Reply With Quote
also, why not let the black on black violence continue? without gun control, eventually the blacks will kill enough of the other blacks to put a serious dent in the murder rate, right?
so then, presumably half of the murders could be eliminated by disarming blacks in the USA.
what about the other half? that's 5,000 or so gun related homicides yearly not including suicides. how do we solve that? doesn't the other half count too?
also, why not let the black on black violence continue? without gun control, eventually the blacks will kill enough of the other blacks to put a serious dent in the murder rate, right?
It wasn't random. It was the anniversary of the Denmark Vesey rising in SC, and the massacre occurred in the same AME church, Denmark Vesey's church in Charleston.
lagniappe:
so much for arming up for protection against bad guys
In response to the Boston bombing of 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham demanded that the government do everything it could to learn from the attack and prevent future attacks.
This man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of, and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. That evidence is used to protect us as a nation.
Many people took issue with Graham’s claim that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is a U.S. citizen, could be designated as an enemy combatant. But Graham’s conviction that the attack was part of a more systemic problem, based on Tsarnaev’s Muslim faith, was unmistakable. Tsarnaev’s attack killed three people and injured over 250.
Graham’s reaction to Wednesday’s attack on a black church in his home state of South Carolina was very different. (His niece, coincidentally, went to school with the shooter). Graham is adamant that the attack is not evidence of any larger problem.http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...us-charleston/
Graham, who is on his way to Charleston, said his niece did not recall Roof making any statements that were related to race.
“I just think he was one of these whacked out kids. I don’t think it’s anything broader than that,” Graham said. “It’s about a young man who is obviously twisted.”
A US citizen, but "ethnic", committing murderous terror for conspiratorial political reasons should be an enemy combatant, but a white boy committing murderous terror on blacks, following a centuries-long Confederate tradition, is just a whacked out, isolated, bad apple.
iow, the Old SC Lesbian is saying "standing under the sacred Confederate flag, murdering blacks, it's who we are"
I skipped over all his posts. But is Clipper Nation in here defending guns when he probably doesn't even know.how to use one?
Since when do you have to own a gun to defend a Cons utional right? It's amazing how literally every post you make is re ed.
ha ha Cons utional perversion, smokescreen to enrich the gun industry. You have a Cons utional right to a gun if you are in a military militia to fight external threats (helping the early govt w/o a standing army).
btw, you don't have to own or know how to shoot a gun to BE A MAN!
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-21-2015 at 09:39 AM.
Well I didn't say "own a gun". I said you didn't know how to use one, which you didn't address correctly so it is correctly assumed you have no goddamn idea how to use one.
So you have to know how to use a gun to defend a law-abiding citizen's right to use one? By that logic, you're not allowed to have basketball takes since you're not an NBA player.
Well you like to on others for their position on tighter gun control, and by defending the use of guns, how does doing that help you if you don't know how to use one of you're in a situation where you need to use it? It gives you no credibility.
There's no Cons utional right to limitless gun privileges. Gun control <> banning guns. When you conflate the two you sound like an NRA mouthpiece.
He was an evil kid who wanted to kill. One way or another he would of accomplished it. He could of just as easily set the church on fire or made a bomb and kill just as many people. Evil people are the problem not guns.
Building a bomb and setting a fire quickly enough to kill people inside are not as easy as shooting a gun.
Sure they are, if you know what you are doing. It may of taken him longer but if he was really set on killing which apparently he was he would of found another way to do it if he didn't have access to a gun.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...f-guns/308608/Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers ins uted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
dp
I think most of the victims would take the chance that he might figure something else out.
and explosives are tightly regulated.
Easily make a bomb
Easily set the church on fire
Rofl
it aint that hard. you're an idiot if you believe otherwise.
I don't have a problem with people having guns to protect themselves at home.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
