Mackeyser wrote:

Yep. States Rights…

TO OWN SLAVES.

One only needs to read the declaration of secession from each state in which their state right granted in the US constitution was not being honored by the north as the reason for secession.

Thats more crapola from CNN. The Beltway Snipers alone murdered 17 people across the nation and directly cited jihad as the reason but they do not make the list.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-still-running-dubious-right-wing-vs.-muslim-extremists-statistic/article/2566694

CNN still running dubious right-wing vs. Muslim extremists statistic
BY T. BECKET ADAMS | JUNE 20, 2015 | 10:48 AM

CNN aired a statistic Friday morning alleging that “right-wing extremism” is responsible for more deaths since Sept. 11, 2001, than “Muslim extremism.”

The thing is: The statistic is dubious.

The CNN graphic is based on figures provided by the International Security Program at the New America Foundation.
NAF looks at extremists who have been motivated by jihadist ideology, especially those in connection with al Qaeda and “its affiliated groups,” its website explains. It also monitors “those motivated by other ideologies that are non-Jihadist in character, for example right wing, left wing, or idiosyncratic beliefs.”

Its figures account only for deadly attacks that have occurred in the United States.

The data currently available on NAF’s database shows that 39 people have been killed since 2001 by homegrown non-jihadists, while jihadists have killed 26.

The CNN graphic aired Friday reflected an updated version of NAF’s data, with the cable news network adjusting the figure on “right-wing extremism” to include Wednesday’s massacre in Charleston, S.C., which claimed the lives of nine African-Americans.

However, NAF’s most current data, which only covers attacks by extremists who are either United States citizens or permanent residents, has been challenged over its categorizing of post-9/11 deadly attacks.

“For instance, NAF includes Joshua Cartwright on the list [of non-jihadists]. In 2009, Cartwright was reported to police after beating his wife. Police attempted to arrest him for domestic violence at a local shooting range. A shootout ensued in which two police officers were killed,” conservative blogger John Sexton reported in April 2014.

“NAF apparently includes Cartwright on its list of terrorists because his wife remarked that he was ‘severely disturbed’ by the election of Barack Obama,” he added.

The NAF database also excludes from its list of jihadist attacks the infamous Beltway Sniper, John Allen Muhammad, who was responsible for shooting and killing 10 Americans in 2002.

PunditFact, a division of the Tampa Bay Times, wrote in Jan. 2015, “Leave [the Beltway Sniper] deaths out of the equation for slayings on American soil, and the edge … still goes to the right-wing extremists.”

However, PunditFact added, “If this exercise shows nothing else, it is that the number of post-9/11 deaths in the United States from either cause is low, and drawing firm conclusions is dicey. A single event or a change in definitions can shift the balance.”

The fact-checking site added that defining the nature of deadly attacks makes all the difference, explaining that many of the killers acted on their own.

“Experts in terrorist and extremist violence told PunditFact that in these cases, it can be difficult to draw the line between ideological and purely personal motivations,” the group said.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

That is the cover. The real goal is to remove the flag altogether everywhere. Pressure on retailers to not carry the flag. Extends even to the Dukes of Hazard franchise depiction of the car the General Lee. Efforts to disinter Confederate generals from cemeteries. Defacing confederate monuments. Removing the flag from book cover dust jackets. Hitler would be proud.

Well, there’s no unified goal. There isn’t a single monolithic movement against all things Confederacy. There are many sides and many points of view with this issue. It certainly is a delicate situation. I can see why southerners would want to honor their dead ancestors through memorials. But their deaths came about in defense of an indefensible institution. Can we blame the Mayor of Memphis for wanting to remove a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest – a man who fought to defend slavery, who was a proponent of harsh treatment of slaves and who helped establish the KKK? Afterall, no one would be upset if Jewish people would ask for the removal of a monument to Dr. Mengele from their town square. And that’s the crux. People who look back on the Confederacy with pride refuse to see the inherent evil in the “Lost Cause”.

States rights is a defensible institution. Many a yankee fortune was made from the slave trade. Sherman’s March to the sea was an inherent evil in the Won Cause? That moral high ground looks quite flat.

Even if the north had no moral high ground that doesn’t make the Confederate desire to preserve the institution of slavery more defensible. And “states rights” was mainly just a postwar dodge to make the southern cause more palatable. The root cause of the war was slavery.

The root cause was states rights. The northern states refused to uphold their obligations under the US constitution regarding states rights by not returning escaped slaves nor prosecuting terrorists within their borders. Therefore the south seceded over states rights granted in the US constitution which were being ignored by the north. At that time slavery had always been a state right. From the northern perspective the war was about slavery but the southern perspective has always been and correctly so, states rights.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by bnw.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

That is the cover. The real goal is to remove the flag altogether everywhere. Pressure on retailers to not carry the flag. Extends even to the Dukes of Hazard franchise depiction of the car the General Lee. Efforts to disinter Confederate generals from cemeteries. Defacing confederate monuments. Removing the flag from book cover dust jackets. Hitler would be proud.

