PDA

View Full Version : Obvious Troll is Obvious



Banned
03-28-2013, 06:34 PM
An actual real life moron... or a practical joke that got a lot further than anyone could have imagined?


A newspaper in West Virginia is defending its decision to publish a reader’s racist and homophobic comments, which called for “queers” to be put to death along with “n*ggers, spics, kikes and wops.”

I suspect this is a troll having a laugh at the expense of rednecks because of this line here:


“We were really glad to hear that School Board is getting rid of them queers,” the voice mail said. “The next thing is we need to get rid of all the n****rs, the spics, the kikes and the wops.”

“You know even them Catholics, they are wrong as baby eaters,” the reader continued. “We need to clear them people out and have good, white, God fearing Christians and everybody else needs to be put to death for their abominations.”

Even them Catholics... as wrong as baby eaters.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/21/west-virginia-papers-anti-lgbt-column-wants-death-for-nggers-spics-kikes-and-wops/

RobotChicken
03-28-2013, 06:41 PM
An actual real life moron... or a practical joke that got a lot further than anyone could have imagined?



I suspect this is a troll having a laugh at the expense of rednecks because of this line here:



Even them Catholics... as wrong as baby eaters.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/21/west-virginia-papers-anti-lgbt-column-wants-death-for-nggers-spics-kikes-and-wops/

:smash Now Joe, that really does NOT belong here...'Com'on man'. :hand

Banned
03-28-2013, 06:44 PM
:smash Now Joe, that really does NOT belong here...'Com'on man'. :hand

Oh right - this belongs in the Air Force forum... I really should have known better.

efmbman
03-28-2013, 08:10 PM
Welcome back, Joe. It was boring around here...

tiredretiredE7
03-28-2013, 08:41 PM
An actual real life moron... or a practical joke that got a lot further than anyone could have imagined?



I suspect this is a troll having a laugh at the expense of rednecks because of this line here:



Even them Catholics... as wrong as baby eaters.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/21/west-virginia-papers-anti-lgbt-column-wants-death-for-nggers-spics-kikes-and-wops/

Joe,

I see what you are doing here and bravo. Glad to have you back.

RobotChicken
03-28-2013, 08:48 PM
Joe,

I see what you are doing here and bravo. Glad to have you back.

:spy Anyway, I concur. :rockon

Greg
03-28-2013, 11:01 PM
I would like to hear the original voice mail, particularly the part of the message where abominations was pronounced.

TJMAC77SP
03-29-2013, 09:44 AM
I would like to hear the original voice mail, particularly the part of the message where abominations was pronounced.

Yeah, that smells a bit ripe.

EDIT: Although thinking about it............abomination used to be a favorite word of the fire and brimstone crowd.

Greg
03-29-2013, 10:38 AM
Yeah, that smells a bit ripe.

EDIT: Although thinking about it............abomination used to be a favorite word of the fire and brimstone crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3LXBaO0nh8

Pullinteeth
03-29-2013, 01:44 PM
Another real life moron...and he isn't shy about it (he emailed it not only to his constituent but to ever single fellow state representative)

“ Hey man. You have used the word ‘except’ when I think you mean somethin’ else. Hey man. Your folk never used all this sheit to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk. You can keep sending me stuff like you have however because it helps me explain to my constituents why they should protect that 2nd amendment thing AFTER we finish stocking up on spare parts, munitions and the like.Bring it. As one of my friends in the Alabama Senate suggested – “BRING IT!!!!”

http://www.inquisitr.com/594123/alabama-lawmaker-sends-racially-charged-email-to-gun-owner/

Banned
03-30-2013, 12:21 AM
Another real life moron...and he isn't shy about it (he emailed it not only to his constituent but to ever single fellow state representative)

“ Hey man. You have used the word ‘except’ when I think you mean somethin’ else. Hey man. Your folk never used all this sheit to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk. You can keep sending me stuff like you have however because it helps me explain to my constituents why they should protect that 2nd amendment thing AFTER we finish stocking up on spare parts, munitions and the like.Bring it. As one of my friends in the Alabama Senate suggested – “BRING IT!!!!”

http://www.inquisitr.com/594123/alabama-lawmaker-sends-racially-charged-email-to-gun-owner/

Was that a smart thing to say with a government email account? Nope. Was he 100% on target? Absolutely. I have yet to see any of these god-fearin' gun ownin' NRA Americans using their guns to actually defend our civil rights.

