NRA To Promote Gun Rights For Blacks And Muslims - Right?
Leshia Evans uses her meditative forces to repel assaulting borgbots of the Baton Rouge police department.
Jonathan Bachman/Reuters
The gun lobbyists of the National Rifle Association get criticized for not forcefully asserting 2nd amendment rights over the murder of a legitimately gun carrying member of the public:
After a Minnesota police officer fatally shot a black man on Wednesday, gun control advocates weren’t the only ones criticizing the National Rifle Association. Some of the blowback was coming from within the organization.The NRA is facing internal division as its members argue that the group did not do enough to defend gun owners’ rights by speaking out on behalf of Philando Castile of Falcon Heights, Minn., who was shot to death during a traffic stop.
Castile had a valid permit to carry a gun. He also reportedly informed the officer who shot him that he was armed in an attempt to head off a misunderstanding.
Comments to that report suggest that the NRA is racist, promoting gun rights for white people only:
Castille was black. That's the difference. Why does this article even try to tap dance around this glaringly obvious double standard?
The NRA must reject such slander.
It should launch a campaign to give every black and every Muslim person a carry permit for a semi-automatic gun. It should also demand special purchase discounts. Crimes within black neighborhoods and inner cities will lessen, according to the NRA's central claims, when more people there carry concealed guns, readily able to defend themselves.
Meditative forces simply ain't enough to keep the streets free of borgs.
Current NRA members would surely support such a move.
Right?
Posted by b on July 11, 2016 at 7:11 UTC | Permalink
When I first heard this story about a black man carrying a permitted conceal carry it was just OMG. The fool was asking to be shot down in the street. The concealed carry laws were designed in the first place for white people to carry guns to protect themselves from dark skinned people. There is no way that dark skinned people can take advantage of that law. Castile put himself in extreme danger thinking that those laws applied to him.
Actually I am in favor of the 2nd amendment right to carry weapons in public but only if they are openly displayed. That gives us a chance of avoiding them. After a bit of time, those nuts will stop carrying when the realize everyone begin to avoid them.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 11 2016 7:56 utc | 3
Yemen was pretty safe and had low crime rate yet was flooded with weapons. It's only after the war on terror began that it has become very unsafe. It seems blowing up people's families with drones gets the survivors to side with the enemy of my enemy. Whether the enemy is AL-CIAda or Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS).
And of course the continuous medical of both regional and international powers, really brings unsuitability to the region.
Posted by: Sam | Jul 11 2016 9:12 utc | 4
Wasicun@1
Correct, the US was founded as a white national fascist state.
The end is in the beginning, and your end is near.
Posted by: white buffalo | Jul 11 2016 9:38 utc | 5
Official crime statistics? People actually trust the official numbers? Like the unemployment statistics that everybody knows are 100% accurate?
The police shoot more whites than blacks. I (who am white) have been chased by police thugs at demonstrations in Washington, D.C. They would have severely fucked me up if I had not run out onto a superhighway. They were too afraid of having cars going past them within twelve inches at seventy miles per hour.
How many white bodies murdered by whites are rotting inconspicuously in the Kentucky woods? Do they count? Probably not.
Posted by: blues | Jul 11 2016 10:20 utc | 6
Do you not see the threat that young black women in a dress poses to police dressed in riot gear? A threat to their authority!!!
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 11 2016 11:29 utc | 7
As a long time competitive shooter, and the possessor of a target grade .22 rifle for my 12th birthday (1957), I see the problem through just short of 65 years of firearms use.
Guns were not a problem in my youth, at the age of 12 I was allowed solo use of my target rifle at home and a YMCA camp at Spirit Lake, Wa. one summer.
Unfortunately, U.S. society has sickened to the point of psychopathy and in good conscience I can no longer support gun ownership by the masses.
Of course, its too late by far for that to end. If, as has been suggested, the killing of police is one of the advanced steps towards a revolution; then godspeed and get it done.
That said, I seriously doubt that's a genuine possibility and the rot will continue...
Ultimately it's a perfect example of karma running its course.
Posted by: V. Arnold | Jul 11 2016 11:48 utc | 8
There is a decent article at CounterPunch regarding this issue. From which, this quote:
"Racism, materialism, and militarism are closely woven into our culture and with each other." I would add '(western, not solely US)' after the word culture in this quote.
Regarding the thread thus far, it seems as though the quote is not strong enough. 'Valhalla Rising' is proof enough. Racist, militarist, materialist.
Posted by: rg the lg | Jul 11 2016 12:57 utc | 9
V. Arnold | Jul 11, 2016 7:48:56 AM | 8
If, as has been suggested, the killing of police is one of the advanced steps towards a revolution; then godspeed and get it done.
I came across the source of that "steps to revolution" here;
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-10/what-happens-after-cops-start-getting-shot
Posted by: V. Arnold | Jul 11 2016 13:17 utc | 10
I live on LI NY.There are very few toters here,and in the non minority communities there is absolutely no violence,or very little,at least among white youth shooting each other.
Who will step up in the black community to address this nonsense of self hatred,where the lives of blacks are held in contempt by fellow blacks?
Of course much of this can be laid at the feet of Zion,and its destabilizing neocapitalism that has left minority communities in ruins.
And of course the cops are scared shiteless,as that Minn shooting proved.That was some video,where the woman was steely calm in the face of death.
Decriminalize drugs.Who the f*ck cares if some want to get high?Just don't drive or be intoxicated in public,and the world will move on,crime will decrease,as most of this violence is drug related.
Posted by: dahoit | Jul 11 2016 13:30 utc | 11
Great picture.
In my humble opinion, it totally destroys the gun lobby's arguments.
The cops are armed to the teeth, with better armour than you'd find in any battlefield, but their posture in knock-kneed, blow me down with a feather style.
The Lady is grounded.
Who shows fear? And who is sure of where she stands.
Watch this bbc video of hunters walking into a pride of lions and stealing their catch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDubMeNlSxc
Watch how they walk.
No guns.
Posted by: El Sid | Jul 11 2016 13:36 utc | 12
Whoever wrote this article obviously has very little experience with interacting with typical Americanized Africans.
Posted by: Ezra Pound | Jul 11 2016 13:38 utc | 13
Meditative forces simply ain't enough to keep the streets free of borgs
nope...and someday, in the not-so-distant future, DARPA and the military industrial pharmaceutical complex will 'gene tamper' warriors to feel no pain, fatigue, or hunger, and with beta blocking drugs to subdue all feelings of remorse they'll even be able to reintegrate harmoniously with family and friends after an unemotional bout of slaughter on the battlefield. no doubt they'll develope splendid relationships with their killer robot cousins, too.
Posted by: john | Jul 11 2016 13:49 utc | 14
Cute, and you have a valid point, but I submit that you are missing the big picture.
Japan has very tight gun control laws - and almost no crime. Mexico also has very tight gun control laws - and an official homicide rate at least three times that of the gun-crazy United States.
Germany has very tight gun control laws and very little crime. Austria, however, allows almost any citizen to buy a shotgun, and also very little crime. The heavily armed middle class of the United States, taken by itself, has a murder rate about equal to that of France.
