CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[2aguy]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

access to guns is already limited.....

And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them.

that is what you call Felons.....they are already prohibited from buying, owning or carrying guns...and just like drug addicts, they get people to buy their drugs/guns for them...or they steal their drugs/guns....

And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested,

If you are stopped by police and found to have an illegal gun...you can be arrested...already, under current law....

bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind,

If you are found to be a straw buyer...someone using their clean record to buy guns for criminals, you can already be arrested...I have linked to these stories in other threads over the last year...

Guns are already limited......you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you go to jail. If you are felon caught with a gun, you go to jail......if you are dangerously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun at all......

You guys keep acting like guns are just given away to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, they simply do what people intent on doing bad things do....they get around your gun laws.....so you want more gun laws, which they also get around....

The French have every single gun law you want...to the point they do not have gun stores, they do not have gun shows and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal....and criminals and terrorists in France get the guns easily........

You guys focus all of your energy on normal, law abiding gun owners when we know that to solve the problem...you actually need to focus on criminals.....

If you really want to stop gun violence...put a 30 year sentence on gun crime..by actual criminals...not the law abiding gun owner who didn't realize that being a legal gun owner in New York made him a criminal if he crossed the border into New Jersey.....

 

[2aguy]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

We can't have ANY limits on abortions, even against partial birth abortion because the RIGHT WON'T STOP! It's just a foot in the door to ban ALL abortions!

Guns? Let's just limit them, no one is trying to take them away ...

You don't believe that? Hmm ... me either ...

The gun debate has something the abortion debate does not: a Constitutional Amendment. If and when extant is a successful effort to amend the Constitution, I'll believe that someone (or group) aims to "take away" folks' guns. In the meantime, I'm of the mind that the only thing sought is removing guns from the hands of some folks who, with just cause, should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Then you would be wrong.

Not one gun law proposed would actually target criminals. Name one gun law that doesn't effect normal gun owners while doing nothing to stop mass shooters and criminals.

The left has already gotten court decisions in appeals courts limiting access to rifles, certain types of magazines and therefore certain types of pistols.....none of which does what you want them to do..."removing guns from the hands of some folks" but in fact only effects normal, law abiding gun owners........

You are wrong.

 

[2aguy]

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

Red:
No. I see now that you were replying to someone who's on my ignore list, although of the three folks in that line of conversation, I only know which of them I'm not ignoring, which of the other two I am ignoring.

Having now viewed the entire line of discussion, what I see is that my remark to you is still applicable, be the allegorical concept of comparison drugs or abortion. So, again, no I don't see that the idea I presented as having nothing to do with your remarks or the theme of that line of discussion.

Blue:
Well, I happen to disagree with that. The "Pulse" shooter hadn't been convicted of a crime and he clearly had no business being able to get hold of any gun, much less the type of gun he used. Ditto the "Dallas" shooter. Ditto every other first time misuser of a firearm. In my mind, it doesn't matter if the person kills or harms one person or dozens.

You see, the thing about the right to bear arms is that there needs to be some sort of balance between folks having the freedom to exercise that right and the risk that a person who has exercised that right may "flip out" and abuse the arms they obtained in the exercise of that right. Now I know we can't accurately and preemptively identify each person who may "flip out," but we can identify the factors that militate for a "higher than X" probability that they may "flip out" and deny those folks the free exercise of their 2nd Amendment right.

There is a balance.....you just fail to recognize it.....

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

8,000,000 to 54

Do you see that the numbers show you are wrong.....you are trying to solve a problem that is non existent...that the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

Notice.....the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

We already have balance in our gun laws....you cannot commit a crime with a gun, you cannot be a felon and buy, own or carry a gun....

The real kink in the system.......prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

then you have judges who let felons caught with illegal guns, back on the street...over and over again who then go on to murder people.....

The problem isn't the gun laws.....we already have them....the problem is prosecutors and judges......

Japan used to have a gun problem with their Yakuza....when they decided to murder each other they easily got guns and grenades to commit that murder.....the last gang war was in 2006 and lasted 7 years.

