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK, to the post of Democratic leader in the Senate in the 1980s.

Is it fair to remind people of the awful historical antecedents that can lurk within a political party? The study quotes author Bruce Bartlett as asking, “If the Republican party is to bear responsibility for Joe McCarthy through all time, why doesn’t the Democratic party have to bear responsibility for a century of racist leaders?” The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s.

But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War.

Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

Oboy! Who needs history books when you got "The truth about Jim Crow dot org"?

First things first: Klan --

>> neither "Democrats" nor Nathan Bedford Forrest founded any incarnation of the KKK. That was done (the first time) by some young Confederate veteran soldiers -- as a social club, in 1865 (Christmas Day), out of small-town boredom. A lark. All the Greek terms and alliteration of "kleagles" and "klaverns" exemplifies that. When they dressed up in sheets and rode through town, at that time not as any kind of terrorist act but a simple college-kid prank, they were surprised to find strong visible reaction and took on the sheets as a kind of uniform.

... these six young veterans who started the Klan? No known political affiliation. Just college-age veteran soldiers. In 1865 there wasn't much in the South in the way of politics-as-usual anyway-- the entire focus, for what had been as long as anyone could remember the ruling class (i.e. whites), was either picking up one's shattered life, rising up in armed resistance, or both. So the idea of normal political debate in that time and place as in two or more alternative political philosophies-- didn't even exist. And I specify whites because no one else had power.

Here lie the seeds of the Democratic 99-year (white) dominance of the South; it's just been vanquished and humiliated by the first President of the newfangled "Republican Party"; associating with that party is going to be literally unthinkable for generations. Lincoln's party represents the "aggressor". In a kind of supreme irony the South saw itself as enslaved by the North. But we digress with background here -- the point is the Klan was neither founded by a political party; it wasn't even founded as a terrorist group. Revisionism's a bitch.

...
By the end of the 1870s the Klan was dead. As were the other paramilitary groups that had sprung up synonymously with them.

So why do we know of the Klan so prominently today and not the White League? Because in 1915 (a time which had degraded to the absolute nadir of racial strife in this country, a tenor the school history books somehow forget to point out), a preacher-turned-salesman and inveterate club-starter/joiner in Georgia named William Simmons revived it, capitalizing on the impact of the racist film "Birth of a Nation" which glorified the KKK, which was at the time an romanticized artifact of decades past. Simmons, working off the film, introduced the whole burning crosses schtick, in fact using the imagery to (re)start the organization on Stone Mountain. By 1920 he had hired PR agents to proselytize the Klan and grow it -- after all, there was money to be made in memberships.

... William Simmons? Again, no known political affiliation. He insisted the Klan was a "fraternal" organization -- although clearly a polarizing one

... Simmons' PR people used the isolationism angle to build up huge memberships around the country, far outside the South, and this is the point where they get into politics. Not with a particular party -- Democrats in the South, Republicans in the midwest and west. Whatever worked at the time. In Oregon they got a Democrat into the governor's chair and a Republican as mayor of Portland, Republican Senators and Governors in Colorado and Indiana. Republican city council in Anaheim. And obviously, Democrats in the South. Because the KKK at least understood what a political party is and what it isn't.

Matter of fact when a Governor in Oklahoma (Walton) tried to drive the Klan out after the infamous Tulsa race riots, the KKK got him removed. When a Presidential candidate from Alabama (Underwood) denounced the Klan, they denounced him and muscled him out of contention. Walton and Underwood were both Democrats. <<
​

Oh sorry, does this not fit your revisionista bubble?

(way more here)

== Next up: Jim Crow ==

As already laid out and alluded to above, the South was a one-party state for 99 years until Strom Thurmond did the unthinkable and went Republican, eventually bringing the South with him. Which is on one level understandable since the Southern conservatives had been feuding with their sole option, the Democratic Party, ever since the DP took on the Populist movement in the late 19th century and brought "Liberalism" in (Liberals have never been popular in the conservative South, and still aren't). Southerners disrupted Democratic conventions and bolted to run their own candidates in 1948... 1968... 1972... and as far back as 1860*, while the Klan disrupted conventions in 1924 and 1928 (noted above).

Pop quiz: in the election of 1860 that preceded the Civil War, how many electoral votes did the Republican, Lincoln, win in the South? Zero. How many did the Democrat, Steven Douglas win?

Also zero.

The South had completely disrupted the party convention and ran its own candidates -- TWO of them, Breckinridge and Bell -- who won ALL of the Southern vote. The schism was going on even then.

