Jump to content
Waterstar

A Gunless Society?

Recommended Posts

Banning guns couldn't make things any worse. Drive-by shootings would certainly be reduced in frequency. But what about protection from aggressive people? Well, to ward off crime and robberies, law enforcement officers and security personnel should stick with taser guns and law-abiding citizens could rely on mace for self defense.

To nip the problem in the bud, schools should also start at the kindergarten level brainwashing youngsters about the negative ramifications of random violent acts. So many of today's young perpetrators seem clueless about the consequences of committing murder, and how lives can be forever ruined by one impulsive act.

Chris Rock has suggested banning the manufacture and sale of bullets. Not a bad idea.

Of course, none of this will ever happen. It would put too many industries out of business. There's money to be made from the ripple effect of one individual being shot by another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own a gun and have only fired one twice in my life.

I thought about getting a gun one few times, but the only scenario I could invision using one was during a home invasion (a very unlikely event). When I was younger settling a dispute on the street was another consideration (fortunately I've matured). I still don't have one

Sure, ban guns for everyone except active millitary. The penalty for actually using one should be extremely severe - i.e. Plexico Burress (sp?) would still be in jail.

Just active military and specialized police officers like SWAT teams, but not your avergae beat cop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people who pick up guns can't help but want to use them. It's almost like the gun possesses them or something...like the gun wants to be used...

The person finds himself (herself) wanting to pull that trigger..."give me a reason"...and that's why so many situations spin out of control when guns are involved. That same person who would ordinarily walk away from a fist fight is often that same person who will shoot someone and kill them and then say "oops" later...crying in court, saying they "lost it" or saying they weren't thinking...saying they're sorry...etc etc etc.

smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forreal@ Writergirl. Madness.

Cynique, the question about protection from aggressive people is an interesting one. LOL It makes me wonder something that I hadn't wondered prior to your raising that question. I wonder if the number of openly aggressive people would decline as a result of the banning of guns. I tend to think that a lot of punks turn into tough guys when they holdin something. (Cops not exempt.) This can kinda go with what Writergirl was saying. I wonder how many people would be less apt to initiate acts of violence when they have to deal on a level of man to man (woman lol) combat.

Nuff a these people with guns probably know how to shoot but don't know how to really fight. Why? Who needs to go through all dat when u have your handy dandy trigger? Even with knives, knife related deaths/injuries are a lot less common than those related to guns. With guns, you can keep a comfortable distance and shoot someone to his/her death. Not so much the same with knives. I think that knives would require people to second think initiating an attack sooner than guns would... but the banning of guns would be just one of many things that would need to be considered for a better day. First and foremost, the collective mentality is a need of major makeover.

Troy, I agree almost completely. The almost comes from the specialized police/military part. Oh my gosh, it is like their "authority" and access to weapons give them a license to lose they' darn minds. Heck. They are out of control. Now we'd have to have somethin to protect us from THEM if they had guns. The banning of guns for everyone except them would certainly make the police state official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waterstar I hear you. The idea that if we all had guns, that we would be protected from a police state is an illusion. They will always have us outgunned as they do now. They could just poison the air, water and food supply (which is being done to a certain extent now).

Besides why do we need a police state when the masses are controlled by all the nonsense we have at our disposal now and a dismal educatoin system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U know, Troy, the reason I said "official" police state is because we, in many ways, already live in an unofficial police state.

My point about the specialized police/military being the only ones allowed to have guns in an otherwise gunless society was that guns are not banned currently yet officials are already out of control with their abuse of power and that, at this rate, we would find ourselves needing protection from the "protectors" (as we often do now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy said: Besides why do we need a police state when the masses are controlled by all the nonsense we have at our disposal now and a dismal educatoin system.

So true!!! We were on fb talking about this a few weeks ago. Someone said "why don't they send the National Guard to Chicago's inner city & do something about the violence." uh, hello? population control. They aren't sending anybody anywhere!

p.s. Sometimes though, I do think about going to get a gun...Just the thought of things getting worse and somebody kicking my door in saying "pack your stuff and get on the bus for your own safety" makes me a little nervous. But like Troy said, I'd be outgunned...What could me and my little 9 do against an army of cops w/an arsenal of weapons...probably go out in a blaze of glory. Lord have mercy. Am I reading too many sci-fiction stories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think about the idea of guns being banned in America? What, if anything, do you think it would change about society?

