Soxbadger

I think the better question is why arent we advocating more gun rights for our children. If guns are necessary for the protection of the biggest and bravest of our society, should not our smallest and weakest also be afforded this necessary protection. Back in the good ole days 12 was ripe for starting a family.

Will Hill is now available.

Bleh this is why book spoilers belong in book thread. Im not sure if the spoilers are tv or book, so I just wont read any of them.

GOT made me sad lol And Sansa looked great in dark hair.

Its looking more and more like Qatar could be an epic cluster without the bribing scandal. If there was ever a time to do it, it would be now.

Well okay lol

Great pass by Kane.

My drive to attack it is because articles like that do more to hurt the advancement of minorities/underprivileged in America then help them.

No one has gangs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_%28underground_society%29 http://www.irinnews.org/in-depth/70038/28/...re-in-cape-town

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 30, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Again, weird binary thinking. If it mentions slavery, everything else must be smoke and mirrors. If you claim it's not focused on slavery, that means you're saying that it has nothing to do with slavery. The summary of HR40 you posted mentioned more things than slavery. I'm not sure what's wrong with presupposing harm from the legacy of slavery and the ensuing racial and economic discrimination. I'm still thinking you haven't actually bothered to read Coates' article if you're saying something like that. I read the article, as well as the other pieces that I quoted. That is a poor diversion technique. Why dont you actually argue the facts. Here is the words from the bill (which you obviously havent read): How is that not focused on slavery. This isnt even an argument, the bill is about slavery and what reparations should be given to ex-slaves. This isnt weird binary thinking, this is just a fact that you seem to not want to admit. Because you know if I attack the core "slaves deserve reparations" the rest of the smoke/mirrors fall away.

Read the bill, I would never support a bill that is conclusive in nature: The commission would then make recommendations to Congress on appropriate remedies to redress the harm inflicted on living African Americans. Note, an appropriate bill would say "The commission would then determine if any harm was inflicted on living African Americans and whether there should be any remedy for this." His bill presupposes that there is harm. And how you can even say things like: From the website on the HR 40 bill: Seems the entire purpose of the bill is to redress the harms of slavery. Do you really believe what you are typing? That this has nothing to do with slavery? Or are you just pinned into a bad corner, because you didnt write the article, you can disagree with the author, you dont have to champion him...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 30, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) So your animus is based largely on an intentionally provocative title and a stubborn binary view where, if Coates is laying out the history and consequences of black discrimination and concluding with why that makes reparations a valid discussion topic, it implies that he does not recognize any other non-black racial struggles, past or present. You should waste time on the author so that you can actually understand his positions instead of assigning him the ones you've so quickly jumped to. You might be surprised if you read one of the follow-ups I've linked where he explained how he came to support the case for reparations over the past couple of years. Or you could once again look at one of the reparations proposals he chose to mention which would be a jobs and education program with racial (note: not exclusively black) justice as a goal "but includes the poor of all races." The only way to continue to insist that Coates only recognizes abuses against blacks and that he believes in no other forms of racial or social justice is to remain intentionally ignorant of what the man actually says and writes. Maybe you should read more about Mr. Coates, because its not about minority reparations: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/29/the_...tions_ta_nehisi http://www.buzzfeed.com/shani/ta-nehisi-co...ations-buzzfeed http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm/reparations Unlike Mr Coates, Im not lazy. I will figure out the angle, and I will expose the truth. Because Im not in it for any personal gain, I dont want my people to get anything, so I have no bias. Mr. Coates has bias, he explicitly states that white people should support HR 40, which is for AFRICAN AMERICAN reparations based on SLAVERY. He doesnt say "White people should work to help all minorities", he doesnt say "White people should help create a system where everyone can be equal", he says that white people should support a program that explicitly helps 1 race, while ignoring every other race. So maybe before you champion Mr. Coates, you should have sent him a message and made sure that you knew what he was arguing. Cause he makes it very clear, he thinks African Americans are deserving of special treatment that no other minority is. And despite all of his smoke and mirrors about recent phenomenon, the crux is based on slavery. Because the thing he wants me to do, is support a bill that gives reparations for slavery. /shrugs It is what it is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 30, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) Is your only evidence for your claims that his piece on the history of anti-black discrimination only talks about anti-black discrimination? I've read nothing from Coates to indicate that he is concerned exclusively with the plight of black Americans, especially not to the point you're accusing him of where he fails to recognize or actively rejects others in poverty or their experiences. I mean, brief section he actually talks about some reparations programs, he mentions this: Drop Coates a line with some of your questions, he responds and dialogues a lot. I don't see where you're coming away with the messages from this piece that your are. The article title is "The case for reparations", I dont see anywhere in the article where he makes a case for reparations other than for black people. If his piece was an article titled "the history and consequences of black discrimination" I would have no issue. But when you say "THE CASE FOR REPARATIONS" you are making an argument. Part of that argument should include why blacks deserve reparations and no one else does. And why would I waste time on the author? I dont really see much to gain, his understanding of history is cursory at best and I dont usually waste my time on opinion, because everyone has one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 30, 2014 -> 11:01 AM) You said they ended in 1960. They didn't. Maybe Moyers should have phrased it "from the 1930's through the 1960's" but the extent and duration of the mortgage discrimination is made very clear in Coates' original article. But still fails to support his premise that reparations are in anyway fair, because unlike the articles you quoted, he does not recognize a similar phenomenon occurs with Hispanics. I dont think it would be really fair to force Hispanics to pay reparations to black people. But yet the author of the original article does not even take this into account.

