• 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!

Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224:1119]

Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

YES, there were many in the North who didn't care about slavery one way or another...but most did, which is why most of those who they elected opposed slavery.

This is false. Lincoln was a well known moderate on the issue of slavery.

THAT is why he was elected. He actually beat out a blatant anti-slavery firebrand for the Republican nomination, precisely because the party knew that a candidate running primarily on the issue of slavery would be unelectable.

The South simply wasn't willing to compromise at all, unfortunately.

And your claim that "the legacy of the Confederacy does no more to foster hate or violence than any other American institution" is one of the grandest examples of a false equivalency I have ever seen. It was the legacy of the Confederacy that brought about the KKK and Jim Crow. It was the legacy of the Confederacy that gave impetus to those who opposed the Civil Rights struggle, who opposed desegregation (such as the "segregation academies" that still exist in the South to this day - I should know, since I attended one). It was the legacy of the Confederacy that kept Vicksburg, MS (where I lived for a while) from celebrating our nation's Independence Day for eighty-one years after the end of the Civil War.

You're aware that there have been numerous incarnations of the KKK, right? Only the first had anything whatsoever to do with Confederacy, and that was simply because it happened to be an insurgent group made up of Southern veterans from the Civil War.

Among the Klan's later incarnations, the strongest bastion for roughly half of the Twentieth Century was the Midwest, not the South. Indiana, in point of fact, had the highest rate of Klan membership per capita in the entire country prior to 1940, and they tended to be just as focused on Catholics (the largest lynch mob in American history was actually formed to try and capture some random foreigner at a train station which wild rumor held was secretly the Pope in disguise) and European immigrants as they ever were African Americans.

Where the modern Klan, which legitimately was reformed to deal with the issue of desegregation in the 1960s, is concerned, they have about as much to do with the actual C.S.A. as the Waffen S.S. had to do with the medieval order of the Teutonic Knights - which is to say, next to nothing at all. Just because a bunch of whackjobs try to co-opt a certain symbol in order to bolster their own perceived legitimacy, doesn't mean that they are correct in doing so.

For that matter, it's not even like Segregation was an exclusively Southern phenomenon anyway. It was simply a bit more "official" in the South, so it was more of a public struggle to get rid of it.

Sooo... Yea. Sorry, man. I don't see any way in which either the C.S.A., or "Southern culture," is tied to what happened in Charleston. It was the act of a lone, and highly disturbed, individual, which has subsequently been condemned from basically all corners of the political spectrum.

The sooner people stop trying to make it into something it's not in the interests of fueling their own regional/cultural bigotry and ideological biases, the better.
 
Last edited:
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Yes, TD looks at the comments section of a site and assumes that those anonymous individuals who post such comments speak for all liberals and lefties.

This would be very much like me pointing to comments by white supremacists and claiming they speak for all conservatives and righties.

But that is what's called a broad-brush logical fallacy - and it's stupid. I know that, and that's why I don't do that. TD hasn't learned this yet, apparently.

Well then...isn't it broad brush stupid for liberals to brand all gun owners with the same brush when one of the kooks commits mass murder? That's what the left does when it screams "gun control" every time one of the few nutjobs starts shooting.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Again...you need to recognize the problem before you formulate solutions.

You should take your own advice and recognize the actual problem. And it's not the guns. It's for the most part a combination of drug abuse and a revolving door criminal justice system.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Well then...isn't it broad brush stupid for liberals to brand all gun owners with the same brush when one of the kooks commits mass murder? That's what the left does when it screams "gun control" every time one of the few nutjobs starts shooting.

Why are so many on the right, absolutists? Apparently because they believe all of their opponents think exactly the same way, they see every statement by those advocating "gun control" as attacks on all gun owners.

Please show us a statement by a group promoting "gun control" that places the blame for gun deaths on all gun owners.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I saw clips of the 19 year old son of one of the victims, Chris Singleton. He was speaking with his baseball team standing behind him. In addition to be amazingly articulate for a young person, he stressed how he forgave the shooter. He spoke about his mother, and how she loved to pray for him and his sister. If you have a chance, watch it. Tears came to my eyes.

Chris Singleton Delivers Inspiring Speech After Losing His Mom in Charleston Church Shooting | E! Online

Here is a young man who was personally impacted by this. He lost his mother in the most horrific way. Yet unlike the internet keyboard warriors, he didn't blame Fox News and the GOP. He didn't call for people to "mobilize". He didn't scream and rant and point fingers at the gun manufacturers. He spoke of love and forgiveness.

Many people, including many on this board, should shut their mouths and close their fingers, and let someone who this tragedy really impacted speak. This is the way this should be. This young man is a damn inspiration.

Those affected by this tragedy also make the likes of Obama and Al Sharpton look quite small in comparison. Sharpton incited riots over police shootings which were in all cases but one, justified. The victims of this tragedy forgave and inspired.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

no one else seems to find your onion citation to have any merit. it was silly because it whined about a problem and had no solutions. its point was to try to demonize gun ownership without having the courage to call for gun bans that it wants

Perhaps someone should point out to threegoofs that the "Onion" is not a serious news source, It is almost exclusively into parody.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

We own a gun and we use it only for sport. We are members of a gun club and enjoy target practicing. We have never once thought of taking another person's life with it. I have always found comments like this very disturbing and paranoid. Ask any active duty Vet and they will tell you, it looks a lot easier on TV than it is in real life.

It gets easier when it comes down to the point of "kill or be killed". Any combat vet will tell you that as well,.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Sorry - we're different people. You start from a base where every conflict is racism and I start from a base where no conflict is racism. I can easily move, as in this case, to recognize racism for what it is and call it out for what it is. You, on the other hand, can't move from your base belief because your fall back position is if it isn't blatant racism it must be covert racism. Such a sad world you live in.