The bottom line: guns are neither our salvation nor the main problem. What creates a safe society is shared prosperity, an economy where an average young man can support a family without having to be a superhuman genius. Do that, and gun control laws are hardly relevant (though they can bring down the suicide rate). But crush the working class into the mud, have large numbers of angry and unemployed young men roaming the street, and bad things will happen no matter what you do on gun control, no matter what the race or culture or religion etc. Oh, but the rich like their cheap labor, so we can't talk about that. No, lets pit whites and blacks against each other. Divide and conquer. Yeah, that'll work.
http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2016/02/firearms-and-private-citizens-nonsense.html
Posted by: TG | Jul 11 2016 13:50 utc | 15
The name is Ieshia, Evans, instead of Leshia. Ieshia Evans, 28, a licensed practitioner nurse and mother from New York, has been revealed as the woman behind the iconic arrest photo ...
Posted by: c | Jul 11 2016 13:52 utc | 16
Prospective police recruits go through screening and what they're looking for is psychopaths. From what I've heard most won't call them no matter what. So, what are they doing, eating donuts? Again, we pay the taxes but get no service. They're there to protect them from us, same with military and the rest of the goons. They should undergo brain scans and those proven to be psychopathic shouldn't be eligible. We'll keep banging our heads again the wall 'til we do. We should immediately scan bummer, killton, and every "top" demon puppet. That would be in a just country though.
Posted by: Barbara | Jul 11 2016 14:11 utc | 17
b
Snark is neither particularly appropriate in this case, nor particularly funny in any case. Snark is just one step above limericks and green eggs and ham.
The same people running the NRA and gun manufacturers are running drugs into the US and money laundering back out again, the layers on the Deep State onion, just another circle of hell.
Having neither the balls nor the intelligence to take out the 1% Owners, feckless White honkies will start Ghost Dancing soon enough, then take out the brothers and sisters, like they took out the First Nations, which is just fine with The Tribe.
Fewer useless mouths to feed. And that's what you should be reporting, this global ethnic genocide in plain view.
Posted by: Uk Tahder | Jul 11 2016 14:17 utc | 18
Sure give black people and Muslims more guns legally, the easier they will finish themselves off. I'd just put them in a giant cage the size of Kansas so the animals don't hurt anyone else.
@13
You can say that again. the fact that they gun each other down violently in the thousands every year falls on deaf ears as it doesn't fit the narrative of blacks oppressed by cops. They ought to get someone who actually has real life experience around them to write race-baiting articles.
Posted by: farflungstar | Jul 11 2016 14:27 utc | 19
TG @15
Great comment.
Neoliberal fracking of society has led to social earthquakes. Surprising? Only to a clueless, self-serving elite.
Clinton-Obama "Third Way" Democrats use guns as a scapegoat for the betrayal of traditional Democratic 'base'.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 11 2016 14:43 utc | 20
US citizens possess 3,000,000 firearms and 2,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition. This MSM ideological freak show continues but has no real effect on the 'reality on the ground.' It is my belief that this attempted race war scenario is authored by and executed by internationalist forces who are incapable of understanding and appreciating the facts on the ground. I believe that a Bolshevik type take over is envisioned by these foreign forces.
How do I know that foreign entities are behind these plans to form a one world government? Of all places they picked Texas to further their agenda. Bad move Brussels. Very bad move. Even the Sinaloa Cartel who move the H for HSBC know that you 'Don't F*#k with Texas.'
Just my opinion.
Posted by: ALberto | Jul 11 2016 15:03 utc | 21
Wow, definitely more heat than light in these comments...
Posted by: kgw | Jul 11 2016 15:19 utc | 23
good one b... and first comment from the kkk.. great! not sure you want to excite the fanatics like this..
Posted by: james | Jul 11 2016 15:31 utc | 24
Gun sales in the US shoot up (sic) after any violent incident, no matter if 7 or 93 ppl were killed at the scene, this is part of MSM news. Examples:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/gun-sales/
US road accident deaths are close on 40K per year with the ‘serious’ or semi-so injured, about 4 million. Drug deaths and suicide are another heavy toll. (Not to mention lack of med care, proper food, and firearm ‘accidents’, etc.) Some have argued that ‘gun deaths’ (by shooting) are close on ‘traffic, motor vehicle’ causes.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 11 2016 15:44 utc | 25
Last summer, I overheard the following while taking a smoke on the patio of my townhouse: "I was thinking about moving to Massachusetts, but they have those crazy regulations and I would need to get a special permit for my cannons". Then I realized that the explanation for what I have seen before was not a joke: the two cannons on a trailer on the driveway of my neighbor are indeed "functional replica of the naval cannons from the Revolutionary War" (ca. 1780). The guys were going next day to a private shooting range, and they had a look of former military men in their 30-ties, so probably they did everything right. Firearms provide a lot of pleasure to millions of Americans.
By the way, Japan not only controls fire arms more tightly, but also more sensibly. In USA this is a task of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Couldn't they regulate carbonated beverages too? In Japan this is office for control of Swords and Firearms. Swords (and firearms) are registered and the bureau knows who has them, who and when made them, issues certificates of authenticity etc.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 11 2016 15:46 utc | 26
Facts are so, so factual. Chiraq year to date death count ...
Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 313
Shot & Wounded: 1802
Total Shot: 2115
Total Homicides: 348
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-4EZyPIsSY
Posted by: ALberto | Jul 11 2016 15:48 utc | 27
Gun Control in the US needs to start with the Police. We also need to disband several police departments entirely and start from scratch with community oversight. Serious reforms need to happen with prosecutors being far too cozy with police agencies for law enforcement to be accountable. Hiring and staff qualifications need to be much, much stricter. But let's start with taking their guns away and see how quickly the assholes become polite.
#disarmthepolice
Posted by: Shh | Jul 11 2016 16:02 utc | 28
b
I do appreciate your sense of irony, as it does point out the underlying racist assumptions of the NRA, and has brought out the consequential response. Peter Lee of China Matters has a very interesting take on all this. I believe the violence in our society is intended as a divide and control mechanism, and a distraction from what really is occurring behind the curtain.
http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2016/07/dont-mention-war-race-war-that-is.html?m=1
Posted by: Michael | Jul 11 2016 16:17 utc | 29
The new slavemasters will try to put as many people on the auction block as they can. Self-righteous white bigots are the most pathetic of the lot, in any conversation, with their crybaby tears and vainglorious words. They would have you forget that the CIA shipped cocaine in mass quantities into LA, and Mena, Arkansas, and all sorts of other cities in the US. They won't mention the racist drug laws that fit huge prison sentences to those black folks in the ghetto, while there was a double standard for the fortuinate ones, like the Clintons, who went their merry way, hoovering up lines of coke, with no worries about any unpleasantness in their futures.
Those who essentially purchase the passage of laws, also rig the legal system, so as to send a racially select group of people to jail. This is by design; and the same group of creeps associated with the Owners' Cartel, also manage to create the for-profit, corporate prison gulag, in order to squeeze the last drops of sweat and blood out of their victims.
Any honest American, anyone who knows this country, understands the unspoken racial message and the psychlogical imprint that is built within the new open carry, and concealed carry, gun laws. It is known that not every citizen is equal under the law. The response of police to a person who may be legally carrying a gun will vary, according to ancient prejudice.
The NRA are acting like morons if this is true. Its how it all starts. First they come after Muslim guns, then black peoples guns; guess whos next. Once you open a little crack in the door, its all over. There needs to be no budge whatsoever on the right to bear arms. This should be completely off limits. If one wants to know the result of disarming America; one only needs to look at the history of the Soviet Union in the 20th century. It will be just as bad or worse. Law enforcement agencies the nation over are weaponizing at an alarming rate. The National Guard depot near my house is teeming with modern weapons of war.