Itll be interesting if 2bil is enough to make Sterling go away.

When you talk about changing society you are always talking about a "faux" reality that doesnt exist. Thats the point of change. Alpha, The laws will screw with everyone equally. You wont be able to have a gun, they wont be able to have a gun. If you have a gun, you go to jail. If they have a gun, they go to jail. What you are trying to argue is that you wont break the law, but they will. If this was a good reason not to pass a law, then we would have 0 laws because I cant think of any law that people dont break. Thus every law is "screwing you" instead of the law breaker.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 29, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) I use mostly shotguns, the use of rifles except on target ranges is illegal in Illinois. Of course there are other means but they are far less effective (trapping) or costly (electric fencing). I edited the previous post to show how the gun laws are in England and the UK and I wouldn't have a problem with the way they do it where the burden is placed on the person not so much the government. I have no problem with that idea. My preference is probably not to outright ban guns.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 29, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) I guess I'm on the other side. I use guns on a regular basis for hunting target shooting and for the protection of the farm against coyotes and other animals. I do not think banning guns is a good idea. Restrictions on people who have a history of mental illness is a must. I have no issue with people who want to have guns. And maybe in the end having guns is more benefit to society than not having guns. I am not really sure to be honest. In your situation I would want to know if there is any other way to accomplish the same end, without the use of a gun. Or perhaps with a gun that is less lethal. I assume that you are mainly using a rifle against animals? (edit) And poor word choice on banning. They severely restricted the ability of people to buy guns, especially handguns.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 29, 2014 -> 12:14 PM) Again, let's live in reality. Banning guns isn't happening anytime soon, if ever. Throughout history things change. Banning guns happened in England. It could happen here. But it requires people to have a conversation about the value of guns in society, as opposed to putting their fingers in their ears and saying "never." Im not a defeatist, I do believe things can change.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 29, 2014 -> 12:07 PM) I'm still waiting on what law we are missing that would have prevented this. Here's a change I'd make: no media coverage of the killer. Cover the shooting but never make the name, photo or background info of the shooter available, unless he/she is eventually charged and it comes from the trial. When it's a murder suicide, treat it as a suicide. I'd bet a lot of these assholes do this stuff for the attention. Ban guns. No one can legally buy a gun or own a gun in the United States unless they are military/security/police. And I agree with not mentioning the persons name. Which is why I dont address it in any of my posts. I will not help them be remembered.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:20 AM) Again, awful analogy. Someone articulate what law could have been passed to prevent this shooting. The only answer is a complete gun ban, which is never going to happen. So continue arguing in hypotheticals if you wish, but down here in the real world it seems to me this particular shooting could have been avoided if the police/family did their jobs. And even then I dunno if that's 100% true. I'm fine with nearly all the restrictions that CA has passed. I'm not sure what else could have been done here. If you just to avoid the discussion and always say "it will never happen" that is fine. Throughout history things "never would happen" and then they did. So the first step to ever making a change is to start with "change is possible." Otherwise we would live in a society where slavery was legal, women couldnt vote, with kings/queens etc. But at some point someone has to take their head out of the sand and say "change is possible." Now if you want to argue why you believe that civilians owning guns is a gain for society, feel free.

I read the article, it doesnt support his position. It supports my position that its not just black minorities and instead it it includes Hispanics. Which ultimately destroys the entire essence of the original piece that somehow this is a black phenomenon and that blacks exclusively should be deserving of reparations due to something bad that happened a long time ago. If the article was "minorities in America deserve a better chance", id 100% agree. But when you arbitrarily select 1 race, its self-serving.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 28, 2014 -> 05:37 PM) It shows that it still happens on a regular basis. Stop and frisk was standard NYPD policy until very recently. Getting pulled over for "Driving While Black" is a thing. Enough of white society believes its okay that it's an ongoing factor. Youre reaching. A certain subset of clowns think its acceptable, but I do not believe they speak for white society. If they did, then you wouldnt get successful lawsuits for profiling. You are trying to blame the whole for the actions of the few. Its no different than saying all black people are gang members, because well some of them are and I can find articles to prove it.

How do you reconcile the fact that in each of the situations you linked they are suing for damages? It kind of disproves your point that white society believes this is type of profiling is acceptable behavior, it actually shows the exact opposite.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 28, 2014 -> 05:19 PM) That's a terrible analogy. Iran doesn't have the bomb yet. We have guns and can own them as a constitutional right. lol Constitution can be changed, so lets not hide behind that. The question is, if crazy is crazy, why prevent any crazy people from doing anything? Like we attacked Saddam because we were concerned he had WMD right? So under your theory we should have let him keep the WMD because we just need to accept crazy is crazy.