• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas DA, wife killed -- 2 months after his deputy is gunned down [W:627]

first the aryan brotherhood is very closely related to neo nazis,many of nthe members are neo nazis.

second if a group claimsto be right wing,thats doesnt make them right wing,especially if they hold no conservative values,or even go by the traditional definition referring to social heirarchy.in essence the aryan brotherhood fits neither,as they tend to seek a equal society of white christians,and the eradication ofall other races.which fits neither definition unless you count hitlers ideal as traditional,in ehich it wasnt in any way shape or form,just simply fringe lunatic ideas spawned by a man who fits the description.

First, the fact that they are associated with neo nazis doesn't make them neo nazis, just as they're being associated with Mexican drug cartels does not make them Mexican

Second, the fact that you claim that they are not right wing does not make them not rightwing. And they do not need what you think are conservative values. And they do by a traditional definition to referring to a social hierarchy, nor do they call for the elimination of everyone buy white christians.
 
"Fred Rivara, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, added in an email: “There is no data supporting his argument that the further arming of citizens will lessen the death toll in massacres like the one this week in Connecticut. There are in fact rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home INCREASES the risk of violent death in the home.”

"Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently conducted a review of all the existing academic literature on right-to-carry and found: “The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults.” They estimated the increase to be about 1 to 9 percent, which may not sound like much — but with nearly 1 million aggravated assaults in the country every year, a small percentage change makes a big difference.
Researchers at Harvard have conducted numerous studies comparing data across states and countries with different gun laws and concluded, quite simply, “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.”

Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
, explained in an interview: “It’s hard to make the case, as some have done, that right-to-carry laws will lead to an enormous increase in violence. That does not appear to be the case. But it also does not appear to be the case that there is any beneficial effect.”
Colin Goddard, who became an advocate with the Brady Campaign after getting shot multiple times at the Virginia Tech shooting, put it another way: “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

Garen Wintemute, a public health researcher at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview that this leads to faulty conclusions. “Everybody is talking about how do we stop the next Sandy Hook, but that’s the totally wrong approach, because the next one will be totally different,” he said.
"More important, while mass shootings like the one in Newtown are always the catalyst for a debate over guns, they’re a tiny fraction of the problem. There are about 20 mass shootings a year in this country, which altogether take the lives of perhaps several hundred people. But there were over 32,000 firearm-related deaths last year, the majority of which (almost 20,000) were suicides. There were also almost 850 accidental deaths from firearms. Among homicides, “far more common than mass killings are altercations where, because there is a gun available, someone ends up dead instead of a less lethal option,” Wintemute said."

The answer is not more guns - Salon.com
 
sorry champ... all guns are designed to kill... that''s their only purpose.
why do you possess a killing machine?... are you compensating for a small penis?

what happened to the handgun you claimed you owned?.... did you get rid of it?... or is it that you have 2 weapons of mass destruction in your household?


btw, you don't know how much pleasure it brings me to watch an anti-gun nut defend having his own firearm...it brings light into my day.


I was going to be happy with background checks, but if you want everyone to give up their guns I'll go along with it!
 
First, the fact that they are associated with neo nazis doesn't make them neo nazis, just as they're being associated with Mexican drug cartels does not make them Mexican

Second, the fact that you claim that they are not right wing does not make them not rightwing. And they do not need what you think are conservative values. And they do by a traditional definition to referring to a social hierarchy, nor do they call for the elimination of everyone buy white christians.

actually to be right wing by any definition,they need to be either conservative or in support of an inequal society or a heirarchy,since they support niether,they are not right wing by any other definiton.i spent over twenty minutes trying to find where they are right eing,the only thing i could find were left wing blogs claiming they were right wing,but no actual evidence other than left wing nutjobs trying to pin everything bad as right wing terrorists.
 
"Fred Rivara, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, added in an email: “There is no data supporting his argument that the further arming of citizens will lessen the death toll in massacres like the one this week in Connecticut. There are in fact rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home INCREASES the risk of violent death in the home.”

"Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently conducted a review of all the existing academic literature on right-to-carry and found: “The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults.” They estimated the increase to be about 1 to 9 percent, which may not sound like much — but with nearly 1 million aggravated assaults in the country every year, a small percentage change makes a big difference.
Researchers at Harvard have conducted numerous studies comparing data across states and countries with different gun laws and concluded, quite simply, “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.”

Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
, explained in an interview: “It’s hard to make the case, as some have done, that right-to-carry laws will lead to an enormous increase in violence. That does not appear to be the case. But it also does not appear to be the case that there is any beneficial effect.”
Colin Goddard, who became an advocate with the Brady Campaign after getting shot multiple times at the Virginia Tech shooting, put it another way: “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

Garen Wintemute, a public health researcher at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview that this leads to faulty conclusions. “Everybody is talking about how do we stop the next Sandy Hook, but that’s the totally wrong approach, because the next one will be totally different,” he said.
"More important, while mass shootings like the one in Newtown are always the catalyst for a debate over guns, they’re a tiny fraction of the problem. There are about 20 mass shootings a year in this country, which altogether take the lives of perhaps several hundred people. But there were over 32,000 firearm-related deaths last year, the majority of which (almost 20,000) were suicides. There were also almost 850 accidental deaths from firearms. Among homicides, “far more common than mass killings are altercations where, because there is a gun available, someone ends up dead instead of a less lethal option,” Wintemute said."

