• 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]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the fact that you're trying to approach the debate in a thoughtful and logical way...but I still have to disagree with you in the strongest of terms. It was never 'just' the Klan. Nowhere else in America did blacks face what they did - and to some extent still do - to this very day.

I graduated high school in Shaw, MS. in 1980. When I came home on leave from the Navy in 1984, I took a walk down the main street. There was only one doctor's office in town, and it had two doors. Above one door was "white", and above the other door was "colored"...and people still abided by these signs.

This was twenty years after the Civil Rights Act.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

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.

I mentioned I attended a "segregation academy". It was Indianola Academy, which I think has like two or three blacks attending now (in a county that's 71% black). The segregation academy system was initiated by those who opposed the findings in "Brown v. Board of Education" and the Civil Rights Act. Those who opposed it began something called the "White Citizens Council":

The first Citizens' Council (also known as the White Citizens' Council) was formed in Indianola, Mississippi, following the United States Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which struck down segregation in public schools. White businessmen, planters, and professionals organized the group to prevent the court's ruling from taking hold in Mississippi. Thomas Pickens Brady, a circuit court judge and Citizens' Council leader, published a handbook entitled Black Monday outlining the group's goals, including the abolition of public schools, nullification of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and establishment of a separate black state. The publication of this handbook inspired many Mississippians to join the Citizens' Council movement.

Other Citizens' Council chapters were formed around the state, and within three months a statewide body, the Association of Citizens' Councils of Mississippi, began in Winona, Mississippi. By 1956, the group claimed eighty thousand members in Mississippi. It was particularly active in the Delta region and also had a powerful Jackson chapter, led by William J. Simmons. A national group, the Citizens' Council of America, was formed by 1956. Its board of advisors included Senator James O. Eastland and Representative John Bell Williams of Mississippi, Senator J. Strom Thurmond and Representative L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina, and Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin.


That Senator John O. Eastland was our family acquaintance, was twice president pro tem, and was the most powerful racist in America for a generation. As you can see above, the founding of the White Citizens Council was quite political, and was powerful indeed.

That "White Citizens Council" eventually changed its name to the "Council of Conservative Citizens"...but the name was all that was changed:

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) is an American political organization that supports a large variety of conservative and paleoconservative causes in addition to white nationalism, and white separatism. Its Statement of Principles says that they oppose "oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind". Several members of the CofCC Board of Directors are former leaders of the segregationist Citizens' Councils of America, founded by Bob Patterson (a retired Command Sgt Major), which is commonly referred to as the White Citizens' Council. The organization is headquartered in St. Louis.
...
The SPLC and the Miami Herald tallied a further 38 federal, state, and local politicians who appeared at CofCC events between 2000 and 2004. The ADL states the following politicians are members or have spoken at meetings: Senator Trent Lott, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi state senators Gary Jackson, and Dean Kirby, several Mississippi state representatives. People who have also spoken at CofCC meetings include Ex-Governors Guy Hunt of Alabama, and Kirk Fordice of Mississippi. U.S. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi is said to have attended as well.

In 2005, the Council of Conservative Citizens held its National Conference in Montgomery, Alabama. George Wallace Jr., an Alabama Public Service Commissioner and former State Treasurer who was then running for Lieutenant Governor, and Sonny Landham, an actor, spoke at the conference.


It was political then, and it is political now...and we've all seen that the SC shooter was influenced by what he saw in the CCC webpage.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

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.

A "bit more official"???? Dude - that's the understatement of the decade. As you can see above (in addition to little things like Wilcox, GA having its first segregated prom in 2013), it was much worse in the South.

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.

You don't see it simply because you don't want to. But those of us who've lived there, who grew up with it and know what it's really like...we know better. I've been one of those racists - I know what they think and why they think as they do...and with but a modicum of objective research, it is obvious to even the casual observer that racism was and is to this day an integral part of politics in the South. After all, why do you think that Mississippi's state congress never voted on ratifying the 13th Amendment until 1995...and never had it officially ratified until 2013 (yes, two years ago)?

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.

Guy, nobody ever wants to admit their side is wrong - it's hard to do, especially when one despises what the other side stands for. I was once a strong conservative, and a strong Republican, and I despised the Democrats...but I could not ignore what I saw, what I knew firsthand to be true. Y'all can try to deny the part that racism plays in Southern politics and culture all the way down to the individual level, but I know better - been there, done that, and seen the issue from more sides than almost anyone else.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Does "most whites in the South accept racism" EQUAL "an entire ideology is racist"? No. The mistake was yours, and everything I stated is true.



Does "conservative politics makes these tragedies more likely" EQUAL "every conflict is racism"? No. The mistake was yours, and everything I stated is true.