They almost had a gang war last year...what stopped it....

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

our problem.....again, is on the prosecution and sentencing of known felons with guns.....not licensing normal gun owners who commit no crimes with guns.

 

[2aguy]

I keep reading posts that say we already have lots and lots of gun laws and we don't need any more. The new gun laws that I have heard about are laws that loosen the restrictions on carrying guns openly or concealed in public places. I haven't heard about gun laws which restrict ownership. Are such laws now being passed?

California....the 9th circuit said there is no right to carry a concealed gun......and they already ban open carry of guns...therefore you cannot carry a gun in California if your county sheriff says you can't.....essentially ending part of the Second amendment...the "bear arms" part......

 

[IsaacNewton]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one but city politicians wants any president to visit their city

It just fucks everything up for the day

 

[kaz]

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

Red:
No. I see now that you were replying to someone who's on my ignore list, although of the three folks in that line of conversation, I only know which of them I'm not ignoring, which of the other two I am ignoring.

Having now viewed the entire line of discussion, what I see is that my remark to you is still applicable, be the allegorical concept of comparison drugs or abortion. So, again, no I don't see that the idea I presented as having nothing to do with your remarks or the theme of that line of discussion.

Blue:
Well, I happen to disagree with that. The "Pulse" shooter hadn't been convicted of a crime and he clearly had no business being able to get hold of any gun, much less the type of gun he used. Ditto the "Dallas" shooter. Ditto every other first time misuser of a firearm. In my mind, it doesn't matter if the person kills or harms one person or dozens.

You see, the thing about the right to bear arms is that there needs to be some sort of balance between folks having the freedom to exercise that right and the risk that a person who has exercised that right may "flip out" and abuse the arms they obtained in the exercise of that right. Now I know we can't accurately and preemptively identify each person who may "flip out," but we can identify the factors that militate for a "higher than X" probability that they may "flip out" and deny those folks the free exercise of their 2nd Amendment right.

There is a balance.....you just fail to recognize it.....

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

8,000,000 to 54

Do you see that the numbers show you are wrong.....you are trying to solve a problem that is non existent...that the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

Notice.....the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

We already have balance in our gun laws....you cannot commit a crime with a gun, you cannot be a felon and buy, own or carry a gun....

The real kink in the system.......prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

then you have judges who let felons caught with illegal guns, back on the street...over and over again who then go on to murder people.....

The problem isn't the gun laws.....we already have them....the problem is prosecutors and judges......

Japan used to have a gun problem with their Yakuza....when they decided to murder each other they easily got guns and grenades to commit that murder.....the last gang war was in 2006 and lasted 7 years.

They almost had a gang war last year...what stopped it....

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

our problem.....again, is on the prosecution and sentencing of known felons with guns.....not licensing normal gun owners who commit no crimes with guns.

That is the rub, isn't it? Liberals are obsessed with legal gun owners who commit a tiny fraction of the crimes while being completely unconcerned with actual criminals committing endless murders with illegal guns.

Where is the bang for the buck?

a) Their relentless pursuit nationally of creating more background checks and adding restrictions to who can buy what guns?

b) The murders committed constantly in Chicago alone?

The bang for the buck is the latter, yet it's us who keep bringing it up. The left is obsessed with the former and silent on Chicago and the other inner cities where most gun crimes occur and would be unaffected by more background checks and restrictions

 

[2aguy]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

No they won't ...he supports black lives matter and the racist al sharpton........he sat in a racist church for 20 years...and has been demeaning the police from the moment he got into office....

 

[2aguy]

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

Red:
No. I see now that you were replying to someone who's on my ignore list, although of the three folks in that line of conversation, I only know which of them I'm not ignoring, which of the other two I am ignoring.

Having now viewed the entire line of discussion, what I see is that my remark to you is still applicable, be the allegorical concept of comparison drugs or abortion. So, again, no I don't see that the idea I presented as having nothing to do with your remarks or the theme of that line of discussion.

