And you conveniently ignore the point I made before that, Nice job there. Direct my attention away from the fact that you have to real response.
You hadnāt made any point yet. You edited it in later.
If you are going to keep bringing strawmen into this argument, Iām done. Iāve given you what you asked for and you are rationalizing 8 ways from Sunday trying to show that what Iāve given you isnāt what youāve asked for.
If you refuse to see the evidence Iāve placed in front of you, thereās not going to be anything I can do to change your mind, so Iām done.
But donāt mistake this for me conceding any point to you at all, since youāre very fond of placing words in my mouth for me.
1 Like
Yes, I added to it. My point (and it is still there) is that the Democratic Party is racist if you are willing to go back to the Civil War (which you apparently are). I did add some stuff after, not wanting to start a new post.
You are claiming that laws, which are otherwise well-written, should be scrapped if they are racist. You point out āStand Your Groundā laws as being one. I was pointing out murder laws as another. You call this a āstraw man?ā OK. I do admit that it was a little ridiculous to suggest that murder laws be repealed ā poor handling of a law does not make the law itself bad. But the same can be said for āstand your groundā laws. That was my point. I am sorry if it went over your head. Please accept my apologies. I will try to be more literal in the future.
I still have NO evidence that any stances suggested by the NRA in two generations have intended to be racist. None. You just WANT that to be true so you can feel self-righteous about demonizing them.
Are you talking about āStand your ground?ā Again I disagree itās a racist law. (And itās not a gun law per se). EVERY LAW can have perverse applications when enforcement selectively decides which people they want to hold accountable. From speeding to drug possessionā¦
I honestly donāt think the 68 gun law was entirely racist either. The āSaturday Night Specialā clause would be the one area that I think would be most targeted against blacks and the poor in general. I challenge any one for more gun control to find what in that bill they find so disgusting.
And why is it a whole organization is tainted by a few members, when I can give examples of members who are 180 the opposite? Their personal views arenāt what is the driving force behind the lobby.
Come on - if the NRA is soooo racist, where are the laws they proposed to keep guns from minorities? Why would they bother with the DC case? Youāre arguments that NRA is racist stems from stereotyping white gun owners as a bunch of slack jawed racists, which is a disgusting and insulting stereotype. Their actions donāt support your assumptions.
1 Like
Simple. The NRA is evil, and everybody who supports them is evil. You just have to look hard enough. You fool, you are using LOGIC and FACTS. Those have no place in this discussion, this is about those EVIL, EVIL GUNS, and those EVIL, EVIL people who support them. Let go of logic and nurse your hate.
Now youāre really clutching at proverbial straws. Whoās proposing here that in this era, when just about no one will admit to being a racist, that the NRA would propose such a blatantly racist law?
Anyway, Iām done arguing with a couple of incredibly ardent gun fondlers. You two guys are quite free of course to remain, the last two in the room, stroking your own (and then each otherās?) aptly phallic objects.
1 Like
So, you admit that the NRA does NOT propose āblatenly racistā laws, the only example that you have provided is about a good law that may be ENFORCED in a racist manner ā in which case the fault lies in the courts and the law enforcement, not the law itself.
Furthermore, you claim that voter ID laws ARE racist, but have no comment on my assertion that requiring ID to buy a gun is equally racist, and these are the laws that have been pushed through by the Democrats (who opposed the Emancipation Proclamation, by the way).
Sorry, but if you make a claim, you have to back it up. āBecause I said soā is not proof. I am done with you too. You make the same claim over and over again, but no proof at all. Good bye.
Quote where I said that.
OK. No problemā¦[quote=āsfrazer, post:119, topic:48996ā]
Hereās the thing though. Maybe that was true when the law was written, but weāve now shown that the application is racially biased and the NRA is still behind the law.
[/quote]
Well, you certainly are blaming the NRA for still supporting a law which might be enforced in a racist manner. The implication is clear that NRA should NOT support the otherwise-good law, and it should be scrapped.
Forgot what you wrote, huh?
I implied absolutely nothing. I stated facts.
Do you really think this is the way to āwinā an argument?
Wayne Lapierreās statements would disagree with you, as would those of various NRA board members. Check out Lapierreās speech made at the 2014 NRA convention - it was all racist dog whistling. The whole argument being made by the NRA to justify gun laws (or lack thereof) and gun ownership is that (white) Americans need them to defend themselves against various people of color - blacks and Muslims (referred to via dog whistles), and - explicitly mentioned - Mexicans and Chinese (presumably they got brought up because of reflexive anti-Communism). They may have a lot of code words that refer to (largely imaginary) behavior exclusively associated with black people (e.g. āknock-out gamerā), but itās pretty damn clear who they mean.
I was wondering what happened to the safety in this particular case.