Posted by: bored muslim | Jul 11 2016 17:04 utc | 32
jawbone @31 ...
http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
better double check as the total might have gone up in the last hour or so.
Posted by: ALberto | Jul 11 2016 17:27 utc | 33
ToivoS@3 - "...When I first heard this story about a black man carrying a permitted conceal carry it was just OMG..."
Sad to say I had my moment of cognitive dissonance when I read about Castile being permitted to carry. It had nothing to do with approving/objecting - the thought of a law-abiding black man having a permit and legally carrying a handgun seems somehow strange (although it shouldn't be).
Just a few points of information, ToivoS:
Minnesota has no such thing as a 'concealed carry' permit - it's just a license to carry a handgun in public places, period. You need a background check to purchase a weapon, and you need an additional county-issued permit to carry any weapon, concealed or not.
You can't get a carry permit unless you're 21, are allowed to own a weapon (=background check, no felonies, etc), are not in Minnesota's criminal gang investigation system, i.e, no known associations with any gangs, and you have a certificate of training in an authorized firearms safety course from a certified instructor. You have to repeat the training every few years for a renewal. In other words, it's highly unlikely a convenience store robber would ever have a permit to carry in Minnesota.
There are additional rules for carrying a weapon in an automobile: it must be unloaded and it must be in a fully-enclosed case made specifically to hold the weapon. You are only required tell law enforcement that you have a weapon in the car if they ask - there is no requirement in Minnesota to inform them before-hand. Castile told the cop in an attempt to defuse the situation - I guess he'll never make that mistake again.
You lose your carry permit if you violate any of the rules.
In other words, a permitted weapon carrier merely 'with a weapon in their car' are of little threat to a cop or anyone else in Minnesota. Castile was pulled over many times for bogus traffic stuff and never lost his carry permit, so either he was following the rules or miraculously never had his weapon with him on any previous stop. I have no idea, but I pretty much doubt the cop actually saw ANY weapon - Castile wouldn't have had it sitting in his lep.
As noted on another thread, the cop that shot him said he stopped Castile because he looked like a robbery suspect. That means it was a felony stop - the kind where the cops already have their guns drawn, you always have your hands up and have to get out of the car and lay on the street to be searched. No part of any felony stop in any state starts out with walking up to the car and asking "Let me see your drivers license and registration" or "Do you have a weapon in the car". Yanez and his partner were experienced cops, they would have done exactly that if he really believed Castile was the suspect.
Yanez and his partner did what they did because it was a typical harassment/intimidation stop in a known speed/shakedown trap to fish for reasons to ticket the unfortunate driver. They did not honestly believe Castile was the real suspect by their actions. They were expecting to hand out a fistful of tickets or make a weed bust and laugh about it while they waited for their next 'perpetrator'. That is what they are expected to do by their superiors in the St. Anthony police department - they have been doing it for years.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 11 2016 17:32 utc | 34
still waiting for these constitutionalist originalist 2nd amendment nutters to get off their fat asses & do something about all the other rights that have been shredded from that bill thingy. gun nutters huff & puff & do nothing and the owners are laughing their asses off. and raking in the dough. homer s: "one of these days honest citizens are gonna stand up to you crooked cops!" chief wiggum: "really? oh no! have they set a date?"
and what b said.
Posted by: jason | Jul 11 2016 17:39 utc | 35
Another blatant seizure of a horrific event in order to legislate from the Executive Branch? This is also a problem at the State government level. The Executive Branch exists solely to execute (i.e. enforce) the Laws of our Nation and States. Attorney General. Department of Justice. State and Federal. The Legislature enacts these Laws. The possibility of this occurring obviously occurred to the Founders and Framers. They knew that factions and organizations would attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights so they instituted a system by which the terms of the Constitution could be 'amended.' That process possessing a level of difficulty that prohibits fascist clowns from achieving their intended goals. And repeated attempts to do an 'end run' around the Bill of Rights would become so obvious as to be almost comical.
So I would like to take this opportunity to again salute the Founders and Framers for their wisdom, fairness and sense of common human decency.
Just me opinion
Posted by: ALberto | Jul 11 2016 17:41 utc | 36
@3 Toivo S 'The fool was asking to be shot down in the street.'
Jesus, Toivo, you're outdoing the NRA in your condescension, blaming the victim for his own death. Maybe black Americans should just emmigrate? Were the Jews who didn't leave Germany in the 1930s, fools? asking to be exterminated by the NAZIs?
@6, blues, 'People actually trust the official numbers'
There are no 'official numbers'. As in Iraq, 'We don't do body counts'. They do count the GIs and Cops that are killed though.
Check out Killed by Police. Unofficial numbers tallied and documented by volunteers. Democracy at work. I haven't brought the numbers up to date. I ought to. Cops disproportionately kill blacks. But they dokill more whites ... just not 10 times more whites. There are 10 times more whites that blacks in America, well non-blacks anyway. No one mentions LayVoy Finicum any more. Everyone shut up right after the FBI published their snuff film of their setup and their murder of LaVoy. He was a fool, too, I guess. Asking to be shot down by the side of the road. Plus, he was on the 'wrong' side of the liberal consensus.
@28 shh, 'let's start with taking their [the cops'] guns away and see how quickly the assholes become polite'
Sounds like a plan to me. How about let's have communities patrolled - protected and served - by community residents themselves instead of hired guns from outside the community, fresh home from the perpetual wars for 'democracy'?
@30, copeland, 'Those who essentially purchase the passage of laws, also rig the legal system, so as to send a racially select group of people to jail. This is by design; and the same group of creeps associated with the Owners' Cartel, also manage to create the for-profit, corporate prison gulag, in order to squeeze the last drops of sweat and blood out of their victims.'
Just as the 'ragheads' and 'sand niggers' in Indian Country are 'fair game' ... so too, as Noirette pointed out, 'The enemy is the public, which gradually becomes something like ‘the original inhabitants’ in vicious colonialist schemas, just like the settlers who eliminate all that isn’t them.' back home in the USA. They're just bringin' it all back home.
I need a gun. It is a tool, like an axe or a saw. Without it I would have problems that I dont have with it. I dont plan on shooting anybody, but the other day I had to shoot a rabid dog. And sometimes I have to use it, just like I have to use my car or my axe or my chainsaw. City people however, use it as a weapon. But any tool can be weaponised. Thats because they are idiots. Police, criminals, there is not much difference to me. Abuse of power is unforgivable, uniform or none.
Posted by: dan | Jul 11 2016 19:13 utc | 38
Guns are not the problem.
Demilitarize the police departments as a first step. The citizens they serve are not their enemies.
Anger management and dispute resolution counseling and a job paying a living wage would help to lift self-esteem.
Oh, btw, it is not just color-enhanced peoples who display anger. The revolution is upon us .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ Copeland 30. @ jfl 37
Kudos you went there.
If there is any doubt, regardless of circumstances Mr. Comey just confirmed by example ~:
It is known that not every citizen is equal under the law. The response of police to a person who may be legally carrying a gun will vary, according to ancient prejudice.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ c
spell-check policing?
It depends on the media linked. Several with her name as Leshia. Hop over to RT.com, Buzzfeed and Dailymail.co.uk, help them sort it out.
Posted by: likklemore | Jul 11 2016 20:29 utc | 39
When the police kill a person on video or otherwise, the event is real. These are not False Flag events. The follow up events, which are often staged - false flags, always reboot the media. Each occurrence supersedes the previous event and, with great effectiveness, it diverts attention from other critically important social issues.