No, I doubt that. I figure you'll still respond, but only after making sure that no light of reality penetrates those assumption-colored glasses you're wearing - you know, the ones that lead you to make epic logical fails like those you've made in the past few replies.

In honour of post 1119, I won't respond in kind to your post here. Have a good day.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

There are roughly 130 million Americans who possess guns. There are over 3 million guns owned by American citizens. Yet only a tiny fraction of 1% use them to commit any crime much less murder. Do the math. The right to possess firearms is not the problem. And btw, gun violence is actually down by roughly 40% since 1994.

And our gun violence is still far higher than that of any other first-world nation.

The right to possess firearms is not the problem...WHEN the one who possesses those firearms is a law-abiding citizen. Tell me, guy, are you willing to do what is necessary to minimize the ability of sexual predators, illegal aliens, sociopaths, and terrorists from possessing firearms?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

"There you go again"...with yet another broad-brush attack of your own.

You're assuming that we brand ALL gun owners with the same brush...when 32% of all Democrats ARE gun owners. As we have stated time and time AND TIME AGAIN, we aren't after the law-abiding gun owners - but we DO want to do what is necessary to keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them!
.
Certainly there are different levels of anti-gunners on the left. However the activists doing the most shouting have an ultimate goal of banning guns outright. They have merely abandoned the all or nothing approach and are instead attempting incremental measures. However the goal is the same

It's the gun-rights lobby that is ensuring the ease of access to guns by sexual predators, ex-felons, sociopaths, terrorists, and the like.

That is simply not true. The NRA for instance is simply for enforcing existing laws that in fact do help keep guns out of the hands of sexual predators, sociopaths, terrorists, and the like. The NRA also seeks tougher punishment for those criminals who break those laws. One example is the laws that require law enforcement and mental health professionals to report the names of the mentally ill to the national database used for instant background checks. If this law was enforced, several of the mass shooters would not have been able to buy guns legally.......as they in fact did. It is in fact the left wing trial attorney lobby that is ensuring easy access of guns to the felons and other groups that you mentioned. For instance there used to be a "Use a gun in the commission of a crime and go to prison" law. The leftwing trial attorney lobby and liberal judges somehow managed to do away with that law.


The measures we want do NOT restrict the ability of law-abiding gun owners to own (almost) any gun they want or how many guns they want. The measures we want are for keeping them out the hands of those who should never have them to begin with.

Obviously you are not representative of the majority of gun control advocates on the left. They go much further then you claim.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You've no clue. By your logic, it's an unconstitutional gun ban to restrict the public from buying 20MM helicopter-capable chain guns.

well if you had actually read about 400 posts of mine on the subject you would know that I think the issue involves individual arms and a 20MM chain gun is a crew served weapon. and btw there is actual constitutional support for arguing the federal government has no business restricting someone owning a chain gun as opposed to the silly comments that civilians ought to be limited to stuff of lesser grade than civilian police have

magazine limits

bans on select fire carbines

waiting periods

limits on how many guns you can buy in a month

are all blatant violations of the clear meaning of the 2A because the 2A is a limitation on what the government can do that does not change on what civilians can buy today, or tomorrow or next year or in a decade
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

well if you had actually read about 400 posts of mine on the subject you would know that I think the issue involves individual arms and a 20MM chain gun is a crew served weapon. and btw there is actual constitutional support for arguing the federal government has no business restricting someone owning a chain gun as opposed to the silly comments that civilians ought to be limited to stuff of lesser grade than civilian police have

magazine limits

bans on select fire carbines

waiting periods

limits on how many guns you can buy in a month

are all blatant violations of the clear meaning of the 2A because the 2A is a limitation on what the government can do that does not change on what civilians can buy today, or tomorrow or next year or in a decade

Your opinion is unsupported by the documentation of the period when the Bill of Rights was ratified, although I'm sure you will have some guys who say otherwise.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Your opinion is unsupported by the documentation of the period when the Bill of Rights was ratified, although I'm sure you will have some guys who say otherwise.

ever read Sanford Levinson's "THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT"

tell me what in the constitution actually was intended by the FOUNDERS to allow federal gun control powers.

Can you find a single shred of documentation that supports federal gun control powers from that era

don't bother looking it doesn't exist
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

ever read Sanford Levinson's "THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT"

tell me what in the constitution actually was intended by the FOUNDERS to allow federal gun control powers.

Can you find a single shred of documentation that supports federal gun control powers from that era

don't bother looking it doesn't exist

How can we compare the views of the Founding Fathers as neither Federalists or anti-Federalists believed the nation should support a "standing army" and inasmuch as the Founders lived in a very different world, it is difficult to state whether or not the Founders intended for Americans to have all the firearms they wish. We live in a very different world.

