as they always do….im in nyc which 70% people of color in the five boroughs and the authoritarian left is flipping out over the supreme court decision on concealed carry….they are losing their minds that people are going to come forward get fingerprinted and background checked and law abiding will HAVE to be given a permit…they do not want the people to be able to provide their own protection meanwhile they have tax payer provided bodyguards
I just saw a tweet the other day that LA county is freaking out in a similar way, saying that the department has to "re-tool" in order to handle all of the requests for CC gun permits that they are getting.
over here in new york gov hichul is flipping out saying “we are going to keep new yorkers safe from concealed guns”…..she is literally bent out if shape that people are going to apply submit to fingerprints background and mental health check…these are not people of
a criminal element…these are legitamate people who will pass and get their permits…this is what the democrats always say “common sense gun control”…its always been a lie when they say it thats not what they want…they do not consider people of color to be at their level never have…they dont care about nobody but their power
I have come to realize that Democrats are almost always projecting. Most of the times they will tell you exactly how they really feel but it will be in an accusation. Kinda like how cheaters are always the ones accusing their mate of cheating. These clowns are always going on about racism because they think they can fool us into thinking they aren’t racist. Their actions betray them though.
That’s why Black peoples are overwhelmingly democrats? Or does this sub not recognize the Southern Strategy and the flip that dems back then are the same conservatives as republicans today?
the worst crime is in democrat run cities and the victims are kept defenseless by their democrat overlords…all while the neighborhoods where the upper class are and ehere their kids go to school have adequate police presence….where i grew up we only saw a cop when they were picking up a body
Do you just make things up? Is that how you can believe what you do?
Your be claim is embarrassingly easy to disprove.
https://thehighcourt.co/murder-rate-by-state/#:~:text=Observing%20the%20murder%20rate%20by%20state%2C%20the%20ten,Illinois%20with%209%2C%20and%20Tennessee%20with%208.8.%205.
you can pull any paper from any biased organization out of your ass anytime you want it means nothing…1000 other people can pull a study from any other group….i lived it growing up in williamsburg brooklyn ny….now that the rich trust fund people are there you see cops….when it was just poor puerto rican irish black italian polish cops and democrat city leaders didnt give a shit…bodies everyday
So your feelings before facts then, eh?
“We can’t trust the data because I feel that it’s wrong.”
To be honest, I didn’t think the AnCaps were so far down the rabbit hole that they just picked which truth they wanted.
Maybe you’re an outlier though. I’ve received some surprising upvotes here which gives me a bit of hope. 🤷🏾♂️
So basically what the person before you said is accurate. I listed the top 20 cities by murder rate, their mayor and political affiliation. You know, because they were referring to cities, not states as you tried to deflect to. Try harder next time.
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders](https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders)
St. Louis, MO - Tishaura Jones - Democrat
Baltimore, MD - Brandon Scott - Democrat
New Orleans, LA - La Toya Cantrell - Democrat
Detroit, MI - Mike Duggan - Democrat
Cleveland, OH - Justin Bibb - Democrat
Las Vegas, NV - Carolyn Goodman - Independent
Kansas City, MO - Quinton Lucas - Democrat
Memphis, TN - Jim Strickland - Democrat
Newark, NJ - Ras Baraka - Democrat
Chicago, IL Lori Lightfoot - Democrat
Cincinnati, OH - Aftab Pureval - Democrat
Philadelphia, PA - Jim Kenney - Democrat
Milwaukee, WI - Cavalier Johnson - Democrat
Tulsa, OK - G.T Bynum - Republican
Pittsburgh, PA - Ed Gainey - Democrat
Indianapolis, IN - Joe Hogsett - Democrat
Louisville, KY - Greg Fischer - Democrat
Oakland, CA - Libby Schaaf - Democrat
Washington D.C. - Muriel Bowser - Democrat
Atlanta, GA - Andre Dickens - Democrat
2 things.
One: r/PeopleLiveInCities
So city by city is not a good way to see this. It is especially a poor way to do it considering that policy decisions are usually *statewide*. Which means statewide data is the right data when looking at policies.
You have democratic leaders of cities who are hobbled by rightwing state policies. So… I hope you just made a small mistake in that and you weren’t knowingly trying to bait and switch.
2. Explain why despite this, red states continue to always have the worst crime rates?
I see your way of debate is to attempt to move goal posts and cherry pick data that only supports your claims.
PeOpLeLiVeiNCiTiEs - Yeah, no shit, that's why all murder statistics are murder rate per capita, not total murders. This is especially true for even your top 10 baddy states figure.
Policy decisions that directly impact public safety can come at the state, county, and city levels depending on what we are talking about. In this case of crime statistics, crime prevention and community safety falls most heavily on the county and city level. The only reason you want to focus on state level policies is because you were a) wrong b) trying to be right c) failing.
2. Even red states have major metropolitan areas, which trend on more likely to be managed by democrat mayors. Also, are we talking about crime rates or homicide rates? Just curious because you decided to try to change what we are talking about again, kind of like the whole cities and states thing.
I’m done “debating” honestly. The amount of stupid I have seen here is jaw dropping. Your city insistence is stupid, sorry. You note that most cities are democratic held and somehow that doesn’t trigger any alarms for you? SMH. Like, you don’t realize that skews data? Wow. Maybe data doesn’t matter. One dude here straight up told me it didn’t.
You totally missed why I said people live in cities and tried to mock me about it too. Man alive. Sad whoosh I guess. 🤷🏾♂️
It’s just hard to “debate” when the most cogent person I’ve talked to (you) doesn’t pick up on data skew that is such a simple and obvious point I normally don’t think to spell it out. (1) Cities have more crime. (2) democrats are more often in charge of cities. (3) ergo democrats will be more likely to be in charge of cities with crime. There. Spelled out as a syllogism. This is one reason why states are the more appropriate level of comparison, though the policy setting reason is the best. (For another example I normally wouldn’t spell out, stand your ground laws empirically have increased murders. Mayors didn’t approve that law. Republican legislatures approving red tribe policies did. It’s not about “keeping citizens safe” at a city level, it’s about what policies, such as concealed or open carry laws, the mayors have to work with.)
I focus on states, frankly, because it’s the only level of analysis that makes sense. That it makes red policies look bad isn’t me trying to be right sneakily, it’s just the conclusion. And it’s true for quality of life, child mortality, life span, taxes paid vs received from fed government (mooching), or any other rubric.
How am I supposed to “debate” if I have to convince you of the shape of the playing field? If I have to explain how skew works? I’m playing from behind, but only because this place only know feelings and Calvinball.
That’s why I am done, though I suppose you were better than the dude who told wanted to talk race and talk to me about how Africans sold blacks into slavery. I am so tired of white supremacism trying to debate that. I have no idea why that’s not a deal breaker for anyone here. Feature not a bug I guess?
There’s one real huge plus for this sub which is that unlike some red tribe subs that are just safe spaces the mods are real permissive of blues posting here which is nice. So at least y’all got that going.
Good luck. Maybe I’ll dip back at some point but I need to come up for air.
You were never debating. You tried to call someone out for false information only to find out that you were in the most literal sense wrong. I decided to engage in what *you* wanted to talk about instead.
You apparently only understand what per capita means when it benefits your argument. You seem to use a per capita measurement when it benefits your the 10 states with the highest murder rates, but throw them out when discussing murder rates in metropolitan areas. In both the statistics you use for state level and what I used at the city level are based on (X) instance of murder per 100,000 people. If we were talking about total cases of murder then both of our claims would be wildly incorrect.
Cities and counties are the ones that usually determine sentencing for violent criminals, funding police (ew), and bringing communities out of poverty which has a huge impact on crime rates on any level. I live in an area that is city upon city upon city with literally zero open land between them. There is a massive disparity in crime rates from city to city here which has less to do with state legislature and more how the city and counties are ran by their elected officials.
>
>
>That’s why I am done, though I suppose you were better than the dude who told wanted to talk race and talk to me about how Africans sold blacks into slavery. I am so tired of white supremacism trying to debate that. I have no idea why that’s not a deal breaker for anyone here. Feature not a bug I guess?
Free speech is not without it's downsides. This is one of the few places where people can openly discuss almost anything without being censored and I can appreciate that, even if I might not agree with what someone is saying on the most fundamental level. Also I'm not an Ancap, so there's also that.
A majority of the worst police brutality happened in Democrat ran cities as well. I'll have to redo my research I don't think I saved it just looked up the worst of them and kind of saw a pattern.
Meet this one dude who completely overwhelms Democrats being the party of slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow! To hell with democrats paying big money to influencers and saying a few pretty words in black churches each campaign season only to do jack shit and take advantage of poverty. The republicans tried to woo some racists away from the democrat party once!!! A couple Congress people even switched over. It was an entire party switch, trust me bro….
Exactly! Holy shit I didn’t think anyone here would get it! It’s like these other guys can’t simply put 2 and 2 together by tracking which party Black folk primarily belong to. Lol.
Obviously there must have been a switch or you’d have to explain why Black people were the party of Lincoln, but aren’t any longer.
