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.
Not very similar in that the Bundy/supporters directly had a problem with the BLM. I mean, as a gang member Nipsey obviously had issues with law enforcement but the primary rivalry you're worried about here is rival gangs. Having a heavy police presence to keep the rival gangs from doing what rival gangs do, shoot at each other, is an issue since having a bunch of criminals and police in the same area tends to make both sides nervous. Also Nation of Islam wasn't storming and occupying government buildings as Bundy/supporters were. When providing protection for yourself involves taking over an LAPD precinct, most people aren't going to view that as "providing protection."
If need be, I do. I had NO idea who Nipsey was before a couple days ago. I have no idea what he did or believed. The argument seemed to be that it was a bad idea for the police to work with those who wanted to protect themselves. I am arguing against that idea.
If need be, I do. I had NO idea who Nipsey was before a couple days ago. I have no idea what he did or believed. The argument seemed to be that it was a bad idea for the police to work with those who wanted to protect themselves. I am arguing against that idea.
I think it's good they worked together.
Well, ideally you'd find someone else as you don't want a bunch of street gang members "providing security" for themselves. That just means they're all going to show up with lots of guns and shoot each other. Which is what happened anyway, but at least not as widespread as it might have. They know it, police know it, everyone knows it. You can't trust a bunch of bangers with beef to not shoot at each other. It's what they do.
Nation of Islam basically fits that bill of what is needed, a neutral third party that has some credibility. A lot of people would call them a hate group, I would, but they're not a terrorist group. They have credibility, particularly with the rapper and street gang subcultures. They aren't know for random acts of street violence. I don't agree with their philosophy but as long as they aren't blowing up synagogues and harassing people who don't share their viewpoint I don't really have an issue with them. They largely do not do that so I don't.
Well, ideally you'd find someone else as you don't want a bunch of street gang members "providing security" for themselves.
"Ideally" doesn't play into the idea of whether the people have this right or not. Either they do or they do not. Argue if you wish that you aren't as thrilled at some having that right as much as you are of others all you want, but they all do have the right or none do.
Quote:
That just means they're all going to show up with lots of guns and shoot each other. Which is what happened anyway, but at least not as widespread as it might have. They know it, police know it, everyone knows it. You can't trust a bunch of bangers with beef to not shoot at each other. It's what they do.
Nation of Islam basically fits that bill of what is needed, a neutral third party that has some credibility. A lot of people would call them a hate group, I would, but they're not a terrorist group.
I doubt we would agree on the definition of "terrorist".
"Ideally" doesn't play into the idea of whether the people have this right or not. Either they do or they do not. Argue if you wish that you aren't as thrilled at some having that right as much as you are of others all you want, but they all do have the right or none do.
A large number of them lost that right because they're felons. The ones that haven't, sure, they may have the right. I mean, it's California, right. It's very difficult for non-criminals to get a CCW and open carry is generally prohibited, and certainly is in LA county. You can disagree with that law. Now, criminals don't tend to have a lot of respect for the law so it's sort of a moot point what the law is. The larger issue is regardless of what the law says nobody, including the rival gang leadership, thinks having a bunch of street bangers with guns all showing up is a good idea.
They can still provide their own security. I'm not sure if they still do, but NOI used to operate armed security companies throughout California. They even used to have government contracts to do so and historically were used particularly in areas with gang activity.
Actually, it's not directly. It's incorporation which is judicial activism. As stated in the Constitution, unless otherwise specified, it applies only to the federal government. That's really really the issue with judicial activism. It's wish-washy. Since the Supreme Court hasn't decided to weigh in and overrule California that its laws violate the Second Amendment which only apply to state and local governments in limited fashion because the courts said they do... well, in effect they don't apply. Supreme Court has generally not done so and done so in very limited fashion. So while California's open carry laws are less restrictive than say Washington D.C., they're well, pretty restrictive. The more effective way would be of course, you know, not rely on judicial activism and accomplish it properly through the legislative process.
There is no need to provide a counter point to something you just made up. I don't bother trying to counter people who argue we never went to the moon either. Do you understand the word "Conjecture"?
Quote:
Actually, it's not directly. It's incorporation which is judicial activism. As stated in the Constitution, unless otherwise specified, it applies only to the federal government. That's really really the issue with judicial activism. It's wish-washy. Since the Supreme Court hasn't decided to weigh in and overrule California that its laws violate the Second Amendment which only apply to state and local governments in limited fashion because the courts said they do... well, in effect they don't apply.
There is no need to provide a counter point to something you just made up. I don't bother trying to counter people who argue we never went to the moon either. Do you understand the word "Conjecture"?
So your point is that you don't think felons can be gang members. Got it. It's an interesting argument, certainly.
So your point is that you don't think felons can be gang members. Got it. It's an interesting argument, certainly.
I quit replying to people who show a propensity to not discuss things honestly.
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.