For example, the latest shootings have effectively erased the election rigging and fraudulent acts committed by the Clinton's, FBI Director Comey, AG Loretta Lynch and President Obama.
Posted by: fast freddy | Jul 11 2016 20:39 utc | 40
Nearly 1 in 3 black people killed by police in 2015 were identified as unarmed, though the actual number is likely higher due to underreporting.
37% of unarmed people killed by police were black in 2015 despite black people being only 13% of the U.S. population
•Unarmed black people were killed at 5x the rate of unarmed whites in 2015
•Only 10 of the 102 cases in 2015 where an unarmed black person was killed by police resulted in officer(s) being charged with a crime, and only 2 of these deaths (Matthew Ajibade and Eric Harris) resulted in convictions of officers involved. Only 1 of 2 officers convicted for their involvement in Matthew Ajibade's death received jail time. He was sentenced to 1 year in jail and allowed to serve this time exclusively on weekends. Deputy Bates, who killed Eric Harris, will be sentenced May 31.
•Only 10 of the 102 cases in 2015 where an unarmed black person was killed by police resulted in officer(s) being charged with a crime, and only 2 of these deaths (Matthew Ajibade and Eric Harris) resulted in convictions of officers involved. Only 1 of 2 officers convicted for their involvement in Matthew Ajibade's death received jail time. He was sentenced to 1 year in jail and allowed to serve this time exclusively on weekends. Deputy Bates, who killed Eric Harris, will be sentenced May 31.
http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/
Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 11 2016 21:44 utc | 41
@37 "The enemy is the public etc." I was thinking along those lines. Behind closed doors there must be endless discussions about getting rid of the burden of "useless eaters." When the next financial crisis hits things are going to get drastic. They may outsource prisons to gulag-type places in far off countries - where they ain't coming back. They may herd those on food stamps to designated reservations where they are walled off - and follow the Israeli methods with the Palestinians with a good bombing and full-scale occupation now and again. So maybe the police are being prepared to take on a different role - less law and order and more "shock and awe."
Then they will come for us.
Posted by: Lochearn | Jul 11 2016 21:56 utc | 42
Claiming to carry a gun, with or without a permit, then reaching for anything WITHOUT permission from the police officer is an act of suicide. As for the officer shooting him 5 times, I'm surprised the officer had enough self-control to not empty his entire magazine (unless it was a revolver).
Posted by: Strmn | Jul 11 2016 22:15 utc | 43
I find it hard to believe the cop didn't ask to see license and registration. They always do.
Posted by: lysias | Jul 11 2016 22:57 utc | 44
There exist many people lacking intelligence, life experience and common sense. It is easy to research the internet to discover the best methods of dealing with police. Common sense will tell you that you must be deferential and calm.
There are instructions which reveal the best actions to take with a police officer to achieve the best possible outcome. For example, if you are pulled over, you should place your hands with fingers extended on the steering wheel so the officer can see them plainly. This is especially important at night. After the officer has requested your papers, before you reach for them, explain to the officer that you are going to retrieve them first from your wallet and second from your glove box.
You don't want that son of a bitch to shoot you.
None of this discounts the fact that police officers and departments have become militarized and that they have adopted the aggressive attitude that the public is their enemy.
Think what you wish, but always be courteous and respectful to the rotten corrupt pigs.
Posted by: fast freddy | Jul 11 2016 23:39 utc | 45
TG @ 15 said: "The bottom line: guns are neither our salvation nor the main problem. What creates a safe society is shared prosperity, an economy where an average young man can support a family without having to be a superhuman genius."
Absolutely true, hard economic conditions create excessive strife in society overall. This, is reality today, in the U$A.
Any type of gun control, has zero chance of passing into law in today's USA. I's too lucrative a market. However, if our black and brown folks were to arm themselves and show that face to the media like our gun-nutters do, well, there'd be a rush to inact new gun laws such as the world has never seen. The new laws would pass in weeks.
Posted by: ben | Jul 11 2016 23:48 utc | 46
http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097
If these militiamen were blacks or brown folks, would they have been treated the same by the FBI?
Everyone here in the U$A knows the answer.
Posted by: ben | Jul 11 2016 23:56 utc | 47
lysias@44 - Yanez did ask for Castile's license and registration at some point, that's why Castile was digging out his wallet. If Castile was like any other black guy that's ever been stopped by a cop, then he was waiting with his hands on the steering wheel until Yanez asked him for his license and registration. Why would you think he wasn't asked for it? Note that Yanez should have never done such a thing on a felony stop for a suspected armed robber - it's not proper police procedure. If you stop a car because someone looks like a known armed robber, then it's a felony stop, period. If you're not sure, then you don't make a felony stop because you have no reason to stop someone 'just to check them out'. A judge would throw out ANY evidence from such a stop because it wasn't legal and Yanez knows that. Yanez is paid to be a patrolman, not a psychic detective.
Strmn@43 - "...Claiming to carry a gun, with or without a permit, then reaching for anything WITHOUT permission from the police officer is an act of suicide..." Wow. It went down in that exact sequence, did it? You should be a psychic detective like Yanez. My psychic abilities say that Castile was doing as ordered and digging out his wallet when he (or his girlfriend) told Yanez about the weapon. Yanez drew and fired while yelling at Castile to put his hands back up - a conflicting order which Castile had little or no time to react to since he was already following the first order to produce his license and registration. So it's your psychic ability against mine - mostly because we will never hear the truth anytime soon.
Yanez drew his gun on some girl last year during a traffic stop for reaching into her purse. She was following Yanez's orders to hand over her weed. Yanez seems to have a history of paranoia when people are following his specific orders and his imagination and his weapon suddenly take over.
"...As for the officer shooting him 5 times, I'm surprised the officer had enough self-control to not empty his entire magazine (unless it was a revolver)..."
Do you mean into a car with a lady and an child... for a bogus traffic stop... when Castile was trying to defuse the situation? Jeeze... did you torture small, injured animals as a child by any chance?
Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 12 2016 0:10 utc | 49
@ Bardi "The NRA is nothing more than the KKK in suits."
My friendly upgrade: The NRA is nothing more than the KKK in different suits.
@ PavewayIV Thank you for the ongoing perspective which I find trustworthy.
The God of the form of social organization we live under is Mammon, or to make and acquire money. I believe that it is necessary to eliminate the core premise of private finance, and destroy the private property/inheritance rules that perpetuate the global plutocratic families that own finance and governments. To socialize finance globally and foster a global commons would change the incentives throughout our interactions to more humanistic ones, IMO
Does humanity exist to fulfill the "destiny" of the global plutocratic families or were we meant to be more civilized?
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 12 2016 0:28 utc | 50
psyco @ 50: " To socialize finance globally and foster a global commons would change the incentives throughout our interactions to more humanistic ones, IMO."
Absolutely, IMO, true. Unfortunately, millions of workers would have to die to make that a reality. Might even be worth it. Nice dream though.
Posted by: ben | Jul 12 2016 1:07 utc | 51
From the Thom Hartmann radio talk show on the flaws of recent stats on U$A shootings:
http://dl.thomhartmann.com/private/podcasts/2016_0711_thp-071116-hour1.mp3
Posted by: ben | Jul 12 2016 1:31 utc | 52
B, thanks as always.
Alas, I think you hit a nerve ... the blatant racism in many of the above comments does not bode well.
Sad, but I still maintain that the solution is annihilation via revolution or nuclear holocaust. As a pacifist, I tremble at the reality. But, I see no other way.