Pullinteeth
03-30-2013, 12:49 PM
Was that a smart thing to say with a government email account? Nope. Was he 100% on target? Absolutely. I have yet to see any of these god-fearin' gun ownin' NRA Americans using their guns to actually defend our civil rights.

Wow....does your hipocracy know no bounds? How exactly do you know that? Have you ever met the guy he sent the email to? Do you KNOW for an ABSOLUTE fact that his ancestors were slaveholders? Do you know for a fact that the Reps' ancestors were slaves? I doubt you know either and to say that YOU know for an absolute FACT that this guy's ancestors were "your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk" shows what a douchebag you can be.

Banned
03-30-2013, 02:22 PM
Wow....does your hipocracy know no bounds? How exactly do you know that? Have you ever met the guy he sent the email to? Do you KNOW for an ABSOLUTE fact that his ancestors were slaveholders? Do you know for a fact that the Reps' ancestors were slaves? I doubt you know either and to say that YOU know for an absolute FACT that this guy's ancestors were "your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk" shows what a douchebag you can be.

I would have a very different opinion of these southern white gun owners if they had taken their guns and DEFENDED blacks trying to go to school... instead of taking their guns and trying to murder the Soldiers and police defending the schools. We have a long and fairly violent civil rights history... but I don't recall even one instance of these 2nd Amendment fanatics actually using their guns on the right side of the fight.

As for hippocracy... I'm not a doctor. ;)

Pullinteeth
03-30-2013, 04:02 PM
I would have a very different opinion of these southern white gun owners if they had taken their guns and DEFENDED blacks trying to go to school... instead of taking their guns and trying to murder the Soldiers and police defending the schools. We have a long and fairly violent civil rights history... but I don't recall even one instance of these 2nd Amendment fanatics actually using their guns on the right side of the fight.

As for hippocracy... I'm not a doctor. ;)

Good for you but that has nothing to do with what this legislator said (that YOU said was 100% on target). Deflect all you want but this @$$hat was way out of line and if the roles were reversed, you would be calling for him to be ousted from office.

Banned
03-30-2013, 07:26 PM
Good for you but that has nothing to do with what this legislator said (that YOU said was 100% on target). Deflect all you want but this @$$hat was way out of line and if the roles were reversed, you would be calling for him to be ousted from office.

So aside from the rude language and complete lack of tact... what part of his point do you think was wrong? Seems to me he was 100% dead accurate that gun owners have completely failed to make any kind of positive contribution to the civil rights movement.

RS6405
03-30-2013, 11:11 PM
So aside from the rude language and complete lack of tact... what part of his point do you think was wrong? Seems to me he was 100% dead accurate that gun owners have completely failed to make any kind of positive contribution to the civil rights movement.

Really? You know for a fact that every person who contributed to the civil rights movement did not own a gun?

Banned
03-30-2013, 11:37 PM
Really? You know for a fact that every person who contributed to the civil rights movement did not own a gun?

Not what I meant... the NRA douchehammers argue that guns are our best defense against "tyranny"... but when it comes to actually fighting tyranny... ya know - like not using firehoses on black people... this "well regulated militia" somehow never materialized... except the actual government-run military.

AJBIGJ
03-31-2013, 08:26 AM
Not what I meant... the NRA douchehammers argue that guns are our best defense against "tyranny"... but when it comes to actually fighting tyranny... ya know - like not using firehoses on black people... this "well regulated militia" somehow never materialized... except the actual government-run military.

What defense against aggressive tyranny would you prefer?

RS6405
03-31-2013, 11:24 AM
Joe would you have suggested the use of guns during the Civil Rights Movement? The purpose was integration and acceptance as equals. This counter argument of yours is just a red herring to cloud the issues.

