9 Killed in Black Church Shooting in South Carolina

[Th'Pusher]

Is the truth making you emotional, got?

The Founders were very clear that anyone who was capable should be able to own a gun. Now, back in 1787, society was a lot less enlightened, so African-Americans weren't considered "capable." Times have changed, but that doesn't change the principle that anyone who wishes to own a gun should be able to so long as they abide by the rule of law.

I love the way that emotional comment is a thorn in your side. It really struck a chord with you.

Nevertheless, what about the white man who was prevented from owning a gun if he hadn't pledged allegiance to the rebellion?

edit: you can also address the specifics in BDs post above.

[Th'Pusher]

And cons ution boy disappears...

Coming to to grips with the fact that the founding fathers supported gun control sent him into an emotional tailspin

[TheSanityAnnex]

What new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

[Clipper Nation]

Nevertheless, what about the white man who was prevented from owning a gun if he hadn't pledged allegiance to the rebellion?

It's intellectually dishonest to paint this as "gun control" when Loyalists also had their land seized, were often thrown in jail, publicly humiliated, tarred and feathered during the war and were deported to Canada after the war. This law had much more to do with punishing those who did not support the Revolution than any concerted effort to reduce gun ownership.

At one point, there was even a federal mandate requiring every free able-bodied white male between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun, which was later expanded to able-bodied men of every race between the ages of 18 and 54 - pretty much the exact opposite of the type of gun law that emotional lib s like you would ever advocate for, since you're scared less of firearms. A government as concerned with curtailing the ownership of guns as you paint them to be certainly wouldn't be forcibly arming such a significant number of its cons uents. Of course, you ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[Clipper Nation]

there were LOTS of places that restricted guns in the 19th century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_po..._United_States

myth: Gun regulations are incompatible with America’s gun heritage.When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.

In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses.
(Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)

On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western townhad stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.

5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Cons ution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Cons ution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as cons utional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...939_story.html


search "gun restrictions in the 19th century"

NRA used to be an honorable, harmless, even helpful org, then murderer Harlon Carter and his asshole posse pulled off a coup to change NRA direction into the silly, dangerous org it is today.

Myth 1: As long as we're reaching all the way back to colonial America, it's important to note that the Revolution really started when the British banned imports of firearms and gunpowder in 1774 and then began confiscating them the following year. Clearly the colonists were far more married to their gun rights than your cherry-picked portrayal would suggest, since they literally started a war about it.

Myth 2: The Founders specifically stated at the time that individual self-defense was just as important of a rationale for gun ownership as "watering the tree of liberty."

[Clipper Nation]

What new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

Speaking of disappearing, notice how the lib s disappear whenever you ask this question. Coming to grips with the fact that murderers won't follow any law they come up with must be sending them into an emotional tailspin.

[Aztecfan03]

An irrelevant one... because no one is saying we should outlaw guns.

tons of people say we should outlaw guns. most not in a position to do anything though.

[boutons_deux]

Speaking of disappearing, notice how the lib s disappear whenever you ask this question.

Where and how did the shooter obtain the gun?

[boutons_deux]

Charleston Church Massacre Raises Profile Of White Nationalist Group — And Its GOP Connections

How long will we let conservatives write off Republican racism as a coincidence?

The New York Times reported this morning that Earl Holt—the leader of the white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, that apparently had so much influence over Dylann Roof—donated thousands of dollars to various Republican politicians.

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum all responded by trying to put some distance there, by either returning the money or giving it to charity.That’s all a good first step, but it’s also frustrating and telling that this is only being done after nine people lost their lives to a racist ideologue with a gun.

It’s not like no one knew before about the Council of Conservative Citizens and their deep and very often successful desire to get involved in Republican politics.

Trent Lott, who also had to apologize in 2002 for basically suggesting that this country would have been better off if we’d kept segregation, addressed the group at their 1998 convention.

But such as how it is when it comes to

racism and Republican politics: The benefit of the doubt will be endlessly extended, no matter how unwarranted and no matter how many times Republicans show they don’t deserve it.

These candidates will give the money back and that will be that, the end of the story. There won’t be any deeper discussion about why open and overt racists—ones that are defending Dylann Roof’s paranoid racist manifesto, by the way—just so happen to give money and lobbying attention to Republicans.