Posted by: rg the lg | Jul 12 2016 2:06 utc | 53
psychohistorian@50 - Please keep in mind that while I try to toss some light on the situation, my perspective is utterly and completely biased. I'm 'little people' just like Castile - the exact same thing could happen to me. The arrogance of authority and impunity of the state have plenty of other ways to ensure that their boot ends up on my neck - but only to 'protect' me, of course.
I can brush off Castile's death, let the authorities handle it and my rights won't be affected in the least... for now. As a practical matter, I have to believe the rights that I am willing to let the state strip from the weakest and most vulnerable among us are rights they will eventually take from me - at their leisure and at a time of their choosing. That's what psychopaths always do when they gain enough control, and I have six-thousand-plus years of recorded shaved-ape history that backs up my nutty beliefs.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 12 2016 2:08 utc | 54
Funny liberals always say civilians should be banned from owning guns, but never say cops should be banned from owning guns
Posted by: Genius | Jul 12 2016 2:11 utc | 55
OT but has anyone else thought of this imagery?
The Four HorseWomen of the Apocalypse?
It is either - the 4 most powerful
1. Angela Merkel
2. Janet Yellen
3. Theresa May (July 2016)
4. Hillary Clinton (January 2017)
OR
1. Angela Merkel
2. Theresa May (July 2016)
3. Hillary Clinton (January 2017)
4. Marine Le Pen (June 2017)
4 Women leading the 4 most Powerful NATO countries? What could possibly go wrong???
@ Julian #56
It will be FUKUS (or P3)+1
Putin and Xi JinPing well...
However, I don't see Marine taking over in France
Posted by: Yul | Jul 12 2016 3:20 utc | 57
This is an appalling thread.
#23 has it exactly right: "Wow, definitely more heat than light in these comments..." Brilliantly said.
So it's working. Divide and rule. Increase the tension level across the board. If you can't set the whites against the non-whites, or the Christians against the Muslims, just go ahead and set the people against the police. Anything, but don't let the people be against the true enemy, which is its government.
In my whole life I have not found anyone anywhere in the world who understands the US guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, although it's very well understood within the US. It's to fight tyranny, and for no other reason.
The Framers were delegates of state legislatures, and they created the document that formed a perpetual union of sovereign states - a very delicate matter. But the representatives of the people of these states were the ones who insisted on the ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. Without these amendments, the Constitution simply could not have been ratified.
So the right to bear arms was demanded by the people themselves through democratic, proportional representation, and it wasn't done so folks could go hunting, nor even to defend themselves as individuals. It was done to match any government, domestic or foreign, in firepower.
It remains to this day such a force. You can't take away the guns without triggering the very revolt that they exist to empower against a tyranny that finally cannot be borne.
Anything else to do with guns, racism, religious intolerance, social upheaval, police brutality and economic hardship - all these things are part of the oppression from the true enemy, who shelters behind the curtain of smoke and mirrors, and the rhetoric of division. It's all bullshit, trickery and deception, and it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms that the people of the then-forming United States insisted on.
For what it's worth I have no feeling of shock that a black man would have a concealed-carry license. It raises this man in my estimation, and I feel glad that a black man can hold such a license. Here in Texas I believe it's required to inform a police officer of this fact, and I understand from my very limited contact with cops that they relax a little in the presence of such people, because they're dealing with a trained, disciplined and licensed individual. So whatever happened in this case is not a reflection on gun ownership or its permitting. Something crazier than guns was going on.
Posted by: Grieved | Jul 12 2016 4:18 utc | 58
@58 your account of U.S. history and the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) sounds like the 'discovery' of America, despite it's settlement by indigenous civilizations for thousands of years prior to the arrival of European contract explorers - utterly divorced from fact-based reality.
"So the right to bear arms was demanded by the people themselves through democratic, proportional representation, and it wasn't done so folks could go hunting, nor even to defend themselves as individuals. It was done to match any government, domestic or foreign, in firepower."
The U.S. was established as a slave republic in 1776 and its 'founding fathers' such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Monroe, and James Madison were slave owners. They designed a political system that excluded enslaved Africans and Indians, women and white men with no property from having any voice/representation/power.
As for the origins of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Professor Gerald Horne puts it in its historical context:
Race + Class Origins of 2nd Amendment
Posted by: thirsty | Jul 12 2016 5:14 utc | 59
Re: Posted by: Yul | Jul 11, 2016 11:20:26 PM | 57
I agree she is the least likely - ironically, perhaps, Le Pen is the least likely to cause real trouble in the world and also at the same time the most likely to be blamed for any trouble that does eventuate in the world! Likely by the other 3!!
Ironic huh. It's like heads I win, tails you lose.
If perhaps you don't want to include her, swap in Janet Yellen for Le Pen which makes Hitlery the final piece to fall into place in January - the other 3 are already there!
@ likklemore | 39
@ c (| 16)
spell-check policing?
Since when is trying to get "the person in the picture"'s name right policing?
a 30 seconds search could have made it clear that it is Ieshia Evans
"It depends on the media linked. Several with her name as Leshia. Hop over to RT.com, Buzzfeed and Dailymail.co.uk, help them sort it out."
I just care about this site, that's all
Posted by: c | Jul 12 2016 7:43 utc | 61
One could point out the reason the guy in Min had the gun was for protection in his community,not from the cops,but his fellow citizens.
Until these communities stop the internecine idiocy,whites won't feel any guilt in overwhelming police presence,and will say the violence is caused by them themselves.And after Dallas white America will side with the police.(Not me,I can't stand the bastards,and they don't like my looks)
Again,most of this violence is drug related,and until drugs are decriminalized,the streets will be filled with violence ,and the jails filled with felons,all at our expense.
Posted by: dahoit | Jul 12 2016 11:57 utc | 62
Also a matter of Culture… in 2014 in Switz. there were officially 41 homicides (pop. 8 million and this figure is proportionally the lowest ever. For sure, these 'low' stats are missing many cases, another story for another time.)
CH is awash in firearms, it isn’t rare to see a 17-year-old with a machine gun slung across this back, even tiny villages have a shooting range, you can walk into a gun shop (different levels of ‘authorisation’ for different arms are required) but if you are not a certified mad person/criminal you can basically buy what you like.
However, in this culture, killing an opponent, a hated enemy, is considered even rather cowardly - there are other, more ‘noble’ + ‘dastardly’, ways to win and destroy the other, make him or her suffer, for ever n’ ever and a day.
Personal killings (domestic, workplace) are usually carried out with l’arme blanche - knives. The honorable, ancient way.
Firearms figure large in male suicides, as it is the easiest, available method. In CH, it is the Right that is for ‘more, stiffer, gun control’, and the left (Socialists) who are reluctant, along a traditionalist, freedom of choice line.
Sociologists have pointed out that the tremendous lowering of the homicide rate has been accompanied by a steep rise in the suicide rate (FIRST cause of death! for 15 - 24’s, male and female..) CH has managed to turn agression inwards instead of outwards. This argument has a lot of merit.
—> Merely to highlight how complex this all is and the very presence of guns or xyz types of firearm controls only scratches a superficial surface layer.
This board used to have opinions/posts, descriptions, news, from other countries besides the US…sigh.
This is an appalling thread. Grieved at 58. Yes. (Don't agree with all in that post, but no matter.)
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 12 2016 15:57 utc | 63
Grieved@58 - "So the right to bear arms was demanded by the people themselves...