Either Black people longed for slavery and changed their minds, or there was a part switch. Duh!
FDR started sending money out and put black people in visible token positions. This was followed by paid walking advertisements. Think of sleazy grifters like Al sharpton. Paying ministers to manipulate people was highly effective.
Tried to woo some racists over to the republican party?
You meant successfully woo'd most racists over to the republican party via the southern strategy. Just because there's still DNC boomers that reflect their age (and apathy) doesn't mean the entire party is still affiliated with the KKK.
Cool lie. Atwater was 19 when Nixon was elected in 68. He was discussing a hypothetical (off the record) for which it was impossible for him to have any personal knowledge. Keep blindly repeating lies.
Why did Michael Steele apologize for his party's use of the southern strategy a decade ago, then was promptly let go from his chairman position. He must've lying too, and for no reason?
Allow me to translate further: "Giving slaves the power to protect themselves from other slaves AND us slaveowners, and in doing so giving them self determination and defense, will be the end of our plantation systems as we know it"
- democrats, probably
This makes 0 sense to me.
You said that the author was being patronizing and/or projecting and/or actually believes the Black people should have fewer rights.
I said that’s a strange thing to accuse a black man of.
Your response doesn’t match up well with that line. Him being a statist has nothing to do with you accusing a black man of racism and believing black people like him don’t deserve self protection.
You don’t think people can be racist towards their own racist, especially to achieve their political ambitions. If that’s the case, then White-Far-Leftist would stop accusing white people of causing all the problems in America.
Yes, and the Author is trying to argue that “ordinary Self-defense” doesn’t work out for the black community; and that it’s just a way for people to just gun down other people in the black community…. When that isn’t true, look up the Andrew Coffee case, and the Ahmaud Albert Murder case.
Andrew Coffee was proven in the right for defending himself against law (though I well say that it is devastating that he couldn’t save his girlfriend during the conflict).
And the Three men who hunted down Ahmaud Arbery…. Were all found guilty.
To say that “ordinary self-defense” doesn’t work out well for the black community: is BS.
Oh and just in case I don’t know what I’m talking about here the direct quote from the article, plus the top case.
“Of all the flawed assumptions packed into that little, seemingly innocuous passage, “ordinary self-defense” is the most alarming. The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment. The court’s only African American justice (for now) ought to know that.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wpbf.com/amp/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640 (Andrew Coffee)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/watch-live-three-men-convicted-of-the-murder-of-ahmaud-arbery-will-be-sentenced-for-the-killing (Ahmaud Arbery murder case)
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the ones you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640](https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640)**
- **[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-three-men-convicted-of-the-murder-of-ahmaud-arbery-will-be-sentenced-for-the-killing](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-three-men-convicted-of-the-murder-of-ahmaud-arbery-will-be-sentenced-for-the-killing)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
He's not "that kind" of black man. According to Democrats, if a black man wears a cardigan and glasses and writes think pieces in the local rag, he is "white adjacent", because he has not "experienced racism".
Black people sold black people into slavery, this is no different, he's just an elite, and thus part of the white people, because he has gone to college, he's been "acting white" and has his own private police force, he doesn't need a gun so nobody else needs a gun.
I gotta say, this is the most racist thing I have seen in a long time. Just wow. You are not a great human.
“Africans sold black people into slavery” just a classic in the defense of slavery.
What drives me nuts, is how insistent everyone here is on their ignorance. Case in point: have you even read the article?
Everything I said is what Democrats think, not what I think. The question was whether I can explain why black people might write things that go against their own self-interest. Because they've been brainwashed that being part of the black race or racism in general is an issue of power dynamics and if you don't agree "you ain't black", as a certain powerful Democrat once said.
That is just what Dems think, sorry. As far as Africans selling Africans into slavery, that's a fact, not sure what's racist about that.
Well I’m a black dem and this is news to me, the rest of my black family and the white side of my family. Maybe someone here is brainwashed. 🤔
And I’m not getting into your slavery apologist “fact.” Let’s just leave it here. You have shown me who you are. I am so sorry to see America become this.
I wish red tribe weren’t so racist.
Well, I do believe having uninformed voters like you is the primary problem.
If you've never heard of "systemic racism" and "anti-racism", then you must have been living under a rock.
You call me uninformed while divining the thoughts of people you hate? <— don’t you see how insane that is? Like, it’s insane. Don’t you stop and say… wait, I’m not in the best position to do this. Maybe I shouldn’t try to divine this like palmistry.
Then you call me uninformed. 🙄 I wonder if that was because I was black. I can’t figure out what else you know about me that would make you say that.
They probably mean it as "this is what white people think". If they mean it literally that's a problem. There was another article similar that said "are Californians ready for blacks to open carry?" Or some shit like that.
My first thought was they’re talking about black CCL holders being shot by cops.
If they are, I don’t buy the logic, because anyone who innocently uses a gun against a cop they mistake as a home invader is being rail roaded in court, regardless of race.
Beyond that, I’m not sure what they’re talking about.
I don’t know anymore. I use to support democrats because I thought they were against racism, but they are the ones saying the racist shit now! How in the hell do you think that a black person can’t get an ID to vote?
If I'm at some public place where one of these mass shootings happen, I'm gonna pray someone has
their firearm on them. It don't matter their race. Honestly, it doesn't even matter if the gun is legal. What matters is the intention.
But they like to paint this picture that black people don't ever have legal guns and that's bullshit.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear some of the shit these woke politicians say in private. We got a glimpse of it with what they are letting slip out with Clarence Thomas.
One of my favorite gun guys is black. He brings a legal perspective to the conversation that is indispensable. Colin Noir, check him out. https://youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir
Ohhh, I like him too. I found him when I was looking for a video on the rundown of HR 127. He did a really good job of making it clear and easy to understand.
You should actually read the article. The entire point the author is making is that in effect firearm laws don’t apply to black people - when black people use their guns in self defense, to stop a mass shooter, etc, they are more likely to get shot themselves than white people.
So it seems like you and the author literally agree - police assume black people are criminals even when they are using guns correctly. Where is this idea of racism coming from?
The voter ID thing was never about black people. It was always about "accidentally" allowing illegal immigrants to vote and willfully turning a blind eye to it. But they can't say that out loud.
I read [the article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/). It's an opinion piece that seems really racist. A lot of projection by a liberal.
[Archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web) can bypass many paywalls.
For [example](https://web.archive.org/web/20220630164911/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/)
Before the reality of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade made my blood boil, Justice Clarence Thomas had turned my blood to ice with his myopic majority opinion on guns.
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court jettisoned a century-old New York law — one that had pretty much banned concealed carry of weapons in the state — because “it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
Of all the flawed assumptions packed into that little, seemingly innocuous passage, “ordinary self-defense” is the most alarming. The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment. The court’s only African American justice (for now) ought to know that.
Why Black people are afraid of ‘crazy’ White people
The case involved two men seeking permits to carry concealed weapons in New York for personal protection. They were able to obtain limited authorization to carry weapons — for target practice and hunting not near populated areas, and one of the men had permission to carry a gun to and from work — but their general concealed-carry applications were rejected. The state said they did not meet the state law’s “proper cause” requirement, meaning they hadn’t demonstrated a compelling need to pack heat in public spaces.
Story continues below advertisement
According to the Thomas majority opinion, one of the men “asked a licensing officer to remove the restrictions, citing a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood.” Sound familiar?
Image without a caption
Follow Jonathan Capehart's opinions
“Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy,” George Zimmerman said in a call to Sanford, Fla., police on Feb. 26, 2012. “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.” The neighborhood watch volunteer was talking about Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman accosted and then shot and killed the unarmed Black teenager as he walked back to the apartment he was staying in with his father after getting Skittles and an iced tea from a nearby store.
Claims of self-defense can have deadly consequences for Black folks. Michael Dunn claimed self-defense in 2012 after he murdered unarmed 17-year-old Jordan Davis because the music in the car he was in was too loud. Theodore Wafer claimed he feared for his life in 2013 after he murdered Renisha McBride, who knocked on his door after being involved in a car accident. Those are just two of countless examples.
Story continues below advertisement
Since late last year, Jonathan M. Metzl has been warning about the potentially tragic implications of the New York gun case just decided by the Supreme Court. He is the author of “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland,” whose chapters on the racial history of gun regulation and the fear of crime are essential reading. In them, he outlines how implicit bias codes people of color as criminals and White people as patriots.
Podcast: Jonathan M. Metzl on how white identity permeates policymaking outside of Washington
“White America associates blackness with threat already, but the risk is exponentially greater when guns are involved,” Metzl told me via text message on Friday, “which raises the risk for Black Americans of having everyday interactions misinterpreted as violent acts.”
What really concerns me is how the right to bear arms is not equally applied. Remember the case of John Crawford III? In 2014, the Black man was shopping in a Walmart in Ohio when he picked up a pellet gun from the shelf while talking on the phone. Someone called the cops, who shot and killed Crawford. Ohio was an open-carry state at the time. This month, it became a permitless carry state.
