Chicago Violence and 'Gun Control'


Even the AK47 looks a lot less threatening when it has the Hello Kitty treatment.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
jawara wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
What pisses me off is when anybody challenges Obama about gun control they are eventually called a racist since they don’t want to save the black/minorities from this violence. The thing is that gun control has a very long history of being racist against blacks/minorities but nobody even takes the time to entertain that idea.

Good point!!! I cant remember exactly where I read about it but I think the first gun laws were put in place by racists’ because they didnt like the idea of freed slaves being able to protect themselves from groups like the KKK.
I carry concealed just about every time I leave the house because of high crime, drugs addicts, and racist (both black and white) because I’m in an interracial marriage. I’ve gotten dirty looks from all sorts of people. In a one on one fight I can hold my own, 2 on 1 … I’m not winning any MMA matches anytime soon, and besides what if the attacker were to have a weapon???

The Republicans originally got into supporting second amendment rights just after the civil war in order to protect freedmen and republicans in the south from lynchings and reprisals by southern democrats.

Unfortunately it is a forgotten aspect of the democrats history that it was the southern deomcrats who ended the post civil war reconstruction era and imposed Jim Crow. It is sad really that the dems get any praise for ending Jim Crow in the 60’s when they are the ones imposed it.

It also should not be forgotten that the militant arm of the southern democrats was the KKK. Those two were synonamous with each other right up until the 1950’s when the KKK was kicked out of the democrats. [/quote]

Oh yeah it was just fucking terrible. I’ll see if I can find a link to this blog that has well documented videos discussing the topic of gun control being racially motivated.

A good example was that certain parts of the country outlawed Saturday Night Specials. Which meant any gun that was under a certain dollar amount couldn’t be sold in that area. This way only people that had lots of disposable income, aka not the blacks, could afford to have a firearm for protection. They tried to disguise their motives by saying that is was for safety that way nobody would be injured due to cheaper gun malfunctions.

FFS doesn’t this make anybody, except the already pro-gun people, mad? Whenever I think too long about it I really get upset and I’m just about as white as they come. The pro-gun movement really needs to get more minorities involved in the movement if we ever really want to have a great chance at lowering crime and stopping this anti-gun bullshit legislation. That and you can never have enough shooting buddies because we all can’t own every gun there is.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
There are ways to lessen the fear factor of the black scary looking gun. I think my favorite is the “Hello Kitty” version of the AR15…[/quote]

Is that one of those California compliant pistol grips? I like that paint job too. Duracoat???

[quote]Sifu wrote:
There are ways to lessen the fear factor of the black scary looking gun. I think my favorite is the “Hello Kitty” version of the AR15…[/quote]

That is fucking awesome. Can you imagine being shot with that gun. You would never live it down.

[quote]jawara wrote:
Sifu wrote:
There are ways to lessen the fear factor of the black scary looking gun. I think my favorite is the “Hello Kitty” version of the AR15…

Is that one of those California compliant pistol grips? I like that paint job too. Duracoat???[/quote]

Here you go…

http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx

This rifle is 100% legal in California because it is based on an “off-list” lower receiver made by Stag Arms and has no evil features at all, instead featuring a fixed stock instead of the evil collapsible stock, a muzzle brake in place of the vile flash-hider, and a MonsterMan Grip instead of the heinous and malicious plastic pistol grip. The C Products magazine looks like a 30 round magazine body but is permanently modified to only allow 10 rounds.

I have to give props to my friend Drew at Armory Airbrush who painted the parts for me and did a great job on the graphics. Check him out at http://www.armoryairbrush.com/

[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I really don’t see any hope for Chicago any time soon since Illinois as a whole has terribly restrictive gun laws. [/quote]

The problem is not the gun laws and legal guns, it’s guns that are purchased out-of-state at gun shows with minimal documentation, and then re-sold in Chicago. Mayor Bloomberg in New York City (a Republican BTW) is dealing with the same problem, with guns flowing in from Virginia and Pennsylvannia. The guns are transported accross state lines and sold out of the trunk of their car, etc. Licenses and background checks are obviously a joke in this situation.