What do I think about a ban on guns? Nothing to think about. Why? 1.) It's not the answer. 2.) it will never happen. Das dat......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Writergirl, like you and Troy, I also have thought about getting a gun. Perhaps our specifics have been different, but all of our motives behind the consideration seem common; protection. (Troy's gangsta moment not included. :-D)

What do I think about a ban on guns? Nothing to think about. Why? 1.) It's not the answer. 2.) it will never happen. Das dat......

Hi, Xeon.

I can't say that your answer is not realistic. It is very realistic. At the same time, how many people do you think said, "It will never happen" in response to the legal ending of slavery or women's suffrage or even America's majority population becoming a minority population? It wasn't so long ago that a black person had to drink at a coloreds only fountain with the thought that a different way would never happen.

On the banning of guns not being the answer, I wouldn't be so foolish as to believe that the banning of guns is the social fairy dust to make all social ills disappear. As I said in a previous post in this same thread, I feel that the banning of guns would be one of many things to consider for the making of a better day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of the recent killings in Chicago, the debate on gun control has been brought more to the forefront.

(I suppose that some of us would merely be "pouting" if we were to note that black ppl been gettin shot up like no other here for centuries and it hasn't been enough to spark a serious massive examination of the gun control-outside of controlling access to guns for certain members of society- in this society, but I digress for now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd venture to say that, over the centuries, black people have been lynched and beaten to death as much as they've been shot. Save your pouting for that.

It's not like white people don't kill each other, their weapon of choice more likely to be a gun, especially during Prohibition. White people don't really care if Blacks shoot each other up, which is what they are doing in Chicago, so they are no more concerned about Blacks having guns than Whites.

Illinois has stricter gun control laws than most states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there are better things to pout about like why you don't see things exactly the way that I see them. It's actually making me suicidal, you know. :-(

Of course white people don't really care about black people shooting each other up, but white people do care about black people shooting white people up. They also know very well that as it stands now, more black people kill black people over nonsense than black people kill white people over injustices done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique over the centuries is a long time. But in recent memory, at least over the last few decades, I'd be willing to bet that gun violence would rank at the top of preventable causes of death -- certainly for Black men under 40. .

Here in NY City a 4 year old child was shot and killed at an event to commemorate someone else who was killed through gun violence. This got a lot of media attention because of the ironic nature of the circumstances of the murder and the age of the victim. Of course the outcry from the community is relatively mute. Outrage is only expressed on a large scale if the murderer is suspected to be non-Black. We get riled up over bad mouthing the president, the Housewives of Atlanta, LeBron willing a ring...

I know people personally who have been shot and killed through gun violence. I have had a gun pulled on me during a robbery. I am not unique in these experiences. Indeed my experience my be rather mild in comparison with many others -- and that is the sick part.

So while a gun in the hands of most people is fairly innocuous, there are too many people where the opposite is true. Until that changes I'd be willing to ban guns -- or at least putting so many restrictions on their use and one's ability to acquire one and many violations a serious felony.

This would likely bring down murders and people would be happy until we discover that, in practice, the law would only be enforced against Black folks -- landing even more of us in jail.

We have to figure out a way to stop black folks from killing Black folks. Since taking guns away is not likely in the near future we need to get down to the root cause of the problem -- a better solution anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A child being accidently killed during the course of gunfire exchange is nothing extraordinary on the streets of Chicago. This has been the case in at least 4 incidents thus far this year.

Banning guns would have no effect on the underground traffic of illegally selling guns to whomever has the asking price. The situation has gotten so bad that black leaders are calling for Obama to show the same concern he showed for the Aurora, Colorado, killings by coming to his hometown and speaking out against the senseless gun violence whose weekly toll is in double figures, exceeding deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others are demanding the Mayor ask the Governor to call out the National Guard to patrol the sreets. But the murders go on. And in enough cases to show a pattern, the deaths have been the results of personal slights. Uninvited guests show up and disrupt a private gathering and when asked to leave, they go get their guns, then return and shoot up the place. Disputes between acquaintances wherein the losers settle the argument by killing the person who bested them, or a scorned lover replaced by a girlfriend's latest companion who becomes the target of revenge. Of course the drive-bys are always cases of mistaken indentities.

