Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Funny or Die: The Black NRA

DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 6:08:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I see that there do indeed exist black Republicans. This is novel, but not unexpected. I am not being rude to point out that today's GOP are the heirs of yesterday's Democrats.

Those old Democrat/Dixiecrat policies are today everywhere abandoned by the Democratic Party, and far too often shamefully championed by the modern Republicans. We see that the Democratic Party is reformed, as it were.

In the video, we see a common error being advanced; the gun debate is not liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican - these are symptoms, not causes. Gun rights are a liberal, "power to the people" concept, accidentally included into the Republican platform because of racism and an ancient urban/rural debate.

Guns are a part of rural life, but their use is often a source of fear in urban areas.

As for the "Black NRA" discussion. The NRA and Reagan championed gun restrictions on blacks specifically, following the exercising of gun rights by the Black Panthers. My question: Is the modern NRA as reformed as the Antebellum Democratic Party?

http://www.theroot.com...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:28:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the video, we see a common error being advanced; the gun debate is not liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican - these are symptoms, not causes. Gun rights are a liberal, "power to the people" concept, accidentally included into the Republican platform because of racism and an ancient urban/rural debate.

Liberal only by the Founder's form of Liberalism. Don't confuse those two. Just like Democrats changing over time, the modern form of Liberalism hardly reflects the Liberal ideas that created the Gun Rights.

Guns are a part of rural life, but their use is often a source of fear in urban areas.

That's a generalization. This depends on what part or what city you live in.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let us not forgot that prior to Nixon's famed Southern Strategy to win over the southern conservatives ousted by FDR's party reform, most democrats were conservative. This seems kind of bizarre because conservative and republican today are used synonymously, however that wasn't always the case. It's somewhat disappointing that this fact isn't taught in most schools.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 9:13:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 4:24:36 PM, DanT wrote:


Please tell me I'm not the first one to notice this video is a parody.

That said, I may read some of the responses after 60 minutes. [Need to be brainwashed by the MSM* first. :D]

* coined by lefties AT LEAST as far back as the 60s to apply to establishment corporate media.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 9:21:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?

They didn't flip. Conservatism from back then mostly died out. Modern Conservatives were Liberals then, and Modern Liberals are Neo-Liberalism. The south wasn't liberal then, it was classic conservatism. So technically, yes, the south took a lot of Classic Liberal ideas. But you can still see in far south states like Texas, pieces of Classic Conservatism, or "extremist conservatives."
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 10:04:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 9:21:31 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?

They didn't flip. Conservatism from back then mostly died out. Modern Conservatives were Liberals then, and Modern Liberals are Neo-Liberalism. The south wasn't liberal then, it was classic conservatism. So technically, yes, the south took a lot of Classic Liberal ideas. But you can still see in far south states like Texas, pieces of Classic Conservatism, or "extremist conservatives."

Yes, however the political makeup of the nation was essentially flipped. The south went from being typically democrat, to typically republican, and western and northern states went from being typically republican to typically democrat.

If as you assert, both simply shifted to the left, this still would not account for the flip that we see in party identification.

Here, look at the election map for the 1952 election:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
-vs-
Now compare to the 2004 election:
http://politicalmaps.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 10:12:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 10:04:14 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 9:21:31 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?

They didn't flip. Conservatism from back then mostly died out. Modern Conservatives were Liberals then, and Modern Liberals are Neo-Liberalism. The south wasn't liberal then, it was classic conservatism. So technically, yes, the south took a lot of Classic Liberal ideas. But you can still see in far south states like Texas, pieces of Classic Conservatism, or "extremist conservatives."

Yes, however the political makeup of the nation was essentially flipped. The south went from being typically democrat, to typically republican, and western and northern states went from being typically republican to typically democrat.

If as you assert, both simply shifted to the left, this still would not account for the flip that we see in party identification.

Here, look at the election map for the 1952 election:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
-vs-
Now compare to the 2004 election:
http://politicalmaps.org...

Republican and Democrats are only names. Republicans today are the same thing Democrats were back then. Ideas didn't flip, only names. Politics didn't flip, only the names behind the Politics.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:21:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 10:12:33 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:04:14 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 9:21:31 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?

They didn't flip. Conservatism from back then mostly died out. Modern Conservatives were Liberals then, and Modern Liberals are Neo-Liberalism. The south wasn't liberal then, it was classic conservatism. So technically, yes, the south took a lot of Classic Liberal ideas. But you can still see in far south states like Texas, pieces of Classic Conservatism, or "extremist conservatives."

Yes, however the political makeup of the nation was essentially flipped. The south went from being typically democrat, to typically republican, and western and northern states went from being typically republican to typically democrat.

If as you assert, both simply shifted to the left, this still would not account for the flip that we see in party identification.

Here, look at the election map for the 1952 election:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
-vs-
Now compare to the 2004 election:
http://politicalmaps.org...

Republican and Democrats are only names. Republicans today are the same thing Democrats were back then. Ideas didn't flip, only names. Politics didn't flip, only the names behind the Politics.

"Republicans today are the same thing Democrats were back then."

While not technically true, it is closer to what I was arguing. My argument is that party identification changed. Someone who today identifies as a democrat, would have identified as a republican in the early 20th century.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:36:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 11:21:06 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:12:33 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:04:14 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 9:21:31 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?

They didn't flip. Conservatism from back then mostly died out. Modern Conservatives were Liberals then, and Modern Liberals are Neo-Liberalism. The south wasn't liberal then, it was classic conservatism. So technically, yes, the south took a lot of Classic Liberal ideas. But you can still see in far south states like Texas, pieces of Classic Conservatism, or "extremist conservatives."

Yes, however the political makeup of the nation was essentially flipped. The south went from being typically democrat, to typically republican, and western and northern states went from being typically republican to typically democrat.

If as you assert, both simply shifted to the left, this still would not account for the flip that we see in party identification.

Here, look at the election map for the 1952 election:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
-vs-
Now compare to the 2004 election:
http://politicalmaps.org...

Republican and Democrats are only names. Republicans today are the same thing Democrats were back then. Ideas didn't flip, only names. Politics didn't flip, only the names behind the Politics.


"Republicans today are the same thing Democrats were back then."

While not technically true, it is closer to what I was arguing. My argument is that party identification changed. Someone who today identifies as a democrat, would have identified as a republican in the early 20th century.

Well damn. My assumption was right, we were arguing on the same side XD
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:55:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This video:

Strawman strawman strawman ad hominem strawman strawman shameless attempt to rewrite history (through leaving out information) ad hominem strawman.

Seriously, things this low-brow belong somewhere low-brow - may I suggest Yahoo Answers's politics section?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 12:59:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
lol, one of the great things about being independent; You get to see people debate over meaningless affiliations and make weak attempts to pigeon hole individuals in to their respective parties ideology.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 1:02:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 6:08:28 PM, DeFool wrote:
I see that there do indeed exist black Republicans. This is novel, but not unexpected. I am not being rude to point out that today's GOP are the heirs of yesterday's Democrats.

Those old Democrat/Dixiecrat policies are today everywhere abandoned by the Democratic Party, and far too often shamefully championed by the modern Republicans. We see that the Democratic Party is reformed, as it were.

In the video, we see a common error being advanced; the gun debate is not liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican - these are symptoms, not causes. Gun rights are a liberal, "power to the people" concept, accidentally included into the Republican platform because of racism and an ancient urban/rural debate.

The two paragraphs above this third one I agree with, but claiming "Liberals want gun rights because they are enlightened and want power to the people" and "Conservatives want guns because they are racist and want to shoot minorities from their porch in alabama as a sport and laugh about it", the partisanship is very easy to see through.

Guns are a part of rural life, but their use is often a source of fear in urban areas.