Seen this video? Dealers at a gun show laughing, when the buyer says he hopes there is no background check because he wouldn’t pass. Sellers are required by law to deny a sale if they have doubts about the buyer’s background. But sellers are joking about not passinng a background check, and pocketing the money. It seems clear that the problem is that the existing laws are being ignored. 35 out of 47 gun sellers followed through with the sale, even though the buyer openly admitted he couldn’t pass a background check

Article here:

part of the video here:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Mayor Bloomberg in New York City (a Republican BTW) [/quote]

I just wanted to laugh at this part. That is all.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
There are ways to lessen the fear factor of the black scary looking gun. I think my favorite is the “Hello Kitty” version of the AR15…

That is fucking awesome. Can you imagine being shot with that gun. You would never live it down.[/quote]

i can safely say I would rather be dead from the gunshot than have to live with that for the rest of my natural life. My friends would MAUL me. rofl.

[quote]malonetd wrote:
K2000 wrote:
Mayor Bloomberg in New York City (a Republican BTW)

I just wanted to laugh at this part. That is all.[/quote]

I know, it seems crazy, but there actually are some Republicans who have rational ideas about gun legislation and law enforcement. Bloomberg isn’t afraid of the gun lobby, so that helps.

Frankly, as a Democrat, i think you need to purge these moderate Republicans from the party ASAP!!!

Thanks in advance,
Signed,
Every Democrat in America

[quote]K2000 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
K2000 wrote:
Mayor Bloomberg in New York City (a Republican BTW)

I just wanted to laugh at this part. That is all.

I know, it seems crazy, but there actually are some Republicans who have rational ideas about gun legislation and law enforcement. Bloomberg isn’t afraid of the gun lobby, so that helps.

Frankly, as a Democrat, i think you need to purge these moderate Republicans from the party ASAP!!!

Thanks in advance,
Signed,
Every Democrat in America

[/quote]

Apparently you missed the joke.

[quote]K2000 wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I really don’t see any hope for Chicago any time soon since Illinois as a whole has terribly restrictive gun laws.

The problem is not the gun laws and legal guns, it’s guns that are purchased out-of-state at gun shows with minimal documentation, and then re-sold in Chicago. Mayor Bloomberg in New York City (a Republican BTW) is dealing with the same problem, with guns flowing in from Virginia and Pennsylvannia. The guns are transported accross state lines and sold out of the trunk of their car, etc. Licenses and background checks are obviously a joke in this situation.

Seen this video? Dealers at a gun show laughing, when the buyer says he hopes there is no background check because he wouldn’t pass. Sellers are required by law to deny a sale if they have doubts about the buyer’s background. But sellers are joking about not passinng a background check, and pocketing the money. It seems clear that the problem is that the existing laws are being ignored. 35 out of 47 gun sellers followed through with the sale, even though the buyer openly admitted he couldn’t pass a background check

Article here:

part of the video here:

More anti-gun bullshit. You are using a limited selection of specific events that support your cause. Also, as a seller you do not have to do a background check if you are an individual and not a FFL dealer. That’s the main argument against gun-shows because you can get by the background check. Now you can argue that private individuals shouldn’t be able to do this and my reply would be a resounding “fuck you”. I’ll be damned if I think it is ok for the government to decide if/when I can sell my own property and if I should have to let them know what I own through licensing.

Guns can be transferred across state lines and be sold out of cars but that generally won’t be legal. So your idea of preventing this and straw-man purchases is to just stop the sale of guns? The only people this will stop from having firearms will be the individuals that follow the law. This won’t stop criminals from having weapons just like the restrictions in Illinois/Chicago have shown. Also, any further restrictions won’t stop the acquisition of legally owned firearms being stolen from honest citizens.

You better just go to your end game in the debate and say we must outlaw all firearms, collect them, and destroy them. It has a proven track record of working really well as long as you are the individual that’s in power.

[quote]K2000 wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I really don’t see any hope for Chicago any time soon since Illinois as a whole has terribly restrictive gun laws.

The problem is not the gun laws and legal guns, it’s guns that are purchased out-of-state at gun shows with minimal documentation, and then re-sold in Chicago. Mayor Bloomberg in New York City (a Republican BTW) is dealing with the same problem, with guns flowing in from Virginia and Pennsylvannia. The guns are transported accross state lines and sold out of the trunk of their car, etc. Licenses and background checks are obviously a joke in this situation.

