The politics of hoodie wearing

@DrewDad,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
It takes a lot to actually beat someone to death. Fists are not very effective weapons.
That is false. It can happen ACCIDENTALLY, from one lucky hit.

DrewDad wrote:

No wonder you're always so scared of people, what with everyone being armed with two deadly weapons at all times.

I want everyone to be defensively well armed,
with recidivistic, intolerable threats BANISHED n removed from contact with the decent people.

DrewDad wrote:

Drew(I sleep with mine under my pillow)Dad

Revolver or pistol?? What do u have ?

David

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

DAVID wrote:

That woud be an obvious, liberal violation of the Constitution,
like ordering the Baptists or the Jews to register with the police

hawkeye10 wrote:

What if the government outsourced this work....made all groups register with a NGO, one which acted as a liaison between the police and the citizens....would this still be unconstitutional?

OBVIOUSLY, it woud.
Government simply has no jurisdiction over religion or guns.

David

1 Reply

Government cannot give, nor outsource, what jurisdiction it does not have.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Government simply has no jurisdiction over religion or guns

This is not about guns directly, this is about some in Congress thinking that they have the authority to pass a law making all citizens watch groups register with some entity that the police have a direct link to, and perhaps also to mandate that all those who are part of the group under-go a background check, the results of which would also be available to the state. For me this is not even close, this is abuse of the citizens at the hands of the state, but I wanted to hear your views on this.

BTW-I am pretty tired of the insinuation that there is something wrong with this group AS PROVEN BY the fact that they exercised their constitutional right to not register with the police....

0 Replies

David says:

Quote:

Guns were hand made without electric tools
nor any engineering plans even b4 Christopher Columbus was born

right, and if some enterprising criminal wants to bring a 30 pound matchlock and the support he needs to fire it into a bank, set up the support, put the matchlock in it and say, "All right, nobody move, or I will fire my one shot at all 30 of you everywhere around me, oh damn, my match went out, don't move until I relight it and threaten you again," then he damned sure deserves that right.

We've been through this before but it hasn't sunk in on you yet, obviously. In the major industrial democratic countries where people had guns and strict gun control laws have been instituted, it's worked pretty well. Their crimee rates involving guns are well below ours. The large majority of guns involved in crime here come from legal sources or at one remove from them--unregulated private sales at gun shows, legal purchases from gun stores, straw purchases at gun stores, the 1% of gun dealers who just don't care and will sell to anybody, and thefts or walkaways from gunstores and manufacturers, and burglaries from private gun owners (burglars are usually smart enough to tell when you're not there with your gun to stop them). All legal or one step removed--you're just the kind of person who's supplying the criminals, David. Cut off the legal sources of supply and the criminals won't have guns.

Guns are cheap because they can be mass-produced, but mass production requires a lot of fairly obvious machinery and sources of large quantities of specialized metal. And then there's ammunition, which requires a lot of specialized metalworking and large batches of chemicals and equipment, and very precise machining or you jam your gun and blow it up in your face. It's not even easy to make gunpowder anymore, hard to find large piles of animal **** for saltpeter.

And remember there's really no such thing as "thieves' honor". That's a fiction. Give a big enough bounty, I'd calculate probably $50,000 would do it, and somebody who buys an illegal gun from a bootleg maker is going to find it makes a lot of good hard financial sense, and is much easier money, with far less risk, to rat out a gun maker. It's probably also cheaper than what the crimes therefore uncommited would cost us. Sure you might still get a few guys with a whole range of very specialized skill sets needed and the money to purchase some very specialized tools (don't forget you've got to produce a whole lot of ammunition too and that's a different skill set and machinery), but they aren't going to make many and they aren't going to be cheap. You don't have a very good business model here, David.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Government cannot give, nor outsource, what jurisdiction it does not have.

But it can tell y'all where you can vacation.

Laughing

Yup, y'all sure are free.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

david,I'm not sure I see the irony when you contend, as you have, that criminals,convicted felons and drug dealers should have guns because they have the right to defend themselves too. Hypocrisy, though, when you then say citizens need guns because they have to defend themselves from criminals, convicted felons, and drug dealers with guns.

Another way to put the same point is that EVERYONE needs to be able to defend himself or herself at any time.
EVERYONE is equally entitled to "equal protection of the laws".
Like getting a flat tire: u just don 't know when it is going to HAPPEN,
nor by whom u 'll be attacked. Jessie James purportedly took off his gunbelt,
in his own home, and was shot in the back by "a dirty little coward" while
he was straightening the display of a picture on his wall.

Its better to HAVE a gun and not need it,
than it is to NEED a gun and not have it.

1 Reply

Having his gunbelt on sure would have stopped him being shot in the back, wouldn't it, Dave? Didn't do a whole lot of good for Wild Bill Hickock in a similar situation, as I recall. On the other hand taking the gun away from his shooter would have stopped him being shot, and would also have stopped the gang from robbing all those trains and banks and committing all those murders. On the other hand, what did get him shot was a substantial reward, wasn't it?. Reinforcing my point that there's no such thing as thieve's honor. Mayke it lucrative enough, and you'll get turned in in a New York minute. Cheap at the price. Money usually works better than a bullet, and the body count is usually a whole lot lower.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

EVERYONE needs to be able to defend himself or herself at any time.