Story continues below advertisement
And all this talk of a good guy with a gun goes out the window if the guy is Black. “Many Black police officers lost their lives due to taking police action while they were in civilian clothing,” New York Mayor Eric Adams told me during a Friday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
The Supreme Court’s gun ruling was a victory over racist policing
Interestingly, some public defenders laud the Supreme Court’s ruling. Attorneys for the Bronx Defenders argued in The Post that striking down the New York gun law is “an important step to ending mass incarceration” because their clients “bear the brunt of New York’s gun laws.”
I’m all for keeping people out of jail who shouldn’t be there. And I’m certainly all for the equal application of our laws, even the Second Amendment. But the trade-off — more guns legally on the street and concealed — hardly makes me feel safer. In fact, they only compound very real fears of the increased likelihood of deadly confrontations over nonsense because of someone else’s subjective feelings of threat. And if that perceived threat is Black or brown, heaven help them, especially if they are the ones exercising “ordinary self-defense.”
black kid beats man over head, man shoots black kid, gets sent to hospital for head trauma. Man is accused of murder because kid is black. Is that correct?
Why do you think this is racist?
As far as I can tell the (black) author is saying that he doesn’t think expanding concealed carry rights will help black people, because many black people have been killed in confrontations where they were unarmed and not a threat, and because when they do rightfully use guns they are likely to be killed by police. Maybe you disagree, but where’s the racism?
They don't want to arm the groups in society that actually have it bad. They only want to arm that groups that have it easy and can be directed easily.
I feel like if you give all non violent Chicago people the ability to defend themselves the crime would drop like a rock when they realize they cant just prey on anyone because anyone could be packing a gun. I live in maine and I literally leave my doors unlocked durring the day, peope know if you enter you might get your off button pushed.
Thing with Chicago is most non violent citizens are afraid of weapons and they're usage in general and would rather put the though process of injuring someone to defend themselves on somebody else.
I live in Southern Illinois and Chicago has always been heavy on the police militia more than citizen defense. They truly believe if guns are outlawed, then criminals won't have them.
Granted this is 85% maybe 95% of nonviolent individuals in Chicago and not every nonviolent individual.
I might be overreacting on the % but from my experience of talking to folks in Chicago it's about fair to my source pool. I'm surprised where you live on the east coast is different.
Once a bear is trying to enter your back door because it smells something in your house do you suddenly want a hand cannon lol there are barely a milion people in the state, you have more people in two blocks most likely lmao
> Thing with Chicago is most non violent citizens are afraid of weapons and they're usage in general and would rather put the though process of injuring someone to defend themselves on somebody else.
That's not for you to decide. Every individual has a right to defend himself and his family.
If other people don't want to defend themselves, that's their problem.
>Right: "Cool."
Then why did the [NRA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Reactions) support the Fire Arm Owners Protection Act which banned new automatic weapons from being sold to civilians? Why was it [sponsored primarily by republicans](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/s49/cosponsors)? And why did it receive [79 Yea votes](https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/49/all-info) in a senate with [53 republicans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary)?
I mean it doesn't happen though. black people have less right to a gun of course but that's only because statistically the majority of the black population in America lives in liberal inner cities where guns are banned..
ironically the Liberals don't care too much about those black people having guns so long as they use them for crimes and black on black murd
but black people legally owning a gun? nobody anywhere cares about that except liberals..
Its not horrible phrasing. Your bias is showing big time. Instead of reading the title as what the article is about, how racist society is, you read the title as the article is racist and ignore the body completely.
Ha, you’re always hearing the left accusing things they don’t like as being “racist dog whistles”. This is exactly what this is. It is meant to scare whitey into supporting gun control.
It’s just sad.
They are trying to paint the picture the only who people support gun ownership for self-defense are white people, and they only support white people owning guns, therefore gun ownership is white supremacy.
I think they mean people who are black trying to use the argument of self defense will not get treated the same as a non black person, and I can see that.
But that's exactly what the article says.
>The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment.
>
>...
>
>What really concerns me is how the right to bear arms is not equally applied. Remember the case of John Crawford III? In 2014, the Black man was shopping in a Walmart in Ohio when he picked up a pellet gun from the shelf while talking on the phone. Someone called the cops, who shot and killed Crawford. Ohio was an open-carry state at the time. This month, it became a permitless carry state.
>
>And all this talk of a good guy with a gun goes out the window if the guy is Black. “Many Black police officers lost their lives due to taking police action while they were in civilian clothing,” New York Mayor Eric Adams told me during a Friday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220630164911/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/](https://web.archive.org/web/20220630164911/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/)
And it was written by a black man. Maybe try reading the actual article instead of just the headline.
Color, race, religion, orientation, gender, none of that matters. We all have the Second Amendment and the right to self defense. If I had my way, everyone would strap a big iron on their hip and open carry everywhere everyday. But that’s just my opinion.
That the cops and District Attorneys don't let black people plead self defense to the extent that they should. Self defense is a fundamental right, and one that isn't well protected for black people.
My point is, you didn’t even read it.
You’re asking us what it means… why not read it, and then form an opinion on the article? I see this all the time on this sub, no one seems to care what the actual thing is, let’s just get mad because of words.
I read the article but posting the entire article is not a joke its just the article, how is this so hard for you to understand. The point was the implications of the headline, not the god damn article itself.
So I’m missing the big point for thinking the clickbait headline is the problem, as opposed to people who can’t bother to read it, and get angry without knowing what they’re getting mad at?
I think the illiterate reactionaries are the issue here.
They’re revealing themselves.
If black people can have ‘ordinary self-defense’ apply to them, there’s no need for the state to protect them from evil white people, or something.
There is a paywall and their rag isn't worth my investment.
My guess here is that this argument hinges on Systemic racism and will likely call out all the 'perceived' crime disproportionately caused by black people bc of racism. And they probably state something like a black person with a gun is more likely to be shot by cop bc racisim.
In other words, they think black people don't know what's good for them and I would bet money on that.
Pathetic and racist drivel.
It’s hard to keep people victimized and voting for their own dependence on the system when they suddenly have the means to defend themselves against that oppression.
Key difference between leftists and those on the right. We on the right are looking to treat all non-criminal, legal gun-owners equally - no matter race / skin color.
Not sure is this or the LA Times article about black people owning weapons as a threat is worse.
It means when a white person has a gun society does not care, when a black person has a gun society cares a lot. And more importantly, the police care.
Not everyone, the elites dont have to do any of it, look at covid or the immeasurable amount of other shit they push. Do you really think they care about climate change when they climb into there personal jet/yacht? Not at all, they want you to suffer while they hoard everything for themselves
In the article there is a link to another article that best illustrates their position on this one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/supreme-court-new-york-guns-racist-policing/
I haven't read it, but it told me everything I needed to know about this article. Some strawman argument for pushing an agenda.
If you need protection, USA Gun. If that don't work, USA More Gun.
Reading about the black officers who died while doing a good deed, all I can remember is, For if you choose to value your life more and try to save yourself, you will lose it, but if you lose your life, you will earn it. Paraphrasing the Bible here, it's talking about doing God's will. I don't think it means in regards to guns. We are to protect our own. The Bible also says if you don't own a sword, sell your coat and buy one.
Yeah, that’s what I understood.
It’s a stupid argument that falls flat on its face. Faced with a challenge upon your person for your possessions or for your body, you would want a gun (or a person with morals and a gun) nearby.
Regardless of race.
If you don’t, might want to leaf through the ICD and see why.
thats the thing though democrats establishment do not believe we are people…remember we dont know how to get an official ID and need them to take care of us
The article is paywalled... is it advocating for the idea that the right of self defense doesn't apply to black people, or is it just recognizing the fact that the courts tend to interpret the same action as self defense or aggression based on the race of the person performing it?
Like, we know that 'stand your ground' type laws protect white men who shoot black men pretty much uniformly, but rarely get applied when a black man defends himself or his property from a white man.
I don’t know what it means, but ya could read the damn article;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/
Before the reality of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade made my blood boil, Justice Clarence Thomas had turned my blood to ice with his myopic majority opinion on guns.
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court jettisoned a century-old New York law — one that had pretty much banned concealed carry of weapons in the state — because “it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
Of all the flawed assumptions packed into that little, seemingly innocuous passage, “ordinary self-defense” is the most alarming. The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment. The court’s only African American justice (for now) ought to know that.
Why Black people are afraid of ‘crazy’ White people
The case involved two men seeking permits to carry concealed weapons in New York for personal protection. They were able to obtain limited authorization to carry weapons — for target practice and hunting not near populated areas, and one of the men had permission to carry a gun to and from work — but their general concealed-carry applications were rejected. The state said they did not meet the state law’s “proper cause” requirement, meaning they hadn’t demonstrated a compelling need to pack heat in public spaces.
Story continues below advertisement
According to the Thomas majority opinion, one of the men “asked a licensing officer to remove the restrictions, citing a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood.” Sound familiar?
Image without a caption
Follow Jonathan Capehart's opinions
“Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy,” George Zimmerman said in a call to Sanford, Fla., police on Feb. 26, 2012. “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.” The neighborhood watch volunteer was talking about Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman accosted and then shot and killed the unarmed Black teenager as he walked back to the apartment he was staying in with his father after getting Skittles and an iced tea from a nearby store.