I agree with everything you're saying Grieved, but this statement mis-characterizes the intent of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution as written mostly defined the government's role. It appeared that it was the federal government itself and only federal government authority that granted any rights to its citizens. Anti-federalists argued that certain rights were automatic, inalienable and existed without government consent or approval. They didn't need to be asked for nor demanded (as the wording of your statement suggests) from anyone and they could not be taken away. It might be more accurate to say they insisted that they had those rights and wanted that stated explicitly in the Constitution.
Even the Federalists recognized and mostly agreed with those inalienable rights, they just figured those rights were implicitly covered in the Constitution as written and didn't need to be spelled out because the government would protect those rights - automagically.
The peculiar wording of the Second Amendment addressed an earlier attempt by the British to confiscate gunpowder and seize private weapons to be locked up in federally-controlled armories (obviously to prevent insurrection by the local militias). In other words, gun control as a loophole to indirectly control the threat of colonial militias.
In order to make sure the U.S. government could not abuse that same 'loophole' someday (non-federal militias are legal, gun ownership is legal, but the federal government will lock up your gun for you until they chose to arm the militias), the Bill of Rights amendments said private gun ownership is an automatic and inalienable right, not a right granted by the government. It follows that the people can then form or activate armed non-federal militias for protection (or any other reason) without federal government consent or approval.
The individual states were responsible for regulating local militias, not the federal government. The states had no say in private gun ownership however - the authors did not intend for the individual states to confiscate guns either and lock them up in an armory until needed. They could regulate their militias, but individual states permission to own arms was unnecessary. It was an inherent right of the citizens, not one that needed to be granted by any level of government.
As thirsty points out @59 though, some citizens were more equal than others.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 12 2016 17:11 utc | 64
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/newtown/ Mark Ames wrote a great piece about the 'hick fascism' of the NRA.
If I was in charge, there are a few gun regulations I'd propose, mandatory safety course with gun purchase, similar to the mandatory hunters' safety courses that lots of rural kids already go through, and that owners of more than one gun must own a real gun safe that can't simply be carried away in a robbery. More than one, because I don't want to disarm the poor, while allowing people with enough money for expensive shooting club memberships to own guns, in the European style.
Almost all gun control legislation has had racist motive. At the same time, the 2nd amendment made legal the slave patrols of the south. If minority communities have to arm themselves to the same degree as whites for broad and reasonable gun control policies to be enacted, we need to start passing out gift certificates.
Posted by: Cresty | Jul 12 2016 18:13 utc | 65
Recently, a NYC off duty cop shot a black man who, he stated, out of road rage came up to the cop's car and began hitting through open window. After the pummeling didn't stop, the cop said, he drew his weapon and fired 3 shots, killing the "attacker."
Welladay, new video is out and...whodathunkit?...it appears the copy shot the black man as the guy was approaching the cop's car. Why the cop was stopped, why he did not drive away once the guy was out of his vehicle it not explained.
But, so far, it is not good for the veracity (and future?) of the cop. Either way it was deadly for the black guy.
So, time to add another unwarranted cop killing to the list?
Posted by: jawbone | Jul 12 2016 18:36 utc | 66
Oops, proofreading is a good thing. Too bad I didn't....
Posted by: jawbone | Jul 12 2016 18:37 utc | 67
@64 Paveway - thanks for the background to the "militia" wording in the 2nd Amendment. I agree of course that the rights enumerated were not granted but explicitly acknowledged to exist inalienably.
In 1787 there were 13 sovereign states, independent by revolution from all rulers, and joined in a confederation that wasn't working very well. To make a better union, delegates of the states convened and became known by history as the Framers.
Even within the states, the origin of sovereignty was controversial - did it inhere in the state or the people? There can only ever be one way to decide this question, but in Philadelphia the Convention had to decide how to apportion sovereignty, because some was going into this new national creation called the Union, while some was remaining with the individual states, and the rest was left in potentia in what was agreed to be the font of all sovereignty, the people.
Many discussions at the table established by the reasoning of first principles where exactly sovereignty came from, and where it was going, and under what conditions.
What seems to matter about all this is to understand the sovereign character of the states, and their concern with creating a Union that would essentially become one nation, holding the attributes of nations. Everything in the Constitution is to do with sovereignty. It is a technical work that many regard as a masterpiece of governance.
Although I would have to dig deep to offer citations, I stand by my point that without the Bill of Rights it was politically impossible to ratify the proposed Constitution. The Union could not have come about. The Confederation, perhaps, might have fallen apart. The states, perhaps, might have become several nations on the landmass. The world, perhaps, might have been given more peace. Perhaps.
The articles of the Union should be regarded as the fine legal drafting that they are, and the culmination of an incredibly serious summer of negotiation. But the 2nd Amendment is purely and exclusively the People, saying, only with guarantees such as this will we give up the protection of our state to join in this Union, which is large enough to consume all the states and their protections of our rights.
Posted by: Grieved | Jul 12 2016 18:42 utc | 68
@64 Paveway
I would suggest reading this paper,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
Or this article
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
I'm not anti gun by any stretch, but the arguments you give were created very recently to give a faux legal backing to unrestricted civilian ownership of guns.
My position is that, despite the 2nd amendment being a slave militia amendment, minorities should take advantage of the current laws to arm themselves for self defense. A march of all open carrying demonstrators asking police not to kill them may be respected more than an unarmed march. It might also coincide with Hillary Clinton calling for a law to make open carry illegal, just like Ron Reagan did when Black Panthers were patrolling their communities with shotguns and rifles.
Posted by: Cresty | Jul 12 2016 19:31 utc | 69
|@ Grieved | Jul 12, 2016 2:42:15 PM | 68
Most of the material you may be looking for is contained in: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay The Federalist Papers, my copy is Penguin Classics (ISBN 0-14-044495-5) having 85 Chapters covering the contents of the then proposed constitution up for approval by each of the colonies. One would have to select from the contents what issue one wished to study and read firsthand what was discussed and not rely on other's interpretations and conclusions.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 12 2016 20:25 utc | 70
This is all just a means of driving opportunist policy. Maybe there will be a 'race war'.. what else is going on or could happen?
Gun confiscation? perhaps
Ducking Hillary's criminality? probably
providing cover for new militarism in the ME, Asia? Probably
continuing the cover for the outright theft of billions that MIC and bankers have committed against Americans and taxpayers? probably
Posted by: bbbb | Jul 13 2016 1:15 utc | 71
@70, Formerly T-Bear - yes, I agree the Federalist Papers are the most accessible path into the intent of the time, and the debates between opposing views.
But for the record, I should recommend, before I leave this thread, a document held in the Library of Congress as a national archive but not in print and quite difficult to find: Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States
This contains Madison's painstaking minutes of the entire Convention. He said it almost killed him to do it, but it's the absolute record of the intent of the delegates. Others kept partial records, but Madison kept it all.
This is actually House Document No. 398 of the 69th Congress, 1st Session. And yet the problem lies in trying to supply a good link. Here's a Google search, and if you follow the first page links you'll see how hard it is to get a good read of this material. It's one of the most important educational materials regarding the US, and of course it's buried and never taught or learned.
Read the sole review of this Amazon partial version to get a sense of the treasure inside. When I was young I had access to a first edition of the Spencer, Judd, 1984 printing, and I worked in the print business and had no money so I copied every page and have them still in ring binders. I spent a whole summer reading the convention as it unfolded. Then I turned to the Federalist Papers and several other commentaries.
There was a paperback volume of "Documents Illustrative..." produced with the help of F. Tupper Saussy in about 1984, and I have that book on my top shelf. The editor of these documents as they were brought to print was Charles C. Tansill and there's a "Table of Contents" style website of his work here. It does seem that the full text document is viewable and downloadable here.
