opportunity.
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Think about the right of free speech. The SCOTUS years ago ruled that a person couldn't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Why? The resultant mayhem and threat to the public is too great. Well what about a theatre with three people in it? Yell fire there, not a whole lot will happen. I imagine the same can be said of different populations.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Is that a joke?
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Not true.
The "nonviolent" tactics espoused by MLK and Ghandi will only work against an oppressor that has at least some sort of moral base and respect...however imperfect or unfairly applied... for the rule of law.
What MLK did was to force the United States federal government to intervene....using the force of law (which ultimately boils down to men with guns)...against racist state and city governments who were denying civil rights to blacks.
Lets use Bull Connor for an example. Why do you think he used fire hoses and dogs against the black protesters instead of opening up on them with live ammunition? It sure as hell wasn't because of his humanity or his respect for the law...it was because he knew that such a choice would result in FBI agents or even National Guard troops (with guns) taking him into custody at gunpoint and prosecuting him for murder. Regardless of how corrupt and biased the state juries might be, he simply could not get away with murdering that many black people on national TV. So he didn't, and instead he used the hoses and the dogs and enough northern whites wound up being appalled at what they saw on TV that Federal government was forced to intervene.
If you took MLK and Ghandi and sent them to Nazi Germany in 1944, do you think their tactics of nonviolence would have worked to save the Jews? No...because the Jews were less than human according to Nazi racial theory and it was considered perfectly acceptable and legal to herd 6 million of them into the gas chambers and murder them. Nonviolence and passive resistance would have served no purpose, and the fact that the Jews were unarmed and helpless only made genocide easier. The only thing that could (and ultimately did) save the Jews was armed resistance and military force.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Correct.
There are lots of opportunities for criminals with guns to rob and murder people who cant fight back because they obey the law and don't have guns. Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
There are lots of opportunities for armed people to act irrationally and cause harm to others. See movie theatre example. Empty, no big deal. Crowded, big deal.
728ups
All Trash No Trailer
Again,you are manipulating ideas and trying to re write history to fit the agenda of the Gun Carrying Right when the facts are far far different.
The slave traders didnt encounter armed opposition because slavery was a very old time honored tradition that was very profitable. Records exist that The Muslims started buying slaves from Africa as early as 869,( read The Slave Trade and The Making of New World Slavery for more on this subject. i have both on my kindle and they are excellent reads) When the whites started trading for slaves the slaves werent taken by force. On the contrary The African Kings gladly traded their subjects for goods from Europe. On a side note selling people into slavery was outlawed in Europe by the 1400's( i'm pulling this fact off the top of my head,may have been the 1500's) ,but was happily practiced in Africa,and this is why slaves in Europe and it's colonies were all black. It wasnt a racial practice,rather this was the only supply to meet the demand
Had the slave traders gone in shooting, the supply would have dissapeared<poof>
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
So the Africans volunteered to be slaves because it was a time honored tradition.
All these years I thought it was because the slave traders had guns, dogs, nets and shackles.
728ups
All Trash No Trailer
I rather doubt those individuals whose Kings or Village Elders sold them would say they "volunteered"
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
What about the ones who were hunted down?
And are you trying to say that African leaders embraced slavery?
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Got a sweet deal today on a brand new Glock 19. It fits my hand like a glove, runs like a Swiss watch, super accurate....plus as an added bonus I can take pride in knowing that I stepped up to the plate and did my part to piss off Michael Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein.
Victorious tribal leaders embraced the economics of the slave trade. Absolutely.
Don't be so self satisfied. You've noted before that they have armed guards. They aren't against guns. They have a political base to play to.
oldngray
nowhere special
They are only against other people having guns. While they have their own cocoon of armed security. And Pelosi has one of few concealed carry permits in San Francisco area.
Again, they aren't even against others having guns. They have a political constituency that needs to hear it. Just like there are those who rail for impeaching the president. Nothing really comes of either, but folks need to hear it.
Bottom rung
Well-Known Member
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Its my first 19. I already have a 26 for concealed carry, I wanted a 19 because the triggers are the same and my 26 can use the 19's hi-cap mags. I really like the way my new 19 handles amd shoots.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Bloomberg is no longer mayor, he is just throwing his billions around and, in his own words, trying to buy his way into heaven by changing the world and passing laws to fit his own agenda. And he is absolutely against guns, in his world only the wealthy and politically connected are worthy of armed protection whereas the unwashed masses are not.
Similar threads