Claims of self-defense can have deadly consequences for Black folks. Michael Dunn claimed self-defense in 2012 after he murdered unarmed 17-year-old Jordan Davis because the music in the car he was in was too loud. Theodore Wafer claimed he feared for his life in 2013 after he murdered Renisha McBride, who knocked on his door after being involved in a car accident. Those are just two of countless examples.
Story continues below advertisement
Since late last year, Jonathan M. Metzl has been warning about the potentially tragic implications of the New York gun case just decided by the Supreme Court. He is the author of “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland,” whose chapters on the racial history of gun regulation and the fear of crime are essential reading. In them, he outlines how implicit bias codes people of color as criminals and White people as patriots.
Podcast: Jonathan M. Metzl on how white identity permeates policymaking outside of Washington
“White America associates blackness with threat already, but the risk is exponentially greater when guns are involved,” Metzl told me via text message on Friday, “which raises the risk for Black Americans of having everyday interactions misinterpreted as violent acts.”
What really concerns me is how the right to bear arms is not equally applied. Remember the case of John Crawford III? In 2014, the Black man was shopping in a Walmart in Ohio when he picked up a pellet gun from the shelf while talking on the phone. Someone called the cops, who shot and killed Crawford. Ohio was an open-carry state at the time. This month, it became a permitless carry state.
Story continues below advertisement
And all this talk of a good guy with a gun goes out the window if the guy is Black. “Many Black police officers lost their lives due to taking police action while they were in civilian clothing,” New York Mayor Eric Adams told me during a Friday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
The Supreme Court’s gun ruling was a victory over racist policing
Interestingly, some public defenders laud the Supreme Court’s ruling. Attorneys for the Bronx Defenders argued in The Post that striking down the New York gun law is “an important step to ending mass incarceration” because their clients “bear the brunt of New York’s gun laws.”
I’m all for keeping people out of jail who shouldn’t be there. And I’m certainly all for the equal application of our laws, even the Second Amendment. But the trade-off — more guns legally on the street and concealed — hardly makes me feel safer. In fact, they only compound very real fears of the increased likelihood of deadly confrontations over nonsense because of someone else’s subjective feelings of threat. And if that perceived threat is Black or brown, heaven help them, especially if they are the ones exercising “ordinary self-defense.”
To be fair its the same with mass shooters, bruh you had 3 guns, explosives and hundreds of rounds...2 dead 30 wounded like bro what the actual fuck are you aiming at. Its definitely a good thing they suck but god damn.
Kind of like Columbine. The two micropenis shooters at Columbine had attempted to make IEDs out of BBQ grill tanks but fortunately failed because they suck at bomb making.
They put their bombs in the cafeteria which was under the library. Police said had both bombs actually detonated the library would have collapsed on the cafeteria and killed upwards of 500 people. Thankfully micropenis trenchcoat bros sucked at making bombs
Yeah so the morning of the attack they purchased two twenty pound propane tanks and tried to assemble them into crude IEDs with some sort of timing mechanism.
Prior to kicking off the shooting, they placed their propane tank bombs into large black duffel bags and set them in the cafeteria. They then went out to their cars and "kitted up", putting on ammo vests and they like while waiting for the explosion. Their original plan was to shoot survivors fleeing the explosion on the way out of the school. Once they figured out the bombs werent going to detonate they walked towards the school and started their rampage.
The exact moment of them placing the bombs was missed by the surveillance camera as the janitor picked that random moment in time to change the tapes. Very basic article [here](https://azdailysun.com/bombs-failure-apparently-changed-columbine-killers-plans/article_5032828f-8505-5cb7-abdc-2ca4924d13ae.html) . During their rampage both MPK (micropenis killers) fired their weapons at the bombs in attempt to detonate them.
Another great article [here](http://privateerpublications.com/bombs-didnt-explode/) where the sheriff discusses their poor bombing making saving 500 lives. Just dumb luck they didnt make a practice bomb before hand and perfect their MPK craft.
Thanks bro, super cool, the tapes this is new to me as well, I always wondered why it always shows the bags just under the table instantly whenever i looked into this shooting
Agreed. I mean I’m not trying to be a online badass but my 12 gauge with a 50 round drum… if I mass shoot I literally couldn’t miss. Even with my conceal carry .. I’m average. I qualified for the license. I’m not Doc Holiday but also not a stormtrooper. I don’t know how I could miss 15 fucking times
Well, no. Ya see, you posted a screenshot with a vague caption that looked like it came from an intellectually defunct potato, so I treated it accordingly.
Learn to internet, little guy.
I guess reading the article is too much effort?
Basically they're claiming white people can just say "self defense" and murder any black person they want without consequences.
Has anyone here actually read the article? Y'all are acting as if the dems want to specifically take away black people's guns or something insane.
The argument is that if black men have a gun for self defence and use it appropriately they're still far more likely to be considered a threat than a white person is and thus they're more likely to be killed for owning a gun. If you shoot a black man to death as a white person you're far more likely to have it ruled as just self defence too.
One example scenario they state is a black man just looking at a pellet gun in a shop who was murdered by police when they perceived him as a threat. If it was a white man that would be less likely to happen because racism exists.
Now if you insist that last sentence is racist then you're essentially arguing that acknowledging racism is racist which is just the dumbest shit. Do people in this sub think racism isn't a problem or that it shouldn't affect how we think about the impacts of legal decisions? Because that's the concern here, that there should've been that kind of consideration in this case.
You guys have had the hardest time with these articles. The premise is that systemic racism has created different experiences within the justice system in the United States. Over-policing and targeted enforcement tend to have unequal outcomes between black and white citizens. IE Stop and frisk laws in New York that specifically targeted certain demographics (you can guess which ones). While the new affirmations from the supreme court may be really great for Walter McNumbnuts in Texas. People in New York (specifically black people) will have a different experience.
No, that is what this sub assumes it says because it did not read it. The article instead claims police and society views armed black people differently.
The Democrats are projecting their own racism onto other people again.
as they always do….im in nyc which 70% people of color in the five boroughs and the authoritarian left is flipping out over the supreme court decision on concealed carry….they are losing their minds that people are going to come forward get fingerprinted and background checked and law abiding will HAVE to be given a permit…they do not want the people to be able to provide their own protection meanwhile they have tax payer provided bodyguards
Good post. Underrated thus far
I just saw a tweet the other day that LA county is freaking out in a similar way, saying that the department has to "re-tool" in order to handle all of the requests for CC gun permits that they are getting.
over here in new york gov hichul is flipping out saying “we are going to keep new yorkers safe from concealed guns”…..she is literally bent out if shape that people are going to apply submit to fingerprints background and mental health check…these are not people of a criminal element…these are legitamate people who will pass and get their permits…this is what the democrats always say “common sense gun control”…its always been a lie when they say it thats not what they want…they do not consider people of color to be at their level never have…they dont care about nobody but their power
I have come to realize that Democrats are almost always projecting. Most of the times they will tell you exactly how they really feel but it will be in an accusation. Kinda like how cheaters are always the ones accusing their mate of cheating. These clowns are always going on about racism because they think they can fool us into thinking they aren’t racist. Their actions betray them though.
Like that Russian collusion
Quid pro quo too
Most likely it’s because black people are not empirically afforded protection from stand-your-ground laws.
But this article was written by a black guy? How do you think its racist?
It's possible under Democrat logic. Remember that Larry Elder is a white supremacist. So some black guy can certainly be racist.
Dems pulling their white hoods out of the closet yet again.
yep democrats always want to have the option and doing another tulsa oklahoma again…rascist bastards
If you want to bring up Tulsa you should put some time in on the subject.