We will all be expected to act like that’s a remarkable coincidence and there’s nothing racist about conservatism per se and the only reason that overt racists feel at home with Republicans is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

That whole “it’s a remarkable coincidence!” bull is all over the debate over the Confederate flag that has cropped back up as everyone remembers that South Carolina hangs that flag and has all these laws against taking it down. We’re expected to pretend that it’s a coincidence that the same people who find that flag attractive also vote for policies that exacerbate racial disparities.

We’re supposed to ascribe the fact that the South rebelled and the fact that the South had legal slavery to being a remarkable coincidence, but daring suggest that the two had something to do with each other causes temper tantrums and meltdowns.

The Confederate flag actually receded from public view for decades after the war, but only returned as a symbol of the pro-segregation forces when desegregation efforts started up in earnest, but this, too, is supposed to be treated like a remarkable coincidence and not evidence that the flag is a racist symbol.

The flag that hangs over the South Carolina capitol was only put there in 1961. You could be honest and say that was in direct response to desegregation efforts, but obviously, conservatives would like you to believe, yet again, that this is a remarkable coincidence. Totally unrelated.

Well, I refuse.

There’s a reason overt racists are drawn to the Republican party, and that’s because they sense the covert racism of it. It’s not hard to see why: Republican policies are tailor made at exacerbating racial disparities, something I also refuse to see as a remarkable coincidence, but prefer instead to see as design.

Also not a coincidence is the fact that four out of five conservative justices on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of those who think Texas owes it to them to make Confederate flag license plates.

This is the conservative side of the bench, may I remind you. Conservative, authoritarian types should, by nature, be less supportive of free speech and more supportive of authority in disputes like this.

In fact, the conservatives on the court are generally that way, ruling against free speech in situations where someone speaks out in favor of marijuana.

Nor would you think it “conservative” to support the idea of treason or rebellion.

But if it’s all done in service of the message that black Americans are lesser than white Americans, by remarkable coincidence, the conservatives suddenly become free speech absolutists.

It’s too many remarkable coincidences. I do think we have a ing pattern. And giving a little money back isn’t going to change that.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/how-...e+Raw+Story%29

[Th'Pusher]

It's intellectually dishonest to paint this as "gun control" when Loyalists also had their land seized, were often thrown in jail, publicly humiliated, tarred and feathered during the war and were deported to Canada after the war. This law had much more to do with punishing those who did not support the Revolution than any concerted effort to reduce gun ownership.

At one point, there was even a federal mandate requiring every free able-bodied white male between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun, which was later expanded to able-bodied men of every race between the ages of 18 and 54 - pretty much the exact opposite of the type of gun law that emotional lib s like you would ever advocate for, since you're scared less of firearms. A government as concerned with curtailing the ownership of guns as you paint them to be certainly wouldn't be forcibly arming such a significant number of its cons uents. Of course, you ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative.

no. What is intellectually dishonest is conflating the "need" for the Militia Acts of 1792, when America did not have a standing army with the "need" to own as many and any types of ing guns as I want because it's my cons ional right as a mother in American. Baldeagle

I do like the way you've cribbed my emotional shtick. That one really hit home

[Th'Pusher]

What new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

Strict enforcement of penalty on people who sell any guns that are used to commit any sort of crime might help deter some of this. Of course a lot would need to go into place to make that work...none of which is politically feasible.

[lefty]

Transguide says 1333 people have been killed by cars so far this year in Texas alone. It's a pretty safe bet that at least 90% were caused by people using them dangerously.

Yes it's a good idea to compare car accidents and degenerates who deliberately open fire on people.

Brilliant

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes it's a good idea to compare car accidents and degenerates who deliberately open fire on people.

Brilliant

Is a drunk that kills someone with a car any less culpable than a drunk that kills someone with a gun?

[unleashbaynes]

Is a drunk that kills someone with a car any less culpable than a drunk that kills someone with a gun?

drunks that kill people with a car are sent to jail and never allowed to drive again. a person getting drunk and getting into an accident isn't in any way comparable to somebody opening fire onto a crowd of people. that is an asinine comparison considering how many people NEED a car to get to work because they live in an area with no mass transportation available. quit being intellectually dishonest.