As for the "Black NRA" discussion. The NRA and Reagan championed gun restrictions on blacks specifically, following the exercising of gun rights by the Black Panthers. My question: Is the modern NRA as reformed as the Antebellum Democratic Party?

http://www.theroot.com...
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 1:25:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 1:02:24 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/15/2013 6:08:28 PM, DeFool wrote:
I see that there do indeed exist black Republicans. This is novel, but not unexpected. I am not being rude to point out that today's GOP are the heirs of yesterday's Democrats.

Those old Democrat/Dixiecrat policies are today everywhere abandoned by the Democratic Party, and far too often shamefully championed by the modern Republicans. We see that the Democratic Party is reformed, as it were.

In the video, we see a common error being advanced; the gun debate is not liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican - these are symptoms, not causes. Gun rights are a liberal, "power to the people" concept, accidentally included into the Republican platform because of racism and an ancient urban/rural debate.

The two paragraphs above this third one I agree with, but claiming "Liberals want gun rights because they are enlightened and want power to the people" and "Conservatives want guns because they are racist and want to shoot minorities from their porch in alabama as a sport and laugh about it", the partisanship is very easy to see through.

Guns are a part of rural life, but their use is often a source of fear in urban areas.

As for the "Black NRA" discussion. The NRA and Reagan championed gun restrictions on blacks specifically, following the exercising of gun rights by the Black Panthers. My question: Is the modern NRA as reformed as the Antebellum Democratic Party?

http://www.theroot.com...

I do not want to be seen as suggesting that ""Conservatives want guns because they are racist and want to shoot minorities from their porch in alabama as a sport and laugh about it"

However, I note a common murder fantasy from gun owners that describes exactly like that. These people often glorify the action of heroically killing a racial or religious minority and saving the day. They call it "protection" and "self defense."

My view of the matter is less insulting than this. I feel that restraints on the things that gun owners may do with their guns are understandable. Gun users should not be allowed to cause fear, or to raise a level of alarm that might prompt a police response. This argument is not a call to come get the guns from the cold dead hands of stalwart patriots who want to shoot Negroes and Muslims.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 4:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 1:25:33 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 9/16/2013 1:02:24 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/15/2013 6:08:28 PM, DeFool wrote:
I see that there do indeed exist black Republicans. This is novel, but not unexpected. I am not being rude to point out that today's GOP are the heirs of yesterday's Democrats.

Those old Democrat/Dixiecrat policies are today everywhere abandoned by the Democratic Party, and far too often shamefully championed by the modern Republicans. We see that the Democratic Party is reformed, as it were.

In the video, we see a common error being advanced; the gun debate is not liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican - these are symptoms, not causes. Gun rights are a liberal, "power to the people" concept, accidentally included into the Republican platform because of racism and an ancient urban/rural debate.

The two paragraphs above this third one I agree with, but claiming "Liberals want gun rights because they are enlightened and want power to the people" and "Conservatives want guns because they are racist and want to shoot minorities from their porch in alabama as a sport and laugh about it", the partisanship is very easy to see through.

Guns are a part of rural life, but their use is often a source of fear in urban areas.

As for the "Black NRA" discussion. The NRA and Reagan championed gun restrictions on blacks specifically, following the exercising of gun rights by the Black Panthers. My question: Is the modern NRA as reformed as the Antebellum Democratic Party?

http://www.theroot.com...

I do not want to be seen as suggesting that ""Conservatives want guns because they are racist and want to shoot minorities from their porch in alabama as a sport and laugh about it"

However, I note a common murder fantasy from gun owners that describes exactly like that. These people often glorify the action of heroically killing a racial or religious minority and saving the day. They call it "protection" and "self defense."