In one of the latest Chicago tragedies, yet another promising basketball player bound for college on a scholarship, tried to break up a neighborhood brawl and was riddled with bullets by someone he'd known all his life. When the brother of this victim was asked to name names he refused, because he didn't want to snitch on his "homies".

Another common scenario involves the interviews with families of victims, - tearful mothers and grandmothers and siblings and girlfriends, quivering into the microphones thrust before them by TV reporters, all declaring how innocent Pookie was, not affiliated with a gang and who had gotten, or was getting his life together. The follow-up stories show the makeshift memorials erected at the scene of the crime, as neigbors stand around shaking their heads asking when it's all going to end, and Preachers lead straggly marches against violence. Such episodes are reported almost daily in the 6 o'clock news segments.

Gun violence has taken root in the culture of inner cities and unless minds can be re-programmed, it will continue to thin the ranks of young black people. Things are out of control and a superhero needs to emerge and save the day. Bat Man where are you when we need you??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the Nation of Islam has taken to the street in response to all the gun violence in Chi-town. I hope it help.

Gun violence would probably increase the underground trafficking of guns, but if guns were banned you could at least start locking up those possessing them. And since the guys who possess the guns are the ones actually using them, I suspect the murders would decrease -- especially between knucklehead settling some personal dispute.

It is obvious by now that Obama's reelection and overall strategy is not to show any overt support of the Black community. So I doubt he'll be speaking out or doing anything of consequence in Chicago, Newark, Philadelphia or even his own backyard of SE Washington DC.

Batman?! I don't remember seeing the caper crusader helping anyone in the Black community either :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Sistah Souljah doing nowadays? Still living off the royalties from "The Coldest Winter Ever"?, the much-overrated self-aggrandizing book, glorifying the "redeeming" qualities of materialism and drug profits and murder that she wrote waaaay back when? Still living off the notoriety she gained from being deflated by Bill Clinton's dismissal of her politics - an anachroism who hasn't made an impact on Black progress, considering that post racial America is in dire shape??? Still wearing that bad weave??? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Sister Souljah has long been involved in grassroots efforts with our people here and globally, especially the youth.

As for her books, she has written at least 3 books, to my knowledge, since The Coldest Winter Ever. From your descriptions, it definitely does not seem as though you have read the book.

Sister Souljah is definitely a woman of many dimensions, but for many, sound bites and headlines are enough to make up their minds about people and/or situations. Even with your brilliance and unique presence, you don't exactly seem to be an exception. I digress.

For anyone who might be wondering why I posted the Sister Souljah speech, it is because it has much to do with what we are discussing in this thread, Cynique's and Troy's last posts in particular.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did read "The Coldest Winter" - and hated this poorly-constructed book and its shallow characters. Sistah Souljah may impress you, but I've never found anything extraordinary about her.

Tell me something, Waterstar. What about you and me being on different wave lengths, don't you understand ?? All of these people and videos you dig up do not resonate with me. I don't find them relative to my outlook because, to me, they are not saying anything new. I am a cynic and you are an optimist. I"ve suggested that we have an age gap, even a geographic one, - that you and I have a yin and yang dynamic, that my black experience is different from yours Yet, you prefer to dismiss these explanations for our polarization. I don't.

Your perception is that I am mis-perceiving you, rebutting things you've never said, yet you never clarify or get specific. In spite of my "IMO" tag lines, you imply that I am trying to invalidate your arguments, seemingly unaware that you are judgmental yourself, exuding an air of being ennobled in your grand mission as you turn this board into your personal blog, promoting your agenda. That's all well and good because my interest in the black dilemma is waning and jaded, so knock yourself out. But sitting back taking pot shots suits me just fine, so you know what to expect. Sistah Souljah? Screw her. IMO, she shares a lot of the blame for establising the street genre that lowered standards in black literature and made white publishers rich. :P

Hummm. Whoever thought, I'd find a new Kola Boof to bounce off. I even suspect that 'trolls" are on the loose. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't really worry that you are mis-perceiving me. Out of humor, I have told you that your misperceiving me has made me suicidal, but let me clarify that it has not. :)

Cynique said:

That's all well and good because my interest in the black dilemma is waning and jaded, so knock yourself out

You probably have your reasons for that. On the other hand, my interest in our people is not waning,and I have my reasons for that.

As for the promotion of 'my agenda', I don't think that my objectives are out of line when I reflect on the forum's description:

Culture, Race, and Economy Forum (Cynique's Corner)

-Description:

This board's purpose is to facilitate the exchange of opinions, ideas, facts, and information as it relates to Black people in America, Africa, and the rest of the Diaspora. In 2011, this discussion forum was renamed "Cynique's Corner" to honor a brilliant and prolific contributor to our conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered why you chose suicide as your method when making jokes. Another form of despair would've been less methodical and more dramatic. I never took you seriously because I somehow have the perception that you think the world wouldn't have anything to revolve around upon your demise. ;)

And at this point, I would be remiss if I didn't give a thumbs up to good ol boitumelo for being succinct and timely. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update on the gun control debate and its politics:

Despite mass shootings, Democrats still find tackling gun control too risky

By David Perlmutt

Even in the wake of last month’s Colorado shooting rampage and a gunman’s spree last year that nearly killed former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, don’t expect Democrats to arrive in Charlotte armed with renewed calls for tougher gun laws.

The issue is too risky.

Yet with the party’s platform committee set to hammer out its positions on everything from homeland security to Social Security and Medicare next week in Detroit , some N.C. Democrats say they’ll push the party to at least take a tougher stand on controlling access to assault weapons.

“Democrats haven’t been altogether forceful on the (gun control) issue,” said state Rep. Pricey Harrison of Greensboro, an N.C. delegate and member of the party’s platform committee. “But given the recent shootings in Arizona and Colorado – and a ton of shootings around the country that don’t get all the attention – we need to be, and can be, more thoughtful on the guns issue.”

She will urge the party to support reinstituting a 1994 ban on assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004, and attempts to renew it have grabbed little traction.

Gun rights groups are too powerful, Harrison said. They argue that any form of gun control makes it hard for crime victims to defend themselves and that criminals would get guns illegally.

“The anti-control people aren’t willing to cede any ground and compromise,” said Harrison, who owns guns for shooting sporting clays or skeet. “Assault weapons are nearly impossible to justify. I plan to go to Detroit and advocate for a stronger position.”

The July 20 shooting that killed 12 and wounded 58 in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater gave gun control supporters new ammunition to push for renewal of the assault weapon ban. It banned 19 models of semiautomatic guns.

Colorado authorities say doctoral student James Holmes, the alleged gunman, legally bought a semiautomatic AR-15 with a 100-round magazine.

The gun would have been banned under the 1994 law.

Harrison also wants federal lawmakers to require states to share “gun data” to help prevent people from legally amassing a 6,000-round arsenal – as police say Holmes did.

“There is no justification for allowing an individual to shoot off that many rounds,” Harrison said.

She’ll find some support from fellow North Carolinians.

N.C. Sen. Dan Blue of Raleigh, a former N.C. House speaker, is all for Democrats addressing access to assault and other military-style weapons.

“I certainly support the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), but I don’t think that everybody ought to be able to have a tank in their back yard,” said Blue, a party rules committee member. “Assault weapons are hard to control and they’re designed to mow down a lot of people.

“Most people agree there needs to be some restrictions on the availability of these military-style weapons.”

subhead

Days after the Colorado shooting, gun control advocates took heart when President Barack Obama told the National Urban League his administration would “leave no stone unturned” to reduce gun violence – including restricting gun ownership.

Even gun owners, Obama said, would agree that AK-47 assault rifles belonged in the hands of military troops, “not children.”

Yet a day later, his office said that Obama wouldn’t push for stricter gun laws, only better enforcement of existing laws.

Next to abortion, gun control is perhaps America’s most polarizing issue. Few Democrats are willing to run afoul of powerful gun rights lobbies such as the National Rifle Association.

Tackling the issue has always required a delicate balance between respecting the Second Amendment and curbing gun violence by limiting access.

Now with a tight presidential race and a fragile hold by Democrats on the Senate, few expect Democrats in close contests to say much about the issue.

Brad Thompson, a DNC platform committee member from Raleigh, is new to the platform process, but hopes the party speaks out on the easy accessibility of assault weapons – and ammunition.