Blue:
Well, I happen to disagree with that. The "Pulse" shooter hadn't been convicted of a crime and he clearly had no business being able to get hold of any gun, much less the type of gun he used. Ditto the "Dallas" shooter. Ditto every other first time misuser of a firearm. In my mind, it doesn't matter if the person kills or harms one person or dozens.

You see, the thing about the right to bear arms is that there needs to be some sort of balance between folks having the freedom to exercise that right and the risk that a person who has exercised that right may "flip out" and abuse the arms they obtained in the exercise of that right. Now I know we can't accurately and preemptively identify each person who may "flip out," but we can identify the factors that militate for a "higher than X" probability that they may "flip out" and deny those folks the free exercise of their 2nd Amendment right.

There is a balance.....you just fail to recognize it.....

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

8,000,000 to 54

Do you see that the numbers show you are wrong.....you are trying to solve a problem that is non existent...that the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

Notice.....the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

We already have balance in our gun laws....you cannot commit a crime with a gun, you cannot be a felon and buy, own or carry a gun....

The real kink in the system.......prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

then you have judges who let felons caught with illegal guns, back on the street...over and over again who then go on to murder people.....

The problem isn't the gun laws.....we already have them....the problem is prosecutors and judges......

Japan used to have a gun problem with their Yakuza....when they decided to murder each other they easily got guns and grenades to commit that murder.....the last gang war was in 2006 and lasted 7 years.

They almost had a gang war last year...what stopped it....

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

our problem.....again, is on the prosecution and sentencing of known felons with guns.....not licensing normal gun owners who commit no crimes with guns.

That is the rub, isn't it? Liberals are obsessed with legal gun owners who commit a tiny fraction of the crimes while being completely unconcerned with actual criminals committing endless murders with illegal guns.

Where is the bang for the buck?

a) Their relentless pursuit nationally of creating more background checks and adding restrictions to who can buy what guns?

b) The murders committed constantly in Chicago alone?

The bang for the buck is the latter, yet it's us who keep bringing it up. The left is obsessed with the former and silent on Chicago and the other inner cities where most gun crimes occur and would be unaffected by more background checks and restrictions

Have you noticed that the anti gunners here have stopped stating specific gun laws they want...and now just say "common sense gun laws" and then they move on......they have gotten tired of being exposed for supporting laws they can't defend.....

So.....I know I am going to challenge them when they just use the term "common sense gun laws" and demand that they name the laws they want...I have a thread going on licensing gun owners....they haven't commented there because they have no rational argument that survives questioning......

They don't care about criminals using guns for crime....they have a burning hatred for normal people who own guns....except for themselves of course....or their paid security forces...

 

[martybegan]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

I have a feeling he will not be received as warmly as you think. Police officers are starting to feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable, and Obama has voiced support for groups critical of the police.

Expect a lot of forced smiles, and even some booing and heckling.

 

[2aguy]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

I have a feeling he will not be received as warmly as you think. Police officers are starting to feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable, and Obama has voiced support for groups critical of the police.

Expect a lot of forced smiles, and even some booing and heckling.

Not just critical...they hate the police...remember pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon......that group, black lies matter is actively supported and courted by obama and the democrats......

 

[Skull Pilot]

Since the NRA's message is that people should legally, safely and responsibly own, carry and use guns, why would their message change because some people didn't follow one of their tenets?

 

[2aguy]

Since the NRA's message is that people should legally, safely and responsibly own, carry and use guns, why would their message change because some people didn't follow one of their tenets?

Exactly......

 

[martybegan]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

I have a feeling he will not be received as warmly as you think. Police officers are starting to feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable, and Obama has voiced support for groups critical of the police.

Expect a lot of forced smiles, and even some booing and heckling.

Not just critical...they hate the police...remember pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon......that group, black lies matter is actively supported and courted by obama and the democrats......

I think BLM is like any other radical group, a mass of well meaning but ignorant followers, and groups of leaders, some with positive goals, some not so much. BLM is a fractured movement, just like the Tea Party, there is no over-reaching leadership.