I do not feel that you are honestly representing the situation. The anti gun camp commonly cherry picks individual examples and use them to support a narrative for more restrictions on guns, when sometimes those restrictions wouldn't even stop the situation they are bringing up. Do you want to know who wants to eliminate cheap guns like the "Saturday Night Specials"? The anti gun camp does, the supposedly rich fat cat conservatives want to keep them. Let me first clarify that police do not exist to stop crimes, they exist to clean up the mess and catch the baddies after the crime has occurred, so in areas that are ridden with poverty and crime, these cheap guns might be a way for a minority or single mother to protect themselves from robbers, rapists or any case of assault. Even the President of the Congress of Racial Equality, (CORE) says that eliminating cheap handguns IS a form of racism, it turns a self defense weapon in to something that only people who have wealth and status can own.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So who are the REAL racists when it comes to gun rights? The people who want guns to be available to people of all classes or the people who want to keep guns away from the poor people who actually live in bad areas that might need them?

My view of the matter is less insulting than this. I feel that restraints on the things that gun owners may do with their guns are understandable. Gun users should not be allowed to cause fear, or to raise a level of alarm that might prompt a police response. This argument is not a call to come get the guns from the cold dead hands of stalwart patriots who want to shoot Negroes and Muslims.

So now gun owners are discouraged from contacting the police? Shouldn't you try to get the police before resorting to using a firearm anyways? I would rather see someone call police on a suspicion then kill the person they are suspicious of.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 4:09:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 11:36:01 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 11:21:06 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:12:33 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:04:14 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 9:21:31 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?

They didn't flip. Conservatism from back then mostly died out. Modern Conservatives were Liberals then, and Modern Liberals are Neo-Liberalism. The south wasn't liberal then, it was classic conservatism. So technically, yes, the south took a lot of Classic Liberal ideas. But you can still see in far south states like Texas, pieces of Classic Conservatism, or "extremist conservatives."

Yes, however the political makeup of the nation was essentially flipped. The south went from being typically democrat, to typically republican, and western and northern states went from being typically republican to typically democrat.

If as you assert, both simply shifted to the left, this still would not account for the flip that we see in party identification.

Here, look at the election map for the 1952 election:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
-vs-
Now compare to the 2004 election:
http://politicalmaps.org...

Republican and Democrats are only names. Republicans today are the same thing Democrats were back then. Ideas didn't flip, only names. Politics didn't flip, only the names behind the Politics.


"Republicans today are the same thing Democrats were back then."

While not technically true, it is closer to what I was arguing. My argument is that party identification changed. Someone who today identifies as a democrat, would have identified as a republican in the early 20th century.

Well damn. My assumption was right, we were arguing on the same side XD

lol
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 4:40:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

So who are the REAL racists when it comes to gun rights? The people who want guns to be available to people of all classes or the people who want to keep guns away from the poor people who actually live in bad areas that might need them?


I apologize if a necessary component of your argument was removed by me here; that was not my intent, and I invite you to correct me.

You seem to be arguing that a citizen vs criminal arms race would be benefit the citizens, and not the criminals. I disagree, and so do most of those who must deal with well-armed criminals.

Case in point: In Iraq and Afghanistan, US and Coalition servicemembers do not travel into the more violent areas of occupied areas, and pass out assault rifles and low-cost handguns. The reasons why they do not are obvious.

My view: guns designed for sport and recreation cannot compete with assault weapons. Citizens looking to live peacefully will not win many gunfights without recourse to law enforcement. Law enforcement does not want to face multiple shooters, assault weapons and such. Crime rates are not improved by adding more lethal weapons to the situation.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 10:24:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 9:21:31 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:56:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 8:37:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Well the names aren't the same, but a lot of the ideas were. Republican Liberals then are Republican conservatives now.

So the beliefs and ideas of the entire American South, flipped when they changed parties?

They didn't flip. Conservatism from back then mostly died out. Modern Conservatives were Liberals then, and Modern Liberals are Neo-Liberalism.

NO NO NO NO NO

The south wasn't liberal then, it was classic conservatism. So technically, yes, the south took a lot of Classic Liberal ideas. But you can still see in far south states like Texas, pieces of Classic Conservatism, or "extremist conservatives."
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 10:48:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is amazing how fast this thread turned into a debate about parties swapping ideologies.