“It represents a problem,” Thompson said. “The access needs to be managed.”

On Monday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, both Democrats and longtime gun control advocates, introduced legislation they say would prevent people from buying unlimited amounts of ammunition on the internet.

But congressional leaders said there wouldn’t be enough time in the current session to get into a gun control debate.

“It’s political dynamite,” said UNC Charlotte political scientist Eric Heberlig. “When the president talked about gun control to the Urban League, he talked about restricting assault weapons, an element of gun control that is more popular.

“I don’t believe he would have talked about it at all had Aurora not occurred.”

subhead

The 1994 mid-term elections taught Democrats how risky promoting gun control can be.

During President Bill Clinton’s first term, the Democrat-controlled Senate and House passed the Brady Bill – instituting background checks for firearm buyers. The next year – in 1993 – they passed the assault weapons ban.

Clinton signed the law in September. Two months later, Democrats lost control of both chambers.

Many Democrats blamed the gun control votes for the dramatic losses.

Since then, the Democrats seem to have given up on the debate, Heberlig said.

“The silence you’ve heard from President Obama and other leading Democrats is the continuation of the political understanding in the Democratic Party that it doesn’t do them any good to talk about gun control,” Heberlig said.

“They learned in 1994 there’s no point in risking it ... They’ve decided there’s no point in losing more seats in Congress or taking a chance in the presidential race.”

Still, the 1996 Democratic platform remained tough on gun control. It forcefully stated that Clinton in a second term would veto any attempt to repeal the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban.

Subhead

Twelve years later at the 2008 Democrat convention, Democrats had retreated from tough language, despite outrage over the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech that killed 32 people.

The party’s platform said the right to bear arms is “an important part of the American tradition.” But that right was “subject to reasonable regulation.”

As they had before, Democrats called for closing gun show loopholes and renewing the assault weapon ban.

Now, as Democrats head to their convention in Charlotte, they face more outrage from the Aurora shootings – and another balancing act.

“Certainly there will be factions in the Democratic Party who will be pushing for tighter controls,” UNCC’s Heberlig said. “The party will want to find a way to accommodate them: ‘Yes we’re with you; we understand. But we don’t want to say anything about it.’”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy

2008 gun control party platforms (excerpts)

Republican : “We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment ... Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities.

... We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.”

Democrat: “We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban – so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed. I know some in the media were (initially) saying that no motives behind the shooting was identified. Why do experts need to be called in for people watching to immediately think that racial and religious hatred were the most likely motives behind the shooting?

If, however, the terrorism were on the other foot, how many of us would hear about what the 'Islamist' (yes, I am well aware that this was a Sikh temple) had done.

Who has not heard of the "Islamists"? These special "committees on the radicalization of Islam" and not the first on the radicalization of Christianity. Who refers to all these evangelical fanatics out here "Christianists"? I think I'm going to start.a

I tend to think that people in this country, including but not limited to politicians/officials are in no position to talk about what any other system in this world is doing "to its own people" especially when what is going on right here with this system/society doesn't even seem to be looked upon with any urgency whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what is so interesting to me? It is the fact that policemen killed this guy. Now the narrative is one of heroic policemen and a dead guy who had been in white supremacist groups.

Some play checkers and think in terms of checkers. Chess is totally different. A checkers player is definitely apt to consider the thoughts of the chess player illogical. A rule which is always applicable yet hardly known is "Never understimate your opponent." We've been approaching chess as if it were checkers for centuries. Killing the guy without questioning him left motives to be assumed by the public. Was this calculated or heroic? If a so called foreign terrorist would have done done this, I doubt seriously that he would have been killed without having been questioned as to what motivated him to kill these people who had not done anything to him.

Is it possible that killing Wade Michael Page was more convenient than allowing him to stay alive to undergo the legal process? In light of the case of Trayvon Martin and the Colarado killings, surely yet another public court affair gone international would have called for dialogue which would probably go a little further than the dominant culture is willing to go in this free and democratic society.

The experts are talking about the killer's "history of hatred". The experts are talking about everything except the fact that this guy was a product of his society. What in this country is a bigger protector of white 'supremacy' than the government itself? Who can name one major American social institution- from education to religion to government (and the first two institutions are all under the umbrella of the last institution)- in which racism has not been problematic historically or presently?