See, Om, you've provided more proof that while words such as 'everyone' is treated as grammatically singular, it is notionally plural.

Everyone, please stand up does not ever result in only one person standing up.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't know what game you're trying to play but it should be clear to anyone who accessed the links that that all but two stories took place outside of the US.

Maybe you have to actually look at the linked articles.

I read your summary about each link, and didn't see a white guy from New York listed, that's why I asked. I'm happy to admit if it's otherwise. At any rate, the point was lost by my not specifying to search google news, which is what I searched, as opposed to a web search. I'm tired now.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David says:

DAVID wrote:

Guns were hand made without electric tools
nor any engineering plans even b4 Christopher Columbus was born

MontereyJack wrote:

right, and if some enterprising criminal wants to bring a 30 pound matchlock and the support he needs to fire it into a bank, set up the support, put the matchlock in it and say, "All right, nobody move, or I will fire my one shot at all 30 of you everywhere around me, oh damn, my match went out, don't move until I relight it and threaten you again," then he damned sure deserves that right.

That 's a strange thing to say. (I will not offer an opinion regarding its intelligence.)
For WHAT reason woud he not make a GOOD, modern gun,
maybe an AK 47 [simple, ez to make] or a short BAR ?

MontereyJack wrote:

We've been through this before but it hasn't sunk in on you yet, obviously. In the major industrial democratic countries where people had guns and strict gun control laws have been instituted, it's worked pretty well. Their crimee rates involving guns are well below ours.

Assume, for the moment,
that thay r good, accurate crime rates.
EACH of the 3OO,OOO,OOO+ of us shud say: I don 't CARE.
From the collectivist, liberal, standpoint,
an individual shud be willing to sacrifice his own personal well being
on the alter of lower collective crime rates. I reject that. NRA rejects that. The Founders of this Republic rejected that.

( Note, incidentally, that Vermont has always had very low crime,
and it has never had anti-gun laws, since and b4 it was admitted to the USA.)

I look at it from an INDIVIDUAL perspective. Each of us shud say:
"I care about MYSELF & my loved ones.
I don't give a damn about the collective's crime rates."
A few years ago, I read an article by a competent statistician
(which I am not) directly attributing the negative aspects
of America 's crime rate to one race in particular,
including crimes upon its victims by its predators.
The rest of us shud not relinquish our natural rights
nor any of our Constitutional Rights, because of the errors of that race upon itself.

MontereyJack wrote:

The large majority of guns involved in crime here come from legal sources or at one remove from them--unregulated private sales at gun shows, legal purchases from gun stores, straw purchases at gun stores, the 1% of gun dealers who just don't care and will sell to anybody,

Y not complain about dangerous books being sold to just "anybody"??? That has been done too,
by the nazis n the commies.

MontereyJack wrote:

and thefts or walkaways from gunstores and manufacturers, and burglaries from private gun owners (burglars are usually smart enough to tell when you're not there with your gun to stop them). All legal or one step removed--you're just the kind of person who's supplying the criminals, David. Cut off the legal sources of supply and the criminals won't have guns.

Really???? Where will the guns go?????
Evaporate, like water??

MontereyJack wrote:

Guns are cheap because they can be mass-produced,
but mass production requires a lot of fairly obvious machinery
and sources of large quantities of specialized metal.

I dunno about that, Jack.
Its not unusual to see beautiful custom made guns in gunstores,
displaying the work of small, private gunsmiths.
If guns were Prohibited, I 'd make them myself, pro bono.

MontereyJack wrote:

And then there's ammunition, which requires a lot of specialized metalworking and large batches of chemicals and equipment, and very precise machining or you jam your gun and blow it up in your face. It's not even easy to make gunpowder anymore, hard to find large piles of animal **** for saltpeter.

I 've been satisfied to buy ammo in gunstores, mostly,
but I've known fellows who make their own ammunition
to get a better product.

Fortunately, we live in a free country
where we need not be concerned of such oppression as what u 've mentioned.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Fortunately, we live in a free country
where we need not be concerned of such oppression.

But you are told where you can and cannot travel, who you can and cannot do business with.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You may think these questions besides the point, but you can be assured that if people are given license to assualt someone because they believe he is clearly following them, there will be incidents where they are of considerable importance.

Kind of like what happens if people are given license to kill someone because they believe their life is in danger (or their property, in the case of the Florida law).

You're arguments actually work better against Zimmerman than in his favor. If menacing kids with screwdrivers can be shot, what of menacing men who follow people in a threatening manner? The problem with any law that allows (and thus invites) citizens to behave as police without similar training or judgment is asking for tragedies. Florida's got them in spades.

Both parties to a conflict need incentive to deescalate and avoid confrontation. I'm sorry, but in this story so far the evidence shows that only one person attempted to avoid confrontation, and it was the one who was not armed.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

It's also kinda hard to beat someones head against the ground with any force, when you can't get a grip on their hair.

