|
|
| No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' (1289785) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1289785) | |
No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed May 20 21:33:27 2015 You've probably heard that yesterday afternoon, May 17, some 200 members of five biker gangs in Waco, Texas, had what one NBC News article quaintly describes as "a rumble" in a heavily populated mall. Full article. I eagerly await the indignant whining from the usual suspects about how of course there's no racism. |
|
|
| (1289795) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed May 20 23:02:12 2015, in response to No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Wed May 20 21:33:27 2015. Nice. I made the same points in 2 posts in the last couple of days. |
|
|
| (1289824) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu May 21 07:57:01 2015, in response to No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Wed May 20 21:33:27 2015. Hmmm...a rumble in a crowded mall...A lot of deaths...now with cops being threatened. Damn shame. The fight Wasn't racist...the LACK OF COVERAGE,no footage...just the results shown. No public outcry.. Hmm... |
|
|
| (1289825) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu May 21 08:07:40 2015, in response to No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Wed May 20 21:33:27 2015. No thugs there.They're "outlaws" and they're romantic like all white criminal organizations. --------------------------- What Waco biker shootout suggests about race in America Bikers involved in the Waco, Texas, shootout have been treated differently because they're white, some activists say. Such concerns point to how different communities view events though different lenses, media analysts say. Christian Science Monitor By Harry Bruinius The shootout in Waco, Texas, Sunday between two outlaw biker gangs that left nine members dead has led to a controversial question: What if they had been black? In the immediate aftermath of a shooting that a local police sergeant called "the worst crime scene, the most violent crime scene I have ever been involved in" – and which involved gang members shooting at police – photos show the gang members sitting at their ease, texting, near police officers. Some ask if that would have been the case if the rival gangs had been in some big city, dressed in gang colors and hoodies, having brass-knuckled, stabbed, and shot at each other – and police. Media coverage has featured little talk about absent fathers or whether subcultures of violence and masculinity are bred in the type of restaurant where the shootout took place, which features waitresses with ample cleavage and barely-there shorts. Would that have been true if it had happened at a hip-hop gathering or an urban strip club? To many, such attempts to compare the melée in Waco with the civil unrest in Baltimore or New York or Ferguson, Mo., strains reason and evidence. What happened in Waco was in no way a riot. It was a deadly bar fight, plain and simple. But even that view speaks to how different communities can see the same event differently, say others. It points to "selectively biased concern," says Aram Sinnreich, professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University’s School of Communication and Information in New Brunswick, N.J. In other words, Waco reveals the way people's cultural background influences their perceptions of crime and violence – from a mass shooting by a white gunman in Aurora, Colo., to violent protests after the deaths of a black man in Baltimore. For many white Americans, biker gangs – while threatening – are at least culturally familiar. At times, biker gangs have been romanticized in white American culture – a tough, on-the-road breed of “outlaws” rather than “thugs.” “Here we have a very popular television show about violent white biker gangs, ‘Sons of Anarchy,’ but no one is wringing their hands or pointing their finger that we have to investigate that kind of entertainment,” says Professor Sinnreich. But the problems of black communities in some ways remain opaque to many white Americans, leading to concern, when violence breaks out, about single parenthood, the glorification of “thug life,” and overtly sexual lyrics of some hip hop music. Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas said after the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore: “Liberals, admit it: Baltimore riots are part of a story of absent fathers.” Those are legitimate concerns. But that concern is often not reciprocated for similar aspects of white culture, some media analysts say. “When white people commit violence, they are typically framed by the media as discrete events that are only reflections on the individuals who are central to them,” says Sinnreich. “When black people commit violence, the media typically covers it as an indictment of the symptoms plaguing black Americans overall.” That perception has led to some activists and members of the black community to comment on the lack of hand-wringing that has accompanied the Waco shootout. One community activist sarcastically tweeted: Where's the tear gas and rubber bullets on these THUGS? #Waco pic.twitter.com/guTTg0ojtK— Dante Barry (@dantebarry) May 17, 2015 New York Times columnist Charles Blow added: When are we going to start asking how many of the ppl in the #Waco slaughter grew up in single-parent homes? Oh, that's right...— Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) May 17, 2015 The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, repeated some of the questions pointed at black protesters. Why won't America's biker gangs be more like Dr. Martin Luther King? #TheyTooHaveADream— Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) May 18, 2015 For other conservatives, the Waco gunfight was clearly different. “Making the comparison with Baltimore, many on the left ... demanded to know why the media did not describe the events in Waco as a ‘riot,’ ” wrote Kevin Williamson at The National Review, calling the comparisons “stupidity.” “The answer, obviously enough, is that the event in Waco was not a riot – it did not represent a general state of civil disorder, there were no mobs targeting property for destruction, etc.” A deeper question, however, is whether violent crimes by whites and minorities generate the same level of media soul-searching. “It is really interesting that the kinds of stereotypes and race-based arguments that occurred around the property destruction in Baltimore and the shooting [of two would-be terrorists in Garland, Texas] do not surface in the stories about the biker gang shootout,” says Gordon Coonfield, professor of media studies at Villanova University in Philadelphia. “And then there is the connection between violence and masculinity. ‘Breastaurants’ like Twin Peaks cater to misogynist gender stereotypes that are also at work here.” Various kinds of cultural assumptions, mostly unsaid and even unperceived, are often at work, adds Sinnreich. “The reality is that whether we’re explicitly talking about race or not, the way that we cover events in the media becomes an element in our national conversation on race,” he says. “The implicit presumptions that we bring to bear when covering a story about the motivations or the virtues or the vices of the people concerned reflect larger unsaid cultural assumptions about the social groups that those people come from.” |
|
|
| (1289831) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 08:35:29 2015, in response to Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by italianstallion on Wed May 20 23:02:12 2015. I made the same points in 2 posts in the last couple of days.Right. Which is why this new thread was completely unnecessary. |
|
|
| (1289832) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 08:35:57 2015, in response to Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Edwards! on Thu May 21 07:57:01 2015. Are you drunk? |
|
|
| (1289836) | |
2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu May 21 08:43:31 2015, in response to No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Wed May 20 21:33:27 2015. While the point about the use of the term thug has definitely been made, I'm a bit surprised the 2nd Amendment nutbags haven't launched into a rant about how the situation would have been improved if every single person in the parking lot had whatever firearm their little heart desired at that moment.Probably because it wouldn't have improved in the slightest. |
|
|
| (1289837) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 08:47:47 2015, in response to 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by WillD on Thu May 21 08:43:31 2015. It would have improved because more of them would have been killed and fewer of them living is better for everyone else, right? |
|
|
| (1289840) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu May 21 09:16:59 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 08:47:47 2015. Wrong.Murders of violent criminals by violent criminals are bad for society. |
|
|
| (1289841) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 09:18:56 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by AlM on Thu May 21 09:16:59 2015. What tips the balance to the "bad" conclusion? |
|
|
| (1289843) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu May 21 09:23:33 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 09:18:56 2015. The more that violent criminals murder other violent criminals, the more likely they are not to value the lives of non-criminals.Most murders that aren't within the family are of criminals killing criminals. But neighborhoods where criminals kill criminals in large numbers are also far more dangerous for non-criminals. |
|
|
| (1289844) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu May 21 09:40:16 2015, in response to Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Edwards! on Thu May 21 07:57:01 2015. Lack of coverage? It's been in the national news every day since it happened. Maybe there wasn't as much coverage as we saw in the Baltimore/Ferguson riots because large crowds didn't burn down and/or loot buildings and businesses? |
|
|
| (1289845) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu May 21 09:41:16 2015, in response to 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by WillD on Thu May 21 08:43:31 2015. Anti-2nd Amendments nutbags will say that if only those criminals were not allowed guns, this wouldn't have happened.Oh wait  |
|
|
| (1289850) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 10:12:58 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by AlM on Thu May 21 09:23:33 2015. Yeah, ok.....but, gang shootouts like this are great because everyone is all together and it's easy to arrest them (the ones who haven't died) after. As long as the cleanup is easy, I think thing it's good overall. |
|
|
| (1289904) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu May 21 14:43:34 2015, in response to Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Thu May 21 09:40:16 2015. bump |
|
|
| (1289918) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Thu May 21 16:33:28 2015, in response to Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by terRAPIN station on Thu May 21 08:35:57 2015. LOL |