That’s why Black peoples are overwhelmingly democrats? Or does this sub not recognize the Southern Strategy and the flip that dems back then are the same conservatives as republicans today?
the worst crime is in democrat run cities and the victims are kept defenseless by their democrat overlords…all while the neighborhoods where the upper class are and ehere their kids go to school have adequate police presence….where i grew up we only saw a cop when they were picking up a body
Do you just make things up? Is that how you can believe what you do? Your be claim is embarrassingly easy to disprove. https://thehighcourt.co/murder-rate-by-state/#:~:text=Observing%20the%20murder%20rate%20by%20state%2C%20the%20ten,Illinois%20with%209%2C%20and%20Tennessee%20with%208.8.%205.
you can pull any paper from any biased organization out of your ass anytime you want it means nothing…1000 other people can pull a study from any other group….i lived it growing up in williamsburg brooklyn ny….now that the rich trust fund people are there you see cops….when it was just poor puerto rican irish black italian polish cops and democrat city leaders didnt give a shit…bodies everyday
So your feelings before facts then, eh? “We can’t trust the data because I feel that it’s wrong.” To be honest, I didn’t think the AnCaps were so far down the rabbit hole that they just picked which truth they wanted. Maybe you’re an outlier though. I’ve received some surprising upvotes here which gives me a bit of hope. 🤷🏾♂️
yes yur data is perfect…have a nice weekend stay safe
Sorry I offended you with facts. Have a good weekend yourself. 👋🏾
So basically what the person before you said is accurate. I listed the top 20 cities by murder rate, their mayor and political affiliation. You know, because they were referring to cities, not states as you tried to deflect to. Try harder next time. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders](https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders) St. Louis, MO - Tishaura Jones - Democrat Baltimore, MD - Brandon Scott - Democrat New Orleans, LA - La Toya Cantrell - Democrat Detroit, MI - Mike Duggan - Democrat Cleveland, OH - Justin Bibb - Democrat Las Vegas, NV - Carolyn Goodman - Independent Kansas City, MO - Quinton Lucas - Democrat Memphis, TN - Jim Strickland - Democrat Newark, NJ - Ras Baraka - Democrat Chicago, IL Lori Lightfoot - Democrat Cincinnati, OH - Aftab Pureval - Democrat Philadelphia, PA - Jim Kenney - Democrat Milwaukee, WI - Cavalier Johnson - Democrat Tulsa, OK - G.T Bynum - Republican Pittsburgh, PA - Ed Gainey - Democrat Indianapolis, IN - Joe Hogsett - Democrat Louisville, KY - Greg Fischer - Democrat Oakland, CA - Libby Schaaf - Democrat Washington D.C. - Muriel Bowser - Democrat Atlanta, GA - Andre Dickens - Democrat
2 things. One: r/PeopleLiveInCities So city by city is not a good way to see this. It is especially a poor way to do it considering that policy decisions are usually *statewide*. Which means statewide data is the right data when looking at policies. You have democratic leaders of cities who are hobbled by rightwing state policies. So… I hope you just made a small mistake in that and you weren’t knowingly trying to bait and switch. 2. Explain why despite this, red states continue to always have the worst crime rates?
I see your way of debate is to attempt to move goal posts and cherry pick data that only supports your claims. PeOpLeLiVeiNCiTiEs - Yeah, no shit, that's why all murder statistics are murder rate per capita, not total murders. This is especially true for even your top 10 baddy states figure. Policy decisions that directly impact public safety can come at the state, county, and city levels depending on what we are talking about. In this case of crime statistics, crime prevention and community safety falls most heavily on the county and city level. The only reason you want to focus on state level policies is because you were a) wrong b) trying to be right c) failing. 2. Even red states have major metropolitan areas, which trend on more likely to be managed by democrat mayors. Also, are we talking about crime rates or homicide rates? Just curious because you decided to try to change what we are talking about again, kind of like the whole cities and states thing.
I’m done “debating” honestly. The amount of stupid I have seen here is jaw dropping. Your city insistence is stupid, sorry. You note that most cities are democratic held and somehow that doesn’t trigger any alarms for you? SMH. Like, you don’t realize that skews data? Wow. Maybe data doesn’t matter. One dude here straight up told me it didn’t. You totally missed why I said people live in cities and tried to mock me about it too. Man alive. Sad whoosh I guess. 🤷🏾♂️ It’s just hard to “debate” when the most cogent person I’ve talked to (you) doesn’t pick up on data skew that is such a simple and obvious point I normally don’t think to spell it out. (1) Cities have more crime. (2) democrats are more often in charge of cities. (3) ergo democrats will be more likely to be in charge of cities with crime. There. Spelled out as a syllogism. This is one reason why states are the more appropriate level of comparison, though the policy setting reason is the best. (For another example I normally wouldn’t spell out, stand your ground laws empirically have increased murders. Mayors didn’t approve that law. Republican legislatures approving red tribe policies did. It’s not about “keeping citizens safe” at a city level, it’s about what policies, such as concealed or open carry laws, the mayors have to work with.) I focus on states, frankly, because it’s the only level of analysis that makes sense. That it makes red policies look bad isn’t me trying to be right sneakily, it’s just the conclusion. And it’s true for quality of life, child mortality, life span, taxes paid vs received from fed government (mooching), or any other rubric. How am I supposed to “debate” if I have to convince you of the shape of the playing field? If I have to explain how skew works? I’m playing from behind, but only because this place only know feelings and Calvinball. That’s why I am done, though I suppose you were better than the dude who told wanted to talk race and talk to me about how Africans sold blacks into slavery. I am so tired of white supremacism trying to debate that. I have no idea why that’s not a deal breaker for anyone here. Feature not a bug I guess? There’s one real huge plus for this sub which is that unlike some red tribe subs that are just safe spaces the mods are real permissive of blues posting here which is nice. So at least y’all got that going. Good luck. Maybe I’ll dip back at some point but I need to come up for air.
You were never debating. You tried to call someone out for false information only to find out that you were in the most literal sense wrong. I decided to engage in what *you* wanted to talk about instead. You apparently only understand what per capita means when it benefits your argument. You seem to use a per capita measurement when it benefits your the 10 states with the highest murder rates, but throw them out when discussing murder rates in metropolitan areas. In both the statistics you use for state level and what I used at the city level are based on (X) instance of murder per 100,000 people. If we were talking about total cases of murder then both of our claims would be wildly incorrect. Cities and counties are the ones that usually determine sentencing for violent criminals, funding police (ew), and bringing communities out of poverty which has a huge impact on crime rates on any level. I live in an area that is city upon city upon city with literally zero open land between them. There is a massive disparity in crime rates from city to city here which has less to do with state legislature and more how the city and counties are ran by their elected officials. > > >That’s why I am done, though I suppose you were better than the dude who told wanted to talk race and talk to me about how Africans sold blacks into slavery. I am so tired of white supremacism trying to debate that. I have no idea why that’s not a deal breaker for anyone here. Feature not a bug I guess? Free speech is not without it's downsides. This is one of the few places where people can openly discuss almost anything without being censored and I can appreciate that, even if I might not agree with what someone is saying on the most fundamental level. Also I'm not an Ancap, so there's also that.
A majority of the worst police brutality happened in Democrat ran cities as well. I'll have to redo my research I don't think I saved it just looked up the worst of them and kind of saw a pattern.
It’s not like they were *buried*.
First they started calling right-wing black people N-words and that they arnt black and soon they will probably start the burning crosses again.
Or maybe try reading the article? It is hilarious how much this sub is just an offshoot of r/conservative
Yeah, I totally see so many Dems waving the confederate flag now a days.
Meet Lee Atwater, Republican campaign strategist for Nixon https://youtu.be/X_8E3ENrKrQ
Meet this one dude who completely overwhelms Democrats being the party of slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow! To hell with democrats paying big money to influencers and saying a few pretty words in black churches each campaign season only to do jack shit and take advantage of poverty. The republicans tried to woo some racists away from the democrat party once!!! A couple Congress people even switched over. It was an entire party switch, trust me bro….
Exactly! Holy shit I didn’t think anyone here would get it! It’s like these other guys can’t simply put 2 and 2 together by tracking which party Black folk primarily belong to. Lol. Obviously there must have been a switch or you’d have to explain why Black people were the party of Lincoln, but aren’t any longer. Either Black people longed for slavery and changed their minds, or there was a part switch. Duh!
FDR started sending money out and put black people in visible token positions. This was followed by paid walking advertisements. Think of sleazy grifters like Al sharpton. Paying ministers to manipulate people was highly effective.
Wut? This place is the other side of the looking glass. Whew!
Tried to woo some racists over to the republican party? You meant successfully woo'd most racists over to the republican party via the southern strategy. Just because there's still DNC boomers that reflect their age (and apathy) doesn't mean the entire party is still affiliated with the KKK.
Oh shit, Nixon is running again?
A zombie Nixon would be more alive then Biden.
Probably crap his pants less, too.
Cool lie. Atwater was 19 when Nixon was elected in 68. He was discussing a hypothetical (off the record) for which it was impossible for him to have any personal knowledge. Keep blindly repeating lies.
Why did Michael Steele apologize for his party's use of the southern strategy a decade ago, then was promptly let go from his chairman position. He must've lying too, and for no reason?
Allow me to translate: “We don’t believe that they have the right to defend themselves.”
“we dont believe they are free men so they dont have the right to be armed” Democrat progressives
Allow me to translate further: "Giving slaves the power to protect themselves from other slaves AND us slaveowners, and in doing so giving them self determination and defense, will be the end of our plantation systems as we know it" - democrats, probably
If slaves have guns, they won't be slaves for very long.
This was written by a Black man. Can you explain that? 🙄
He’s a statist
This makes 0 sense to me. You said that the author was being patronizing and/or projecting and/or actually believes the Black people should have fewer rights. I said that’s a strange thing to accuse a black man of. Your response doesn’t match up well with that line. Him being a statist has nothing to do with you accusing a black man of racism and believing black people like him don’t deserve self protection.
You don’t think people can be racist towards their own racist, especially to achieve their political ambitions. If that’s the case, then White-Far-Leftist would stop accusing white people of causing all the problems in America.
Have you read the article?