[boutons_deux]

equating auto deaths with gun deaths, and car regulation with gun regulation, are undeniable symptoms of gun fellatin derangement syndrome. Prognosis is negative.

[m>s]

drunks that kill people with a car are sent to jail and never allowed to drive again. a person getting drunk and getting into an accident isn't in any way comparable to somebody opening fire onto a crowd of people. that is an asinine comparison considering how many people NEED a car to get to work because they live in an area with no mass transportation available. quit being intellectually dishonest.

People who shoot people with a gun are also sent to jail

[ChumpDumper]

Is a drunk that kills someone with a car any less culpable than a drunk that kills someone with a gun?

If you show me a drunk driver who got the death penalty and was executed in the states for drunk driving, I will buy your argument.

[boutons_deux]

Miss. police: Open carry laws kept us from arresting shotgun-toting man who terrorized Walmart shoppers

The police chief of Gulfport, Mississippi, expressed his frustration with his state’s open carry laws after a man strolling through a Walmart Sunday night menaced shoppers by loading and racking s s into his shotgun, causing police to dispatch a SWAT team and evacuate the store.According to Police Chief Leonard Papania, he would have arrested the unidentified man and his companion if he could for stretching the city’s police forces thin while panicked Walmart employees huddled in a safe room, WMC reported.

“If I were in a situation where I’m in the store shopping with my family and I see an individual loading a 12 gauge, and racking it, I’m not coming to the conclusion this is good,” said Papania. “While the actions of these two men are sanctioned by state laws, what they did negatively impacted our community.”

According to police they received multiple calls about the men who had possibly done the same thing at a local Winn-Dixie, forcing police to divert officers to the Walmart to form a perimeter as the SWAT entered and searched the store. By the time police had arrived, the two men had left.

Using surveillance video police were able to track the men down and speak with them, but due to Mississippi’s open carry laws, the chief said his hands were tied after conferring with city attorneys.

“In our nation there continues to be violent events. Many of these tragic events start to unfold with very similar cir stances where individuals exhibit peculiar actions with firearms around large crowds,” he explained. “The actions of these two men could have inadvertently led to a very violent misunderstanding.”

Without mentioning it, the police chief may have been alluding to the shooting of John Crawford in an Ohio Walmart last August, after police gunned the African-American man down while he held a toy rifle.

Asked whether he believed police overreacted to the situation, the police chief said absolutely not.

“You don’t have to look hard in today’s media and see demonstrations of very violent acts. And if I had been in the store last night watching someone load a shotgun and rack it — that’s not normal. And that’s usually precipitates a violent act.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/miss...e+Raw+Story%29

Thanks, NRA/GOA/gun-industry and their Repug s !

note that the black guy was shot dead IMMEDIATELY, but the white redneck gun fellators all walked away to terrorize another day.

[The Reckoning]

kkk busts being removed. confederate flag blasted to the past.


blacks are finally free!!! hallelujah!

[m>s]

Come and take them right guy, you rabid communist dog

[boutons_deux]

There's a pe ion for BMW and Adidas, lured to SC by tax breaks and "right to work for less" laws, to take a position against the stars n bars.

[vy65]

Also requiring someone to pay for insurance to own a gun changes it from a right to a privilege and possibly bars those who need it most the right to have one. It's the people In poor areas who really need one. Boutons are you sure you're not a republican because your proposals favor the rich and give them more rights.

And also, no insurance would provide coverage for willful misconduct, gross negligence, or intentional acts. So coverage would be limited to those injuries (and whatever de minimus property damage) caused by a truly negligent act. How many times has someone, who has no health insurance, been injured by a truly negligent operation of a firearm?

[vy65]

Short of a complete ban on firearms, it's hard to see how more stringent restrictions would do anything to stop incidents like this. If anything, stronger restrictions incentivize a stronger black market for guns.

[boutons_deux]

Short of a complete ban on firearms, it's hard to see how more stringent restrictions would do anything to stop incidents like this. If anything, stronger restrictions incentivize a stronger black market for guns.

maybe we'll learn eventually how and where this mass murderer obtained his gun(s).

[CosmicCowboy]

If you show me a drunk driver who got the death penalty and was executed in the states for drunk driving, I will buy your argument.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.