That being said there are definitely some BLM factions that are much more aggressive and dangerous than the others. I don't want to paint a broad brush here, but pointing out the "asshole" factions is warranted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

I have a feeling he will not be received as warmly as you think. Police officers are starting to feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable, and Obama has voiced support for groups critical of the police.

Expect a lot of forced smiles, and even some booing and heckling.

Not just critical...they hate the police...remember pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon......that group, black lies matter is actively supported and courted by obama and the democrats......

I think BLM is like any other radical group, a mass of well meaning but ignorant followers, and groups of leaders, some with positive goals, some not so much. BLM is a fractured movement, just like the Tea Party, there is no over-reaching leadership.

That being said there are definitely some BLM factions that are much more aggressive and dangerous than the others. I don't want to paint a broad brush here, but pointing out the "asshole" factions is warranted.

What are the goals of BLM exactly? Other than to make noise and block traffic that is?

 

[kaz]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

I have a feeling he will not be received as warmly as you think. Police officers are starting to feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable, and Obama has voiced support for groups critical of the police.

Expect a lot of forced smiles, and even some booing and heckling.

Not just critical...they hate the police...remember pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon......that group, black lies matter is actively supported and courted by obama and the democrats......

I think BLM is like any other radical group, a mass of well meaning but ignorant followers, and groups of leaders, some with positive goals, some not so much. BLM is a fractured movement, just like the Tea Party, there is no over-reaching leadership.

That being said there are definitely some BLM factions that are much more aggressive and dangerous than the others. I don't want to paint a broad brush here, but pointing out the "asshole" factions is warranted.

What are the goals of BLM exactly? Other than to make noise and block traffic that is?

To silence anyone who disagrees with the Democratic party with force and intimidation. The left is getting more desperate since their monopoly on the media is slowly slipping away

 

[rightwinger]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

Doesn't apply to carrying while black?

 

[martybegan]

The president is going to Dallas tomorrow.

This is one of those moments; a sniper fires on police, Dallas, a presidential visit. Coincidence for sure but any president visiting Dallas just sounds, ominus in some way. I'm sure nothing will happen and everyone in Dallas will be glad the president is coming into town to support the police and the city but some moments are odder than others. This is an odd one in light of history.

Dallas is one of the exemplary cities regarding training of their officers in de-escalation and the number of police involved shootings is very low. I'm sure they'll appreciate the president coming to speak and he'll have nothing but good things to say about them. Which is earned.

I have a feeling he will not be received as warmly as you think. Police officers are starting to feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable, and Obama has voiced support for groups critical of the police.

Expect a lot of forced smiles, and even some booing and heckling.

Not just critical...they hate the police...remember pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon......that group, black lies matter is actively supported and courted by obama and the democrats......

I think BLM is like any other radical group, a mass of well meaning but ignorant followers, and groups of leaders, some with positive goals, some not so much. BLM is a fractured movement, just like the Tea Party, there is no over-reaching leadership.

That being said there are definitely some BLM factions that are much more aggressive and dangerous than the others. I don't want to paint a broad brush here, but pointing out the "asshole" factions is warranted.

What are the goals of BLM exactly? Other than to make noise and block traffic that is?

I honestly think that most of the leaders don't know, and the rank and file definitely don't know. Its similar to the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and other non-hierarchical protests. It starts with "WE ARE ANGRY ABOUT SOMETHING", gains momentum, but stagnates when they actually have to define what they are angry about, and more importantly, what to do about it.

When protest doesn't morph into viable solutions, stagnation happens, or dissolution.

You saw it in the stagnation of the tea party, and the dissolution of Occupy Wall Street.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

It remains to be seen what happened doesn't it?

Try walking up to a cop and tell him you're armed with a permit then reach behind your back and see what happens

 

[martybegan]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

Doesn't apply to carrying while black?

They are still trying to figure out what happened, and have said they are looking at the case with particular interest.

Why is there a need to respond RIGHT NOW NOW NOW when it comes to these things?

Just because the MSM has gone with a 15 minute news cycle, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.