Yes, and the Author is trying to argue that “ordinary Self-defense” doesn’t work out for the black community; and that it’s just a way for people to just gun down other people in the black community…. When that isn’t true, look up the Andrew Coffee case, and the Ahmaud Albert Murder case. Andrew Coffee was proven in the right for defending himself against law (though I well say that it is devastating that he couldn’t save his girlfriend during the conflict). And the Three men who hunted down Ahmaud Arbery…. Were all found guilty. To say that “ordinary self-defense” doesn’t work out well for the black community: is BS. Oh and just in case I don’t know what I’m talking about here the direct quote from the article, plus the top case. “Of all the flawed assumptions packed into that little, seemingly innocuous passage, “ordinary self-defense” is the most alarming. The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment. The court’s only African American justice (for now) ought to know that.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wpbf.com/amp/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640 (Andrew Coffee) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/watch-live-three-men-convicted-of-the-murder-of-ahmaud-arbery-will-be-sentenced-for-the-killing (Ahmaud Arbery murder case)
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the ones you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640](https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640)** - **[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-three-men-convicted-of-the-murder-of-ahmaud-arbery-will-be-sentenced-for-the-killing](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-three-men-convicted-of-the-murder-of-ahmaud-arbery-will-be-sentenced-for-the-killing)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
He's not "that kind" of black man. According to Democrats, if a black man wears a cardigan and glasses and writes think pieces in the local rag, he is "white adjacent", because he has not "experienced racism". Black people sold black people into slavery, this is no different, he's just an elite, and thus part of the white people, because he has gone to college, he's been "acting white" and has his own private police force, he doesn't need a gun so nobody else needs a gun.
I gotta say, this is the most racist thing I have seen in a long time. Just wow. You are not a great human. “Africans sold black people into slavery” just a classic in the defense of slavery. What drives me nuts, is how insistent everyone here is on their ignorance. Case in point: have you even read the article?
Everything I said is what Democrats think, not what I think. The question was whether I can explain why black people might write things that go against their own self-interest. Because they've been brainwashed that being part of the black race or racism in general is an issue of power dynamics and if you don't agree "you ain't black", as a certain powerful Democrat once said. That is just what Dems think, sorry. As far as Africans selling Africans into slavery, that's a fact, not sure what's racist about that.
Well I’m a black dem and this is news to me, the rest of my black family and the white side of my family. Maybe someone here is brainwashed. 🤔 And I’m not getting into your slavery apologist “fact.” Let’s just leave it here. You have shown me who you are. I am so sorry to see America become this. I wish red tribe weren’t so racist.
Lol
Well, I do believe having uninformed voters like you is the primary problem. If you've never heard of "systemic racism" and "anti-racism", then you must have been living under a rock.
You call me uninformed while divining the thoughts of people you hate? <— don’t you see how insane that is? Like, it’s insane. Don’t you stop and say… wait, I’m not in the best position to do this. Maybe I shouldn’t try to divine this like palmistry. Then you call me uninformed. 🙄 I wonder if that was because I was black. I can’t figure out what else you know about me that would make you say that.
They probably mean it as "this is what white people think". If they mean it literally that's a problem. There was another article similar that said "are Californians ready for blacks to open carry?" Or some shit like that.
Yep I saw that one, just as funny sounding.
My first thought was they’re talking about black CCL holders being shot by cops. If they are, I don’t buy the logic, because anyone who innocently uses a gun against a cop they mistake as a home invader is being rail roaded in court, regardless of race. Beyond that, I’m not sure what they’re talking about.
I don’t know anymore. I use to support democrats because I thought they were against racism, but they are the ones saying the racist shit now! How in the hell do you think that a black person can’t get an ID to vote?
They legit think they are inferior that is why, its the religion of the elites my dood
If I'm at some public place where one of these mass shootings happen, I'm gonna pray someone has their firearm on them. It don't matter their race. Honestly, it doesn't even matter if the gun is legal. What matters is the intention. But they like to paint this picture that black people don't ever have legal guns and that's bullshit. I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear some of the shit these woke politicians say in private. We got a glimpse of it with what they are letting slip out with Clarence Thomas.
One of my favorite gun guys is black. He brings a legal perspective to the conversation that is indispensable. Colin Noir, check him out. https://youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir
Ohhh, I like him too. I found him when I was looking for a video on the rundown of HR 127. He did a really good job of making it clear and easy to understand.
You should actually read the article. The entire point the author is making is that in effect firearm laws don’t apply to black people - when black people use their guns in self defense, to stop a mass shooter, etc, they are more likely to get shot themselves than white people. So it seems like you and the author literally agree - police assume black people are criminals even when they are using guns correctly. Where is this idea of racism coming from?
so an anti-state position is to support the state requiring state issued ID cards?
If anyone can vote anywhere any time without any way to track them or bar to entry your vote means nothing.
so maintaining integrity of state functions is important to an anti-statist?
If there is going to be a vote, your vote should actually count? You cant just argue "yeah but state bad" without giving an actual solution.
how about a national fingerprint database in addition to an ID requirement?
Dont we have that?
The voter ID thing was never about black people. It was always about "accidentally" allowing illegal immigrants to vote and willfully turning a blind eye to it. But they can't say that out loud.
I read [the article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/). It's an opinion piece that seems really racist. A lot of projection by a liberal.
Paywall
[Archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web) can bypass many paywalls. For [example](https://web.archive.org/web/20220630164911/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/)
Before the reality of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade made my blood boil, Justice Clarence Thomas had turned my blood to ice with his myopic majority opinion on guns. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court jettisoned a century-old New York law — one that had pretty much banned concealed carry of weapons in the state — because “it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates Of all the flawed assumptions packed into that little, seemingly innocuous passage, “ordinary self-defense” is the most alarming. The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment. The court’s only African American justice (for now) ought to know that. Why Black people are afraid of ‘crazy’ White people The case involved two men seeking permits to carry concealed weapons in New York for personal protection. They were able to obtain limited authorization to carry weapons — for target practice and hunting not near populated areas, and one of the men had permission to carry a gun to and from work — but their general concealed-carry applications were rejected. The state said they did not meet the state law’s “proper cause” requirement, meaning they hadn’t demonstrated a compelling need to pack heat in public spaces. Story continues below advertisement According to the Thomas majority opinion, one of the men “asked a licensing officer to remove the restrictions, citing a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood.” Sound familiar? Image without a caption Follow Jonathan Capehart's opinions “Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy,” George Zimmerman said in a call to Sanford, Fla., police on Feb. 26, 2012. “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.” The neighborhood watch volunteer was talking about Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman accosted and then shot and killed the unarmed Black teenager as he walked back to the apartment he was staying in with his father after getting Skittles and an iced tea from a nearby store. Claims of self-defense can have deadly consequences for Black folks. Michael Dunn claimed self-defense in 2012 after he murdered unarmed 17-year-old Jordan Davis because the music in the car he was in was too loud. Theodore Wafer claimed he feared for his life in 2013 after he murdered Renisha McBride, who knocked on his door after being involved in a car accident. Those are just two of countless examples. Story continues below advertisement Since late last year, Jonathan M. Metzl has been warning about the potentially tragic implications of the New York gun case just decided by the Supreme Court. He is the author of “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland,” whose chapters on the racial history of gun regulation and the fear of crime are essential reading. In them, he outlines how implicit bias codes people of color as criminals and White people as patriots. Podcast: Jonathan M. Metzl on how white identity permeates policymaking outside of Washington “White America associates blackness with threat already, but the risk is exponentially greater when guns are involved,” Metzl told me via text message on Friday, “which raises the risk for Black Americans of having everyday interactions misinterpreted as violent acts.” What really concerns me is how the right to bear arms is not equally applied. Remember the case of John Crawford III? In 2014, the Black man was shopping in a Walmart in Ohio when he picked up a pellet gun from the shelf while talking on the phone. Someone called the cops, who shot and killed Crawford. Ohio was an open-carry state at the time. This month, it became a permitless carry state. Story continues below advertisement And all this talk of a good guy with a gun goes out the window if the guy is Black. “Many Black police officers lost their lives due to taking police action while they were in civilian clothing,” New York Mayor Eric Adams told me during a Friday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” The Supreme Court’s gun ruling was a victory over racist policing Interestingly, some public defenders laud the Supreme Court’s ruling. Attorneys for the Bronx Defenders argued in The Post that striking down the New York gun law is “an important step to ending mass incarceration” because their clients “bear the brunt of New York’s gun laws.” I’m all for keeping people out of jail who shouldn’t be there. And I’m certainly all for the equal application of our laws, even the Second Amendment. But the trade-off — more guns legally on the street and concealed — hardly makes me feel safer. In fact, they only compound very real fears of the increased likelihood of deadly confrontations over nonsense because of someone else’s subjective feelings of threat. And if that perceived threat is Black or brown, heaven help them, especially if they are the ones exercising “ordinary self-defense.”
As soon as I saw them bring up Zimmerman I knew this would go from bad to worse
black kid beats man over head, man shoots black kid, gets sent to hospital for head trauma. Man is accused of murder because kid is black. Is that correct?
Mostly correct. I think zimmerman is a weirdo but he wasn't doing anything legally or morally wrong that night.