I will also state facts. Water is wet. The sky is blue. However, those have NOTHING to do with this argument. Your statement was about the NRA still backing the āStand Your Groundā law. You must have though that this was relevant somehow. Judging the context, your intent was clear. Please do not try to back-pedal on what you have already said. If I have made a mistake, then please tell me WHY you chose to say:
[quote]Hereās the thing though. Maybe that was true when the law was written, but weāve now shown that the application is racially biased and the NRA
is still behind the law.[/quote]
Let me get this clear, you are claiming that you are NOT saying that the NRA is wrong for supporting this law? You SUPPORT this law even though you claim that that the enforcement is racially biased? I am not sure what you are saying.
Sorry, but the term āAmericaā means ANYBODY of American Citizenship. Period. You can read into that whatever YOU want, but that does not make it true. By bringing up āknock-out gamerā you are implying that they are all black. That is YOUR racism, and you cannot blame it on anybody else. Now, if all āknock-out gamersā happen to be black, that does not matter. If somebody intends to do you bodily harm, it is acceptable if they are black, but bad if they are white. What is your point? If somebody wants to knock you out that you let them?
As to the āMexicans and Chineseā (if he really did say that, you provided no links or proof), well, Mexicans and others from Central America ARE entering this country illegally. Their first act in this country is to break the law. What other laws will they break? Will the do a little breaking-and-entering? Who knows? That is the point.
I have NO problem with immigration. I have thee girls adopted from Haiti. But my girls entered this country legally. I had to pay a lot of money to lawyers and file a lot of paperwork. I am not opposed to having guests in my home, but I at least expect to invite them in. There is a difference between ācome on in, guestā and having somebody sneak in through the window when I am not looking.
Mod note: Stay on topic.
2 Likes
No - āknock-out gamerā is a current conservative boogeyman, and the way they use it, itās understood to refer to a black youth phenomenon. This is not something I made up.
Youāre being deliberately obtuse and ignorant here, but If you really fail to see the racism in Lapierreās statements, I despair for your children.
(Also: did you really just agree with the NRA that we do need guns to defend ourselves against Mexican immigrants? Holy fuck. Iām done with you, buddy.)
3 Likes
USA boasts 50x deaths by firearms over Canada, which, after correcting for population is still 5x more per capita. We would need to have these on a bi-weekly basis all year to catch up.
But hey, our govt is pushing against gun control while simultaneously undermining social safety nets and promoting policy that furthers income disparity, all of which hey take from GOP advisors, so thereās hope yet.
3 Likes
You claimed that the NRA was not a racist organization. I said it was, and provided editorials that spoke to that. Mister44 then asked for proof that the NRA backed a racist law, with the caveat that it be within the last 20 years. Here, Iāll remind you:
Iāve shown quite clearly that stand your ground laws, as currently written and enforced, are racist and that the NRA continues to support (and expand) those laws.
That is the context. That is the relevance. Iām not sure I can make this any clearer to you. I presented these facts without judgement or implied direction aside from the suggestion that if you do not wish to be seen supporting a racist organization, you should not support the NRA.
You would have an easier time understanding what Iām saying if you would stop putting words into my mouth and actually read the things I write. Iāve been quite clear.
Almost every post youāve written in response has involved straw men arguments, goal-post moving, false equivalences or slippery-slope fallacies. You claim to know what I and others want several times:
I believe you are not arguing from a position of good faith. I gave you the opportunity to mend that once, and in response you once again put words into my mouth that I did not say. Iām done with you.
1 Like
With the proper care guns arenāt any more dangerous than any of these or dozens of other lurking threats
Thatās one of the dumbest arguments Iāve ever read. Youād be hard pressed to kill anyone with a detergent pod. A kid would ingest at most a small amount. While accidental drownings do occur in bathtubs, most encounters between children and bathtubs are quite safe.
Guns are intended to kill. An accident with a gun is often fatal. A typical accident with a bathtub leads to a bump on oneās head.
2 Likes
oh come on, a handgun (as opposed to a longarm) is made to disable people with minimal regard for the safety of the target, and the appropriate use of them is to maximize the probability of such. the major reason a head shot is a bad idea is that youāre incredibly likely to miss, not because youāre likely going to cause horrific injury if you succeed. this is tantamount to being ādesigned for the purpose of killingā.
yes, some people have abstracted this use into formal competitions, but thatās pretty much irrelevant. people compete over every damned thing. there are competitions for planing wood into uselessly thin slices, or for writing the most incomprehensible C code. the purpose of a wood planer is not to make paper, nor is the purpose of C to be incomprehensible (although one might think so). some people have gone so far as to make impractically sharp wood planers for impractical competitions, or to make esoteric programming languages made to be incomprehensible. again, this doesnāt mean anything; theyāre just human esotericism.
lest you get the wrong idea, iām in favor of gun rights. if i had to pick between you and, say, Nancy Pelosi setting national gun policy by fiat, iād reluctantly pick you. in fact, iām so in favor of gun rights that i donāt need to dance around the point making silly denials. guns kill people, handguns are practically made for that, but we should have them anyway (with reasonable safety measures and regulations). thatās at least an honest statement.
3 Likes