The answer is not more guns - Salon.com

so you now link more people claiming such,but still cant link the studies.

are the studies so bad if people actually read them it would instantly destroy your evidence and they have no other purpose than propoganda?????
 
actually to be right wing by any definition,they need to be either conservative or in support of an inequal society or a heirarchy,

This is complete and utter BS, so I'll challenge you to back up your claim about what you say "rightwing" requires
 
This is complete and utter BS, so I'll challenge you to back up your claim about what you say "rightwing" requires

which definition would you like????websters,the free dictionary,wikipedis?????none of them support your claim at all,infact right wing didnt appear as a definition until 1856.inn all definitions it either refers to a conservative or it refers to supporting a heirarchy,except websters which says its being part of a right wing party or the right side of aflank in a military formation.
 
so you now link more people claiming such,but still cant link the studies.

are the studies so bad if people actually read them it would instantly destroy your evidence and they have no other purpose than propoganda?????



The studies are linked in the article I referenced.


Where are all the academic studies that claim more guns make us safer?
 
which definition would you like????websters,the free dictionary,wikipedis?????none of them support your claim at all,infact right wing didnt appear as a definition until 1856.inn all definitions it either refers to a conservative or it refers to supporting a heirarchy, except websters which says its being part of a right wing party or the right side of aflank in a military formation.

White supremacists support a heirarchy where whites are at the top, so AB is rightwing according to your definition.
 
White supremacists support a heirarchy where whites are at the top, so AB is rightwing according to your definition.

If definging RW boils down to that, then yes. But, the RW aren't usually drug dealing criminal enterprises..unless they are Reagan's CIA.
 
so you now link more people claiming such,but still cant link the studies.

are the studies so bad if people actually read them it would instantly destroy your evidence and they have no other purpose than propoganda?????

they find paid anti gun doctors whose credentials in this field are non-existent who work backwards to support gun bans and use bogus numbers such as

1) if a criminal invades an unarmed home while armed, they count that home as one with a "firearm"

2) illegally used guns as counting as the number of guns in a city when the laws they support only decrease legally owned guns

3) and they ignore the fact that the areas where LEGAL gun ownership is most curtailed, the murder rate with firearms is incredibly high

As I noted, asking doctors about how to solve a legal-economic problem involving illegal fireams use is like asking a criminologist or a firearms law expert how to perform an appendectomy
 
Harvard Injury Control Research Center -

"1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide.....

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.....

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide....."

Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Homicide

So basically, you believe that guns make people kill. That's your basic premise isn't it? That if there are guns available, people are going to just start killing each other? Also, your study includes other countries, like third world countries and places like Mexico. That's a little dishonest when debating gun control here in America.

Here, educate yourself.

» Statistics Prove: More Guns, Less Crime Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 
The studies are linked in the article I referenced.


Where are all the academic studies that claim more guns make us safer?

Post #365. :mrgreen:
 
So basically, you believe that guns make people kill. That's your basic premise isn't it? That if there are guns available, people are going to just start killing each other? Also, your study includes other countries, like third world countries and places like Mexico. That's a little dishonest when debating gun control here in America.

Here, educate yourself.

» Statistics Prove: More Guns, Less Crime Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


1) the problem they have is that they ONLY pretend that crime control is what motivates their gun banning fetish

2) their real goal is to disarm people whose culture or politics bothers their communitarian or socialist world outlool

3) thus arguments that their propsed schemes are not going to decrease crime has no impact on them

4) as long as their proposals hassles law abiding gun owners they will support it

5) empty your PMs
 
1) the problem they have is that they ONLY pretend that crime control is what motivates their gun banning fetish

2) their real goal is to disarm people whose culture or politics bothers their communitarian or socialist world outlool

3) thus arguments that their propsed schemes are not going to decrease crime has no impact on them

4) as long as their proposals hassles law abiding gun owners they will support it

5) empty your PMs

Well, I can't imagine why someone would tell me that I can't defend myself against an intruder with the most powerful weapon at my disposal and that I have to sit defenseless and wait for a police officer to arrive, which more times than not would be too late for me.

Damn! I always forget to clean my inbox. :roll:
 
Well, I can't imagine why someone would tell me that I can't defend myself against an intruder with the most powerful weapon at my disposal and that I have to sit defenseless and wait for a police officer to arrive, which more times than not would be too late for me.

Damn! I always forget to clean my inbox. :roll:

they actually want you to be a statistic. fearful people are more likely to give up rights to the government in trade for ephemeral promises of more safety. Those who live in sheep pens resent those who are willing to live free and fight the wolves. Cowardly eunuchs want everyone to be like they are
 
they actually want you to be a statistic. fearful people are more likely to give up rights to the government in trade for ephemeral promises of more safety. Those who live in sheep pens resent those who are willing to live free and fight the wolves. Cowardly eunuchs want everyone to be like they are

I think that some people actually feel sorry for the criminals when they get shot while doing a home invasion or something. The poor criminals. :(
 
If definging RW boils down to that, then yes. But, the RW aren't usually drug dealing criminal enterprises..unless they are Reagan's CIA.