Are you in favour of eliminating the Army and the Air Force? The Navy and Marines were seen as essential defence elements in the 18th C. but not an army.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

How can we compare the views of the Founding Fathers as neither Federalists or anti-Federalists believed the nation should support a "standing army" and inasmuch as the Founders lived in a very different world, it is difficult to state whether or not the Founders intended for Americans to have all the firearms they wish. We live in a very different world.

Are you in favour of eliminating the Army and the Air Force? The Navy and Marines were seen as essential defence elements in the 18th C. but not an army.

can you actually find a singe speech, letter, note or document from that time that even hints that the founders wanted the federal government to have a power over the private arms of private citizens and concurrent with the police powers of the "several states"? find me one. The last person I asked this to merely cited Article One Section 8 which was of course a complete failure
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

can you actually find a singe speech, letter, note or document from that time that even hints that the founders wanted the federal government to have a power over the private arms of private citizens and concurrent with the police powers of the "several states"? find me one. The last person I asked this to merely cited Article One Section 8 which was of course a complete failure

John Adams, DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'll ask again: Are you in favour of eliminating the Army and the Air Force? The Navy and Marines were seen as essential defence elements in the 18th C. but not an army. Standing armies were viewed as weapons used by governments/rulers to control their citizenry.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'll ask again: Are you in favour of eliminating the Army and the Air Force? The Navy and Marines were seen as essential defence elements in the 18th C. but not an army. Standing armies were viewed as weapons used by governments/rulers to control their citizenry.

this is a thread about federal gun control being legitimate not other issues.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

this is a thread about federal gun control being legitimate not other issues.

It is related.

I notice that your response to the quote from John Adams failed to acknowledge your request for a Founding Father quote was answered.
. . . can you actually find a singe speech, letter, note or document from that time that even hints that the founders wanted the federal government to have a power over the private arms of private citizens

For some reason, the modern gun nuts fail to acknowledge that whole "well-regulated militia" phrase found in the Second Amendment.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

It is related.

I notice that your response to the quote from John Adams failed to acknowledge your request for a Founding Father quote was answered.

For some reason, the modern gun nuts fail to acknowledge that whole "well-regulated militia" phrase found in the Second Amendment.

so its your learned opinion that the bill of rights is the source of a grant of power to the federal government? do you even comprehend how much of a fail that is to claim that the BILL OF RIGHTS was intended to give the FEDERAL government ADDITIONAL powers? do you understand that "well regulated" had nothing to do with FEDERAL powers and since the Second Amendment was well known to RECOGNIZE a pre-existing right rather than to CREATE any RIGHT OR POWER, your argument completely fails?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

so its your learned opinion that the bill of rights is the source of a grant of power to the federal government? do you even comprehend how much of a fail that is to claim that the BILL OF RIGHTS was intended to give the FEDERAL government ADDITIONAL powers? do you understand that "well regulated" had nothing to do with FEDERAL powers and since the Second Amendment was well known to RECOGNIZE a pre-existing right rather than to CREATE any RIGHT OR POWER, your argument completely fails?

I disagree with your interpretation. AND you failed to acknowledge that I did provide a quote from a Founding Father.

Do you believe the US Army and Air Force should be disbanded? They are not in the Constitution.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I disagree with your interpretation. AND you failed to acknowledge that I did provide a quote from a Founding Father.

Do you believe the US Army and Air Force should be disbanded? They are not in the Constitution.

1) your quote was irrelevant and you know that

2) Why are you diverting

3) have you figured out that the bill of rights does not GRANT any power to the federal government and there is numerous supreme court support for my argument

where is there any supreme court for your claim that the second amendment is the source of federal power to control firearms
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

1) your quote was irrelevant and you know that

2) Why are you diverting

3) have you figured out that the bill of rights does not GRANT any power to the federal government and there is numerous supreme court support for my argument

where is there any supreme court for your claim that the second amendment is the source of federal power to control firearms

and you are moving the goal posts - so, Good Night!
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

and you are moving the goal posts - so, Good Night!

wrong-your quote had nothing to do with the regulation, by the federal government-of privately owned firearms
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Cool stuff, isn't it weird that police in Cleveland can pull up on a 13 year old with an air soft and shoot him within 2 seconds but police in NJ and SC manage to catch armed suspects alive? ;)



let's not oversimplify life and death situations
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Its A fact that the MOST Leftist, Liberal cities are the TOP Crime and MURDER.

Rank City
30 Baton Rouge, LA, 29 Youngstown, OH,
28 San Bernardino, CA
27 Oakland, CA
26 Barberton, OH
25 Poughkeepsie, NY
24 Cincinnati, OH
23 Petersburg, VA
22 Wilmington, DE
21 York, PA
20 East Palo Alto, CA
19 Jackson, MS
18 Wilkes-Barre, PA
17 Birmingham, AL
16 East Point, GA
15 East Chicago, IN
14 Compton, CA
13 Baltimore, MD
12 St. Louis, MO
11 Harvey, IL
10 Newark, NJ
9 New Orleans, LA
8 Trenton, NJ
7 Detroit, MI
6 Flint, MI
5 Saginaw, MI
4 Chester, PA
3 Gary, IN
2 Camden, NJ
1 East St. Louis, I......................................... These Cities are the largest Liberal Democrat Cities. The Politicians and COURTS and GOVERNMENTS who RUN the\\

These cities, Are liberal Democrats.
 
