We Don't Have a Gun Problem, We Have a Black Problem

How will I sleep tonight? LOL How's your plan coming? Who is taking up your bill? LOL

 

Who did Britain go to war against in order to free slaves?

 

I don't care how you sleep. I'm just happy that your racism is exposed. It's always nice to out a liberal racist.

 

Yes. Everyone on here believes I am the racist here. LOL

 

You admitted you are a racist. And if you didn't you'd be crying to the mods trying to make me change my sig line.

But ya can't can ya?

 

No. What I said is discrimination is legal and appropriate if it meets compelling interest. I also support discrimination of the obese trying out for the navy seals. Am I a "Fatist"? LOL

 

But with a more intense investigation, you will find that the majority of black gun violent crimes, are committed by blacks of a destroyed family. Single mother or father, most "black gun violence" are black's of single mothers, and with a significant number of single parent mothers who during that time, encounter yet another child, that a different father leaves with her yet again (black siblings with different fathers). If they are unwilling to solve the problems that are within the family (parents don't get what they want, there is a sacrifice to be made), then the problem will never be fixed, for it must be done so at the "root" of the problem.
Common terminology from rappers, "find'em fu()()'em, and flee. And this is what young kids look up to, for rappers even gangsta rap, are the idols for these poor children.

It is absolutely ok to raise your child with "rap music", talking about bitches and ho's, cocaine in the nose, and everything from rape to murder goes, (should I become a rapper).

It's just fine to raise a child (daughter) to paint themselves to be (act) something they're not. Make sure to buy them short, shorts, so they can be popular, and in turn become a single parent themselves. Nobody wants to address the real problem, not even talk about it. For if one does, they are simply "racist".

I was going to go off on a rant about our immoral society behavior, but I think you get the point. If everybody is just fine with going outside the laws, principals and morals of God, and only adhere to the laws, principals, and morals of man, than why do they act so surprised, for it's only going to and getting worse.

Is it not obvious that sin is destruction, destruction is the result of sin? Are people truly that blind?

 

Weight is not a protected class. Race is.

And what you just said is discrimination against white people is acceptable if it meets compelling interest. Fine.

Then is discriminating against black people acceptable if it meets compelling interest?

If so then reducing the murder rape and all other violent crime by a group who commits 50% of it while representing less than 14% of the total population is a compelling state interest. FAR more compelling than discriminating against white people because of the actions of other white people decades and centuries earlier.

I'd love to hear your argument for the compelling interest of discrimination against whites.

 

... and who are we blaming the opioid epidemic on this week?

Let me guess, Black People.

 

Discrimination is fine with you if it is not a protected class? FATIST!!!!!

You don't need to connvince me you have compelling interest to discriminate against black people. You have to pass a bill and then let it survive a scotus decision. And that is going to happen......wait for it.....never. LOL

 

The Sultan of Zanzibar comes to mind right off and most of the world's nations had been informed that the Atlantic Slave Trade was no longer being tolerated. I THINK but am not at all sure that it might also have played some role int the Crimean war, as the remnant of what had once been the Mongol state was a known and chronic slave raider in that area. Slave-trading and keeping, real or supposed, was an oft used justification for Britain's imperial ambitions, particularly against the Ottomans and the Indian princes

 

I don't need to convince you because you're dishonest. How about you answer the questions.

Too difficult for you?

 

You got a source for that? All I can find is that the British went to war (if you can call it that since it lasted all of 45 minutes... literally) because they wanted and succeeded in instituting a puppet government.

 

You asked one question. The answer is yes. LOL

 

Fantastic then. I'll ask another one now.

On what grounds is reducing the violent crime rate by 50% not a compelling state interest?

 

The fact that it does not meet the strict scrutiny standard. Look up what that means and get back to me.

 

I know exactly what it means. You clearly do not.

"To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result."

Now I'll ask you again. On what grounds does reducing the violent crime rate not fall under a compelling state interest?

 

I will look but my sources were from a paper I did in college some (ahem, humph, cough) years ago. Does your source say WHY they went to war and then instituted a puppet government?