I'm afraid I don't have the time to follow these links to the end and present Madison's Notes perfectly, as they deserve. But the interested reader can sift through these links and find the actual headwaters of the Union.
People think it's a nation and always was. It never was. It was always an agreement, hated by tyrants from before its beginning, adored by friends of liberty, and largely destroyed now. Personally I'm persuaded that the founding spirit of any organization persists long into its future. How much of this remains in the union of these once valiant republics, remains to be seen.
I'm moving on to the next thread now - I do check the open threads, if anyone wants to pursue this.
Posted by: Grieved | Jul 13 2016 1:48 utc | 72
Grieved@58
This is an appalling thread.
I recollect the time when Dirty Irwin came into Cuzzy's pool hall and yelled "you dirty bitch" before dropping Kathy, his obese and alcoholic girlfriend, with an open fisted straight right hand. A scream escaped her as she flopped from her stool and plopped on the red tile floor face first. It was a Saturday evening and the crowded bar went dead silent. You could have heard a pin drop. I stepped forward and cracked Dirty Irwin across the jaw with a short left hook. He swayed forward dazedly before falling straight backwards, his body half out the open street front door. I stepped towards him as he raised his head and delivered a short swift kick across his jaw that snapped his neck back. He was out. The bar erupted in cheers and applause.
Jonny the junkie carpenter ushered me to the bar and bought me a drink. I downed it, feeling frightengly righteous. Bobby the pothead carpenter invited me to smoke a joint out back. We sat in his truck and he told me his girlfriend was struggling with her weight. He had bought her a treadmill for Valentine's Day. He had to sleep on his cousins couch for the until after Easter.
I stumbled back into the bar having almost forgotten about the ugliness with Dirty Irwin. As I entered the back door a pool cue cracked across the back of my head. I sprawled across the pool table and felt a blinding pain on the right side of my head. I straightened up and faced Dirty Irwin's bloody leering clown face. He was about six foot five with a bouffant hairdo badly receding, long nose and face, and rangey, a lanky killer bozo the clown. I drove my forehead into his nose with all my force. Now he was sprawled across the pool table.
I grabbed him by two the tufts of hair on the sides of his head and bit the tip of his nose off. It crunched in my mouth like a pickled egg from off the bar and I spat it out in disgust. It flew in the air in a slow motion arc and landed on the felt of the next pool table. I caught a glimpse of the frozen faces of the patrons at the bar, open mouthed and appalled. Someone yelled "bravo" and a chorus of applause erupted. Bobby the pothead carpenter had collected my half ear in a rock glass and he drove me in his truck cross town to the ER.
The plastic surgeon was a young Asian man. He was a resident and he seemed happy to see me. "This is my lucky night." He stated by way of introduction. " why"s that?", I asked. "You're my second case in the past thirty minutes. I just sewed a mans nose back on. It's good experience. Requires a lot of fine threading. Ears do too."
"Did he look like an evil clown?", I asked.
"That was him. How did you know?"
"Saw him on the way in"
I'd aroused his suspicions. "How'd you get the blood on your mouth."
"Bloody lip. I was attacked by a madman with horse teeth."
"The awful clown?"
"No"
"That 's what he said."
"what did he say?"
"He said he was attacked by a madman with rabbit teeth. He had a bloody lip too"
"Wasn't me"
" Were you attacked at a roller rink?"
Irwin was the local disco King. "No, pool hall"
That was the beginning of the worst summer of my life.
Posted by: Rabbit Owens | Jul 13 2016 4:43 utc | 73
thirsty@59 Re: Jaisal Noor's TheRealNews interview w/Prof. Horne - To watch this 'cold' as it were, I had no idea what the good professor was talking about. He sounds like a conspiracy theorist (albeit an educated one). I frankly never heard of the ideas he was talking about at the start of the video. It was only after I read Cresty@69's link to Prof. Bogus's "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment" that his words made sense. I would recommend anyone else doing the same. Prof. Bogus's paper is long, but not a difficult read. Without that context, it's easy to miss several good points Prof. Horne makes in the interview.
Cresty@69 - "...but the arguments you give were created very recently to give a faux legal backing to unrestricted civilian ownership of guns..." Most - no, all of what I know about the Constitution is what I learned in the last ten years or so and much of that from documents available on the internet. From various discussions about the second amendment, I remember bits and pieces that seemed to make sense. I now feel that the stupid has been thoroughly beaten out of me after reading Prof. Bogus's article. I have to say I agree with your statement 100% now, Cresty. 'Reasonable' arguments on intent never included all the context Bogus covered in his paper. Thanks for the link.
I have a hard time believing I was so unaware of the issues. I'm not so interested in the issues of gun control as I am about his assertions regarding the Founders thoughts on insurrection. The nice thing about the internet is that I can go out and look for critics of Prof. Bogus's piece and see how it stands up. So far, I have not found anything that points to any serious flaws in his arguments - just disagreements over individual (minor) points. He is roundly criticized for his review of "Armed America" which I have not read yet, but that seems unrelated to his "History of..." arguments.
Incidentally, 1 in 12 Americans overall (8.6%) in 2010 were current or ex-felons and are (mostly) prohibited from owning guns or ammunition. 1 in 3 adult male African Americans in the U.S. are prohibited from gun ownership due to felony convictions.
Formerly T-Bear@70 - And for the youngsters that don't remember books or how to use them, or oldsters that need 175% type magnification the computer allows, I offer the electronic version of the Federalist Papers here.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 13 2016 5:16 utc | 74
Grieved@72 - A word-searchable PDF scan of the 1927 Government Printing Office '150th Anniversary' edition (your Amazon link) is downloadable here. E-reader, Kindle, etc. versions available here.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 13 2016 5:28 utc | 75
@greived. i like your posts most all the time as you have good insght and clarity generally. as an outsider to the realities of being an american however, i can relate a lot easier to @59 thirsty's comments, in particular his 3rd paragraph. i noticed how no one felt like addressing thirsty on any of that, and i find that curious. why? thanks.
Posted by: james | Jul 13 2016 5:55 utc | 76
@59, thirsty. 'The U.S. was established as a slave republic in 1776 and its 'founding fathers' such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Monroe, and James Madison were slave owners. They designed a political system that excluded enslaved Africans and Indians, women and white men with no property from having any voice/representation/power.'
@74 pw, 'Incidentally, 1 in 12 Americans overall (8.6%) in 2010 were current or ex-felons and are (mostly) prohibited from owning guns or ammunition. 1 in 3 adult male African Americans in the U.S. are prohibited from gun ownership due to felony convictions.'
The political system is still used to exclude 'undesirables' - like African Americans - from exercising any voice/representation/power, and its chiefly done through disenfranchisement, not through gun ownership, although the same MO pw mentions above is common to both the above deprivations. If you were a felon you still are, no matter how many years you've paid in recompense, you are 'genetically' marked as deficient: no guns, no vote, no voice/representation/share in power.
Mass murderers are the baddest of the bad, or at least close to the top. George the XLIII and Barrack the XLIV have murdered several million blameless individuals between them, and they ... uncharged and unrepentant felons ... can cast their votes with a photogenic smile.
The unconditional right to vote is not enumerated in 'our' constitution either, and it needs to be. It is at least as fundamental as the right to buy guns, and more powerful, I would argue, and certainly will not cause the 'collateral damage' the right to bear arms does. If the only people who can vote are those fully invested in the status quo - change is impossible.