|
|
| (1289919) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Thu May 21 16:36:25 2015, in response to Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by SMAZ on Thu May 21 08:07:40 2015. Yes in deed they've been treated differentlyHow about "BIKER LIVES MATTER" |
|
|
| (1289960) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Thu May 21 19:45:44 2015, in response to No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Wed May 20 21:33:27 2015. Right! They rumble with each other, then turn on the police, and they're not thugs. However... If I put on a dark colored hoodie, and walk outside minding my own business... I'm a thug, suspicious and so on. Major BS |
|
|
| (1289986) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by FtGreeneG on Thu May 21 22:53:25 2015, in response to Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Thu May 21 09:40:16 2015. There were riots during multiple May Day protest in multiple cities a couple wks didn't see 24/7 press coverage at those... |
|
|
| (1289987) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu May 21 22:53:51 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by SMAZ on Thu May 21 09:41:16 2015. Second Amendment nuts don't seem to understand that guns are manufactured objects and just assume they'll pop into existence whenever someone gains enough Crime Points or something.If guns are banned, where will the man in your image get one? All gun crimes are committed with legal guns— even if they were bought by someone not allowed to own a gun or stolen outright, they're still legal guns in that they wouldn't be there if guns were banned. |
|
|
| (1289989) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu May 21 23:09:21 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Thu May 21 22:53:51 2015. All gun crimes are committed with legal gunsSo are you saying no gun crimes are ever committed using banned guns? |
|
|
| (1289990) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 21 23:10:57 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Thu May 21 23:09:21 2015. He's back to lying again, I see.But he sure did scare Luch away from the board. |
|
|
| (1290009) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu May 21 23:49:03 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Thu May 21 23:09:21 2015. What guns are banned? |
|
|
|
| (1290013) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP—PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 22 01:30:23 2015, in response to Re: Questions Olog Can't Answer, posted by Nilet on Thu May 21 23:50:50 2015. Tell us how much you miss Luch. |
|
|
| (1290014) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP—PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 22 01:38:02 2015, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP—PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 22 01:30:23 2015.  |
|
|
|
| (1290018) | |
Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles? |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri May 22 03:19:55 2015, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP—PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 22 01:38:02 2015. Every time he comments in one of my threads (especially when I'm reminding him of the questions he's dodging), he always changes the title to the "robbed by a cop" thing. Do you have any idea why this is?Is it because he spends so much time obsessing over that thread that his autofill defaults to it or somesuch? Is it because he's so out of touch with reality that he thinks reminding me of one of my greatest victories will somehow bother me? Or is it an innocent technical glitch of some sort? I've seen thread titles change abruptly to those of old threads by accident before. |
|
|
| (1290020) | |
Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 22 03:42:00 2015, in response to Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles?, posted by Nilet on Fri May 22 03:19:55 2015. Sure ... drag ME into his longterm psychological maladies. I don't see no insurance card, brah ... :)Olog is the "fake Jewish" version of the Terrapin. If the turtle does something weird like calling himself "terRAPIN" (which seems a conglomeration of "terrorist" and "raping" then it's perfectly good for Olog to do it too. He's a wannabe, but ain't doing it right. But thread changers and handle changers are the seriously mentally ill crying out for help, blissfully unaware that Obamacare actually covers mental illness, where before no isurance company would pay for psychiatric care which is why FOX News still has an audience. They really can get help now ... operators are standing by. :) 
|
|
|
| (1290022) | |
Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles? |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri May 22 04:56:19 2015, in response to Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 22 03:42:00 2015. Obamacare covers mental illness?According to someone I know who works with medicaid, mental health coverage was just one of many things Obama willingly threw out in the name of "compromise" with a powerless, hated, and irrelevant Republican party who could have been simply overruled. Maybe the private insurance plans on the exchanges are different? |
|
|
| (1290026) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri May 22 07:14:23 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Thu May 21 22:53:51 2015. If guns are banned, where will the man in your image get one?From the same places that Mexican crime gangs get them. Gun control worked really well in Mexico....for the criminals. 
