Recommended Posts
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuote... because now you're trying to infringe on a State's right to pass its own laws. All laws regarding the transportation and carry of weapons is set by state governments, the feds have nothing to do with it.
There is a such thing as a Federal law. Set a federal law and let the individual states work around it.
And there's such a thing as our Constitution. We never gave our central government the power to make any laws it likes.
QuoteAmendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteShow me one shred of evidence stating the NRA took up the KKK's crusade. Show me one piece of scientific research or analysis showing their goals have anything in common.
I really don't think there is any left now in 2003. It is clear that they are not related today. It is also clear that they are not the same oganisation that they founded in 1871.
So again, show me one shred of evidence to back your claim that the NRA of 1871 took up the goals/causes/actions of the KKK.
QuoteQuoteI think you meant disbanded. And I have news for you. The KKK is still alive and spewing their own brand of hate. The bedsheets never left, they just got folded up.
1870 Force Acts (KKK Acts) passed by Congress seek to enforce 15th Amendment by giving Federal protection for black suffrage, and authorize the use of Federal troops against the KKK. These acts are declared unconstitutional in Cruikshank v. U.S. in the 1880s. Federal Troops! the KKK is around today yes... but I bet they were nowhere to be found in the handful of years following this!
OK, so show me evidence that the KKK stopped its actions after 1870, or that "they were nowhere to be found." I know they slowed, having a rather large force against them, but show me something saying they were out of action.
QuoteQuote"fighting any form of limitation or restraint" That would mean they're against keeping guns from "negros," wouldn't it?
Objectively speaking, It would... Unfortunately though, it didn't. Come on man!
Now if you've read this far (and not been sidetracked by any spelling errors I might have made) tell me, if the 'colors' werent' using public washrooms until 1875... and even that new right granted was practically revoked in 1883; They weren't allowed on the same damned trains until 1896 (and STILL couldn't be in the same carts as whites)... Tell me you think the wonderful NRA, in 1871, was fighting for the right of the black man to carry a gun.
Read accounts of southern blacks becoming NRA members to take advantage of programs distributing old military rifles. Or read the history of the phrase "saturday night special." In 1871 the NRA wasn't fighting for anyone's rights at all. If you'd read the link to NRA's page, they started as an organization to promote marksmanship.
Quotebrief history:
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.
Clayton E. Cramer, "The Racist Roots of Gun
Control," Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy,
Winter 1995
"The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-
Americanist Reconsideration," by Robert J. Cottrol
and Raymond T. Diamond, Georgetown Law J.
**there are many better sources, but these are a
good start
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
goose491 0
QuoteQuoteThe point being raised is that these guns didn't help them overthrow their Saddam.
Do you know what it means when someone is institutionalized? When someone in prison gives up hope because they've been there so long. You offer them freedom, but they don't want it, and kill themselves when they get out because they don't know what to do with it.
They had guns before this institutionalisation... their guns did not prevent it. I think that's the point.
QuoteThis argument or comparison is completely invalid.
Just because someone refuses to hear you, doesn't mean your point is completely invalid.
QuoteQuoteAnd when the States do it for them, they take the guns away. We don't understand the double-standard.
If you're going to base all of your knowledge on someone elses post in the thread, make sure to read all of them. He admitted later on that their guns weren't taken away.
I know, this is what he said:
QuoteActually the ruling now is that they are allowed to own small arms, yet they are only allowed to keep them in their home or their place of business. They are not allowed to carry them anywhere.
Maybe that is a good compromise for the US itself.
They are still much more restricted in their gun ownership and uses than you are in the states... And there the ones who have the shit to go through with their own leaders.
QuoteThere is no double standard.
Once again:
QuoteActually the ruling now is that they are allowed to own small arms, yet they are only allowed to keep them in their home or their place of business. They are not allowed to carry them anywhere.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
QuoteThey had guns before this institutionalisation... their guns did not prevent it. I think that's the point.
I guess you missed the millenia part. Before the Ba'ath party it was the nazis, before that it was monarchs, before that it was british empire, before that it was arab kings....they've NEVER had democracy.
QuoteJust because someone refuses to hear you, doesn't mean your point is completely invalid.
No, but when you contrast two completely disparate things, your point is invalid.
QuoteThey are still much more restricted in their gun ownership and uses than you are in the states... And there the ones who have the shit to go through with their own leaders.
They are? What do you know about gun laws? Tell me what restrictions they have that are more stringent than New Jersey, or NYC, or Illinois, or California. Do some research before making claims.
Kennedy 0
QuoteGreat, so you would have no trouble going back to that? That also means not being allowed to transport weapons and no target practice.