Yet what is to be expected from a country which is built on genocide, "free labor-free market system aka' slavery'", colonization, etc.? What is to be expected from a country that has never yet acknowledged any of the aforementioned as holocausts? What is to be expected in a country in which lynching was totally acceptable and even a cause for celebration? ...But Page's actions are "un-American?" Certainly not by the truer definition of this term. This guy is the epitome of the hate that hate produced. He is the hatred of America's latest scapegoat. His death is probably freeing America from conviction much more than Page. Page's trial would have likely meant American society's trial, too. The experts, politicians, mainstream journalists, and officials will be sure to keep focusing on Page's unacceptable ideology and even "hate groups" as well as the "butterkniives" and "heroic police work". as well as the rhetorical "need for dialogue". I doubt if there will be enough moral fortitude to focus on the hateful society from which Page came.Bout "Page's history of hatred". What about 'his country's' history of hatred, from past to present? Why are they "trying to understand" Page's motives in his death when these very skilled policemen surely could have kept him alive to ask Page himself? The public is so easily distracted by stories of "heroic policemen" and ex-associates of Page who speak on his 'talks of a coming race war'.

In other news, Scott A. Smith was caught at a theater with a gun and a knife. He was there for the movie "Dark Knight Rises". According to reporters, Smith also had many guns, other weapons, and survival material in his home.

The dialogue about the hows and whys of these cases can get deep so long as it does not start calling out the original American Gangsta. Instead of yet another special committee on the radicalization of this or that, how about the first special committee on the radicalization of the govn't?

The post racial era is... "complicated".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeze, WaterStar. Do you really think the cop who shot this skin head rampager had time to process what the repercussions of doing this would be, and then decided it would be more convenient to kill the motherfucker than to keep him alive so he wouldn't have to undergo the legal process???? Good grief. The man was firing in self-defense, trying to save his own damned life. Where does logic end and paranoia begin? Whether this neo-nazi was a product of his culture or not, there is something significant about him targeting a Sikh temple rather than a black church or a Jewish synagog or a gathering of homosexuals; he had a 911 tattoo.

Everybody knows America is not a paragon of virture and has a checkered history. So what else is new? Why would you expect anything but oppression and injustice from people who you obviously think are evil. And, yes, this country resonates with an atmosphere of white supremacy, and there's a good frickin reason for this since Whites are, and always have been in charge. Instead of standing around bitchin', maybe you ought to concentrate on black self genocide because white people don't give a damn what you think. They're too busy flexing their racist muscles and basking in your envy.

And I don't know who you hang around with but the idea of "never under-estimating your enemy" is common knowledge to everybody I know. You're the one doing the under-estimating. Checkers? Chess? Just because Blacks don't run the country doesn't mean that they don't run their games. It's called surviving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a possibility would likely be more than just a single cop's call, but okay.

"Envy"? There you are again, throwing out unfounded assumptions.Never underestimate your "enemy"? When did I say "enemy"? If you are drawing from what I said then surely you meant "opponent" and though these words might often be used interchangeably, they are not synonymous. As I've said, though, you are again building your arguments off assumptions, however, I have no interest in entertaining this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the autopsy report just released reveals that the Sikh attacker died as the result of a self-inflicted wound.

I said "enemy" because I don't consider white people who are the ongoing target of your wrath as being your "opponents". And I said "envy" because white Americans obviously have what you want. And you assume I was building an argument, when I wasn't. My editorializing invited no rebuttal because it was an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on both sides of the issue. I grew up in the South with close ties to the country. I grew up around guns, mainly shotguns. I spent much of my youth hunting and I shot on the rifle team at Fort Valley State. I own a handgun for personal protection at home and I plan to purchase another one. But at the same time I feel uncomfortable when I go to the shooting range and I see all the sniper rifles, semiautomatic shotguns and rifles that can be easily converted into automatics. I'm not an NRA member and I never will be because I'm not fanatic about owning a gun. It's a personal choice for me, not a political statement. I know that most of the situations that would occur that would threaten my life would happen where I don't have access to my gun, but at least I'll have it there for home protection. I know all the arguments pro and con; this is how it fits into my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milton, is your neighborhood so dangerous that you need a gun, even a 2nd one?

