- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,767
- Reaction score
- 14,179
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
This is an editorial written by Eugene Robinson and published by real clear politics. again making the assertion blacks don't have a constructive right to bear arms because of police racism and makes several assertions about the pro-gun community that are factually untrue.
Two Types of Gun Laws: One for Blacks and One for Whites | RealClearPolitics
some excerpts
Police in North Carolina did not take action against Scott because he had a gun, they were looking for a subject of an arrest warrant when scott began exiting his vehicle while holding one, if he had his gun securely holstered and followed police commands his life would certainly have been easier. furthermore Scott due to numerous convictions for violent crimes was not legally permitted to own a gun.
Why would you "assume" the police account that Scott had a gun? Scott did have a gun, that is fact, just like the sun rising in the east.
apparently a ban on open carry will save the lives of people who kill themselves and people who cross criminal gang members, who knew? What's a wild west desperado anyway? silly silly.
Actually both the NRA and the Citizen Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear arms issued statements on that shooting and wanted an investigation done.
This goes back to this strawman theory that anyone who owns a gun is racist and has a small penis and is afraid of minorities, this is basically slander.
Two Types of Gun Laws: One for Blacks and One for Whites | RealClearPolitics
some excerpts
In reaching that conclusion I am accepting, for the sake of argument, the account given by the Charlotte, North Carolina, police of how they came to fatally shoot Keith Lamont Scott on Tuesday. Scott's killing prompted two nights of violent protests that led Gov. Pat McCrory to declare a state of emergency. On Friday, police in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shot and killed Terence Crutcher -- an unarmed black man -- and the two incidents gave tragic new impetus to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Scott's relatives claim he was unarmed as well. But let's assume that police are telling the truth and he had a handgun. What reason was there for officers to confront him?
North Carolina, after all, is an open-carry state. A citizen has the right to walk around armed if he or she chooses to do so. The mere fact that someone has a firearm is no reason for police to take action.
Police in North Carolina did not take action against Scott because he had a gun, they were looking for a subject of an arrest warrant when scott began exiting his vehicle while holding one, if he had his gun securely holstered and followed police commands his life would certainly have been easier. furthermore Scott due to numerous convictions for violent crimes was not legally permitted to own a gun.
Why would you "assume" the police account that Scott had a gun? Scott did have a gun, that is fact, just like the sun rising in the east.
This is crazy, in my humble opinion. I believe that we should try to save some of the 30,000-plus lives lost each year to gun violence by enacting sensible firearms restrictions -- and that the more people who walk around packing heat like Wild West desperados,
apparently a ban on open carry will save the lives of people who kill themselves and people who cross criminal gang members, who knew? What's a wild west desperado anyway? silly silly.
In July, police killed a black man named Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota.....................
Does the NRA disagree?............
Actually both the NRA and the Citizen Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear arms issued statements on that shooting and wanted an investigation done.
This goes back to this strawman theory that anyone who owns a gun is racist and has a small penis and is afraid of minorities, this is basically slander.