Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
keeping governance structure as local as possible,
Not sure if he talked much about this. What leads you to say that? Do you have a source?
Quote:
never trust a protester of the white race
He had the right critiques of white liberals. His argument is that they aim to make the system "nicer" to blacks won't work, and there needs to be a fundamental change in the system. He wanted a black nation with a black-based political and economic system because he knew you can't reform white power structure. He extensively critiqued Dr. Kings march on Washington in his autobiography for reasons like this. However, He did work with white revolutionaries and white muslims
Quote:
. Oh, and he also believed that no race should vote overwhelmingly for one party, else you were obviously being bought.
I think he felt that both parties were parties that only benefited whites, and didn't really see the point in voting for either one. He felt that by voting for them you were just investing in a white system that would never bring real racial justice for blacks. He also felt that it was demoralizing to get your hopes up, and recognized that both parties were just taking the black community for a ride.
I never thought I'd say this But I agree with this post 100%.
What the issue is how the NRA, and other gun-rights advocates, can reinvent themselves and appeal to the black community and win black support, and urban support.
Black and urban democratic voters are particularly anti-gun because they believe that gun violence is in epidemic in their neighborhoods and that if we just magically got rid of guns mothers wouldn't lose their sons blahblahblah etc...
When I'm speaking with others in my community about the importance of being armed it's difficult to counter this argument. Especially because people think that gun shots are what make their neighborhood bad.
I try to emphasize how if law-abiding citizens were all armed, armed criminals would think twice about shooting, robbing, raping etc... and how we know we cannot rely on the police to defend us in crimes in the moment of the crime. Forget about community-police relations, if you are being robbed the cops will get there in 20 minutes. The robbery will be over and the robber is across town already. Yet concealed and open carry is not allowed in NYC.
We know a lot of the shootings happen because the criminal knows he's probably the only one armed in the immediate vicinity and no one will stop him. Not so if he thinks everyone is legally armed and carrying and could stop him
I don't see more law abiding citizens having guns working either. There'd just be more shoot outs.
You'd really have to address the true reason why you have so much crime in these neighborhoods. The underemployement in these communities, caused by historical discrimination AND welfare complex that encourages families to split (can't be married and get most long term welfare benefits) and encourages a number of other bad behaviors (discourses people from working because if they make a small amount of money over the maximum they lose their benefits). You'd also have to address the marginalization of this population from the rest of the nation and the rest of the world.
If everyone around you is scum, how on earth would you know how to behave any better?
Btw, police defend white people just FINE. Regardless of whether white communities have guns or not, there isn't this rate of mortality in the US among white populations, even the poor ones. Clearly there are social pathologies in Black neighbors that do need to be addressed.
For starters in these neighborhoods, to build up a rep on the street it's COOL to be arrested (I can say the same of Puerto Rican and Dominican neighborhoods in NYC). Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in NYC similarly are underemployed, and also have a high rate of being on welfare.
You'd also need to mention the illegal drug trade. People on welfare do earn money illegally, by selling guns, drugs, sex, etc.
Legalizing drugs means you'd have people earning money on the books, where it's taxable and where you push the criminal element out. People who legitimately earn money can go to banks for loans, buy houses, etc. People who earn just cash can't even legally rent a normal apartment (no actual income) so they are left to just some sort of welfare program housing.
There are a lot of socioeconomic issues that have to be dealt with before you can reduce violence in those communities. To be honest most of the deaths are probably drug turf related. Of course legal businesses can resolve their disputes via the courts and government agencies. Illegal businesses have to take out their disagreements with each other. Never mind innocent people may be shot. Of course when dealers shoot each other up, other people step in to take their place.
As for law abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves from criminals, criminals tend to have back up, so if you shoot a gangster and kill them you'd better be prepared for retaliation or you'd better leave the state. I'm sure anyone on here who is law enforcement would agree with me. More guns will not help ghettoes.
Not sure if he talked much about this. What leads you to say that? Do you have a source?