However, racism really isn't in dispute here - we both agree the actions of this young man stem from racial hatred. What we don't agree on is your obsessed need to attribute that racism to conservative politics. You paint an entire political ideology as racist and that's what makes your comments bigotry. Sorry, it is what it is.

When the American left accuses conservatives of racism, they are really only attempting to assuage their own side's guilt as it was democrats in the deep south who founded the Ku Klux Klan. One of their most revered leaders, the late dmocrat senator Robert Byrd was a grand cyclops and kleagle in the klan. And it was democrat governor George Wallace who attempted to block African American Students from entering the University of Alabama. And the longest filibuster of the Civil Rights Act was held by Senator Byrd.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Well then...isn't it broad brush stupid for liberals to brand all gun owners with the same brush when one of the kooks commits mass murder? That's what the left does when it screams "gun control" every time one of the few nutjobs starts shooting.

We actually just don't like the people sho kill other people, especially multiple people, with guns.

And discussing gun control when nutjobs shoot (roughly on a monthly basis in the U.S.), is pretty logical. No one is blaming *all* gun owners, despite the fevered postings of most of the gun nuts.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Perhaps someone should point out to threegoofs that the "Onion" is not a serious news source, It is almost exclusively into parody.

I'm well aware.

I'm also laughing at the fact that you guys have some kind of pathological confusion when it comes to the posted article,

'I don't get it' seems to be the usual response. It's because you don't WANT to get it, which makes it almost meta-parody.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Why are so many on the right, absolutists? Apparently because they believe all of their opponents think exactly the same way, they see every statement by those advocating "gun control" as attacks on all gun owners.

Please show us a statement by a group promoting "gun control" that places the blame for gun deaths on all gun owners.

You are kidding, right? All of the restrictions and gun bans promoted by those in the gun control movement on the left are aiming those measures at all gun owners. They are not restricting them to the criminals and those with mental issues.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You should take your own advice and recognize the actual problem. And it's not the guns. It's for the most part a combination of drug abuse and a revolving door criminal justice system.

Really? Other nations have lots of drug abuse. And the U.S. Locks up people at a higher rate and for longer than most nations.

Next excuse?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

We actually just don't like the people sho kill other people, especially multiple people, with guns.

And discussing gun control when nutjobs shoot (roughly on a monthly basis in the U.S.), is pretty logical. No one is blaming *all* gun owners, despite the fevered postings of most of the gun nuts.

So your solution is what?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You are kidding, right? All of the restrictions and gun bans promoted by those in the gun control movement on the left are aiming those measures at all gun owners. They are not restricting them to the criminals and those with mental issues.

OR in other words: I know what I know and you damned liberal, socialist Marxists are trying to limit my personal arsenal!! boogety-boogety!!
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

'Pretend'... Rather than care less because their toys are threatened.

you just don't seem to get it. You spew comments that show a rather high bit of sanctimony towards gun owners, calling guns toys and showing that your motivations are based on a cultural hatred of gun owners, and then you pretend that your real reason is crime control.

such obvious bias proves my point
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

OR in other words: I know what I know and you damned liberal, socialist Marxists are trying to limit my personal arsenal!! boogety-boogety!!

again, when the proponents of gun restrictions spend so much time ridiculing gun owners and their hatred is generally directed at lawful gun owners and the NRA, its rather unconvincing when you all pretend that its crime control you really want
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

again, when the proponents of gun restrictions spend so much time ridiculing gun owners and their hatred is generally directed at lawful gun owners and the NRA, its rather unconvincing when you all pretend that its crime control you really want

You just wallow in victimhood.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Perhaps someone should point out to threegoofs that the "Onion" is not a serious news source, It is almost exclusively into parody.

We know that. Its probably the best source available to support his position
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You just wallow in victimhood.

your posts fail to actually respond to points and instead they engage in irrelevant. and its amusing that you just don't get it. When you spend so much time insulting and ridiculing lawful gun owners, its rather hard to pretend your motivations are actually based on some legitimate desire to increase public safety. Rather, your posts exemplify what i have said all along: your position is based on a disgust for the politics of pro gun advocates and your hatred of the NRA's lobbying efforts

that's why your posts have yet to proffer a legitimate solution for crime issues
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

As a human being my heart goes out to the victims and their families. What a senseless tragedy. I have a difficult time figuring out why one human being would do this to another innocent human being. I hope the families find peace.

As a Conservative I can tell you that this act is not in my description of conservative ideals. I am no way a doctor but I can say in my opinion anyone who would treat another person in this manner has a serious mental issue. Whatever that issue is should NOT keep this person from facing the full hand of justice. Whether that be death or life in prison. Preferably death considering the wake of misery this guy has left behind. If not death then a long drawn out miserable life sentence where the inmates dole out the justice.

Whether the crime is white on black or black on white the senseless nature of these sort of crimes should infuriate us all equally.

Well said and worth reposting.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

again, when the proponents of gun restrictions spend so much time ridiculing gun owners and their hatred is generally directed at lawful gun owners and the NRA, its rather unconvincing when you all pretend that its crime control you really want

and when the proponents of unlimited gun ownership spend so much time ridiculing those who would like to see some rationality inserted into the national debate, and when the NRA appears to be little more than a lobbying agency for gun manufacturers, it is rather unconvincing when you pretend that imposing any restrictions on gun ownership is the equivalent of imposing a dictatorship on Americans.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

...which you still remain willfully ignorant of.

no, I reject that silly parody that you seem to put all your cards in. Several others have argued why your citation was stupid and the best you can do is pretend we "didn't get it"

what we get is you want to ridicule gun ownership without having any argument what should have been done different
 
Back
Top Bottom