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

[Dubya]

exactly.

You people are so nuts, you better worry about losing your guns. Tell it to the Shrink!

I'm not the one that is lying his ass off defending a false argument that gun control wasn't first used to keep blacks disarmed. I'm not the one who argues that democrats was not the ones who first started the klan. You have issues I suggest you take care of them.

I have an issue called telling the truth about things, which is something well beyond your ability. I've read the court case decisions involving gun control issues, long before the Civil War.

Only a fool thinks the Democrats started the KKK.

 

[martybegan]

You people are so nuts, you better worry about losing your guns. Tell it to the Shrink!

I'm not the one that is lying his ass off defending a false argument that gun control wasn't first used to keep blacks disarmed. I'm not the one who argues that democrats was not the ones who first started the klan. You have issues I suggest you take care of them.

I have an issue called telling the truth about things, which is something well beyond your ability. I've read the court case decisions involving gun control issues, long before the Civil War.

Only a fool thinks the Democrats started the KKK.

Well they were not whigs, and they were not republicans, so once the confederacy went kaput there leaves only one party. The party that convinently got back into power in the South once reconstruction ended.

Only a blind partisan doesn't realize or admit the ones who started the KKK were democrats. Why would reconstruction republicans do it? They were in power. Once reconstruction ended and the Klan was able to intimidate the freedemen with impunity, democrats came into power.

Put two and two together.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're the idiots claiming gun control started because they wanted to disarm Blacks. States made those Jim Crow laws and your whole argument is nonsense.

We've had an assault weapons ban before and it didn't even take away assault weapons from the people who owned them. The idea that you will be disarmed is your insanity speaking and it's worried about those mental health Executive Orders. You are a bunch of lying ass nutcases.

Yes white democrats wanted to disarm blacks.
Do you know what black codes were?

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.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not the one that is lying his ass off defending a false argument that gun control wasn't first used to keep blacks disarmed. I'm not the one who argues that democrats was not the ones who first started the klan. You have issues I suggest you take care of them.

I have an issue called telling the truth about things, which is something well beyond your ability. I've read the court case decisions involving gun control issues, long before the Civil War.

Only a fool thinks the Democrats started the KKK.

Well they were not whigs, and they were not republicans, so once the confederacy went kaput there leaves only one party. The party that convinently got back into power in the South once reconstruction ended.

Only a blind partisan doesn't realize or admit the ones who started the KKK were democrats. Why would reconstruction republicans do it? They were in power. Once reconstruction ended and the Klan was able to intimidate the freedemen with impunity, democrats came into power.

Put two and two together.

You ask a lot, far more than he can deliver.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is a pattern to these discussions wherein the gun nuts focus on some irrelevant point of discussion (i.e. Jim Crow laws) which have no bearing on the current discussion, to the exclusion of all else, in order to deflect attention away from discussion of gun control in the 21st century, where they have no hope of winning any arguments.

This tactic only works as long as people don't catch on to what you're doing.

 

[martybegan]

There is a pattern to these discussions wherein the gun nuts focus on some irrelevant point of discussion (i.e. Jim Crow laws) which have no bearing on the current discussion, to the exclusion of all else, in order to deflect attention away from discussion of gun control in the 21st century, where they have no hope of winning any arguments.

This tactic only works as long as people don't catch on to what you're doing.

i.e. you don't have a good response to any of our points, and thus this generalized admission of defeat.

Thanks for playing, drive on through.

 

[Dragonlady]

i.e. you don't have a good response to any of our points, and thus this generalized admission of defeat.

Thanks for playing, drive on through.

Au contraire, mon ami, this is no such thing. There are lots of good responses to your points, except that your points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or with gun control issues in the 21st century. Refusing to discuss anything else, is simply a tactic to avoid discussing the wealth of data which shows unrestricted gun ownership is not in public interest.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You people are so nuts, you better worry about losing your guns. Tell it to the Shrink!

I'm not the one that is lying his ass off defending a false argument that gun control wasn't first used to keep blacks disarmed. I'm not the one who argues that democrats was not the ones who first started the klan. You have issues I suggest you take care of them.

I have an issue called telling the truth about things, which is something well beyond your ability. I've read the court case decisions involving gun control issues, long before the Civil War.

Only a fool thinks the Democrats started the KKK.

Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a pattern to these discussions wherein the gun nuts focus on some irrelevant point of discussion (i.e. Jim Crow laws) which have no bearing on the current discussion, to the exclusion of all else, in order to deflect attention away from discussion of gun control in the 21st century, where they have no hope of winning any arguments.

This tactic only works as long as people don't catch on to what you're doing.

Speaking of not being able to win an argument...

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is a pattern to these discussions wherein the gun nuts focus on some irrelevant point of discussion (i.e. Jim Crow laws) which have no bearing on the current discussion, to the exclusion of all else, in order to deflect attention away from discussion of gun control in the 21st century, where they have no hope of winning any arguments.

This tactic only works as long as people don't catch on to what you're doing.

I have a purpose too my being a nut. You on the other hand have a lot to explain for.

And pointing out that the roots of gun control was to keep blacks disarmed is not irrelevant. It is very relevant, to show what happens to a people who are disarmed at the hands of the government. You don't like it go pound sand.

 

[Dubya]

I'm not the one that is lying his ass off defending a false argument that gun control wasn't first used to keep blacks disarmed. I'm not the one who argues that democrats was not the ones who first started the klan. You have issues I suggest you take care of them.

I have an issue called telling the truth about things, which is something well beyond your ability. I've read the court case decisions involving gun control issues, long before the Civil War.

Only a fool thinks the Democrats started the KKK.

Well they were not whigs, and they were not republicans, so once the confederacy went kaput there leaves only one party. The party that convinently got back into power in the South once reconstruction ended.

Only a blind partisan doesn't realize or admit the ones who started the KKK were democrats. Why would reconstruction republicans do it? They were in power. Once reconstruction ended and the Klan was able to intimidate the freedemen with impunity, democrats came into power.

Put two and two together.

Try putting one and two together!

The first KKK was started by six veterans of the Confederate Army in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was only active from the late 1860s to early 1970s. Claiming the Klan was started by the Democrats is a failure of logic.

The second KKK was founded in 1915 in Atlanta, Georgia.

 

[Dot Com]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paxk_LPmdMI]i just ******* shot myself - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE]Original Upload, I Just Shot Myself! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OODA_Loop]

. Claiming the Klan was started by the Democrats is a failure of logic.

It was started by Democrats and one of their main opponents were Republican state governments.

Even a casual browse of Wiki tells you this.

For some one who uses "n!gger" as a pejorative to those he disagrees with you sure are out of touch with your racist roots.

 

[Dubya]

Yes white democrats wanted to disarm blacks.
Do you know what black codes were?

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.

 

[Black_Label]

. Claiming the Klan was started by the Democrats is a failure of logic.

It was started by Democrats and one of their main opponents were Republican state governments.

Even a casual browse of Wiki tells you this.

For some one who uses "n!gger" as a pejorative to those he disagrees with you sure are out of touch with your racist roots.

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.

 

[Dubya]

. Claiming the Klan was started by the Democrats is a failure of logic.

It was started by Democrats and one of their main opponents were Republican state governments.

Even a casual browse of Wiki tells you this.

For some one who uses "n!gger" as a pejorative to those he disagrees with you sure are out of touch with your racist roots.

I don't want a PM from you and that's what you're going to get if I get PMed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

. Claiming the Klan was started by the Democrats is a failure of logic.

It was started by Democrats and one of their main opponents were Republican state governments.

Even a casual browse of Wiki tells you this.

For some one who uses "n!gger" as a pejorative to those he disagrees with you sure are out of touch with your racist roots.

I don't want a PM from you and that's what you're going to get if I get PMed.

What do you think you achieve when you call someone something so hateful and divisive ?

Does it empower you ?

 

[Dubya]

It was started by Democrats and one of their main opponents were Republican state governments.

Even a casual browse of Wiki tells you this.

For some one who uses "n!gger" as a pejorative to those he disagrees with you sure are out of touch with your racist roots.

I don't want a PM from you and that's what you're going to get if I get PMed.

What do you think you achieve when you call someone something so hateful and divisive ?

Does it empower you ?

Stopping the PMs!

 

[OODA_Loop]

I don't want a PM from you and that's what you're going to get if I get PMed.

What do you think you achieve when you call someone something so hateful and divisive ?

Does it empower you ?

Stopping the PMs!

Would you call a black woman a n!gger who sent you a PM ?

Do you use n!gger to peoples face....... "Hey you n!gger you took the last rasberry donut" .........or does the Internets afford the anonymity required to embolden you ?

Ever think about turning off your PMs ?

Could hide those David Duke tendencies of yours a bit.

 

[Dubya]

What do you think you achieve when you call someone something so hateful and divisive ?

Does it empower you ?

Stopping the PMs!

Would you call a black woman a n!gger who sent you a PM ?

Do you use n!gger to peoples face....... "Hey you n!gger you took the last rasberry donut" .........or does the Internets afford the anonymity required to embolden you ?

Ever think about turning off your PMs ?

Could hide those David Duke tendencies of yours a bit.

It has to do with you. Black men and women don't act like assholes and you do.

Why don't you try discussing the subject for a change or stay off the thread? You would think with all these threads in all these forums, something would interests you enough to discuss that subject and not the person who posts. You can go places on this site and just shoot the shit, so go there!