Both are Constitutional rights, so the theory of using one to cancel the other is nonsense.

Since guns are a specific right listed in Constitution, then the regulation of such should be based on individual behaviors (felons, mental health, etc.) not the object itself.

Robert F. Dorr
03-31-2013, 11:35 AM
As for hippocracy... I'm not a doctor. ;)

Good retort.

JD2780
03-31-2013, 12:38 PM
Was that a smart thing to say with a government email account? Nope. Was he 100% on target? Absolutely. I have yet to see any of these god-fearin' gun ownin' NRA Americans using their guns to actually defend our civil rights.

Because we haven't had to yet. I have yet to see these occupy Wall Street idiots prove a point without benefitting from the same corporations they are protesting.

Banned
03-31-2013, 03:45 PM
What defense against aggressive tyranny would you prefer?

That this defense against tyranny actually occur. Why is it gun owners were able to stir themselves to open fire on Soldiers trying to protect the schools for black students... but somehow none showed up to defend the other side of the line?


Joe would you have suggested the use of guns during the Civil Rights Movement? The purpose was integration and acceptance as equals. This counter argument of yours is just a red herring to cloud the issues.

Both are Constitutional rights, so the theory of using one to cancel the other is nonsense.

Since guns are a specific right listed in Constitution, then the regulation of such should be based on individual behaviors (felons, mental health, etc.) not the object itself.

Interesting, but not relevant to what I said.

So here's the question - why is it during the civil rights movement - the time when crowds of angry white racists tried to hang black people and murder police and military trying to defend the black people... how come none of the good gun owners stepped into the light? I see no evidence that private gun ownership did any good in the fight against tyranny.


Because we haven't had to yet.

I would think that people getting murdered and schools being set on fire would be sufficient reason to bring out the guns. But nope. I guess in your mind tyranny is only important to fight if it affects white christians.

JD2780
03-31-2013, 04:18 PM
That this defense against tyranny actually occur. Why is it gun owners were able to stir themselves to open fire on Soldiers trying to protect the schools for black students... but somehow none showed up to defend the other side of the line?



Interesting, but not relevant to what I said.

So here's the question - why is it during the civil rights movement - the time when crowds of angry white racists tried to hang black people and murder police and military trying to defend the black people... how come none of the good gun owners stepped into the light? I see no evidence that private gun ownership did any good in the fight against tyranny.



I would think that people getting murdered and schools being set on fire would be sufficient reason to bring out the guns. But nope. I guess in your mind tyranny is only important to fight if it affects white christians.

Not when the cops are doing their jobs. Now if the cops and military come and try to confiscate or institute martial law then it if hot be a different story. Therefore they haven't been needed yet. Good work Joe. You almost got it that time.

Banned
03-31-2013, 04:22 PM
Not when the cops are doing their jobs. Now if the cops and military come and try to confiscate or institute martial law then it if hot be a different story. Therefore they haven't been needed yet. Good work Joe. You almost got it that time.

Ah so if you see your neighbors hanging a black guy you won't do anything about it. Got it. You will only fight tyranny if it affects you.

Good to know that you'll be absolutely useless if shit hits the fan.

JD2780
03-31-2013, 04:34 PM
Ah so if you see your neighbors hanging a black guy you won't do anything about it. Got it. You will only fight tyranny if it affects you.

Good to know that you'll be absolutely useless if shit hits the fan.

I would because the cops aren't there. Cops wouldn't be able to do there jobs. Yes crime is stopped by armed citizens all the time.

JD2780
03-31-2013, 04:35 PM
The people who are useless are the ones that wouldn't pick up a firearm period.

Banned
03-31-2013, 04:39 PM
I would because the cops aren't there. Cops wouldn't be able to do there jobs. Yes crime is stopped by armed citizens all the time.

Good for you... so why didn't that happen during the civil rights movement? Why did heavily armed racists open fire on schools, but there were no good guys with guns to stop them until the military showed up?


The people who are useless are the ones that wouldn't pick up a firearm period.

There's lots of good a person can do without touching a firearm... its better to not touch a firearm and do good things than to pick up a firearm and do bad things.

The fact that you would even think such a sentiment says a lot about you.

RS6405
03-31-2013, 08:43 PM
Joe, racism is stupidity in its finest example. There was a lot of mob mentality going on that produced a lot of fear in those who did not believe in society's crap/hype on the subject. Yet, in truth the majority of of our country bought into that hype/crap.

If you had studied the subject, you would know that it was our communist enemies ebarassing us on the world stage by pointing out that the freedom we promote so much did not extend to all of our citizens at the time. When civil rights laws passed it was our government that actually performed a 180 from what their prior stance happen to be and what they promoted into society for decades.

So while we all agree that racism is stupid, asinine, and moronic, I wonder if you see the irony that in your question or statement. The fact that there were pockets of people who grabbed guns to defend against government tyranny occurred when people fought segregation. You ask about where were the good guys ready to fight the good fight, but you are asking the question using modern knowledge against historical context. It is best to learn from the past, but not twist it.

Also have some faith in society, there were far more acceptance of integration in schools and such than such opposition.

JD2780
03-31-2013, 08:46 PM
Ah so if you see your neighbors hanging a black guy you won't do anything about it. Got it. You will only fight tyranny if it affects you.

Good to know that you'll be absolutely useless if shit hits the fan.

You said I would be useless when the shit hits the fan. Contradicting yourself again JB.

Banned
03-31-2013, 08:49 PM
Joe, racism is stupidity in its finest example. There was a lot of mob mentality going on that produced a lot of fear in those who did not believe in society's crap/hype on the subject. Yet, in truth the majority of of our country bought into that hype/crap.

If you had studied the subject, you would know that it was our communist enemies ebarassing us on the world stage by pointing out that the freedom we promote so much did not extend to all of our citizens at the time. When civil rights laws passed it was our government that actually performed a 180 from what their prior stance happen to be and what they promoted into society for decades.

So while we all agree that racism is stupid, asinine, and moronic, I wonder if you see the irony that in your question or statement. The fact that there were pockets of people who grabbed guns to defend against government tyranny occurred when people fought segregation. You ask about where were the good guys ready to fight the good fight, but you are asking the question using modern knowledge against historical context. It is best to learn from the past, but not twist it.

Also have some faith in society, there were far more acceptance of integration in schools and such than such opposition.

The government and the people are not two distinct entities - the government is influenced to at least some extent by the attitudes of the population. After the Civil War and the failed attempt by the Radical Republicans (the good guys at the time) to disenfranchise Confederate supporters - these same racists used their voting power to keep blacks oppressed for the next 100 years.

It was only after years of non-violent civil rights work did this barrier finally get upended.

I just find it interesting that even in the face of brutal mob violence... there were lots of equally violent militias who hunted blacks and white sympathizers... but a mysterious absence of gun wielding militias to DEFEND minorities from tyranny... why is this?


You said I would be useless when the shit hits the fan. Contradicting yourself again JB.

How have I contradicted myself? I stand by that statement. I think you would stand by and try to justify every crime committed against us right up until the bitter end. I could be wrong... but that's what I think would happen.

JD2780
03-31-2013, 08:56 PM
The government and the people are not two distinct entities - the government is influenced to at least some extent by the attitudes of the population. After the Civil War and the failed attempt by the Radical Republicans (the good guys at the time) to disenfranchise Confederate supporters - these same racists used their voting power to keep blacks oppressed for the next 100 years.

It was only after years of non-violent civil rights work did this barrier finally get upended.

I just find it interesting that even in the face of brutal mob violence... there were lots of equally violent militias who hunted blacks and white sympathizers... but a mysterious absence of gun wielding militias to DEFEND minorities from tyranny... why is this?



How have I contradicted myself? I stand by that statement. I think you would stand by and try to justify every crime committed against us right up until the bitter end. I could be wrong... but that's what I think would happen.

You are once again wrong. As I've stood up for good on occasion. Such as when I saw Geneva conventions being ignored. I was an E-3 told the O-3 what he was doing was wrong. The first sgt asked me what was happening, and the agreed. The O-3 changed course and no issues after at. Yea I never stand up. Also, you did contradict yourself. You said I was useless because I wouldn't intervene, however, can't passive folks still help? Such as medical experts. Some may be very passive, but can apply life saving techniques. Just like the starburst commercial. You're a walking contradiction.

Every crime committed against us. Liberal extremism truly suits you. It's ok because this is America and. Ou're allowed to do that.

Banned
04-01-2013, 01:11 AM
You are once again wrong. As I've stood up for good on occasion. Such as when I saw Geneva conventions being ignored. I was an E-3 told the O-3 what he was doing was wrong. The first sgt asked me what was happening, and the agreed. The O-3 changed course and no issues after at. Yea I never stand up. Also, you did contradict yourself. You said I was useless because I wouldn't intervene, however, can't passive folks still help? Such as medical experts. Some may be very passive, but can apply life saving techniques. Just like the starburst commercial. You're a walking contradiction.

Every crime committed against us. Liberal extremism truly suits you. It's ok because this is America and. Ou're allowed to do that.

Cool story bro. Tell me the part about the dragon again.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 01:14 AM
Cool story bro. Tell me the part about the dragon again.

Thanks, but your belief or disbelief isn't really my problem. Good luck with ideas.

Banned
04-01-2013, 01:29 AM
Thanks, but your belief or disbelief isn't really my problem. Good luck with ideas.

I never said it was. Nor does it matter because I know for a fact you would never have the stomach to stand with me if it did become necessary to oppose a tyranny.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 01:32 AM
Yea ok Joe. I wouldn't stand near because I'm afraid you'd put a knife in my back.

You know so much about me. Its like you actually know me. It's amazing. I guess I really know you as a liberal hippy keyboard tough guy. Here comes banned camp but who gives damn.


Haha you know for a fact. Silly JoeB.

Banned
04-01-2013, 01:36 AM
Yea ok Joe. I wouldn't stand near because I'm afraid you'd put a knife in my back.

You know so much about me. Its like you actually know me. It's amazing. I guess I really know you as a liberal hippy keyboard tough guy. Here comes banned camp but who gives damn.


Haha you know for a fact. Silly JoeB.

Well as you've already run away from the other thread (I guess you finally realized your argument about "slant" didn't make any fucking sense and you were talking to someone who is actually familiar with the subject) - it doesn't matter if you're afraid of me "putting a knife in your back" or not... because you've already demonstrated time and time again that you're afraid of everything.

Its expected that everyone on the internet is going to be "tougher" than they would be in real life - if you're this uncertain and afraid of challenging authority on an anomymous forum... that's all I really care to know about you.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 01:38 AM
Yup afraid of everything Joe. Especially the big bad cops.

You're a silly hippy

Banned
04-01-2013, 01:43 AM
Yup afraid of everything Joe. Especially the big bad cops.

You're a silly hippy

I think JD is butthurt again. Take your meds.

Still haven't heard back from you about your "three sources" - that was the most retarded shit I've read in a while.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 01:51 AM
I think JD is butthurt again. Take your meds.

Still haven't heard back from you about your "three sources" - that was the most retarded shit I've read in a while.

Not butthurt but realizing I'm dealing with an unreasonable person. It's ok. I understand you're blinded by your own rhetoric. Silly Joe.

Good news though. No Meds.

Banned
04-01-2013, 02:59 AM
Not butthurt but realizing I'm dealing with an unreasonable person. It's ok. I understand you're blinded by your own rhetoric. Silly Joe.

Good news though. No Meds.

Well I suppose I should sympathize - you did have your world turned upside down when I told you that reading the same AP press release written by the same reporter on the Fox news site and then the CNN news site doesn't make you more informed.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 10:46 AM
Well I suppose I should sympathize - you did have your world turned upside down when I told you that reading the same AP press release written by the same reporter on the Fox news site and then the CNN news site doesn't make you more informed.

Yes Joe you hold so much weight in my life you turn it upside down with your insane childish rants. Keep it going your only proving most people right.

Monkey
04-01-2013, 11:38 AM
Good for you... so why didn't that happen during the civil rights movement? Why did heavily armed racists open fire on schools, but there were no good guys with guns to stop them until the military showed up?

I'm confused by what you expect, Joe. Do you think that responsible gun owners are clairvoyant and knew the bad guys were going to be there? Or do you think they should have turned to vigilantism and created a posse to track them down?



I just find it interesting that even in the face of brutal mob violence... there were lots of equally violent militias who hunted blacks and white sympathizers... but a mysterious absence of gun wielding militias to DEFEND minorities from tyranny... why is this?

Maybe I'm mistaken on this, but I'm pretty sure that the leaders of the non-violent civil rights movement wanted nothing to do with "gun wielding militias to DEFEND" them. Guns were not welcome.


I have yet to see any of these god-fearin' gun ownin' NRA Americans using their guns to actually defend our civil rights.

What does the NRA have to do with any of this? There is a difference between a Guns Rights Activist and a Gun Owner. I may be wrong, but I don't ever remember the NRA advocating any of the violence you've spoken of.

Why aren't you attacking the state and local governments for not doing their part to protect the victims? I'm pretty sure their inactivity was the most reprehensible. It was their job to use their guns to stop the violence. And hell, they were probably primarily white christians so you should have no problem attacking them.

giggawatt
04-01-2013, 11:40 AM
Cool story bro. Tell me the part about the dragon again.

Oh you like dragons? I'll be dragon my balls across your face! wait wot?

RS6405
04-01-2013, 01:23 PM
The government and the people are not two distinct entities - the government is influenced to at least some extent by the attitudes of the population. After the Civil War and the failed attempt by the Radical Republicans (the good guys at the time) to disenfranchise Confederate supporters - these same racists used their voting power to keep blacks oppressed for the next 100 years.

No Joe that is called communism, where the people and the government are to have the same thoughts and actions collectively. Also that statement completely ignores the Bill of Rights, the reason for Due Process, and the underlying purpose of our constitution. Also the reason to disenfranchise confederate supporters was simply greed after a costly war. In turn that set the stage for the resentment and continued the division between the north and south.

Of course you have completely ignored the post civil war slavery in the north, the racism in the North, the race riots in New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc.; as I said, racism was/is nation wide. The federal government continued to hold on to a racial divide for decades post the Civil War.



It was only after years of non-violent civil rights work did this barrier finally get upended.

Wrong again. It was decades not years of legal cases to jump start the later civil rights movement. Even the wins had losses. The Warren Court which decided on Brown v Board of Ed., over turned the separate but equal stance and appeared to be a so called win allowing for intergration. However there was a catch; The phrase "all deliberate speed" allowed for the state governments to drag their feet in making intergration happen. That phrase was the compromise to allow the Warren court be unanimous in its decision, yet take decades to enforce. The enforcement resulted in the school riots you casually refer to.

Was that phrase right or wrong? Yes there were riots at some schools to actually enforce it, but the majority of communities had 10 plus years or so to accept change and did so without incident. Where there were riots the government stepped in. If someone who supported integration was to show up with guns, what would have happen to them while the government was doing enforcing integration Joe?



I just find it interesting that even in the face of brutal mob violence... there were lots of equally violent militias who hunted blacks and white sympathizers... but a mysterious absence of gun wielding militias to DEFEND minorities from tyranny... why is this?
I find it equally interesting that such a pro-civil rights activist has to be schooled the actual nature and background of the civil rights movement. Even being asked to use common sense with my last question.

The civil rights movement did not use guns in support of its cause because it was already a legal right, but enforcement. There was negative views of different races that had to be overcome in its enforcement. Compare the civil rights movement in America to that of South Africa. The South African government was over thrown by the majority using force because the majority had no rights and all peaceful attempts, even using the collective world pressure did not work.

The right to bear arms is still a Constitutional right. Your opinions to justify the denial of that right based on actions that happen in the last century is just a misguided attempt to justify your opinions on the topic.

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 02:09 PM
So aside from the rude language and complete lack of tact... what part of his point do you think was wrong?

Provide any proof what-so-ever that the person to whom this email was directed was the decedent of "slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk." You said he was 100% correct so you have the burden to prove he was....


its better to not touch a firearm and do good things than to pick up a firearm and do bad things.


Well, no shit Sherlock... Next you are going to tell us that it is (would be it's not its but...) better to touch a firearm and do good things than to not pick up a firearm and do bad things....

AJBIGJ
04-01-2013, 02:43 PM
Well, no shit Sherlock... Next you are going to tell us that it is (would be it's not its but...) better to touch a firearm and do good things than to not pick up a firearm and do bad things....

I would venture the more likely scenario is touching a firearm and stopping bad things vs. not touching one and failing to do so, but your statement is close enough for government work.

Banned
04-01-2013, 02:56 PM
No Joe that is called communism, where the people and the government are to have the same thoughts and actions collectively. Also that statement completely ignores the Bill of Rights, the reason for Due Process, and the underlying purpose of our constitution. Also the reason to disenfranchise confederate supporters was simply greed after a costly war. In turn that set the stage for the resentment and continued the division between the north and south.


Not sure how that refutes my statement - or how the American state is "communism" - point remains, the government and people are not complete distinct entities - the popular sentiments of the people will influence the government... even if those sentiments are ignorant, unconstitutional, and fearful. Case in point - civil rights. It should be quite obvious to any sane technocrat that gays and blacks should have equal rights... so why didn't it happen sooner? Because we had too many ignorant racists and bigots voting - and even taking office - for this to happen.

I find it interesting that you want to bash the radical republicans - they were one of the few truly noble groups at the time. And yes - it is morally convenient to try to paint abolitionists with the same brush as an evil slave empire.


Of course you have completely ignored the post civil war slavery in the north, the racism in the North, the race riots in New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc.; as I said, racism was/is nation wide. The federal government continued to hold on to a racial divide for decades post the Civil War.


Yes there were racists up North. What of it? Does this somehow negate anything I've said?



Wrong again. It was decades not years

lol wow really?


Was that phrase right or wrong? Yes there were riots at some schools to actually enforce it, but the majority of communities had 10 plus years or so to accept change and did so without incident. Where there were riots the government stepped in. If someone who supported integration was to show up with guns, what would have happen to them while the government was doing enforcing integration Joe?

That would be 100% appropriate. If the police are being overwhelmed by the KKK - and the National Guard hasn't arrived yet - it would be perfectly appropriate to take your guns and help them out.

Furthermore - how about actual documented cases of law enforcement being used to oppress blacks? What happened to all those concerned gun owners then? Sure we had lots of armed racists with guns... where were the good guys?



I find it equally interesting that such a pro-civil rights activist has to be schooled the actual nature and background of the civil rights movement. Even being asked to use common sense with my last question.

If you say so.


The civil rights movement did not use guns in support of its cause because it was already a legal right, but enforcement. There was negative views of different races that had to be overcome in its enforcement. Compare the civil rights movement in America to that of South Africa. The South African government was over thrown by the majority using force because the majority had no rights and all peaceful attempts, even using the collective world pressure did not work.

lol, a legal right? Really? So black activists were NOT being arrested left and right for violating the law? Think about what you just said!

And again - I'm not arguing that these peaceful activists were wrong. I'm asking a simple question - why is it there were literally tens of thousands of gun owners who took the side of the racists to kill and oppress blacks... but a noticable lack of such enthusiasm to defend them?

The angry responses here suggest I'm hitting a nerve.


The right to bear arms is still a Constitutional right. Your opinions to justify the denial of that right based on actions that happen in the last century is just a misguided attempt to justify your opinions on the topic.

Actually I've been very clear that I do not support a gun ban (But good try anyway hon) - I'm just pointing out that the exhausted cliche arguments against a gun ban are mostly stupid.

Banned
04-01-2013, 02:59 PM
Provide any proof what-so-ever that the person to whom this email was directed was the decedent of "slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk." You said he was 100% correct so you have the burden to prove he was....

So basically - you're ignoring the actual political message of the email because you find it uncomfortable?


Well, no shit Sherlock... Next you are going to tell us that it is (would be it's not its but...) better to touch a firearm and do good things than to not pick up a firearm and do bad things....


I would venture the more likely scenario is touching a firearm and stopping bad things vs. not touching one and failing to do so, but your statement is close enough for government work.

We were talking in the context of a political - or revolutionary movement. There's plenty of ways to oppose tyranny without ever touching a gun. The problem is all those people who have guns who would use them to support tyranny.

Banned
04-01-2013, 03:07 PM
I'm confused by what you expect, Joe. Do you think that responsible gun owners are clairvoyant and knew the bad guys were going to be there? Or do you think they should have turned to vigilantism and created a posse to track them down?

Maybe I'm mistaken on this, but I'm pretty sure that the leaders of the non-violent civil rights movement wanted nothing to do with "gun wielding militias to DEFEND" them. Guns were not welcome.



What does the NRA have to do with any of this? There is a difference between a Guns Rights Activist and a Gun Owner. I may be wrong, but I don't ever remember the NRA advocating any of the violence you've spoken of.

Why aren't you attacking the state and local governments for not doing their part to protect the victims? I'm pretty sure their inactivity was the most reprehensible. It was their job to use their guns to stop the violence. And hell, they were probably primarily white christians so you should have no problem attacking them.

I'm not necessarily looking at this through the lens of an NRA propaganda commercial. The rampages of the bad guy can only be stopped by the attractive young woman in low-cut garb with a firearm.

I'm thinking more along the lines of that exhausted argument we hear a million times a day from people like JD - if the government decides to set up a "tyranny", only the citizens with guns will be able to stop them. Yet we have an actual documented case of both private citizens and the local governments physically assaulting and oppressing people. Why didn't these "good guys with guns" act then?


Yes Joe you hold so much weight in my life you turn it upside down with your insane childish rants. Keep it going your only proving most people right.

I think you need to take a deep breath.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 03:13 PM
I'm not necessarily looking at this through the lens of an NRA propaganda commercial. The rampages of the bad guy can only be stopped by the attractive young woman in low-cut garb with a firearm.

I'm thinking more along the lines of that exhausted argument we hear a million times a day from people like JD - if the government decides to set up a "tyranny", only the citizens with guns will be able to stop them. Yet we have an actual documented case of both private citizens and the local governments physically assaulting and oppressing people. Why didn't these "good guys with guns" act then?



I think you need to take a deep breath.

Not really Joe. I'm doing just fine. However, your concern for my well-being is flattering. Thanks.

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 03:14 PM
So basically - you're ignoring the actual political message of the email because you find it uncomfortable?

We were talking in the context of a political - or revolutionary movement. There's plenty of ways to oppose tyranny without ever touching a gun. The problem is all those people who have guns who would use them to support tyranny.

No....YOU said the email was 100% correct... Yet you can't back that statement up.. SHOCKER. The political message of the email seems to be that the author is quite the racist....

Would like for you to PROVE that last statement but we all know you can't prove a fraction of what you say....

Banned
04-01-2013, 06:07 PM
No....YOU said the email was 100% correct... Yet you can't back that statement up.. SHOCKER. The political message of the email seems to be that the author is quite the racist....

Would like for you to PROVE that last statement but we all know you can't prove a fraction of what you say....

Jesus, I know you're smart but it seems like every post you're trying to demonstrate yourself as illiterate.

My post again:


So aside from the rude language and complete lack of tact... what part of his point do you think was wrong?

Banned
04-01-2013, 06:09 PM
Oh, and I'll play your game...

Where in that letter did he say ANYTHING about race?

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 06:31 PM
Jesus, I know you're smart but it seems like every post you're trying to demonstrate yourself as illiterate.

My post again:

No no...HERE is your post again...;


Was that a smart thing to say with a government email account? Nope. Was he 100% on target? Absolutely. I have yet to see any of these god-fearin' gun ownin' NRA Americans using their guns to actually defend our civil rights.

This guy seems to be a real winner...he hasn't been to work in nearly a year....but is still getting P-A-I-D....

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/04/rep_joe_mitchell_rarely_seen_i.html