Seen this video? Dealers at a gun show laughing, when the buyer says he hopes there is no background check because he wouldn’t pass. Sellers are required by law to deny a sale if they have doubts about the buyer’s background. But sellers are joking about not passinng a background check, and pocketing the money. It seems clear that the problem is that the existing laws are being ignored. 35 out of 47 gun sellers followed through with the sale, even though the buyer openly admitted he couldn’t pass a background check

Article here:

part of the video here:

Bloomberg is just an elitist asshole and calling him a Republican is like calling my bowel movements caviar. He has conducted illegal investigations in other states, butting in their business.

Those videos are crap.

Look, there are ads in my neighborhood paper for gun shows in Indiana selling guns that are illegal in Chicago. The interstate trade goes on with impunity.

You could prosecute gun laws on the books seriously, or you could liberalize gun laws. But there’s no way that illegalizing new classes of guns (e.g. assault weapons bans) would actually reduce gun crime, because we aren’t successfully keeping out the guns that are already illegal.

By the way: I think there’s a liberty argument for eliminating handgun bans, but I’m less convinced of the safety argument. To create a positive gun culture – where law-abiding citizens actively protect each other by shooting violent criminals – you’d need a lot of public education. Let me tell you, just legalizing concealed carry wouldn’t protect anybody I know, because, like me, none of them have ever touched a gun. I do wonder what would happen if a city tried it. (Gun education and safety classes in public schools, for example; evening classes in gun self-defense, organized by police; public campaigns to encourage and praise self-defense and defense of innocents.)

Also, on the race issue, read the Autobiography of Malcolm X. On guns and the government, he sounds exactly like a libertarian. It’s not exclusively white people who have thought about this stuff.

Until the cowardly predators among us are properly terrorized by the likely prospect of death at the hands of properly armed law abiding citizens, this nation pointlessly debates these issues to no useful lasting end. If a person or family won’t take measures to arm and protect themselves, they have, by their own passive irresponsibility earned their vulnerable existence.

The notion of the state protecting individuals and families from other domestic individuals was foreign to the founders of this nation. Then again, 85% of everything we believe and practice today was foreign to the founders of this nation so what difference does it make.

Well, you want to think about what you’re saying. That’s essentially the law of the jungle – to claim that we ought to be responsible as individuals for our own preservation. (Well, you might be an anarchist, but as I understand even anarchists believe in associating for mutual defense.)

The Founders did think the state was responsible for protecting us from violent crime. That’s Locke and Hobbes – we give up a few freedoms by associating under a government precisely to prevent the state of nature, in which each of us individually has to be responsible for protecting himself from attack.

I know what you mean – the Founders did live in a world where most adult men were capable of using guns. But they did believe that one function of government was the prosecution of violence. (I believe police were a 19th century invention.)

The practical issue is, it is no longer true today that everyone can use a gun in self-defense. Policy needs to be adapted to reality. So if you want to liberalize gun laws and keep violent crime stable or decreasing, you need a public education program. That’s what I was saying. “More guns, less crime” won’t work by itself – you also have to change patterns of gun use.

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Well, you want to think about what you’re saying. That’s essentially the law of the jungle – to claim that we ought to be responsible as individuals for our own preservation. (Well, you might be an anarchist, but as I understand even anarchists believe in associating for mutual defense.)

The Founders did think the state was responsible for protecting us from violent crime. That’s Locke and Hobbes – we give up a few freedoms by associating under a government precisely to prevent the state of nature, in which each of us individually has to be responsible for protecting himself from attack.

I know what you mean – the Founders did live in a world where most adult men were capable of using guns. But they did believe that one function of government was the prosecution of violence. (I believe police were a 19th century invention.)

The practical issue is, it is no longer true today that everyone can use a gun in self-defense. Policy needs to be adapted to reality. So if you want to liberalize gun laws and keep violent crime stable or decreasing, you need a public education program. That’s what I was saying. “More guns, less crime” won’t work by itself – you also have to change patterns of gun use.[/quote]

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be police or that the state shouldn’t prosecute violence. I am saying that most victims will be and are dying or dead long before the state is aware that an act of violence has occurred. Assailants don’t dial 911 and notify authorities that they are about to shoot someone so as to give them and their potential victim/s a sporting chance.