Well, there’s no unified goal. There isn’t a single monolithic movement against all things Confederacy. There are many sides and many points of view with this issue. It certainly is a delicate situation. I can see why southerners would want to honor their dead ancestors through memorials. But their deaths came about in defense of an indefensible institution. Can we blame the Mayor of Memphis for wanting to remove a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest – a man who fought to defend slavery, who was a proponent of harsh treatment of slaves and who helped establish the KKK? Afterall, no one would be upset if Jewish people would ask for the removal of a monument to Dr. Mengele from their town square. And that’s the crux. People who look back on the Confederacy with pride refuse to see the inherent evil in the “Lost Cause”.

States rights is a defensible institution. Many a yankee fortune was made from the slave trade. Sherman’s March to the sea was an inherent evil in the Won Cause? That moral high ground looks quite flat.

Sincerest condolences for your loss and what beautiful piece that was written.

The longer we live the more days which have history for us. I hope your dad accepts your efforts on his behalf.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

The majority will press for further 2nd amendment protection.

Right. Because in the face of tragedy, most Americans’ first response is to hug their guns more tightly.

No to preserve their right.

The NRA will happily accept anyones money. FYI I am not a member.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

But who is a member of a “well-regulated militia?”

Only National Guard members, as far as I know.

I don’t see where the right to bear arms extends beyond that framework. In other words, if you aren’t part of a well-regulated militia, I don’t see where the 2nd amendment protects your right to “keep and bear arms.”

If someone is interested in who is a well regulated militia it is obvious the founding fathers meant citizen soldiers who comprised the militia at that time. Citizens who brought their weapons with them to join the militia. Citizens who as members of the militia were free to leave whenever they wanted. Militia that proved vital to the war effort. Provisions for hunting and personal protection were not written in to the amendment because it never occurred to them that it would ever be questioned. Much like not writing that someone should brush their teeth at least once every day would be for today. Or cautioning against licking an energized circuit. The National Guard is not an appropriate example of a militia since those who serve can not leave at will.

How do you feel about some kind of compulsory training, some kind of license. You have to have a license to drive a car. And a different license for a motorcycle. How do you feel about licensing/training as a prerequisite for various firearms?

Some shooters are covered by a hunter education course which I think is required by every state in order to get a hunting license. Law enforcement and military are likely exempt since certainly have adequate training. For everyone else yes I think training is a great idea. It is the licensing that I am not comfortable with if a license database is generated and kept by government. If instructors are not required to turn over license holder information to government then I could support it. I help train people at range events and those people are very interested in learning safe handling and marksmanship. I would also support a certification on a license for demonstrated proficiency for handgun and rifle as well as shotgun and single shot and semi-auto variants of each. What concerns me is the immature and reckless sort looking to expand his video game persona or emulate some action movie hero by purchasing a firearm. Perhaps training at the point of sale before final purchase? In the end training increases safety. Licensing doesn’t.

I see you wrote compulsory. I had not considered that but I would definitely support mandatory firearms training as a requirement to graduate high school. Kind of like driver’s ed. I like the idea.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by bnw.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

But who is a member of a “well-regulated militia?”

Only National Guard members, as far as I know.

I don’t see where the right to bear arms extends beyond that framework. In other words, if you aren’t part of a well-regulated militia, I don’t see where the 2nd amendment protects your right to “keep and bear arms.”

If someone is interested in who is a well regulated militia it is obvious the founding fathers meant citizen soldiers who comprised the militia at that time. Citizens who brought their weapons with them to join the militia. Citizens who as members of the militia were free to leave whenever they wanted. Militia that proved vital to the war effort. Provisions for hunting and personal protection were not written in to the amendment because it never occurred to them that it would ever be questioned. Much like not writing that someone should brush their teeth at least once every day would be for today. Or cautioning against licking an energized circuit. The National Guard is not an appropriate example of a militia since those who serve can not leave at will.

This is interesting because I wrote from a different perspective. I see Warren as a greater fraud since she committed it for personal gain for votes and getting another box checked to further cement her affirmative action status in her job whereas Dolezal worked towards the betterment of the people she claimed to be one. Yes Doleful has a job but one that targets working for that community. To me I view it as less egregious.

Good luck selling season tix in St. Louis. Even the NFL has to take this LA practice slap in consideration.

canadaram wrote:

bnw wrote:

You were the one that interjected the word ‘debate’ into this thread. You did so twice. You also did so early in the thread while I was responding to TSRF. A few months ago a gunman killed a canadian soldier then ran into the Canadian parliament right past the room in which the prime minister was in attendance. So much for saner canadian gun control.

No one in Canada would ever argue that our gun laws prevent all gun violence carried out by the insane. We know that there are ways that people with bad intentions can get guns. That said, the vast majority of us are comfortable in the knowledge that our laws mean such incidences happen less frequently here than down south.

Good because I’m going to be around the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

wv wrote:

Note the quick release. …back when the rams actually
threw over the middle…

Good point. According to John Madden Bulger had the quickest release in the NFL.

Depends upon where you shoot.