You'll go anywhere to make Zimmerman's allegations invalid, won't you?

Next it will be "It's kinda hard to beat someone's head against the ground with any force, when you have skittles and a bottle of soda in your hands." Proof positive that Martin couldn't have done what Zimmerman claims!

I can quite easily imagine someone putting their hands on either side of my head and effectively bashing it against the ground, but now you're going to tell us you are a bio-mech engineer and can prove it's impossible.

Some of you guys are interchangeable.

It's not only unbelievable to you that Zimmerman's allegations are true, you want to tell us they're impossible. Anything to keep the narrative bound within the confines your politics insist upon.

You're not going to get any bonus points for taking such a firm stance early on if the Special Investigator issues a report that backs up what you believe. You're flipping a coin and your politics forced it to come up on the side you seem so dependent upon.

In any number of other incidents, given the right political undertones, you Parados, MJ et al would be decalring that it is riduclous to speculate when a Special Invesitgator is on the case, that as American citizens, we're innocent until proven guilty, and it is only those with ulterior motives who insist on rushing to judgment.

I would ask you how, since you're so invested in his guilt,you will feel if the Special Investigator exonerates Zimmerman, but I know the asnwer: Incredulous and ready to declare him a running dog for a police cover-up.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

Both parties to a conflict need incentive to deescalate and avoid confrontation.

I agree completely. Way dumb law.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but in this story so far the evidence shows that only one person attempted to avoid confrontation, and it was the one who was not armed.

Is this conclusion your opinion, FD, or are those the actual facts?

So far, all I've noticed is a whole lot of he said she said.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I have tried to make three points in this discussion and one of them has been, that no matter what our opinions may be, that what we are not entitled to do, or at least should not be, is to put a bounty on his head (New Black Panthers), abuse the power of our office and propose a resolution that judges Zimmerman racially biased (Congressinal Black Caucus), distort 911 recordings in an attmept to lead the American public to believe Zimmerman is a racist (NBC) broadcast the man's address to the world (Spike Lee) and foment rage within a community (Jackon and Sharpton).

Those are excellent points that I agree with, but this is the first time I'm seeing you make them. Perhaps I speed read your posts too often.

Quote:

It's interesting that no one seems to have noticed the story I linked to about the black man in Arizona who shot and killed a white man because he felt threatened and , most importantly, has not been arrested or charges.

I noted the similarity and the Stand Your Ground connection, but didn't see a great need to comment about it other than that. Perhaps because these were two adults. Likewise there are a great many other cases in Florida alone involving Stand Your Ground where deadly force would probably not have been used prior to the law being enacted. However Trayvon's case seems unusual in that he was a kid and was trying to mind his business.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

It's also kinda hard to beat someones head against the ground with any force, when you can't get a grip on their hair.

On a similar note, it's hard to shoot someone who is that close to you without getting blood on your clothing. And if you can get your hands free to draw your weapon and undo the safety, you can probably use those hands to free yourself.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

It's also kinda hard to beat someones head against the ground with any force, when you can't get a grip on their hair.

On a similar note, it's hard to shoot someone who is that close to you without getting blood on your clothing. And if you can get your hands free to draw your weapon and undo the safety, you can probably use those hands to free yourself.

Then Hollywood often gets it wrong.....BTW, at what range was the shot fired? I find it very interesting that so many people are sure they know what happened, yet such a basic fact as this which would give clues I have never seen mentioned.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Is this conclusion your opinion, FD, or are those the actual facts?

So far, all I've noticed is a whole lot of he said she said.

Zimmerman says in the phone call to police that Trayvon was running away. So the "he said" in this case is Zimmerman himself. I assume he'd have no reason to lie at that point in the situation.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

You don't seem to be able to grasp that I am not arguing for anyone. I'm arguing against rushing to judgment based on ideological assumptions, and sketchy and contradicting reports.

If I have made an argument for how Martin's claims could be true it is to demonstrate that the folks who are so sure that they know what happened that night, don't really.

It is not difficult to imagine a scenario wherein Zimmerman shot the kid in actual self-defense, and it's not hard to imagine one wherein he did it because he wanted to take care of one of the punks he was sick and tired of. The former is justifiable; the latter not.

What I can't easily imagine is that he hunted Martin down like a dog and killed him because he was black. Anything is possible of course and this could be what happened but where's the evidence that would lead a congresswoman to call a press conference so she could state it with absolute certainty?

I'm also arguing against the hypocrisy of those who find this case one of clear cut injustice, but not the one in Arizona. These are the folks who claim that the only racial element they're focused on is that if had been Martin and not Zimmerman who shot someone in alleged defense, he would have been arrested and thrown in jail.

Some go so far as to argue that race has nothing to do with it and that the law is crazy and anyone who shoots an unarmed person should be arrested. Still, I don't see any outrage from this group about the guy who has done the same thing as Zimmerman and wasn't arrested or charged.

This case has been so racially charged by people who benefit by racial tension that I'm afraid that it doesn't matter how it is resolved. The folks who have been filled with anger over this case are not going to let it easily go, no matter what.

2 Replies

The politics of hoodie wearing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know