I just noticed your avatar is wielding a sword. Remind me not to get on your bad side Brother :o

I'm not even convinced the NY City police should be trusted with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! My neighborhood is so peaceful it's scary. You leave your garage door open for a week and the only thing that will happen is you'll find a note saying, 'Please close your garage.' My last neighborhood I left the lawn mower out one day and it was gone the next. Like I said, it's a personal decision. I'm the last person to try to make an argument for gun ownership. Most people who own them have them for the wrong reasons. And you can argue the point that Zimmerman would have never confronted Trayvon if he didn't have a gun. As a matter of fact based on their size difference I know he wouldn't have. Little men don't confront big men unless they have back up one way or another or unless they're crazy like that. So while I don't think guns should be banned, I do think we need a higher level of gun control. We could do like Chris Rock suggested and charge $5000 for one bullet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked Milton, because while you did present home protection as an argument for gun ownership, you also admit our neighborhood is extremely peaceful...

But I hear you, I actually believe in personal freedom to own a gun. But when folks demonstrate an inability to avoid infringing on on the freedom of others by shooting them to death, it is up to society to correct the problem.

No one has presented an argument to convince me that the murder and mayhem we have is a reasonable tradeoff for the freedom of gun ownership is worth the trade off (home protection in a peaceful neighborhood does not count ;))

First you have to buy into the fact that we have a serious problem with the use of guns. Some folks don't agree with this. I think they are crazy or so far removed from the situation they simply don't care.

If you accept the fact that we indeed have a problem; the issue becomes what do we do about it.

I guess as long as poor folks are the majority of the victims, I guess nothing will be done.

So Milton while we don't have to worry about you shooting up a crowded theater or gunning down another Brother over some silly beef, there are too many other folks out there that we do have to worry about. What do you propose that we do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't answer that question. I wish I could. I've thought about it long and hard and couldn't come up with anything reasonable. It seems as though violence is ingrained in our culture. We respond to violently to almost every situation, from domestic disputes to traffic disagreements. Guns are definitely part of the problem, but it's probably a cultural issue as well.

It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between access to firearms and violence. Jamaica and South Africa have very high murder rates; I wonder what is the gun policy in those countries? If a culture is prone to violence, would access to firearms make a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do know the murder rate in London is lower than it is in Philadelphia and unless things have changed the police in London don't even carry guns.

But it should be fairly obvious that the number of killings would go down if gun ownership was illegal. In NYC, so many children have recently been shot or killed by accident. There is far less collateral damage when baseball bats, knives and nunchucks are the available weapons. Shoot (no pun intended), maybe kids will go back to fisticuffs to settle disputes if guns were unavailable.

Guns make it so much easier to kill both the target and innocent victims. Guns also have the effect of turning punks into what they think are men -- making it possible for a situation to become deadly. If a gun were not available, the situation could have been squashed.

So while we live in a violent world why increase the violence by making it easier to kill each other?

Now I know if we made guns illegal. It would be the poor inner city Black kids being thrown into jail while the rich (most white kids) would take advantage of the inevitable loops hole for collectors, hunters, etc. So I do not like the idea of taking away the right.

It should just be VERY difficult to obtain a gun and ammunition so difficult in fact that most people won't even bother to try. If the weapon is used to kill someone in the commission of a crime the gun's owner and the shooter get life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree; guns should be more difficult to obtain. I also believe that assault rifles and their like should be unavailable, period. There should also be a beefed up effort to restrict illegal access to guns. If obtaining guns is to be restricted it will have to be a national policy. Southern states have fewer restrictions; at one time it was reported that most of the guns used in crimes in NYC were purchased in Georgia.

But coming up with a national policy is difficult due to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, and the concept that Americans have the right to rise up against the government if 'we' feel said government is oppressing 'us.' In order to do so 'we' should have the means to properly arm 'ourselves.' Hence the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With nukes, unmanned drones and God knows what else the US Government has in it's arsenal; the argument that the right to bears arms enables people to rise up against the government seems archaic and naive. Maybe that was possible in the mid 1700's but not in 2012. Besides there is no organization amongst the oppressed to "rise up" let alone get from in front of the TV.

Agreed national law, and a total ban on assault weapons. But this will never happen people are too stupid and greedy -- despite the carnage in the streets..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...