I've made it clear that I do not believe it's that simple, but the post I was responded to defined it that way, and I merely demonstrated how AB fit the definition that he posted.

And the definition of rightwing does not exclude drug dealing or any other illegal activity. In fact, the definition of "far right" could be read as requiring illegal activity (at least, activity that you and I would agree should be illegal)
 
I've made it clear that I do not believe it's that simple, but the post I was responded to defined it that way, and I merely demonstrated how AB fit the definition that he posted.

And the definition of rightwing does not exclude drug dealing or any other illegal activity. In fact, the definition of "far right" could be read as requiring illegal activity (at least, activity that you and I would agree should be illegal)
I guess I would see it more clearly if the AB blew up Black Churches or something. But, shooting white prosecutors in Texas just doesn't strike me as white-supremacists getting their politics on.

Nonetheless, systematically shooting officers of the court which is investigating your group is a terrorist action, no doubt. Thus the only thing open for debate is if the AB are a Right Wing org. On that, it seems that the only thing we know for sure is that they certainly are not Left Wing.
 
I guess I would see it more clearly if the AB blew up Black Churches or something. But, shooting white prosecutors in Texas just doesn't strike me as white-supremacists getting their politics on.

Nonetheless, systematically shooting officers of the court which is investigating your group is a terrorist action, no doubt. Thus the only thing open for debate is if the AB are a Right Wing org. On that, it seems that the only thing we know for sure is that they certainly are not Left Wing.


First, the definition:
Right-wing authoritarianism is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[12][13]
Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms
Next, the example:
TO ALL Brothers who have been chosen to stand, lead, follow, and obey, as one in sincere unity with all the laws and ways of the supreme Aryan Brotherhood of the state of Mississippi the following is our law, code, and orders:
(1-A) An ARYAN BROTHER is one who shows, gives, and demands his respect where it is due and upholds every moral principle and value of and for all the Elite White Aryan Race...
(2-B) Once a chosen prospect has become a full Brother to the brand he will hold that title until his very death. Whether his death be of honor and loyalty to the Brotherhood, or of Dishonor and without loyalty. It is of his own choosing. For that very dishonor and un-loyalty may be the very cause of his death...

(7-A) The Aryan Brotherhood constitution will be read by all prospects at the time of becoming a Brother. Under no circumstances shall the A.B.'s constitution be ignored, neglected, disrespected or used in slander by anyone for any insult is certain of IMMEDIATE DEATH!!!

From a list of AB 'characteristics'
a) Awareness of your surroundings and environment at all times
b) Belief in and of the racial purity of the white race
c) Mental stability
d) Efficiency in acquiring further knowledge
e) Family oriented for your race
f) Genetically of European ancestry
g) Honest in any and all Aryan Business
h) Valuable to the Brotherhood
i) Willingness to be supportive of the Brotherhood outside prison
j) Pact-Bound
k) Strong Willed
l) Obedient of all known Aryan Laws
m) Noble and superior in Nature
n) Keeper of information

And the analysis and explanation:

I know you are not drinking, so why again, ask me to water you?

The Submission demand is self evident in the VERY FIRST LINE, the convetionalism is throughout when describing the implicit superiority of the white-euro race....but you are not drinking....so this is pointless.
Authoritarian Submission - read 1(A), 2(B) and 7(A) again

Conventionalism - 1(A), b, e, f and m
 
First, the definition:

Next, the example:


And the analysis and explanation:
Pretty good. I did not know that adherence to the authoritarian makes the wingnut. Of course, you do know? THat this now makes Stalin's old regime Right Wing, and it makes China Right Wing and, lets not forget North Korea, those are some submissive followers of authoritarian rule over there with "Dear Leader", they are now Right Wing too.

I'm not buying what you're selling.
 
Last edited:
I guess I would see it more clearly if the AB blew up Black Churches or something. But, shooting white prosecutors in Texas just doesn't strike me as white-supremacists getting their politics on.

And that shooting very well might not be politically motivated. However, that doesn't mean that every crime they have committed had no political motive.

The fact is, they *have* committed politically motivated crimes. They were documented in the SDLC link I posted last night.


Nonetheless, systematically shooting officers of the court which is investigating your group is a terrorist action, no doubt. Thus the only thing open for debate is if the AB are a Right Wing org. On that, it seems that the only thing we know for sure is that they certainly are not Left Wing.

I agree that once it becomes more than a single instance, it represents a pattern of intimidating the govt, which is terrorism.

As far as rightwing, read the definition at Wiki (which is a fairly good one IMO) and see if it fits AB

Far-right politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The far-right (also known as the extreme right) refers to the highest degree of rightism in right-wing politics. Far right politics involves support of strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior who are to be more valued than those deemed to be innately inferior.[1]

There's more at the link.
 
Back
Top Bottom