GOVERNMENT - REPUBLICAN . The best.

Republicans Lead the Best-Run States in America, - Top 5 States: -/ Democrats Dominate the Worst Top 5 States:


North Dakota Republicans Control Best Run States in America, 24/7 Wall St. Survey Shows

Governor: Jack Dalrymple, Republican / State Senate: Republican control / State House of Representatives: Republican control

> Debt per capita: $3,282 (22nd lowest) - > Budget deficit: None - > Unemployment: 3.5% (the lowest)
> Median household income: $51,704 (20th highest) - > Pct. below poverty line: 12.2% (13th lowest)
.................................................................

Republicans Control Wyoming

Governor: Matt Mead, Republican - State Senate: Republican control -State House of Representatives: Republican control

> Debt per capita: $2,694 (18th lowest) -> Budget deficit: 10.3% (32nd largest)
> Unemployment: 6.0% (7th lowest) - > Median household income: $56,322 (13th highest)
.................................................................


Republicans Control Nebraska

Governor: Dave Heineman, Republican - State Legislature: Republican control

> Debt per capita: $1,279 (2nd lowest) - > Budget deficit: 9.7% (34th largest)
> Unemployment: 4.4% (2nd lowest) - > Median household income: $50,296 (22nd highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (tied-15th lowest)
.................................................................


Republicans Control Utah

Governor: Gary Herbert, Republican - State Senate: Republican control

State House of Representatives: Republican control - > Debt per capita: $2,356 (15th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 14.7% (25th largest) - > Unemployment: 6.7% (tied-11th lowest)
> Median household income: $55,869 (14th highest) - > Pct. below poverty line: 13.5% (tied-17th lowest)
.................................................................


Republicans Control Iowa

Governor: Terry Branstad, Republican - State Senate: Republican control

State House of Representatives: Republican control - > Debt per capita: $1,690 (7th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 20.3% (18th largest) - > Unemployment: 5.9% (6th lowest)
> Median household income: $49,427 (24th highest) - > Pct. below poverty line: 12.8% (14th lowest).

thank God that liberal democrats will be removed from the white house. Soon.
 
GOVERNMENT - REPUBLICAN . The best.

Republicans Lead the Best-Run States in America, - Top 5 States: -/ Democrats Dominate the Worst Top 5 States:


North Dakota Republicans Control Best Run States in America, 24/7 Wall St. Survey Shows

Governor: Jack Dalrymple, Republican / State Senate: Republican control / State House of Representatives: Republican control

> Debt per capita: $3,282 (22nd lowest) - > Budget deficit: None - > Unemployment: 3.5% (the lowest)
> Median household income: $51,704 (20th highest) - > Pct. below poverty line: 12.2% (13th lowest)
.................................................................

Republicans Control Wyoming

Governor: Matt Mead, Republican - State Senate: Republican control -State House of Representatives: Republican control

> Debt per capita: $2,694 (18th lowest) -> Budget deficit: 10.3% (32nd largest)
> Unemployment: 6.0% (7th lowest) - > Median household income: $56,322 (13th highest)
.................................................................


Republicans Control Nebraska

Governor: Dave Heineman, Republican - State Legislature: Republican control

> Debt per capita: $1,279 (2nd lowest) - > Budget deficit: 9.7% (34th largest)
> Unemployment: 4.4% (2nd lowest) - > Median household income: $50,296 (22nd highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (tied-15th lowest)
.................................................................


Republicans Control Utah

Governor: Gary Herbert, Republican - State Senate: Republican control

State House of Representatives: Republican control - > Debt per capita: $2,356 (15th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 14.7% (25th largest) - > Unemployment: 6.7% (tied-11th lowest)
> Median household income: $55,869 (14th highest) - > Pct. below poverty line: 13.5% (tied-17th lowest)
.................................................................


Republicans Control Iowa

Governor: Terry Branstad, Republican - State Senate: Republican control

State House of Representatives: Republican control - > Debt per capita: $1,690 (7th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 20.3% (18th largest) - > Unemployment: 5.9% (6th lowest)
> Median household income: $49,427 (24th highest) - > Pct. below poverty line: 12.8% (14th lowest).

thank God that liberal democrats will be removed from the white house. Soon.

Lol. You were surely against the US wars in the Middle East.
 
Back
Top Bottom