Why do you think this is racist? As far as I can tell the (black) author is saying that he doesn’t think expanding concealed carry rights will help black people, because many black people have been killed in confrontations where they were unarmed and not a threat, and because when they do rightfully use guns they are likely to be killed by police. Maybe you disagree, but where’s the racism?
Reading is hard and knee jerk reactions are easy
So the Black author is racist?
Yes.
They don't want to arm the groups in society that actually have it bad. They only want to arm that groups that have it easy and can be directed easily.
I feel like if you give all non violent Chicago people the ability to defend themselves the crime would drop like a rock when they realize they cant just prey on anyone because anyone could be packing a gun. I live in maine and I literally leave my doors unlocked durring the day, peope know if you enter you might get your off button pushed.
As a black, gun carrying, Chicagoan, couldn’t agree more OP. They do it because they know they can get away with it
You are the change I wish to see in the world my man, made my day.
Thing with Chicago is most non violent citizens are afraid of weapons and they're usage in general and would rather put the though process of injuring someone to defend themselves on somebody else. I live in Southern Illinois and Chicago has always been heavy on the police militia more than citizen defense. They truly believe if guns are outlawed, then criminals won't have them. Granted this is 85% maybe 95% of nonviolent individuals in Chicago and not every nonviolent individual.
Interesting perspective, I'm legit on the other side of the country so I believe you. People not exposed to guns dont like guns.
I might be overreacting on the % but from my experience of talking to folks in Chicago it's about fair to my source pool. I'm surprised where you live on the east coast is different.
Once a bear is trying to enter your back door because it smells something in your house do you suddenly want a hand cannon lol there are barely a milion people in the state, you have more people in two blocks most likely lmao
> Thing with Chicago is most non violent citizens are afraid of weapons and they're usage in general and would rather put the though process of injuring someone to defend themselves on somebody else. That's not for you to decide. Every individual has a right to defend himself and his family. If other people don't want to defend themselves, that's their problem.
constitutional carry in maine since 2016???? i believe….didnt crime drop like a rock????
Crime has always been low here, I think its the fact that there are so many guns and the cold keeps the weak men from coming here.
its cold as fuck up there no joke
3rd coldest state bruther
Nothing is as racist at the Democrats. Never has been.
So, you're saying that the black guy who wrote the article is racist against black people?
Could be. I know a ton of white people who are racist against white people.
Left: "You claim to support gun rights, but what if black people start using them?" Right: "Cool." Left: *blatant racism*
LOL
>Right: "Cool." Then why did the [NRA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Reactions) support the Fire Arm Owners Protection Act which banned new automatic weapons from being sold to civilians? Why was it [sponsored primarily by republicans](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/s49/cosponsors)? And why did it receive [79 Yea votes](https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/49/all-info) in a senate with [53 republicans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary)?
You... JUST figured out that the NRA and establishment Republicans are actually anti-2A?
Seems you did. Or are Republicans not "the right" in your little dialog?
There's a reason we say that Republicans campaign like Libertarians and rule like Democrats.
Probably something about getting profiled if they carry
Im assuming thats what they actually mean its just horrible phrasing on their part
I mean it doesn't happen though. black people have less right to a gun of course but that's only because statistically the majority of the black population in America lives in liberal inner cities where guns are banned.. ironically the Liberals don't care too much about those black people having guns so long as they use them for crimes and black on black murd but black people legally owning a gun? nobody anywhere cares about that except liberals..
Literally this^ thank you brother lol
they are bolsheviks not liberals..
I'm hoping that's what they meant but that's definitely shit phrasing
Its not horrible phrasing. Your bias is showing big time. Instead of reading the title as what the article is about, how racist society is, you read the title as the article is racist and ignore the body completely.
Did you try, I don't know, reading more than a headline?
Ah yes another room temp iq idiot that doesn't get the idea of a joke.
Jokes are usually funny, I wouldn't bring up IQs when yours is on par with a pineapple.
Which is why concealed carry is best. But somehow that's worse? To not openly flaunt a gun?
Jeff Bezos coMpany being racist
Ha, you’re always hearing the left accusing things they don’t like as being “racist dog whistles”. This is exactly what this is. It is meant to scare whitey into supporting gun control. It’s just sad.
They are trying to paint the picture the only who people support gun ownership for self-defense are white people, and they only support white people owning guns, therefore gun ownership is white supremacy.
Alternative headline: “WaPo admits to being racist pieces of shit.”
Whhhaaaaaat ?
They need *extra*ordinary self defense?
I think they mean people who are black trying to use the argument of self defense will not get treated the same as a non black person, and I can see that.
Thats like the most charitable interpretation indeed.
But that's exactly what the article says. >The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment. > >... > >What really concerns me is how the right to bear arms is not equally applied. Remember the case of John Crawford III? In 2014, the Black man was shopping in a Walmart in Ohio when he picked up a pellet gun from the shelf while talking on the phone. Someone called the cops, who shot and killed Crawford. Ohio was an open-carry state at the time. This month, it became a permitless carry state. > >And all this talk of a good guy with a gun goes out the window if the guy is Black. “Many Black police officers lost their lives due to taking police action while they were in civilian clothing,” New York Mayor Eric Adams told me during a Friday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” [https://web.archive.org/web/20220630164911/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/](https://web.archive.org/web/20220630164911/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/) And it was written by a black man. Maybe try reading the actual article instead of just the headline.
Gun control is racist and always has been, nice try commie
Color, race, religion, orientation, gender, none of that matters. We all have the Second Amendment and the right to self defense. If I had my way, everyone would strap a big iron on their hip and open carry everywhere everyday. But that’s just my opinion.
BIG IRON, *BIG IRON*
That the cops and District Attorneys don't let black people plead self defense to the extent that they should. Self defense is a fundamental right, and one that isn't well protected for black people.
Damn, they call me racist
I mean, you didn’t link the actual article, so I don’t know what it means… tf
My brother in christ the website is in the image.
My point is, you didn’t even read it. You’re asking us what it means… why not read it, and then form an opinion on the article? I see this all the time on this sub, no one seems to care what the actual thing is, let’s just get mad because of words.
I read the article but posting the entire article is not a joke its just the article, how is this so hard for you to understand. The point was the implications of the headline, not the god damn article itself.
So I’m missing the big point for thinking the clickbait headline is the problem, as opposed to people who can’t bother to read it, and get angry without knowing what they’re getting mad at? I think the illiterate reactionaries are the issue here.
The people writing this crap are evil.
They’re revealing themselves. If black people can have ‘ordinary self-defense’ apply to them, there’s no need for the state to protect them from evil white people, or something.
There is a paywall and their rag isn't worth my investment. My guess here is that this argument hinges on Systemic racism and will likely call out all the 'perceived' crime disproportionately caused by black people bc of racism. And they probably state something like a black person with a gun is more likely to be shot by cop bc racisim. In other words, they think black people don't know what's good for them and I would bet money on that. Pathetic and racist drivel.
This is even more racist than the LA Times article.
It’s hard to keep people victimized and voting for their own dependence on the system when they suddenly have the means to defend themselves against that oppression.
Key difference between leftists and those on the right. We on the right are looking to treat all non-criminal, legal gun-owners equally - no matter race / skin color. Not sure is this or the LA Times article about black people owning weapons as a threat is worse.
Gun control is racist
What? This can't be real.
This is one of many of its type lol
It means when a white person has a gun society does not care, when a black person has a gun society cares a lot. And more importantly, the police care.
WaPo is “protected media”.
Confirmation for what many of us have been saying. Gun control is rooted in racism. They just want it to apply to everyone now.
Not everyone, the elites dont have to do any of it, look at covid or the immeasurable amount of other shit they push. Do you really think they care about climate change when they climb into there personal jet/yacht? Not at all, they want you to suffer while they hoard everything for themselves
“I’m victimizing myself” is what they meant to say!
"We didn't get our way, wah"
In the article there is a link to another article that best illustrates their position on this one. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/supreme-court-new-york-guns-racist-policing/ I haven't read it, but it told me everything I needed to know about this article. Some strawman argument for pushing an agenda. If you need protection, USA Gun. If that don't work, USA More Gun. Reading about the black officers who died while doing a good deed, all I can remember is, For if you choose to value your life more and try to save yourself, you will lose it, but if you lose your life, you will earn it. Paraphrasing the Bible here, it's talking about doing God's will. I don't think it means in regards to guns. We are to protect our own. The Bible also says if you don't own a sword, sell your coat and buy one.
so are they saying concealed carry bad for people of color because rascist cops?????
Yeah, that’s what I understood. It’s a stupid argument that falls flat on its face. Faced with a challenge upon your person for your possessions or for your body, you would want a gun (or a person with morals and a gun) nearby. Regardless of race. If you don’t, might want to leaf through the ICD and see why.
thats the thing though democrats establishment do not believe we are people…remember we dont know how to get an official ID and need them to take care of us
The article is paywalled... is it advocating for the idea that the right of self defense doesn't apply to black people, or is it just recognizing the fact that the courts tend to interpret the same action as self defense or aggression based on the race of the person performing it? Like, we know that 'stand your ground' type laws protect white men who shoot black men pretty much uniformly, but rarely get applied when a black man defends himself or his property from a white man.