Posted by: jfl | Jul 13 2016 8:55 utc | 77
@63 Noirette, 'This board used to have opinions/posts, descriptions, news, from other countries besides the US…sigh.'
Yes it did. I miss them. Can we Americans have driven all the others away? There are still Canadians, Oceanians, and Brits ... maybe its the 5 eyes rather than the US? There are still Germans, too, and some Russians, although the posts are most often US centric. But the blog is US centric ... in that it is the US which occasions the 'situations' on which b posts and we respond.
Posted by: jfl | Jul 13 2016 10:29 utc | 78
@ PavewayIV | Jul 13, 2016 1:16:27 AM | 74
Thanks and noted both yours and @ 72, Grieved. Obtained similar elsewhere under James Madison Notes. I had tried amazon's ISBN without result. That is why I use ISBN numbers to help identify books, it can be used universally whereas amazon's id is only in-house at that establishment. I trust a few key words and anyone interested enough can take them where ever they trade and get a result in the format with which they are comfortable. Actually I ordered two different Madison Papers for library reference. Thanks again.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 13 2016 12:48 utc | 79
Anyone talking about imposing "gun control" on the US is a moron because:
1) There are 80-100 million armed Americans. They are NOT going along with this because they KNOW they need their guns. And they're right.
2) Those 80-100 million Americans buy more guns EVERY TIME there is any sort of gun violence. To the point where there are now an estimated 300 MILLION firearms in private hands in the US. This is a physical impossibility to "control."
3) And of course, regardless of any laws passed, "criminals" - which will include MILLIONS of armed Americans - will not obey the law.
4) If somehow armed Americans were physically disarmed, it would create a MASSIVE black market in firearms that would probably dwarf the drug trade.
5) Anyone citing Australia's gun ban is an idiot. All crime shot up once it was done. Australia is not the US.
6) Studies have shown that if take out the major "drug cities" in the US - i.e., New York, Chicago, Detroit, D.C., etc. - the US gun homicide rate is WAY DOWN on the list of countries. And the countries with the most gun control have the most crime - including gun crime.
7) As gun sales have increased, all sorts of crime has gone DOWN. Whatever the reason, guns are not contributing to crime. One percent or less of gun crime involves "assault weapons".
8) Studies have shown that firearms are used by hundreds of thousands of people every year to defend themselves. Take them away and the death toll from those victims will vastly exceed any so-called "mass murders" by thousands of deaths. Bans have consequences, too.
Google for the statistics. The "gun control" issue is rampant with half facts, misstatements and outright lies.
Bottom line: Gun control is a physical impossibility and only morons believe in it because "we gotta do sumpin". Any attempt to disarm the population will fail and result in a LOT of dead cops.
As for the NRA, who cares whether they're racists or not? And who cares whether the 2nd Amendment was (allegedly) passed to prevent a slave rebellion? Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed." That remains true today. The fact that US society has become a nation of either psychotics or pansies is the problem - not guns.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jul 13 2016 18:13 utc | 80
A Black NRA Guy Begs to Differ.
Philando Castile - Media Fans Flames Of Racism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3j34rJytl8
Posted by: Mike Adams | Jul 14 2016 9:37 utc | 81
Long time lurker first time commenter - I thank you for the privilege of letting me comment.
I see quite a few commenters here insinuating black folk and muslims are naturally violent prone - IOW violence is intrinsic in their nature. Really? Can you step back a little and take in the bigger picture? I immensely dislike categorizing humanity into races (so I'm cringing as i write this) but what countries in today's world are the leading purveyors of violence? and Are they majority black or Muslim?
I recently traveled to a war torn country in East Africa. A country well known for civil wars and strife - although this latest bout of war is directly financed by the USA. While we were driving just outside of a major town we came upon a tense stand off between uniformed and armed soldiers and a lone civilian who was carrying two rifles. One slang over his shoulder and one in his hands although he kept the muzzle pointed down wards the whole time. Apparently, there has been a shootout between two groups of people and this man was involved. He took the second rifle from the dead body of his accomplice.
The soldiers were screaming at him to put the Kalishnikovs down - "we don't want your blood on our hands put the effing guns down" is what i heard them say. They were also shooting on the ground all around him every time he tried to move - again for his part, he never raised the muzzle of his gun. At this point, an elder came rushing into the scene yelling at the soldiers to stop firing at the man's feet. " Stop shooting at the man, I will get the guns from him" said the elder. The soldiers did not stop the old man from approaching the armed and agitated (and probably scared) man. The old man went straight to him, put his hand on the man's shoulder and said something to him. Less than ten minutes later the old man had secured both rifles from him and he was subsequently arrested.
As I watched this thing unfold from a not-so-safe distance i was reminded of a heart wrenching video i have seen about New Mexico police killing a homeless man who was camping out on top of a small hill in what seemed like in the middle of no where - then setting dog on his dying body. If those soldiers from an incredibly violent country were American police no doubt the armed man would have been dead.
Brother Philando, I have no doubt is dead because of the color of his skin. I have always known being black in America was a liability but now its clear its also deadly.
Posted by: Jaalleman | Jul 14 2016 21:17 utc | 82
@ 82 jaalleman.. excellent commentary with example.. thank you!
@ grieved... no comment? see my comment to you @76..
Posted by: james | Jul 14 2016 21:53 utc | 83
When controlled for income bracket, whites are statistically every bit as violence prone as blacks, more so in fact. Only blacks have a higher percentage living in poverty in this country.
Anyway, yes the NRA has been revealed time and again as frauds. How many times did we hear their old mantra "I might not agree with what you have to say but I'll fight to defend your right to say it"
Bring on the Occupy movement or any of a number of non-violent protest movements met with teargas cans in the head and police repression. That they are silent in the face of Castiles murder as well is no surprise, they're a marketing organization. They don't even oppose straw buying - anything to increase gun sales.
I don't advocate "gun control" but there still needs to be gun related laws on the books and they need to be enforced.
Crime in the US is trending downward almost universally. Also, there is zero correlation between gun ownership percentages and crime that is predictive. Plenty of urban centers in states with liberal gun laws have high crime rates. My Upstate NY town has a larger population than the capital of Montana and is just a few miles from very high crime parts of my metro region. Yet while undoubtedly having a much smaller percentage of gun owning households, we also have a lower violent crime rate than Helena.
From a lifelong gun owner and concealed carry for over a decade. When I was a young man nobody trained force on force, now its the norm for CCP possessors. The proliferation of guns only makes us more dependent on them for a sense of safety. Having to go armed everywhere isn't
freedom anymore than carrying an oxygen tank around is breathing easy.
We'd be a better country if guns were (paraphrasing Hillary on abortion) safe, legal, and rare.
Posted by: Miller | Jul 19 2016 17:56 utc | 84
The comments to this entry are closed.
That wouldn´t work because Blacks and Muslims are much more prone to violent crimes than white people.It works though in white areas and majority white counties and cities without problems,white cities that are awash with legal guns are the safest in the US.Just go through the official crime statistics.Blacks are overproportionaly killing,raping and mugging whites and themselves.So maybe there is such thing as race commies and you have to get over it.One thing is for sure.If Hillary or other cultural marxists try to disarm white americans there will be civil war.The most logical solution is to seperate blacks from whites and dont allow muslim immigration.The US is a white nationstate.There is enough place on this planet for everyone.
Posted by: Valhalla Rising | Jul 11 2016 7:30 utc | 1