He had the right critiques of white liberals. His argument is that they aim to make the system "nicer" to blacks won't work, and there needs to be a fundamental change in the system. He wanted a black nation with a black-based political and economic system because he knew you can't reform white power structure. He extensively critiqued Dr. Kings march on Washington in his autobiography for reasons like this. However, He did work with white revolutionaries and white muslims
I think he felt that both parties were parties that only benefited whites, and didn't really see the point in voting for either one. He felt that by voting for them you were just investing in a white system that would never bring real racial justice for blacks. He also felt that it was demoralizing to get your hopes up, and recognized that both parties were just taking the black community for a ride.
Serious social justice activists (of all races) today would argue the same thing. Reforms often mean preserving an injust system.
Take the film industry. For years people would be content to have the first Black person win in a category that nobody Black hadn't won it, and after then we'd see multiple White wins for years with no one of other races winning (Latinos or Asians). That's the definition of tokenism. Let a couple of token Blacks do whatever, and make no real changes.
Lately people have woken up to the ridiculously of this and are pushing for real fundamental change.
The war on drugs which locks up young Black men for marijuana possession (many of these men were not violent) ended up giving them criminal records which prevented them from getting work or financial aid in some cases, reducing them to homelessness and a life of crime. You now have the marijuana legalization movement and activists of all races fighting to end the war on drugs (because drugs are illegal, one cannot buy from legal sources and that creates gangs which fight over turf, leading to violence and death in some cases).
Black and urban democratic voters are particularly anti-gun because they believe that gun violence is in epidemic in their neighborhoods and that if we just magically got rid of guns mothers wouldn't lose their sons blahblahblah.
Especially because people think that gun shots are what make their neighborhood bad.
Forget about community-police relations, if you are being robbed the cops will get there in 20 minutes.
We know a lot of the shootings happen because the criminal knows he's probably the only one armed in the immediate vicinity and no one will stop him.
I'm sure anyone on here who is law enforcement would agree with me. More guns will not help ghettoes.
Honestly it doesn't matter whether it will help or not. The law is the law and the ONLY law on guns is the 2nd Amendment. Tyreek in the East NY projects has just as much right to carry a concealed handgun as Calvin in CT and Jim Bob in Tennessee as long as all three have no felony convictions. Anyone who disagrees is far more racist than the random whitey they tend to rant about.
Honestly it doesn't matter whether it will help or not. The law is the law and the ONLY law on guns is the 2nd Amendment. Tyreek in the East NY projects has just as much right to carry a concealed handgun as Calvin in CT and Jim Bob in Tennessee as long as all three have no felony convictions. Anyone who disagrees is far more racist than the random whitey they tend to rant about.
If someone in the East New York projects shoots a criminal, I think you know very well that they'd retaliate by shooting that person and his family.
Do they have the same rights to guns as anyone else? Of course. But higher gun ownership just means more dead people in the housing projects. Which is probably something you'd like.
The right to bear arms though is meant to have an armed populace capable of defending themselves against potentially oppressive governments. I think higher gun ownership in the housing projects might make the jobs of law enforcement like yourself even more dangerous. After all they view you as the oppressor. Get rid of gun regulations and I really don't see the NYPD policing ENY or huge parts of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Upper Manhattan.
The courts have allowed states and municipalities to determine what, if any regulations should be placed on guns.
Then again it might be interesting if residents of East New York were armed and well trained. But I do not think right wingers for this forum would like that all...........
Then again it might be interesting if residents of East New York were armed and well trained. But I do not think right wingers for this forum would like that all...........
Let them have guns legally. They have them illegally as it is anyway, so not sure what your point is.
Well one of the biggest on the forum just not only suggested it, but said that it is the only Constitutional truth, so...
Drop the crap. No matter the results, the law is the law and the Constitution is the only valid law on guns this country has. While plenty others certainly exist, none are legal.
Well one of the biggest on the forum just not only suggested it, but said that it is the only Constitutional truth, so...
Drop the crap. No matter the results, the law is the law and the Constitution is the only valid law on guns this country has. While plenty others certainly exist, none are legal.
The court has interpreted the current laws on guns as valid, and consistently so. And they will remain valid until/unless the Supreme Court rules them invalid. The courts interpret the constitution, and what is or isn't allowed under it.
And it doesn't matter what anyone on this forum says, it matters what the courts say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