The republican party of Lincoln was Nationalist (right wing collectivist), and classic liberal (right wing individualist).

The Democratic Party of Jackson was Populist (Collectivist Left) and Traditional Conservative (Collectivist right).

The Modern Democratic Party is Populist (Collectivist Left), Radical Liberal (Individualist Left), Socialist (Left wing Collectivist), and Nationalist (right wing collectivist).

The Modern Republican Party is Traditional Conservative (Collectivist right), Liberal Conservative (Individualist right), Nationalist (right wing collectivist), and classic liberal (right wing individualist)

There was no flipping of ideology. The democrats have always stood for Democracy, while the Republicans have always stood for Republicanism. That is where their parties god their name. While it is true a party can be named after an ideology different from their platform, as a means of propaganda, it is also true that parties are often named after the values and principles the party believes to be virtuous.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:34:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 4:40:37 PM, DeFool wrote:

So who are the REAL racists when it comes to gun rights? The people who want guns to be available to people of all classes or the people who want to keep guns away from the poor people who actually live in bad areas that might need them?


I apologize if a necessary component of your argument was removed by me here; that was not my intent, and I invite you to correct me.

You seem to be arguing that a citizen vs criminal arms race would be benefit the citizens, and not the criminals. I disagree, and so do most of those who must deal with well-armed criminals.

Case in point: In Iraq and Afghanistan, US and Coalition servicemembers do not travel into the more violent areas of occupied areas, and pass out assault rifles and low-cost handguns. The reasons why they do not are obvious.

My view: guns designed for sport and recreation cannot compete with assault weapons. Citizens looking to live peacefully will not win many gunfights without recourse to law enforcement. Law enforcement does not want to face multiple shooters, assault weapons and such. Crime rates are not improved by adding more lethal weapons to the situation.

That makes you a racist by definition, according to the gentleman in the video. LMAO.

Is it just possible that one can be any of the following:

1. a racist and pro-gun
2. not a racist and pro-gun
3. a racist and anti-gun
4. not a racist and anti-gun

If so, then PLEASE SHUT THE F' UP about racism and gun control.

End of rant.

As you were.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:42:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 11:34:23 PM, proglib wrote:
At 9/16/2013 4:40:37 PM, DeFool wrote:

So who are the REAL racists when it comes to gun rights? The people who want guns to be available to people of all classes or the people who want to keep guns away from the poor people who actually live in bad areas that might need them?


I apologize if a necessary component of your argument was removed by me here; that was not my intent, and I invite you to correct me.

You seem to be arguing that a citizen vs criminal arms race would be benefit the citizens, and not the criminals. I disagree, and so do most of those who must deal with well-armed criminals.

Case in point: In Iraq and Afghanistan, US and Coalition servicemembers do not travel into the more violent areas of occupied areas, and pass out assault rifles and low-cost handguns. The reasons why they do not are obvious.

My view: guns designed for sport and recreation cannot compete with assault weapons. Citizens looking to live peacefully will not win many gunfights without recourse to law enforcement. Law enforcement does not want to face multiple shooters, assault weapons and such. Crime rates are not improved by adding more lethal weapons to the situation.

That makes you a racist by definition, according to the gentleman in the video. LMAO.

Is it just possible that one can be any of the following:

1. a racist and pro-gun
2. not a racist and pro-gun
3. a racist and anti-gun
4. not a racist and anti-gun

If so, then PLEASE SHUT THE F' UP about racism and gun control.

End of rant.

As you were.

This is the perfect place for rants, in all cases.
"Racists support and oppose gun control measures." Is a true statement of fact.

I have always suspected that the NRA and the Reagan administration were behaving in a manner that could be said to be fearful of blacks when they implemented the assault weapons ban that we see being discussed again today. I also suspect that anti-gun control advocates are displaying racial fear when they loudly proclaim the need to protect their ability to kill criminals.