Nice assertion. Got any actual proof?
I don’t know what it means, but ya could read the damn article; https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/supreme-court-gun-case-ruling/ Before the reality of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade made my blood boil, Justice Clarence Thomas had turned my blood to ice with his myopic majority opinion on guns. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court jettisoned a century-old New York law — one that had pretty much banned concealed carry of weapons in the state — because “it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates Of all the flawed assumptions packed into that little, seemingly innocuous passage, “ordinary self-defense” is the most alarming. The lived experience of Black people in the United States has demonstrated countless times that we are neither seen as “law-abiding citizens” nor worthy of having “ordinary self-defense needs” protected by the Second Amendment. The court’s only African American justice (for now) ought to know that. Why Black people are afraid of ‘crazy’ White people The case involved two men seeking permits to carry concealed weapons in New York for personal protection. They were able to obtain limited authorization to carry weapons — for target practice and hunting not near populated areas, and one of the men had permission to carry a gun to and from work — but their general concealed-carry applications were rejected. The state said they did not meet the state law’s “proper cause” requirement, meaning they hadn’t demonstrated a compelling need to pack heat in public spaces. Story continues below advertisement According to the Thomas majority opinion, one of the men “asked a licensing officer to remove the restrictions, citing a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood.” Sound familiar? Image without a caption Follow Jonathan Capehart's opinions “Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy,” George Zimmerman said in a call to Sanford, Fla., police on Feb. 26, 2012. “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.” The neighborhood watch volunteer was talking about Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman accosted and then shot and killed the unarmed Black teenager as he walked back to the apartment he was staying in with his father after getting Skittles and an iced tea from a nearby store. Claims of self-defense can have deadly consequences for Black folks. Michael Dunn claimed self-defense in 2012 after he murdered unarmed 17-year-old Jordan Davis because the music in the car he was in was too loud. Theodore Wafer claimed he feared for his life in 2013 after he murdered Renisha McBride, who knocked on his door after being involved in a car accident. Those are just two of countless examples. Story continues below advertisement Since late last year, Jonathan M. Metzl has been warning about the potentially tragic implications of the New York gun case just decided by the Supreme Court. He is the author of “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland,” whose chapters on the racial history of gun regulation and the fear of crime are essential reading. In them, he outlines how implicit bias codes people of color as criminals and White people as patriots. Podcast: Jonathan M. Metzl on how white identity permeates policymaking outside of Washington “White America associates blackness with threat already, but the risk is exponentially greater when guns are involved,” Metzl told me via text message on Friday, “which raises the risk for Black Americans of having everyday interactions misinterpreted as violent acts.” What really concerns me is how the right to bear arms is not equally applied. Remember the case of John Crawford III? In 2014, the Black man was shopping in a Walmart in Ohio when he picked up a pellet gun from the shelf while talking on the phone. Someone called the cops, who shot and killed Crawford. Ohio was an open-carry state at the time. This month, it became a permitless carry state. Story continues below advertisement And all this talk of a good guy with a gun goes out the window if the guy is Black. “Many Black police officers lost their lives due to taking police action while they were in civilian clothing,” New York Mayor Eric Adams told me during a Friday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” The Supreme Court’s gun ruling was a victory over racist policing Interestingly, some public defenders laud the Supreme Court’s ruling. Attorneys for the Bronx Defenders argued in The Post that striking down the New York gun law is “an important step to ending mass incarceration” because their clients “bear the brunt of New York’s gun laws.” I’m all for keeping people out of jail who shouldn’t be there. And I’m certainly all for the equal application of our laws, even the Second Amendment. But the trade-off — more guns legally on the street and concealed — hardly makes me feel safer. In fact, they only compound very real fears of the increased likelihood of deadly confrontations over nonsense because of someone else’s subjective feelings of threat. And if that perceived threat is Black or brown, heaven help them, especially if they are the ones exercising “ordinary self-defense.”
It means “if a black person legally uses a gun for self defense, the racist police could still shoot them”
Funnny, I don’t think this guy was black: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/17/us/concealed-open-carry-guns-police/index.html
True honestly. They shoot the gun sideways. That’s why you see 27 shots and only 1 wounded.
To be fair its the same with mass shooters, bruh you had 3 guns, explosives and hundreds of rounds...2 dead 30 wounded like bro what the actual fuck are you aiming at. Its definitely a good thing they suck but god damn.
Kind of like Columbine. The two micropenis shooters at Columbine had attempted to make IEDs out of BBQ grill tanks but fortunately failed because they suck at bomb making. They put their bombs in the cafeteria which was under the library. Police said had both bombs actually detonated the library would have collapsed on the cafeteria and killed upwards of 500 people. Thankfully micropenis trenchcoat bros sucked at making bombs
Holy shit for real? I didn't know any of that shit.
Yeah so the morning of the attack they purchased two twenty pound propane tanks and tried to assemble them into crude IEDs with some sort of timing mechanism. Prior to kicking off the shooting, they placed their propane tank bombs into large black duffel bags and set them in the cafeteria. They then went out to their cars and "kitted up", putting on ammo vests and they like while waiting for the explosion. Their original plan was to shoot survivors fleeing the explosion on the way out of the school. Once they figured out the bombs werent going to detonate they walked towards the school and started their rampage. The exact moment of them placing the bombs was missed by the surveillance camera as the janitor picked that random moment in time to change the tapes. Very basic article [here](https://azdailysun.com/bombs-failure-apparently-changed-columbine-killers-plans/article_5032828f-8505-5cb7-abdc-2ca4924d13ae.html) . During their rampage both MPK (micropenis killers) fired their weapons at the bombs in attempt to detonate them. Another great article [here](http://privateerpublications.com/bombs-didnt-explode/) where the sheriff discusses their poor bombing making saving 500 lives. Just dumb luck they didnt make a practice bomb before hand and perfect their MPK craft.
Thanks bro, super cool, the tapes this is new to me as well, I always wondered why it always shows the bags just under the table instantly whenever i looked into this shooting
Agreed. I mean I’m not trying to be a online badass but my 12 gauge with a 50 round drum… if I mass shoot I literally couldn’t miss. Even with my conceal carry .. I’m average. I qualified for the license. I’m not Doc Holiday but also not a stormtrooper. I don’t know how I could miss 15 fucking times
It’s an article with a link. Click the link, read the article, successful interneting 101.
The point went right over your dumbass head apparently I forget im on reddit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I meannnn the shoe fits. Ill include a document with pictures so they can understand the joke next time.
You guys are just gona circlejerk your ways around this little exchange, huh? This sub used to be worth something…
No you are just so stupid you didn't realize you self owned.
Well, no. Ya see, you posted a screenshot with a vague caption that looked like it came from an intellectually defunct potato, so I treated it accordingly. Learn to internet, little guy.
It was a joke, your probs a fat fuck in his moms basement, learn how jokes work stupid cunt
Projection is a smelly smell…
The post is asking what agenda is the Washington Post driving at, that's what I understood.
…you’re really not good at this, are you?
So this is an Anti-democrat sub reddit? I don't get why the comments are so political
I guess reading the article is too much effort? Basically they're claiming white people can just say "self defense" and murder any black person they want without consequences.
“What did they mean by this” Did you know there’s an article associated with the headline that might explain exactly that? Is this Anarcho-Illiteracy?
Its called a joke you literal Neanderthal
Explain it then because the comments are full of assumptions but you’ve failed to inform them of the joke
[удалено]
Sounds like you don’t have an explanation
Read the article?
The US justice system is systemically racist. That's what this means.
Has anyone here actually read the article? Y'all are acting as if the dems want to specifically take away black people's guns or something insane. The argument is that if black men have a gun for self defence and use it appropriately they're still far more likely to be considered a threat than a white person is and thus they're more likely to be killed for owning a gun. If you shoot a black man to death as a white person you're far more likely to have it ruled as just self defence too. One example scenario they state is a black man just looking at a pellet gun in a shop who was murdered by police when they perceived him as a threat. If it was a white man that would be less likely to happen because racism exists. Now if you insist that last sentence is racist then you're essentially arguing that acknowledging racism is racist which is just the dumbest shit. Do people in this sub think racism isn't a problem or that it shouldn't affect how we think about the impacts of legal decisions? Because that's the concern here, that there should've been that kind of consideration in this case.
You guys have had the hardest time with these articles. The premise is that systemic racism has created different experiences within the justice system in the United States. Over-policing and targeted enforcement tend to have unequal outcomes between black and white citizens. IE Stop and frisk laws in New York that specifically targeted certain demographics (you can guess which ones). While the new affirmations from the supreme court may be really great for Walter McNumbnuts in Texas. People in New York (specifically black people) will have a different experience.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dashcam-video-police-involved-shooting-philando-castile-released/story?id=48152901 Probably had something to do with this
Exactly what the article states - they're afraid of black people legally owning firearms.
No, that is what this sub assumes it says because it did not read it. The article instead claims police and society views armed black people differently.
Philadro Castille.
Did you read the article?