I also believe all homicides, justifiable or not should be investigated precisely because I am no anarchist.

Why does everything have to be public? What is the magical credibility that government holds in so many situations even after it’s utterly disastrous record? I learned how to use a gun, several types, and become a passably decent shot in about a day… by myself.

A 78 year old lady a few doors from me went to the range twice with her son and fatally shot an intruder in her house at night. Guns are not rocket science. They are extremely well made and safe unless intentionally called into action. Children with no public firearms training regularly pop each other off here in Detroit.

Can we do anything anymore without the nanny state making sure we do it right? The NRA has firearms training classes for all ages if somebody really needs their hand held. How did those poor colonists do it when guns were much more difficult to use and much more dangerous even if used according to design?

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
The Founders did think the state was responsible for protecting us from violent crime. That’s Locke and Hobbes – we give up a few freedoms by associating under a government precisely to prevent the state of nature, in which each of us individually has to be responsible for protecting himself from attack.
[/quote]

No they didn’t. Because it is impossible. The state is meant to protect you from external threats (e.g. China et al). And the state is meant to create law and order.

If your ex-boyfriend decides to kill you there is very little the state can do unless your ex is a complete twit. It doesn’t matter if guns are banned. Hell it wouldn’t change anything even if he couldn’t get his hands on guns or even knives. You would be dead if you had to rely upon the state for protection.

Of course the police are a huge benefit to the community. But you have to be mental to think they can save you from a rapist or a murderer.

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
The practical issue is, it is no longer true today that everyone can use a gun in self-defense. Policy needs to be adapted to reality. So if you want to liberalize gun laws and keep violent crime stable or decreasing, you need a public education program. That’s what I was saying. “More guns, less crime” won’t work by itself – you also have to change patterns of gun use.[/quote]

I agree. For instance introduce firearm safety and shooting lessons in the first year of high school.

And yet there is no way schools will be able to do this in major cities. It just won’t fly. Because a lot of people in the city have the mentality that if you ignore something then it doesn’t exist. As long as I can’t see see firearms they can’t hurt me.

[quote]phaethon wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
The Founders did think the state was responsible for protecting us from violent crime. That’s Locke and Hobbes – we give up a few freedoms by associating under a government precisely to prevent the state of nature, in which each of us individually has to be responsible for protecting himself from attack.

No they didn’t. Because it is impossible. The state is meant to protect you from external threats (e.g. China et al). And the state is meant to create law and order.

If your ex-boyfriend decides to kill you there is very little the state can do unless your ex is a complete twit. It doesn’t matter if guns are banned. Hell it wouldn’t change anything even if he couldn’t get his hands on guns or even knives. You would be dead if you had to rely upon the state for protection.

Of course the police are a huge benefit to the community. But you have to be mental to think they can save you from a rapist or a murderer.

AlisaV wrote:
The practical issue is, it is no longer true today that everyone can use a gun in self-defense. Policy needs to be adapted to reality. So if you want to liberalize gun laws and keep violent crime stable or decreasing, you need a public education program. That’s what I was saying. “More guns, less crime” won’t work by itself – you also have to change patterns of gun use.

I agree. For instance introduce firearm safety and shooting lessons in the first year of high school.

And yet there is no way schools will be able to do this in major cities. It just won’t fly. Because a lot of people in the city have the mentality that if you ignore something then it doesn’t exist. As long as I can’t see see firearms they can’t hurt me.[/quote]

Good post.

Patrick Henry

Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Paine

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

George Washington

[quote]phaethon wrote:

If your ex-boyfriend decides to kill you there is very little the state can do unless your ex is a complete twit. It doesn’t matter if guns are banned. Hell it wouldn’t change anything even if he couldn’t get his hands on guns or even knives. You would be dead if you had to rely upon the state for protection.

[/quote]
Well, but the police are all most of us really have. Police, and the convention that affluent sane people don’t kill each other. Basically my only form of self defense is my zip code. I don’t think that’s a particularly good state of affairs, though.

Tiribulus, I like your quotes.

The alternative as a woman is to live in a clan and be protected -but also at the mercy- of your male siblings.