|
|
|
| (1290027) | |
Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles? |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri May 22 07:19:56 2015, in response to Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 22 03:42:00 2015. Keep your pants on when you pass the 'Rapin Station. |
|
|
| (1290031) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri May 22 08:35:42 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by SMAZ on Fri May 22 07:14:23 2015. So why does Canada have a comparable murder rate to the US for non-gun killings (3 per 100K) but only 1/6th the murder rate for killings with guns (0.5 per 100K vs 3 per 100K).My contention is that when people feel murderous they use the weapons they have at hand. Potential Canadian murderers usually don't have guns at hand, and it's just a lot harder to be succesful at killing someone with another weapon. |
|
|
| (1290044) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri May 22 09:34:21 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Thu May 21 23:49:03 2015. Oh, just a few |
|
|
| (1290045) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri May 22 09:34:41 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Thu May 21 23:49:03 2015. Oh, just a few |
|
|
| (1290046) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri May 22 09:36:03 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Fri May 22 09:34:41 2015. Sorry again for the double post. It's Larry's server giving me fits. |
|
|
| (1290067) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP—PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 22 12:25:49 2015, in response to Re: Brave Troll Olog Ran Away, posted by Nilet on Fri May 22 03:16:34 2015. I'm right here, you retard who doesn't know the answer to questions everyone else knows, even people like dand124 and spider-sucker. |
|
|
| (1290071) | |
Re: |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 22 12:34:06 2015, in response to Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles?, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri May 22 07:19:56 2015. I think maybe we ought to send that post to the FBI. |
|
|
| (1290073) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP—PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 22 12:37:06 2015, in response to Re: Selkirk, Do You Know Why Olog Changes Titles?, posted by Nilet on Fri May 22 03:19:55 2015. Hypocrite. You change thread titles all the time. Far more than I do. But your thread title changes are good while mine aren't?You know who else is a thread title changer, but you don't complain about him? "Italianstallion". |
|
|
| (1290225) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 23 00:41:13 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by SMAZ on Fri May 22 07:14:23 2015. From the same places that Mexican crime gangs get them.You mean buying them legally in America? That's the very thing I just proposed banning. Gun control worked really well in Mexico....for the criminals. Mexican gangs buy their guns legally in America. If America banned gun sales, their supply would cut off. You're just further proving my point— all gun crimes are committed with legal guns, and banning guns means that criminals will not be able to acquire guns because there won't be any physically available to acquire. So I ask again— if guns are banned, where will the criminals physically get their guns from? The quote in your image file is absolute bullshit as well, for quite a number of reasons but I won't bother dissecting it since I doubt you'll understand why. |
|
|
| (1290237) | |
Re: Labor Day Wk-end At Branford |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 23 01:19:06 2015, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP—PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 22 12:37:06 2015. Hypocrite. You change thread titles all the time. Far more than I do.Ooh, nice straw man! If you learn reading comprehension and look back at my previous post, you'll notice I wasn't referring to changing thread titles in general, but to your habit of changing every thread title of every reply to me to that of a long-dead thread coincidentally (or not) started by me and which may potentially be reflective of your incoherent, diseased thought processes. Neither I nor Italianstallion do anything comparable (not counting this post, where I intentionally changed the title to that of an old thread I selected by random number generator in order to mock your habit of doing same). Since you won't tell me why you obsess with the "robbed by a cop" thread (after all, it's on the LoQOCA so you can't answer it without proving that you're mentally defective), I will instead try to glean the answer through experimentation. One hypothesis is that you keep referencing that thread because you're a troll and you think that it will bother me. I can test this hypothesis by revealing the conclusion to the story started in that thread to see if it changes your behaviour. OK, so as that thread noted, I was illegally detained by a cop who deleted all of my photos. Afterwards, I filed formal complaints on the subject with the relevant authorities. The relevant authorities determined that the cop had, in fact, broken the law in doing those things and was subjected to disciplinary action. At a later date, the same cop was called out to investigate "illegal" legal photography. When she discovered it was me (and that I remembered her), she ran away, insisting she wasn't going to bother me and just wanted to leave. From what I heard, she is no longer employed as a cop— her run-in with me likely put her on probation, so one more mistake got her fired. And yes, I recovered all of the photos. So whenever you change the thread title, you are reminding me of the time I pwned a cop and won a major victory for photography rights. |
|
|
| (1290244) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 23 01:47:09 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Fri May 22 09:34:21 2015. Those guns aren't banned— the Sandy Hook murders were committed with one of the guns on that list which was legally purchased and legally owned. According to your document, Connecticut (and only Connecticut) has restricted sales of those guns by licensed dealers— the guns are still legal to own and still legal to purchase (at gun shows, outside of Connecticut, etc). |
|
|
| (1290251) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat May 23 07:24:11 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Sat May 23 01:47:09 2015. False."I just moved into Connecticut and I possess an Assault Weapon. May I keep the weapon or if not what are my options? Within 90 days of moving to Connecticut, you may sell the weapon to any licensed gun dealer, or you must do one of the following; 1) render the weapon permanently inoperable, 2) sell it to an out of state dealer, 3) relinquish the weapon to a law enforcement agency. If you choose to keep the weapon you risk felony arrest." |
|
|
| (1290258) | |
Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Sat May 23 09:21:20 2015, in response to No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Wed May 20 21:33:27 2015. Of course there were no thugs. Why would be there? |
|
|
| (1290312) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 23 13:55:24 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Sat May 23 07:24:11 2015. That's still Connecticut, the state where one of those weapons was legally purchased, legally owned, and used to commit a mass murder at a school. So what gives?In any case, you need a nationwide ban, so posting a Connecticut ban isn't much use— remember, even stolen guns count as "legal" guns when determining how criminals managed to gain access to them, and states aren't allowed to enforce border control with their neighbors. Or to reiterate my earlier point in more detail— you can't give me an example of a single gun crime that was not committed with a gun that was (a) purchased legally, (b) purchased by someone who was individually banned (eg, a felon) in a location where such purchases are legal by default, (c) stolen from a legal owner, or (d) originally introduced to the black market by means of any of the above. |
|
|
|
| (1290323) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat May 23 15:29:00 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Nilet on Sat May 23 13:55:24 2015. None of which has anything to do with your original statement: All gun crimes are committed with legal gunsAnyone using an unregistered assault weapon in CT in the commission of a crime has committed a gun crime using an illegal gun. It's not just Connecticut. New York State has a similar ban as Connecticut regarding assault weapons. Illinois prohibits the possession of automatic firearms (such as machine guns), short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors. In California, assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, in California, is generally prohibited. |
|
|
| (1290456) | |
Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 24 02:35:54 2015, in response to Re: 2nd Amendment? Re: No Thugs at Scene of Biker Gang 'Rumble', posted by Dave on Sat May 23 15:29:00 2015. None of which has anything to do with your original statement: All gun crimes are committed with legal gunsAnyone using an unregistered assault weapon in CT in the commission of a crime has committed a gun crime using an illegal gun. I see the meaning of that statement flew right over your head. Let's see if I can explain it in terms simple enough for you to comprehend. Guns are manufactured legally, sold legally, and owned legally. Some guns may be illegal in some places, and some individuals may be banned from buying guns, but fundamentally guns are legal by default. People who wish to own guns but are banned from using them or who wish to own a gun banned in their local area can turn to a black market of supposedly "illegal" guns. However, this black market is supplied from the legal market— a so-called "illegal" gun is actually a legal gun that was transported across state lines or city limits, or a legal gun that was sold to someone individually banned from owning it, or a legal gun that was stolen from its owner. As such, if you banned guns, the supply of so-called "illegal" guns would dry up, because an "illegal" gun is actually just a legal gun that slipped into the wrong hands. That was the point of my statement— all gun crimes were committed with a gun that wouldn't have existed if guns were banned. Claiming there is a distinction between "legal" and "illegal" guns is meaningless because they both come from the same (legal) factories and enter the market through the same (legal) distribution channels; ban guns, shutter the factories, and close the legal distribution channels and the "illegal" guns will vanish along with the rest of them. Pointing to state-level bans is irrelevant— an assault rifle banned in New York that was manufactured legally in South Carolina, sold legally in Virginia, and driven into New York is still a legal gun when discussing the effect of a gun ban on gun supply. Like I said, you cannot offer a single example of a gun crime committed with a gun that wasn't originally manufactured legally and put into circulation legally. |
|
|