Do your homework. Even when concealed carry was restricted or denied, there were exemptions to allow firearm transport to target shoots, armorers, dog training, and hunting, among other things.
And why should we go back from right to carry? You have not responded to Lott's study, or to Kleck and Gertz.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteThey are? What do you know about gun laws? Tell me what restrictions they have that are more stringent than New Jersey, or NYC, or Illinois, or California. Do some research before making claims.
Don't forget my alma mater state, Maryland, and DC. 300 murders a year in Baltimore, and DC regaining the title Murder Capitol of America (per 100,000).
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
goose491 0
Quote
So again, show me one shred of evidence to back your claim that the NRA of 1871 took up the goals/causes/actions of the KKK.
Sh*t Tom, show me one shred of evidence that a copious amount of disbanded KKK members didn't join the NRA in an attempt to secure their weapons and a 'reasonable' excuse to have them. (i.e. the "promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis" [sniker])
There is none! We're talking about 132 years ago and you show me "a brief history" of the NRA (FROM THE NRA WEBPAGE) to prove that they had honnerable intentions?
Quote
OK, so show me evidence that the KKK stopped its actions after 1870, or that "they were nowhere to be found." I know they slowed, having a rather large force against them, but show me something saying they were out of action.
Show me evidence that KKK didn't stop or diminish it's actions after some Federal Troops were given the okay to take 'em down if they continue. Again, we're talking about 132 years ago but.... show me one shred of evidence that a copious amount of disbanded KKK members didn't join the NRA in an attempt to secure their weapons and a 'reasonable' excuse to have them. (i.e. the "promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis")
QuoteIf you'd read the link to NRA's page, they started as an organization to promote marksmanship.
Somehow, I already doubted the NRA would have put ties to the KKK on their webpage for all to see.
Anyway, I did read the page... it was good for a laugh.
"promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis."
So it's fine that this is the reason the NRA was founded... Now show me one shred of evidence that a copious amount of disbanded KKK members didn't join the NRA in an attempt to secure their weapons and a 'reasonable' excuse to have them. (i.e. the "promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis")
Quotebrief history:
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.
Clayton E. Cramer, "The Racist Roots of Gun
Control," Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy,
Winter 1995
"The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-
Americanist Reconsideration," by Robert J. Cottrol
and Raymond T. Diamond, Georgetown Law J.
**there are many better sources, but these are a
good start
will these sources show me one shred of evidence that a copious amount of disbanded KKK members didn't join the NRA in an attempt to secure their weapons and a 'reasonable' excuse to have them. (i.e. the "promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis") ?
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteDo your homework. Even when concealed carry was restricted or denied, there were exemptions to allow firearm transport to target shoots, armorers, dog training, and hunting, among other things.
Yes, but m point was that those exemptions are not being made in Iraq, now are they?
Kennedy 0
QuoteSh*t Tom, show me one shred of evidence that a copious amount of disbanded KKK members didn't join the NRA in an attempt to secure their weapons and a 'reasonable' excuse to have them. (i.e. the "promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis" [sniker])
There is none! We're talking about 132 years ago and you show me "a brief history" of the NRA (FROM THE NRA WEBPAGE) to prove that they had honnerable intentions?
Well, I show you evidence, and your rebuttal is "sniker." Not a valid criticism of the source, not a source with contradictory results, but "sniker." Now you ask me to prove a negative. Is that a cop out or what? And we agreed they were not disbanded, so stop using that word.
I have news for you. In 1871, people didn't need "a reasonable excuse" to own a gun. There was no "excuse," it was expected that you have one or more. This is the last time I respond to you until you provide evidence to your claim that mass numbers of KKK members took the NRA and made it their new bastion of hate.
(ps - it's honorable. Like I said, that little 'check spelling' button is real handy.)
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Do you know what it means when someone is institutionalized? When someone in prison gives up hope because they've been there so long. You offer them freedom, but they don't want it, and kill themselves when they get out because they don't know what to do with it. Think of Robin Williams in Moscow on the Hudson when he freaks out in the grocery store after defecting from the USSR because he can't deal with all the choices of coffee. The Iraqi people have been institutionalized for millenia. Americans have not. This argument or comparison is completely invalid.
If you're going to base all of your knowledge on someone elses post in the thread, make sure to read all of them. He admitted later on that their guns weren't taken away. There is no double standard. And even if there were, the current circumstances in Iraq do not equate to a free society. That process is under way, and will hopefully succeed, but it's not even close right now. People are dying, it's still a war.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites