Thank you rioters...

[Harbringe]

"The police should be more racially balanced in its killing" just doesn't make for a catchy slogan. I don't get why people can't help themselves from deconstructing it with tangential arguments. "All lives matter", for instance, because they insist BLM means "only black lives matter". That's either willfully misreading things, or a problem with comprehending rhetoric. "You spent a lot of time whining about this dream you've had, but what is your vision for race relations in the country, Dr. King?" Speaking of, the one thing that bugs me about BLM is a lack of solid leadership. But then, there's none to be found anywhere else either.

 

The reason this argument exists is that last year only 10 unarmed blacks (20 whites) were killed by police last year and these type numbers have been so going back decades , meanwhile 6000+ unarmed blacks were killed by other blacks in 2019 . That's the reason when you say black lives matter ... yet ignore this reality.... you look like a hypocrite. And your climate example of concern is a non sequitur , one is about climate and the other is about someone losing their life , while both police killing someone and blacks killing someone is about the same thing , someone is losing their life.

 

Try to keep your argument in the same ballpark and not get people going off after foul balls.

[AJStoner]

"The police should be more racially balanced in its killing" just doesn't make for a catchy slogan. I don't get why people can't help themselves from deconstructing it with tangential arguments. "All lives matter", for instance, because they insist BLM means "only black lives matter". That's either willfully misreading things, or a problem with comprehending rhetoric. "You spent a lot of time whining about this dream you've had, but what is your vision for race relations in the country, Dr. King?" Speaking of, the one thing that bugs me about BLM is a lack of solid leadership. But then, there's none to be found anywhere else either.

No one thinks "black lives matter" means 'only black lives matter.' The insult is the presumption that A) we need to be told black lives matter, B) the actual facts do not back up blm's claim that blacks are being mistreated as a group in any way, and C) blm is clearly a violent, racial supremacist group (they have said as much themselves if anyone bothers to look) and simply a front for the same Maoist BS that antifa is.

 

The entire thing is rooted in lies. Black on black crime IS the issue because blacks are the ones, and the only ones, slaughtering blacks in the streets; no one else.

[jjb54]

Okay this is not going to go well, but at this point I'm just seriously tired:

BLM is an EXCUSE to "justify" - RIOTING - DESTRUCTION OF: Person and Property and trying to bring down America.

 

The BLM movement does NOT really care about Black Lives - only the abuse of the "NAME" ....

[Brandonrhodes2000]

The concept of defending your family, your land, and your own self shouldn't even be up for debate. You do what you must, no matter what happens.

[jjb54]

The concept of defending your family, your land, and your own self shouldn't even be up for debate. You do what you must, no matter what happens.

 

EXACTLY!

 

Your life and my life all other lives have the same exact value and worth. No one is better or less then another.

[Arneercool]

The time is now. Burn it all. Old has to die so new can take it's place. It is natures order.

 

Besides, if you don't go for the kill now, they will do it once they get the opportunity, just watch how they are trying to ban anti-fascist under false pretenses. Not to mention the eagerness to paint BLM as the villain.

[Oblivionaddicted]

The concept of defending your family, your land, and your own self shouldn't even be up for debate. You do what you must, no matter what happens.

Protecting your family and your self implies preventing the psychopaths from buying a fire weapon something the republicans/fascist keep refusing even after the Newtown massacre.

Protecting your family implies ensuring your relatives won't be killed be a stray bullet, something that woudn't happen if the firearms were no longer on free sale and people would defend themselves using self-defense and martial arts for example.

[HeyYou]

 

The concept of defending your family, your land, and your own self shouldn't even be up for debate. You do what you must, no matter what happens.

Protecting your family and your self implies preventing the psychopaths from buying a fire weapon something the republicans/fascist keep refusing even after the Newtown massacre.

Protecting your family implies ensuring your relatives won't be killed be a stray bullet, something that woudn't happen if the firearms were no longer on free sale and people would defend themselves using self-defense and martial arts for example.

 

Right. And banning guns will make sure the criminals don't have them........ I am sure, in your mind, that is true. Unfortunately, out here in the REAL world, that simply isn't the case. It would be impossible to remove all the guns in private hands, legal or not, here in the US. There are 350 million and change people here, and a similar number of guns. The only feasible way to make sure you got ALL the guns, would be a door to door search of EVERY residence. That simply isn't going to happen, as the american people wouldn't stand for it. If it was attempted, all it would accomplish is starting the second civil war. Given which side has the guns, who do you think would win that one?

 

And please don't suggest we use the Military to do it, as that would require a constitutional amendment first. There simply are not enough police here to accomplish it. Not to mention that a pretty significant percentage of the police (or military, for that matter) would refuse to carry out such orders.

 

And marital arts? Or some such for self defense? Right, I am 59 years old, and suffer from MS. Martial arts simply are not an option. The ONLY viable means of self defense available to me, is a firearm. Call the police? Yeah, right. If the cops could get here within 30 minutes of the call, I would be greatly surprised. By the time they got here, the would be just in time to clean up the mess, and it would be all over for me, and my family.

 

Firearms are also used approximately 2.5 million times per year to PREVENT a crime. Statistics on that aren't particularly accurate, as a good percentage of such uses are simply not reported, as there is no need to. If someone pulls their gun, and the person with bad intent leaves, that's the end of it. (no shots fired.)

 

You don't like guns? That's fine. Don't buy one. But do not presume to think I will take lightly your attempts to infringe on my constitutional rights.

[Oblivionaddicted]

Since the law doesn't prevent the psychopaths from owning a firearm a lot of massacres like the school ones are committed using legally bought weapons but it's just an anecdote.^^

[HeyYou]

Since the law doesn't prevent the psychopaths from owning a firearm a lot of massacres like the school ones are committed using legally bought weapons but it's just an anecdote.^^

Actually, there are laws on the books that SHOULD prevent exactly that. However, due to various other laws that are in place, doctors CAN'T inform any government agency that their patient shouldn't be allowed to own weapons. Patients tend to sue over privacy concerns, and that whole 'doctor/patient privilege' thing.

 

So far, I have been unable to find any statistics on how many of those legally purchased weapons, were in the hands of someone that SHOULDN'T have been able to have one. (the newtown shooter being right at the top of that list. His MOM bought it for him......) The new york shooter a couple years back had his girlfriend buy his. (he was a convicted felon, not too long out of prison...... so, shouldn't have had a weapon either.) The two california shooters (also several years back) did indeed legally purchase their weapons, and then applied modifications that made them patently illegal. (in california......)

 

And then we have the whole "not telling the right people" that someone shouldn't be able to purchase firearms..... (the guy that was discharged from the airforce for mental issues, and the AF never bothered to inform anyone about it.)

 

Now, the Vegas shooter...... No criminal history, no history of mental issues, yet he still holds the record for number of dead. (in the US.....) Of course, we have the conspiracy theorists claiming he was a patsy..... but, there is zero proof of that.... and interest in that evaporated fairly quickly. (at least, in the public eye.)

 

And then we have the fact that mass shooting deaths are a VERY tiny percentage of all firearm deaths....... More than half are suicides, of the rest, most are gang related, and handguns are the primary weapon. Long guns in general, which includes 'assault rifles', account for around 3% of all firearm deaths. The 'assault rifles' are a tiny subset of the 'long guns' category. Banning them will have zero effect on murder rate.