Add to this George Wallace, who petitioned Barry Goldwater for a spot as his running mate in 1964 and, when turned down, had to be talked out of running on his own, by Goldwater. Oh btw Goldwater had Klan support too, though he didn't seek it.
​

Bottom line in this history: for 99 years after the Civil War, everybody in the South was a Democrat, if they were registered to vote at all. If you ran for office you either (a) ran as a Democrat, or (b) lost the election. That means whether you were a racist or not, you were a Democrat. Because identifying with the "party of Lincoln" was unthinkable. Lincoln, remember, represented "Big" federal government, and had vanquished and humiliated them. The DP represented "states rights" --- you know, the same buzzword later used by George Wallace and Ronald Reagan.

And the whole time the enormous schism between the South (which was always conservative) and the rest of the DP, which morphed into Populist-cum-Liberal with the turn of the century, resulted in two vastly different faces for the same party -- a Democrat in Massachusetts had little or nothing in common with a Democrat in Alabama. And the reason for that is political parties do not operate to represent an ideology -- they operate to win elections, however they can. And if that means morphing with the times, then morph they do. Both the DP and the RP did in fact just that.

Cultural ideologies, on the other hand, tend to stay more fixed. Same South, different Party.


Now on to the CRA history whitewash .... here's the actual vote.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not "political-party". And regional, once again for you slow readers, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands. Again --- same South, different party.

And yet you wanna play history games with your political party action figures and "the truth about Jim Crow dot org". That's so cute.

Ah, the life of the partisan political hack. No responsibilities.... just punt for points.
Must be nice.

/offtopic

 

[charwin95]

Yeah actually it is fear. If you werent afraid of being robbed, killed, or injured you wouldnt carry a weapon. Practically everybody knows that.

No, it's preparation. In less than 20 years carrying I've already had two instances where the mere presence of the gun stopped potential incidents before they escalated. That's exactly what it us meant to do..... Stop the incident before it starts (one way or another)

Sounds more like karma to me. You attract what you think about the most. I dont worry about someone robbing or killing me and guess what?...never had an incident.

The only people who ever pulled guns on me were cops. Except they never identified themselves as such, so if I had been following the advice of the internet tough guy gun fetishists around here, I'd either be dead or at the least imprisoned for taking a cop down.

That's what happens when you're stupid enough to fight a fire by drenching it with gasoline.

I heard more and more of innocent adults and kids getting killed by a gun than saving lives.
The world is not getting prettier because of more guns. The world is getting uglier because of more guns..

 

[Auld Phart]

Yeah actually it is fear. If you werent afraid of being robbed, killed, or injured you wouldnt carry a weapon. Practically everybody knows that.

No, it's preparation. In less than 20 years carrying I've already had two instances where the mere presence of the gun stopped potential incidents before they escalated. That's exactly what it us meant to do..... Stop the incident before it starts (one way or another)

Sounds more like karma to me. You attract what you think about the most. I dont worry about someone robbing or killing me and guess what?...never had an incident.

The only people who ever pulled guns on me were cops. Except they never identified themselves as such, so if I had been following the advice of the internet tough guy gun fetishists around here, I'd either be dead or at the least imprisoned for taking a cop down.

That's what happens when you're stupid enough to fight a fire by drenching it with gasoline.

I heard more and more of innocent adults and kids getting killed by a gun than saving lives.
The world is not getting prettier because of more guns. The world is getting uglier because of more guns..

Because someone using a gun to save their, or someone else's life, rarely makes the front page.

 

[pismoe]

think how ugly it'll get when good people have no guns and are pushed around , preyed upon by strong men or 'Islamic state' types Charwin , you girls won't stand a chance .

 

[Anathema]

I heard more and more of innocent adults and kids getting killed by a gun than saving lives.
The world is not getting prettier because of more guns. The world is getting uglier because of more guns..

Of course you have. Defensive gun usage doesn't fall into the media's wheelhouse so they get ignored.

The world has never been pretty. Get used to it.

 

[charwin95]

I heard more and more of innocent adults and kids getting killed by a gun than saving lives.
The world is not getting prettier because of more guns. The world is getting uglier because of more guns..

Of course you have. Defensive gun usage doesn't fall into the media's wheelhouse so they get ignored.

The world has never been pretty. Get used to it.

Listening to you guys looks like someone is trying to rob me or kill me while watching tv. Im more scared here listening to you guys than walking in the street.
I was rob twice in my life. One in Beijing took everything except my boxers short. A lady lend me towel to cover my self and her son drove to my hotel. I paid them well for their kindness.
Second 2008 outside Borgata casino in Atlantic city while I'm opening my car. Two white guy ( not black ) came next to me flash a gun under his coat.
If I have a gun in my waist on both robbery, it's impossible for me to pull my gun. And maybe they could have killed me if I tried.