If you have any disagreement with the government under our Constitution you have non-violent and legitimate means of redress, if the outcome of a legal dispute doesn't go your way you have non-violent and legitimate means of redress for that and so on and so on, technically speaking it never stops. (There are still cases against the USA by the First Nations that are hundreds of years old, some are being won).

What you don't have, ever, is the right to take up arms and murder your opponents. If you do have that then why have the laws in the first place?

The Southrons were criminals and traitors, they betrayed their and our Homeland and they murdered our citizens, they did so because they were defending an institution that should never have been legal in the US and which stood foursquare against the very first words in the document on which we base our country's sovereignty. They deserve no honor for that, nor any place of honor in our public places. We might keep their memories alive in books and museums, we might even recognize their courage and the strength of their convictions in doing what they thought was right, but that sill makes what they did no less wrong and we shouldn't forget that.

And two other things are important here. One is that the Southrons didn't secede because anybody had abolished slavery but because they thought LIncoln MIGHT abolish slavery. And the second is that the South started the Civil War, They fired on ships that were doing nothing more than trying to resupply the garrison of a fort whose fate had been in legitimate negotiations for months

 

No see your premise is faulty.

The southerners DID take them to court and they WON on MULTIPLE occasions. The northern states simply ignored the SCOTUS because they knew their proxy the federal government would never enforce the decisions.

So what were the southerners supposed to do? Take them to court AGAIN and win AGAIN just so that the northern states can continue to ignore direct orders of unconstitutionality from the Supreme Court... AGAIN?

Once the northern states are in breach of contract and REFUSE to desist the contract becomes null and void and as such the southern states had no obligation to remain in the partnership that the northern states were abusing.

What other option did they have? At that point they have two choices. Either concede that the states and federal government can simply ignore parts of the constitution it deems to be immoral or they fight back. They chose to fight back rather than bend over grab their ankles and let the government violate the constitution at will.

And that's EXACTLY what they should have done and what any American should have done.

 

Let's say it wasn't the fugitive slave clause. Let's say it was a part of the constitution you feel is important. Say freedom of speech or the 2nd amendment. The government declares it immoral and refused to uphold it.

You take them to court multiple times and you continuously win. But the government simply ignores those decisions.

What do you do? Do you concede they can violate the constitution with immunity?

Or do you fight? Because at that point, you don't have another option.

 

In re the bolded:

Basically, yes, that's exactly what you're supposed to do, the way you write it makes it seem feckless and weak, and I guess it is in contrast to murdering people but i see it as preferable. The main way you win legal cases is to be in the right and be persistent. The Southrons, IMO, were neither.

And just what cases are you referring to anyway? The only case on slavery I can recall was Dred Scott and that was altogether favorable to the Institution.

 

So that's what youd do? You'd just keep going to court and wasting money on decisions you were winning but the government doesn't follow?

That's ludicrous. It doesn't sound feckless and weak. It IS feckless and weak. Don't you understand how that COMPLETELY undermines the constitution?

And Priggs v Pennsylvania

 

As long as I want to be an American I have to operate within the framework of American laws. Once I step out of that framework I am no longer really being an American as we are a nation of laws. How am I undermining the Constitution by staying within it?

I don't understand. Your first argument is that the Southrons had gone to the courts and the courts had ruled against them and now you bring up a case that rules against the anti-slavery faction? Are you trying to say that John Brown was right?

Or could it be that your entire premise was ahistoric, that the slavers had went to court several times and it was the SLAVERS who had won, and that they STILL decided to betray their country just because they thought Lincoln MIGHT abolish slavery?

 

Umm no. My original point and the one I'm still espousing was that the southern states won in court and the northern states simply ignored the decisions.

And for the record Lincoln couldn't have abolished slavery. Unless he had the support of the slave states it would be impossible.

That is if they were willing to follow the constitution. Which they weren't. Hence the war.

 

Yes, great stuff....

ironically, co-created by the meathead himself, Rob Reiner.